Managing peripheral edema in patients with arterial hypertension

Association of CYP3A5 Gene Polymorphisms and Amlodipine-Induced Peripheral Edema in Chinese Han Patients with Essential Hypertension

Background

Amlodipine is one of the most used members of calcium channel blockers (CCB), available to treat hypertension. It is mainly metabolized by the Cytochrome P450 3A4/5 (CYP3A4/5) in the liver. Peripheral edema emerges as the major adverse drug reaction to amlodipine and is the primary reason for discontinuation of amlodipine therapy. However, genetic changes in CYP3A5 may lead to changes in the tolerability of amlodipine.

Purpose

In this study, we were interested whether variants in CYP3A5 have a role to play in amlodipine-induced peripheral edema.

Methods

A total number of 240 Chinese Han patients that have experienced hypertension were included in the study. Sixty-four patients had experienced amlodipine-induced peripheral edema, while the remaining 176 patients with no history of edema formed the control group. Twenty-four single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of CYP3A5 gene were sequenced by targeted region sequencing method. The relationship of these genetic variants with amlodipine-induced peripheral edema risk was assessed using logistic regression.

Results

The allele frequencies of CYP3A5*1D (rs15524), CYP3A5*1E (rs4646453) and CYP3A5*3 (rs776746) were significantly different between cases and controls (P<0.05). The CYP3A5 *3/*3 (CC) or CYP3A5 *1D/*1D (AA) carriers showed an increased risk of amlodipine-induced peripheral edema in dominant model. Meanwhile, patients carrying CYP3A5 *1E (AC/AA) showed a reduced risk of peripheral edema. Furthermore, we found a strong linkage disequilibrium among rs15524, rs4646453 and rs776746.

Conclusion

Our study reveals for the first time that CYP3A5 *1D, *1E and *3 were associated with amlodipine-induced peripheral edema in Chinese Han patients with hypertension. However, further studies comprising larger number of samples, more related genes and other factors are wanted.

Evaluation of a Common Prescribing Cascade of Calcium Channel Blockers and Diuretics in Older Adults With Hypertension

IMPORTANCE

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are commonly prescribed agents for hypertension that can cause peripheral edema. A prescribing cascade occurs when the edema is misinterpreted as a new medical condition and a diuretic is subsequently prescribed to treat the edema. The extent to which this prescribing cascade occurs at a population level is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the association between being newly dispensed a CCB and subsequent dispensing of a loop diuretic in older adults with hypertension.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based cohort study was performed using linked health administrative databases of community-dwelling adults 66 years or older with hypertension and new prescription drug claims from September 30, 2011, to September 30, 2016, in Ontario, Canada. The dates of analysis were September 1, 2018, to May 30, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Individuals who were newly dispensed a CCB were compared with the following 2 groups: (1) individuals who were newly dispensed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker and (2) individuals who were newly dispensed an unrelated medication.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated for individuals who were dispensed a loop diuretic within 90 days of follow-up using Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

The cohort included 41 086 older adults (≥66 years) with hypertension who were newly dispensed a CCB, 66 494 individuals who were newly dispensed another antihypertensive medication, and 231 439 individuals who were newly dispensed an unrelated medication. At index (ie, the dispensing date), the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.9) years, and 191 685 (56.5%) were women. Individuals who were newly dispensed a CCB had a higher cumulative incidence at 90 days of being dispensed a loop diuretic than individuals in both control groups (1.4% vs 0.7% and 0.5%, P < .001). After adjustment, individuals who were newly dispensed a CCB had increased relative rates of being dispensed a loop diuretic compared with individuals who were newly dispensed an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.38-2.05 in the first 30 days after index [days 1-30]; 2.26; 95% CI, 1.76-2.92 in the subsequent 30 days [days 31-60]; and 2.40; 95% CI, 1.84-3.13 in the third month of follow-up [days 61-90]) and individuals who were newly dispensed unrelated medications (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.13-2.96 for 1-30 days after index; 2.99; 95% CI, 2.43-3.69 for 31-60 days after index; and 3.89; 95% CI, 3.11-4.87 for 61-90 days after index). This association persisted, although slightly attenuated, from 90 days to up to 1 year of follow-up and when restricted to a subgroup of individuals who were newly dispensed amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Many older adults with hypertension who are newly dispensed a CCB subsequently receive a loop diuretic. Given how widely CCBs are prescribed, interventions are needed to raise clinicians' awareness of this common prescribing cascade to reduce the prescribing of potentially unnecessary medications that may cause harm.

Clinical Adverse Effects of Endothelin Receptor Antagonists: Insights From the Meta-Analysis of 4894 Patients From 24 Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the clinical safety of endothelin receptor antagonists (ERAs) is limited and derived mainly from individual trials; therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis.

METHODS AND RESULTS

After systematic searches of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases and the ClinicalTrials.gov website, randomized controlled trials with patients receiving ERAs (bosentan, macitentan, or ambrisentan) in at least 1 treatment group were included. All reported adverse events of ERAs were evaluated. Summary relative risks and 95% CIs were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models according to between-study heterogeneity. In total, 24 randomized trials including 4894 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of abnormal liver function (7.91% versus 2.84%; risk ratio [RR] 2.38, 95% CI 1.36-4.18), peripheral edema (14.36% versus 9.68%; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.20-1.74), and anemia (6.23% versus 2.44%; RR 2.69, 95% CI 1.78-4.07) was significantly higher in the ERA group compared with placebo. In comparisons of individual ERAs with placebo, bosentan (RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.42-5.91) but not macitentan (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.42-3.31) significantly increased the risk of abnormal liver function, whereas ambrisentan (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.45) significantly decreased that risk. Bosentan (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.06-2.03) and ambrisentan (RR 2.02, 95% CI 1.40-2.91) but not macitentan (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81-1.46) significantly increased the risk of peripheral edema. Bosentan (RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.52-6.30) and macitentan (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.54-4.47) but not ambrisentan (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.20-8.48) significantly increased the risk of anemia. ERAs were not found to increase other reported adverse events compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis showed that the main adverse effects of treatment with ERAs were hepatic transaminitis (bosentan), peripheral edema (bosentan and ambrisentan), and anemia (bosentan and macitentan).

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

This previously unpublished, preplanned analysis investigated the efficacy of the olmesartan/amlodipine combination at different doses on 24-h blood pressure (BP) control, as well as assessed trough estimation of trough-to-peak ratio (TPR) and smoothness index (SI). Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension whose BP was inadequately controlled after 8 weeks' treatment with amlodipine 5 mg. Patients were randomized to continue with amlodipine 5 mg or to receive olmesartan/amlodipine 10/5, 20/5 or 40/5 mg for 8 weeks (Period II). Patients not achieving BP control were uptitrated to a more powerful regimen for another 8 weeks (Period III). During Period II, each olmesartan/amlodipine combination reduced 24-h systolic and diastolic BP (SBP/DBP), as well as morning and early morning SBP/DBP, significantly more than amlodipine 5 mg (P<0.001 for all). TPRs were higher in each olmesartan/amlodipine group than with amlodipine 5 mg, and SI values showed dose-related increases; olmesartan/amlodipine 40/5 mg produced a significantly higher SI for SBP and DBP (1.55 and 1.33, respectively) than amlodipine 5 mg (0.96 and 0.77, respectively, P<0.0001 for each). During Period III, uptitrated patients showed further BP reductions, which were largest in those on olmesartan/amlodipine 40/10 mg. SI values increased in uptitrated patients and were highest with olmesartan/amlodipine 40/10 mg (SBP 1.62/DBP 1.41). The olmesartan/amlodipine combination effectively reduces BP over 24 h, including the morning hours, in a dose-related manner. Compared with amlodipine alone, the olmesartan/amlodipine combination has a better 24-h coverage (TPR) and a dose-related improvement in BP lowering homogeneity (SI).

Safety and tolerability of zonisamide in elderly patients with epilepsy

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety/tolerability of zonisamide in elderly patients.

MATERIALS & METHODS

A pooled analysis of clinical study data from elderly (≥65 years) patients receiving add-on/monotherapy zonisamide for partial seizures was compared with pooled adult (18-65 years) study data. Assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), clinical laboratory parameters and weight change.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 95 elderly and 1389 adult patients. Incidence of total TEAEs was similar (elderly, 78/95 [82%] vs adult, 1165/1389 [84%]); but lower in elderly versus adult patients for treatment-related TEAEs (53/95 [56%] vs 1010/1389 [73%]), severe TEAEs (11/95 [12%] vs 289/1389 [21%]), serious TEAEs (12/95 [13%] vs 230/1389 [17%]) and TEAEs leading to withdrawal (17/95 [18%] vs 312/1389 [23%]). Most TEAEs were of mild-to-moderate intensity. TEAEs reported more frequently by elderly versus adult patients included fatigue (11/95 [12%] vs 135/1389 [10%]), nasopharyngitis (8/95 [8%] vs 100/1389 [7%]), constipation (7/95 [7%] vs 67/1389 [5%]) and pruritus (6/95 [6%] vs 29/1389 [2%]). The only serious TEAEs reported by ≥2% of elderly patients were 'convulsions' (4/95 [4%] vs 49/1389 [4%]). Three elderly patients died; one death was considered treatment-related. TEAEs leading to discontinuation of ≥2% of elderly patients were dizziness (4/95 [4%]), headache (2/95 [2%]), somnolence (2/95 [2%]) and confusional state (2/95 [2%]). For elderly patients, there were minimal changes in clinical laboratory parameters, no reports of respiratory alkalosis or metabolic acidosis and no significant weight changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Zonisamide demonstrated a favourable safety/tolerability profile in elderly patients. No new or unexpected safety findings were identified.

Frequency of edema in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension receiving ambrisentan

Edema is a common side effect of endothelin receptor antagonists. Ambrisentan is an endothelin type A-selective endothelin receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. We examined the clinical outcomes of patients who developed edema with and without ambrisentan treatment in 2 phase III, randomized placebo-controlled trials, ambrisentan for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: results of the ambrisentan in pulmonary arterial hypertension, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, efficacy (ARIES) study 1 and 2 (ARIES-1 and ARIES-2) (n = 393). Edema-related adverse events were extracted using broad adverse event search terms. The present post hoc analysis included 132 placebo patients and 261 ambrisentan patients. Of these patients, 14% of the placebo patients and 23% of the ambrisentan patients experienced edema-related adverse events. Overall, the patients who experienced edema tended to have a worse baseline World Health Organization (WHO) functional class (edema 76%, WHO functional class III-IV; no edema 56%, WHO functional class III-IV). In the ambrisentan patients, those with edema were older (mean age 58 ± 13 years) and heavier (mean weight 75 ± 19 kg) than those without edema (mean age 49 ± 15 years; mean weight 70 ± 17 kg). At week 12 of treatment, the ambrisentan patients had significantly increased their 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) by 34.4 m compared to the placebo patients in whom the 6MWD had deteriorated by -9.0 m (p <0.001). Among the ambrisentan patients, those without edema had a 6MWD increase of 38.9 m and those with edema had a 6MWD increase of 19.4 m. Ambrisentan significantly improved the brain natriuretic peptide levels by -34% compared to the brain natriuretic peptide levels in the placebo group that had worsened by +11% (p <0.001). Ambrisentan reduced the brain natriuretic peptide concentrations similarly in patients with and without edema. In conclusion, the present subanalysis of patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension has revealed that ambrisentan therapy provides clinical benefit compared to placebo, even in the presence of edema.

Amlodipine/valsartan single-pill combination: a prospective, observational evaluation of the real-life safety and effectiveness in the routine treatment of hypertension

INTRODUCTION

As several international guidelines on hypertension have now recommended, single-pill/fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapies may be particularly beneficial as first-line therapy in high-risk patients, in whom more rapid and pronounced blood pressure (BP) control is desired. Upon the single-pill combination of amlodipine and valsartan becoming available, the authors conducted this international, observational study to evaluate its efficacy and safety in a real-life practice setting.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, postmarketing surveillance study enrolled adults with arterial hypertension (systolic BP >140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP >90 mmHg) who were prescribed antihypertensive therapy with single-pill combination amlodipine/valsartan 5/80, 5/160, or 10/160 mg once daily. Patients were observed over a 3-month period (12 weeks) with approximately monthly intervals between clinic visits.

RESULTS

A total of 8336 patients completed all study visits and were included in the efficacy analysis. Mean age was 54.7 years and 83.4% of patients had received prior antihypertensive therapy. BP reductions were dose related. Overall, mean BP was reduced from 165.0/99.3 mmHg at baseline to 128.7/80.4 mmHg at 12 weeks (36.3/18.9 mmHg; P<0.0001). The magnitude of BP reduction rose with increasing severity of baseline BP. Control of BP (<140/90 mmHg) was achieved in 77.7% of patients. Efficacy was consistent in subgroups of patients with comorbidities and regardless of whether patients were previously treated with monotherapy or combination therapy. Adverse events were reported in 5.3% of patients. The incidence of edema declined from 10.4% at baseline to 8.5% at study end.

CONCLUSION

Single-pill combination amlodipine/valsartan safely and effectively reduced BP across all hypertension grades and allowed the vast majority of patients to achieve BP goals.

Triple combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide vs dual combination therapy with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide for stage 2 hypertensive patients

Objective:

This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with amlodipine/valsartan+hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val+HCTZ) vs dual therapy with Aml+HCTZ in stage 2 hypertensive patients.

Methods:

The analysis included patients from an eight-week, multicenter, double-blind study, randomized to Aml/Val 10/160 mg or Aml 10 mg groups, who received add-on HCTZ 12.5 mg at week 4 if mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) was >130 mmHg.

Results:

Of the patients receiving Aml/Val+HCTZ and Aml+HCTZ, 98% (N = 133/136) and 96% (N = 200/208) completed the study, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups (Caucasians, 80.2%; diabetics, 14.8%; age, 58.6 years [28.2% ≥ 65 years]; body mass index, 31 kg/m²; mean sitting blood pressure (msBP), 171.5/95.5 mmHg [18% msSBP ≥ 180 mmHg]). Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater msBP reductions from baseline to week 8 than Aml+HCTZ (30.5/13.8 vs 24.3/8.3 mmHg, P < 0.0001). The incremental msBP reduction (week 4 to 8) with HCTZ added to Aml/Val was greater than when added to Aml (6.9/3.5 vs 3.1/1.0 mmHg, P < 0.01). Treatments were well tolerated with similar overall incidence of adverse events (Aml/Val+HCTZ: 33.8%, Aml+HCTZ: 33.2%).

Conclusion:

Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater BP reductions than Aml+HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Aml/Val+HCTZ triple therapy may be a suitable option for patients requiring more than two agents to reach target BP.

Fixed-dose combination and chronic kidney disease progression: which is the best?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Use of combination therapy whether fixed dose or separate pill combinations is becoming more prevalent. Physicians are not routinely trained in using combinations of different antihypertensive medicines.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent outcome trials as well as smaller studies document that meaningful combinations of pharmacologically additive agents help achieve blood pressure (BP) goals faster and reduce outcomes. Clinical trials demonstrate that drugs interfering with the renin-angiotensin system, that is, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, combined with either calcium antagonists or thiazide-like diuretics and used as first-line antihypertensive therapy in patients whose BP is more than 20/10 mmHg above goal achieve BP goal faster than sequential monotherapy. Additionally, certain combinations may provide better cardiovascular outcomes than other combinations. Lastly, combination therapy has a clear role in helping to reduce cardiovascular and renal risk, when used.

SUMMARY

This review provides an update of current evidence regarding the associations of BP control with use of combination antihypertensive therapy to achieve BP goals. A rationale for initial single pill and fixed-dose combination therapy is reviewed. Only one trial with cardiovascular outcome has been performed using a fixed-dose combination and this revealed differences from other trials, including the greatest number of people achieving goal BP and difference in outcomes based on combination used.