Efficacy of Combination Therapy for Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients With Severe Systolic Hypertension: The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) Study

Target Blood Pressure and Combination Therapy: Focus on Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Combination with Either Calcium Channel Blockers or Beta Blockers

BACKGROUND

The target blood pressure has changed many times in the guidelines in past years. However, there is always a question; is it good to lower blood pressure below 120/80 or not? Control of blood pressure in hypertension is very important in reducing hypertension-modified organ damage. So, the guidelines recommend combining more than one antihypertensive drug to reach the target blood pressure goal.

RESULTS

Combination therapy is recommended by guidelines to reach the blood pressure goal. The guidelines recommend many combinations, such as the combination of angiotensin receptor blockers with either calcium channel blockers (CCB) or beta-blocker (BB). Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination with CCB has gained superiority over other antihypertension drug combinations because it reduces blood pressure and decreases the incidence of CV events and organ damage. BB combinations are recommended by guidelines in patients with ischemic events but not all hypertensive patients. Unfortunately, the new generation BB, for example, nebivolol, has a vasodilator effect, making it new hope for BB.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy is a must in treating the hypertensive patient. The new generation BBs may change the recommendations of guidelines because they have an effect that is similar to CCBs.

Comparative peripheral edema for dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.

The efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/benazepril in Chinese essential hypertensive patients not adequately controlled with benazepril monotherapy: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group clinical trial

This double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of two strengths of fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/benazepril in Chinese hypertensive patients not adequately controlled with benazepril. Of 442 patients who received treatment with benazepril 10 mg for 4 weeks, 341 patients failed to achieve to diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg. These non-responders were randomized to receive amlodipine/benazepril 2.5/10 mg, or amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg, or benazepril 10 mg for 8 weeks. BP reductions with amodipinel/benazepril 2.5/10 mg (15.2/11.8 mmHg) or amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg (15.4/12.4 mmHg) were significantly greater than that with benazepril 10 mg (9.88/9.46 mmHg) at study end (p < 0.01, combination versus benazepril). BP control rate was 83.8% with amlodipine/benazepril 2.5/10 mg, 80.2% with amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg, 64.9% with benazepril 10 mg at study end (p < 0.01, combination versus benazepril). Three groups were generally well tolerated. Our study indicated that amlodipine/benazepril fixed-dose combination offered significant additional BP reductions and BP control rate compared with the continuation of benazepril monotherapy. No significant differences were observed in both BP reductions and BP control rate between amlodipine/benazepril 2.5/10 mg and amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg.

Nebivolol monotherapy for patients with systolic stage II hypertension: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular events and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess whether nebivolol (NEB), a vasodilatory β(1)-selective blocker, is a safe and efficacious monotherapy for individuals with systolic stage II hypertension.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial, 18- to 64-year-olds who had not used antihypertensive treatment for at least 4 weeks and had SBP/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 160 to 180/90 to 110 mm Hg were randomized to receive double-blind medication for 6 weeks (NEB, n = 290; placebo [PBO], n = 142). Depending on response, the starting dose (5 mg/d) could be increased directly to 20 mg/d. Primary parameters were baseline-end point changes in trough seated SBP and DBP (intent-to-treat [ITT] population); the Hochberg method was used to control the type I error (α = 0.05). Responder analysis was also performed. Safety and tolerability assessment included monitoring of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Mean age at baseline (ITT) was 50.7 years, and the mean SBP/DBP values were 167/101 mm Hg; 202 (47.3%) participants were women, 276 (63.9%) had body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2), 152 (35.2%) were black, and 161 (37.3%) were Hispanic. Completion rates were 79.7% (PBO) and 90.3% (NEB). After 2 weeks of treatment, 92% and 95% participants in the NEB and PBO groups, respectively, had SBP in the range of 130 to 180 mm Hg and were titrated to the 20-mg/d NEB dose or its matching PBO tablet. After 6 weeks of treatment, the NEB group experienced significant mean reductions compared with the PBO group for both SBP (-18.2 vs -12.3 mm Hg; P < 0.001) and DBP (-12.3 vs -5.7 mm Hg; P < 0.001), down to mean SBP/DBP values of 149/89 mm Hg and 155/95 mm Hg, respectively, and had a significantly higher percentage of individuals who achieved BP control (SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg, 30.6% vs 17.3%; P = 0.004). Post hoc analyses suggest that NEB was not efficacious in reducing SBP in black participants. Mean changes in pulse rate were -12.8 beats/min for the NEB group and -1.6 beats/min for the PBO group (P < 0.001). Rates of discontinuations due to an AE (NEB vs PBO) were 1.4% in both groups, rates of any treatment-emergent AEs were 19.7% versus 19.0%, and rates of serious AEs were 0.3% versus 2.1%. The most common AEs (NEB vs PBO) were headache (2.1% vs 2.8%) and hypertension (0.7% vs 2.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

NEB monotherapy was an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for these study individuals with systolic stage II hypertension, but most of them would need combination therapy to achieve BP control.

Evaluation of the dose-response relationship of amlodipine and losartan combination in patients with essential hypertension: an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial, phase II, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Despite recommendations for more intensive treatment and the availability of several effective treatments, hypertension remains uncontrolled in many patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the dose-response relationship and assess the efficacy and safety of amlodipine or losartan monotherapy and amlodipine camsylate/losartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

This was an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial design, phase II, multicenter study conducted in outpatient hospital clinics among adult patients aged 18-75 years with essential hypertension. At screening, patients received placebo for 2-4 weeks. Eligible patients (n=320) were randomized to one of eight treatment groups: amlodipine 5 mg or 10 mg, losartan 50 mg or 100 mg, amlodipine camsylate/losartan 5 mg/50 mg, 5 mg/100 mg, 10 mg/50 mg, or 10 mg/100 mg.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The assumption of strict superiority was estimated using the mean change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 8 weeks. Safety was monitored through physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory test results, ECG, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The reduction in DBP at 8 weeks was significantly greater in patients treated with the combination therapies compared with the respective monotherapies for all specified comparisons except amlodipine camsylate/losartan 10 mg/100 mg versus amlodipine 10 mg. The incidence of adverse events in the group of patients treated with the amlodipine camsylate/losartan 10 mg/50 mg combination tended to be higher than for any other group (27.9%, 12/43); however, the effect was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Combination amlodipine camsylate/losartan (5 mg/50 mg, 5 mg/100 mg and 10 mg/50 mg) resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with amlodipine or losartan monotherapy, and was determined to be generally safe and tolerable in patients with essential hypertension.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00942344.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose amlodipine/losartan and losartan in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled with losartan: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combination drugs may enhance blood pressure (BP) goal attainment through complementary effects and reduced side effects, which leads to better compliance.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of once-daily combination amlodipine/losartan versus losartan.

METHODS

This was an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase III study conducted in outpatient hospital clinics. Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg were administered amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination versus losartan 100 mg. The main outcome measures were changes in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and BP response rate from baseline values, which were assessed after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

At week 8, both groups achieved significant reductions from baseline in DBP (11.7 ± 7.0 and 3.2 ± 7.9 mmHg), which was significantly greater in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination (n = 70) group (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination group achieved significantly greater reductions in SBP at week 8 and in SBP and DBP at week 4 compared with the losartan 100 mg (n = 72) group (all p < 0.0001). Response rates were significantly higher in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg group versus the losartan 100 mg group (81.4% vs 63.9% at week 4, p < 0.0192; 90.0% vs 66.7% at week 8, p < 0.001). Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Switching to a fixed-dose combination therapy of amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in BP and superior achievement of BP goals compared with a maintenance dose of losartan 100 mg in Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00940680.

Real-life treatment patterns, compliance, persistence, and medication costs in patients with hypertension in Germany

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective patient data analysis was initiated to describe current treatment patterns of patients in Germany with arterial hypertension, with a special focus on compliance, persistence, and medication costs of fixed-dose and unfixed combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), amlodipine (AML) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) in Germany.

METHODS

The study analyzed prescription data collected by general practitioners, using the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The database was searched for patients with the diagnosis hypertension (ICD-10 code I10) and treatment data in the period 09/2009 to 08/2010. Compliance was measured indirectly based on the medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was defined as the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy. Medication costs were assessed from the statutory health insurance perspective in Germany.

RESULTS

In the IMS DA 406,888 observable patients in Germany were encoded with the diagnosis I10 essential hypertension. In total, 88,716 patients received prescriptions including ARBs, monotherapy (18.6%) or unfixed combinations with other anti-hypertensives (19.3%). The compliance with fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, either dual or with one other anti-hypertensive drug, was significantly better, compared to unfixed combinations (mean compliance 78.1% for fixed-dose vs 71.5% for unfixed combinations of ARB with HCT, p < 0.0001; mean compliance 79.4% vs 72.0%, p < 0.0001 if an additional anti-hypertensive medication was added). Fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, ARB with AML, dual only or prescribed with another anti-hypertensive medication resulted in a substantial increase of persistence, especially for patients on fixed-dose dual combinations (225.7 vs 163.6 days for ARB with HCT; 232.9 vs 178.4 days for ARB with AML, respectively). Fixed-dose combinations (varying from €1.38 to €2.20 per patient and day) were on average cheaper than unfixed combinations.

LIMITATIONS

Persistence and compliance could be under- or over-estimated because their assessment was based on prescription information. For two thirds of 69,060 patients, data on compliance and persistence was missing.

CONCLUSION

The study shows considerable variations in ARB treatment patterns among patients, with the majority of patients treated with fixed-dose or semi-fixed combination therapy. Fixed-dose combinations of ARBs with HCT and/or AML seem to result in better compliance and persistence compared to unfixed regimes of these drug classes, leading to reduction in all-cause hospitalizations, emphasizing the benefit and potential cost-savings of using fixed-dose regimes in a real-life general practice setting in Germany.

Fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril in the management of hypertension: focus on patient preference and adherence

Hypertension is one of the most important and widespread risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease. Once, combination therapy was traditionally reserved as a third-line or fourth-line approach in the management of hypertension. However, several major intervention trials in high-risk patient populations have shown that an average of 2-4 antihypertensive agents are required to achieve effective blood pressure control. Combination treatment should be considered as a first choice in patients at high cardiovascular risk and in individuals for whom blood pressure is markedly above the hypertension threshold (eg, more than 20 mmHg systolic or 10 mmHg diastolic), or when milder degrees of blood pressure elevation are associated with multiple risk factors, subclinical organ damage, diabetes, renal failure, or associated cardiovascular disease. A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that a fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril has better efficacy and tolerability than monotherapy with either agents. The fixed-dose formulation of lercanidipine-enalapril was well tolerated in all clinical trials, with an adverse event rate similar to that of the component drugs as monotherapy. The advantages of combination therapy include improved adherence to therapy and minimization of blood pressure variability. In addition, combining two antihypertensive agents with different mechanisms of action may provide greater protection against major cardiovascular events and the development of end-organ damage.

Efficacy of fixed-dose amlodipine and losartan combination compared with amlodipine monotherapy in stage 2 hypertension: a randomized, double blind, multicenter study

Background

The objective of this trial was to compare the blood-pressure lowering efficacy of amlodipine/losartan combination with amlodipine monotherapy after 6 weeks of treatment in Korean patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Results

In this multi-center, double-blind, randomized study, adult patients (n = 148) with stage 2 hypertension were randomized to amlodipine 5 mg/losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. After 2 weeks, patients with systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mmHg were titrated to amlodipine 10 mg/losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 10 mg. After 4 weeks of titration, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg could be optionally added to both groups. The change from baseline in SBP was assessed after 6 weeks. The responder rate (defined as achieving SBP < 140 mmHg or DBP < 90 mmHg) was also assessed at 2, 6 and 8 weeks as secondary endpoints. Safety and tolerability were assessed through adverse event monitoring and laboratory testing. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups. Least-square mean reduction in SBP at 6 weeks (primary endpoint) was significantly greater in the combination group (36.5 mmHg vs. 31.6 mmHg; p = 0.0117). The responder rate in SBP (secondary endpoints) was significantly higher in the combination group at 2 weeks (52.1% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.0213) but not at 6 weeks (p = 0.0550) or 8 weeks (p = 0.0592). There was no significant difference between groups in the incidence of adverse events.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that combination amlodipine/losartan therapy provides an effective and generally well-tolerated first line therapy for reducing blood pressure in stage 2 hypertensive patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01127217

Prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension in primary care settings in Al seeb wilayat, oman

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) among Omani hypertensive patients, on treatment and under primary health care (PHC) follow-up in Al Seeb Wilayat, Oman. Socio-demographic and clinical factors were explored for possible influence on blood pressure (BP) control.

METHODS

Based on an assumption of 50% prevalence of uncontrolled HTN, a retrospective data collection was conducted on the last three follow-up visits of 411 randomly selected Omani adults (≥18 years) from 3,459 hypertensive patients. Adequate BP control was defined using criteria from 7(th) Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention Detection Evaluation & Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC-7). A P value of <0.05 and odds ratios with 95% confidence interval were used to assess for association.

RESULTS

The targets for adequate BP control were achieved in 39% of the studied patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-44%). Lower BP control was found among hypertensives with diabetes (6.4%, P = <0.001) and renal disease (18.5%, P = 0.02); those with cardiovascular disease (CVD) showed relatively better control (58%). Age and gender had no impact on BP control. Most patients were only on one (24%) or two (47%) antihypertensive medications, the most frequently used being β-blockers (58.2%) and diuretics (56.3%).

CONCLUSION

HTN is not adequately controlled in over 60% of treated patients; the presence of co-morbidity and less than aggressive treatment are significant contributors. Improving the quality of HTN care is a priority; effective efforts should be undertaken to improve BP control.

Effect of renin-angiotensin system blockade on calcium channel blocker-associated peripheral edema

BACKGROUND

Peripheral edema is a common adverse effect of calcium channel blockers. The addition of a renin-angiotensin system blocker, either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an ARB, has been shown to reduce peripheral edema in a dose-dependent way.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE/COCHRANE search for all prospective randomized controlled trials in patients with hypertension, comparing calcium channel blocker monotherapy with calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination from 1980 to the present. Trials reporting the incidence of peripheral edema or withdrawal of patients because of edema and total sample size more than 100 were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

We analyzed 25 randomized controlled trials with 17,206 patients (mean age 56 years, 55% were men) and a mean duration of 9.2 weeks. The incidence of peripheral edema with calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination was 38% lower than that with calcium channel blocker monotherapy (P<.00001) (relative risk [RR] 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.74). Similarly, the risk of withdrawal due to peripheral edema was 62% lower with calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy (P=.002) (RR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.22-0.66). ACE inhibitors were significantly more efficacious than ARBs in reducing the incidence of peripheral edema (P<.0001) (ratio of RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.84) (indirect comparison).

CONCLUSION

In patients with hypertension, the calcium channel blocker/renin-angiotensin system blocker combination reduces the risk of calcium channel blocker-associated peripheral edema when compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy. ACE inhibitor seems to be more efficacious than ARB in reducing calcium channel blocker-associated peripheral edema, but head-to-head comparison studies are needed to prove this.

Moderate versus intensive treatment of hypertension with amlodipine/valsartan for patients uncontrolled on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy

OBJECTIVES

Many angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy patients need at least two agents to control blood pressure (BP). We investigated whether initiating intensive treatment with combination amlodipine/valsartan was superior to moderate treatment with amlodipine/valsartan in patients previously uncontrolled on ARB monotherapy.

METHODS

In this 12-week study, patients aged at least 18 years on ARB (other than valsartan) for at least 28 days (with treatment-naïve patients or those not controlled on agents other than an ARB treated with open-label olmesartan 20 or 40 mg, respectively, for 28 days) and with uncontrolled mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP; ≥ 150-<200 mmHg) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 5/320 mg (n = 369) or 5/160 mg (n = 359). At week 2, the dose was increased to 10/320 mg in the intensive arm. Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4. Optional up-titration with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg at week 8 was allowed if MSSBP was more than 140 mmHg.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean office sitting BP was comparable in the intensive (163.9/95.5 mmHg) and moderate (163.3/95.0 mmHg) groups. Intensive treatment provided greater BP reductions versus moderate treatment (P < 0.05) from week 4 (-23.0/-10.4 versus -19.2/-8.7 mmHg; primary endpoint) to week 12 (-29.0/-14.8 versus -25.3/-12.3 mmHg). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients in both groups (36.3% intensive, 37.6% moderate); peripheral edema was more common with intensive versus moderate treatment (8.7 versus 4.5%; P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Initiating treatment with an intensive dose of amlodipine/valsartan provides significantly greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment in hypertensive patients unresponsive to ARB monotherapy. Both treatment regimens were generally well tolerated based on adverse event reports, but the lack of routine laboratory testing after screening limits conclusions on tolerability.

Choice of ACE inhibitor combinations in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: update after recent clinical trials

The diabetes epidemic continues to grow unabated, with a staggering toll in micro- and macrovascular complications, disability, and death. Diabetes causes a two- to fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease, and represents the first cause of dialysis treatment both in the UK and the US. Concomitant hypertension doubles total mortality and stroke risk, triples the risk of coronary heart disease and significantly hastens the progression of microvascular complications, including diabetic nephropathy. Therefore, blood pressure reduction is of particular importance in preventing cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Successful antihypertensive treatment will often require a combination therapy, either with separate drugs or with fixed-dose combinations. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor plus diuretic combination therapy improves blood pressure control, counterbalances renin-angiotensin system activation due to diuretic therapy and reduces the risk of electrolyte alterations, obtaining at the same time synergistic antiproteinuric effects. ACE inhibitor plus calcium channel blocker provides a significant additive effect on blood pressure reduction, may have favorable metabolic effects and synergistically reduce proteinuria and the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate, as evidenced by the GUARD trial. Finally, the recently published ACCOMPLISH trial showed that an ACE inhibitor/calcium channel blocker combination may be particularly useful in reducing cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients. The present review will focus on different ACE inhibitor combinations in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, in the light of recent clinical trials, including GUARD and ACCOMPLISH.

Complementary mechanisms of angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers in managing hypertension

Hypertension affects approximately 73 million individuals in the United States. Clinical studies have shown that antihypertensive therapy can reduce blood pressure (BP) and the risk of cardiovascular events. However, the majority of patients with hypertension do not achieve the recommended BP goal of < 140/90 mm Hg (or < 130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) with antihypertensive monotherapy, and require therapy with 2 or more antihypertensive agents. Combination therapy utilizes antihypertensive agents from different drug classes, which act via distinct pharmacologic mechanisms to improve overall efficacy and tolerability. Although combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in achieving BP goals across the entire spectrum of hypertension, the proportion of patients achieving the recommended BP goal can be further improved by the use of new antihypertensive drug combinations. The beneficial antihypertensive characteristics of both angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers suggest that combining these classes may result in a highly efficacious antihypertensive therapy with regard to both activity and safety when used as a fixed-dose combination. In particular, a fixed-dose combination of olmesartan medoxomil plus amlodipine besylate has been demonstrated to be an efficacious antihypertensive combination due in part to the benefits associated with each of these agents within their respective drug classes.

Improving microvascular outcomes in patients with diabetes through management of hypertension

Diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and current opinion holds that hyperglycemia directly damages smaller blood vessels, resulting in microvascular complications of nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. In a patient with diabetes, hypertension compounds and greatly increases the risk of microvascular complications, and thus the risk of end-stage kidney disease, vision loss, and nontraumatic limb amputations. Hypertension and hyperglycemia directly damage the microvasculature, leading to small vessel dysfunction that manifests as the clinical disease states of diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy. Early recognition and treatment of both hyperglycemia and hypertension may prevent vision loss and chronic kidney disease, the devastating outcomes of these microvascular complications. One of the pathogenic mechanisms for microvascular dysfunction is upregulation of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, the most physiologically common receptor for the vasoconstrictor properties of angiotensin II. In patients with diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy, tight control of blood pressure (BP) (< 130/80 mm Hg) delays the progression of retinopathy and nephropathy in addition to reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Aggressive treatment with 2 or more antihypertensive agents, selected from different drug classes, is often needed to reach the optimal BP target level. A PubMed search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated hypertension control and microvascular outcomes in patients with diabetes. Several clinical trials have yielded promising data with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors (the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers). Attainment of BP control with RAAS inhibitors reduces the risk for CVD, nephropathy, and retinopathy. In addition, RAAS inhibitors have demonstrated renoprotective effectiveness independent of the BP reduction achieved. This review will examine the results of clinical trials in the context of BP control, diabetes, and the microvascular complications of retinopathy and nephropathy.

Mitigation of calcium channel blocker-related oedema in hypertension by antagonists of the renin-angiotensin system

This review is aimed at examining calcium channel blocker (CCB)-related oedema and how this can be attenuated through the use of agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system. CCBs are effective antihypertensive agents, but their propensity for causing oedema may reduce compliance. A review of the literature has indicated that the absolute incidence of this side effect is difficult to determine because reported rates vary widely, a factor that may stem from differences in the surveillance technique (active vs passive). In a recent trial incorporating active surveillance, 25% of patients who received amlodipine 10 mg per day experienced oedema. CCB-induced oedema is caused by increased capillary hydrostatic pressure that results from preferential dilation of pre-capillary vessels. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) cause post-capillary dilation and normalize hydrostatic pressure, and are thus ideally suited for prevention/reversal of CCB-induced oedema. The efficacy of this strategy was proven using both subjective and objective techniques. ARB/CCB and ACEI/CCB combination therapy is also more effective than CCB monotherapy in controlling blood pressure. These combinations represent an important advance in the management of hypertension.

Olmesartan/Amlodipine: combination therapy for the treatment of hypertension [corrected]

Hypertension is a highly prevalent disease and one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Hypertension remains the leading cause of mortality and the third largest cause of disability in both developed and developing countries. Although recent guidelines and advisory statements are recommending lower thresholds and goals for antihypertensive treatment, approximately two thirds of patients do not achieve the goals. In the United States only 36.8% of hypertensive patients achieve the goal of <140/90 mmHg. Poor adherence to antihypertensive medication regimens contributes to the practice-outcome gap. In most hypertensive patients it is difficult or impossible to control blood pressure with one drug, thus current guidelines have recommended the use of combination therapy as first-line treatment, or early in the management of hypertension. Blocking two or more blood pressure regulatory systems provides a more effective and more physiologic reduction in blood pressure. Fixed-dose combinations offer many advantages over free-drug combinations, such as convenience of use, fewer adverse events, and greater antihypertensive potency. Similar to other combinations, fixed-dose combination tablets containing the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine and the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan bring together two distinct and complementary mechanisms of action, resulting in improved blood pressure control and potential for improved target organ protection relative to either class of agent alone.

Amlodipine reduces predicted risk of coronary heart disease in high-risk patients with hypertension in Spain (The CORONARIA Study)

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of amlodipine besylate alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents in high-risk hypertensive patients in Spanish primary care. In this 1-year, open-label, prospective cohort study, 7468 patients were treated with amlodipine 5 - 10 mg as a monotherapy or as an add-on therapy to attain blood pressure control (target of < 140/90 mmHg or, in patients with conditions such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, < 130/85 mmHg). At 12 months, the primary outcome (change from baseline in predicted 10-year coronary heart disease risk) was -8.6%, down from 24.7% at baseline (relative risk reduction, 31.6%). Change in blood pressure from baseline (162.5/95.3 mmHg) was -26.7/-14.6 mmHg, and 38.6% of patients achieved their blood pressure target. In summary, significant reductions in predicted coronary heart disease risk and blood pressure were observed with amlodipine both as a monotherapy and as an add-on therapy. Amlodipine was well tolerated and compliance with treatment was good.

The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate in controlling high blood pressure: COACH, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week factorial efficacy and safety study

BACKGROUND

Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of 2 agents having complementary mechanisms of action when >1 agent is needed to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of combinations of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and amlodipine besylate with those of the component monotherapies in patients with mild to severe hypertension.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial study. Patients who were naive to antihypertensive therapy or who underwent a washout of previous antihypertensive therapy for up to 2 weeks and had a seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg were randomized to receive 1 of the following for 8 weeks: OM 10, 20, or 40 mg; amlodipine (AML) 5 or 10 mg; each possible combination of OM and AML; or placebo. The primary end point was the change from baseline in SeDBP at week 8, with secondary end points including the change in seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP), the proportion of patients reaching the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg; <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes), and the proportions of the intention-to-treat population reaching BP thresholds of <120/80, <130/80, <130/85, and <140/90 mm Hg. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated, with a particular focus on the incidence and severity of edema.

RESULTS

Of the 1940 randomized patients, 54.3% were male. The mean age of the study population was 54.0 years and 19.8% were aged >or=65 years. The mean baseline BP was 164/102 mm Hg, and 79.3% of patients had stage 2 hypertension. Combination therapy with OM and AML was associated with dose-dependent reductions in SeDBP (from -13.8 mm Hg with OM/AML 10/5 mg to -19.0 mm Hg with OM/AML 40/10 mg) and SeSBP (from -23.6 mm Hg with OM/AML 20/5 mg to -30.1 mm Hg with OM/AML 40/10 mg) that were significantly greater than the reductions with the corresponding component monotherapies (P<0.001). At week 8, the number of patients achieving the BP goal ranged from 57 of 163 (35.0%) to 84 of 158 (53.2%) in the combination-therapy groups, from 32 of 160 (20.0%) to 58 of 160 (36.3%) in the OM monotherapy groups, and from 34 of 161 (21.1%) to 53 of 163 (32.5%) in the AML monotherapy groups (P<0.005, combination therapies vs component monotherapies), compared with 14 of 160 (8.8%) in the placebo group. Achievement of the BP thresholds was highest in the combination-therapy groups, with 56.3% and 54.0% of patients achieving a BP <140/90 mm Hg with OM/AML 20/10 and 40/10 mg, respectively. Combination therapy was generally well tolerated, and no unexpected safety concerns emerged in the course of the study. The most common adverse events were edema (ranging from 9.9% [OM 20 mg] to 36.8% [AML 10 mg], compared with 12.3% with placebo) and headache (ranging from 2.5% [OM/AML 10/5 mg] to 8.7% [OM 20 mg], compared with 14.2% with placebo).

CONCLUSION

The combination of OM and AML was effective and well tolerated in this adult population with hypertension.

Blood Pressure Control with Amlodipine Add-on Therapy in Patients with Hypertension and Diabetes: Results of the Amlodipine Diabetic Hypertension Efficacy Response Evaluation Trial

Background:

Attainment of blood pressure (BP) goals in patients with diabetes is critical both to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and to delay the progression of renal disease. While therapeutic guidelines advise initial therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, monotherapy with these agents may not be sufficient to attain target BP.

Objective:

The ADHT (Amlodipine Diabetic Hypertension Efficacy Response Evaluation Trial) evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding amlodipine to the treatment regimen of patients with hypertension and diabetes who were already receiving either quinapril or losartan as monotherapy.

Methods:

ADHT was a double-blind, double-dummy, 22-week trial conducted in the US, After a washout period of 7–13 days, patients (aged 30–75 y) with hypertension and diabetes were randomized to receive quinapril 20 mg/day plus placebo or losartan 50 mg/day plus placebo for 4 weeks, titrated to 40 mg or 100 mg (if required), respectively, for an additional 4 weeks to achieve their BP goals (<130/60 mm Hg), At week 8, either amlodipine 5 mg/day or placebo was added for an additional 12 weeks, with titration to 10 mg at week 14 if the BP goal was not achieved.

Results:

Efficacy of add-on therapy was evaluated in 411 patients (amlodipine 211, placebo 200). BP goal was reached by 27.5% of patients when amlodipine was added to quinapril or losartan monotherapy, compared with 12.5% when placebo was added (OR 2.73; 95% CI 1.61 to 4.64; p < 0.001), When added to quinapril or losartan monotherapy, amlodipine reduced BP by 8.1/5.4 mm Hg, compared with a 1.6/0.7 mm Hg decrease with add-on placebo (p < 0.001). Amlodipine, quinapril, and losartan were well tolerated.

Conclusions:

Amlodipine is safe and effective when added to quinapril or losartan monotherapy to help lower BP toward therapeutic targets in patients with hypertension and diabetes.

Effects of calcium channel and renin-angiotensin system blockade on intravascular and neurohormonal mechanisms of hypertensive vascular disease

Several classes of antihypertensive drugs have been shown to improve vascular function through mechanisms other than reducing blood pressure (BP) alone. Certain dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) increase nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability and decrease oxidative stress, thereby improving endothelial activity and vascular function. Pulse wave analyses have shown that these agents reduce the impact of pressure wave reflections on central systolic BP (SBP), consistent with a decrease in arterial stiffness. The complementary vascular mechanisms of these drug classes suggest that combination therapy may be effective for improving clinical outcomes. In animal model studies, combination calcium channel/RAS blockade has been shown to be more effective in improving endothelial dysfunction than treatment with drugs from either class alone. Furthermore, results from recent clinical trials suggest a greater reduction in central aortic SBP, pulse pressure, and cardiovascular events with calcium channel/RAS blockade vs. beta-blocker/diuretic therapy. These studies support the potential benefit of combination calcium channel and RAS blockade in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Prescribing patterns in hypertension: the emerging role of fixed-dose combinations for attaining BP goals in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND

The attainment of clinical blood pressure (BP) goals can markedly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, yet approximately two-thirds of treated hypertensive patients in the United States have uncontrolled BP. Consequently, more aggressive management of hypertension, frequently involving combination therapy (e.g., fixed-dose combination [FDC] therapy), is needed to achieve the recommended BP goals of <140/90 mmHg for most patients, and <130/80 mmHg for high-risk patients.

SCOPE

This article, based on data from an extensive Medline search ('hypertension' AND 'prescribe', 'prescribing' OR 'prescription', date range: 1995-2007), focuses on prescribing patterns for antihypertensive medication, and on the emerging role of combination therapy, specifically FDC therapy, in treating hypertensive patients to target BP levels.

FINDINGS

Although the use of antihypertensive combination therapy has increased substantially in US adults over the last 20 years, such therapy remains considerably underutilized. Numerous studies have shown that combination therapies, including FDCs, can markedly reduce BP and adverse events relative to monotherapies, and this paper overviews data for various combination therapies: angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) + diuretic; angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor + diuretic; calcium-channel blocker (CCB) + ACE inhibitor; and CCB + ARB. Specifically, fixed-dose CCB/ARB combinations of amlodipine with losartan, valsartan, or olmesartan medoxomil have recently been developed, and combination therapy schedules of amlodipine plus one of these ARBs have shown greater BP-lowering efficacy compared with the constituent monotherapies. Furthermore, in two large studies in a total of >3000 patients, CCB + ARB combination therapy was associated with significantly lower incidences of headache and peripheral edema than CCB monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines for hypertension management clearly support the greater use of multidrug therapy, especially in high-risk patients. FDCs (e.g., various emerging CCB/ARB combinations) are a valuable option for such high-risk patients, as these combinations offer the potential to reduce adverse events, increase compliance, lower treatment costs, and improve BP goal-attainment rates.

Control and management of hypertension at a university health centre in oman

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence of hypertension, its control and management at Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) Health Centre, Oman.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study, in which were enrolled all the subjects (≥18 years), with the diagnosis of essential hypertension, who attended the SQU Health Centre between 1998 and 2002. The systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) values of the last three visits were used for analysis. BP control was defined using the Joint National Committee (JNC-7) criteria, <140 mmHg and <90 mmHg for systolic and diastolic BPs, respectively. Analyses were performed using univariate statistics.

RESULTS

Among the 7,702 medical records reviewed, the prevalence of hypertension was 2.4% (n = 187). The overall mean age of the cohort was 55±11 years, 54% (n = 101) were females, and majority of the subjects were Omanis (n = 123; 66%). The proportion of subjects who had their BP controlled was 41% (n = 77) with Omanis significantly less likely to have their BP controlled compared to non-Omanis (53% versus 35%; p = 0.017). The majority of the subjects were on mono (n = 131; 70%) followed by dual (n = 50; 27%) anti-hypertensive therapies. The most frequent mono anti-hypertensive therapies were B-blockers (n = 64; 34%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (n = 47; 25%). Among the dual combination therapies, the most common prescribed regimens were ACE inhibitor plus B-blocker (n = 14; 28%) and B-blocker plus diuretic (n = 12; 24%).

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of hypertension in this patient population was low compared to the national average. This study shows that control of hypertension is not optimal, but higher than those reported elsewhere.

Improving blood pressure control and clinical outcomes through initial use of combination therapy in stage 2 hypertension

Poor control of clinic and 24-h blood pressure (BP) is associated with enhanced risk of all cardiovascular disease events. Certain patient groups including the elderly, African-Americans, and those with hypertension and comorbid disease are difficult to control, as are patients with stage 2 hypertension (systolic BP>or=160 mmHg or diastolic BP>or=100 mmHg). It has been estimated that more than two-thirds of high-risk hypertensive patients with stage 2 hypertension and all hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or kidney disease will require two or more antihypertensive agents from different therapeutic classes to reach BP goals. Combining agents with distinct and complementary modes of action can address different pathophysiologic mechanisms involved in hypertension and may lead to more complete and prompt reductions in BP. Tolerability may also improve, as certain classes of antihypertensive agents ameliorate adverse effects associated with other agents. Patients may benefit from fixed-dose combinations of drugs as this simplifies the regimen and may improve adherence with therapy, control of BP, and ultimately lead to reductions in cardiovascular events. Recent data and treatment guidelines support the use of a combination strategy as 'initial' antihypertensive therapy in high-risk patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Effective management of hypertension with dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker-based combination therapy in patients at high cardiovascular risk

The increasing prevalence of hypertension, owing to modern lifestyles and the increasing elderly population, is contributing to the global burden of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Although effective antihypertensive therapies are available, blood pressure (BP) is generally poorly controlled. In addition, the full benefits of antihypertensive therapy can only be realised when target BP is achieved. International guidelines and clinical trial evidence support the use of combination therapy to manage hypertension. In high-risk patients, such as those with coronary artery disease, diabetes and renal dysfunction, BP targets are lower and there is a need for intensive management with combination therapy to control BP and provide additional CV risk reduction benefits. Combinations of antihypertensive agents with different but complementary modes of action improve BP control and may also provide vascular-protective effects. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been shown to be effective in combination with a range of antihypertensive drugs and in different patient populations. As part of a first-line combination strategy, CCBs can provide CV benefits beyond BP control, even in patients at increased CV risk. Benefits include protection against end-organ damage and serious CV events. Indeed, in major intervention trials, these benefits have already been clearly demonstrated. Ongoing studies will provide further data to support the clinical benefits of combination therapy as a first-line treatment approach. Implementation of this approach in clinical practice, together with adherence to global hypertension management guidelines will help ensure patients achieve and sustain BP targets, and reduce the risk of CV events.

Risk-based classification of hypertension and the role of combination therapy

The recognition of a continuous relationship between elevated blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular risk has influenced national and international guidelines for the classification, prevention, and management of hypertension. The most recent report (2003) of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure uses BP thresholds to define categories of normal, prehypertension, and hypertension. A new definition proposed by the Hypertension Writing Group in 2005 offers an approach to diagnosis and management based on global or total risk. Thus, even in the absence of sustained elevations in BP, patients may have a moderate to high risk of vascular events due to the presence of additional cardiovascular risk factors, disease markers, and target organ damage. The 2007 European guidelines continue to classify hypertension based on cutoffs while also placing emphasis on multivariate formulations for cardiovascular risk assessment and goals of therapy. All 3 sets of guidelines acknowledge the necessity of using > or =2 antihypertensive agents to attain BP goals in many patients.

Prompt, aggressive BP lowering in high-risk patients

Various populations with hypertension have been singled out by current treatment guidelines as requiring more specific treatment. These include patients with stage 2 hypertension, black patients, and patients with coexistent diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease. Hypertension in these groups is often associated with higher risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. This article reviews current knowledge regarding hypertension in high-risk patient populations, with a particular focus on the importance of prompt, aggressive treatment to lower blood pressure and prevent cardiovascular disease progression. Such treatment includes the early use of multiple-drug therapy with agents that have complementary blood pressure-lowering mechanisms and provide protection from target organ damage. While 2- or 3-drug antihypertensive therapy in these high-risk groups has typically included a diuretic, other combinations of agents may be indicated. Evidence suggests that therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin system is one effective strategy for lowering blood pressure and improving outcomes in these populations.

Fixed combinations in the management of hypertension: patient perspectives and rationale for development and utility of the olmesartan-amlodipine combination

Although the awareness and control of hypertension has increased, only 37% of hypertensive patients in the US achieve the conservative goal of <140/90 mmHg. Achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control is the most important single issue in the management of hypertension, and in most hypertensive patients, it is difficult or impossible to control BP with one drug. Blocking two or more BP regulatory systems provides a more effective and more physiologic reduction in BP, and current guidelines have recommended the use of combination therapy as first-line treatment, or early in the management of hypertension. Fixed combination therapy is an efficacious, relatively safe, and may be cost-effective method of decreasing BP in most patients with essential hypertension. Similar to other combinations, fixed-dose combination tablets containing the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine and the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan bring together two distinct and complementary mechanisms of action, resulting in improved BP control and potential for improved target organ protection relative to either class of agent alone.

Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

BACKGROUND

Patients with hypertension may require combination therapy to attain the blood pressure targets recommended by US and European treatment guidelines. Combination therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blocker would be expected to provide enhanced efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

Two studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of various combinations of amlodipine and valsartan administered once daily with their individual components and placebo in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [MSDBP] >/=95 and < 110 mm Hg). A secondary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability.

METHODS

The 2 studies were multinational, multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials. In study 1, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg with valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, or placebo. In study 2, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 10 mg once daily, valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 10 mg with valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable in both studies was change from baseline in MSDBP at the end of the study. Secondary variables included the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), response rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a >/= 10-mm Hg decrease from baseline), and control rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg). Safety was assessed in terms of adverse events (spontaneously reported or elicited by questioning), vital signs, and laboratory values.

RESULTS

A total of 1911 patients were randomized to treatment in study 1 (1022 amlodipine + valsartan; 507 valsartan; 254 amlodipine; 128 placebo); 1250 were randomized to treatment in study 2 (419, 415, 207, and 209, respectively). In all treatment groups in both studies, the majority of patients were white (79.5% study 1, 79.4% study 2) and male (53.5% and 50.3%, respectively). The overall mean age was 54.4 years in study 1 and 56.9 years in study 2. The mean weight of patients in study 1 was higher than that in study 2 (88.8 vs 79.7 kg). The overall baseline mean sitting BP was 152.8/99.3 mm Hg in study 1 and 156.7/99.1 mm Hg in study 2. With the exception of a few combinations that included amlodipine 2.5 mg, the combination regimens in both studies were associated with significantly greater reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP compared with their individual components and placebo (P < 0.05). A positive dose response was observed for all combinations. The highest response rate in study 1 was associated with the highest dose of combination therapy (amlodipine 5 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 91.3%). Amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan 320 mg, and placebo were associated with response rates of 71.9%, 73.4%, and 40.9%, respectively. In study 2, the 2 doses of combination therapy were associated with similar response rates (amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg: 88.5%; amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 87.5%). Amlodipine 10 mg was associated with a response rate of 86.9%; valsartan 160 and 20 mg were associated with response rates of 74.9% and 72.0%, respectively; and placebo was associated with a response rate of 49.3%. Control rates followed a similar pattern. The incidence of peripheral edema with combination therapy was significantly lower compared with amlodipine monotherapy (5.4% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = 0.014), was significantly higher compared with valsartan monotherapy (2.1%; P < 0.001), and did not differ significantly from placebo (3.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

In these adult patients with mild to moderate hypertension, the combination of amlodipine + valsartan was associated with significantly greater blood pressure reductions from baseline compared with amlodipine or valsartan monotherapy or placebo. The incidence of peripheral edema was significantly lower with combination therapy than with amlodipine monotherapy.

More medications, fewer pills: combination medications for the treatment of hypertension

Achieving blood pressure targets in hypertension can be challenging. Often, patients require multiple medications to reach these targets. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program has updated its past recommendations to reflect current knowledge regarding effective antihypertensive combinations. Evidence for the use of specific drug combinations in achieving blood pressure targets has been reviewed, and the inventory of effective drug combinations has been expanded. From a clinical perspective, fixed-dose antihypertensive combinations offer certain advantages in terms of efficacy, adherence, cost, convenience, patient-perceived 'wellness' and side effects. Consequently, in the future, fixed-dose combination formulations are likely to become increasingly used in the treatment of cardiovascular disease.

Targeting mechanisms of hypertensive vascular disease with dual calcium channel and renin-angiotensin system blockade

Patients with hypertension, particularly those with diabetes mellitus, are at heightened risk for cardiovascular and renal disease. Accumulated evidence indicates that the majority of hypertensive patients at high risk will require more than one antihypertensive agent to reach their blood pressure (BP) target. A reasonable strategy is to use agents with complementary mechanisms of action to enhance BP-lowering efficacy and prevent target organ damage. In experimental models, the combination of a calcium channel blocker (CCB) with an agent that blocks the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, improves measures of endothelial function, inflammation, ventricular remodelling and renal function to a greater degree than these classes given as monotherapy. In clinical trials, calcium channel/RAS blockade combination therapy has been shown to provide greater BP reductions and improve renal function in patients with diabetic and nondiabetic renal disease earlier and to a greater extent than monotherapy. In addition, dual calcium channel/RAS blockade increases arterial compliance, arterial distensibility and flow-mediated vasodilation. Expanding upon extensive research on the benefits of calcium channel blockade and RAS blockade for the prevention of vascular events and preclinical and clinical trial evidence suggests added effects of combination therapy by targeting the underlying mechanisms of hypertensive vascular disease.

Efficacy of Combination Therapy With Amlodipine Besylate/Benazepril Hydrochloride for Lowering Systolic Blood Pressure in Stage 2 Hypertension

The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study compared daily treatment with combination amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride 5/20 mg, amlodipine besylate 5 mg, and benazepril hydrochloride 20 mg in 505 patients aged 55 years of age or older with stage 2 hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] > or =160 and < or =200 mm Hg and diastolic BP > or =60 and < or =100 mm Hg). BP and pulse pressure were assessed by conventional office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In this analysis, combination therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in mean 24-hour BP, pulse pressure, and mean ambulatory BP during various time intervals compared with either monotherapy in the intent-to-treat population, in those with isolated and predominantly systolic hypertension, and in dippers and nondippers. Adverse event rates were low and similar in all treatment groups. This study demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and is well tolerated.