Combination of lisinopril and nifedipine GITS increases blood pressure control compared with single drugs in essential hypertensive patients

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.

Nifedipine plus candesartan combination increases blood pressure control regardless of race and improves the side effect profile: DISTINCT randomized trial results

OBJECTIVES

DISTINCT (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS - Candesartan Therapy) aimed to determine the dose-response and tolerability of nifedipine GITS and/or candesartan cilexetil therapy in participants with hypertension.

METHODS

In this 8-week, multinational, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults with mean seated DBP of at least 95 to less than 110 mmHg received combination or monotherapy with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30 or 60 mg and candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16 or 32 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint, change in DBP from baseline to Week 8, was analysed using the response surface model (RSM); this analysis was repeated for mean seated SBP.

RESULTS

Overall, 1381 participants (mean baseline SBP/DBP: 156.5/99.6 mmHg) were randomized. Both N and C contributed independently to SBP/DBP reductions [P < 0.0001 (RSM)]. A positive dose-response was observed, with all combinations providing statistically better blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline versus respective monotherapies (P < 0.05) and N60C32 achieving the greatest reduction [-23.8/-16.5 mmHg; P < 0.01 versus placebo (-5.3/-6.7 mmHg) and component monotherapies]. Even very low-dose (N20 and C4) therapy provided significant BP-lowering, and combination therapy was similarly effective in different racial groups. N/C combination demonstrated a lower incidence of vasodilatory adverse events than N monotherapy (18.3 versus 23.6%), including headache (5.5 versus 11.0%; P = 0.003, chi-square test) and peripheral oedema over time (3.6 versus 5.8%; n.s.).

CONCLUSION

N/C combination was effective in participants with hypertension and showed an improved side effect profile compared with N monotherapy.

Clinical implications of the 2013 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines: targets, choice of therapy, and blood pressure monitoring

The European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2013 guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension included simplified blood pressure (BP) targets across patient groups, more balanced discussion on monotherapy vs. combination therapy, as well as reconfirmation of the importance of out-of-office BP measurements. In light of these updates, we wished to review some issues raised and take a fresh look at the role of calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy; an established antihypertensive class that appears to be a favorable choice in many patients. Relaxed BP targets for high-risk hypertensive patients in the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines were driven by a lack of commanding evidence for an aggressive approach. However, substantial evidence demonstrates cardiovascular benefits from more intensive BP lowering across patient groups. Individualized treatment of high-risk patients may be prudent until more solid evidence is available. Individual patient profiles and preferences and evidence for preferential therapy benefits should be considered when deciding upon the optimal antihypertensive regimen. CCBs appear to be a positive choice for monotherapy, and in combination with other agent classes, and may provide specific benefits beyond BP lowering. Ambulatory and home BP monitoring have an increasing role in defining the diagnosis and prognosis of hypertension (especially non-sustained); however, their value for comprehensive diagnosis and appropriate treatment selection should be more widely acknowledged. In conclusion, further evidence may be required on BP targets in high-risk patients, and optimal treatment selection based upon individual patient profiles and comprehensive diagnosis using out-of-office BP measurements may improve patient management.

Combinations of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system with calcium channel blockers for the treatment of hypertension: focus on perindopril/amlodipine

BACKGROUND

Combination antihypertensive therapy with an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and a calcium channel blocker (CCB) is a rational approach to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals in patients with hypertension, and may provide additional cardiovascular protection compared to other strategies in special populations. This article reviews the rationale for, and evidence supporting, the use of newer fixed-dose combinations of RAS inhibitors and CCBs, with particular emphasis on perindopril/amlodipine.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in Medline and EMBASE databases to identify articles published up to May 2010 describing the impact of combination treatment with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/CCB or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/CCB based antihypertensive strategies on BP or clinical outcomes.

FINDINGS

A substantial body of evidence supports the BP-lowering efficacy of RAS inhibitor/CCB combination therapy in patients with hypertension. RAS inhibitors and CCBs represent two different and complementary mechanisms of actions; their use in combination is associated with effective BP lowering with favourable tolerability and fewer adverse metabolic effects than some other combination therapies. Currently, intervention studies demonstrating the impact of ARB/CCB combinations on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity are lacking. However, evidence from large outcome trials supports the use of ACE inhibitor/CCB combinations for reducing the risk of cardiovascular and renal events, particularly in high-risk patients. There is also evidence that the benefits of ACE inhibitor/CCB combinations may extend beyond those solely associated with brachial BP lowering, by an additional impact on central BP haemodynamics.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS inhibitor/CCB combination therapy is an effective antihypertensive therapy. Strong evidence supports the antihypertensive efficacy of ACE inhibitor/CCB combinations with cardioprotective and renoprotective properties. In particular, evidence suggests that fixed-dose perindopril/amlodipine effectively decreases BP and currently is the only RAS inhibitor/CCB combination proven to decrease all-cause and cardiovascular mortality as well as major cardiovascular events, and thus is a valuable option for the management of hypertension, especially in high-risk patients.

Blood pressure variability: its measurement and significance in hypertension

The occurrence of blood pressure fluctuations over time has been documented since the 18th century, but the clinical importance of this phenomenon is only now being recognized. The introduction of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the late 1960s represented a major step forward in the study of blood pressure behaviour and helped to characterize the relationship between blood pressure variability and cardiovascular disease. In hypertension, blood pressure variability increases with increasing blood pressure and correlates closely with target-organ damage, independently of absolute blood pressure values. This has important consequences for treatment, which in the past has focused on reducing mean blood pressure values as the main goal. Experimental evidence suggests that drugs capable of buffering or reducing blood pressure variability may confer additional benefits on target-organ protection. Effective target-organ protection could best be afforded by antihypertensive agents that provide efficient 24-h blood pressure control and also stabilize blood pressure variability. Mathematical indices, such as the trough:peak ratio and the smoothness index, provide useful measures of the homogeneity of the antihypertensive effect over 24 h; optimum control is provided by drugs with a trough:peak ratio close to 1 and a smoothness index > 1, as is observed with long-acting drugs such as telmisartan or amlodipine. Recently, a direct relationship was demonstrated between homogeneous blood pressure control and treatment-induced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy, emphasizing the importance of smooth 24-h blood pressure control. In conclusion, the goals of antihypertensive treatment should consider the reduction of both 24-h mean blood pressure and its variability. Long-lasting drugs or drug combinations are preferable to ensure a homogeneous and smooth 24-h blood pressure profile.

Zofenopril versus Lisinopril in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in Elderly Patients

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been proposed as first-choice drugs for antihypertensive therapy in elderly subjects because of their demonstrated efficacy and safety. However, no information is currently available on the use of zofenopril in elderly hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of zofenopril (30 or 60mg once daily) compared with lisinopril (10 or 20mg once daily).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged >/=65 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >/=90mm Hg and </=110mm Hg) were included in the study. They were randomised to receive either zofenopril 30mg or lisinopril 10mg. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. Patients underwent electrocardiography and evaluation of laboratory parameters at baseline and after 12 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was also performed at baseline and after 12 weeks. After 4 weeks drug doses were doubled in patients whose sitting DBP was >/=90mm Hg. The primary endpoint was to achieve sitting DBP values <90mm Hg or a reduction of sitting DBP >10mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

181 patients were randomised to treatment and 164 patients completed the study. Thirty-three patients were included in the analysis of 24-hour blood pressure monitoring. The percentage of patients with normalised sitting DBP (<90mm Hg) and the rate of treatment responders (reduction of sitting DBP >/=10mm Hg) were not significantly different between the two treatment groups (normalised: zofenopril 81.3% vs lisinopril 76.7%; responders: zofenopril 74.7% vs lisinopril 77.8%). At the end of the treatment sitting DBP was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (zofenopril 82.2 +/- 6.6mm Hg vs lisinopril 82.0 +/- 7.8mm Hg). Eight percent of patients experienced adverse events in the zofenopril group and 9% in the lisinopril group. A small percentage of adverse events (4%) was related to treatment and reported in the zofenopril group.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly hypertensive patients, treatment with zofenopril was effective and well tolerated. Efficacy and safety were comparable with those of lisinopril.

Effects of the Combination of Low-Dose Nifedipine GITS 20 mg and Losartan 50 mg in Patients with Mild to Moderate Hypertension

Most hypertensive patients require more than one medication to effectively control elevated blood pressure (BP) values. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind study was aimed at testing the efficacy and safety of the combination of low-dose nifedipine GITS 20 mg/ losartan 50 mg compared with either monotherapy in patients with grade 1 to 3 hypertension over an eight-week period. Of 352 patients enrolled in the study, 300 were randomized. All the three treatments lowered elevated BP without clinically relevant changes in heart rate. All the three treatments lowered mean 24-hour diastolic BP: nifedipine GITS/losartan -10.6 mm Hg, losartan -5.4 mm Hg, nifedipine GITS 20 mg -8.0 mm Hg. There was a statistically significant difference of diastolic BP change between patients receiving losartan compared with those receiving combination treatment (P < 0.05). Diastolic BP trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index were highest in the patient group receiving combination therapy (70%). Nifedipine GITS monotherapy had the highest systolic BP trough-to-peak ratio of all treatment arms (78%) and higher diastolic BP trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index than losartan monotherapy. All treatments were safe. These data provide evidence that in hypertensive patients combination of nifedipine GITS 20 mg and losartan 50 mg improves control of systolic and diastolic BP compared with either monotherapy.