Comparative study of the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine vs. perindopril/amlodipine in peripheral blood pressure after missed dose in type 2 diabetes

Evaluation of the Safety and Efficacy of Dual Therapy Perindopril/Amlodipine in the Management of Hypertension. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension represent the commonest cause of death in 2017. Hypertension is classified into two types which are primary or essential hypertension and secondary hypertension. The perindopril-amlodipine combination showed a significant effect in reduction of the elevated BP and the cardiovascular complications.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose single-pill combination of perindopril-amlodipine in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials. Quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE and we assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean blood pressure, heart rate, cough, dizziness, headache, and peripheral edema. We performed the analysis of homogeneous data under the fixed-effects model, while analysis of heterogeneous data was analyzed under the random-effects model. We conducted a meta-regression according to the dose.

RESULTS

We included ten clinical trials. The pooled analysis showed that there was a significant reduction of the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse plessure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate after the the perindopril-amlodipine combination (MD = 18.96 [14.32, 23.60], P < 0.0001), (MD = 11.90 [8.45, 15.35], P < 0.0001), (MD = 8.44 [6.91, 9.97], P = 0.0001), (MD = 13.07 [5.86, 20.29], P = 0.0004), and (MD = 2.93 [0.89, 4.96], P = 0.005), respectively. The results of the meta-regression revealed that the efficacy is increased by increasing the dose (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: The use of the perindopril-amlodipine combination had a significant effect on the reduction of SBP, DBP, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure, and HR.

Single-pill fixed-dose drug combinations to reduce blood pressure: the right pill for the right patient

Arterial hypertension is one of the major causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective and sustained reduction in blood pressure is essential to reduce individual cardiovascular risk. In daily clinical practice, single-pill fixed-dose combinations of different drug classes are important therapeutic resources that could improve both treatment adherence and cardiovascular risk management by targeting distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. The aim of this practical narrative review is to help physicians choosing the right single-pill fixed-dose combination for the right patient in the daily clinical practice, based on the individual clinical phenotype and cardiovascular risk profile.

Assessment of a strategy combining ambulatory blood pressure, adherence monitoring and a standardised triple therapy in resistant hypertension

PURPOSE

Poor adherence to drug therapy and inadequate drug regimens are two frequent factors responsible for the poor blood pressure (BP) control observed in patients with apparent resistant hypertension. We evaluated the efficacy of an antihypertensive management strategy combining a standardised therapy with three long acting drugs and electronic monitoring of drug adherence in patients with apparent resistant hypertension.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multicentric observational study, adult patients with residual hypertension on 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABMP) despite the use of three or more antihypertensive drugs could be included. Olmesartan/amlodipine (40/10 mg, single pill fixed-dose combination) and chlorthalidone (25 mg) were prescribed for 3 months in two separated electronic pills boxes (EPB). The primary outcome was 24 h ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) control at 3 months, defined as mean SBP <130 mmHg.

RESULTS

We enrolled 48 patients (36.0% women) of whom 35 had complete EPB data. After 3 months, 52.1% of patients had 24 h SBP <130 mmHg. 24 h SBP decreased by respectively -9.1 ± 15.5 mmHg, -22.8 ± 30.6 mmHg and -27.7 ± 16.6 mmHg from the tertile with the lowest adherence to the tertile with the highest adherence to the single pill combination (p = 0.024). A similar trend was observed with tertiles of adherence to chlorthalidone. Adherence superior to 90% was associated with 24 h systolic and diastolic blood pressure control in multiple logistic regression analysis (odds ratio = 14.1 (95% confidence interval 1.1-173.3, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

A simplified standardised antihypertensive therapy combined with electronic monitoring of adherence normalises SBP in about half of patients with apparent resistant hypertension. Such combined management strategy enables identifying patients who need complementary investigations and those who rather need a long-term support of their adherence.

Treatment effect of lacidipine and amlodipine on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and arteria stiffness in a randomised double-blind trial

PURPOSE

In a randomised, double-blind trial, we investigated effects of lacidipine on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, as compared with amlodipine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Previously untreated and treated patients (n = 269, 50-80 years of age) with clinic hypertension (a clinic systolic/diastolic BP 140-180/<110 mmHg and <160/100 mmHg, respectively) were randomly assigned to double-dummy treatment with lacidipine (4-6 mg/day) or amlodipine (5-7.5 mg/day) for 20 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in 24-h ambulatory systolic BP at 20 weeks of treatment. Arterial stiffness was measured as brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (PWV).

RESULTS

After 20 weeks of treatment, 24-h systolic BP decreased from 141.3 ± 14.0 and 138.3 ± 12.8 mmHg at baseline, respectively, in the lacidipine (n = 134) and amlodipine groups (n = 135), by a least square mean (±SE) change of 15.2 ± 1.3 and 15.5 ± 1.3 mmHg, respectively, with a between-group difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 0.3 mmHg (-3.4 to 4.1, p = 0.86). Similar results were observed for other ambulatory BP components and clinic BP. Clinic and ambulatory pulse rate did not significantly change in either group (p ≥ 0.21). PWV decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from baseline in both groups, with a non-significant between-group difference of 0.24 m/s (p = 0.45). The incidence rate of adverse events was 30.3% (n = 40) and 27.5% (n = 36) in the lacidipine and amlodipine groups, respectively (p = 0.61). No serious adverse event occurred in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Lacidipine effectively lowers clinic and ambulatory BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and significantly improves arterial stiffness, similarly as amlodipine.

Fixed dose drug combinations - are they pharmacoeconomically sound? Findings and implications especially for lower- and middle-income countries

Introduction: There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and noninfectious diseases and issues of affordability.Areas covered: Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness, and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where there are concerns with their value.Expert commentary: FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates, and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis, and hypertension are valued and listed in the country's essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which are being addressed.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors for the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension and the Role of Olmesartan

Blood pressure lowering by all classes of antihypertensive drugs is accompanied by significant reductions of stroke and major cardiovascular (CV) events. Drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), showed similar benefit on major CV events to other antihypertensive medications. In real-world practice, ARBs reduced by 10% the incidence of CV mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and provided superior protection against CV events than ACEIs in high-risk patients. Despite similar antihypertensive properties and a favourable safety profile for both ACEIs and ARBs, evidence indicates that patients treated with ARBs have lower rates of withdrawal for adverse events and greater persistence to therapy than those treated with ACEIs. Among ARBs, olmesartan is one of the latest generation compounds introduced in clinical practice for treating hypertension: head-to-head comparative trials suggest that the efficacy of olmesartan is superior to that of commonly prescribed ACEIs (ramipril and perindopril). The drug, administered as a monotherapy or in combination with a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker or a thiazide diuretic, has proved to be effective in maintaining blood pressure stability over 24 h, with a favourable safety profile and low discontinuation rates. These properties are pivotal for considering olmesartan as a useful antihypertensive agent especially for high-risk patients (e.g. elderly, diabetics, patients with metabolic syndrome).Funding: Article preparation and open access fee were funded by Menarini International Operations Luxembourg S.A. (M.I.O.L.).

Personalised Single-Pill Combination Therapy in Hypertensive Patients: An Update of a Practical Treatment Platform

Despite the improvements in the management of hypertension during the last three decades, it continues to be one of the leading causes of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide. Effective and sustained reductions in blood pressure (BP) reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure and cardiovascular death. However, the proportion of patients who achieve the recommended BP goal (< 140/90 mmHg) is persistently low, worldwide. Poor adherence to therapy, complex therapeutic regimens, clinical inertia, drug-related adverse events and multiple risk factors or comorbidities contribute to the disparity between the potential and actual BP control rate. Previously we published a practical therapeutic platform for the treatment of hypertension based on clinical evidence, guidelines, best practice and clinical experience. This platform provides a personalised treatment approach and can be used to improve BP control and simplify treatment. It uses long-acting, effective and well-tolerated angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan, in combination with a calcium channel blocker amlodipine, and/or a thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide. These drugs were selected based on the availability in most European Countries of single-pill, fixed formulations in a wide range of doses for both dual- and triple-drug combinations. The platform approach could be applied to other ARBs or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors available in single-pill, fixed-dose combinations. Here, we present an update, which takes into account the results of the recently published studies and extends the applicability of the platform to common conditions that are often neglected or poorly considered in clinical practice guidelines.

Perindopril arginine and amlodipine besylate for hypertension: a safety evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Controlling blood pressure is a global health priority; single-pill antihypertensive combinations may improve adherence, persistence, and outcomes. Areas covered: A novel combination of perindopril arginine and amlodipine besylate was recently approved. A systematic review of the literature revealed its most common adverse effects as: peripheral edema (depending on the dose of amlodipine, but attenuated by perindopril), cough, dizziness and hypotension. Dose-dependent hyperkalemia, impairment of renal function (especially in renovascular hypertension), angioedema, and teratogenicity were derived from experience with other ACE-inhibitors. Expert opinion: Substantial clinical trial experience with amlodipine or perindopril suggests that these two agents effectively lower blood pressure, and can reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, as in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial. The incidence of adverse effects reported in clinical trials is lower than expected, likely due to exclusion of subjects previously exposed to its components; the nature of open-label, uncontrolled observational studies; and difficulty in recognizing and measuring cough and pedal edema. This new formulation of perindopril arginine protects its ethyl ester, without requiring physical separation from amlodipine in a single tablet, and is less hygroscopic than perindopril erbumine. These and other attributes may make this combination an attractive addition to the antihypertensive armamentarium.

Comparative Study of the Efficacy of Olmesartan/Amlodipine vs. Perindopril/Amlodipine in Peripheral and Central Blood Pressure Parameters After Missed Dose in Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Central aortic blood pressure (CBP) and CBP-derived parameters are independent predictors of cardiovascular risk. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors plus calcium channel blockers are the recommended first-line treatments in hypertensive diabetic patients; however, the effect in reducing CBP when a dose is skipped has not been established yet. The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine (OLM/AML) provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/AML (PER/AML) combination in reducing CBP, augmentation index (AIx), and pulse wave velocity (PWV) when a drug dose is missed.

METHODS

In this noninferiority, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design trial, 88 patients received either OLM 20-40mg/AML 5-10mg (41 patients) or PER 4-8mg/AML 5-10mg (47 patients) for 24 weeks. The main endpoint was the aortic systolic BP (SBP) after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 hours from the last administration.

RESULTS

The OLM/AML combination reached the noninferiority criteria in reducing central systolic BP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared to the PER/AML combination (-17 and -8mm Hg, respectively). Peripheral BP, AIx, and PWV were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 hours after the missed dose, observing a trend to a greater reduction in CBP-derived parameters in the OLM/AML group.

CONCLUSIONS

The OLM/AML combination is safe, well tolerated, and not inferior to the combination of PER/AML in lowering CBP and CBP-derived parameters in diabetic patients. OLM/AML provides longer-lasting efficacy in terms of CBP reduction compared to PER/AML.