Effects of hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine on single oral dose pharmacokinetics of valsartan in healthy Korean subjects: Population model-based approach

Comparison of two single-pill dual combination antihypertensive therapies in Chinese patients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current hypertension guidelines recommend combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker with a calcium-channel blocker or thiazide diuretic as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with monotherapy uncontrolled hypertension. However, to what extent these two different combinations are comparable in blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety remains under investigation, especially in the Chinese population. We investigated the BP-lowering efficacy and safety of the amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies in Chinese patients.

METHODS

In a multi-center, randomized, actively controlled, parallel-group trial, we enrolled patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension from July 2018 to June 2021 in 20 hospitals and community health centers across China. Of the 894 screened patients, 560 eligible patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg (n = 282) or benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg (n = 278), with 213 and 212 patients, respectively, who completed the study and had a valid repeat ambulatory BP recording during follow-up and were included in the efficacy analysis. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to 24 weeks of treatment in 24-h ambulatory systolic BP. Adverse events including symptoms and clinically significant changes in physical examinations and laboratory findings were recorded for safety analysis.

RESULTS

In the efficacy analysis (n = 425), the primary outcome, 24-h ambulatory systolic BP reduction, was - 13.8 ± 1.2 mmHg in the amlodipine/benazepril group and - 12.3 ± 1.2 mmHg in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group, with a between-group difference of - 1.51 (p = 0.36) mmHg. The between-group differences for major secondary outcomes were - 1.47 (p = 0.18) in 24-h diastolic BP, - 2.86 (p = 0.13) and - 2.74 (p = 0.03) in daytime systolic and diastolic BP, and - 0.45 (p = 0.82) and - 0.93 (p = 0.44) in nighttime systolic and diastolic BP. In the safety analysis (n = 560), the incidence rate of dry cough was significantly lower in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group (5.3% vs 10.1%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies were comparable in ambulatory systolic BP lowering. The former combination, compared with the latter, had a greater BP-lowering effect in the daytime and a lower incidence rate of dry cough.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03682692. Registered on 18 September 2018.

Effects of Carbamazepine and Phenytoin on Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Rivaroxaban

Rivaroxaban (RIV) is commonly prescribed with carbamazepine or phenytoin (CBZ/PHT) in post-stroke seizure or post-stroke epilepsy patients. Although adverse events have been reported in several previous studies when they are coadministered, there are no studies of the interactions between these drugs. Therefore, our study was conducted to solve this lack of information. The potential effects of CBZ/PHT were investigated by comparing the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) parameters of RIV between the control group (RIV alone) and the test groups (RIV administered with CBZ/PHT) in rats using the noncompartmental analysis (NCA) and the compartmental model approach. The NCA results indicate that AUC_t of RIV decreased by 57.9% or 89.7% and C_max of RIV decreased by 43.3% or 70.0% after administration of CBZ/PHT, respectively. In addition, both CBZ and PHT generally reduced the effects of RIV on the prothrombin times of the blood samples. PK profiles of RIV were most properly described by a two-compartment disposition model with a mixed first- and zero-order absorption kinetics and a first-order elimination kinetics. The compartmental model approach showed that a 211% or 1030% increase in CL/F of RIV and a 33.9% or 43.4% increase in D2 of RIV were observed in the test groups by the effects of CBZ/PHT, respectively. In conclusion, CBZ and PHT significantly reduced RIV exposure and therefore reduced the therapeutic effects of RIV. Consequently, this might result in adverse events due to insufficient RIV concentration to attain its therapeutic effects. Further studies are needed to validate this finding.

A new strategy for taste masking on bitter drug by other combined drug in fixed-dose combination: bitterness of Amlodipine besylate could be masked efficiently by Valsartan

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bitterness of amlodipine besylate (AML) combined with other five antihypertensive drugs: alacepril, benazepril, hydrochlorothiazide, telmisartan (TEL) and valsartan (VAL), which have possibility of usage as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) drugs.

Methods

The bitterness of individual six drugs and AML combined with each of the five drugs was evaluated using taste sensor SA402B (Intelligent Sensor Technology Inc.). AML combined with TEL or VAL was evaluated by taste sensor and human gustatory sensation tests. The interaction between AML with TEL or VAL was evaluated by 1H-NMR.

Key findings

The bitterness of AML was significantly decreased by addition of VAL, whereas it remained unchanged by the addition of TEL in taste sensor and human gustatory sensation test. In the 1H-NMR spectrum of AML with VAL, signal shifts of protons in AML were observed compared to that in AML alone. On the other hand, in the 1H-NMR spectrum of AML with TEL, signal shifts of protons in AML were not observed.

Conclusions

It was suggested that when VAL was mixed with AML, the electrostatic interactions between positive charged amino group of AML and negative charged tetrazole group of VAL were caused, and thereby led the suppression the bitterness of AML.

Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions Between Amlodipine, Valsartan, and Rosuvastatin in Healthy Volunteers

INTRODUCTION

Amlodipine, valsartan, and rosuvastatin are among the medications widely coadministered for the treatment of hyperlipidemia accompanied by hypertension. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions between amlodipine, valsartan, and rosuvastatin in healthy Korean male volunteers.

METHODS

In this phase 1, open-label, multiple-dose, two-part, two-period, fixed-sequence study, the enrolled subjects were randomized into two parts (A and B). In part A (n = 32), each subject received one fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet of amlodipine/valsartan 10 mg/160 mg alone for 10 consecutive days in period I, and the same FDC for 10 days with concomitant 7-day administration of 20 mg rosuvastatin in period II. In part B (n = 25), each subject received rosuvastatin alone for 7 days in period I, and the FDC for 10 days with concomitant 7-day administration of rosuvastatin in period II. In both parts, there was a 12-day washout between periods. Serial blood samples were collected for up to 72 h for amlodipine and rosuvastatin, and for up to 48 h for valsartan after the last dose of each period. The plasma concentrations of amlodipine, valsartan, and rosuvastatin were determined by using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven subjects were enrolled; 30 and 25 subjects completed part A and part B, respectively. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for the maximum plasma concentration at steady state (C_max,ss) and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval at steady state (AUC_τ,ss) were 0.9389 (0.9029-0.9763) and 0.9316 (0.8970-0.9675) for amlodipine, 0.7698 (0.6503-0.9114) and 0.7888 (0.6943-0.8962) for valsartan, and 0.9737 (0.8312-1.1407) and 0.9596 (0.8826-1.0433) for rosuvastatin, respectively. Of the 57 subjects enrolled in this study, 10 subjects experienced 13 adverse events (AEs); no severe or serious AEs were reported.

CONCLUSION

When amlodipine, valsartan, and rosuvastatin were coadministered to healthy volunteers, the pharmacokinetic exposure to valsartan was decreased, but no change in exposure to amlodipine and rosuvastatin occurred. All treatments were well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://cris.nih.go.kr CRIS KCT0001660.

FUNDING

KyungDong Pharmaceutical Corp. Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea.