Effects of valsartan or amlodipine alone or in combination on plasma catecholamine levels at rest and during standing in hypertensive patients

Cardiovascular autonomic nervous system dysfunction in chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease: disruption of the complementary forces

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Several nontraditional risk factors have been the focus of research in an attempt to understand the disproportionately high cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) populations. One such category of risk factors is cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction. Its true prevalence in the CKD/ESKD population is unknown but existing evidence suggests it is common. Due to lack of standardized diagnostic and treatment options, this condition remains undiagnosed and untreated in many patients. In this review, we discuss current evidence pointing toward the role of autonomic nervous system (ANS) dysfunction in CKD, building off of crucial historical evidence and thereby highlighting the areas in need for future research interest.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are several key mediators and pathways leading to cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction in CKD and ESKD. We review studies exploring the mechanisms involved and discuss the current measurement tools and indices to evaluate the ANS and their pitfalls. There is a strong line of evidence establishing the temporal sequence of worsening autonomic function and kidney function and vice versa. Evidence linking ANS dysfunction and arrhythmia, sudden cardiac death, intradialytic hypotension, heart failure and hypertension are discussed.

SUMMARY

There is a need for early recognition and referral of CKD and ESKD patients suspected of cardiovascular ANS dysfunction to prevent the downstream effects described in this review.There are many unknowns in this area and a clear need for further research.

The renin-angiotensin system in cardiovascular autonomic control: recent developments and clinical implications

Complex and bidirectional interactions between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and autonomic nervous system have been well established for cardiovascular regulation under both physiological and pathophysiological conditions. Most research to date has focused on deleterious effects of components of the vasoconstrictor arm of the RAS on cardiovascular autonomic control, such as renin, angiotensin II, and aldosterone. The recent discovery of prorenin and the prorenin receptor have further increased our understanding of RAS interactions in autonomic brain regions. Therapies targeting these RAS components, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, are commonly used for treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, with blood pressure-lowering effects attributed in part to sympathetic inhibition and parasympathetic facilitation. In addition, a vasodilatory arm of the RAS has emerged that includes angiotensin-(1-7), ACE2, and alamandine, and promotes beneficial effects on blood pressure in part by reducing sympathetic activity and improving arterial baroreceptor reflex function in animal models. The role of the vasodilatory arm of the RAS in cardiovascular autonomic regulation in clinical populations, however, has yet to be determined. This review will summarize recent developments in autonomic mechanisms involved in the effects of the RAS on cardiovascular regulation, with a focus on newly discovered pathways and therapeutic targets for this hormone system.

Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Exercise-Induced Lipid Metabolism in Patients With Obesity and Hypertension

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a novel angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, was recently approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Neprilysin degrades several peptides that modulate lipid metabolism, including natriuretic peptides. In this study, we investigated the effects of 8 weeks’ treatment with sacubitril/valsartan on whole-body and adipose tissue lipolysis and lipid oxidation during defined physical exercise compared with the metabolically neutral comparator amlodipine. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study enrolling subjects with abdominal obesity and moderate hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure ≥130–180 mm Hg). Lipolysis during rest and exercise was assessed by microdialysis and [1,1,2,3,3-²H]-glycerol tracer kinetics. Energy expenditure and substrate oxidation were measured simultaneously using indirect calorimetry. Plasma nonesterified fatty acids, glycerol, insulin, glucose, adrenaline and noradrenaline concentrations, blood pressure, and heart rate were also determined. Exercise elevated plasma glycerol, free fatty acids, and interstitial glycerol concentrations and increased the rate of glycerol appearance. However, exercise-induced stimulation of lipolysis was not augmented on sacubitril/valsartan treatment compared with amlodipine treatment. Furthermore, sacubitril/valsartan did not alter energy expenditure and substrate oxidation during exercise compared with amlodipine treatment. In conclusion, sacubitril/valsartan treatment for 8 weeks did not elicit clinically relevant changes in exercise-induced lipolysis or substrate oxidation in obese patients with hypertension, implying that its beneficial cardiovascular effects cannot be explained by changes in lipid metabolism during exercise.

Aldosterone breakthrough in dogs with naturally occurring myxomatous mitral valve disease

INTRODUCTION

Aldosterone breakthrough (ABT) is the condition in which angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and/or angiotensin receptor blockers fail to effectively suppress the activity of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system. The objective of this study was to determine if ABT occurs in dogs with naturally occurring myxomatous mitral valve disease receiving an ACEI, using the urine aldosterone to creatinine ratio (UAldo:C) as a measure of renin angiotensin aldosterone system activation.

ANIMALS, MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study includes 39 dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease. A UAldo:C cut-off definition (derived from a normal population of healthy, adult, and client-owned dogs) was used to determine the prevalence of ABT in this population. Spearman analysis and univariate logistic regression were used to evaluate the relationship between UAldo:C and ABT (yes/no) and eight variables (age, serum K⁺ concentration, serum creatinine concentration, ACEI therapy duration and ACEI dosage, furosemide therapy duration and furosemide dosage, and urine sample storage time). Finally, the UAldo:C in dogs receiving spironolactone, as part congestive heart failure (CHF) therapy, was compared to dogs with CHF that were not receiving spironolactone.

RESULTS

The prevalence of ABT was 32% in dogs with CHF and 30% in dogs without CHF. There was no relationship between either the UAldo:C or the likelihood of ABT and the eight variables. Therapy with spironolactone lead to a significant elevation of the UAldo:C.

DISCUSSION

Using the UAldo:C and a relatively stringent definition of ABT, it appears that incomplete RAAS blockade is common in dogs with MMVD receiving an ACEI. The prevalence of ABT in this canine population mirrors that reported in humans. While the mechanism of ABT is likely multifactorial and still poorly understood, the proven existence of ABT in dogs offers the potential to improve the prognosis for MMVD with the addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker to current therapeutic regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 30% of dogs being treated for heart disease and CHF satisfied the definition of ABT. Identifying patient subpopulations experiencing ABT may help guide future study design and clinical decision-making.

Amlodipine and enalapril promote distinct effects on cardiovascular autonomic control in spontaneously hypertensive rats: the role of aerobic physical training

BACKGROUND

We compared the autonomic and hemodynamic cardiovascular effects of amlodipine and enalapril treatment associated with an aerobic physical training program on spontaneously hypertensive rats.

METHODS

Eighteen-week-old (n = 48) spontaneously hypertensive rats were assigned to one of two groups: sedentary (n = 24) and trained (n = 24) through a 10-week swimming training program. Each group was subdivided into three groups (n = 8): control (vehicle group), amlodipine (amlodipine group; 10 mg/kg per day) and enalapril (enalapril group; 10 mg/kg per day) (both for 10 weeks). We cannulated the femoral artery and vein of all animals for recording arterial pressure and injecting drugs, respectively. Autonomic assessment was performed by double blockade with propranolol and atropine, analysis of heart rate variability (HRV), systolic arterial pressure variability and baroflex sensitivity.

RESULTS

Arterial pressure reduction was more prominent in the sedentary and trained enalapril groups. Amlodipine sedentary group presented important autonomic adjustments characterized by a predominance of vagal tone in cardiac autonomic balance, increased HRV associated with sympathetic autonomic modulation reduction and increased vagal autonomic modulation, and increased baroflex sensitivity. All findings were not potentialized by physical training. In turn, the enalapril trained group, but not its sedentary counterpart, also had vagal tone prevalence in cardiac autonomic balance, increased HRV, increased baroflex sensitivity and decreased low-frequency band in systolic arterial pressure variability.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine was more effective in promoting beneficial autonomic cardiovascular adaptations in sedentary animals. In contrast, enalapril achieved better autonomic results only when combined with aerobic physical training.

A Single-Center, Open-Label, 3-Way Crossover Trial to Determine the Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interaction Between Nebivolol and Valsartan in Healthy Volunteers at Steady State

Combining different classes of antihypertensives is more effective for reducing blood pressure (BP) than increasing the dose of monotherapies. The aims of this phase I study were to investigate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between nebivolol, a vasodilatory β1-selective blocker, and valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, and to assess safety and tolerability of the combination. This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, 3-way crossover trial in 30 healthy adults aged 18-45 years. Participants were randomized into 1 of 6 treatment sequences (1:1:1:1:1:1) consisting of three 7-day treatment periods followed by a 7-day washout. Once-daily oral treatments comprised nebivolol (20 mg), valsartan (320 mg), and nebivolol-valsartan combination (20/320 mg). Outcomes included AUC0-τ,ss, Cmax,ss, Tmax,ss, changes in BP, pulse rate, plasma angiotensin II, plasma renin activity, 24-hour urinary aldosterone, and adverse events. Steady-state pharmacokinetic interactions were observed but deemed not clinically significant. Systolic and diastolic BP reduction was significantly greater with nebivolol-valsartan combination than with either monotherapy. The mean pulse rate associated with nebivolol and nebivolol-valsartan treatments was consistently lower than that associated with valsartan monotherapy. A sharp increase in mean day 7 plasma renin activity and plasma angiotensin II that occurred in valsartan-treated participants was significantly attenuated with concomitant nebivolol administration. Mean 24-hour urine aldosterone at day 7 was substantially decreased after combined treatment, as compared with either monotherapy. All treatments were safe and well tolerated. In conclusion, nebivolol and valsartan coadministration led to greater reductions in BP compared with either monotherapy; nebivolol and valsartan lower BP through complementary mechanisms.

Sympathomodulatory Effects of Antihypertensive Drug Treatment

BACKGROUND

An activation of sympathetic neural influences to the heart and peripheral circulation has been shown to represent a hallmark of the essential hypertensive state, adrenergic neural factors participating together with other variables at the development and progression of the high blood pressure state as well as of the hypertension-related target organ damage. This represents the rationale for employing in hypertension treatment drugs which combine the blood pressure-lowering properties with the modulatory effects on the sympathetic neural function.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Several studies published during the past 40 years have investigated the impact of antihypertensive drugs on the sympathetic target as assessed by indirect and direct approaches. In the present paper, the effects of different monotherapies or combination drug treatment used in hypertension to lower elevated blood pressure values on various adrenergic markers will be examined. This will be followed by a discussion of the (i) hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic consequences of employing antihypertensive drugs with sympathomodulatory or sympathoexcitatory properties and (ii) mechanisms potentially responsible for the adrenergic responses to a given antihypertensive drug. The final part of this review will address the questions still open related to the impact of antihypertensive drug treatment on sympathetic function. Two questions in particular will be examined, i.e., whether antihypertensive drugs with sympathomodulatory properties may be capable to fully restore a "normal" adrenergic drive and how far sympathetic activity should be reduced in hypertensive patients.

CONCLUSION

Future investigations aimed at answering these questions will be needed in order to improve cardiovascular protection in treated hypertensive patients.

Amlodipine reduces blood pressure during dynamic resistance exercise in hypertensive patients

This study investigated the effect of the dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, amlodipine, on blood pressure (BP) during resistance exercise performed at different intensities in hypertensives. Eleven hypertensives underwent 4 weeks of placebo and amlodipine (random double-blinded crossover design). In each phase, they performed knee extension exercise until exhaustion following three protocols: one set at 100% of 1 RM (repetition maximum), three sets at 80% of 1 RM, and three sets at 40% of 1 RM. Intraarterial BP was measured before and during exercise. Amlodipine reduced maximal systolic/diastolic BP values achieved at all intensities (100% = 225 ± 6/141 ± 3 vs. 207 ± 6/130 ± 6 mmHg; 80% = 289 ± 8/178 ± 5 vs. 273 ± 10/169 ± 6 mmHg; 40% = 289 ± 10/176 ± 8 vs. 271 ± 11/154 ± 6 mmHg). Amlodipine blunted the increase in diastolic BP that occurred during the second and third sets of exercise at 40% of 1RM (+75 ± 6 vs. +61 ± 5 mmHg and +78 ± 7 vs. +64 ± 5 mmHg, respectively). Amlodipine was effective in reducing the absolute values of systolic and diastolic BP during resistance exercise and in preventing the progressive increase in diastolic BP that occurs over sets of low-intensity exercise. These results suggest that systemic vascular resistance is involved in BP increase during resistance exercise, and imply that hypertensives receiving amlodipine are at lower risk of increased BP during resistance exercise than non-medicated patients.

Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers as monotherapy as evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are available in different dosages and it is common clinical practice to uptitrate if blood pressure goal is not achieved with the initial dose. Data on the incremental antihypertensive efficacy with uptitration are scarce. It is also unclear if antihypertensive efficacy of losartan is comparable with other ARBs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically reviewed PubMed/EMBASE/Cochrane databases for all randomized clinical trials until December 2012 reporting 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) for most commonly available ARBs in patients with hypertension. Reduction in ABP with ARBs was evaluated at 25% of the maximum (max) dose, 50% of the max dose, and at the max dose. Comparison was made between 24 h BP-lowering effect of losartan 50 and 100 mg and other ARBs at 50% max dose and the max dose, respectively. Sixty-two studies enrolling 15 289 patients (mean age 56 years; 60% men) with a mean duration of 10 weeks were included in the analysis. Overall, the dose-response curve with ARBs was shallow with decrease of 10.3/6.7 (systolic/diastolic), 11.7/7.6, and 13.0/8.3 mmHg with 25% max dose, 50% max dose, and with the max dose of ARBs, respectively. Losartan in the dose of 50 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at 50% max dose by 2.5 mmHg systolic (P < 0.0001) and 1.8 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.0003). Losartan 100 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at max dose by 3.9 mm Hg systolic (P = 0.0002) and 2.2 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive analysis of the antihypertensive efficacy of ARBs by 24 h ABP, we observed a shallow dose-response curve, and uptitration marginally enhanced the antihypertensive efficacy. Blood pressure reduction with losartan at starting dose and at max dose was consistently inferior to the other ARBs.

Calcium Channel Blockers as Initial Therapeutic Agents in Hypertension

Blood pressure (BP) control is central to health promotion and maintenance across the health care continuum. Optimal control has been associated with improved microvascular end organ outcomes, reduced morbidity and mortality, and improved quality of life. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are a frequently utilized first-line antihypertensive agent, either as a monotherapy or in combination, as advocated by the 2003 Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VII). However, despite their ability to achieve BP parameters comparable to alternative agents, CCBs may be inducing heart failure (HF) pathology by a mechanism other than the well-known negative inotropic effects of nondihydropyridine CCBs and thus may be responsible for more incident HF than was previously thought. Review of current literature indicates that there is a strong association between all types of CCBs and incident HF, that this association is found in persons with and without preexisting myocardial dysfunction, that BP measurement alone is an insufficient measure of end organ preservation with CCB use, and that CCB-induced HF is more problematic with comorbid coronary disease, renal disease, and diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, current research suggests that these outcomes are a result of CCB-induced neurohormonal sympathetic activation, sustained CCB-generated nitric oxide production leading to inflammation and tissue destruction, and/or increased systemic calcification secondary to concurrent calcium supplementation. These findings suggest the pressing need for reevaluation of CCBs as first-line agents in treating hypertension and for possible revision of JNC VII hypertension guidelines.

Renin-Angiotensin system and sympathetic neurotransmitter release in the central nervous system of hypertension

Many Studies suggest that changes in sympathetic nerve activity in the central nervous system might have a crucial role in blood pressure control. The present paper discusses evidence in support of the concept that the brain renin-angiotensin system (RAS) might be linked to sympathetic nerve activity in hypertension. The amount of neurotransmitter release from sympathetic nerve endings can be regulated by presynaptic receptors located on nerve terminals. It has been proposed that alterations in sympathetic nervous activity in the central nervous system of hypertension might be partially due to abnormalities in presynaptic modulation of neurotransmitter release. Recent evidence indicates that all components of the RAS have been identified in the brain. It has been proposed that the brain RAS may actively participate in the modulation of neurotransmitter release and influence the central sympathetic outflow to the periphery. This paper summarizes the results of studies to evaluate the possible relationship between the brain RAS and sympathetic neurotransmitter release in the central nervous system of hypertension.

Long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers and sympathetic nervous system activity in hypertension: a literature review comparing amlodipine and nifedipine GITS

Calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) constitute a diverse group of compounds but are often referred to as a single homogeneous class of drug and the clinical responses indiscriminately summarized. Even within the dihydropyridine subgroup, there are significant differences in formulations, pharmacokinetics, durations of action and their effects on blood pressure, heart rate, end organs and the sympathetic nervous system. Amlodipine and nifedipine in the gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation are the most studied of the once-daily CCBs. Amlodipine has an inherently long pharmacokinetic half-life, whereas, in contrast, nifedipine has an inherently short half-life but in the GITS formulation the sophisticated delivery system allows for once-daily dosing. This article is derived from a systematic review of the published literature in hypertensive patients. The following search terms in three main databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index) from 1990 to 2011 were utilized: amlodipine, nifedipine, sympathetic nervous system, sympathetic response, sympathetic nerve activity, noradrenaline, norepinephrine and heart rate. More than 1500 articles were then screened to derive the relevant analysis. As markers of sympathetic nervous system activation, studies of plasma norepinephrine concentrations, power spectral analysis, muscle sympathetic nerve activity and norepinephrine spillover were reviewed. Overall, each drug lowered blood pressure in hypertensive patients in association with only small changes in heart rate (i.e. <1 beat/min). Plasma norepinephrine concentrations, as the most widely reported marker of sympathetic nervous system activity, showed greater increases in patients treated with amlodipine than with nifedipine GITS. The evidence indicates that both these once-daily dihydropyridine CCBs lower blood pressure effectively with minimal effects on heart rate. There are small differences between the drugs in the extent to which each activates the sympathetic nervous system with an overall non-significant trend in favour of nifedipine GITS.

The N-type and L-type calcium channel blocker cilnidipine suppresses renal injury in Dahl rats fed a high-salt diet

The aims of the present study were to compare the effects of cilnidipine [L-type/N-type calcium channel blocker (CCB)] and amlodipine (L-type CCB) alone or in combination with the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), valsartan, on blood pressure (BP), kidney function in Dahl salt-sensitive (DS) rats. DS rats fed a high-salt diet were divided into six groups; control (n = 13), two CCB (cilnidipine or amlodipine) groups at 1 mg/kg/day (n = 10), ARB (valsartan) at 10 mg/kg/day (n = 12), cilnidipine + valsartan (CV, n = 12), and amlodipine + valsartan (AV, n = 12). BPs were lower in the combination therapy groups than in those given either drug alone, but only CV inhibited the increase in urinary albumin excretion (UAE) and lowered the glomerular sclerosis score. In addition, AV elevated plasma renin activity and the angiotensin II concentration, and thus failed to inhibit increases in UAE and to lower glomerular sclerosis score. In conclusion, combination therapy with CCB and ARB decreases BP more effectively than either drug alone. When used in combination with valsartan, cilnidipine is more effective than amlodipine for preventing kidney injury.

Do calcium channel blockers increase the diagnosis of heart failure in patients with hypertension?

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are widely used to control hypertension. Previous work suggested that their use could increase heart failure (HF), which is 1 of the consequences of uncontrolled hypertension. Information about the effect of CCBs on incident HF in patients with hypertension is scarce. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate patients with hypertension treated with CCBs and incident HF. An electronic search of publications was conducted using 8 major databases. Studies were eligible if they (1) were randomized clinical trials, (2) performed comparisons of CCBs versus active control, (3) randomized >200 patients, (4) had follow-up periods >6 months, and (5) provided data regarding incident HF. Trials of renal transplantation patients, placebo-controlled trials, and HF trials were excluded. A total of 156,766 patients were randomized to CCBs or control, with a total of 5,049 events. The analysis indicated a significant increase in the diagnosis of HF in patients allocated to CCBs (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.31). The effect observed was independent of incident myocardial infarction. Subgroup analyses indicated that patients with diabetes were at higher risk for developing HF (odds ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 2.41). In conclusion, the results suggest that patients with hypertension treated with CCBs have increased incident HF.

EXCEED: Exforge®-intensive control of hypertension to evaluate efficacy in diastolic dysfunction: study rationale, design, and participant characteristics

Background: Both diastolic dysfunction and increased vascular stiffness represent important measures of target-organ damage in hypertension. Whether intensive blood pressure (BP) control can further improve these measures remains unknown.

Methods: EXCEED is a prospective, randomized open-label blinded endpoint trial (PROBE) design, aiming to test the hypothesis that more aggressive BP lowering would result in greater improvement in diastolic function among patients with stage II hypertension, evidence of diastolic dysfunction and preserved systolic function (EF ≥ 50%). Patients were randomized to one of two treatment strategies, targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg or <130 mmHg using a combination of amlodipine/valsartan with additional antihypertensive medications as needed to achieve the prescribed targets. Diastolic function was assessed using Doppler tissue imaging of early diastolic velocity of lateral mitral annulus (E'), while vascular stiffness was assessed using radial augmentation index (RAI) derived from radial artery tonometry. The study primary endpoint will be the change in lateral E' velocity between baseline and 24 weeks.

Results: Two hundred and twenty eight patients (50% female) with mean age of (59.6±9.7) years and mean BP of (162±14/92±13 mmHg) were randomized equally to either treatment strategies. Left ventricular hypertrophy was present among <4% of the enrolled patients. Inspite diastolic function was impaired, baseline lateral E' velocity (7.6±1.2 cm/s) was not related to baseline SBP while baseline RAI was weakly related ( r = 0.2, p <0.01) to SBP even after adjustment to age, gender and heart rate.

Conclusion: EXCEED will determine whether intensive BP lowering will further improve diastolic dysfunction and vascular stiffness among patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

Comparison of the anti-hypertensive effects of the L/N-type calcium channel antagonist cilnidipine, and the L-type calcium channel antagonist amlodipine in hypertensive patients with cerebrovascular disease

OBJECTIVES

It is known that the risk of cerebral stroke recurrence in post-stroke patients is comparatively higher than in normal subjects, and it is suggested that autonomic nervous system dysfunctions elevate this risk. We investigated the anti-hypertensive effects of cilnidipine, a Ca antagonist which suppresses sympathetic nerve activation, in hypertensives with chronic-stage cerebrovascular disease in a comparison with amlodipine.

METHODS

Amlodipine 5-7.5 mg/day, or cilnidipine 5-10 mg/day was administered to 78 hypertensive subjects (greater than 140 mmHg systolic, or 90 mmHg diastolic) undergoing outpatient treatment. Amlodipine or cilnidipine was also administered similarly, to 30 subjects having hypertension associated with a cerebral infarct which occurred more than one month earlier due to cerebral thrombosis or embolism. After 3 months administration, the subjects' blood pressures and pulse rates were recorded with an ambulatory blood pressure monitor over 24 hours.

RESULTS

No difference was recognized in patient age, gender, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure before treatment between the groups. In the cilnidipine groups, no difference in average 24-hour or waking systolic blood pressure values was seen between cerebrovascular disease (CVD) subjects and non-CVD subjects, although in the amlodipine groups, CVD subjects had significantly higher blood pressure values than non-CVD subjects. In the cilnidipine group, the coefficient of variation values of pulse rate were significantly higher in CVD subjects than in non-CVD subjects (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In patients with recent stroke, a Ca antagonist with no sympathetic nerve suppression had weaker blood pressure-lowering effects. Significantly increased pulse rate variability, shown in the CVD subjects administered cilnidipine, suggests that cilnidipine enhanced the parasympathetic function in hypertensive patients with CVD.

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil or valsartan in combination with amlodipine: a review of factorial-design studies

BACKGROUND

Most patients with hypertension require more than one drug to attain recommended blood pressure (BP) targets. Initiating therapy with two agents is recommended for patients at high risk of a cardiovascular event or with a BP > 20/10 mmHg above goal. Combination therapy is effective when comprised of agents with complementary mechanisms of action, such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARBs). Two fixed-dose CCB/ARB combinations are approved in the US: amlodipine/valsartan (AML/VAL) and amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (AML/OM).

OBJECTIVES

To review and describe the efficacy of AML/VAL and AML/OM combinations by discussing similarly designed clinical trials.

METHODS

Three 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group factorial-design studies were examined (two AML/VAL; one AML/OM). The study endpoints presented in this review were: change from baseline in least-squares mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) and least-squares mean seated systolic BP (SeSBP). In addition to the efficacies of AML/VAL and AML/OM combinations, the efficacies of AML, VAL and OM administered as monotherapy are presented. Placebo-subtracted BP reductions were calculated for this review.

RESULTS

Patient demographics were similar but mean baseline SeBP was higher in the OM study (163.8/101.6 mmHg) than in the VAL studies (152.8/99.3 and 156.7/99.1 mmHg), possibly suggesting that the OM study included a more difficult-to-treat patient population. AML/ARB combinations consistently produced greater mean SeBP reductions than monotherapy. Least squares (LS) mean SeDBP reductions were 19.4 mmHg (AML/OM 10/40 mg; placebo-corrected: 15.9 mmHg) and 18.6 mmHg (AML/VAL 10/320 mg; placebo-corrected: 9.8 mmHg). LS mean SeSBP reductions were 28.5 mmHg (AML/OM 10/40 mg; placebo-corrected: 25.7 mmHg) and 28.4 mmHg (AML/VAL 10/320 mg; placebo-corrected: 15.5 mmHg).

CONCLUSIONS

This review of published factorial-design studies showed that the maximal marketed doses of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil combination (10/40 mg) and an amlodipine/valsartan combination (10/320 mg) produced large reductions in BP from baseline. Limitations of this review include the small number of studies analyzed and the inherent heterogeneity between patient populations. Further research is warranted to directly compare the efficacy of these combinations in a randomized, controlled trial, or additional published clinical trials are required to provide larger data sets for robust meta-analyses and to overcome heterogeneity observed within these studies.

Role of combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension: focus on valsartan plus amlodipine

Hypertension control is rare in clinical practice, particularly in high-risk patients. A large factor is therapeutic inertia deriving from poorly prescribed lifestyle changes, excess monotherapy use, and scarce on-treatment modifications. The use of drug combinations significantly improves blood pressure (BP) control; in particular, fixed combinations improve therapy without increasing daily pill intake, thereby favouring patient compliance and therapy continuation. The most widely used fixed combination is based on thiazide diuretics added to either angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Several large-scale clinical trials have been conducted showing that these combinations are effective in lowering BP. However, thiazide diuretics can reduce the metabolic benefits derived from renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in high metabolic risk patients. In contrast, ACE inhibitors or ARBs combined with dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists (DHPCAs) exert a marked antihypertensive effect without decreasing metabolic protection by RAAS blockade. In the recent JIKEI heart study, approximately 60% of patients affected by hypertension, heart failure, coronary heart disease or their combination in the valsartan arm were simultaneously treated with DHPCAs. Of note, a 39% reduction in the primary endpoint of combined morbidity and mortality was reported in the valsartan compared with the non-valsartan arm. Furthermore, in a recent multinational study, 83% of 3161 hypertensive patients treated with valsartan and the DHCPA amlodipine reported a concontrolled BP after 8 weeks of treatment. As expected, amlodipine did not negatively influence the metabolic profile of patients, thereby supporting the role of ARB+DHPCA combinations as effective and promising tools in hypertension treatment. In summary, the combination of ARBs with DHPCAs is an effective strategy in hypertension treatment through synergy between their antihypertensive and vascular protective actions, persistent metabolic benefits deriving from RAAS inhibition, and reduced incidence of side effects.