Comparing the cumulative incidences of add-on therapy among the major antihypertensive classes in 2531 Asian patients: a cohort study

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs in nondiabetic patients with hypertension: A population-based study

The authors compared the effectiveness of thiazide diuretic (TD), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), and calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapies for the treatment of nondiabetic hypertension using MarketScan Databases 2010-2014. Multivariable Cox regression models assessed whether the addition of a new antihypertensive drug, treatment discontinuation, or switch and major cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events varied across groups. A total of 565 009 patients started monotherapy with ACEIs (43.6%), CCBs (23.6%), TDs (18.8%), or ARBs (14.0%). Patients who took TDs had a higher risk for either drug addition or discontinuation than patients who took ACEIs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.68-0.70] vs HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.80-0.81]), ARBs (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.66-0.68] vs HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.65-0.67]), and CCBs (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.84-0.87] vs HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95]). Conversely, patients who took TDs experienced a lower risk of clinical events compared with patients who took ACEIs (HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.15-1.33]), ARBs (HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.18-1.39]), and CCBs (HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.25-1.46]). Our results provide a strong rationale for choosing TDs as first-line monotherapy for the control of hypertension.

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg versus valsartan 160 mg in Chinese hypertensives

BACKGROUND

A majority of hypertensives require treatment with ≥2 antihypertensive therapies to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. Single-pill combinations (SPC) may improve convenience and adherence to therapy and reduce health care resource use and costs. The antihypertensive effects of amlodipine and valsartan are well established. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC for the treatment of hypertension in predominantly Chinese patients not adequately controlled on valsartan 160 mg alone.

METHODS

In this multicentre study (24 centres), adults with stage 1 or 2 hypertension not adequately controlled with valsartan monotherapy were randomised to receive double-blind amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC or valsartan 160 mg once daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

The least-square mean change (standard error) from baseline to endpoint in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) at trough, the primary efficacy variable, was -10.3 (0.39) mm Hg with amlodipine/valsartan and -6.6 (0.40) mm Hg with valsartan (difference: -3.7 [0.54] mm Hg, p<0.0001). The corresponding results for mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) were -14.9 (0.61) mm Hg and -7.0 (0.61) mm Hg, respectively (difference: -7.9 [0.84] mm Hg, p<0.0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved overall BP control (MSSBP/MSDBP<140/90 mm Hg) with combination therapy (61.3%) versus monotherapy (39.3%; p<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC is a safe and effective therapy for lowering BP in predominantly Chinese adults with stage 1 or 2 hypertension not adequately controlled with valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.