Comparison of valsartan 160 mg with lisinopril 20 mg, given as monotherapy or in combination with a diuretic, for the treatment of hypertension: the Blood Pressure Reduction and Tolerability of Valsartan in Comparison with Lisinopril (PREVAIL) study

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced cough compared with placebo, and other antihypertensives: A systematic review, and network meta-analysis

Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.

A comparative evaluation of fixed dose and separately administered combinations of lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide in treatment-naïve adult hypertensive patients in a rural Nigerian community

Background

Antihypertensive drugs administered as fixed dose combination (FDC) therapy compared to separately administered combination therapy have been proposed to improve treatment compliance/adherence, and therefore the efficacy of blood pressure (BP) control treatment.

Aim

The aim of this present study is to compare the blood pressure control, renal end-organ protection and medication compliance/adherence in patients receiving FDC and those receiving separately administered combinations of Lisinopril and Hydrochlorothiazide in treatment-naive hypertensive adult patients in a rural Nigerian community.

Method

ology: This randomized two-arm prospective longitudinal 8-week parallel-group study was carried-out for 6-month at the Ajegunle Community between April 2018 and October 2018. Efficacy variables included the changes from baseline in mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) and mean sitting diastolic BP (MSDBP). Medication safety, compliance/adherence and renal end-organ protection were assessed.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Prevalence of hypertension was found to be 32.9%. The mean blood pressure of all the participants was 165.6 ± 16.5 mmHg and 98.5 ± 11.5 mmHg for systolic BP and diastolic BP respectively, while the mean pulse rate of the participants was 85.0 ± 13.4 beats/min. At the 8-week end point, both regimens had achieved significant reductions from baseline in MSSBP (−33.18 and −37.16 mm Hg, respectively; both, P < 0.05) and MSDBP (−12.97 and −17.53 mm Hg; both, P < 0.05). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Adherence was better in the FDC arm and there was no any reported case of proteinuria occurrence in both arms.

Conclusion

The high prevalence of hypertension in the community shows that there is unmet need in diagnosis and awareness of the disease. Both combination therapies were well tolerated; but the FDC antihypertensive therapy resulted in statistically significant amount of BP reductions than the separately administered combination antihypertensive therapy. Making FDCs available and affordable will help many hypertensive patients to achieve their target BP control goals easily.

Target Blood Pressure and Combination Therapy: Focus on Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Combination with Either Calcium Channel Blockers or Beta Blockers

BACKGROUND

The target blood pressure has changed many times in the guidelines in past years. However, there is always a question; is it good to lower blood pressure below 120/80 or not? Control of blood pressure in hypertension is very important in reducing hypertension-modified organ damage. So, the guidelines recommend combining more than one antihypertensive drug to reach the target blood pressure goal.

RESULTS

Combination therapy is recommended by guidelines to reach the blood pressure goal. The guidelines recommend many combinations, such as the combination of angiotensin receptor blockers with either calcium channel blockers (CCB) or beta-blocker (BB). Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination with CCB has gained superiority over other antihypertension drug combinations because it reduces blood pressure and decreases the incidence of CV events and organ damage. BB combinations are recommended by guidelines in patients with ischemic events but not all hypertensive patients. Unfortunately, the new generation BB, for example, nebivolol, has a vasodilator effect, making it new hope for BB.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is a must in treating the hypertensive patient. The new generation BBs may change the recommendations of guidelines because they have an effect that is similar to CCBs.

Tactics of antihypertensive therapy during COVID-19 pandemic

Results of foreign and Russian studies indicate a higher mortality rate of patients with concomitant cardiovascular diseases (CVD) due to the new coronavirus infection COVID-19. It has been proven that arterial hypertension, as one of the significant risk factors for the development of concomitant cardiovascular diseases, is associated with a more severe prognosis of COVID-19. This article presents the results of modern studies and large meta-analyzes of necessity and safety of the use of blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients with arterial hypertension and COVID-19. The data of studies show that an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE inhibitor) and a thiazide-like diuretic is a pathogenetically rational combination. It realizes various ways of lowering blood pressure by reducing the activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which is achieved by using an ACE inhibitor, and natriuresis due to diuretics. As an example, a highly effective fixed combination of drugs is considered, characterized by good tolerance, which consists of an ACE inhibitor lisinopril and a thiazide-like diuretic indapamide of prolonged action. The authors expressed the opinion that the appointment of the fixed combination drug Diroton Plus (Gedeon Richter) will contribute to effective control of blood pressure and organoprotection in conditions of increased thrombogenic and prooxidative potential, characteristic of COVID-19 both in the acute stage and within the post-COVID Syndrome.

The Importance of Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Therapy in the Treatment of Patients with a New Coronavirus Infection COVID-19

At the end of 2020, a new term “post-COVID-19 syndrome” appeared in the medical community. The prevalence of this syndrome reaches more than 30% among patients who have had COVID-19, and its duration can vary from 12 weeks to 6 months. One of the most severe consequences of COVID- 19 is the defeat of the cardiovascular system, which has a variety of mechanisms: dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system; pathological systemic inflammatory response; direct action of the virus on the myocardium with the development of myocarditis; respiratory failure with hypoxia, leading to damage to cardiomyocytes; microvascular damage due to hypoperfusion, increased vascular permeability, angiospasm and the direct damaging effect of the virus on the endothelium of the coronary arteries; thrombotic complications due to the procoagulant and prothrombogenic effect of systemic inflammation. One of the most promising directions in the treatment and prevention of damage to the cardiovascular system in patients with hypertension who have undergone COVID-19 is the appointment of antihypertensive drugs that have the most pronounced organoprotective properties together with statins. The single pill combination of lisinopril, amlodipine and rosuvastatin is an effective drug that allows achieving not only adequate hypotensive and lipid-lowering effects, but also due to its pronounced organoprotective properties, to expect a reduction in cardiovascular risk and complications in patients who have suffered a new coronavirus infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Modern Principles of Treatment of Uncontrolled Hypertension

Despite the current possibilities of using different classes of antihypertensive drugs that effectively reduce blood pressure and significantly improve the long-term prognosis of patients, the problem of uncontrolled arterial hypertension has not lost its importance and its solution in a particular clinical situation often remains very difficult. The term "uncontrolled arterial hypertension" can be used in all cases where arterial pressure has not been achieved. The true prevalence of uncontrolled arterial hypertension has not been established, and its study is hampered primarily by the fact that not all patients initially receive antihypertensive therapy that meets generally accepted standards. Currently, the tactics of management of patients with uncontrolled hypertension involves the use of combinations of antihypertensive drugs. Rational combinations, according to the new recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of arterial hypertension in 2018, remain a combination of blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system – angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or receptor blockers to angiotensin with a calcium antagonist or diuretic, preferably in one tablet. With the ineffectiveness of dual therapy needs to be assigned to a third antihypertensive drug. Among the most modern antihypertensive drugs can be considered a triple fixed combination of lisinopril, amlodipine and indapamide. All the components included in the composition of the drug, has proved its high efficiency and safety. Uncontrolled arterial hypertension remains one of the most urgent problems of modern cardiology. Many aspects of it are far from unambiguously interpreted solutions and standards. Until the end, the mechanisms of the formation of uncontrolled course of hypertension remain unexplored, which, in turn, leads to a restriction of the use of drug and non-drug methods in the treatment of this pathology. Rational choice of antihypertensive therapy regimens can significantly improve the quality of treatment of this category of patients.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are drugs commonly used for the treatment of hypertension. However, studies on their comparative efficacy have not been extensively investigated. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis studied the comparative efficacy of the two antihypertensive treatment categories in reducing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension patients. A literature search was carried out in Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trials, which had reported blood pressure effects, mortality, and/or morbidity. Blood pressure results were found in 30 studies with 7370 participants and 8 studies with 25,158 participants with mortality/morbidity results included in the analysis. The two drug classes had similar effectiveness in lowering systolic (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.59, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.38) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.62, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.30), all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)): 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37) and stroke (RR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more helpful in the prevention and/or the hospitalization for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers (RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were similarly effective in decreasing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more protective in the advancement and/or hospitalization of the hypertensive patient for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers.

Comparative efficacy of irbesartan/ hydrochlorothiazide and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in lowering blood pressure: a retrospective observational study in Oman

OBJECTIVE

To compare blood pressure (BP) control in patients receiving irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and valsartan/HCTZ at a tertiary care university hospital in Oman.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study, where 232 patients' medical records were reviewed during a 3-month period, July to September 2010, at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital in Oman. BP readings of the previous 6 months were also retrieved from the electronic medical records. Analyses were conducted using univariate statistical techniques.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 58 ± 11 years (range: 21-88). Sixty-nine (30%) patients were on the irbesartan/HCTZ combination (150/12.5 mg) and 163 (70%) were on the valsartan/HCTZ combination. The patients on the valsartan/HCTZ combination were divided into two subgroups: 117 (72%) received 160/12.5 mg and 46 (28%) 80/12.5 mg. Diabetic patients (43/69, 62%, vs. 61/163, 37%, p < 0.001) and those with diabetic nephropathy (8/69, 12%, vs. 7/163, 4%, p = 0.039) were prescribed more often irbesartan/HCTZ than valsartan/HCTZ. In comparison to the valsartan/HCTZ cohort, the irbesartan/HCTZ group was associated with significant reductions in both systolic BP (SBP; -9 vs. -2 mm Hg; p = 0.021) and diastolic BP (DBP; -5 vs. 0 mm Hg; p = 0.022). BP reductions were noted more in diabetics than nondiabetics with the irbesartan/HCTZ patients associated with significant reductions in both SBP (-12 vs. 5.1 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and DBP (-6.4 vs. 1.9 mm Hg; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The irbesartan/HCTZ combination was associated with significant reductions in both SBP and DBP when compared with the valsartan/HCTZ combination. Specifically, the reductions were noted more in diabetics than nondiabetics.

Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information

OBJECTIVES

A 2007 systematic review compared angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have since been introduced, and significant new research has been published. We sought to update and expand the 2007 review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (through December 2010) and selected other sources for relevant English-language trials.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

We included studies that directly compared ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and/or DRIs in at least 20 total adults with essential hypertension; had at least 12 weeks of follow-up; and reported at least one outcome of interest. Ninety-seven (97) studies (36 new since 2007) directly comparing ACE inhibitors versus ARBs and three studies directly comparing DRIs to ACE inhibitor inhibitors or ARBs were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

A standard protocol was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality; and summarize the evidence.

RESULTS

In spite of substantial new evidence, none of the conclusions from the 2007 review changed. The level of evidence remains high for equivalence between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for blood pressure lowering and use as single antihypertensive agents, as well as for superiority of ARBs for short-term adverse events (primarily cough). However, the new evidence was insufficient on long-term cardiovascular outcomes, quality of life, progression of renal disease, medication adherence or persistence, rates of angioedema, and differences in key patient subgroups.

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were limited by follow-up duration, protocol heterogeneity, and infrequent reporting on patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Evidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any outcome except medication side effects. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 report have been addressed by the 36 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.

What is a preferred angiotensin II receptor blocker-based combination therapy for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with diabetic and non-diabetic renal impairment?

Hypertension has a major associated risk for organ damage and mortality, which is further heightened in patients with prior cardiovascular (CV) events, comorbid diabetes mellitus, microalbuminuria and renal impairment. Given that most patients with hypertension require at least two antihypertensives to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, identifying the most appropriate combination regimen based on individual risk factors and comorbidities is important for risk management. Single-pill combinations (SPCs) containing two or more antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action offer potential advantages over free-drug combinations, including simplification of treatment regimens, convenience and reduced costs. The improved adherence and convenience resulting from SPC use is recognised in updated hypertension guidelines. Despite a wide choice of SPCs for hypertension treatment, clinical evidence from direct head-to-head comparisons to guide selection for individual patients is lacking. However, in patients with evidence of renal disease or at greater risk of developing renal disease, such as those with diabetes mellitus, microalbuminura and high-normal BP or overt hypertension, guidelines recommend renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker-based combination therapy due to superior renoprotective effects compared with other antihypertensive classes. Furthermore, RAS inhibitors attenuate the oedema and renal hyperfiltration associated with calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy, making them a good choice for combination therapy. The occurrence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-induced cough supports the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for RAS blockade rather than ACE inhibitors. In this regard, ARB-based SPCs are available in combination with the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or the calcium CCB, amlodipine. Telmisartan, a long-acting ARB with preferential pharmacodynamic profile compared with several other ARBs, and the only ARB with an indication for the prevention of CV disease progression, is available in two SPC formulations, telmisartan/HCTZ and telmisartan/amlodipine. Clinical studies suggest that in CV high-risk patients and those with evidence of renal disease, the use of an ARB/CCB combination may be preferred to ARB/HCTZ combinations due to superior renoprotective and CV benefits and reduced metabolic side effects in patients with concomitant metabolic disorders. However, selection of the most appropriate antihypertensive combination should be dependent on careful review of the individual patient and appropriate consideration of drug pharmacology.

Valsartan use in pediatric hypertension

Hypertension affects up to 5% of school-aged children and is defined by an average systolic or diastolic blood pressure greater than the 95th percentile for age, sex and height. In prepubertal children a secondary cause for hypertension including renal disease, coarctation of the aorta or endocrine disease should be excluded by appropriate evaluation. The incidence and prevalence of essential hypertension in adolescents has increased together with the increase in obesity and now accounts for at least 50% of hypertension in this age group. Many children with primary hypertension and most children with secondary causes for hypertension require drug therapy. There are numerous drug classes that are presently used to treat hypertensive pediatric patients, which include β-blockers, peripheral α-blockers, direct vasodilators, ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, diuretics and ARBs. This article will review the pharmacology of the ARB valsartan with respect to its efficacy, tolerability and safe use in hypertensive pediatric patients.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: the ESPORT study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil (O) and the ACE inhibitor ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.

METHODS

After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1102 treated or untreated elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and/or office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once-daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks doses could be doubled in non-normalized [blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg for nondiabetic and < 130/80 mmHg for diabetic) individuals, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office BPs were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment, whereas 24-h ambulatory BP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat population (542 patients O and 539 R) after 12 weeks of treatment baseline-adjusted office SBP and DBP reductions were greater (P < 0.01) with O [17.8 (95% confidence interval: 16.8/18.9) and 9.2 (8.6/9.8) mmHg] than with R [15.7 (14.7/16.8) and 7.7 (7.1/8.3) mmHg]. BP normalization rate was also greater under O (52.6 vs. 46.0% R, P < 0.05). In the subgroup of patients with valid ambulatory BP recording (318 O and 312 R) the reduction in 24-h average BP was larger (P < 0.05) with O [SBP: 11.0 (12.2/9.9) and DBP: 6.5 (7.2/5.8) mmHg] than with R [9.0 (10.2/7.9) and 5.4 (6.1/4.7) mmHg]. The larger blood pressure reduction obtained with O was particularly evident in the last 6 h from the dosing interval; a better homogeneity of the 24-h BP control with O was confirmed by higher smoothness indices. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (3.6 O vs. 3.6% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side effect (14 O vs. 19 R).

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated BP control, representing a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate systolic and diastolic essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (O) and ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.

METHODS

After a 2-week placebo washout, 351 elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks, doses could be doubled in non-normalized (blood pressure <140/90 mmHg for non-diabetic and <130/80 mmHg for diabetic) subjects, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office blood pressures were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment; 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 12, in the intention-to-treat population (170 patients O and 175 R) the rate of normalized subjects was significantly larger in the O group (38.8% vs 26.3% R; p = 0.013). Baseline-adjusted mean sitting office blood pressure reduction at final visit was not significantly greater under O [SBP: 16.6 (95% confidence interval 14.0/19.2) mmHg vs 13.0 (10.4/15.6) mmHg R, p = 0.206; DBP: 11.8 (10.3/13.3) mmHg vs 10.5 (9.0/12.0) mmHg, p = 0.351]. In the subgroup of patients with valid ABP recordings (38 O and 47 R), the reduction in 24-h average blood pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) larger with O [SBP: 8.9 (9.8/8.1) and DBP: 5.7 (6.3/5.1) mmHg] than with R [6.7 (7.9/5.6) and 4.4 (5.1/3.7) mmHg]. The superiority of O was particularly evident in the last 4 h from the dosing interval. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (4.0% O vs 4.5% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side-effect (8 O vs 7 R).

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension, O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated blood pressure control, with significantly better blood pressure normalization than R and represents a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor associated cough: deceptive information from the Physicians' Desk Reference

BACKGROUND

Dry cough is a common, annoying adverse effect of all angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. The present study was designed to compare the rate of coughs reported in the literature with reported rates in the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR)/drug label.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL for articles published from 1990 to the present about randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ACE inhibitors with a sample size of at least 100 patients in the ACE inhibitors arm with follow-up for at least 3 months and reporting the incidence or withdrawal rates due to cough. Baseline characteristics, cohort enrolled, metrics used to assess cough, incidence, and withdrawal rates due to cough were abstracted.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria enrolled 198,130 patients. The pooled weighted incidence of cough for enalapril was 11.48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.54% to 13.41%), which was ninefold greater compared to the reported rate in the PDR/drug label (1.3%). The pooled weighted withdrawal rate due to cough for enalapril was 2.57% (95% CI, 2.40-2.74), which was 31-fold greater compared to the reported rate in the PDR/drug label (0.1%). The incidence of cough has increased progressively over the last 2 decades with accumulating data, but it has been reported consistently several-fold less in the PDR compared to the RCTs. The results were similar for most other ACE inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of ACE inhibitor-associated cough and the withdrawal rate (the more objective metric) due to cough is significantly greater in the literature than reported in the PDR/drug label and is likely to be even greater in the real world when compared with the data from RCTs. There exists a gap between the data available from the literature and that which is presented to the consumers (prescribing physicians and patients).

Valsartan: more than a decade of experience

Valsartan is a nonpeptide angiotensin receptor antagonist that selectively blocks the binding of angiotensin II to the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. The efficacy, tolerability and safety of valsartan have been demonstrated in large-scale studies in hypertension, heart failure (HF) and post-myocardial infarction (MI). This review focuses on what was learned from the valsartan clinical research programme and other comparative trials published from 1997 to the present. Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of valsartan in lowering blood pressure (BP) in a variety of patient populations (including elderly, women, children, obese patients, patients with diabetes mellitus, patients with chronic kidney disease [CKD], patients at high risk of cardiovascular [CV] disease, African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asians) and in improving outcomes in CV disease and CKD. In hypertension, valsartan exhibits dose-dependent efficacy in reducing both systolic and diastolic BP over the once-daily dose range of 80-320 mg; doses as high as 640 mg/day have been studied and found to be efficacious and safe. BP control can be enhanced with a more consistent 24-hour BP-lowering profile by using single-pill, fixed-dose combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). The cardioprotective benefits of valsartan have been demonstrated in large-scale outcome trials and include significant reductions in CV morbidity and mortality in HF, following MI, and in patients with co-morbid hypertension and coronary artery disease and/or HF; reductions in HF hospitalizations; and reductions in the incidence of stroke. The magnitude of these effects is comparable with that demonstrated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors; however, valsartan has a more favourable tolerability profile, with a significantly lower incidence of cough and only rare reports of angio-oedema, both class effects of ACE inhibitor use. Consistent with its angiotensin receptor-blocking effects, valsartan also reduces circulating levels of biochemical markers that are associated with angiotensin II-mediated endothelial dysfunction and CV risk (e.g. high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or oxidized low-density lipoprotein). Improvements in CKD with valsartan include statistically and clinically meaningful reductions in urinary albumin and protein excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic patients with CKD. In short-term studies, valsartan has improved or stabilized various indices of metabolic function in at-risk patients, including those with co-morbid hypertension, obesity and/or metabolic syndrome. Because of this, valsartan is being prospectively investigated for its ability to reduce the incidence of new-onset diabetes and provide cardioprotection in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Valsartan and valsartan/HCTZ are well tolerated. In clinical trials, adverse events during valsartan treatment were similar to those occurring with placebo. The combination of valsartan/HCTZ was better tolerated than HCTZ alone. Valsartan is administered once daily for hypertension; doses are usually taken upon awakening. In patients with HF or MI, valsartan is administered twice daily.

Combination therapy in hypertension: A focus on angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers

Every third adult in the United States has hypertension. Hypertension is a continuous, independent, potent risk factor for cardiovascular events like stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. The blood pressure control achieved with most hypertensives is way below the recommended goal. Recent trials suggest that for nearly half of hypertensive patients, a monotherapy regimen is not adequate to control blood pressure. Investigators recommend from randomized, controlled studies that combination therapy be considered when blood pressure is above the goal of 20/10 mm Hg. In this review we discuss clinical trials that establish the need for combination therapy, with the primary focus on a new combination: calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). ARBs and CCBs in combination can complement each other in lowering blood pressure, with a lower incidence of adverse effects, as compared with individual monotherapy components at high doses.

Cough in pediatric patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor therapy or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy in randomized controlled trials

The incidence of cough in children receiving antihypertension therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is unknown. We analyzed patient-level data from eight randomized trials for the treatment of pediatric hypertension, six of them involving ACEis and two involving ARBs. The incidence of cough in children receiving ACEis (reported cough, 3.2%) was similar to that in children receiving ARBs (reported cough, 1.8%) (P = 0.34). Reports of cough were lower in children than in adults.

Valsartan combination therapy in the management of hypertension - patient perspectives and clinical utility

The morbidity and mortality benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients are well established, with most individuals requiring multiple agents to achieve BP control. Considering the important role of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in the pathophysiology of hypertension, a key component of combination therapy should include a RAAS inhibitor. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) lower BP, reduce cardiovascular risk, provide organ protection, and are among the best tolerated class of antihypertensive therapy. In this article, we discuss two ARB combinations (valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] and amlodipine/valsartan), both of which are indicated for the treatment of hypertension in patients not adequately controlled on monotherapy and as initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve BP goals. Randomized, double-blind studies that have assessed the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of these combinations in the first-line treatment of hypertensive patients are reviewed. Both valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/valsartan effectively lower BP and are well tolerated in a broad range of patients with hypertension, including difficult-to-treat populations such as those with severe BP elevations, prediabetes and diabetes, patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome, and individuals who are obese, elderly, or black. Also discussed herein are patient-focused perspectives related to the use of valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/valsartan, and the rationale for use of single-pill combinations as one approach to enhance patient compliance with antihypertensive therapy.

Initial combination therapy for rapid and effective control of moderate and severe hypertension

Moderate (grade 2) and severe (grade 3) hypertension are important public health problems associated with high cardiovascular risk. Blood pressure (BP) control becomes more difficult to achieve as hypertension progresses. Therefore, early and effective treatment is essential to prevent hypertensive urgencies and emergencies and reduce cardiovascular risk. Currently, less than 50% of patients being treated for moderate or severe hypertension in the United States achieve their BP goal as recommended by treatment guidelines. This review examines the cardiovascular risk and physician inertia associated with moderate and severe hypertension, and concludes that increased use of initial combination therapy can overcome many of the barriers to effective BP control. Furthermore, initial combination therapy with a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor and diuretic has the potential to rapidly and effectively reduce BP across a range of baseline BPs, with a comparable adverse event profile to monotherapy.

Maximising antihypertensive effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers with thiazide diuretic combination therapy: focus on irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of hypertension are now well established. Studies have shown that more than 60% of patients with hypertension will require two or more drugs to achieve current treatment targets.

DISCUSSION

Combination therapy is recommended as first-line treatment by the JNC-7 guidelines for patients with a blood pressure > 20 mmHg above the systolic goal or 10 mmHg above the diastolic goal, while the International Society of Hypertension in Blacks recommends combination therapy when BP exceeds targets by > 15/10 mmHg. Current European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines also recommend the use of low-dose combination therapy in the first-line setting. Furthermore, JNC-7 recommends that a thiazide-type diuretic should be part of initial first-line combination therapy. Thiazide/diuretic combinations are available for a variety of classes of antihypertensive, including ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta blockers and centrally acting agents. This article focuses on clinical data investigating the combination of an ARB, irbesartan, with the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that the ARB/HCTZ combination has greater potency and a similar side effect profile to ARB monotherapy and represents a highly effective approach for attaining goal BP levels using a therapeutic strategy that very effectively lowers BP, is well tolerated and minimises diuretic-induced metabolic effects.

Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

BACKGROUND

Patients with hypertension may require combination therapy to attain the blood pressure targets recommended by US and European treatment guidelines. Combination therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blocker would be expected to provide enhanced efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

Two studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of various combinations of amlodipine and valsartan administered once daily with their individual components and placebo in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [MSDBP] >/=95 and < 110 mm Hg). A secondary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability.

METHODS

The 2 studies were multinational, multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials. In study 1, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg with valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, or placebo. In study 2, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 10 mg once daily, valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 10 mg with valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable in both studies was change from baseline in MSDBP at the end of the study. Secondary variables included the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), response rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a >/= 10-mm Hg decrease from baseline), and control rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg). Safety was assessed in terms of adverse events (spontaneously reported or elicited by questioning), vital signs, and laboratory values.

RESULTS

A total of 1911 patients were randomized to treatment in study 1 (1022 amlodipine + valsartan; 507 valsartan; 254 amlodipine; 128 placebo); 1250 were randomized to treatment in study 2 (419, 415, 207, and 209, respectively). In all treatment groups in both studies, the majority of patients were white (79.5% study 1, 79.4% study 2) and male (53.5% and 50.3%, respectively). The overall mean age was 54.4 years in study 1 and 56.9 years in study 2. The mean weight of patients in study 1 was higher than that in study 2 (88.8 vs 79.7 kg). The overall baseline mean sitting BP was 152.8/99.3 mm Hg in study 1 and 156.7/99.1 mm Hg in study 2. With the exception of a few combinations that included amlodipine 2.5 mg, the combination regimens in both studies were associated with significantly greater reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP compared with their individual components and placebo (P < 0.05). A positive dose response was observed for all combinations. The highest response rate in study 1 was associated with the highest dose of combination therapy (amlodipine 5 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 91.3%). Amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan 320 mg, and placebo were associated with response rates of 71.9%, 73.4%, and 40.9%, respectively. In study 2, the 2 doses of combination therapy were associated with similar response rates (amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg: 88.5%; amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 87.5%). Amlodipine 10 mg was associated with a response rate of 86.9%; valsartan 160 and 20 mg were associated with response rates of 74.9% and 72.0%, respectively; and placebo was associated with a response rate of 49.3%. Control rates followed a similar pattern. The incidence of peripheral edema with combination therapy was significantly lower compared with amlodipine monotherapy (5.4% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = 0.014), was significantly higher compared with valsartan monotherapy (2.1%; P < 0.001), and did not differ significantly from placebo (3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In these adult patients with mild to moderate hypertension, the combination of amlodipine + valsartan was associated with significantly greater blood pressure reductions from baseline compared with amlodipine or valsartan monotherapy or placebo. The incidence of peripheral edema was significantly lower with combination therapy than with amlodipine monotherapy.

Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Cardiovascular Disease

The cardiovascular continuum describes the progression of pathophysiologic events from cardiovascular risk factors to symptomatic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and life-threatening events. Pharmacologic intervention early in the continuum may prevent or slow CVD development and improve quality of life. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is central to the pathophysiology of CVD at many stages of the continuum. Numerous clinical trials of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have shown that RAAS blockade provides benefits to patients across the continuum. ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension; however tolerability and adherence to therapy appear to be improved with ARBs. Large clinical trials have shown that ARBs may provide therapeutic benefits beyond blood pressure control in patients with diabetes, heart failure or at risk of heart failure following a myocardial infarction. In addition, ARBs have been shown to provide protective effects in patients with impaired renal function or left ventricular hypertrophy. Additional clinical trials are ongoing to further characterize the role of ARBs in CVD management.

Optimizing hypertension management in clinical practice

A clear relationship exists between elevated blood pressure (BP) and various manifestations of cardiovascular disease. Despite the availability of numerous treatment guidelines, hypertension remains inadequately controlled, with only a small proportion of patients achieving target BP levels. Many factors, both patient and physician related, contribute to this poor level of hypertension control. Major determinants include the implementation of inappropriate treatment regimens that do not enable patients to achieve goal and poor patient compliance. For example, it is widely acknowledged that most patients require two or more antihypertensive drugs to achieve BP goal; however, physicians may be reluctant to employ such treatment strategies. The aim of this review is to explore factors that contribute to poor hypertension control rates and how to overcome these, including the rationale for selecting combination therapy, with particular reference to angiotensin II receptor blocker combinations.

Valsartan/Hydrochlorothiazide

Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is a fixed-dose (valsartan 80, 160 or 320mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25mg) angiotensin II receptor blocker/diuretic drug combination indicated for the treatment of patients with essential hypertension not adequately controlled by monotherapy.There is ample evidence that valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is an effective fixed-dose combination antihypertensive agent. However, efficacy and tolerability data pertaining to the 320mg dose of valsartan in the combination are currently relatively few. There is also some evidence of potential benefits associated with the relatively favourable tolerability profile of the combination, the low occurrence of new-onset diabetes mellitus versus amlodipine and the valsartan-associated improvements in cardiac and endothelial function.

Valsartan in the treatment of hypertension

Valsartan is a widely used, efficacious and very well-tolerated antihypertensive agent. By specifically blocking the action of angiotensin II on the angiotensin Type 1 receptor, valsartan reduces unwanted effects of angiotensin II, such as aldosterone, vasopressin and endothelin secretion, vasoconstriction, diuresis, endothelial cell hyperplasia, mitogenesis, induction of growth factors and production of collagen. Valsartan has a simple pharmacokinetic profile and requires no metabolism to become active. The dose-related efficacy of valsartan has been clearly demonstrated and the tolerability profile is similar to placebo. Clinical trials in elderly patients show good efficacy and high responder rates with the same doses as in younger patients. Valsartan is available as 80-, 160- and 320-mg tablets, and also in the same doses in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, 12.5 or 25 mg. Availability varies between countries. Beyond the reduction of blood pressure, valsartan is indicated for use in several countries in patients with heart failure and in patients post myocardial infarction, based on the results of the large-scale Valsartan Heart Failure Trial and VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion trials. Valsartan has also been shown, in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Evaluation trial, to reduce the risk of developing new-onset diabetes in hypertensive patients at high risk of cardiac events.

Use of valsartan for the treatment of heart-failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors: A budget impact analysis

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a widespread and costly malady. It represents the leading single diagnosis for hospitalized patients. For many heart failure patients, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are either not tolerated or contraindicated, but angiotensin receptor blockers such as valsartan may be a therapeutic option for them.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to prepare a budget impact analysis to assist health plans in evaluating the financial impact of adding valsartan therapy to usual care for heart failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors.

METHODS

A budget impact analysis was developed for a hypothetical US health plan. Model inputs included demographic data, estimates of the prevalence of heart failure and proportion of heart-failure patients not on ACE inhibitors, prevalence of heart failure-related hospitalization, cost data, and resultant health care utilization from the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT). Costs and cost savings were reported as year-2001 US dollars.

RESULTS

An estimated 1207 of hypothetical 250,000 enrollees were projected to have heart-failure diagnoses, with 603 (50.0%) not receiving ACE inhibitors, and 160 (26.5%) of such patients being hospitalized each year. For valsartan-treated patients, savings due to reduced hospitalizations and shorter length of hospital stay were 1,083,938 US dollars and 221,364 US dollars, respectively. Subtracting the cost of valsartan treatment (629,472 US dollars) from savings yielded projected net savings of 675,830 US dollars per year. Varying patient, treatment, and payer-mix characteristics resulted in projected net savings of $409,598 to 1,350,617 US dollars per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of valsartan therapy to usual care in this model analysis resulted in net cost savings among hypothetical heart-failure patients not receiving ACE inhibitors. Substantial cost savings were realized, regardless of variation in model parameters.

24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure effects of valsartan & hydrochlorothiazide combinations compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients at increased cardiovascular risk: A VAST sub-study

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of data on the effects of angiotensin-receptor blocker and diuretic combinations on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind trial, the effects on 24-h ABP of the combination valsartan 160 mg od and hydrochlorothiazide 25 or 12.5 mg during 24 weeks of therapy were compared with the effects of amlodipine 10 mg monotherapy (group A10) in 474 stage-II hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. After a two-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg od or amlodipine 5 mg od. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg (group V160/HCTZ12.5) and 25 mg (group V160/HCTZ25) were added to the valsartan groups and in the A10 patients the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg od.

RESULTS

All three treatments reduced 24-h BP as well as night-time and daytime BP levels from baseline. Twenty-four hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 15.9+/-1.0 mmHg (least-squares mean change+/-SE), 19.3+/-1.0 mmHg and 16.1+/-1.1 mmHg in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/HCTZ25 and A10 groups, respectively and 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced by 9.3+/-0.6 mmHg, 11.4+/-0.6 mmHg and 9.6+/-0.7 mmHg in the three groups. The differences between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the A10 group were significant (p<0.05) for the changes in 24-h systolic BP as well as for changes in daytime systolic BP and night-time diastolic BP. Control rates defined as ABPM < or =130/80 mmHg were: 48.4%, 60.8% and 50.9% in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/25 and A10 groups, respectively. The differences in control rates between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the other two treatment groups were significant at p<0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

The fixed-dose combination of valsartan 160 mg+HCTZ 25 mg od is an attractive therapeutic option measured on the effects on 24-h ABPM, night-time and daytime BP reduction and control rates in hypertensive patients at additional cardiovascular risk.

Comparative efficacy of valsartan and olmesartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

The aim of this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of 2 angiotensin II (AII) receptor antagonists with different pharmacologic profiles, valsartan and olmesartan, in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. After an initial 2-week washout period, 114 patients (64 men, 50 women; aged 35-70 years) were randomly assigned to receive valsartan 160 mg or olmesartan 20 mg once daily for 8 weeks. After the washout period and after 2 and 8 weeks of treatment, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed using a noninvasive device, and casual blood pressure (BP) and heart rate were measured. Both olmesartan and valsartan had a clear-cut antihypertensive effect. However, significantly earlier and more pronounced antihypertensive activity was achieved with valsartan than with olmesartan, as demonstrated by (1) significantly lower 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime ABPM values after 2 weeks with valsartan (P<.01); (2) significantly lower percentage of abnormal BP readings with valsartan; (3) significantly higher trough-peak ratio and smoothness index with valsartan, suggesting a more prolonged and homogeneous antihypertensive effect; and (4) lower 24-hour postdose clinic systolic and diastolic BP values versus olmesartan. These findings show that pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic differences between AII receptor antagonists, at clinically comparable dosages, may be associated with differences in antihypertensive efficacy.