Efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine combination therapy in reducing ambulatory blood pressure in moderate-to-severe hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine alone

Effects of vasodilators on beat-to-beat and every fifteen minutes blood pressure variability induced by noradrenaline infusion in rats

Increased blood pressure variability (BPV) was shown to be associated with cardiovascular morbidities and/or mortalities. There are various types of BPV depending on time intervals of BP measurements, ranging from beat-to-beat to visit-to-visit or year-to-year. We previously found that continuous infusion of noradrenaline (NA) for 14 days increased short-term BPV every 15 min in rats. The aims of this study were to examine (1) whether NA infusion increases very short-term beat-to-beat BPV, (2) the effects of azelnidipine and hydralazine on NA-induced BPV, and (3) whether baroreceptor reflex sensitivity (BRS) is affected by NA or NA plus those vasodilators. Nine-week-old Wistar rats infused subcutaneously with 30 μg/h NA were orally treated with or without 9.7 mg/day azelnidipine or 5.9 mg/day hydralazine over 14 days. BP levels were continuously monitored via abdominal aortic catheter with a telemetry system in an unrestrained condition. Standard deviations (SDs) were used to evaluate beat-to-beat BPV and BPV every 15 min which was obtained by averaging BP levels for 10-s segment at each time point. BRS was determined by a sequence analysis. Continuous NA infusion over 14 days increased average BP, beat-to-beat BPV, and BPV every 15 min, lowering BRS. Comparing the two vasodilators, hydralazine reduced BP elevation by NA; meanwhile, azelnidipine alleviated BPV augmentation, preserving BRS, despite a smaller BP reduction. Thus, NA infusion increased both very short- and short-term BPV concomitantly with impaired BRS, while azelnidipine had an inhibitory effect, possibly independent of BP-lowering, on those types of BPV and impairment of BRS.

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

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

Early morning home blood pressure control among treated patients with controlled office blood pressure

Elevated morning blood pressure (BP) has a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, so morning BP is of substantial clinical importance for the management of hypertension. This study aimed to evaluate early morning BP control and its determines among treated patients with controlled office BP. From May to October 2018, 600 treated patients with office BP < 140/90 mm Hg were recruited from hypertension clinics. Morning BP was measured at home for 7 days. Morning home systolic blood pressure (SBP) increased by an average of 11.5 mm Hg and that morning home diastolic blood pressure (DBP) increased by an average of 5.6 mm Hg compared with office BP. Morning home SBP, DBP, and their moving average were more likely to be lower among patients with a office SBP < 120 mm Hg than among patients with a office SBP ranging from 120 to 129 mm Hg and from 130 to 139 mm Hg (P < .001). A total of 45% of patients had early morning BP < 135/85 mm Hg. The following factors were significantly correlated with morning BP control: male sex, age of <65 years, absence of habitual snoring, no drinking, adequate physical activity, no habit of high salt intake, office BP < 120/80 mm Hg, and combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and angiotensin receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ARB/ACEI). Less than half of patients with controlled office BP had controlled morning BP and that positive changes may be related to an office BP < 120/80 mm Hg, combination of a CCB and ACEI/ARB and a series of lifestyle adjustments.

Comparative analysis of several methods for blood pressure measurement in the morning in patients with arterial hypertension

Aim. To compare the known methods of blood pressure (BP) measurement in the morning and a new method for estimating the average morning BP for fixed time intervals, comparing their reproducibility and validity.

Material and methods. We analyzed database containing 983 cases of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Results of ABMP in patients with hypertension without severe associated diseases and weekly cancellation of antihypertensive therapy were analyzed. Blood pressure data per 24-hour period, day and night, level and rate of morning BP surge were assessed. In addition, we proposed new method for estimating the average morning BP level for fixed time intervals, based on calculating the average BP level for the following time windows: from 5:00 to 7:00 a.m., from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. To assess the reproducibility of the new method, we determined correlations between the first and second group results calculated by the new method based on two repeated ABPM conducted with 1-2 weeks interval (n=90). To study the validity of the new method for measurement of average morning BP level, we used an objective validation criterion — Left Ventricular Myocardium Mass Index (LVMMI). There were performed 98 echocardiographic tests with the use of Acuson 128XP. LVMMI was calculated using the L. Teichholtz method (1976).

Results. The new method for measurement of average morning BP level had good reproducibility while the reproducibility of dynamic showings of ABMP (level and rate of morning BP surge) was low. A new method for assessing morning blood pressure was characterized by a high level of validity: the indicators obtained using this technique reliably correlated with the validation criteria: LVMI and the average daily blood pressure level.

Conclusion. The proposed new method for estimating the average morning level of blood pressure has a high level of validity and reproducibility. Time interval from 7 to 9 a. m. seems to be the most optimal. The maximum reproducibility of the showings was noted during this period.

Morning blood pressure surge: pathophysiology, clinical relevance and therapeutic aspects

Morning hours are the period of the day characterized by the highest incidence of major cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, sudden death or stroke. They are also characterized by important neurohormonal changes, in particular, the activation of sympathetic nervous system which usually leads to a rapid increase in blood pressure (BP), known as morning blood pressure surge (MBPS). It was hypothesized that excessive MBPS may be causally involved in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular events occurring in the morning by inducing hemodynamic stress. A number of studies support an independent relationship of MBPS with organ damage, cerebrovascular complications and mortality, although some heterogeneity exists in the available evidence. This may be due to ethnic differences, methodological issues and the confounding relationship of MBPS with other features of 24-hour BP profile, such as nocturnal dipping or BP variability. Several studies are also available dealing with treatment effects on MBPS and indicating the importance of long-acting antihypertensive drugs in this regard. This paper provides an overview of pathophysiologic, methodological, prognostic and therapeutic aspects related to MBPS.

Morning blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension

: The aim of the current article is to review the current evidence on the role of morning blood pressure (BP) in the management of hypertension. Morning BP surge had been and will continue to be a hot topic of hypertension research. However, more evidence is needed to prove its clinical usefulness in the management of hypertension. Masked morning hypertension, as the other forms of masked hypertension, requires more research. The concept of morning BP monitoring could be clinically relevant in the therapeutic management of hypertension and in the prevention of cardiovascular complications by defining and treating morning hypertension. Antihypertensive medication is usually taken in the morning. The presence of uncontrolled morning BP during trough effect hours could be a hallmark of inadequate antihypertensive regimen, such as, for instance, the use of short-acting or intermediate-acting drugs, under dosing of drugs, or no or low use of combination therapy. To improve the management of hypertension in general and morning hypertension in particular, long-acting antihypertensive drugs should be used in appropriate often full dosages and in proper combinations. The clinical usefulness of antihypertensive drugs of specific mechanisms against morning BP or split or timed dosing of long-acting drugs in controlling morning BP remains under investigation. In conclusion, there is some evidence that morning BP is critical in the incidence of cardiovascular complications. However, proving its clinical usefulness in the management of hypertension requires further research.

Management of morning hypertension: a consensus statement of an Asian expert panel

Morning blood pressure (BP) surge is an important aspect of hypertension research. Morning BP monitoring could be a clinically relevant concept in the therapeutic management of hypertension and in the prevention of cardiovascular complications by defining and treating morning hypertension. Because antihypertensive medication is often taken in the morning, uncontrolled morning BP during the trough effect hours could be a hallmark of inadequate choice of antihypertensive regimen, such as the use of short- or intermediate-acting drugs, underdosing of drugs, or no use or underuse of combination therapy. To improve the management of hypertension in general and morning hypertension in particular, long-acting antihypertensive drugs should be used in appropriate, often full dosages and in proper combinations. The clinical usefulness of antihypertensive drugs with specific mechanisms for morning BP or split or timed dosing of long-acting drugs in controlling morning BP remains under investigation.

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

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

Persistent olmesartan-based blood pressure-lowering effects on morning hypertension in Asians: the HONEST study

Using data from the large-scale HONEST (Home blood pressure measurement with Olmesartan Naive patients to Establish Standard Target blood pressure) study, we investigated the characteristics of the effects of olmesartan-based treatment on morning hypertension in Asian hypertensive patients. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between baseline blood pressure (BP) and BP reduction after 16 weeks by linear regression analyses; determinants of BP reduction were also investigated. For both morning home BP (MHBP) and clinic BP (CBP), reduced systolic BP (SBP) after 16 weeks was associated with baseline SBP (P<0.001). The slope of the regression lines was similar for morning home SBP (MHSBP) (-0.744) and clinic SBP (-0.735). Although sex, concomitant diabetes mellitus and concomitant hepatic disease significantly influence the relationship between BP reduction and baseline BP for MHSBP, none were deemed clinically relevant. In conclusion, olmesartan-based treatment robustly reduced baseline high MHBP, similar to CBP, and the effect was associated with baseline BP but unaffected by patient background factors.

Effect of Olmesartan-Based Therapies on Therapeutic Indicators Obtained Through Out-of-Office Blood Pressure

Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) correlates more significantly with hypertension-associated cardiovascular mortality and morbidity than BP obtained in the doctor's office. Assessing ambulatory BP, either through 24-h monitoring or through protocolized self-measurement at home, is essential in diagnosing and monitoring patients with hypertension. Several ambulatory BP-derived indicators are related with cardiovascular prognosis. These include 24-h, daytime and nighttime BP measurements, BP measurements obtained through home self-measurement, dipping status, morning surge, and BP variability. The objective of this article was to review the effect of olmesartan-based antihypertensive therapy on the main risk variables obtained when assessing ambulatory BP.