A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in the treatment of moderate-to-severe essential hypertension

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing.

OBJECTIVES

This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence there is growing interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients.

OBJECTIVES

This review sought to determine which interventions alone, or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

A range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in addition to handsearching reference lists. Search terms included polypharmacy, Beers criteria, medication appropriateness and inappropriate prescribing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older where a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria or Medication Appropriateness Index - MAI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 2200 potentially relevant citations, of which 139 were examined in detail. Following assessment, 10 studies were included. One intervention was computerised decision support and nine were complex, multifaceted pharmaceutical care provided in a variety of settings. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using the MAI score postintervention (seven studies) and/or Beers criteria (four studies). The interventions included in this review demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate medication use. A mean difference of -6.78 (95% CI -12.34 to -1.22) in the change in MAI score in favour of the intervention group (four studies). Postintervention pooled data (five studies) showed a mean reduction of -3.88 (95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) in the summated MAI score and a mean reduction of -0.06 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.04) in the number of Beers drugs per patient (three studies). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on hospital admissions (four studies) was conflicting. Medication-related problems, reported as the number of adverse drug events (three studies), reduced significantly (35%) postintervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear if interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in a clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing and medication-related problems.

Efficacy and safety of early versus late titration of fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide: ACTUAL study

Hypertension management guidelines recommend titrating antihypertensive drugs stepwise every 4-6 weeks.We compared efficacy and safety of early versus late titration after 10 weeks' treatment with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide. Hypertensive patients uncontrolled on monotherapy were randomized into two groups. In the early titration group (E), patients received irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 150/12.5 mg for 2 weeks; uncontrolled patients were up-titrated to 300/25 mg at weeks 2 and 6. In the late titration group (L), patients received 150/12.5 mg for 6 weeks; uncontrolled patients were up-titrated to 300/25 mg at week 6 (W6). The change of mean systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline to week 10 (W10) were studied using a covariance analysis model. The percentage of controlled patients at W10 was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. Of 833 patients enrolled from 14 countries, the intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 795 (mean age 58 +/- 12 years, female 60%, obesity 38%, diabetes 22%). AtW6, mean SBP decrease was: E - 28.8 mmHg vs L - 26.3 mmHg (p = 0.02). At W10, there was similar mean SBP decrease: E - 29.5 mmHg vs L- 31.0 mmHg (p = 0.14). The control rate at W10 was 58% (E) and 64% (L), p = 0.06. Serious adverse events were more frequent in E (2.5% vs 0.7%, p= 0.044). Both early and late titration regimens provide similar BP decrease and control rate.

Clinical experience in treating hypertension with fixed-dose combination therapy: angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide

The goal of antihypertensive treatment is to reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events associated with high blood pressure. A combination therapy with different antihypertensive agents is more successful than monotherapy in most hypertensive patients, with the added advantage of a better safety profile. Therefore, treatment of hypertensive patients with fixed-dose combination therapy consisting of the angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan along with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has several potential benefits over monotherapy with each individual component. It provides more effective blood pressure control, a reduction in the likelihood of adverse effects and facilitation of patient compliance due to a simple once-daily regimen. One of the advantages of the combination of losartan with HCTZ is the potential reduction in HCTZ-induced metabolic disorders; in particular, this combination can have attractive benefits for patients of hyperuricemia. Losartan plus HCTZ fixed-dose combination therapy is frequently recommended for the treatment of hypertension and lowers blood pressure in mild-to-moderate and even severe hypertensive patients to a level comparable with other classes of antihypertensive agents in combination with HCTZ. Fixed-dose combination therapy with losartan plus HCTZ is a logical choice as antihypertensive therapy for patients in whom combination therapy is necessary to achieve additional blood pressure reduction.

Combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide: secondary analysis of the proportion of patients achieving recommended blood pressure goals from a randomized, double-blind, factorial study

BACKGROUND

The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ] has previously been shown to produce significantly greater SBP/DBP reductions than monotherapy with either agent alone in a randomized, double-blind, factorial study in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Compared with the evaluation of a single mean BP reduction in a patient population, determining the efficacy of an antihypertensive agent in achieving multiple BP targets provides additional information about the range of BP reductions attainable within this study population.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a secondary analysis of this study to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving combined SBP/DBP targets recommended in current hypertension treatment guidelines as well as individual SBP and DBP targets.

METHODS

A total of 502 patients with DBP >or=100 and <or=115 mmHg were randomized to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil 10, 20, or 40 mg/day, or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 10/12.5, 10/25, 20/12.5, 20/25, 40/12.5, or 40/25 mg/day. Mean baseline SBP ranged from 151.9 to 156.6 mmHg and mean baseline DBP ranged from 102.6 to 104.4 mmHg across the twelve treatment arms. The chi-squared test was used to compare the proportion of patients achieving each BP goal in each of the 11 active treatment regimens with that in the placebo group.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients achieving an SBP <140 or <130 mmHg, DBP <90, <85, or <80 mmHg and combined SBP/DBP <140/90, <130/85, <130/80, or <120/80 mmHg typically increased with escalating dosages of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ when administered alone or in combination, but was always highest in those treated with the combination. As the BP goal became progressively more stringent, the proportion of patients achieving the BP goal decreased in each treatment group, although the trend toward greater reductions in patients treated with combination therapy remained intact. All combined SBP/DBP goals were achieved by a statistically significant proportion of patients (p < 0.05) in the olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/25, 40/12.5, and 40/25 treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of patients with uncomplicated stage 2 hypertension can achieve recommended BP goals when treated with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ.

Combination therapy with candesartan cilexetil 32 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg provides the full additive antihypertensive effect of the components: A randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in primary care

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Fixed-combination tablets of candesartan (orally administered as the pro-drug candesartan cilexetil and hereafter referred to as candesartan) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 8/12.5 mg and 16/12.5 mg are effective and well tolerated. However, some patients require higher doses to attain target blood pressure, and combination tablets containing candesartan and HCTZ at the upper end of their respective dose ranges are now being developed. This study aimed to assess the antihypertensive effect and tolerability of the combination of candesartan 32 mg and HCTZ 25 mg versus candesartan 32 mg monotherapy, HCTZ 25 mg monotherapy, and placebo.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, with 8 weeks of follow-up, carried out in primary-care outpatients. 1524 men or women (age 20-80 years) with mild to moderate primary hypertension and sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90-114 mmHg after 4 weeks' single-blind placebo treatment were included in the study. Candesartan/HCTZ 32/25 mg combination therapy, candesartan 32 mg monotherapy, HCTZ 25 mg monotherapy, and placebo, allocated in a 5 : 5 : 5 : 1 ratio, were administered once daily. The main outcome measure was adjusted (analysis of covariance) mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP.

RESULTS

Mean reductions in SBP and DBP were significantly greater with candesartan/HCTZ 32/25 mg (21/14 mmHg) than with candesartan 32 mg (13/9 mmHg), HCTZ 25 mg (12/8 mmHg) or placebo (4/3 mmHg) [p < 0.001 for all comparisons]. The proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure (SBP <140 mmHg and DBP <90 mmHg) at the end of the study was also significantly greater in the candesartan/HCTZ 32/25 mg group (63%) than in the other treatment groups (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). All study treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The antihypertensive effect of candesartan/HCTZ 32/25 mg represents fully additive contributions from each of its components, and is generally well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate primary hypertension. This combination adds to the treatment options for improving blood pressure control in patients with hypertension.

Blood pressure responder rates versus goal rates: which metric matters?

Reducing blood pressure (BP) to guideline-recommended goals associated with reductions in cardiovascular risk is central to effective hypertension management. In addition to measuring BP reduction, clinical trials of antihypertensive agents should assess the percentage of patients responding to treatment. The Food and Drug Administration's defined rate of response required for drug approval is a reduction in diastolic BP (DBP) to <90 mmHg and/or a DBP reduction of > or = 10 mmHg. Consequently, some patients may be counted as responders even if they have not reached DBP <90 mmHg. An antihypertensive agent's effectiveness may be better assessed by the proportion of patients who achieve recommended BP goals. This article analyzes the frequency of response rates versus goal rates as endpoints in randomized trials since January 2001. Data showed that goal rates, especially combined systolic BP (SBP)/DBP goal rates, are consistently lower than response rates in studies evaluating both endpoints. Goal rates incorporating both SBP and DBP, or having a focus on SBP for individuals >50 years of age, provide the most clinically relevant information and are a more clinically relevant metric of an agent's ability to reduce BP than DBP alone.

Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension

Background and Objectives

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of losartan (LST) in fixed combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has not been compared to those of amlodipine monotherapy in Asians. This is an important comparison to draw, because Asians have been suggested to respond more favorably to calcium channel blockers and less favorably to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in comparison to Westerners. We sought to compare these two regimens in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Subjects and Methods

174 patients were randomized to receive LST 50 mg once daily, which could be titrated to LST/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg at 4 weeks, followed by 100/25 mg at 8 weeks; or to receive amlodipine besylate 2.5 mg once daily, which could be titrated to 5 mg at 4 weeks, followed by 10 mg at 8 weeks to achieve diastolic blood pressure <90 mmHg.

Results

At 12 weeks, the differences between the LST/HCTZ and amlodipine groups with regard to diastolic and systolic blood pressure were 1.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -1.1 to 3.4) and -0.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -4.3 to 3.4), respectively. The rates of achieving systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg were 66.7% in the LST/HCTZ group and 75.9% in the amlodipine group (p=0.20). The rates of drug-related adverse events were 15.6% in the LST/HCTZ group and 11.9% in the amlodipine group (p=0.49).

Conclusion

The two regimens, with a relatively higher dose of LST/HCTZ compared to that required in Westerners, produced equivalent blood pressure reduction and were comparably well tolerated in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of losartan 100 mg or losartan 100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in the treatment of patients with essential arterial hypertension and CV risk factors: observational, prospective study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Patients with high cardiovascular risk are prevalent in ambulatory care. To achieve adequate blood pressure control, such patients require higher drug doses and/or combination therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of losartan 100 mg as monotherapy or in fixed-dose combination with hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Multicentre, prospective, open observational study over 13 weeks in patients with essential hypertension, whose blood pressure was not adequately controlled despite pretreatment. Main outcome parameters were the systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure reduction, the rate of normalized patients at study end compared to baseline, and the number and type of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Of the 7702 documented patients, 53.1% (N = 4088) were men, with a mean age of 63.5 +/- 10.7 years. Comorbidities were frequent (diabetes mellitus in 57.4% [N = 4418], coronary heart disease in 30.3% [N = 2330], left ventricular hypertrophy in 28.2% [N = 2172], heart failure in 14.0% [N = 1079], and peripheral arterial disease in 9.0% [N = 690]). Patients received losartan 100 mg in 45.7% (N = 3521), losartan/HCTZ in 53.8% (N = 4143); additional antihypertensive drugs were given in 45.5% (N = 3505). Physicians reported somewhat lower target values than those stipulated by the guidelines (irrespective of age, gender, and concomitant diseases except for diabetes). Mean SBP/DBP decreased from a baseline value of 158/93 mmHg by 24/12 mmHg at study end. The BP lowering effect was similar in subgroups by treatment or comorbidity, respectively, however target attainment rates were substantially higher in non-diabetic patients. Metabolic and renal parameters (fasting glucose, HbA(1c), serum creatinine and albumin in urine) showed trends for improvement. Tolerability was very good, as only 0.43% (N = 33) experienced an AE (in 0.31% [N = 24] serious AEs), and 0.08% (N = 6) discontinued therapy due to reasons related to study drug.

CONCLUSION

In high-risk patients, treatment with losartan 100 mg or losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg was effective and well tolerated, irrespective of comorbidity. These findings from a real-life setting are in line with those from randomized controlled trials.

High performance liquid chromatography/negative ion electrospray tandem mass spectrometry method for the measurement of hydrochlorothiazide in human plasma: application to a comparative bioavailability study

A sensitive, selective and rapid liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated for the determination of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in human plasma. The plasma samples were prepared by solid phase extraction using Oasis HLB 30 mg 1CC cartridges. Chromatographic separation was accomplished on a Thermo Hypurity Advance (50 mm x 4.6mm i.d., 5 microm) column. The mobile phase consisted of HPLC Grade Acetonitrile: 2 mM Ammonium acetate (90 : 10 v / v) at a flow rate of 0.5 mL min(-1). Detection of hydrochlorothiazide and the internal standard (IS) zidovudine was achieved by ESI MS/MS in the negative ion mode. The total chromatographic runtime was 2.5 minutes. The linear range of the method was from 2.036-203.621 ng mL(-1). The mass transition ion pair has been followed as m/z 296.10/205.00 for HCTZ and 266.10/223.10 for Zidovudine. The mean overall recovery of HCTZ was 66.40% with a precision of 2.44%. The mean recovery of internal standard (Zidovudine) was 63.62% with a precision ranging from 2.06% to 5.40%. The method was successfully applied for the evaluation of pharmacokinetics of hydrochlorothiazide after single oral dose of 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide to healthy volunteers.

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

BACKGROUND

Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of 2 agents having complementary mechanisms of action when >1 agent is needed to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combinations of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and amlodipine besylate with those of the component monotherapies in patients with mild to severe hypertension.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial study. Patients who were naive to antihypertensive therapy or who underwent a washout of previous antihypertensive therapy for up to 2 weeks and had a seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg were randomized to receive 1 of the following for 8 weeks: OM 10, 20, or 40 mg; amlodipine (AML) 5 or 10 mg; each possible combination of OM and AML; or placebo. The primary end point was the change from baseline in SeDBP at week 8, with secondary end points including the change in seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP), the proportion of patients reaching the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg; <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes), and the proportions of the intention-to-treat population reaching BP thresholds of <120/80, <130/80, <130/85, and <140/90 mm Hg. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated, with a particular focus on the incidence and severity of edema.

RESULTS

Of the 1940 randomized patients, 54.3% were male. The mean age of the study population was 54.0 years and 19.8% were aged >or=65 years. The mean baseline BP was 164/102 mm Hg, and 79.3% of patients had stage 2 hypertension. Combination therapy with OM and AML was associated with dose-dependent reductions in SeDBP (from -13.8 mm Hg with OM/AML 10/5 mg to -19.0 mm Hg with OM/AML 40/10 mg) and SeSBP (from -23.6 mm Hg with OM/AML 20/5 mg to -30.1 mm Hg with OM/AML 40/10 mg) that were significantly greater than the reductions with the corresponding component monotherapies (P<0.001). At week 8, the number of patients achieving the BP goal ranged from 57 of 163 (35.0%) to 84 of 158 (53.2%) in the combination-therapy groups, from 32 of 160 (20.0%) to 58 of 160 (36.3%) in the OM monotherapy groups, and from 34 of 161 (21.1%) to 53 of 163 (32.5%) in the AML monotherapy groups (P<0.005, combination therapies vs component monotherapies), compared with 14 of 160 (8.8%) in the placebo group. Achievement of the BP thresholds was highest in the combination-therapy groups, with 56.3% and 54.0% of patients achieving a BP <140/90 mm Hg with OM/AML 20/10 and 40/10 mg, respectively. Combination therapy was generally well tolerated, and no unexpected safety concerns emerged in the course of the study. The most common adverse events were edema (ranging from 9.9% [OM 20 mg] to 36.8% [AML 10 mg], compared with 12.3% with placebo) and headache (ranging from 2.5% [OM/AML 10/5 mg] to 8.7% [OM 20 mg], compared with 14.2% with placebo).

CONCLUSION

The combination of OM and AML was effective and well tolerated in this adult population with hypertension.

Emerging insights in the first-step use of antihypertensive combination therapy

The blood pressure (BP) goals set by hypertension management guidelines (<140/90 mm Hg in uncomplicated hypertension; <130/80 mm Hg in type 2 diabetes or kidney disease) are not being achieved in a high proportion of patients, partly because monotherapy is insufficient in many patients. In particular, patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe hypertension and/or associated cardiovascular risk factors remain at high risk for cardiovascular events and hypertensive emergency. In recognition of the urgency of treating moderate and severe hypertension, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) advocates the initial use of 2-drug therapies in patients with systolic BP levels >20 mm Hg above goal or diastolic BP level >10 mm Hg above goal. Regimens should usually include a thiazide diuretic and, for patients with diabetes or kidney disease, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. Recently, clinical trial data have shown that first-step antihypertensive treatment of moderate and severe hypertension with carefully chosen fixed-dose combinations provides a high rate of BP goal achievement, a simplified dosing regimen, and superior tolerability compared with monotherapy.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination therapy with losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in Japanese patients with essential hypertension

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of 8-week treatment with one of three fixed-dose combinations-losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 6.25 mg, or losartan 25 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 6.25 mg-in comparison with those of hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg alone, losartan 50 mg alone, or placebo in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Significant reductions in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were seen in all three combination groups compared with the placebo group (each p<0.001). The greatest reductions in DBP and SBP were observed in the losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg group (12.7 and 18.0 mmHg, respectively). The reductions in the losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg group were significantly greater (each p<0.001) than those in the placebo group and each of the monotherapy groups. There were no significant differences in the incidences of clinical and laboratory drug-related adverse events between any of the combination groups and the placebo group. All combination groups showed improved hypokalemia and hyperuricemia compared to the hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg group. These results demonstrated that once-daily, fixed-dose combination therapy with losartan 50 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg is well tolerated and more efficacious in lowering DBP and SBP than monotherapy in Japanese hypertensive patients.

Design, statistical analysis and sample size calculation of dose response study of telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide

Many patients with hypertension take some antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to lower their blood pressure and achieve the therapeutic goals reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. Telmisartan, angiotensin II receptor blocker, and hydrochlorothiazide, diuretic are two antihypertensive drugs that have a well-recognized clinical efficacy. Their combination is expected to be one of the most appropriate therapies for hypertensive patients. However there is no information to show the effective dose combination of two drugs for the Japanese patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Therefore, the prospective, randomized, double-blinded study was planed for showing the dose response surface of two components. The 3 by 3 factorial design was applied for this purpose and the approach for calculating sample size was proposed. This study was registered with ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT00153049).

Comparison of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy at doses up to 320/25 mg versus monotherapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study followed by long-term combination therapy in hypertensive adults

BACKGROUND

One third of patients treated for hypertension attain adequate blood pressure (BP) control, and multidrug regimens are often required. Given the lifelong nature of hypertension, there is a need to evaluate the long-term efficacy and tolerability of higher doses of combination anti-hypertensive therapies.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan (VAL) or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ)-monotherapy and higher-dose combinations in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

The first part of this study was an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients with essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP [MSDBP], > or =95 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg) were randomized to 1 of 8 treatment groups: VAL 160 or 320 mg; HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg; VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5, 320/12.5, or 320/25 mg; or placebo. Mean changes in MSDBP and mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) were analyzed at the 8-week core study end point. VAL/HCTZ 320/12.5 and 320/25 mg were further investigated in a 54-week, open-label extension. Response was defined as MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a > or =10 mm Hg decrease compared to baseline. Control was defined as MSDBP <90 mm Hg compared with baseline. Tolerability was assessed by monitoring adverse events at randomization and all subsequent study visits and regular evaluation of hematology and blood chemistry.

RESULTS

A total of 1346 patients were randomized into the 8-week core study (734 men, 612 women; 924 white, 291 black, 23 Asian, 108 other; mean age, 52.7 years; mean weight, 92.6 kg). All active treatments were associated with significantly reduced MSSBP and MSDBP during the core 8-week study, with each monotherapy significantly contributing to the overall effect of combination therapy (VAL and HCTZ, P < 0.001). Each combination was associated with significantly greater reductions in MSSBP and MSDBP compared with the monotherapies and placebo (all, P < 0.001). The mean reduction in MSSBP/MSDBP with VAL/HCTZ 320/25 mg was 24.7/16.6 mm Hg, compared with 5.9/7.0 mm Hg with placebo. The reduction in MSSBP was significantly greater with VAL/HCTZ 320/25 mg compared with VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg (P < 0.002). Rates of response and BP control were significantly higher in the groups that received combination treatment compared with those that received monotherapy. The incidence of hypokalemia was lower with VAL/HCTZ combinations (1.8%-6.1%) than with HCTZ monotherapies (7.1%-13.3%). The majority of adverse events in the core study were of mild to moderate severity. The efficacy and tolerability of VAL/HCTZ combinations were maintained during the extension (797 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, combination therapies with VAL/HCTZ were associated with significantly greater BP reductions compared with either monotherapy, were well tolerated, and were associated with less hypokalemia than HCTZ alone.

Combination therapy in the management of hypertension: focus on angiotensin receptor blockers combined with diuretics

There is increasing evidence that combination therapy should be emphasized more than it is at present for the initial treatment of hypertensive patients. Recent guidelines acknowledge the value of combination therapy, although some treatment algorithms fail to echo this message. Observations from major clinical trials in the elderly, diabetics, stroke patients, and African Americans all indicate that combination therapy is necessary to control blood pressure in the majority of these patients. Several combination therapies such as an angiotensin II receptor blocker and a diuretic, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor with a diuretic, a beta blocker with a diuretic, or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor with a calcium antagonist have been shown to be effective in patients who do not respond to monotherapy. The current review focuses on the newest such combination; an angiotensin II receptor blocker and a diuretic may have an added advantage of being well tolerated. Recent studies have shown that angiotensin II receptor blockers, given alone or combined with a diuretic, may prevent some cardiovascular outcomes independent of their blood pressure-lowering efficacy.