The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate in controlling high blood pressure: COACH, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week factorial efficacy and safety study

Effect of different single and combined antihypertensive drug regimens on the mortality of critical care patients

Objective

To investigate the effect of different single and combined pre-admission antihypertensive drug regimens on the prognosis of critically ill patients.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-IV (MIMIC-IV) database. All initial ICU admission records of patients with hypertension and previous antihypertensive exposure before ICU admission were included. Our primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to balance the distribution of baseline characteristics. Logistic regression analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to determine the independent effect of different single and combined antihypertensive drug regimens on 90-day mortality.

Results

A total of 13,142 patients were included in the final analysis. The 90-day mortality rate in the combined groups is lower than that in the single therapy group (10.94% vs 11.12%), but no statistical significance was found in the original cohort (p = 0.742). After adjustment for potential confounders, the significantly decreased 90-day mortality rate was found in the combined groups (10.78% vs 12.65%, p = 0.004 in PSM; 10.34% vs 11.90%, p = 0.007). Patients who were exposed to either ACEIs or ARBs had a better prognosis than those not exposed (7.19% vs 17.08%, p < 0.001 in single antihypertensive groups; 8.14% vs18.91%, p < 0.001 in combined antihypertensive groups). The results keep robustness in the PSM and IPTW cohorts. In the logistic regression model analysis, combined therapy was associated with a 12%-20% reduced risk of 90-day death after adjusting potential confounders (OR 0.80-0.88, all p < 0.05), while exposure to ACEIs or ARBs was associated with the decreased risk of 90-day death by 52%-62% (OR 0.38-0.48, all p < 0.001) and 40%-62% (OR 0.38-0.60, all p < 0.001) in the single and combined therapy groups, respectively. The results were still robust to subgroup analysis.

Conclusions

Pre-admission combined antihypertensive therapy is associated with a significantly lower risk of death than exposure to single antihypertensives in critically ill patients. Meanwhile, either ACEIs or ARBs seem to be the optimal candidates for both single and combined therapy. Further high-quality trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Personalized Antihypertensive Treatment Optimization With Smartphone-Enabled Remote Precision Dosing of Amlodipine During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PERSONAL-CovidBP Trial)

BACKGROUND

The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P<0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care.

REGISTRATION

URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil‑amlodipine besylate tablets (Sevikar®) in older patients with essential hypertension: Subgroup analysis from the Sevikar study

Essential hypertension is a notable threat for the older (age, ≥65 years) population. However, to the best of our knowledge, a real-world study assessing olmesartan medoxomil-amlodipine besylate (OM-AML) tablets in older Chinese patients with essential hypertension has not been performed. Therefore, the present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OM-AML tablets in these patients. A total of 463 older Chinese patients with essential hypertension treated with OM-AML (20/5 mg) tablets (Sevikar®) were analyzed in a prospective, single-arm, multi-center, real-world study. Seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) and seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at baseline, and at week (W)4 and W8 after OM-AML tablet administration were measured. The mean ± standard error change of SeSBP/SeDBP was -10.3±0.8/-4.6±0.5 and -12.5±0.8/-5.6±0.5 mmHg at W4 and W8, respectively. At W4, 74.1 and 26.8% of patients achieved BP target according to the China and American Heart Association (AHA) criteria, while at W8, 78.0 and 38.7% of patients reached these BP targets accordingly. Finally, 76.5 and 80.5% of patients achieved BP response at W4 and W8, respectively. Furthermore, home-measured SeSBP and SeDBP were significantly decreased from W1 to W8 (both P<0.001). Additionally, the satisfaction of both patients and physicians was elevated at W8 compared with at W0 (both P<0.001). The medication possession rate from baseline to W4 and W8 was 95.5 and 92.5%. The most common drug-associated adverse events by system organ classes were nervous system disorder (4.5%), vascular disorder (2.8%), and general disorder and administration site conditions (2.6%), which were generally mild. In conclusion, OM-AML tablets may be considered effective and safe in lowering BP, enabling the achievement of guideline-recommended BP targets in older Chinese patients with essential hypertension.

The effects of Olmesartan/amlodipine administered in the Morning or At Night on nocturnal blood pressure reduction in Chinese patients with mild-moderate essential hypertension (OMAN Trial): study protocol for a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial {1}

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Uncontrolled nocturnal blood pressure is prevalent in patients taking antihypertensive medication, with an incidence rate of 30-60%. Although chronotherapy with antihypertensive agents may provide a new direction for effective control of nocturnal blood pressure, the clinical evidence base remains controversial. This research is presently underway to compare the effects of morning and bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication on nocturnal reduction and circadian rhythm of blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is being performed as a randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, clinical trial in which 720 participants are to undergo 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) and office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) at baseline before being randomly assigned to a morning (6-10 am) or a bedtime (6-10 pm) administration group. Each participant receives one 20/5-mg tablet of olmesartan/amlodipine (OA) daily for 4 weeks and is then followed up at 4-week intervals for a total of 12 weeks. During follow-up, the OA dosage is adjusted according to the ABPM and OBPM results. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension at the first follow-up visit will receive an increase in OA dosage to 1.5 tablets/day. For patients with blood pressure that is still uncontrolled after a further 4 weeks, the dosage of OA can be increased to 2 tablets/day. The primary objective is the reduction in mean nocturnal systolic blood pressure between baseline and week 12. The secondary objectives are the reduction in ambulatory blood pressure at weeks 4 and 12 and the blood pressure control rate at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

DISCUSSION

Antihypertensive chronotherapy remains controversial. A superiority test hypothesis design has been adopted for this trial, in which all participants will be taking the same antihypertensive medication. We anticipate that our findings will determine if nocturnal blood pressure control in Chinese patients with essential hypertension varies according to whether antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning or at bedtime. This study may provide scientific evidence for the application of chronotherapy in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2200059719. Registered on 10 May 2022 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=169782&htm=4 ) {2a,2b}.

Response surface analyses of antihypertensive effects of angiotensin receptor blockers and amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension

While previous studies have examined the dose-response characteristics of certain antihypertensive drugs alone or in combination, response surface analysis for combination therapies involving angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and either amlodipine (AML) or hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) has not been explored, particularly in the context of low-dose combinations. The objectives of present study were to generate useful dose-response information for the combination of ARB/AML or ARB/HCT and to predict the blood pressure lowering effects of combination therapies compared to monotherapies. We reviewed the New Drug Application data of combination drugs of ARB/AML and ARB/HCT. Data on systolic blood pressure (SBP), from studies conducted using a factorial dose-response design over a period of 8-12 weeks, were used. The placebo-subtracted SBP change was used for analysis. Response surface analyses of the collected data were conducted using a polynomial regression model. For ARB/AML combination, the quadratic polynomial regression model containing two linear terms, two quadratic terms, and one interaction term was best fitted to the naïve pooled data. Meanwhile, for ARB/HCT combination, the best-fitted model was a quadratic model that included two linear terms and two quadratic terms. The 1/2-dose combination of these medications, compared to each monotherapy, resulted in predicted SBP reductions that were 8-30% greater. The ratio of the estimated antihypertensive effects of the combination to the expected additive effects of each component ranged from 82% to 100% of the expected effect. These results can provide a rationale for developing lower-dose combinations of ARB/AML or ARB/HCT and assist in designing clinical trials.

Effects of olmesartan and amlodipine on blood pressure, endothelial function, and vascular inflammation

BACKGROUND

Anti-hypertensive drugs can improve vascular endothelial function. However, the mechanism remains to be elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate mechanisms of anti-hypertensive drugs on improvement of vascular endothelial function in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

Forty-five patients (mean age 58.5 ± 11.2 years) with uncontrolled essential hypertension were randomly assigned to receive olmesartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) (N = 23), or amlodipine, a calcium channel blocker (CCB) (N = 22), for 6 months. Endothelial function was evaluated by flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery. Vascular inflammation was measured by blood-normalized standardized uptake value, known as a target-to-background ratio (TBR) within the carotid arteries using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences of baseline clinical data between the ARB and CCB groups. Both anti-hypertensive drugs comparably lowered blood pressure and increased %FMD. TBR values were reduced by olmesartan (P < .001), while blood pressure variability was decreased by amlodipine (P = .004). Changes in %FMD from baseline (Δ%FMD) were inversely associated with ΔTBR in the olmesartan group (r = - .606, P = .003) and with Δsystolic blood pressure variability in the amlodipine group (r = - .434, P = .039).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that olmesartan and amlodipine could improve endothelial function in patients with essential hypertension in different manners, suppression of vascular inflammation, and decrease in blood pressure variability, respectively.

Efficacy and Safety of a Single-Pill Triple Combination of Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Rosuvastatin in Hypertensive Patients with Low-to-Moderate Cardiovascular Risk: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Active-Control, Phase IV Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single-pill triple-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin (Olme/Amlo/Rosu) in comparison with a single-pill dual-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine (Olme/Amlo) in hypertensive patients with low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk.

METHODS

This multicenter, active-control, randomized study included 106 hypertensive patients at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk who were randomly assigned to receive either Olme/Amlo/Rosu 20/5/5 mg (Treatment 1), Olme/Amlo/Rosu 20/5/10 mg (Treatment 2), or Amlo/Olme 20/5 mg (Control) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the difference of the percent change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at 8 weeks from baseline in the 3 groups.

RESULTS

The difference in the least square mean percent change (standard deviation) of LDL-C in the Treatment 1 and 2 groups compared with the Control group at 8 weeks was -32.6 (3.7) % and -45.9 (3.3) %, respectively (P < .001). The achievement rates of LDL-C level <100 mg/dL at 8 weeks were significantly different between the 3 groups (65.8%, 86.7%, and 6.3% for Treatment 1, 2, and Control groups, respectively, P < .001). The results of total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A1 were superior in the Treatment 1 and 2 groups compared with the Control group. Serious adverse drug reaction did not occur in the 3 groups. Medication adherence rates were excellent in the 3 groups (98.0% for Treatment 1 group, 99.7% for Treatment 2 group, and 96.3% for the Control group, P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Single-pill triple-combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin was superior to the single-pill dual-combination of amlodipine/olmesartan in LDLC-lowering effects, with excellent safety profiles and adherence rates, in hypertensive patients at low-to-moderate cardiovascular risk.Trial Registration: CLinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04120753.

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study on the efficacy and safety of a combination treatment involving fimasartan, amlodipine, rosuvastatin in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy

Background

To assess the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy involving fimasartan, amlodipine, and rosuvastatin in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond to fimasartan monotherapy.

Methods

This phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted in adults aged 19–70 years. Patients who voluntarily consented were screened for eligibility to enroll in the study. Patients who failed to respond to 4 weeks of fimasartan monotherapy were randomized with a 1:1:1 ratio to the fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS/ALD + RSV) as study group, fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg (FMS/ALD) as control 1 group, and fimasartan 60 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS + RSV) as control 2 group. The primary efficacy endpoints were the change in the sitting systolic blood pressure and the rate of change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 8 weeks. The adverse events, adverse drug reactions, physical examination findings, laboratory test results, electrocardiograms, and vital signs were evaluated to assess safety in the study.

Results

Of 138 randomized patients, 131 were conducted efficacy analysis, and 125 completed the study. For the change in LDL-C and sitting SBP (SiSBP) as primary efficacy assessments, the change in LDL-C at week 8 was significantly reduce in the FMS/ALD + RSV group than in the control 1 group (P < 0.001). The change in SiSBP at week 8 were greater reduce in the FMS/ALD + RSV group than in the FMS + RSV group (both P < 0.001). For the safety evaluation, there were no differences among the treatment groups in the incidence of adverse drug reactions.

Conclusions

The fimasartan/amlodipine + rosuvastatin combination therapy can effectively and safely lower blood pressure and improve lipid levels in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy.

Trial registration

NCT03156842, Registered 17 May 2017

Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Dual Therapy Perindopril/Amlodipine in the Management of Hypertension. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension represent the commonest cause of death in 2017. Hypertension is classified into two types which are primary or essential hypertension and secondary hypertension. The perindopril-amlodipine combination showed a significant effect in reduction of the elevated BP and the cardiovascular complications.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose single-pill combination of perindopril-amlodipine in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials. Quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE and we assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean blood pressure, heart rate, cough, dizziness, headache, and peripheral edema. We performed the analysis of homogeneous data under the fixed-effects model, while analysis of heterogeneous data was analyzed under the random-effects model. We conducted a meta-regression according to the dose.

RESULTS

We included ten clinical trials. The pooled analysis showed that there was a significant reduction of the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse plessure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate after the the perindopril-amlodipine combination (MD = 18.96 [14.32, 23.60], P < 0.0001), (MD = 11.90 [8.45, 15.35], P < 0.0001), (MD = 8.44 [6.91, 9.97], P = 0.0001), (MD = 13.07 [5.86, 20.29], P = 0.0004), and (MD = 2.93 [0.89, 4.96], P = 0.005), respectively. The results of the meta-regression revealed that the efficacy is increased by increasing the dose (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: The use of the perindopril-amlodipine combination had a significant effect on the reduction of SBP, DBP, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure, and HR.

[Cardiovascular preventive recommendations. PAPPS 2022 thematic updates. Working groups of the PAPPS]

The recommendations of the semFYC's Program for Preventive Activities and Health Promotion (PAPPS) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are presented. The following sections are included: epidemiological review, where the current morbidity and mortality of CVD in Spain and its evolution as well as the main risk factors are described; cardiovascular (CV) risk and recommendations for the calculation of CV risk; main risk factors such as arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and diabetes mellitus, describing the method for their diagnosis, therapeutic objectives and recommendations for lifestyle measures and pharmacological treatment; indications for antiplatelet therapy, and recommendations for screening of atrial fibrillation, and recommendations for management of chronic conditions. The quality of testing and the strength of the recommendation are included in the main recommendations.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in the Management of Hypertension: A Real-World Perspective and Current Recommendations

Hypertension represents a major common cardiovascular risk factor. Optimal control of high blood pressure levels is recommended to reduce the global burden of hypertensive-mediated organ damage and cardiovascular (CV) events. Among the first-line drugs recommended in international guidelines, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists [angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)] have long represented a rational, effective, and safe anti-hypertensive pharmacological strategy. In fact, current US and European guidelines recommend ACEi and ARBs as a suitable first choice for hypertension treatment together with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide diuretics. Different studies have demonstrated that ARBs and ACEi exert a comparable effect in lowering blood pressure levels. However, ARBs are characterized by better pharmacological tolerability. Most importantly, the clinical evidence supports a relevant protective role of ARBs toward the CV and renal damage development, as well as the occurrence of major adverse CV events, in hypertensive patients. Moreover, a neutral metabolic effect has been reported upon ARBs administration, in contrast to other antihypertensive agents, such as beta-blockers and diuretics. These properties highlight the use of ARBs as an excellent pharmacological strategy to manage hypertension and its dangerous consequences. The present review article summarizes the available evidence regarding the beneficial effects and current recommendations of ARBs in hypertension. The specific properties performed by these agents in various clinical subsets are discussed, also including an overview of their implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Single-pill fixed-dose drug combinations to reduce blood pressure: the right pill for the right patient

Arterial hypertension is one of the major causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective and sustained reduction in blood pressure is essential to reduce individual cardiovascular risk. In daily clinical practice, single-pill fixed-dose combinations of different drug classes are important therapeutic resources that could improve both treatment adherence and cardiovascular risk management by targeting distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. The aim of this practical narrative review is to help physicians choosing the right single-pill fixed-dose combination for the right patient in the daily clinical practice, based on the individual clinical phenotype and cardiovascular risk profile.

ARB-Based Combination Therapy for the Clinical Management of Hypertension and Hypertension-Related Comorbidities: A Spotlight on Their Use in COVID-19 Patients

Essential hypertension is the most common cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, being primarily involved in the pathogenesis of CV disease and mortality worldwide. Given the high prevalence and growing incidence of this clinical condition in the general population in both high and low-income countries, antihypertensive drug therapies are frequently prescribed in different hypertension-related CV diseases and comorbidities. Among these conditions, evidence are available demonstrating the clinical benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) levels, particularly in those hypertensive patients at high or very high CV risk profile. Preliminary studies, performed during the Sars-COVID-19 epidemic, raised some concerns on the potential implication of hypertension and antihypertensive medications in the susceptibility of having severe pneumonia, particularly with regard to the use of drugs inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). These hypotheses were not confirmed by subsequent studies, which independently and systematically demonstrated no clinical harm of these drugs also in patients with Sars-COVID-19 infection. The aim of this narrative review is to critically discuss the available evidence supporting the use of antihypertensive therapies based RAS blocking agents in hypertensive patients with different CV risk profile and with additional clinical conditions or comorbidities, including Sars-COVID-19 infection, with a particular focus on single-pill combination therapies based on olmesartan medoxomil.

Starting Antihypertensive Drug Treatment With Combination Therapy: Controversies in Hypertension - Con Side of the Argument

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Is the newest angiotensin-receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Angiotensin‐receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin‐receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin‐receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6‐12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20‐80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20‐40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160‐320 mg), but not candesartan (8‐16 mg), losartan (50‐100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24‐hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin‐receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.

Combination Antihypertensive Therapy Prescribing and Blood Pressure Control in a Real-World Setting

BACKGROUND

Specific combinations of two drug classes are recommended in a variety of clinical situations in the management of hypertension. These preferred combinations are based on complimentary blood pressure (BP) lowering mechanisms or benefit for a concomitant disease.

METHODS

Using electronic health records (EHRs) data from 27,579 ambulatory hypertensive patients, we investigated antihypertensive therapy prescribing patterns and associations of preferred two drug classes with BP control.

RESULTS

Overall, BP control, defined as BP <140/90 mm Hg, was 65% among treated patients. Preferred dual antihypertensive therapy was prescribed in 55% of patients with uncomplicated hypertension, 49% of patients with diabetes, and 47% of patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI); these prescribing frequencies of preferred combinations were not explained by worse BP control on those combinations. In fact, we found suggestive evidence of association between prescribing of preferred two drug classes and improved BP control among post-MI (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.99-1.48, P = 0.061) and uncomplicated hypertensive (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98-1.26, P = 0.089) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribing of guideline-recommended antihypertensive drug classes for concomitant diseases is suboptimal and prescribing of preferred/optimized drug class combinations was moderate. We did not find a clear association between the use of optimized drug class combinations and greater BP control. Overall, using EHR data, we identified potential opportunities for re-examining prescribing practices with implications for clinical decision support and healthcare improvement at the community and health system-wide levels.

Novel Medical Treatments for Hypertension and Related Comorbidities

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the most recent data available on advances in development of novel medical treatments for hypertension and related comorbidities.

Recent Findings

Approximately half of all hypertensive patients have not achieved goal blood pressure with current available antihypertensive medications. Recent landmark studies and new hypertension guidelines have called for stricter blood pressure control, creating a need for better strategies for lowering blood pressure. This has led to a shift in focus, in recent years, to the development of combination pills as a means of achieving improved blood pressure control by increasing adherence to prescribed medications along with further research and development of promising novel drugs based on discovery of new molecular targets such as the counter-regulatory renin-angiotensin system.

Summary

Fixed-dose combination pills and novel treatments based on recently discovered pathogenic mechanisms of hypertension that have demonstrated promising results as treatments for hypertension and related comorbidities will be discussed in this review.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Combination Therapy Versus Monotherapy with Candesartan and/or Amlodipine for Dose Finding in Essential Hypertension: A Phase II Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering is important for the treatment of hypertension; however, it has been a challenge to achieve target BP in many patients. The purpose of this study was to explore the optimal dosage of a fixed-dose combination of candesartan cilexetil (CAN) and amlodipine besylate (AML), by examining the tolerability and efficacy of CAN/AML combination therapy compared with those of monotherapy with either drug in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

This Phase II multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial enrolled patients aged 19 years or older with essential hypertension, defined as a mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg, and a mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) of <200 mm Hg after a 2-week placebo run-in period. A total of 635 patients were screened, of whom 439 were randomized to receive treatment; 425 patients were included in the full analysis set (combination therapy, 212; monotherapy, 213). Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 8 treatments: CAN (8 or 16 mg), AML (5 or 10 mg), CAN/AML (8 mg/5 mg, 8 mg/10 mg, 16 mg/5 mg, or 16 mg/10 mg), once daily for 8 weeks.

FINDINGS

After 8 weeks of treatment, changes in msDBP were significantly greater in the groups receiving CAN/AML combination therapies compared with monotherapies at matched doses, with the exception of CAN 8 mg/AML 10 mg versus AML 10 mg. The response to treatment and the achievement of target BP (both msSBP and msDBP) at week 8 were significantly greater overall in the groups that received combination therapy versus monotherapy. All medications were relatively well tolerated in each group.

IMPLICATIONS

Eight-week administration of CAN/AML (8 mg/5 mg, 16 mg/5 mg, and 16 mg/10 mg) resulted in a significantly greater BP reduction than that with CAN or AML monotherapy, and was determined to be well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02944734.

Bioequivalence Study of a New Fixed-dose Combination Tablet Containing S-Amlodipine Nicotinate and Olmesartan Medoxomil in Healthy Korean Male Subjects

PURPOSE

A fixed-dose combination (FDC) pill of amlodipine (relatively old calcium channel blocker as dihydropyridine) and olmesartan (relatively new angiotensin II receptor blocker) is used for hypertension that is not adequately controlled with a single-formulation drug. Because the FDC is a one-pill formulation, and amlodipine and olmesartan have different mechanisms of action, it is expected to improve patients' medication compliance and have an increased blood pressure-lowering efficacy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety profile and the bioequivalence of two different FDC formulations [amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg (reference product) and S-amlodipine nicotinate/olmesartan medoxomil 5/40 mg (test product)].

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-treatment, 2-way, and 2-period crossover study, including a 3-week washout period, was performed in 32 healthy Korean male volunteers. To analyze the concentration of S-amlodipine or olmesartan, plasma samples were collected up to 144 hours after the dose for S-amlodipine and 48 hours after the dose for olmesartan. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including the C_max and the area under the curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration (AUC_0-last) for the time versus concentration plot, were calculated. Analysis of variance for bioequivalence was conducted using C_max and AUC_0-last converted to log scale, and the mean ratios and 90% CIs were determined. Safety data included analysis of adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical examinations, clinical laboratory test, and 12-lead ECGs.

FINDINGS

Of the 32 enrolled participants, 29 healthy volunteers completed the study. For both S-amlodipine and olmesartan, the main pharmacokinetic parameters were all within the acceptable range for regulatory bioequivalence. The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of C_max and AUC_0-last were 0.8766 to 0.9760 and 0.8288 to 0.9224, respectively, for S-amlodipine and 0.9097 to 1.1229 and 0.8904 to 1.0407, respectively, for olmesartan. Hypotension was the most frequent AE, and it was observed in 4 volunteers with the test product and 7 volunteers with the reference product. Both the test and reference formulations were well tolerated.

IMPLICATIONS

The present study demonstrates that the newly developed FDC product (test drug) and the conventional FDC product (reference drug) have comparable pharmacokinetic characteristics in healthy adult male volunteers. Both the test and reference products indicated good tolerance in this population, and no serious AEs were observed.

Monotherapy and Dual Combination Therapies Based on Olmesartan: A Comprehensive Strategy to Improve Blood Pressure Control

Olmesartan medoxomil is an antihypertensive drug of the class of angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonists (or blockers), characterized by tight and prolonged binding to AT1 receptor compared to other molecules within the same class. These characteristics produce effective and sustained blood pressure reductions in hypertensive patients at different cardiovascular risk profile with a good tolerability profile. After a brief description of the pharmacological characteristics of olmesartan, we will provide a thorough overview of the clinical studies that investigated its efficacy and safety in the clinical management of hypertensive patients both in monotherapy and in dual combination therapies with either thiazide diuretics or calcium channel blockers. These studies demonstrated that olmesartan-based antihypertensive strategy may indeed provide sustained BP control over the 24-h period in a wide proportion of hypertensive patients, thus contributing to a substantial progress in hypertension management. Finally, since growing evidence suggest that olmesartan may also exert potential favourable effects at vascular level, thereby antagonizing the vascular inflammatory process involved in the development and progression of atherosclerosis, the main clinical studies addressing this issue will be also discussed.

Efficacy of olmesartan amlodipine in Colombian hypertensive patients (soat study)

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence has shown a significant deficit in the control of hypertension (blood pressure <140/90 mmHg) among Hispanics or Latinos in about 65%. This study aims to determine the efficacy of the combination in fixed doses of olmesartan and amlodipine (20/5, 40/5, and 40/10 mg) in hypertensive patients treated in daily clinical practice by Colombian doctors.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, open-label, multi-center, non-comparative study. The primary outcome was a change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure from the baseline to week 12; the secondary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a target blood pressure of <140/90 mmHg. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. For analysis, a student t test was used for paired data, McNemar test, and ANCOVA.

RESULTS

A total of 428 patients were enrolled from 16 centers in Colombia. At 12 weeks, patients' systolic blood pressure decreased in response to all three doses: by 27.75 ± 20.73 mmHg in 20/5 mg, 31.13 ± 22.23 mmHg in 40/5 mg, and 46.96 ± 20.15 mmHg in 40/10 mg (all p < 0.001). Furthermore, the diastolic blood pressure decreased by 14.19 ± 12.89 mmHg in 20/5 mg, 16.25 ± 10.87 mmHg in 40/5 mg, and 24.83 ± 10.41 mmHg in 40/10 mg (all p < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving target blood pressure was 71.31% in 20/5 mg, 70.16% in 40/5 mg, and 63.33% in 40/10 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the efficacy of the combination in fixed doses of olmesartan and amlodipine in the treatment of Colombian hypertensive patients.

Management of Hypertension Using Olmesartan Alone or in Combination

Hypertension is one of the most significant and consistent risk factors for many cardiovascular diseases. The global prevalence of hypertension has dramatically increased over recent years. Life-style and genetic factors are generally considered to be primarily responsible for the incidence of hypertension. Concerning the high morbidity rate, setting up an updated standard for hypertensive patients becomes indispensable. According to the widely accepted standard treatments for hypertension, these four basic principles should be taken into account: low dosage; medication should provide long term-control; combination therapies are becoming common; personalized treatments are a newer approach. In most patients with hypertension, adequate control of BP can be achieved with combined therapy. Therefore, antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms are now recommended. In this review, we focus on the pharmacology, antihypertensive efficacy, and adverse events (AEs) of olmesartan medoxomil, either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive medications. In conclusion, olmesartan medoxomil, is an angiotensin II receptor blocker with an excellent efficacy in the reduction and stabilization of blood pressure. When combined with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and diuretics, olmesartan medoxomil has a better effect on controlling BP and reducing AEs in patients.

Comparative study of the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine vs. perindopril/amlodipine in peripheral blood pressure after missed dose in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Combination therapy is needed to control blood pressure (BP) in a large number of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Adherence to treatment is a major clinical problem; therefore, the time duration of the antihypertensive action of a drug determines BP control when a dose is skipped.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/amlodipine combination when a drug dose is missed.

METHODS

In this noninferiority trial with a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design, 260 patients received either olmesartan 20-40 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg or perindopril 4-8 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg for 24 weeks. The main outcome was the sitting office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 h from last administration.

RESULTS

The olmesartan/amlodipine combination reached noninferiority criteria in reduction of office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared with the perindopril/amlodipine combination (-11.7 and -10.5 mmHg, respectively). Office SBP and pulse pressure were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 h after the missed dose, observing a trend to greater SBP reduction in the olmesartan/amlodipine group.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination olmesartan/amlodipine is safe, well tolerated, and as effective as the combination of perindopril/amlodipine in the control of essential hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. A missed dose does not leave the patients unprotected in both treatments; however, a faster control with less dose increment is observed with olmesartan/amlodipine.

Amlodipine in hypertension: a first-line agent with efficacy for improving blood pressure and patient outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is well established as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Although there is undeniable evidence to support the beneficial effects of antihypertensive therapy on morbidity and mortality, adequate blood pressure management still remains suboptimal. Research into the treatment of hypertension has produced a multitude of drug classes with different efficacy profiles. These agents include β-blockers, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers. One of the oldest groups of antihypertensives, the calcium channel blockers are a heterogeneous group of medications.

METHODS

This review paper will focus on amlodipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, which has been widely used for 2 decades.

RESULTS

Amlodipine has good efficacy and safety, in addition to strong evidence from large randomised controlled trials for cardiovascular event reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Amlodipine should be considered a first-line antihypertensive agent.

High-dose calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy vs combination therapy of standard-dose CCBs and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension: a meta-analysis

In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of high-dose calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy and standard-dose CCBs combined with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with hypertension. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed in December 2015. Randomized controlled trials designed to identify the above goal were included. Thirteen trials including 2371 patients were identified. The standard-dose CCB/ARB combination resulted in a greater reduction of systolic blood pressure (WMD -2.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.76 to -1.28) and diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.07, 95% CI: -3.73 to -0.42) compared to high-dose CCB monotherapy. The overall hypertension control rate for the CCB/ARB combination was higher than that for CCB monotherapy (relative risk (RR): 1.17, 95% CI: 1.08-1.26). Furthermore, the CCB/ARB combination treatment yielded significantly fewer overall adverse events (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95), oedema (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52) and rash (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.96, P=0.04) than did CCB monotherapy. The standard-dose CCB/ARB combination is superior to high-dose CCB monotherapy for lowering blood pressure and reducing adverse events in hypertensive patients. Future research should focus on the cost-effectiveness and long-term effects of these two treatment strategies for patients with hypertension.

A literature review to evaluate the clinical and economic value of olmesartan for the treatment of hypertensive patients

The objective of the present study was to systematically review the clinical and economic outcomes of olmesartan as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents in the treatment of hypertension. A literature search was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane library until December 2015, with no limit on publication date. Eligible studies were selected using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, limiting articles to those published in the English language. Background information of the study, participants' characteristics and study outcomes were collected. Meta-analysis of data was not performed. Fifty-five studies were included, of which fifty investigated the clinical efficacy of olmesartan and five the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan. In general results from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of olmesartan as monotherapy and as combination therapy demonstrated that olmesartan provided better antihypertensive blood pressure-lowering efficacy and was generally well tolerated compared with other antihypertensive agents. Results from economic evaluations indicated that olmesartan may be more cost-effective than other ARBs such as losartan, valsartan, irbesartan and candesartan, having the potential of decreasing the overall medical costs of care for patients with hypertension. Evidence from the present systematic review confirms the antihypertensive efficacy and good safety profile of olmesartan both as monotherapy and as combination therapy. Olmesartan was also found to be cost-effective compared with other ARBs, though this area has yet relatively poor evidence and needs to further be explored.

Nifedipine plus candesartan combination increases blood pressure control regardless of race and improves the side effect profile: DISTINCT randomized trial results

OBJECTIVES

DISTINCT (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS - Candesartan Therapy) aimed to determine the dose-response and tolerability of nifedipine GITS and/or candesartan cilexetil therapy in participants with hypertension.

METHODS

In this 8-week, multinational, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults with mean seated DBP of at least 95 to less than 110 mmHg received combination or monotherapy with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30 or 60 mg and candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16 or 32 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint, change in DBP from baseline to Week 8, was analysed using the response surface model (RSM); this analysis was repeated for mean seated SBP.

RESULTS

Overall, 1381 participants (mean baseline SBP/DBP: 156.5/99.6 mmHg) were randomized. Both N and C contributed independently to SBP/DBP reductions [P < 0.0001 (RSM)]. A positive dose-response was observed, with all combinations providing statistically better blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline versus respective monotherapies (P < 0.05) and N60C32 achieving the greatest reduction [-23.8/-16.5 mmHg; P < 0.01 versus placebo (-5.3/-6.7 mmHg) and component monotherapies]. Even very low-dose (N20 and C4) therapy provided significant BP-lowering, and combination therapy was similarly effective in different racial groups. N/C combination demonstrated a lower incidence of vasodilatory adverse events than N monotherapy (18.3 versus 23.6%), including headache (5.5 versus 11.0%; P = 0.003, chi-square test) and peripheral oedema over time (3.6 versus 5.8%; n.s.).

CONCLUSION

N/C combination was effective in participants with hypertension and showed an improved side effect profile compared with N monotherapy.

Nifedipine GITS/Candesartan Combination Therapy Lowers Blood Pressure Across Different Baseline Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Categories: DISTINCT Study Subanalyses

DISTINCT was an 8‐week, double‐blind, randomized study to investigate the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of various nifedipine gastrointestinal treatment system (GITS)/candesartan cilexetil (N/C) dose combinations, vs respective monotherapies or placebo, in patients with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥95 to <110 mm Hg. The current prespecified analysis compared BP reduction in participants with mild vs moderate baseline hypertension (ie, systolic [S]BP <160 mm Hg vs ≥160 mm Hg and DBP <100 mm Hg vs ≥100 mm Hg). A total of 1362 patients were analyzed by descriptive statistics. In all patient subgroups investigated, the NC combinations (ie, N: 20, 30, or 60 mg; C: 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg daily) provided greater SBP and DBP lowering and higher rates of BP control (defined as BP <140/90 mm Hg) than respective monotherapies or placebo, with greatest absolute BP reductions observed in the moderately elevated SBP or DBP subgroups. A trend to dose‐response relationship was observed in each subgroup. In each SBP and DBP subgroup, treatment‐related vasodilatory events (flushing, headache, or edema) were less frequent for patients receiving NC combination therapy than N monotherapy. These analyses support the use of calcium antagonist and angiotensin receptor blocker combination therapy in patients with both mild and moderate hypertension, for whom effective BP normalization and good drug tolerance would greatly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.

The renin-angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in clinical trials versus routine practice: insights from the prospective EARLY registry

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and blood pressure-related outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) differ from clinical practice because of stringent selection criteria. The present study aimed to explore the relationship between clinical trials and clinical practice. We analyzed data from patients enrolled in the "Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy" (EARLY) registry comparing blood pressure (BP) effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril between patients who met the eligibility criteria of a previous RCT and those who did not.

METHODS

Patients with primary arterial hypertension were consecutively enrolled from primary care offices in Germany into the EARLY registry in a 7:3 ratio for treatment with AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor, provided that they met the following criteria at baseline: 1) no antihypertensive treatment prior to inclusion or a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) based monotherapy; 2) initiation of treatment with either AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor alone. Analyses were performed to evaluate BP effects for patients in the EARLY registry who met the selection criteria of a prior RCT (RCT+) versus those who did not (RCT-).

RESULTS

Out of 3,698 patients considered, 1,644 complied with the RCT criteria (RCT+) while 2,054 did not (RCT-). RCT- patients (55.5%) displayed a higher risk profile in terms of age and comorbidities, and a wider spectrum of BP values at baseline, as highlighted by the grades of hypertension and mean BP values. The proportion of patients who achieved target blood pressure control in the RCT+ group was significantly higher for AZL-M versus ramipril (64.1 versus 56.1%; P<0.01), in accordance with the result of the clinical trial. In the RCT- AZL-M group, the proportion of patients who met BP targets was lower (58.1%) than in the RCT+ AZL-M group (64.1%), whereas the proportion of patients with target BP values in the RCT- ramipril and the RCT+ ramipril groups was similar (57.7 versus 56.1%). Thus, in contrast to results for the RCT+ group, in the RCT- group, the target BP attainment rate for AZL-M was not significantly superior to that for ramipril. However, the tolerability profile of AZL-M and ramipril was comparable in both populations. At the 12-month follow-up, death and stroke rates were low (≤0.5%) and adverse events did not differ between the AZL-M and ramipril groups, irrespective of RCT eligibility.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm that the EARLY population comprised a broader spectrum of hypertensive patients than RCTs, and the differences in patient characteristics were accompanied by disparate rates of blood pressure goal attainment. Overall, the validity of the RCT was demonstrated and confirmed in clinical practice with a broader range of patients with various comorbidities.

The comparative efficacy and safety of the angiotensin receptor blockers in the management of hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases

All national guidelines for the management of hypertension recommend angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as an initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy. The eight available ARBs have variable clinical efficacy when used for control of hypertension. Additive blood pressure-lowering effects have been demonstrated when ARBs are combined with thiazide diuretics or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, augmenting hypertension control. Furthermore, therapeutic use of ARBs goes beyond their antihypertensive effects, with evidence-based benefits in heart failure and diabetic renal disease particularly among angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-intolerant patients. On the other hand, combining renin-angiotensin system blocking agents, a formerly common practice among medical subspecialists focusing on the management of hypertension, has ceased, as there is not only no evidence of cardiovascular benefit but also modest evidence of harm, particularly with regard to renal dysfunction. ARBs are very well tolerated as monotherapy, as well as in combination with other antihypertensive medications, which improve adherence to therapy and have become a mainstay in the treatment of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension.

Dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockade: promises and pitfalls

Single renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade has been shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of hypertension, coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with proteinuria. Due to the action of RAAS blockers at various levels of the RAAS cascade, it was hypothesized that dual RAAS blockade would result in more complete inhibition of angiotensin II (Ang II) production and be more effective in blocking its detrimental cardiovascular remodeling effects. Unfortunately, several clinical trials in patients with hypertension, CHD, HF, and CKD with proteinuria have demonstrated no superiority of dual versus single RAAS blockade, but a higher incidence of adverse events. Based on these findings, dual RAAS blockade is no longer recommended for the routine treatment of various cardiovascular diseases, except diabetic nephropathy with proteinuria and HF with reduced ejection fraction. All the new information gathered from studies within the last 3 years will be presented in this review.

Achieving Goal Blood Pressure

Both monotherapy and combination therapy options are appropriate for antihypertensive therapy according to the 2013 European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Most patients require more than one agent to achieve blood pressure (BP) control, and adding a second agent is more effective than doubling the dose of existing therapy. The addition of a third agent may be required to achieve adequate BP reductions in some patients. Single-pill fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) allow multiple-drug regimens to be delivered without any negative impact on patient compliance or persistence with therapy. FDCs also have documented beneficial clinical effects and use of FDCs containing two or three agents is recommended by the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines.

A Critical Analysis of Claims and Their Authenticity in Indian Drug Promotional Advertisements

Introduction. Drug promotional advertisements (DPAs) form a major marketing technique of pharmaceutical companies for promoting their products and disseminating ambiguous drug information which can affect prescribing pattern of physicians. Drug information includes product characteristics, various marketing claims with references in support to increase its credibility and authenticity. Material and Methods. An observational study was carried out on fifty printed drug advertisement brochures which were collected from different OPDs of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital attached to Government Medical College, Amritsar, India. These advertisements were analyzed and claims were categorized into true, false, exaggerated, vague, and controversial on criteria as reported by Rohraa et al. (2006). References of DPAs in support of the claims were critically analyzed for their retrievability from web and validity pertaining to claims. Results. Out of 209 claims from 50 advertisements, only 46% were found to be true, 21% false, 16% vague, 7% exaggerated, and 10% controversial in nature. Out of 160 references given in support of claims, 49 (30%) of references were irretrievable. Out of 111 (70%) retrievable references, 92 (83%) references were found valid. Conclusion. Drug information provided in the DPAs was biased, incomplete, unauthentic, and unreliable with references exhibiting questionable credibility.