The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension

Comparison of Blood Pressure Variability Between Losartan and Amlodipine in Essential Hypertension (COMPAS-BPV)

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive therapy using renin-angiotensin system blockers and calcium channel blockers to target blood pressure variability (BPV) has not yet been established. We aimed to compare the ability of losartan and amlodipine to lower BPV and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in essential hypertensive patients.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned either losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Medications were uptitrated and hydrochlorothiazide was added according to protocol for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP. The secondary endpoints included average real variability (ARV), office SBP, and home SBP.

RESULTS

The losartan group (n = 71) and amlodipine group (n = 73) finished the scheduled visits between April 2013 and May 2017. The office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was comparable between the losartan and amlodipine groups (11.0 ± 4.2 vs. 10.5 ± 3.8, P = 0.468). The office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP was significantly elevated in the losartan group (10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 3.4, P = 0.02). The absolute SBP decrement from baseline to 6 months was similar between groups, although the office mean SBP at 6 months was higher in the losartan group (132.3 ± 12.9 vs. 127.5 ± 9.0 mm Hg, P = 0.011). In home blood pressure analysis, evening day-to-day BPV indexes (SD and ARV) were significantly higher in the losartan group at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The lowering effect of the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was similar between losartan and amlodipine. However, the losartan group showed a higher office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP and evening day-to-day home BPV indexes. Therefore, amlodipine may be better to lower BPV in essential hypertensive patients.

Functional vascular study in hypertensive subjects with type 2 diabetes using losartan or amlodipine

Background

Antihypertensive drugs are used to control blood pressure (BP) and reduce macro- and microvascular complications in hypertensive patients with diabetes.

Objectives

The present study aimed to compare the functional vascular changes in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus after 6 weeks of treatment with amlodipine or losartan.

Methods

Patients with a previous diagnosis of hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomly divided into 2 groups and evaluated after 6 weeks of treatment with amlodipine (5 mg/day) or losartan (100 mg/day). Patient evaluation included BP measurement, ambulatory BP monitoring, and assessment of vascular parameters using applanation tonometry, pulse wave velocity (PWV), and flow-mediated dilation (FMD) of the brachial artery.

Results

A total of 42 patients were evaluated (21 in each group), with a predominance of women (71%) in both groups. The mean age of the patients in both groups was similar (amlodipine group: 54.9 ± 4.5 years; losartan group: 54.0 ± 6.9 years), with no significant difference in the mean BP [amlodipine group: 145 ± 14 mmHg (systolic) and 84 ± 8 mmHg (diastolic); losartan group: 153 ± 19 mmHg (systolic) and 90 ± 9 mmHg (diastolic)]. The augmentation index (30% ± 9% and 36% ± 8%, p = 0.025) and augmentation pressure (16 ± 6 mmHg and 20 ± 8 mmHg, p = 0.045) were lower in the amlodipine group when compared with the losartan group. PWV and FMD were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

Hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with amlodipine exhibited an improved pattern of pulse wave reflection in comparison with those treated with losartan. However, the use of losartan may be associated with independent vascular reactivity to the pressor effect.

Bioavailability of Amlodipine Besylate/Atorvastatin Calcium Combination Tablet

The bioequivalence of combination tablets containing amlodipine besylate/atorvastatin calcium with coadministered matching doses of amlodipine besylate and atorvastatin calcium tablets was investigated in randomized, 2-way crossover studies in healthy volunteers (N = 126). Subjects received a single dose of the amlodipine/atorvastatin tablet or coadministered matching doses of amlodipine and atorvastatin at the highest (10/80 mg; n = 62) and lowest (5/10 mg; n = 64) dose strengths. Atorvastatin geometric mean ratios for maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) for the highest and lowest dose strengths were 94.1 and 98.8, and 104.5 and 103.8, respectively. Amlodipine geometric mean ratios for C(max) and AUC for the highest and lowest dose strengths were 100.8 and 103.4, and 100 and 102.7, respectively. The 90% confidence intervals for all comparisons were within 80% to 125%, demonstrating bioequivalence for amlodipine and atorvastatin at both dose strengths. Use of amlodipine/atorvastatin combination tablets may provide a more integrated approach to treatment of cardiovascular risk.

Epidemiology and management of hypertension in the Hispanic population: a review of the available literature

Hispanics are the fastest growing ethnic minority in the USA. Among Hispanics, lack of hypertension awareness and lack of effective blood pressure (BP) control are problematic, as are higher incidence rates of hypertension-related co-morbidities compared with non-Hispanic populations. Moreover, there are currently no hypertension treatment guidelines that address the unique characteristics of this ethnic group. This article discusses ethnic differences in hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors and reviews the literature on the efficacy of antihypertensive agents in Hispanic patients, with a focus on the role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition in the management of hypertension in these patients. Hypertension in Hispanic patients can be challenging to manage, in part because this population has a higher prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome compared with non-Hispanic whites. The presence of these co-morbidities suggests that RAAS-inhibitor-based therapies may be particularly beneficial in this population. However, few studies have evaluated the efficacy of antihypertensive treatments in Hispanic patients. Two outcomes studies in hypertensive patients have shown the benefits of treating Hispanic patients with antihypertensive therapy and included RAAS inhibitors as part of the treatment regimen. In addition, BP-lowering trials have shown the antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and direct renin inhibitors, although data on the latter are more limited. Additional studies are needed to more thoroughly evaluate the effects of RAAS inhibitors (and other drug classes) on outcomes and BP lowering in the Hispanic hypertensive population.

Telmisartan and amlodipine single-pill combinations vs amlodipine monotherapy for superior blood pressure lowering and improved tolerability in patients with uncontrolled hypertension: results of the TEAMSTA-5 study

An 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study with single-pill combinations of telmisartan 40 mg or 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (T40/A5 or T80/A5) vs monotherapy with amlodipine 5 mg or 10 mg (A10) in 1097 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [BP] ≥ 90 mm Hg). T40/A5 and T80/A5 resulted in significantly greater (P<.0001) reductions in seated trough systolic/diastolic BP vs A5 (-7.4 mm Hg/-3.6 mm Hg; -8.8 mm Hg/-4.9 mm Hg) and a significantly greater (P<.001) proportion of patients achieving systolic/diastolic BP goal rate (60.0%/56.7%; 65.7%/63.8%) vs A5 (39.2%/42.0%). Superior BP reductions were also seen with T40-T80/A5 vs A10, with BP goal rates at least as high as with A10; however, there was significantly more peripheral edema with A10 (27.2% vs 4.3% for pooled T40-T80/A5; P<.0001). Switching patients with uncontrolled BP to a single-pill combination of T40/A5 or T80/A5 is a better treatment option than up-titration to full-dose monotherapy with A10.

Amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to estimate the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as compared with amlodipine monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and Embase were searched for relevant articles. A random effect model of meta-analysis was used for the selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

RESULTS

A total of 17 randomized controlled trials involving 3291 patients were identified using predefined criteria. The combination treatment of amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors resulted in a greater reduction of both systolic blood pressure (SBP) [weighted mean difference (WMD) 5.72, 95% CI: (confidence interval) 4.10-7.33] and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (WMD 3.62, 95% CI: 4.85-2.39) than monotherapy. The combination treatment also generated significantly greater reductions for the mean ambulatory SBP and DBP during the full 24 hours (WMD: SBP 4.24, 95% CI: 6.82-1.67; DBP 2.23, 95% CI: 3.73-0.69), but not for the trough (WMD: SBP 4.52, 9.56 to -0.51; DBP 3.7, 7.65 to -0.25). The hypertension therapeutic control (SPB <140, DBP <90 mmHg) rate for the combination treatment is higher than that for monotherapy [relative risk (RR): 1.36, 95% CI: 1.07-1.73]. The combination treatment also resulted in a lower overall rate of adverse events (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.75-0.99) and edema (RR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.29-0.56), but a higher rate of cough (RR: 3.28, 95% CI: 2.03-5.29) as compared with monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that the combination treatment provides superior BP control, fewer adverse events, and better tolerability in hypertensive patients than monotherapy. Further research should explore the mechanism of the combination therapy and whether it is associated with the reduction of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality.

Blood pressure responder rates versus goal rates: which metric matters?

Reducing blood pressure (BP) to guideline-recommended goals associated with reductions in cardiovascular risk is central to effective hypertension management. In addition to measuring BP reduction, clinical trials of antihypertensive agents should assess the percentage of patients responding to treatment. The Food and Drug Administration's defined rate of response required for drug approval is a reduction in diastolic BP (DBP) to <90 mmHg and/or a DBP reduction of > or = 10 mmHg. Consequently, some patients may be counted as responders even if they have not reached DBP <90 mmHg. An antihypertensive agent's effectiveness may be better assessed by the proportion of patients who achieve recommended BP goals. This article analyzes the frequency of response rates versus goal rates as endpoints in randomized trials since January 2001. Data showed that goal rates, especially combined systolic BP (SBP)/DBP goal rates, are consistently lower than response rates in studies evaluating both endpoints. Goal rates incorporating both SBP and DBP, or having a focus on SBP for individuals >50 years of age, provide the most clinically relevant information and are a more clinically relevant metric of an agent's ability to reduce BP than DBP alone.

Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension

Background and Objectives

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of losartan (LST) in fixed combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has not been compared to those of amlodipine monotherapy in Asians. This is an important comparison to draw, because Asians have been suggested to respond more favorably to calcium channel blockers and less favorably to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in comparison to Westerners. We sought to compare these two regimens in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Subjects and Methods

174 patients were randomized to receive LST 50 mg once daily, which could be titrated to LST/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg at 4 weeks, followed by 100/25 mg at 8 weeks; or to receive amlodipine besylate 2.5 mg once daily, which could be titrated to 5 mg at 4 weeks, followed by 10 mg at 8 weeks to achieve diastolic blood pressure <90 mmHg.

Results

At 12 weeks, the differences between the LST/HCTZ and amlodipine groups with regard to diastolic and systolic blood pressure were 1.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -1.1 to 3.4) and -0.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -4.3 to 3.4), respectively. The rates of achieving systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg were 66.7% in the LST/HCTZ group and 75.9% in the amlodipine group (p=0.20). The rates of drug-related adverse events were 15.6% in the LST/HCTZ group and 11.9% in the amlodipine group (p=0.49).

Conclusion

The two regimens, with a relatively higher dose of LST/HCTZ compared to that required in Westerners, produced equivalent blood pressure reduction and were comparably well tolerated in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Updated meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Despite advances in the treatment of hypertension, control rates continue to be suboptimal in both Europe and the US. Strategies that improve hypertension control are therefore urgently needed. This study aimed to assess the relative efficacies of various antihypertensive drugs commonly used in France in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) by using a meta-analytical approach. This update of a previously published meta-analytical approach extends the number of drugs evaluated from 13 to 19.

METHODS

A total of 80 randomised, controlled trials published between 1973 and 2007 involving 10 818 patients were selected for inclusion in the meta-analytical approach. Data were examined for 19 drugs, and 16 drugs were included in the analysis: hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide sustained-release (SR), atenolol, amlodipine, lercanidipine, manidipine, enalapril, ramipril, trandolapril, candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, valsartan and aliskiren. Weighted average reductions in SBP and DBP over a period of 8-12 weeks were calculated for each drug from information on both the mean and the variability in BP reduction. No trials evaluating furosemide, spironolactone or cicletanine satisfied the inclusion criteria for this analysis.

RESULTS

The average weighted reductions in SBP over 8-12 weeks were most marked with diuretics, and in particular indapamide SR 1.5 mg/day (mean change from baseline -22.2mm Hg), which reduced SBP to a greater extent than any of the other drugs evaluated (at any dosage considered). Average weighted reductions in DBP were generally similar with all classes of antihypertensives and ranged from -11.4mm Hg with the beta-adrenoceptor blocker atenolol and calcium channel antagonists to -10.3mm Hg with the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSION

This new analysis supports the results of the earlier investigation, in that indapamide SR 1.5 mg/day appeared to be the most effective drug for producing significant reductions in SBP within 8-12 weeks, which is an essential element in optimising cardiovascular prevention among hypertensive patients. The clinical application of these results should take into consideration all the limitations discussed in this analysis.

Antihypertensive activity of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists: a systematic review of studies with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the antihypertensive activity of the angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists (ARB).

METHODS

Studies in which blood pressure (BP) was measured using ambulatory BP monitoring for at least 24 h were collected from MEDLINE. Data for each treatment group, ARB, placebo or the drug used for its comparison were obtained from the selected studies. Only studies with a minimum of quality criteria were selected. The final study group contained 36 publications, with a total of 47 patient cohorts receiving ARB in monotherapy, 10 with placebo, 10 with amlodipine, and five with enalapril. The reduction in clinical and ambulatory BP during 24 h, day, night and the last 4-h period for each of the drugs analysed were calculated and adjusted by age, sex, number of participants and by the initial BP level.

RESULTS

The global antihypertensive activity of ARB differs from that observed with amlodipine in the sense that the magnitude of the reduction in the BP values does not essentially depend on the initial BP values nor on the dose used. When only ARB were considered, the drug used was a determinant for systolic BP reduction, whereas for diastolic BP the influence was on the BP reduction and the duration of the antihypertensive activity. The dose used had a particular influence on the duration of the antihypertensive activity for both systolic and diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Among the ARB, the influence is on duration more than on the magnitude of BP reduction. Dose, therefore, is an important factor in the duration of antihypertensive activity.

Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among United States adults 1999-2004

Detection of hypertension and blood pressure control are critically important for reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. We analyzed the trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States in the period 1999-2004. We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004 database. Blood pressure information on 14 653 individuals (4749 in 1999-2000, 5032 in 2001-2002, and 4872 in 2003-2004) aged >or=18 years was used. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure >or=140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medications. The prevalence of hypertension in 2003-2004 was 7.3+/-0.9%, 32.6+/-2.0%, and 66.3+/-1.8% in the 18 to 39, 40 to 59, and >or=60 age groups, respectively. The overall prevalence was 29.3%. When compared with 1999-2000, there were nonsignificant increases in the overall prevalence, awareness, and treatment rates of hypertension. The blood pressure control rate was 29.2+/-2.3% in 1999-2000 and 36.8+/-2.3% in 2003-2004. The age-adjusted increase in control rate was 8.1% (95% CI: 2.4 to 13.8%; P=0.006). The control rates increased significantly in both sexes, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans. Among the >or=60 age group, the awareness, treatment, and control rates of hypertension had all increased significantly (P Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Adult
• Aging
• Black People/statistics & numerical data
• Blood Pressure/drug effects
• Female
• Goals
• Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
• Humans
• Hypertension/drug therapy
• Hypertension/epidemiology
• Hypertension/physiopathology
• Male
• Mexican Americans/statistics & numerical data
• Middle Aged
• Nutrition Surveys
• Prevalence
• United States/epidemiology
• Black or African American

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Kwok Leung Ong Department of Medicine and the Research Centre of Heart, Brain, Hormone and Healthy Aging, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Bernard M Y Cheung
Yu Bun Man
Chu Pak Lau
Karen S L Lam

Collapse

Losartan improves resistance artery lesions and prevents CTGF and TGF-beta production in mild hypertensive patients

Although structural and functional changes of resistance arteries have been proposed to participate in arterial hypertension (HTA) outcome, not all therapies may correct these alterations, even if they normalize the blood pressure (BP). The aim of this study was to investigate the mechanisms of the protection afforded by the angiotensin receptor antagonist losartan in resistance arteries from patients with essential HTA. In all, 22 untreated hypertensive patients were randomized to receive losartan or amlodipine for 1 year and the morphological characteristics of resistance vessels from subcutaneous biopsies were evaluated. Protein expression of connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta), and collagens III and IV was detected by immunohistochemistry. In comparison with normotensive subjects, resistance arteries from hypertensive patients showed a significant media:lumen (M/L) ratio increment and a higher protein expression of CTGF, TGF-beta, and collagens. After 1 year of treatment, both losartan and amlodipine similarly controlled BP. However, M/L only decreased in patients under losartan treatment, whereas in the amlodipine-treated group this ratio continued to increase significantly. The administration of losartan prevented significant increments in CTGF, TGF-beta, and collagens in resistance arteries. By contrast, amlodipine-treated patients showed a higher vascular CTGF, TGF-beta, and collagen IV staining than before treatment. Our results show that the administration of losartan, but not amlodipine, to hypertensive patients improves structural abnormalities and prevents the production of CTGF and TGF-beta in small arteries, despite similar BP lowering. These data may explain the molecular mechanisms of the better vascular protection afforded by drugs interfering with the renin-angiotensin system.

A meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension constitutes a veritable public health issue. Several classes of drugs are available for the treatment of hypertension. The objective of this meta-analytical approach was to assess the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs most commonly used in France in reducing clinical SBP and DBP.

METHODS

The antihypertensive drugs selected were hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide sustained release (SR), furosemide and spironolactone for diuretics; amlodipine and lercanidipine for calcium channel antagonists; atenolol for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers); enalapril and ramipril for ACE inhibitors; and candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan, and valsartan for angiotensin II receptor antagonists. The trials selected were published between 1973 and 2004, evaluated monotherapy with trial drugs as fixed-dosage or with dosage increase, and assessed blood pressure reduction between 2 and 3 months. The analysis method used was based on the calculation of the sum weighted for the trial size.

RESULTS

A total of 72 trials (comprising 9094 patients) were selected and analyzed. No trial evaluating furosemide or spironolactone satisfied the inclusion criteria for this analysis. For SBP, the reduction was more marked with diuretics, calcium channel antagonists, and ACE inhibitors. Of all the drugs studied, indapamide SR gave the greatest SBP reduction (-22.2 mm Hg). Evaluated therapeutic classes had a similar magnitude of effect on DBP, i.e. reduction between -11.4 mm Hg with beta-adrenoceptor antagonists and -10.3 mm Hg with angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Indapamide SR 1.5 mg appeared to be the most effective drug for a significant reduction in SBP within 2-3 months, which is an essential element in optimizing cardiovascular prevention among hypertensive patients. The clinical application of these results should take into consideration all the limitations discussed in this analysis.

Antihypertensive Medication Use Among US Adults With Hypertension

BACKGROUND

High blood pressure can be controlled through existing antihypertensive drug therapy. This study examined trends in prescribed antihypertensive medication use among US adults with hypertension and compared drug utilization patterns with recommendations of the Sixth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Persons aged > or =18 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys were identified as hypertensive on the basis of either a blood pressure > or =140/90 mm Hg or self-reported current treatment for hypertension with a prescription medication. In 1999-2002, 62.9% of US hypertensive adults took a prescription antihypertensive medication compared with 57.3% during 1988-1994 (P<0.01). Men had the greatest increase in antihypertensive medication use (47.5%, 1988-1994 versus 57.9%, 1999-2002 [P<0.001]). In both surveys, antihypertensive medication use increased with age, was lower among men than among women, and was lower among Mexican Americans than among non-Hispanic whites and blacks. Multiple antihypertensive drug use increased from 29.1% to 35.8% (P<0.001). Polytherapy with a calcium channel blocker, beta-blocker, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor significantly increased by 30%, 42%, and 68%, respectively, whereas monotherapy with a diuretic or beta-blocker significantly decreased. For hypertensives with diabetes, congestive heart failure, or a prior heart attack, the utilization patterns closely followed the Sixth Joint National Committee guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive medication use and multiple antihypertensive medication use among US hypertensive adults increased over the past 10 years, but disparities by sociodemographic factors continue to exist.