Efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with amlodipine/valsartan compared with amlodipine monotherapy in black patients with stage 2 hypertension: the EX-STAND study

Comparative peripheral edema for dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.

Extemporaneous Compounding and Physiological Modeling of Amlodipine/Valsartan Suspension

Method

Amlodipine/valsartan extemporaneous suspension was prepared from available commercial tablets such as Valzadepine^®. The dissolution profiles for the extemporaneous preparation and the commercial tablet were determined in different pH media. The physical, chemical, and microbial stability of the compounded formulation was evaluated over one-month period at room temperature. Moreover, in silico modeling using GastroPlus™ software was used to build absorption models for both drugs based on the in vitro dissolution data. The simulated plasma profiles for both active ingredients were compared with the in vivo plasma profiles to examine the similarity of the extemporaneous suspension and the commercial tablets.

Results

The amlodipine/valsartan extemporaneous suspension was successfully prepared with acceptable organoleptic properties. The suspension was stable for four-week period preserving its physical and chemical features. The release profiles of valsartan and amlodipine from the suspension were similar to those from source tablet Valzadepine^®. In silico modeling predicted the similarity of the extemporaneous suspension and the commercial tablets.

Conclusion

Amlodipine/valsartan extemporaneous suspension could be prepared from available commercial tablets. Moreover, GastroPlus™ can be applied along with the in vitro dissolution in order to affirm similarity in extemporaneous compounding situations.

A Review of ACE Inhibitors and ARBs in Black Patients With Hypertension

Objective: To review current guidelines and recent data evaluating the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in black hypertensive patients. Data Sources: Articles evaluating race-specific outcomes in hypertension were gathered using a MEDLINE search with keywords black, African American, ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, angiotensin system, and hypertension. Studies published from 2000 through April 2018 were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Six guidelines, 8 monotherapy publications, and 5 combination therapy publications included race-specific results and were included in the review. The authors individually compared and contrasted the results from each publication. Data Synthesis: Numerous monotherapy trials indicate that black patients may have a reduced blood pressure (BP) response with ACE inhibitors or ARBs compared with white patients. Conversely, additional studies propose that race may not be the primary predictor of BP response. Reduced efficacy is not observed in trials involving combination therapy. Some studies suggest increased cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality with ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy in black patients; however, data are conflicting. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: This article clarifies vague guideline statements and informs clinicians on the appropriate use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs for hypertension treatment in black patients through an in-depth look into the evidence. Conclusions: Potentially reduced efficacy and limited outcomes data indicate that ACE inhibitors or ARBs should not routinely be initiated as monotherapy in black hypertensive patients. Use in combination with a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic is efficacious in black patients, and there are no data showing that this increases or decreases cardiovascular or cerebrovascular outcomes.

Efficacy and effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: randomized controlled versus observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to compare the results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (Val/Aml/HCTZ) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg).

METHODS

Data was pooled from 15 RCTs (N = 5542) and 8 RWE studies (N = 1397) for Val/Aml; and 2 RCTs (N = 804) and 5 RWE studies (N = 9380) for Val/Aml/HCTZ. Patients who received Val/Aml (80/5, 160/5, 160/10, 320/5, or 320/10 mg), Val/Aml/HCTZ (160/5/12.5, 160/5/25, 160/10/12.5, 160/10/25, or 320/10/25 mg) or placebo were considered for this analysis. Only patients with both baseline and follow-up assessment within 60-90 days after baseline had been included in the analysis. Patients with missing values were excluded from the analysis. Using fitted linear mixed-effects model and random factors, treatment interactions and study design with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), diastolic BP (msDBP) and pulse pressure (msPP) reductions from baseline to Week 8-12 of treatment were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics and patient characteristics were comparable between RCT and RWE datasets and within Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ treatment groups. In both RCT and RWE studies, least-squares mean (LSM) reduction in msSBP/msDBP and msPP from baseline were significant (p < .05) across all dosages. The efficacy of Val/Aml in RCTs was statistically significantly greater than in RWE studies for msSBP/msDBP (-23.1/-13.8 vs. -17.9/-9.1 mmHg) but the difference was non-significant for msPP (-8.6 vs. -9.3 mmHg; p = .77). For Val/Aml/HCTZ, no direct comparison was available but a similar trend was observed. The difference observed for msSBP and msDBP may be due to routine practice setting, larger populations may have more confounders and different behaviors towards treatment adherence.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that the efficacy of Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ in RCTs was more pronounced compared with their effectiveness in RWE studies in different ethnic populations although the overall benefit was not different.

Effectiveness and safety of valsartan/amlodipine in hypertensive patients with stroke: China Status II subanalysis

High blood pressure (BP) is a major risk factor associated with stroke in China. This is a subanalysis of patients from the China Status II study, aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) single-pill combination (SPC) in hypertensive patients with different stroke subtypes (hemorrhagic, ischemic, or mixed).China Status II was a multicenter, postmarketing, prospective observational study in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on monotherapy. The study was an 8-week open-label treatment period with 2 4-week follow-ups. Change in BP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8, BP control rate, and response rate at weeks 4 and 8, and safety of 8-week treatment with Val/Aml (80/5 mg) were assessed.A total of 565 hypertensive patients with different types of stroke were analyzed in this China Status II substudy. Significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP (MSSBP/MSDBP) reductions from baseline to week 8 were observed across all stroke subtypes (P < .0001). At week 8, percentages of patients achieving MSSBP response (≥20 mm Hg reduction from baseline) were 76.3%, 74.4%, and 85.7%, MSDBP response (≥10 mm Hg reduction from baseline) were 67.8%, 65.9%, and 64.3%, and BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) were 74.6%, 80.5%, and 92.9%, in the hemorrhagic, ischemic, and mixed stroke subgroups, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported in 5 patients (1%) and 1 patient (0.2%), respectively, in the ischemic stroke subgroup, while no AEs were reported in hemorrhagic and mixed stroke subgroups.Val/Aml SPC was effective in hypertensive patients with different stroke subtypes and was well tolerated.

Triple-combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension: a review of the evidence

Hypertension is a serious public health concern with inadequate control of blood pressure (BP) worldwide. Contributing factors include low efficacy of drugs, underuse of combination therapies, irrational combinations, physicians' therapeutic inertia and poor adherence to treatment. Current guidelines recommend the use of initial (dual) combination therapy in high-risk patients for immediate BP response, better short- and long-term BP control, and continued/improved patient adherence. This article aims to review the existing evidence of triple-combination therapies with respect to efficacy, safety and adherence to treatment. It is estimated that three drugs are required to achieve BP control in approximately one-fourth to one-third of patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that triple combinations of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine/olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide produce greater BP reductions, with greater proportions of patients achieving BP control compared with dual therapies. Further evidence also demonstrates that triple-combination therapy is efficacious for moderate to severe hypertension, with substantial additional BP reduction over dual regimens. Both RCTs and post-marketing observational studies have shown consistent and comparable efficacy in both the general population and high-risk hypertensive subgroups. Triple therapies are generally well tolerated with adverse event profiles similar to dual regimens. In addition, fixed-dose combinations used as single pill improve patient adherence leading to better long-term BP control. Depending on regional circumstances, they may also be cost effective. Thus, single-pill triple combinations of different classes of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action help to treat patients to goal with improved efficacy and better adherence to treatment.

[Combination for initial therapy in hypertension, is it useful?]

Hypertension represents the first cause of mortality worldwide because a leading role in development of cardiovascular and renal diseases. Evidence about the benefits of controlling hypertension is overwhelming, but adequate control of blood pressure is still poor even in high-income countries. At least one of 2 hypertensive patients suffers from uncontrolled blood pressure. Nearly 75% of hypertensive patients do not achieve adequate control with monotherapy. Strategies to improve control include avoiding inertia in initiating pharmacological treatment, prompt shift to combined therapy from monotherapy, initial treatment with a 2-drug combination, and use of fixed-dose combinations in a single pill. This review focuses in benefits of initiating treatment combining antihypertensive drugs.

Quantitative model for the blood pressure-lowering interaction of valsartan and amlodipine

AIMS

The objective of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) model to quantitatively describe the antihypertensive effect of combined therapy with amlodipine and valsartan.

METHODS

PK modelling was used with data collected from 48 healthy volunteers receiving a single dose of combined formulation of 10 mg amlodipine and 160 mg valsartan. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were recorded during combined administration. SBP and DBP data for each drug alone were gathered from the literature. PKPD models of each drug and for combined administration were built with NONMEM 7.3.

RESULTS

A two-compartment model with zero order absorption best described the PK data of both drugs. Amlodipine and valsartan monotherapy effects on SBP and DBP were best described by an I_max model with an effect compartment delay. Combined therapy was described using a proportional interaction term as follows: (D₁  + D₂ ) +ALPHA×(D₁ × D₂ ). D₁ and D₂ are the predicted drug effects of amlodipine and valsartan monotherapy respectively. ALPHA is the interaction term for combined therapy. Quantitative estimates of ALPHA were -0.171 (95% CI: -0.218, -0.143) for SBP and -0.0312 (95% CI: -0.07739, -0.00283) for DBP. These infra-additive interaction terms for both SBP and DBP were consistent with literature results for combined administration of drugs in these classes.

CONCLUSION

PKPD models for SBP and DBP successfully described the time course of the antihypertensive effects of amlodipine and valsartan. An infra-additive interaction between amlodipine and valsartan when used in combined administration was confirmed and quantified.

Effectiveness of Valsartan/Amlodipine Single-pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients With Excess Body Weight: Subanalysis of China Status II

Obesity is a major global health concern and is associated with hypertension. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in Chinese hypertensive patients with excess body weight uncontrolled by monotherapy. To evaluate this effectiveness and its association with obese categories, we performed a prespecified subanalysis and a post hoc analysis of patients from China status II study. In this subanalysis, 11,289 and 11,182 patients stratified by body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC), respectively, were included. Significant mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline were observed at week 8 across all BMI and WC subgroups (P < 0.001). The percentages of patients achieving BP control were 65.2%, 62.8%, and 64.5% (men 64.5% and women 64.4%) in the overweight, obesity, and abdominal obesity subgroups, respectively. The positive association between BP control and obese categories could only be found in subgroups stratified by BMI other than WC. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in Chinese hypertensive patients with excess body weight uncontrolled by monotherapy, and its effectiveness was better associated with BMI than WC.

Real-life Effectiveness and Safety of Amlodipine/Valsartan Single-pill Combination in Patients with Hypertension in Egypt: Results from the EXCITE Study

BACKGROUND

EXCITE (clinical experience of amlodipine and valsartan in hypertension) evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of single-pill combinations (SPCs) of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCTZ) in patients with hypertension from the Middle East and Asia.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report the results of EXCITE study from Egypt, where all patients were prescribed Aml/Val.

METHODS

This was a 26-week, observational, multicenter, prospective, non-interventional, open-label study. Effectiveness was assessed as change in the mean sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (msSBP/msDBP) from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving the therapeutic blood pressure (BP) goal (<140/90; <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) and BP response (SBP <140 mmHg or reduction of ≥20 mmHg; DBP <90 mmHg or reduction of ≥10 mmHg). Safety was monitored by recording the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 2566 patients (mean age, 52.6 years; mean duration of hypertension, 7.9 years) were prescribed Aml/Val, of whom 2439 (95.1 %) completed the study. At week 26, Aml/Val SPC significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced msSBP/msDBP by -34.5/-19.4 mmHg from baseline (BP: 164.3/100.5 mmHg). Therapeutic goal, SBP response, and DBP response was achieved by 49.3, 91.1, and 91.4 % of patients, respectively. AEs were reported in 12.5 % of patients, with the most common including peripheral edema (1.8 %), bronchitis (1.1 %), and gastritis (0.8 %), and SAEs in 0.5 % of patients. Two deaths were reported during the study, none of which were considered to be study drug related by the investigators.

CONCLUSION

Aml/Val SPC provided clinically significant BP reductions and was generally well tolerated in patients with hypertension from Egypt.

Valsartan 160 mg/Amlodipine 5 mg Combination Therapy versus Amlodipine 10 mg in Hypertensive Patients with Inadequate Response to Amlodipine 5 mg Monotherapy

Background and Objectives

When monotherapy is inadequate for blood pressure control, the next step is either to continue monotherapy in increased doses or to add another antihypertensive agent. However, direct comparison of double-dose monotherapy versus combination therapy has rarely been done. The objective of this study is to compare 10 mg of amlodipine with an amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination in patients whose blood pressure control is inadequate with amlodipine 5 mg.

Subjects and Methods

This study was conducted as a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Men and women aged 20-80 who were diagnosed as having hypertension, who had been on amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy for at least 4 weeks, and whose daytime mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥135 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥85 mmHg on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were randomized to amlodipine (A) 10 mg or amlodipine/valsartan (AV) 5/160 mg group. Follow-up 24-hour ABPM was done at 8 weeks after randomization.

Results

Baseline clinical characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Ambulatory blood pressure reduction was significantly greater in the AV group compared with the A group (daytime mean SBP change: -14±11 vs. -9±9 mmHg, p<0.001, 24-hour mean SBP change: -13±10 vs. -8±8 mmHg, p<0.0001). Drug-related adverse events also did not differ significantly (A:AV, 6.5 vs. 4.5 %, p=0.56).

Conclusion

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination was more efficacious than amlodipine 10 mg in hypertensive patients in whom monotherapy of amlodipine 5 mg had failed.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to a calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy

BACKGROUND

We conducted this meta-analysis to systematically review and analyze the clinical benefits of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combined with calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for articles published until August 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical benefits of ARB combined with CCB following ineffective CCB monotherapy were included. The primary efficacy endpoint of the studies was normal rate of blood pressure, the secondary efficacy endpoints were the response rate and change in blood pressure from baseline. The safety endpoint of the studies was incidence of adverse events. Differences are expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity across studies was tested by using the I(2) statistic.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included and had sample sizes ranging from 185 to 1,183 subjects (total: 3,909 subjects). The pooled analysis showed that the on-target rate of hypertension treatment was significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group (RR =1.59; 95% CI, 1.31-1.91; P<0.01). The response rate of systolic blood pressure (SBP) (RR =1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58; P<0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P=0.04) were significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group. The change in SBP (RR =-3.56; 95% CI, -7.76-0.63; P=0.10) and DBP (RR =-3.03; 95% CI, -6.51-0.45; P=0.09) were higher in hypertensive patients receiving amlodipine + ARB but the difference did not reach statistical significance. ARB + amlodipine treatment carried a lower risk of adverse events relative to amlodipine monotherapy (RR =0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate that adding an ARB to CCB after initial ineffective CCB monotherapy, significantly improved blood pressure control and the percentage of on-target hypertension treatment with significantly reduced incidence of adverse events compared with continued CCB monotherapy.

Comparison of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination and free combination: adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization and costs

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination (SPC) is associated with improved persistence, adherence and reduced healthcare utilization and costs compared to the corresponding free combination (FC).

METHODS

Adult (≥18 years) patients covered by commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance in the Truven MarketScan database with hypertension (HTN) diagnosis between October 2009 and December 2011 were included. At least two filled prescriptions for the SPC cohort or two periods of minimum 15 days of concurrent use of amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) for the FC cohort were required. Cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) to balance on important confounders. Outcomes included: 1) adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and medication possession ratio [MPR]); 2) persistence (treatment gap >30 days); 3) all-cause and HTN-specific healthcare utilization and costs at 12 months.

RESULTS

After cohort matching with PSM, patients taking SPC (N = 9221) exhibited better outcomes than FC (N = 1884): higher mean adherence (85.7% vs. 77.0%), mean PDC (73.8% vs. 60.6%) and persistence (46.8% vs. 23.6%) (all p < 0.0001). Patients taking SPC were associated with higher odds of persistence (OR: 3.51; 95% CI: 3.08-4.02), MPR ≥80% (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 2.40-3.08) and PDC ≥80% (OR: 2.88; 95% CI: 2.55-3.26). After PSM, the SPC cohort exhibited statistically significantly lower mean number of resource utilization events compared to FC. Patients in the SPC cohort also had a statistically significantly (p < 0.05) lower percentage of patients with ≥1 all-cause hospitalization (15.0% vs. 18.2%), ≥1 all-cause emergency room (ER) visits (25.7 vs. 31.4%), and ≥1 ER HTN-specific visits (9.7% vs. 14.1%). The costs incurred by SPC cohort patients were 2.8% to 41.7% numerically lower than the FC cohort, statistically significant for all-cause ER costs ($430.6 vs. $549.5, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data indicate an association of the amlodipine/valsartan/HCT SPC with improved adherence and persistence vs. FC with no difference in overall healthcare or hypertension specific costs between the cohorts.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Amlodipine and Olmesartan or an Olmesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Compound for Hypertension: A Prospective, Open-Label, and Multicenter Clinical Trial in China

Background

Amlodipine (AML) is the initial therapy most commonly prescribed for patients with hypertension in China. However, AML monotherapy is often less effective in achieving blood pressure (BP) control than other agents.

Objective

We performed a clinical study to evaluate efficacy and safety of a combination therapy with AML, olmesartan (OLM), or an OLM/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) compound for Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Methods

In the clinical trial, patients were initially treated with OLM 20 mg/d combined with AML 5 mg/d. Then OLM was uptitrated to 40 mg/d or changed to an OLM/HCTZ (20/12.5 mg/d) compound if the patients did not reach the target of seated diastolic BP <90 mm Hg (<80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes) after 8 weeks.

Results

The overall response rate of the combination therapy was 59.2% (95% CI, 54.23%–63.97%) at Week 2 and gradually increased to 97.1% (95% CI, 94.93%–98.47%) at the end of the study (Week 16).

Conclusions

The combination therapy with OLM or OLM/HCTZ was well tolerated. The total incidence of adverse events was 42.9% (n = 176). Most of the adverse events were mild in severity (39.5%; n = 162) and not associated with the drugs (33.2%). In conclusion, combination therapy with AML, OLM, or OLM/HCTZ can significantly lower BP safely and achieve a high BP control rate in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in China. ClinicalTrial.org identifier: ChiCTR-ONC-12001963.

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

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

Benefit of initial dual-therapy on stroke prevention in Chinese hypertensive patients: a real world cohort study

AIMS

Studies have shown that combination anti-hypertensive therapy is superior to mono-therapy in blood pressure control and prevention of cardiovascular events. However, whether such advantage exists in the prevention of stroke in Chinese hypertensive patients remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the impact of initial combination versus mono-therapy on stroke events in a large cohort of Chinese hypertensive patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Hypertensive patients with uncontrolled blood pressure and without a history of stroke were screened from the Shanghai Community-dwelling Hypertensive Population Follow-up Database. Based on the initial treatment, individuals were divided into an initial mono-therapy group and initial dual combination group. Patients were followed for 42 months. 32,682 and 4,926 patients were included in the initial mono- and dual-therapy group. The achieved target blood pressure control rates of mono vs. combination groups at 6, 12, 24, and 42 months of follow-up, were 59.47% vs. 60.05%, 78.23% vs. 77.06%, 85.51% vs. 84.02%, and 86.90% vs. 85.44%, respectively. Their corresponding incidence densities of stroke were 0.792 vs. 0.489, 1.49 vs. 1.15, 2.79 vs. 2.38, and 4.25 vs. 4.32 (cases per 100 person-year), respectively. The 6-month incidence of stroke in dual-therapy group was significantly lower than mono-therapy group (adjusted HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.30-0.93). However, no significant group differences in the incidence density were observed at 12, 24, and 42 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that, for patients with uncontrolled hypertension, initial dual therapy is more effective in the prevention of stroke during the first 6 months of treatment, but not thereafter. Combination antihypertensive therapy may be a beneficial initial strategy for early stroke prevention.

Real-world effectiveness of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in high-risk patients and other subgroups

Background

The clinical EXCITE (EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study reported clinically relevant blood pressure (BP) reductions across all doses of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and Aml/Val/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) single-pill combinations. The study prospectively observed a multiethnic population of hypertensive patients for 26 weeks who were treated according to routine clinical practice. Here, we present the results in high-risk subgroups including the elderly, obese patients, and patients with diabetes or isolated systolic hypertension. In addition, we present a post hoc analysis as per prior antihypertensive monotherapy and dual therapy.

Methods

Patients prescribed Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT were assessed in this 26±8 week, noninterventional, multicenter study across 13 countries in the Middle East and Asia. Changes in mean sitting systolic BP, mean sitting diastolic BP, and overall safety were assessed.

Results

Of a total of 9,794 patients analyzed, 8,603 and 1,191 patients were prescribed Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT, respectively. Among these, 15.5% were elderly, 32.5% were obese, 31.3% had diabetes, and 9.8% had isolated systolic hypertension. Both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations, respectively, were associated with clinically relevant and significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP reductions across all subgroups: elderly patients (−32.2/−14.3 mmHg and −38.5/−16.5 mmHg), obese patients (−32.2/−17.9 mmHg and −38.5/−18.4 mmHg), diabetic patients (−30.3/−16.1 mmHg and −34.4/−16.6 mmHg), and patients with isolated systolic hypertension (−25.5/−4.1 mmHg and −30.2/−5.9 mmHg). Incremental BP reductions with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations were also observed in patients receiving prior monotherapy or dual therapy for hypertension. Overall, both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT were generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

This large, multiethnic study supports the evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/ HCT single-pill combinations are effective in diverse and clinically important subgroups of patients with hypertension.

Antihypertensive combination therapy in primary care offices: results of a cross-sectional survey in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Most hypertensive patients need more than one substance to reach their target blood pressure (BP). Several clinical studies indicate the high efficacy of antihypertensive combinations, and recent guidelines recommend them in some situations even as initial therapies. In general practice they seem widespread, but only limited data are available on their effectiveness under the conditions of everyday life. The objectives of this survey among Swiss primary care physicians treating hypertensive patients were: to know the frequency of application of different treatment modalities (monotherapies, free individual combinations, single-pill combinations); to see whether there are relationships between prescribed treatment modalities and patient characteristics, especially age, treatment duration, and comorbidities; and to determine the response rate (percentage of patients reaching target BP) of different treatment modalities under the conditions of daily practice.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, observational survey among 228 randomly chosen Swiss primary care physicians analyzed data for 3,888 consecutive hypertensive patients collected at one single consultation.

RESULTS

In this survey, 31.9% of patients received monotherapy, 41.2% two substances, 20.9% three substances, and 4.7% more than three substances. By combination mode, 34.9% took free individual combinations and 30.0% took fixed-dose single-pill combinations. Combinations were more frequently given to older patients with a long history of hypertension and/or comorbidities. In total, 67.8% of patients achieved their BP target according to their physician's judgment. When compared, single-pill combinations were associated with a higher percentage of patients achieving target BP than free individual combinations and monotherapies for the total sample and for patients with comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

Antihypertensive combination therapy was widely used in Swiss primary care practices. The number of prescribed substances depended on age, treatment duration, and type and number of comorbidities. Although the response rate was generally modest under the conditions of daily practice, it was higher for single-pill combinations than for monotherapies and free individual combinations. Further studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Real-world clinical experience of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: the EXCITE study

OBJECTIVE

The EXCITE (clinical EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and adherence of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCT) single-pill combination therapies in patients with hypertension from the Middle East and Asia studied in routine clinical practice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a prospective, multinational, non-interventional real-world study in which adult patients with hypertension receiving treatment with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT as part of routine clinical practice were observed for a period of 26 ± 8 weeks. Dosages in milligrams (prescribed in accordance with local prescribing information) were Aml/Val: 5/80, 5/160, 10/160, 5/320 or 10/320; Aml/Val/HCT: 5/160/12.5, 10/160/12.5, 5/160/25, 10/160/25 or 10/320/25.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effectiveness was assessed by change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (BP)/diastolic BP (msSBP/msDBP), and the proportion of patients achieving therapeutic goal and BP response. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of 9794 patients analyzed (mean age 53.2 years), 8603 received Aml/Val and 1191 Aml/Val/HCT. At study end (26 ± 8 weeks), overall msSBP (95% confidence interval [CI]) reductions from baseline were -31.0 (-31.42, -30.67) mmHg for Aml/Val and -36.6 (-37.61, -35.50) mmHg for Aml/Val/HCT; msDBP reductions from baseline were -16.6 (-16.79, -16.34) mmHg for Aml/Val and -17.8 (-18.41, -17.22) mmHg for Aml/Val/HCT. Meaningful reductions in BP from baseline were also consistently observed across all Aml/Val dosages and severities of hypertension. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11.2% and 6.1% of patients in the Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT groups, respectively. Most frequently reported AEs in the Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT groups were edema and peripheral edema. While the observational design of the study has inherent limitations, it enables collection of real-world data from a more naturalistic clinical setting, and the large size of the study increases the robustness of the study, as indicated by the narrow confidence intervals for the main study outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The EXCITE study provides evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT provide clinically meaningful BP reductions and are well tolerated in a large multi-ethnic hypertensive population studied in routine clinical practice.

Evaluation of blood pressure reduction response and responder characteristics to fixed-dose combination treatment of amlodipine and losartan: a post hoc analysis of pooled clinical trials

Data from four clinical trials compared reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) among patients treated with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs 5/100 mg and amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg and 10 mg. Response rate was assessed as reduction in SBP or DBP (>20/10 mm Hg) and proportion of patients achieving SBP <140 mm Hg or DBP <90 mm Hg. Patients were grouped into quartiles based on baseline SBP and DBP. Mean SBP and DBP were reduced in amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg (n=182) and amlodipine/losartan 5/100 mg (n=95) users across all baseline quartiles. Patients using amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg had significantly greater SBP and DBP reductions vs amlodipine 5 mg (P=.001 and P=.02, respectively). Amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg users had significantly greater SBP reduction vs amlodipine 10 mg (SBP P=.02; DBP P=not significant). The odds of responding to therapy were significantly greater with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg (odds ratio, 5.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-25.5) and were similar vs amlodipine 10 mg (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.017-9.51). These results support the use of combination therapy early in the treatment of hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in 11,422 Chinese patients with hypertension: an observational study

Introduction

Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy of two drugs is recommended by international guidelines, including the Chinese guidelines (2010), for the treatment of hypertension in high-risk patients who require marked blood pressure (BP) reductions. Real-world data on the efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) SPC are scarce. The present study is the first observational study in China to evaluate the efficacy (primary endpoint) and safety of Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC in Chinese patients with hypertension whose BP was not adequately controlled by monotherapy in a real-world setting.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, open-label, post-marketing observational study included 11,422 Chinese adults (≥18 years) with essential hypertension from 238 sites of 29 provinces who were prescribed once-daily Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC. Patients were treated for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable of the study included changes in mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) and mean diastolic BP (MSDBP) from baseline to week 8 (end point). The secondary efficacy variable of the study included BP control rate and response rate at week 4 and 8. Safety assessments included recording and measurement of all adverse events (AEs) and vital signs in the safety population.

Results

A significant reduction of 27.1 mmHg in MSSBP (159.6 vs. 132.5 mmHg; P < 0.0001) and 15.2 mmHg in MSDBP (95.6 vs. 80.4 mmHg; P < 0.0001) from baseline was observed at week 8. The BP-lowering efficacy of Val/Aml SPC was independent of age and comorbidities. BP control of <140/90 mmHg was achieved in 76.8% (n = 8,692) of the patients. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness (0.2%), headache (0.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (0.2%), and edema (0.2%). Only three serious AEs were reported and they were not drug-related.

Conclusion

This is the first evidence-based real-world data in Chinese hypertensive patients which demonstrate the efficacy and safety of Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0132-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension in patients stratified by age, race and diabetes, CKD and chronic CVD

The prevalence of hypertension is high in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic cardiovascular disease (CVD), as well as in black and elderly subjects. In addition, these subjects have the lowest control of blood pressure (BP) among the hypertensive population, and also the risk of having a morbid or fatal cardiovascular event >20% in 10 years. For these reasons, aggressive control of BP to <130/80 mm Hg for these subjects is strongly recommended by National and International guidelines. To accomplish this goal, combination therapy with two or more antihypertensive drugs with a complementary mechanism of action is necessary. Drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in combination with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and a diuretic have been shown to be the most effective combinations to accomplish this goal. However, this will require the administration of multiple drugs given separately, which will decrease the patient compliance and adherence to treatment. Poor patient compliance and adherence to treatment is a major factor for poor BP control. Several studies have shown that patient compliance is inversely related to the number of drugs being administered. To overcome this problem, several dual and triple-drug, fixed-dose combinations with a RAS blocker, a CCB and a diuretic have been developed and marketed, which are easier to administer, and have been shown to increase patient compliance and adherence to treatment. In this concise review, the effectiveness and safety of the fixed-dose, triple-combination of the RAS blocker olmesartan medoxomil, the CCB amlodipine besylate and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide, as well as other similar combinations for the treatment of hypertension, will be discussed. These drug combinations have been shown to be effective, safe and well tolerated by most patients.

A review of the efficacy and tolerability of combination amlodipine/valsartan in non-white patients with hypertension

This article discusses racial/ethnic disparities in hypertension, with particular focus on non-white populations including blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians. Hypertension and its related morbidity and mortality affect a disproportionate number of black patients compared with white patients. Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians have poor rates of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. Given the high prevalence of comorbidities (e.g., obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome) in these populations, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers are a good choice for foundation therapy. This review also discusses the importance of adherence and persistence with antihypertensive medication, which remain suboptimal in these non-white populations. Evidence suggests improvement with the use of single-pill combination therapy. Lastly, clinical trial data on the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the combination of a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin receptor blocker, a widely utilized combination, in non-white populations are presented. PubMed was searched using the title/abstract key words (amlodipine AND valsartan AND [hypertension OR hypertensive] AND [black(s) OR African American(s) OR Hispanic(s) OR Latino(s) OR Mexican(s) OR Asian(s)]). In total, eight studies in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension were identified (n = 1,111 black, n = 389 Hispanic/Latino, and n = 3,094 Asian). Results showed that treatment with the combination of amlodipine plus valsartan is a reasonable choice for initial therapy or in patients who fail to respond to monotherapy. These drug classes have complementary mechanisms of action and, when used concomitantly, the magnitude of blood pressure lowering in these non-white populations is generally comparable with that seen in non-Hispanic white patients.

Combination therapy in hypertension

Hypertension is recognized as a major risk factor for cardiovascular and renal diseases and represents the leading cause of mortality worldwide. In spite of proven benefits of hypertension treatment, blood pressure control rates are poor, even in high-income countries with virtually full-access to therapies. Nearly 75% of hypertensive patients do not achieve adequate control with monotherapy, thus needing combination treatment. Strategies to improve blood pressure control include the prompt shift from monotherapy to combination therapy, the initial treatment with a two-drug combination, and the use of fixed-dose combinations in a single pill. Currently, preferred combinations include a renin-angiotensin blocker, either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker plus a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic. Some patients will also require a triple combination to achieve blood pressure control.

Nebivolol monotherapy for patients with systolic stage II hypertension: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess whether nebivolol (NEB), a vasodilatory β(1)-selective blocker, is a safe and efficacious monotherapy for individuals with systolic stage II hypertension.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, 18- to 64-year-olds who had not used antihypertensive treatment for at least 4 weeks and had SBP/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 160 to 180/90 to 110 mm Hg were randomized to receive double-blind medication for 6 weeks (NEB, n = 290; placebo [PBO], n = 142). Depending on response, the starting dose (5 mg/d) could be increased directly to 20 mg/d. Primary parameters were baseline-end point changes in trough seated SBP and DBP (intent-to-treat [ITT] population); the Hochberg method was used to control the type I error (α = 0.05). Responder analysis was also performed. Safety and tolerability assessment included monitoring of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Mean age at baseline (ITT) was 50.7 years, and the mean SBP/DBP values were 167/101 mm Hg; 202 (47.3%) participants were women, 276 (63.9%) had body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2), 152 (35.2%) were black, and 161 (37.3%) were Hispanic. Completion rates were 79.7% (PBO) and 90.3% (NEB). After 2 weeks of treatment, 92% and 95% participants in the NEB and PBO groups, respectively, had SBP in the range of 130 to 180 mm Hg and were titrated to the 20-mg/d NEB dose or its matching PBO tablet. After 6 weeks of treatment, the NEB group experienced significant mean reductions compared with the PBO group for both SBP (-18.2 vs -12.3 mm Hg; P < 0.001) and DBP (-12.3 vs -5.7 mm Hg; P < 0.001), down to mean SBP/DBP values of 149/89 mm Hg and 155/95 mm Hg, respectively, and had a significantly higher percentage of individuals who achieved BP control (SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg, 30.6% vs 17.3%; P = 0.004). Post hoc analyses suggest that NEB was not efficacious in reducing SBP in black participants. Mean changes in pulse rate were -12.8 beats/min for the NEB group and -1.6 beats/min for the PBO group (P < 0.001). Rates of discontinuations due to an AE (NEB vs PBO) were 1.4% in both groups, rates of any treatment-emergent AEs were 19.7% versus 19.0%, and rates of serious AEs were 0.3% versus 2.1%. The most common AEs (NEB vs PBO) were headache (2.1% vs 2.8%) and hypertension (0.7% vs 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

NEB monotherapy was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for these study individuals with systolic stage II hypertension, but most of them would need combination therapy to achieve BP control.

The efficacy and safety of triple vs dual combination of angiotensin II receptor blocker and calcium channel blocker and diuretic: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Many hypertensive patients require ≥2 drugs to achieve blood pressure targets. This study aims to review and analyze the clinical studies conducted with dual or triple combination of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics. Medical literature between January 1990 and April 2012 was reviewed systematically and data from eligible studies were abstracted. Data were analyzed using random-effects models. Of the 224 studies screened, 7563 eligible patients from 11 studies were included. Triple combinations of ARBs (olmesartan or valsartan), CCBs (amlodipine), and diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide) at any dose provided more blood pressure reduction in office and 24-hour ambulatory measurements than any dual combination of these molecules (P<.0001 for both). Significantly more patients achieved blood pressure targets with triple combinations (odds ratio, 2.16; P<.0001). Triple combinations did not increase adverse event risk (odds ratio, 0.96; P=.426). Triple combinations at any dose seem to decrease blood pressure more effectively than dual combination of the same molecules without any remarkable risk elevation for adverse events. Further prospective studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of triple combinations, especially in the form of single pills, are required.

Are fixed-dose combination antihypertensives suitable as first-line therapy?

OBJECTIVE

To contemplate how initial antihypertensive therapy with fixed-dose combinations (FDC) might be incorporated into clinical practice, based on a compilation of evidence comparing FDCs with monotherapy and loose-dose combinations in varying patient populations.

METHODS

A non-systematic search of PubMed (from 2007 to 2012) was performed for randomized, controlled trials in order to capture the evidence on FDC versus monotherapy and loose-dose combinations as first-line therapy. The literature search focused on calcium channel blocker (CCB)-renin angiotensin system (RAS) blocker combinations. Additionally, any relevant papers known to the authors were included. International recommendations from published hypertension treatment guidelines were also consulted.

RESULTS

The results of this literature review identified two emergent issues. Firstly, there is a discord between antihypertensive use and actual blood pressure (BP) control achieved - despite an increase in the use of antihypertensives over the last 10 years, BP control rates remain low. Secondly, a greater association between BP and cardiovascular risk in Asians may magnify this discrepancy. A number of international guidelines are recommending early combination therapy, such as CCB-RAS blocker combinations in the majority of patients based on the available evidence, with such combinations showing benefits in terms of compliance, BP lowering and control, and safety. Additionally, recent studies have indicated that improved BP control may be achieved with simplified guidelines and the use of FDCs. Overall, these findings indicate that FDC could be used as first-line.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this literature review suggest that physicians may need to readdress their approach to antihypertensive treatment. Earlier use of antihypertensive FDC (including first-line) may help to shrink the current gap between antihypertensive use and BP target control achieved. Most guidelines acknowledge that combination therapy is required in the majority of patients, and FDC are regarded as a suitable alternative, having demonstrated better compliance compared with loose-dose combinations.

Evaluation of the dose-response relationship of amlodipine and losartan combination in patients with essential hypertension: an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial, phase II, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations for more intensive treatment and the availability of several effective treatments, hypertension remains uncontrolled in many patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the dose-response relationship and assess the efficacy and safety of amlodipine or losartan monotherapy and amlodipine camsylate/losartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

This was an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial design, phase II, multicenter study conducted in outpatient hospital clinics among adult patients aged 18-75 years with essential hypertension. At screening, patients received placebo for 2-4 weeks. Eligible patients (n=320) were randomized to one of eight treatment groups: amlodipine 5 mg or 10 mg, losartan 50 mg or 100 mg, amlodipine camsylate/losartan 5 mg/50 mg, 5 mg/100 mg, 10 mg/50 mg, or 10 mg/100 mg.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The assumption of strict superiority was estimated using the mean change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 8 weeks. Safety was monitored through physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory test results, ECG, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The reduction in DBP at 8 weeks was significantly greater in patients treated with the combination therapies compared with the respective monotherapies for all specified comparisons except amlodipine camsylate/losartan 10 mg/100 mg versus amlodipine 10 mg. The incidence of adverse events in the group of patients treated with the amlodipine camsylate/losartan 10 mg/50 mg combination tended to be higher than for any other group (27.9%, 12/43); however, the effect was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Combination amlodipine camsylate/losartan (5 mg/50 mg, 5 mg/100 mg and 10 mg/50 mg) resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with amlodipine or losartan monotherapy, and was determined to be generally safe and tolerable in patients with essential hypertension.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00942344.

I-ADD study: assessment of efficacy and safety profile of irbesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination therapy compared with irbesartan monotherapy in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with irbesartan 150 mg monotherapy: a multicenter, phase III, prospective, randomized, open-label with blinded-end point evaluation study

BACKGROUND

Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of 2 agents with synergistic action when >1 agent is needed to achieve blood pressure goals. Newer antihypertensive treatment combinations include fixed-dose combinations of an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker.

OBJECTIVE

The I-ADD study aimed to demonstrate whether the antihypertensive efficacy of fixed-dose combination irbesartan 300 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (I300/A5) was superior to that of irbesartan (I300) monotherapy in lowering home systolic blood pressure after 10 weeks' treatment.

METHODS

The I-ADD study was a 10-week, multicenter, Phase III, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label with blinded-end point study. The main inclusion criterion was essential uncontrolled hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥145 mm Hg at office after at least 4 weeks of irbesartan 150 mg [I150] monotherapy administered once daily). Patients continued to receive I150 for 7 to 10 days and were randomized to either monotherapy with I150 for 5 weeks then I300 for the next 5 weeks, or to a fixed-dose combination therapy (I150/A5, then I300/A5). Safety profile was assessed by recording adverse events reported by patients or observed by the investigator.

RESULTS

Following enrollment, 325 patients were randomized to treatment, and 320 (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [11.4] years; 41% male) were included in the intention-to-treat analysis: 155 patients treated with I150/A5 then I300/A5, and 165 patients treated with I150 then I300. At randomization, mean home systolic blood pressure was similar in both groups: 152.7 (11.8) mm Hg in the I150/A5 group and 150.4 (10.1) mm Hg in the I150 group. At week 10, the adjusted mean difference in home systolic blood pressure between groups was -8.8 (1.1) mm Hg (P < 0.001). The percentage of controlled patients (mean home blood pressure <135 and 85 mm Hg) was nearly 2-fold higher in the I300/A5 group versus the I300 group (P < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events were experienced by 10.5% of I300/A5-treated patients and 6.6% of I300-treated patients during the second 5-week period. Three serious adverse events were reported; 2 with monotherapy (1 with I150 and 1 with I300) and 1 with fixed-dose combination I300/A5. All patients affected by serious adverse events made a full recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

These 10-week data from this patient population suggest a greater antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed-dose combination I300/A5 over I300 alone in lowering systolic blood pressure. Both treatments were well tolerated throughout the study. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00957554.

Efficacy and safety of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker/calcium channel blocker combination therapy for hypertension: focus on a single-pill fixed-dose combination of valsartan and amlodipine

Adequate lowering of blood pressure reduces the risk of hypertension-induced cardiovascular events. Worldwide, blood pressure is not optimally controlled and more effective management is needed. The efficacy and tolerability of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) have led to their widespread use. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are highly effective antihypertensives and amlodipine has a long half-life in the circulation. The combination of an ARB with a CCB as a single-pill, fixed-dose treatment is emerging as possibly the best therapy for preventing cardiovascular disease. Although many kinds of ARB are used in such combinations, amlodipine is mainly used as the CCB. Thus, differences in safety and efficacy among single-pill ARB/CCBs depend mainly on the ARB. Not all ARBs have the same effects and some of these may be molecular (or differential) rather than class (or common) effects. This review discusses the safety and efficacy of ARB/CCB combination therapy, with particular focus on a single-pill, fixed-dose combination of valsartan/amlodipine.

Telmisartan 80 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg provides clinically relevant blood pressure reductions across baseline blood pressures

INTRODUCTION

Most patients with hypertension require combination therapy to achieve optimal reduction of blood pressure (BP). The angiotensin II receptor blocker, telmisartan, provides 24-hour BP-lowering efficacy and is proven to prevent cardiovascular morbidity in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Pooled data from seven randomized controlled trials (3,654 patients with stage 1-2 hypertension) were analyzed to investigate the BP-lowering efficacy of telmisartan 40 or 80 mg (T40 or T80) in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg (H12.5 or H25) when compared with either placebo or telmisartan monotherapy, relative to patients' baseline BP. BP-lowering efficacy was also assessed in subpopulations. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in seated trough clinic systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP).

RESULTS

In the overall population and across all baseline BP categories, T40/H12.5, T80/H12.5, and T80/H25 resulted in additional BP reductions to those provided by telmisartan monotherapy. In patients with baseline SBP≥170 mmHg, T80/H25 effected a mean SBP change of -39.2 mmHg compared with changes of -25.5 mmHg and -8.3 mmHg observed with T80 and placebo treatment, respectively. Mean DBP changes were -20.4 mmHg T80/H25, -12.2 T80 and -5.9 placebo in patients with baseline DBP≥105 mmHg. T80/H25 also resulted in larger BP reductions than telmisartan monotherapy in black patients with hypertension, irrespective of baseline BP. In patients with hypertension with type 2 diabetes and in patients with moderate or severe renal impairment, both T80/H12.5 and T80/H25 were more effective than monotherapy in reducing BP in all baseline BP categories.

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment of telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide results in large and clinically relevant BP reductions additional to those provided by monotherapy.

Valsartan/amlodipine single pill combination for the treatment of hypertension

Data from numerous hypertension intervention studies show that the majority of hypertensive patients, approximately two-thirds, need at least two antihypertensive agents to reach and to stay at their blood pressure goal. Furthermore, any chronic therapy has to be kept as simple as possible in order to improve long-term adherence to the prescribed therapy. Therefore, guidelines generally recommend providing combination therapy as single pill combinations. The single pill combination of valsartan and amlodipine is the first such combination available containing an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker (CCB). It combines two agents that have been studied extensively in large morbidity and mortality end point trials. Available evidence demonstrates that the combination of valsartan plus amlodipine lowers blood pressure more effectively than the respective monotherapies. The combination of valsartan and amlodipine has to be viewed on the background of recent data from a large end point trial suggesting that blockade of the renin-angiotensin system plus a CCB may be more beneficial than the combination of a renin-angiotensin system blocker plus a thiazide diuretic. Finally, while angiotensin receptor blockers have been shown to exhibit placebo-like tolerability, dihydropyridine CCBs, such as amlodipine, are capable of exerting a dose-dependent swelling predominantly in the ankle regions of the lower extremities, known as vasodilatory edema. This side effect of amlodipine is reduced markedly with the coadministration of valsartan. In conclusion, the single pill combination of valsartan plus amlodipine represents an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with the need for combination treatment.

Efficacy of fixed-dose amlodipine and losartan combination compared with amlodipine monotherapy in stage 2 hypertension: a randomized, double blind, multicenter study

Background

The objective of this trial was to compare the blood-pressure lowering efficacy of amlodipine/losartan combination with amlodipine monotherapy after 6 weeks of treatment in Korean patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Results

In this multi-center, double-blind, randomized study, adult patients (n = 148) with stage 2 hypertension were randomized to amlodipine 5 mg/losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. After 2 weeks, patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mmHg were titrated to amlodipine 10 mg/losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 10 mg. After 4 weeks of titration, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg could be optionally added to both groups. The change from baseline in SBP was assessed after 6 weeks. The responder rate (defined as achieving SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg) was also assessed at 2, 6 and 8 weeks as secondary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were assessed through adverse event monitoring and laboratory testing. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. Least-square mean reduction in SBP at 6 weeks (primary endpoint) was significantly greater in the combination group (36.5 mmHg vs. 31.6 mmHg; p = 0.0117). The responder rate in SBP (secondary endpoints) was significantly higher in the combination group at 2 weeks (52.1% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.0213) but not at 6 weeks (p = 0.0550) or 8 weeks (p = 0.0592). There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of adverse events.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that combination amlodipine/losartan therapy provides an effective and generally well-tolerated first line therapy for reducing blood pressure in stage 2 hypertensive patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01127217

Peripheral edema associated with calcium channel blockers: incidence and withdrawal rate--a meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral edema is considered to be a common and annoying adverse effect of calcium channel blockers (CCBs). It has been thought to occur secondary to arteriolar dilatation causing intracapillary hypertension and fluid extravasation. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and withdrawal rate of peripheral edema with CCBs.

METHODS

A systematic search was made in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1980 to January 2011 for randomized clinical trials reporting peripheral edema with CCBs in patients with hypertension. Trials enrolling at least 100 patients in the CCB arm and lasting at least 4 weeks were included in the analysis. Both the incidence and withdrawal rate due to edema were pooled by weighing each trial by the inverse of the variance. Head-to-head comparison was done to evaluate the risk of edema between newer lipophilic dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs and older DHPs.

RESULTS

One hundred and six studies with 99 469 participants, mean age 56 ± 6 years, satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. The weighted incidence of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the CCBs group when compared with controls/placebo (10.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, the withdrawal rate due to edema was higher in patients on CCBs compared with control/placebo (2.1 vs. 0.5%, P < 0.0001). Both the incidence of edema and patient withdrawal rate due to edema increased with the duration of therapy with CCBs reaching 24 and 5%, respectively, after 6 months. The risk of peripheral edema with lipophilic DHPs was 57% lower than with traditional DHPs (relative risk 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.53; P < 0.0001). Incidence of peripheral edema in patients on DHPs was 12.3% compared with 3.1% with non-DHPs (P < 0.0001). Edema with high-dose CCBs (defined as more than half the usual maximal dose) was 2.8 times higher than that with low-dose CCBs (16.1 vs. 5.7%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of peripheral edema progressively increased with duration of CCB therapy up to 6 months. Over the long term, more than 5% of patients discontinued CCBs because of this adverse effect. Edema rates were lower with both non-DHPs and lipophilic DHPs.

Rationale and design of the Newer Versus Older Antihypertensive Agents in African Hypertensive Patients (NOAAH) trial

BACKGROUND

Sub-Saharan Africa experiences an epidemic surge in hypertension. Studies in African Americans led to the recommendation to initiate antihypertensive treatment in Blacks with a diuretic or a low-dose fixed combination including a diuretic. We mounted the Newer versus Older Antihypertensive Agents in African Hypertensive Patients (NOAAH) trial to compare in native African patients a fixed combination of newer drugs, not involving a diuretic, with a combination of older drugs including a diuretic.

METHODS

Patients aged 30-69 years with uncomplicated hypertension (140-179/90-109 mmHg) and two or fewer associated risk factors are eligible. After a 4-week run-in period off treatment, 180 patients will be randomized to once daily bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide 5/6.25 mg or amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg. To attain and maintain blood pressure below 140/90 mmHg during 6 months of follow-up, the doses of bisoprolol and amlodipine in the combination tablets will be increased to 10 mg/day with the possible addition of α-methyldopa or hydralazine. NOAAH is powered to demonstrate a 5-mmHg between-group difference in sitting systolic pressure with a two-sided p-value of 0.01 and 90% power. NOAAH is investigator-led and complies with the Helsinki declaration.

RESULTS

Six centers in four sub-Saharan countries started patient recruitment on September 1, 2010. On December 1, 195 patients were screened, 171 were enrolled, and 51 were randomized and followed up. The trial will be completed in the third quarter of 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

NOAAH (NCT01030458) is the first randomized multicenter trial of antihypertensive medications in hypertensive patients born and living in sub-Saharan Africa.

Comparative efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine and amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P<.001). Ambulatory and central BP measures were consistent with clinic BP findings, although these were conducted in a small subset of patients (n = 94 in ambulatory BP monitoring substudy and n = 136 for central BP). More patients achieved goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine at week 8 (57.3% vs 48.0%; P = .051). Both treatment groups had similar adverse event rates (35.0% and 32.7%, respectively). The most common adverse events were peripheral edema (7.7% with aliskiren/amlodipine and 9.0% with amlodipine), headache, fatigue, and nausea. The combination of aliskiren/amlodipine reduced peripheral, ambulatory, and central BP more than amlodipine alone with similar tolerability in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of aliskiren-based dual and triple combination therapies in US minority patients with stage 2 hypertension

Minority patients with hypertension generally require combination therapy to reach blood pressure (BP) goals. We examined the BP-lowering efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine therapy in self-identified minority patients in the United States with stage 2 hypertension and the impact of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to this combination. In this 8-week double-blind study, 412 patients were randomized to receive aliskiren/amlodipine (150/5 mg) or amlodipine (5 mg) with forced titration up to aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ (300/10/25 mg) or aliskiren/amlodipine (300/10 mg), respectively. Overall, mean age was 55.2 years, mean body mass index was 32 kg/m(2), 62.3% were black, 28.2% were Hispanic/Latino, and 69.1% had metabolic syndrome. Mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), the primary efficacy outcome, was reduced from 167.1 mm Hg at baseline to 130.7 mm Hg at week 8 with aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ and from 167.4 mm Hg to 137.9 mm Hg with aliskiren/amlodipine (P < .0001 between groups). At week 8, BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) was achieved in 72.6% and 53.2% of patients in the two treatment groups, respectively (P < .0001). Adverse events were experienced by 34.2% and 40.2%, respectively. Combination aliskiren/amlodipine therapy was effective in treating these high-risk patients but inclusion of HCTZ provided greater antihypertensive efficacy. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated.

Moderate versus intensive treatment of hypertension using amlodipine/valsartan and with the addition of hydrochlorothiazide for patients uncontrolled on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy: results in racial/ethnic subgroups

Combination therapy may reduce racial/ethnic differences in response to antihypertensives. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated treatment response by race/ethnicity among hypertensive adults enrolled in a 12-week, double-blind study in which patients previously uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥150 and <200 mm Hg) on angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy (other than valsartan) for 28 days or more (n = 728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate). Treatment-naïve patients (in previous 28 days) or those who failed on a non-ARB first underwent a 28-day run-in period with olmesartan 20 mg or 40 mg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4; optional up-titration to 25 mg at week 8 (if MSSBP >140 mm Hg). Intensive treatment provided greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment throughout the study, regardless of race/ethnicity (474 white, 198 African American, 165 Hispanic individuals). Least-square mean reductions from baseline to week 4 in MSSBP (primary outcome) ranged from 20.4 to 23.5 mm Hg (intensive) versus 17.5 to 19.0 mm Hg (moderate), across racial/ethnic subgroups. Both regimens were well tolerated. Amlodipine/valsartan/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious across racial/ethnic subgroups. Maximal efficacy was obtained with intensive treatment.

Valsartan-amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide: the definitive fixed combination?

A significant proportion of patients with hypertension will need three or more antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure goals, particularly those at higher risk. On the other hand, fixed combinations provide an extra beneficial effect, as they improve medication adherence and, secondarily, the attainment of blood pressure goals during follow-up. Triple therapy is recommended in the treatment of hypertension in those patients not adequately controlled with two antihypertensive drugs. In this context, guidelines recommend the combination of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, a calcium channel blocker and a diuretic. The triple fixed combination of valsartan-amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide has been shown to be an effective and safe therapy for treating hypertension and seems a logical approach for those patients uncontrolled with two antihypertensive agents as well as in those patients already treated with three drugs to improve treatment compliance. In this article, available evidence about the efficacy and tolerability of the triple fixed combined therapy valsartan-amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension is updated.

Effect of renin-angiotensin system blockade on calcium channel blocker-associated peripheral edema

BACKGROUND

Peripheral edema is a common adverse effect of calcium channel blockers. The addition of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an ARB, has been shown to reduce peripheral edema in a dose-dependent way.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE/COCHRANE search for all prospective randomized controlled trials in patients with hypertension, comparing calcium channel blocker monotherapy with calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination from 1980 to the present. Trials reporting the incidence of peripheral edema or withdrawal of patients because of edema and total sample size more than 100 were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 25 randomized controlled trials with 17,206 patients (mean age 56 years, 55% were men) and a mean duration of 9.2 weeks. The incidence of peripheral edema with calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination was 38% lower than that with calcium channel blocker monotherapy (P<.00001) (relative risk [RR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.74). Similarly, the risk of withdrawal due to peripheral edema was 62% lower with calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy (P=.002) (RR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.66). ACE inhibitors were significantly more efficacious than ARBs in reducing the incidence of peripheral edema (P<.0001) (ratio of RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84) (indirect comparison).

CONCLUSION

In patients with hypertension, the calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination reduces the risk of calcium channel blocker-associated peripheral edema when compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy. ACE inhibitor seems to be more efficacious than ARB in reducing calcium channel blocker-associated peripheral edema, but head-to-head comparison studies are needed to prove this.

A critical appraisal of the clinical effectiveness of a fixed combination of valsartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide in achieving blood pressure goals

Recent guidelines for the treatment of hypertension have focused on the need for multiple medications to get most patients to goal blood pressure (BP). Two to three different classes of antihypertensive agents are frequently required, increasing the risk of poor compliance with therapy. Hence, the guidelines have recommended starting with combination therapy in patients with BP that is over 20 mm Hg systolic or 10 mm Hg diastolic above goal. The latest advance in treatment regimen has been the development of triple-therapy combinations of an angiotensin receptor blocker, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide. We review the pathophysiologic rationale for such a combination and the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the first triple therapy that has become available: valsartan + amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide. Finally, we suggest that use of triple therapy could improve the accuracy of diagnosing resistant hypertension, an increasingly prevalent and severe condition, by enhancing adherence to treatment and weeding out patients with pseudoresistance. This would allow for implementation of expensive and invasive workup only in those truly resistant patients in whom it is justified.

Moderate versus intensive treatment of hypertension with amlodipine/valsartan for patients uncontrolled on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Many angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy patients need at least two agents to control blood pressure (BP). We investigated whether initiating intensive treatment with combination amlodipine/valsartan was superior to moderate treatment with amlodipine/valsartan in patients previously uncontrolled on ARB monotherapy.

METHODS

In this 12-week study, patients aged at least 18 years on ARB (other than valsartan) for at least 28 days (with treatment-naïve patients or those not controlled on agents other than an ARB treated with open-label olmesartan 20 or 40 mg, respectively, for 28 days) and with uncontrolled mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP; ≥ 150-<200 mmHg) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 5/320 mg (n = 369) or 5/160 mg (n = 359). At week 2, the dose was increased to 10/320 mg in the intensive arm. Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4. Optional up-titration with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg at week 8 was allowed if MSSBP was more than 140 mmHg.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean office sitting BP was comparable in the intensive (163.9/95.5 mmHg) and moderate (163.3/95.0 mmHg) groups. Intensive treatment provided greater BP reductions versus moderate treatment (P < 0.05) from week 4 (-23.0/-10.4 versus -19.2/-8.7 mmHg; primary endpoint) to week 12 (-29.0/-14.8 versus -25.3/-12.3 mmHg). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients in both groups (36.3% intensive, 37.6% moderate); peripheral edema was more common with intensive versus moderate treatment (8.7 versus 4.5%; P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment with an intensive dose of amlodipine/valsartan provides significantly greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment in hypertensive patients unresponsive to ARB monotherapy. Both treatment regimens were generally well tolerated based on adverse event reports, but the lack of routine laboratory testing after screening limits conclusions on tolerability.