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

Efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers for nocturnal blood pressure reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) is correlated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and is an important predictor of cardiovascular death in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

Nocturnal BP control is of great importance for cardiovascular risk reduction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for nocturnal BP reduction in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

PICOS design structure was used to formulate the data extraction. All statistical calculations and analyses were performed with R.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies with 13,314 participants were included. The overall analysis indicated that nocturnal BP drop varied considerably among different ARBs. Allisartan (13.04 [95% CI (-18.41, -7.68)] mmHg), olmesartan (11.67 [95% CI (-14.12, -9.21)] mmHg), telmisartan (11.11 [95% CI (-12.12, -10.11)] mmHg) were associated with greater reduction in nocturnal systolic BP. In the aspect of the nocturnal-diurnal BP drop ratio, only allisartan was greater than 1. While, the variation tendency of last 4-6 h ambulatory BP was basically consistent with nocturnal BP. Additionally, allisartan showed improvement effect in the proportion of patients with dipping BP pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that for patients with mild to moderate hypertension, allisartan, olmesartan and telmisartan have more advantages in nocturnal BP reduction among the ARBs, while allisartan can reduce nighttime BP more than daytime BP and improve the dipping pattern.

A Comparative Study of the Safety and Efficacy Between Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers on the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), are commonly used in the management of hypertension. High blood pressure is a vital risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This study aims to establish any significant difference in using ACEIs and ARBs in managing hypertension. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct this systematic review. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect for articles published in the last 20 years (2003 to 2023). Our search was last done on the 27th of June, 2023. Following the initial search, 8,313 articles were found on PubMed. After screening the articles selected from the databases, 10 articles examining 1,621,445 patients were selected for the final study. Three articles were identified that compared ACEI and ARB in their capacity to lower blood pressure. Six articles compared both medications' capacity to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality. Five articles were identified that compared both classes of drugs for adverse effects. This study was made to determine whether or not there is a difference between the use of ACEIs and ARBs in the treatment of hypertension. The study showed that both ACEIs and ARBs are similar in their efficacy in lowering blood pressure. However, ACEI was revealed to be superior to ARB in reducing cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. ARB was shown to be better tolerated by patients than ACEI.

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

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

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in the Management of Hypertension: A Real-World Perspective and Current Recommendations

Hypertension represents a major common cardiovascular risk factor. Optimal control of high blood pressure levels is recommended to reduce the global burden of hypertensive-mediated organ damage and cardiovascular (CV) events. Among the first-line drugs recommended in international guidelines, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists [angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)] have long represented a rational, effective, and safe anti-hypertensive pharmacological strategy. In fact, current US and European guidelines recommend ACEi and ARBs as a suitable first choice for hypertension treatment together with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide diuretics. Different studies have demonstrated that ARBs and ACEi exert a comparable effect in lowering blood pressure levels. However, ARBs are characterized by better pharmacological tolerability. Most importantly, the clinical evidence supports a relevant protective role of ARBs toward the CV and renal damage development, as well as the occurrence of major adverse CV events, in hypertensive patients. Moreover, a neutral metabolic effect has been reported upon ARBs administration, in contrast to other antihypertensive agents, such as beta-blockers and diuretics. These properties highlight the use of ARBs as an excellent pharmacological strategy to manage hypertension and its dangerous consequences. The present review article summarizes the available evidence regarding the beneficial effects and current recommendations of ARBs in hypertension. The specific properties performed by these agents in various clinical subsets are discussed, also including an overview of their implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Effect of antihypertensive treatment on 24-h blood pressure variability: pooled individual data analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring studies based on olmesartan mono or combination treatment

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of olmesartan alone or combined with one to three antihypertensive drugs on 24-h blood pressure variability (BPV) and on distribution of BP reduction in a pooled individual data analysis of 10 double-blind, randomized, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) studies.

Methods:

ABPMs were performed before and after 6–12 weeks of treatment with placebo (n = 119), active control monotherapy [n = 1195, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DCCBs)] olmesartan monotherapy (n = 1410), active control dual combination [n = 79, DCCB + thiazide diuretic (TD)], olmesartan dual combination (n = 637, DCCB or TD), and triple combination therapy (n = 102, DCCB+TD). 24-h BPV was calculated as unweighted or weighted SD of the mean BP, and average real variability. BP control was assessed by smoothness index and treatment-on-variability index.

Results:

The greatest effect on 24-h systolic BPV/diastolic BPV was observed under olmesartan triple [−2.6/−1.9; −1.9/−1.3; −1.4/−1.3 mmHg] and active control dual combination [−1.8/−1.4; −1.9/−1.5; −1.2/−1.1 mmHg]. Smoothness indexes and treatment-on-variability indexes were significantly (P = 0.0001) higher under olmesartan dual (1.53/1.22, 1.67/1.29, 2.05/1.59), olmesartan triple (2.47/1.85, 2.80/2.06, 3.64/2.67), or active control dual combination (1.70/1.26, 1.85/1.33, 2.29/1.65) than under monotherapies (control: 0.86/0.73, 0.80/0.65, 1.01/0.82; olmesartan: 1.02/0.86, 0.95/0.78, 1.23/1.00). They were also greater in patients receiving high-dose olmesartan monotherapy or high-dose olmesartan dual combination than in the corresponding low-dose group.

Conclusion:

Olmesartan plus a DCCB and/or a TD produces a larger, more sustained, and smoother BP reduction than placebo and monotherapies, a desirable feature for a more effective prevention of the cardiovascular consequences of uncontrolled hypertension.

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

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

Favourable impact of statin use on diastolic blood pressure levels: analysis of a large database of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

INTRODUCTION

Assumption of lipid-lowering drugs, mostly statins, is recommended at bed-time and evidence demonstrated a strong and independent correlation between night-time blood pressure (BP) and increased risk of cardiovascular events.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of statins on night-time BP levels.

METHODS

We analysed data derived from a large cohort of adult individuals, who consecutively underwent home, clinic and ambulatory BP monitoring at our Unit. All BP measurements were performed and BP thresholds were set according to recommendations from European guidelines. Study population was stratified according to statin use.

RESULTS

We included an overall sample of 5634 adult individuals (women 48.9%, age 60.5 ± 11.6 years, BMI 27.0 ± 4.6 kg/m, clinic BP 144.3 ± 18.4/90.9 ± 12.4 mmHg, 24-h BP 130.7 ± 13.4/79.0 ± 9.7 mmHg), among whom 17.3% received and 82.7% did not received statins. Treated outpatients were older, had higher BMI and prevalence of risk factors and comorbidities than those who were untreated (P < 0.001 for all). Patients treated with statins showed lower DBP levels at all BP measurements, including night-time (67.3 ± 9.4 vs. 70.9 ± 9.7 mmHg; P < 0.001) periods, than those observed in untreated patients. Also, statin use resulted an independent factor associated with 24-h [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.513(1.295-1.767); P < 0.001] and night-time [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.357(1.161-1.587); P < 0.001] BP control, even after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, diabetes, number of antihypertensive drugs (model 1) or presence/absence of antihypertensive treatment (model 2).

CONCLUSION

Statin use was associated with significantly lower DBP levels. These effects were independently observed, even after correction for cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, as well as number of antihypertensive drugs.

Monotherapy and Dual Combination Therapies Based on Olmesartan: A Comprehensive Strategy to Improve Blood Pressure Control

Olmesartan medoxomil is an antihypertensive drug of the class of angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonists (or blockers), characterized by tight and prolonged binding to AT1 receptor compared to other molecules within the same class. These characteristics produce effective and sustained blood pressure reductions in hypertensive patients at different cardiovascular risk profile with a good tolerability profile. After a brief description of the pharmacological characteristics of olmesartan, we will provide a thorough overview of the clinical studies that investigated its efficacy and safety in the clinical management of hypertensive patients both in monotherapy and in dual combination therapies with either thiazide diuretics or calcium channel blockers. These studies demonstrated that olmesartan-based antihypertensive strategy may indeed provide sustained BP control over the 24-h period in a wide proportion of hypertensive patients, thus contributing to a substantial progress in hypertension management. Finally, since growing evidence suggest that olmesartan may also exert potential favourable effects at vascular level, thereby antagonizing the vascular inflammatory process involved in the development and progression of atherosclerosis, the main clinical studies addressing this issue will be also discussed.

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

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

CES1 genetic variation affects the activation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of carboxylesterase 1 (CES1) genetic variation on the activation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) prodrugs. In vitro incubation study of human liver, intestine and kidney s9 fractions demonstrated that the ACEI prodrugs enalapril, ramipril, perindopril, moexipril and fosinopril are selectively activated by CES1 in the liver. The impact of CES1/CES1VAR and CES1P1/CES1P1VAR genotypes and diplotypes on CES1 expression and activity on enalapril activation was investigated in 102 normal human liver samples. Neither the genotypes nor the diplotypes affected hepatic CES1 expression and activity. Moreover, among several CES1 nonsynonymous variants studied in transfected cell lines, the G143E (rs71647871) was a loss-of-function variant for the activation of all ACEIs tested. The CES1 activity on enalapril activation in human livers with the 143G/E genotype was approximately one-third of that carrying the 143G/G. Thus, some functional CES1 genetic variants (for example, G143E) may impair ACEI activation, and consequently affect therapeutic outcomes of ACEI prodrugs.

CES1P1 variant -816A>C is not associated with hepatic carboxylesterase 1 expression and activity or antihypertensive effect of trandolapril

PURPOSE

The majority of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are synthesized as ester prodrugs that must be converted to their active forms in vivo in order to exert therapeutic effects. Hepatic carboxylesterase 1 (CES1) is the primary enzyme responsible for the bioactivation of ACEI prodrugs in humans. The genetic variant -816A>C (rs3785161) is a common variant located in the promoter region of the CES1P1 gene. Previous studies report conflicting results with regard to the association of this variant and therapeutic outcomes of CES1 substrate drugs. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the variant -816A>C on the activation of the ACEI prodrug trandolapril in human livers and the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of trandolapril in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

The -816A>C genotypes and CES1 expression and activity on trandolapril activation were determined in 100 individual human liver samples. Furthermore, the association of the -816A>C variant and the BP lowering effect of trandolapril was evaluated in hypertensive patients who participated in the International Verapamil SR Trandolapril Study (INVEST).

RESULTS

Our in vitro study demonstrated that hepatic CES1 expression and activity did not differ among different -816A>C genotypes. Moreover, we were unable to identify a clinical association between the BP lowering effects of trandolapril and -816A>C genotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that the -816A>C variant is not associated with interindividual variability in CES1 expression and activity or therapeutic response to ACEI prodrugs.

Olmesartan vs ramipril in the treatment of hypertension and associated clinical conditions in the elderly: a reanalysis of two large double-blind, randomized studies at the light of the most recent blood pressure targets recommended by guidelines

In this paper, we present the results of a reanalysis of the data of two large randomized, double-blind, parallel group studies with a similar design, comparing the efficacy of an angiotensin-receptor blocker (olmesartan medoxomil) with that of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril), by applying two different blood pressure targets recently recommended by hypertension guidelines for all patients, irrespective of the presence of diabetes (<140/90 mmHg), and for elderly hypertensive patients (<150/90 mmHg). The efficacy of olmesartan was not negatively affected by age, sex, hypertension type, diabetes status or other concomitant clinical conditions, or cardiovascular risk factors. In most cases, olmesartan provided better blood pressure control than ramipril. Olmesartan was significantly more effective than ramipril in male patients, in younger patients (aged 65-69 years), in those with metabolic syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, preserved renal function, diastolic ± systolic hypertension, and, in general, in patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk. Interestingly, patients previously untreated or treated with two or more antihypertensive drugs showed a significantly larger response with olmesartan than with ramipril. Thus, our results confirm the good efficacy of olmesartan in elderly hypertensives even when new blood pressure targets for antihypertensive treatment are considered. Such results may be relevant for the clinical practice, providing some hint on the possible different response of elderly hypertensive patients to two different drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin system, when patients are targeted according to the blood pressure levels recommended by recent hypertension guidelines.

Olmesartan in the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients: a review of the primary evidence

Hypertension, particularly systolic hypertension, is prevalent in the elderly and increases with advancing age, in part because of age-related endothelial dysfunction and increased arterial stiffness. There is strong evidence from randomized clinical trials that supports the use of antihypertensive treatment for effective and sustained blood pressure (BP) control in older patients to reduce the risk of vascular-related morbidity and mortality, particularly cerebrovascular accidents, including stroke. Furthermore, current evidence and guidelines suggest that all major classes of antihypertensive agents are equally effective in controlling BP and preventing cardiovascular events in older patients. Diuretics are commonly used in elderly patients, but recent outcomes data have raised doubt about their long-term benefits. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors have a better tolerability profile than diuretics. Extensive clinical evidence has demonstrated the excellent efficacy and tolerability profile of olmesartan medoxomil (OM)--an angiotensin II receptor blocker AT1 receptor antagonist--including in elderly patients. Randomized and observational studies have shown that OM provides effective BP control across the 24 h dosing interval in the elderly. It also has a good tolerability profile, a pharmacokinetic profile unaffected by age and a low propensity for drug interactions. An additional factor is that OM once-daily regimens are simple and straightforward, which can be an important factor in maintaining adherence to therapy in elderly patients. This article provides an overview of the main recent clinical evidence supporting the use of OM-based therapy in elderly patients with hypertension.

ARB-based single-pill platform to guide a practical therapeutic approach to hypertensive patients

Hypertension is a major modifiable risk for the development of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and renal diseases. Thus, effective treatment of high blood pressure is an important strategy for reducing disease burden; however, in spite of the availability of numerous effective therapies only 30-40 % of patients with hypertension achieve the recommended blood pressure goals of <140/90 mmHg. Lack of adherence to therapy and reluctance to intensify therapy are cited frequently to explain the discrepancy between potential and attained outcomes. Adherence is closely related to the tolerability, effectiveness and complexity of therapy. Therapeutic inertia may be influenced by concerns over tolerability, as well as the lack of clear preferences for therapies when managing patients with risk factors and comorbidities. Effective and well-tolerated single pill combination therapies are now available that improve adherence and simplify treatment. The combination of a renin-angiotensin system blocker with a calcium channel blocker and a diuretic improves adherence to therapy. We have devised a practical tool for orienting the application of well-tolerated single pill 2/3 drug fixed dose combination therapies in clinical situations commonly encountered when treating hypertensive patients. This approach employs the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan alone or in combinations with amlodipine and/or hydrochlorothiazide. This platform is based on clinical evidence, guidelines, best practice, and clinical experience where none of these is available. We believe it will increase the percentage of hypertensive patients who achieve blood pressure control when applied as part of an integrative approach that includes regular follow-up and instruction on lifestyle changes.

Olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: review of data from two published randomized, double-blind studies

Hypertension is a frequent condition among individuals over 65 years of age worldwide and is one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) disease. Effective drug treatment of elderly hypertensives is usually associated with a marked reduction in CV morbidity and mortality. Among the different classes of antihypertensive agents, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ACE-inhibitors are supposed to provide the best efficacy in lowering blood pressure (BP) and protecting target organ damage while featuring a good tolerability profile. However, up to date, few randomized clinical studies have directly compared the activity and safety of ARBs and ACE-inhibitors in elderly hypertensive patients. Aim of this review of published and unpublished pooled data from two recent randomized, double-blind, controlled trials, is to offer a comprehensive head-to-head comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of the ARB olmesartan medoxomil vs. the ACE-inhibitor ramipril in a large study population including more than 1,400 hypertensive subjects aged 65-89 years with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. The efficacy of the two drugs was separately evaluated in subgroups of patients classified according to the presence of metabolic syndrome, reduced renal function, CV risk level, gender, class of age, type of arterial hypertension and previous antihypertensive treatments. Olmesartan showed a greater efficacy than ramipril both in terms of clinic BP reduction and rate normalization. Olmesartan appeared significantly superior to ramipril in providing a more homogeneous and long-lasting 24-h BP control and maintaining an effective antihypertensive action in the last 6-h period from drug intake. In subgroups of patients with additional clinical conditions, olmesartan gave comparable, and in some cases greater, BP responses than those achieved with the ACE-inhibitor. The incidence of adverse events was similar for both drugs. Olmesartan may thus represent an effective alternative to ACE-inhibitors among first-line drug treatments for hypertension in older people.

The fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine was superior in central aortic blood pressure reduction compared with perindopril/amlodipine: a randomized, double-blind trial in patients with hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Central blood pressure (BP), an important measure of cardiovascular risk, has been shown to be effectively reduced by calcium channel blockade with amlodipine (AML) plus renin-angiotensin system blockade by the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, perindopril (PER). The aim of the SEVITENSION study was to compare the central effects of PER/AML against renin-angiotensin system blockade with the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan (OLM) plus AML.

METHODS

In this multicenter, parallel group, non-inferiority study, patients received AML 10 mg during a 2- to 4-week run-in before randomization to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with the fixed-dose combination of OLM/AML 40/10 mg or PER/AML 8/10 mg. Hydrochlorothiazide was added at Weeks 4, 8, or 12 in patients with inadequate BP control. The primary efficacy variable was the absolute change in central systolic BP (CSBP) from baseline to the final examination, measured by radial artery applanation tonometry and analyzed by parametric analysis of covariance. Secondary variables included 24-h ambulatory and seated BP measurements as well as BP normalization.

RESULTS

Of 600 patients enrolled, 486 were randomized (244 to OLM/AML 40/10 mg, 242 to PER/AML 8/10 mg). The reduction in CSBP was larger with OLM/AML (14.5 ± 0.83 mmHg) than with PER/AML (10.4 ± 0.84 mmHg). The between-group difference was -4.2 ± 1.18 mmHg with 95% confidence intervals (-6.48 to -1.83 mmHg) within the predefined non-inferiority margin (2 mmHg). An integrated superiority test confirmed that OLM/AML was superior to PER/AML (p < 0.0001) in reducing CSBP. The superiority of OLM/AML over PER/AML was also established for the majority of secondary efficacy variables; at the final examination, 75.6% of OLM/AML recipients achieved BP normalization (mean seated systolic BP/diastolic BP <140/90 mmHg) compared with 57.5% of PER/AML recipients (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The combination of OLM/AML was superior to PER/AML in reducing CSBP and other efficacy measures, including a significantly higher rate of BP normalization.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril in elderly mild to moderate essential hypertensive patients with or without metabolic syndrome: a pooled post hoc analysis of two comparative trials

BACKGROUND

Two recent identically designed trials (one Italian and one European multinational) have compared the head-to-head efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil and the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril, in elderly patients with essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with hypertension, with or without metabolic syndrome, by performing a pooled analysis of data from the two head-to-head trials.

METHODS

After a 2-week, placebo wash-out, 1,453 treated or untreated elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years [with sitting office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office systolic BP (SBP) 140-179 mmHg] were randomized to 12-weeks of double-blind treatment with olmesartan 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once daily. Treatment could be up-titrated to 20 and 40 mg for olmesartan, and 5 and 10 mg for ramipril, after the first 2 and 6 weeks, respectively, in patients with inadequately controlled BP (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics and ≥ 130/80 mmHg for diabetics). Office BP was measured at randomization and after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment. 24-h ambulatory BP recordings were obtained at randomization and after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 1,426 patients in the intent-to-treat analysis, 735 (51.5 %) had metabolic syndrome (olmesartan, n = 372; ramipril, n = 363). After 12 weeks of treatment, baseline-adjusted office BP reductions were greater (p < 0.05) with olmesartan (SBP 17.0 mmHg; 95% CI 18.4, 15.6; DBP 9.6 mmHg; 95% CI 10.4, 8.8) than with ramipril (SBP 14.7 mmHg; 95% CI 16.1, 13.2; DBP 8.4 mmHg; 95% CI 9.2, 7.6) in patients with metabolic syndrome. In these patients, BP normalization rates were also greater with olmesartan than with ramipril (46.0 vs. 35.8%, p < 0.01). Similarly, in patients without metabolic syndrome, the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan was also significantly (p < 0.05) better than that of ramipril. In the subgroup of patients with valid ambulatory BP (ABP) recordings and metabolic syndrome (olmesartan, n = 182; ramipril, n = 170), the reduction in mean 24-h ABP was greater with olmesartan (SBP 10.2 mmHg; 95% CI 11.8, 8.6; DBP 6.6 mmHg; 95% CI 7.5, 5.6) than with ramipril (SBP 8.5 mmHg; 95% CI 10.2, 6.9; DBP 4.7 mmHg; 95% CI 5.7, 3.7), with a statistically significant (p < 0.01) difference for the DBP comparison. The proportion of patients experiencing drug-related adverse events was comparable in patients with (olmesartan 2.4 % vs. ramipril 2.8 %) and without (3.5 vs. 3.7 %) metabolic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Olmesartan provides more effective BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients with and without metabolic syndrome.

ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS: GOING WITH THE TIMES

This literature review focuses on the angiotensin II receptor antagonists as one of the new and promising classes of antihypertensive medications. Apart from their antihypertensive activity, these agents possess a number of other beneficial effects. The results of multiple studies, including large multi-centre clinical trials, are presented for olmesartan, an angiotensin receptor antagonist with additional beneficial properties.

Combined olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide therapy in randomized patients with hypertension: a subgroup analysis of the TRINITY study by age

Background

Hypertension is often inadequately controlled in older people.

Objective

This prespecified subgroup analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg/amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg triple-combination treatment compared with the 3 components as dual-combination treatments in participants with hypertension who were <65 and ≥65 years of age. Within the ≥65 years of age subgroup, efficacy and safety were also summarized for participants ≥75 years of age.

Study design

12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study.

Setting

317 ambulatory care sites in the US and Puerto Rico.

Participants

Individuals ≥18 years of age with mean seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥140/100 or ≥160/90 mmHg off antihypertensive medication on 2 consecutive clinic visits with no recent history of significant cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV), severe renal insufficiency, or uncontrolled diabetes (HbA_1c >9 %).

Intervention

Participants were randomized, stratified by age, diabetes status, and race to one of four treatment assignments: OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40/AML 10 mg, OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg.

Main Outcome Measure

Least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at week 12 (last observation carried forward) in each age subgroup (prespecified analysis).

Results

Of the 2492 randomized participants in the study (total cohort), 2021 (81.1 %) were <65 and 471 (18.9 %) were ≥65 years of age, including 79 (3.2 %) who were ≥75 years of age. OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg triple-combination treatment resulted in a significantly greater reduction in LS mean SeDBP at week 12 than dual-combination component treatments in participants in both cohorts: <65 years (21.0 vs. 14.2–17.2 mmHg; p < 0.0001) and ≥65 years (23.7 vs. 17.3–20.0 mmHg; p ≤ 0.002). Similarly, triple-combination treatment resulted in a greater reduction in LS mean seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) at week 12 than dual-combination component treatments: <65 years (38.2 vs. 28.3–31.4 mmHg; p < 0.0001) and ≥65 years (39.2 vs. 29.3–31.1 mmHg; p < 0.0001). Triple-combination treatment was more effective than dual-combination treatments in enabling participants to reach SeBP goal (<140/90 mmHg [<130/80 mmHg in participants with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or chronic cardiovascular disease]) in both age subgroups (<65 years: 65 vs. 34–50 %, respectively, p < 0.0001 and ≥65 years: 63 vs. 32–39 %; p ≤ 0.0004). All 4 treatments were safe and well tolerated with low discontinuation rates in both age subgroups. There were no clinically relevant differences in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between participants <65 and ≥65 years of age receiving triple-combination treatment.

Conclusion

Triple-combination treatment with OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg was well tolerated and more effective in lowering BP than the component dual-combination treatments in elderly and non-elderly subgroups.

Blood pressure control in Italy: analysis of clinical data from 2005-2011 surveys on hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Blood pressure (BP) control is poorly achieved in hypertensive patients, worldwide.

AIM

We evaluated clinic BP levels and the rate of BP control in hypertensive patients included in observational studies and clinical surveys published between 2005 and 2011 in Italy.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical literature to identify observational studies and clinical surveys on hypertension between January 2005 and June 2011, which clearly reported information on clinic BP levels, rates of BP control, proportions of treated and untreated patients, who were followed in different clinical settings (mostly in general practice, and also in outpatient clinics and hypertension centres).

RESULTS

The overall sample included 158 876 hypertensive patients (94 907 women, mean age 56.6 ± 9.6 years, BMI 27.2 ± 4.2 kg/m(2), known duration of hypertension 90.2 ± 12.4 months). In the selected studies, average SBP and DBP levels were 145.7 ± 15.9 and 87.5 ± 9.7 mmHg, respectively; BP levels were higher in patients followed in hypertension centres (n = 10 724, 6.7%; 146.5 ± 17.3/88.5 ± 10.3 mmHg) than in those followed by general practitioners (n = 148 152, 93.3%; 143.5 ± 13.9/84.8 ± 8.9 mmHg; P < 0.01). More than half of the patients were treated (n = 91 318, 57.5%); among treated hypertensive patients, only 31 727 (37.0%) had controlled BP levels.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis confirmed inadequate control of BP in Italy, independently of the clinical setting. Although some improvement was noted compared with a similar analysis performed between 1995 and 2005, these findings highlight the need for a more effective clinical management of hypertension.

Are there new threshold and goals in the treatment of arterial hypertension?

BACKGROUND

About half of the global burden of cardiovascular disease has been attributed to high blood pressure (BP). Worldwide, 7·6 million premature deaths (about 13·5% of the global total), 54% of strokes, and 47% of cases of ischemic heart disease were caused by high BP in 2001.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All guidelines agree that pharmacological treatment of patients with hypertension should be initiated as soon as BP rises >140/90 mmHg. Available data support the reduction of BP to values to <140/90 mmHg, but do not favor a reduction to <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes or a history of cardiovascular disease because of the absence of evidence obtained in prospective studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review updates the controversies and challenges involved in the treatment of patients with established arterial hypertension, such as the progression of high-normal BP to overt hypertension, the choice of appropriate threshold and goal BP levels, the adequate number of drugs to be used since the early stages of hypertension, and which type of combination therapy offers most advantages to the patient.

[Assessment of antihypertensive monotherapies effectiveness by home blood pressure self-measurement in hypertensive patients]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the blood pressure (BP) control and the efficacy of antihypertensive monotherapy using home BP self-measurement in a French population of treated hypertensive subjects in 2007 2009 and 2010.

METHODS

The French League Against Hypertension Surveys (FLAHS) are conducted among a representative sample of individuals aged 35 years and older living in France. For the 2007, 2009 and 2010 surveys, a sample of 1467 subjects who owned a BP self-measurement device and performed three consecutive morning BP measurements were included. Among the 60% of subjects who reported taking at least one antihypertensive drug, we analyzed subjects treated with one of the following antihypertensive monotherapy, i.e., beta-blocker (BB), ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB).

RESULTS

Among treated hypertensive subjects (n=886), 66% (n=586) had home BP below the 140/90mmHg threshold and 50% (n=449) below 135/85mmHg. Three hundred two subjects were treated with a single antihypertensive drug, 33% had ARB, 25% BB, 19% CCB and 13% ACE inhibitors. Age (years) for each treatment group is different (P<0.01) CCB (72.1±9.3), BB (65.6±9.8), ARB (68.6±8.9) and ACEI (67.3±10.2). The mean systolic/diastolic BP (mmHg) is not comparable between monotherapy 130.7/76.1 (ARB), 130.7/78.7 (BB), 134.0/75.2 (CCB) and 139.1/80.3 (ACEI) for ARB, BB, CCB and ACE inhibitors respectively. Compared to ACE inhibitors, BP was significantly lower with ARB (P<0.01). The proportion of subjects with a BP below 140/90mmHg was 73% for ARB, 52% for BB, 68% for CCB and 47% for ACE with a statistical significance (P=0.03) for ARB vs. ACEI and CCB vs. ACEI.

CONCLUSION

Among subjects treated for hypertension who owned a BP self-measurement device, 50 to 66% had a controlled BP (depending on the threshold used). It is observed differences between antihypertensive efficacy of monotherapy with a larger number of patients controlled with ARB or CCB.

Rationale for triple fixed-dose combination therapy with an angiotensin II receptor blocker, a calcium channel blocker, and a thiazide diuretic

Hypertension is a growing global health problem, and is predicted to affect 1.56 billion people by 2025. Treatment remains suboptimal, with control of blood pressure achieved in only 20%-35% of patients, and the majority requiring two or more antihypertensive drugs to achieve recommended blood pressure goals. To improve blood pressure control, the European hypertension guidelines recommend that angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are combined with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and/or thiazide diuretics. The rationale for this strategy is based, in part, on their different effects on the renin-angiotensin system, which improves antihypertensive efficacy. Data from a large number of trials support the efficacy of ACEIs or ARBs in combination with CCBs and/or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Combining two different classes of antihypertensive drugs has an additive effect on lowering of blood pressure, and does not increase adverse events, with the ARBs showing a tolerability advantage over the ACEIs. Among the different ARBs, olmesartan medoxomil is available as a dual fixed-dose combination with either amlodipine or HCTZ, and the increased blood pressure-lowering efficacy of these two combinations is proven. Triple therapy is required in 15%-20% of treated uncontrolled hypertensive patients, with a renin-angiotensin system blocker, CCB, and thiazide diuretic considered to be a rational combination according to the European guidelines. Olmesartan, amlodipine, and HCTZ are available as a triple fixed-dose combination, and significant blood pressure reductions have been observed with this regimen compared with the possible dual combinations. The availability of these fixed-dose combinations should lead to improvement in blood pressure control and aid compliance with long-term therapy, optimizing the management of this chronic condition.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

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

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

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

Modern clinical management of arterial hypertension: fixed or free combination therapies?

Blood pressure control is a key element in any cardiovascular prevention strategy. However, it is also one of the least frequently achieved goals in modern strategies for the clinical management of cardiovascular diseases, resulting in high impact in terms of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Among different factors that can be identified as the causes of poor blood pressure (BP) control in the general population of patients with hypertension, the excessive use of monotherapy, as opposed to combination therapy, is arguably one of the most significant. In this perspective, the use of combination therapies having synergic and complementary actions has been shown to reduce BP levels to increase the percentage of patients who respond to antihypertensive treatment and achieve the recommended BP targets. Moreover, recent studies have demonstrated that these strategies provide effective protection against hypertension-related organ damage, as well as a significant reduction of major cardiovascular events. While currently available evidence supports an increasingly important role of combination therapies compared with monotherapies, several other issues remain to be clarified. Among these, it has not yet been clearly established which classes of drugs should be considered for combination strategies, at what doses each component should be used, and whether combination strategies may be definitively considered as a first choice for the treatment of hypertensive patients at cardiovascular risk. Another relevant aspect concerns the choice between fixed and free combination therapies. This article discusses and analyses the different factors that may contribute to achieve effective BP control. In particular, the potential benefits and drawbacks associated with the use of fixed versus free combination therapies for hypertension treatment will be examined and discussed. The benefits of using combination strategies based on drugs that antagonize the renin-angiotensin system and dihydropyridine calcium antagonists will also be discussed, with a particular focus on amlodipine besylate combination therapies.

Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurement in clinical practice and research: a critical review of a technique in need of implementation

This review presents evidence that ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) should be used more widely in clinical practice and hypertension research. The technique, which should be mandatory in trials of antihypertensive drugs, is not being used in all studies of antihypertensive drug efficacy. ABPM is also being under-used in outcome studies. The failure to implement ABPM in primary care and hypertension research is impeding patient management and scientific advancement. ABPM offers so many advantages in assessing the efficacy of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs that it should be mandatory in pharmacological trials. Likewise, the technique provides a means of achieving BP control in clinical practice, which is essential if we are to halt the epidemic of the cardiovascular consequences of hypertension. However, if ABPM is to be implemented for these purposes, certain requirements will need to be fulfilled. These include the availability of accurate, patient-friendly and inexpensive devices; standardization of the presentation and plotting of data with summary statistics for day-to-day practice; provision of comprehensive data analysis for research; an interpretative report to facilitate use in busy clinical practice; a trend report to demonstrate efficacy or otherwise of treatment in clinical practice and online transmission of data to provide immediate real-time data analysis. The reasons why ABPM is not being implemented are reviewed, and proposals are made to make the technique more acceptable.