Rationale for Triple-Combination Therapy for Management of High Blood Pressure

Single-Pill Combination with Three Antihypertensive Agents to Improve Blood Pressure Control in Hypertension: Focus on Olmesartan-Based Combinations

Blood pressure control remains an unmet clinical need. Only about half of patients achieve their blood pressure (BP) targets and of these, the majority require combination and double or triple therapies. International guidelines recommend the association of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action and, in particular, the combination of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics. Among the various angiotensin receptor blockers, olmesartan (OM) is available as a monotherapy and in dual and triple single-pill combinations (SPCs) with amlodipine (AML) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Several phase III and IV studies, together with real-world studies, have demonstrated the additional benefits of combining OM either with AML or with HCTZ in terms of BP control and target BP achievements both in the general population and in special subgroups of hypertensive patients, such as the elderly, diabetic, chronic kidney disease or obese patients. Ambulatory BP monitoring studies assessing 24h BP have also demonstrated that dual, as well as triple, OM-based SPCs induce a more sustained and smoother BP reduction than placebo and monotherapy. Furthermore, triple OM-based SPC has been shown to improve therapeutic adherence in hypertensive patients compared to free combinations. The availability of OM combined with HCTZ, AML or both at different dosages makes it a valuable option to customize therapy based on the levels of BP and the clinical characteristics of hypertensive patients.

ARB-Based Combination Therapy for the Clinical Management of Hypertension and Hypertension-Related Comorbidities: A Spotlight on Their Use in COVID-19 Patients

Essential hypertension is the most common cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, being primarily involved in the pathogenesis of CV disease and mortality worldwide. Given the high prevalence and growing incidence of this clinical condition in the general population in both high and low-income countries, antihypertensive drug therapies are frequently prescribed in different hypertension-related CV diseases and comorbidities. Among these conditions, evidence are available demonstrating the clinical benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) levels, particularly in those hypertensive patients at high or very high CV risk profile. Preliminary studies, performed during the Sars-COVID-19 epidemic, raised some concerns on the potential implication of hypertension and antihypertensive medications in the susceptibility of having severe pneumonia, particularly with regard to the use of drugs inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). These hypotheses were not confirmed by subsequent studies, which independently and systematically demonstrated no clinical harm of these drugs also in patients with Sars-COVID-19 infection. The aim of this narrative review is to critically discuss the available evidence supporting the use of antihypertensive therapies based RAS blocking agents in hypertensive patients with different CV risk profile and with additional clinical conditions or comorbidities, including Sars-COVID-19 infection, with a particular focus on single-pill combination therapies based on olmesartan medoxomil.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of antihypertensive triple combination therapy among patients enrolled in a Medicare advantage plan

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of single pill fixed dose triple combination therapy vs. free triple combination therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with hypertension.

METHODS

A Markov model with a five year cycle was constructed. Two decision models incorporating strict and more relaxed adherence definitions estimated quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs for single pill fixed triple combination therapy vs. free-drug combination therapy.

RESULTS

When the strict adherence measurement criteria were applied, the total QALYs loss and cost/patient were 6.38 QALYs, $486,026.20 for the single pill triple combination therapy and 8.64 QALYs, $406,405.26 for the free combination therapy. ICER for single pill combination therapy compared to free combination therapy was 33,826.46/QALY. When the relaxed adherence measurement criteria were applied, the total QALYs loss and cost/patient were 8.09 QALYs, $493,404.26 for the single pill triple combination therapy and 8.76 QALYs, $436,415.14 for the free combination therapy. ICER for single pill combination compared with free combination therapy was 84,932.26.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that single pill triple combination therapy was cost-effective in comparison with free combination therapy under a willingness to pay threshold of 50,000 when the strict adherence measurement criteria was applied.

Fixed and Low-Dose Combinations of Blood Pressure-Lowering Agents: For the Many or the Few?

Despite the widespread availability of several effective classes of drugs, systemic arterial hypertension remains poorly controlled in the majority of patients worldwide. In this article, we discuss the different modalities and effects of combination therapy and possible future research questions. Treatment with a single antihypertensive agent can effectively reduce blood pressure in only a limited number of patients, while most require therapy with two or more agents to achieve target levels. As initial therapy, American and European guidelines suggest a combination of two antihypertensive drugs and the use of a third antihypertensive drug when hypertension is still uncontrolled. Initial combination therapy is recommended in high-risk patients for an immediate blood pressure response, improved tolerability and possibly increased patient adherence. In addition to the potential benefits of combining different drug classes with synergistic pharmacological and physiological actions, this approach is useful for increasing the patient compliance with treatment, in particular if provided at fixed doses in a single pill. The minimisation of side effects is critical for the long-term treatment of a largely asymptomatic condition such as systemic hypertension. Low-dose combinations of different drugs from classes with complementary actions may provide the best ratio of lower side effects and improved tolerability with a significant blood pressure reduction, particularly in high-risk patients. This approach could be aided by a multidisciplinary lifestyle intervention on risk factors.

New approach to blood pressure control: Triple combination pill

Blood pressure (BP) control remains insufficient worldwide, mostly due to poor adherence to treatments, clinical inertia, adverse effects and underuse of drug-combination strategies. Monotherapy and its uptitration have been long considered the first-line strategy in the treatment of hypertension, often leading to ineffective, time consuming and frustrating results. On the other hand, several studies have demonstrated that starting and continuing antihypertensive therapy based on a drug combination is associated with a greater reduction of BP, an earlier achievement of therapeutic goals and a higher proportion of patients achieving targets with favorable implications on cardiovascular events. However, one-fourth to one-third of hypertensive patients fail to achieve BP control even with dual combination therapies, requiring three or more antihypertensive agents. The aim of this review is to discuss the effects of triple-drug associations in terms of BP lowering and prevention of major cardiovascular events, also in high-risk patients. We also discuss available data on side effects and tolerability of triple combination therapy, and the advantages to use a single-pill formulation to promote simplification and adherence to therapy. The findings reported have provided the background for most recent international guidelines on hypertension that support the use of dual and triple combination therapy for most patients.

Antihypertensive Efficacy of a Triple Fixed-Dose Combination of Perindopril, Indapamide, and Amlodipine: Clinical Effectiveness in Ambulatory Practice (Results of the PETRA Study)

Most patients with arterial hypertension (AH) for successful long-term blood pressure (BP) control require combination of antihypertensive drugs acting on various target organs. Accumulated experience shows that about 30 % of patients require combination therapy with 3 drugs from different pharmacological classes. Efficacy of BP control in real clinical practice with the use of various doses of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine as components of taken once-daily triple fixed combination was assessed in the 3-months prospective observational open-label PETRA study. In this study data of office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) were obtained from 11209 ambulatory patients (47.6 % women) with AH. Initial mean office BP (BPmoff) was 156.58±16.10 / 91.56±9.33 mm Hg, AH duration - 9.48±7.19 years. After switching to triple fixed dose combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine BPmoff decreased by 24.81±15.47 / 11.41±9.90 mm Hg (p<0.0001). Doses of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine in combination at the final visit were 5 / 1.25 / 5, 10 / 2.5 / 5, and 10 / 2.5 / 10 mg. 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was carried out in 76 patients. Mean 24-hour BP lowed from mean 155.51±17.43 / 85.28±11.48 down to 134.63±12.51 / 77.83±8.99 mm Hg (p<0.0001). Clinically relevant improvement of a number of parameters of metabolism occurred after 3 months of the study (in particular, lowering of levels of total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [-8.6 and - 11.4 %, respectively], triglycerides [-12,1 %], fasting blood glucose [-6.6 %]). Thus, results of the PETRA study confirmed 24-hour long antihypertensive efficacy of triple fixed dose combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine. This drug combination can present novel possibility in treatment of patients with AH who have not achieved target BP values on preceding dual combination therapy and fully corresponds with the single pill concept for formation of adherence to therapy.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling of Fimasartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide for the Investigation of Drug-Drug Interaction Potentials

PURPOSE

To build a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for fimasartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide, and to investigate the drug-drug interaction (DDI) potentials.

METHODS

The PBPK model of each drug was developed using Simcyp software (Version 15.0), based on the information obtained from literature sources and in vitro studies. The predictive performance of the model was assessed by comparing the predicted PK profiles and parameters with the observed data collected from healthy subjects after multiple oral doses of fimasartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide. The DDI potentials after co-administration of three drugs were simulated using the final model.

RESULTS

The predicted-to-observed ratios of all the pharmacokinetic parameters met the acceptance criterion. The PBPK model predicted no significant DDI when fimasartan was co-administered with amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, which is consistent with the observed clinical data. In the simulation of DDI at steady-state after co-administration of three drugs, the model predicted that fimasartan exposure would be increased by ~24.5%, while no changes were expected for the exposures of amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide.

CONCLUSIONS

The developed PBPK model adequately predicted the pharmacokinetics of fimasartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide, suggesting that the model can be used to further investigate the DDI potential of each drug.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study

A majority of patients with hypertension fail to achieve blood pressure (BP) control despite treatment with commonly prescribed drugs. This randomized, double-blind phase III trial assessed the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (97/103 mg) to continued olmesartan 20 mg in reducing ambulatory systolic BP after 8-week treatment in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg alone. A total of 376 patients were randomized to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (n = 188) or olmesartan (n = 188). Superior reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the olmesartan group (-4.3 mm Hg vs -1.1 mm Hg, P < .001). Reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP and pulse pressure and office systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan (P < .014). A greater proportion of patients achieved BP control with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups. Compared with continued olmesartan, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective and generally safe in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg.

Synergism of amlodipine and candesartan on blood pressure reduction and organ protection in hypertensive rats

This study was designed to investigate the possible synergism of amlodipine and candesartan on the reduction of blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive rats. The end organ protection was also observed. In acute experiment, spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) were treated with intragastric administration of amlodipine (0.5, 1, 2, 3 mg/kg), candesartan (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 mg/kg), and 14 different combinations to find the possible ratio of synergistic interaction. In two kidneys, one clip (2K1C) rats, the effects of amlodipine (1 mg/kg), canderastan (2 mg/kg) and their combination on BP reduction were also observed. In chronic study, SHRs were treated with amlodipine (1 mg/kg), candesartan (2 mg/kg), and their combination for 5 months. Organ damage evaluation was performed after BP recording. The probability sum test (q test) was used to evaluate the synergistic action. There is a synergistic interaction between amlodipine and candesartan on BP reduction. The optimal dose ratio is 1:2. The synergistic effect was also confirmed by 2K1C hypertensive rats. In chronic study, this combination (1:2) possessed an obvious synergism on the reduction of BP and BP variability (BPV) and protection on end organs. Multiple regression analysis showed that heart and aortic hypertrophy indexes and glomerular damage parameters were positively related to BP and BPV. In conclusion, combination of amlodipine and candesartan exhibited a potent antihypertensive effect and possessed an obvious synergism on BP reduction and organ protection in hypertension. The optimal proportion was 1:2. BP and BPV reduction may both importantly contribute to end organ protection.

Incremental effects of antihypertensive drugs: instrumental variable analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incremental effects of adding extra antihypertensive drugs from a new class to a patient's regimen.

DESIGN

Instrumental variable analysis of data from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). To account for confounding by indication-when treatments seem less effective if they are administered to sicker patients-randomization status was used as the instrumental variable. Patients' randomization status was either intensive (systolic blood pressure target <120 mm Hg) or standard (systolic blood pressure target <140 mm Hg) treatment. Results from instrumental variable models were compared with those from standard multivariable models.

SETTING

Secondary data analysis of a randomized clinical trial conducted at 102 sites in 2010-15.

PARTICIPANTS

9092 SPRINT participants with hypertension and increased cardiovascular risk but no history of diabetes or stroke.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Systolic blood pressure, major cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

In standard multivariable models not adjusted for confounding by indication, addition of an antihypertensive drug from a new class was associated with modestly lower systolic blood pressure (-1.3 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval -1.6 to -1.0) and no change in major cardiovascular events (absolute risk of events per 1000 patient years, 0.5, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 2.3). In instrumental variable models, the addition of an antihypertensive drug from a new class led to clinically important reductions in systolic blood pressure (-14.4 mm Hg, -15.6 to -13.3) and fewer major cardiovascular events (absolute risk -6.2, -10.9 to -1.3). Incremental reductions in systolic blood pressure remained large and similar in magnitude for patients already taking drugs from zero, one, two, or three or more drug classes. This finding was consistent across all subgroups of patients. The addition of another antihypertensive drug class was not associated with adverse events in either standard or instrumental variable models.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for confounding by indication, the addition of a new antihypertensive drug class led to large reductions in systolic blood pressure and major cardiovascular events among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes. Effects on systolic blood pressure persisted across all levels of baseline drug use and all subgroups of patients.

Single-Center Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of the Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist Azilsartan Medoxomil in Mild to Moderate Hepatic Impairment

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL‐M) is a potent angiotensin II receptor blocker that decreases blood pressure in a dose‐dependent manner. It is a prodrug that is not detected in blood after its oral administration because of its rapid hydrolysis to the active moiety, azilsartan (AZL). AZL undergoes further metabolism to the major metabolite, M‐II, and minor metabolites. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of mild to moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of AZL and its major metabolite. This was a single‐center, open‐label, phase 1 parallel‐group study that examined the single‐dose (day 1) and multiple‐dose (days 4–8) — 40 mg — pharmacokinetics of AZL and M‐II in 16 subjects with mild and moderate hepatic impairment by Child‐Pugh classification (n = 8 per group) and subjects (n = 16) matched based on age, sex, race, weight, and smoking status. Mild or moderate hepatic impairment did not cause clinically meaningful increases in exposure to AZL and M‐II. Mild or moderate hepatic impairment had no clinically meaningful effect on the plasma protein binding of AZL and M‐II. Single and multiple doses of AZL‐M 40 mg were well tolerated in all subject groups. Based on the pharmacokinetic and tolerability findings, no dose adjustment of AZL‐M is required for subjects with mild and moderate hepatic impairment.

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

The Antihypertensive Efficacy of the Triple Fixed Combination of Perindopril, Indapamide, and Amlodipine: The Results of the PETRA Study

INTRODUCTION

The etiology of essential hypertension is multifactorial. Therefore, treatment with combinations of antihypertensive agents acting on multiple targets is necessary for successful therapy in the majority of patients. According to the experience and clinical data accumulated so far, combination therapy with three agents from different pharmacological classes is required in approx. 30% of patients in order to achieve long-term blood pressure control. The primary objective of the PETRA study was to evaluate the efficacy of blood pressure (BP) control with once daily administration of the different dosage strengths of the once-daily, triple fixed combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine. The evaluation was based on office BP readings and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) data gathered in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Data from 11,209 hypertensive patients (the proportion of female subjects was 47.6%) were processed and interpreted in a 3-month-long prospective, observational, non-interventional, open-label study conducted in 997 centers in Hungary.

RESULTS

Mean baseline office BP was 156.58 ± 16.10/91.56 ± 9.33 mmHg (mean ± SD), whereas the mean duration of hypertension was 9.48 ± 7.19 years. Mean office BP decreased by 24.81 ± 15.47/11.41 ± 9.90 mmHg after switching to the triple fixed combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine (p < 0.0001). At the final visit 45.1% of patients took the 5/1.25/5 mg, 33.5% of them 10/2.5/5 mg, and 21.4% of them 10/2.5/10 mg strength of the perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine triple fixed combination. The 24-h blood pressure was obtained in 76 subjects. The mean 24-h BP decreased from 155.51 ± 17.43/85.28 ± 11.48 to 134.63 ± 12.51/77.83 ± 8.99 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Statistically significant (p < 0.0001) and clinically relevant improvement of a number of metabolic parameters-including total cholesterol (-8.6%), LDL-cholesterol (-11.4%), triglyceride (-12.1%), and fasting blood glucose (-6.6%) levels-was observed over the 3-month study period.

CONCLUSIONS

During the 3 months of the PETRA study, the outstanding 24-h antihypertensive efficacy of the triple fixed combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine was confirmed both by office BP readings and by ABPM recordings. This combination may offer a new therapeutic option for hypertensive patients who have failed to achieve the desired BP target on their previous dual combination therapy.

FUNDING

EGIS Pharmaceuticals PLC.

Efficacy and Safety of Quarter-Dose Blood Pressure-Lowering Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

There is a critical need for blood pressure-lowering strategies that have greater efficacy and minimal side effects. Low-dose combinations hold promise in this regard, but there are few data on very-low-dose therapy. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with at least one quarter-dose and one placebo and standard-dose monotherapy arm. A search was conducted of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Registry, Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicinal Agency websites. Data on blood pressure and adverse events were pooled using a fixed-effect model, and bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias. The review included 42 trials involving 20 284 participants. Thirty-six comparisons evaluated quarter-dose with placebo and indicated a blood pressure reduction of -4.7/-2.4 mm Hg (P<0.001). Six comparisons were of dual quarter-dose therapy versus placebo, observing a -6.7/ -4.4 mm Hg (P<0.001) blood pressure reduction. There were no trials of triple quarter-dose combination versus placebo, but one quadruple quarter-dose study observed a blood pressure reduction of -22.4/-13.1 mm Hg versus placebo (P<0.001). Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, the blood pressure differences achieved by single (37 comparisons), dual (7 comparisons), and quadruple (1 trial) quarter-dose combinations were +3.7/+2.6 (P<0.001), +1.3/-0.3 (NS), and -13.1/-7.9 (P<0.001) mm Hg, respectively. In terms of adverse events, single and dual quarter-dose therapy was not significantly different from placebo and had significantly fewer adverse events compared with standard-dose monotherapy. Quarter-dose combinations could provide improvements in efficacy and tolerability of blood pressure-lowering therapy.

Triple Combination Therapies Based on Olmesartan: A Personalized Therapeutic Approach to Improve Blood Pressure Control

Recent epidemiological surveys have demonstrated that effective and sustained blood pressure (BP) control is achieved in a relatively small proportion of treated hypertensive patients. Indeed, treatment of hypertension represents a key strategy for preventing coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure and cardiovascular death. Several interventions have been proposed by international guidelines for ameliorating hypertension management and control, mostly including integrated and multi-dimensional pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies. In particular, numerous evidence demonstrated that a more extensive use of combination therapy may represent a valid therapeutic option for treating hypertensive patients at different risk profile. This strategy has been definitely strengthened by the availability of single pill fixed-dose combinations. Among potential combination therapies, those based on the association of renin-angiotensin system antagonists, thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers are very effective in lowering BP levels and well tolerated. We will provide here an overview of clinical evidence supporting the use of triple combination therapy, with a focus on that based on olmesartan medoxomil, a thiazide diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide) and a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate), which is available in multiple dosages. Finally, in view of the recognised importance of single-pill combination therapy for treating hypertension, we will examine the potential benefits of dual (fixed) combination therapy based on olmesartan medoxomil with either thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide or calcium channel blocker amlodipine in terms of efficacy, safety and tolerability profile.

Single-Pill Combination of Perindopril/Indapamide/Amlodipine in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hypertension often require a combination of three antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure control, but very few single-pill triple combinations are available. The aim of this study was to determine whether a single-pill triple combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine was as effective as a dual-pill combination of perindopril/indapamide plus separate amlodipine at reducing blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled, essential hypertension.

METHODS

This international, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted in men or women aged ≥18 years old with confirmed essential hypertension (SBP ≥140 and <160 mmHg and DBP ≥90 and <100 mmHg), uncontrolled on maximal dose antihypertensive monotherapy or with a single dose of dual therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to: single-pill triple combination of perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind/Aml) or dual-pill combination perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg + amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind + Aml) once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in office supine SBP and DBP from baseline to week 12. The proportion of responders defined as those with normalized BP (SBP <140 mmHg and DBP <90 mmHg), and/or decrease of SBP ≥20 mmHg, and/or decrease of DBP ≥10 mmHg at week 12 (W12) compared with baseline was also assessed. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in office supine SBP and DBP, response, and BP control at weeks 4 and 8. The tolerability of the treatments was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients were randomized: 75 to Per/Ind/Aml and 73 to Per/Ind + Aml. Mean supine SBP and DBP were 149.1 ± 4.7 and 94.1 ± 3.1 mmHg, respectively, with no relevant between-group difference. At week 12, both triple-therapy regimens were associated with clinically significant reductions in SBP compared with baseline (-21.5 ± 11.7 and -20.0 ± 12.9 mmHg, respectively). Reductions in office supine DBP were also clinically significant (-15.3 ± 7.8 and -14.8 ± 9.0 mmHg, respectively). The proportion of treatment responders was high in both groups: 89.2 and 87.1%, respectively. The reduction in office supine SBP/DBP was already evident at week 4 and maintained for the duration of the study in both groups. The majority of patients were treatment responders at week 4 (89.2 and 82.9%, respectively) and had achieved BP control (87.8 vs. 78.6%, respectively), which was maintained until week 12 in both treatment groups. Both treatments were well tolerated with no between-group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension on treatment, single-pill triple-combination therapy with Per/Ind/Aml is as effective as the same dose dual-pill combination of Per/Ind + Aml. Both treatments were associated with clinically significant BP reductions compared with baseline and were well tolerated. Clinical trials number: http://www.controlled-trials.com ISRCTN: 16442558.

FUNDING

Les Laboratoires Servier.

The Impact of Azilsartan Medoxomil Treatment (Capsule Formulation) at Doses Ranging From 10 to 80 mg: Significant, Rapid Reductions in Clinic Diastolic and Systolic Blood Pressure

In this phase 2, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, dose-ranging study, hypertensive adults (n=449) were randomized to receive one of five doses of a capsule formulation of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M; 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 mg), olmesartan medoxomil (OLM) 20 mg, or placebo once daily. The primary endpoint was change in trough clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at week 8. AZL-M provided rapid statistically and clinically significant reductions in DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) vs placebo at all doses except 5 mg. Placebo-subtracted changes were greatest with the 40 mg dose (DBP, -5.7 mm Hg; SBP, -12.3 mm Hg). Clinic changes with AZL-M (all doses) were statistically indistinguishable vs OLM, although there were greater reductions with AZL-M 40 mg using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure. Adverse event frequency was similar in the AZL-M and placebo groups. Based on these and other findings, subsequent trials investigated the commercial AZL-M tablet in the dose range of 20 to 80 mg/d.

Triple-combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension: a review of the evidence

Hypertension is a serious public health concern with inadequate control of blood pressure (BP) worldwide. Contributing factors include low efficacy of drugs, underuse of combination therapies, irrational combinations, physicians' therapeutic inertia and poor adherence to treatment. Current guidelines recommend the use of initial (dual) combination therapy in high-risk patients for immediate BP response, better short- and long-term BP control, and continued/improved patient adherence. This article aims to review the existing evidence of triple-combination therapies with respect to efficacy, safety and adherence to treatment. It is estimated that three drugs are required to achieve BP control in approximately one-fourth to one-third of patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that triple combinations of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine/olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide produce greater BP reductions, with greater proportions of patients achieving BP control compared with dual therapies. Further evidence also demonstrates that triple-combination therapy is efficacious for moderate to severe hypertension, with substantial additional BP reduction over dual regimens. Both RCTs and post-marketing observational studies have shown consistent and comparable efficacy in both the general population and high-risk hypertensive subgroups. Triple therapies are generally well tolerated with adverse event profiles similar to dual regimens. In addition, fixed-dose combinations used as single pill improve patient adherence leading to better long-term BP control. Depending on regional circumstances, they may also be cost effective. Thus, single-pill triple combinations of different classes of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action help to treat patients to goal with improved efficacy and better adherence to treatment.

Evaluation of a Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Telmisartan and Chlorthalidone in Healthy Male Adult Subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Combination therapy is recommended for the effective management of hypertension according to most treatment guidelines, including those of the US Joint National Committee. Therefore, pharmacokinetic drug interactions are an important issue in combination therapy for hypertension. In this study, the pharmacokinetic properties of telmisartan and chlorthalidone were evaluated to investigate their pharmacokinetic interactions in healthy subjects.

METHODS

Two separate, randomized, multiple-dose, two-period, one-sequence studies were conducted. In study A, 43 participants received 80 mg of telmisartan orally for 7 days, and were then administered oral chlorthalidone 25 mg for 14 days (days 8-21), coadministered with 80 mg of telmisartan from day 15. In study B, 14 participants received oral chlorthalidone (25 mg) for 13 days, followed by coadministration with 80 mg of telmisartan orally for 7 days.

RESULTS

The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90 % confidence intervals [CIs]) of the maximum plasma concentration (C max,ss) and area under the concentration-time curve for the dosing interval at steady state (AUCτ,ss) of telmisartan (with and without chlorthalidone) were 1.018 (0.861-1.203) and 1.099 (1.015-1.190), respectively. For chlorthalidone (with/without telmisartan), the GMRs (90 % CIs) for C max,ss and AUCτ,ss were 0.996 (0.922-1.075) and 0.992 (0.925-1.064), respectively. The GMRs and 90 % CIs for telmisartan and chlorthalidone were all within the 0.80-1.25 range.

CONCLUSION

Thus, in this study, there was no significant pharmacokinetic interaction between telmisartan and chlorthalidone. CLINICALTRIAL.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01806363.

Analysis of second- and third-line antihypertensive treatments after initial therapy with an angiotensin II receptor blocker using real-world Japanese data

Combination therapy using two or three classes of drugs is often required to treat hypertension to prevent cardiovascular disease. In this study, we examined combination therapies administered following initial therapy with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) in hypertensive Japanese patients. To determine which classes of antihypertensives are being prescribed as second- or third-line treatments for patients who were initially treated with a single ARB, we analyzed prescription claims data from two Japanese health-care databases for 2008 to 2015. Among the 26 998 patients who were initially treated with a single ARB (from one database), calcium channel blockers (CCBs) were the most frequently prescribed second-line antihypertensive, as these medicines were added for >20% of patients within 1 year of ARB prescription initiation. The addition rates of CCBs as a second-line therapy differed depending on the initial ARB type. In contrast, <10% of patients received a diuretic as a second-line antihypertensive. Among the 48 813 patients who were prescribed an ARB in combination with a CCB (as shown in the other database), diuretics were prescribed as third-line antihypertensives more frequently than increased doses of CCBs or ARBs. Diuretics were added for 8% of patients within 2 years of CCB addition, and the addition rates differed based on the CCB dose used for combination therapy. We also found that the addition rates of diuretics differed depending on patient clinical histories among ARB and CCB recipients.

Leg edema with (S)-amlodipine vs conventional amlodipine given in triple therapy for hypertension: a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Leg edema is a common adverse effect of dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) that may need dose reduction or drug withdrawal, adversely affecting the antihypertensive efficacy. Leg edema is reported to occur less often with (S)-amlodipine compared to conventional racemic amlodipine. We aimed to find the incidence of leg edema as a primary outcome and antihypertensive efficacy with (S)-amlodipine compared to conventional amlodipine.

METHODS

This prospective, double-blind, controlled clinical trial randomized 172 hypertensive patients, not controlled on beta-blockers (BB) and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), to either conventional amlodipine (5-10 mg; n = 86) or (S)-amlodipine (2.5-5 mg; n = 86), while continuing their previous anti-hypertensive medications. Sample was sufficient to find a difference in edema between the interventions with 80 % power at 5 % significance level. Intension to treat analysis (ITT) for safety data and per protocol analysis for efficacy data was performed. Fischer's exact test was applied to observe difference between responder rates and proportions of subjects having peripheral edema in the two groups. Pitting edema test scores were compared using Mann-Whitney test.

RESULTS

Altogether 146 patients (amlodipine, n = 76 and (S)-amlodipine, n = 70) completed 120 days treatment. Demographic variables and treatment adherence were comparable in the two groups. Incidence of new edema after randomization was 31.40 % in test group and 46.51 % in control group [p = 0.03; absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 15.1 %; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 7, ITT analysis]. Pitting edema score and patient rated edema score increased significantly in the control compared to test group (p = 0.038 and 0.036 respectively) after treatment period. Edema scores increased significantly in the control group from baseline (p < 0.0001). Responders in blood pressure were 98.57 % in test and 98.68 % in control group. Most common adverse events (AE) were pitting edema and increased urinary frequency. Incidence of all AEs other than edema was similar in both groups. Two serious AEs occurred unrelated to therapy. Biochemical and ECG parameters in the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In hypertensive patients not controlled on prior BB and ACEI/ARB therapy, addition of (S)-amlodipine besylate at half the dose of conventional amlodipine provides better tolerability with reduced incidence of peripheral edema, and equal antihypertensive efficacy compared to amlodipine given at usual doses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Sri Lanka Clinical Trials registry: www.slctr.lk, SLCTR/2013/006.

Comparison of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination and free combination: adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization and costs

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination (SPC) is associated with improved persistence, adherence and reduced healthcare utilization and costs compared to the corresponding free combination (FC).

METHODS

Adult (≥18 years) patients covered by commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance in the Truven MarketScan database with hypertension (HTN) diagnosis between October 2009 and December 2011 were included. At least two filled prescriptions for the SPC cohort or two periods of minimum 15 days of concurrent use of amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) for the FC cohort were required. Cohorts were propensity score matched (PSM) to balance on important confounders. Outcomes included: 1) adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and medication possession ratio [MPR]); 2) persistence (treatment gap >30 days); 3) all-cause and HTN-specific healthcare utilization and costs at 12 months.

RESULTS

After cohort matching with PSM, patients taking SPC (N = 9221) exhibited better outcomes than FC (N = 1884): higher mean adherence (85.7% vs. 77.0%), mean PDC (73.8% vs. 60.6%) and persistence (46.8% vs. 23.6%) (all p < 0.0001). Patients taking SPC were associated with higher odds of persistence (OR: 3.51; 95% CI: 3.08-4.02), MPR ≥80% (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 2.40-3.08) and PDC ≥80% (OR: 2.88; 95% CI: 2.55-3.26). After PSM, the SPC cohort exhibited statistically significantly lower mean number of resource utilization events compared to FC. Patients in the SPC cohort also had a statistically significantly (p < 0.05) lower percentage of patients with ≥1 all-cause hospitalization (15.0% vs. 18.2%), ≥1 all-cause emergency room (ER) visits (25.7 vs. 31.4%), and ≥1 ER HTN-specific visits (9.7% vs. 14.1%). The costs incurred by SPC cohort patients were 2.8% to 41.7% numerically lower than the FC cohort, statistically significant for all-cause ER costs ($430.6 vs. $549.5, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data indicate an association of the amlodipine/valsartan/HCT SPC with improved adherence and persistence vs. FC with no difference in overall healthcare or hypertension specific costs between the cohorts.

Short Term Safety and Tolerability of a Fixed Dose Combination of Olmesartan, Amlodipine and Hydrochlorothiazide

OBJECTIVE

To assess the short term safety and tolerability of a fixed dose combination (FDC) of olmesartan, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide (OAH) in real-world clinical setting in India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Physicians were requested to provide eight weeks observational clinical event data of the patients prescribed with FDC of Olmesartan (20/40mg), Amlodipine (5mg) and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5mg) in the prescription event monitoring (PEM) forms. Data on patients' demographics, indication for FDC, concomitant medication and other relevant history was also collected and was analysed with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty eight physicians provided data of 4763 patients. Mean age of the population was 55±7 years and males were 59.3%. The commonest indication for the FDC was uncontrolled hypertension (60.7%). Diabetes and dyslipidemia were present in 37.9% and 35.1% respectively. Concomitant medications included statins (42.3%), oral anti-diabetic (33.7%) and antiplatelet agents (24.7%). Pedal oedema (0.29%) was the most common adverse event (AE) reported followed by headache (0.16%), giddiness (0.15%), light headedness (0.15) and stroke (0.15%). Other less common (0.04%) reported AEs were tiredness, dizziness, gastritis, hypersomnia, hypoglycaemia, lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), weakness, diarrhea, labyrinthitis, urinary tract infection, hyponatremia and hypotension. Occurrence of AEs was more common in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (60.74%).

CONCLUSION

The FDC of olmesartan, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide prescribed most frequently for patients with uncontrolled hypertension and co-morbidities was found to be safe and well tolerated over a short period of observation.

Triple combination therapy in hypertension: the antihypertensive efficacy of treatment with perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide SR

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The blood pressure (BP) of most patients on antihypertensive monotherapy or bitherapy remains uncontrolled. Our study evaluated the efficacy of triple therapy with perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide sustained release (SR) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on previous antihypertensive therapy.

METHODS

This 4-month, multicenter, prospective, observational, open-label study included patients switched from previous antihypertensive therapy to triple therapy with perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide SR. The main outcome was change in office BP from baseline to 4 months, as well as changes in 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) parameters in a subgroup of patients.

RESULTS

Age was 62.8 ± 11.3 years in 6,088 patients (55 % were male). Office BP at baseline was 158.1 ± 13.0/92.6 ± 8.8 mmHg. By 4 months, office BP decreased by 26.7 ± 13.3/12.9 ± 9.4 mmHg (p < 0.001). ABPM was performed in 62 patients. In these patients, 24-h systolic BP decreased (from 138.7 ± 12.5 to 125.5 ± 12.8 mmHg), as did 24-h diastolic BP (from 77.5 ± 11.4 to 70.4 ± 8.7 mmHg) (both p < 0.0001). Heart rate remained unchanged. In patients previously on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor/amlodipine, 24-h ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP decreased from 136.9 ± 12.8 to 125.4 ± 13.3 mmHg (p = 0.0003) and from 76.3 ± 12.6 to 70.2 ± 9.5 mmHg (p = 0.0005). In those previously on RAAS inhibitor/hydrochlorothiazide, 24-h ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP decreased from 137.8 ± 12.7 to 122.7 ± 15.4 mmHg (p = 0.0039) and from 73.6 ± 9.4 to 65.7 ± 7.3 mmHg (p = 0.002). Most (74 and 80 %, respectively) patients reached target ABPM values (<130/80 mmHg).

CONCLUSION

A triple combination of perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide SR controlled BP effectively in hypertensive patients uncontrolled by previous antihypertensive monotherapy or bitherapy, including RAAS inhibitor/amlodipine or RAAS inhibitor/hydrochlorothiazide combinations.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil with or without chlorthalidone during and after 8 months of treatment for hypertension

A phase 3, 26‐week, open‐label, titrate‐to‐target study (n=418) assessed the safety of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL‐M) alone and with chlorthalidone (CLD), followed by a 6‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled reversal phase with change in clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) as the primary endpoint. Target blood pressure (BP) was <140/90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg with diabetes/chronic kidney disease). AZL‐M was initiated at 40 mg once a day (QD), force‐titrated to 80 mg at week 4. CLD 25 mg QD could be added (weeks 8–22), if required, to reach target, followed by additional antihypertensives from week 12. At the end of the open‐label phase, mean change in systolic BP (SBP)/DBP from baseline was −23/−16 mm Hg. The most common adverse events, irrespective of treatment, were dizziness (8.9%) and headache (7.2%). Serious AEs were reported in eight patients (1.9%). Consecutive creatinine elevations ≥50% with values exceeding the upper limit of normal (ULN) were reported in nine (2.2%) patients. All returned to below the 50% threshold; most also returned to below the ULN after drug discontinuation. Mean DBP was maintained through the reversal phase in patients receiving AZL‐M, but increased with placebo (difference: −7.8 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval, −9.8 to −5.8; P<.001). AZL‐M alone or with CLD showed good long‐term safety and stable BP improvements in a titrate‐to‐target approach. BP improvements caused by AZL‐M therapy were safely reversible upon AZL‐M withdrawal.

Safety and effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide in clinical practice

Background

Clinical trials indicate that the use of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) is associated with a higher level of treatment adherence and prolonged blood pressure (BP) control. The aim of this study was to document the safety and effectiveness of the FDC olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension in clinical practice.

Methods

This multicenter, prospective, 24-week, noninterventional study enrolled 5,831 patients from primary care offices in Germany and Austria. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of essential hypertension and newly initiated treatment with the FDC.

Results

The mean age of patients was 63.5 years, almost 50% of patients had a time since diagnosis of essential hypertension of over 5 years, and approximately 70% of patients had at least one cardiovascular risk factor, including 29.4% of patients with diabetes mellitus. Following approximately 24 weeks of treatment, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP was 29.0/14.0 mmHg, a BP response was observed by 94.2% of patients, and a target BP of <140/90 mmHg was attained in 67.5% of patients. At least one adverse drug reaction (ADR) was experienced by 1.2% of patients, with the most common being peripheral edema. Subanalyses demonstrated that the following factors did not have a significant influence on the ADR rate: age (<65 years versus ≥65 years), diabetes mellitus (no/yes), cardiovascular risk (low/high), and concomitant medication (no/yes).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that in clinical practice, treatment with the three-drug combination as an FDC tablet resulted in a very high proportion of patients with a BP response and control, accompanied by a very low rate of ADRs.

Enhanced activation of NAD(P)H: quinone oxidoreductase 1 attenuates spontaneous hypertension by improvement of endothelial nitric oxide synthase coupling via tumor suppressor kinase liver kinase B1/adenosine 5'-monophosphate-activated protein kinase-mediated guanosine 5'-triphosphate cyclohydrolase 1 preservation

AIMS

Guanosine 5'-triphosphate cyclohydrolase-1 (GTPCH-1) is a rate-limiting enzyme in de-novo synthesis of tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4), an essential cofactor for endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) coupling. Adenosine 5'-monophosphate-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is crucial for GTPCH-1 preservation, and tumor suppressor kinase liver kinase B1 (LKB1), an upstream kinase of AMPK, is activated by NAD-dependent class III histone deacetylase sirtuin 1 (SIRT1)-mediated deacetylation. β-Lapachone has been shown to increase cellular NAD/NADH ratio via

NAD(P)H

quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1) activation. In this study, we have evaluated whether β-lapachone-induced NQO1 activation modulates blood pressure (BP) through preservation of GTPCH-1 in a hypertensive animal model.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs), primary aortic endothelial cells, and endothelial cell line were used to investigate the hypotensive effect of β-lapachone and its action mechanism. β-Lapachone treatment dramatically lowered BP and vascular tension in SHRs and induced eNOS activation in endothelial cells. Consistent with these effects, β-lapachone treatment also elevated levels of both aortic cGMP and plasma nitric oxide in SHRs. Meanwhile, β-lapachone-treated SHRs showed significantly increased levels of aortic NAD, LKB1 deacetylation, and AMPK Thr phosphorylation followed by increased GTPCH-1 and tetrahydrobiopterin/dihydrobiopterin ratio. In-vitro study revealed that AMPK inhibition by overexpression of dominant-negative AMPK nearly abolished GTPCH-1 protein conservation. Enhanced LKB1 deacetylation and AMPK activation were also elicited by β-lapachone in endothelial cells. However, inhibition of LKB1 deacetylation by blocking of NQO1 or SIRT1 blunted AMPK activation by β-lapachone.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study demonstrating that eNOS coupling can be regulated by NQO1 activation via LKB1/AMPK/GTPCH-1 modulation, which is possibly correlated with relieving hypertension. These findings provide strong evidence to suggest that NQO1 might be a new therapeutic target for hypertension.

Effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension in patients stratified by age, race and diabetes, CKD and chronic CVD

The prevalence of hypertension is high in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and chronic cardiovascular disease (CVD), as well as in black and elderly subjects. In addition, these subjects have the lowest control of blood pressure (BP) among the hypertensive population, and also the risk of having a morbid or fatal cardiovascular event >20% in 10 years. For these reasons, aggressive control of BP to <130/80 mm Hg for these subjects is strongly recommended by National and International guidelines. To accomplish this goal, combination therapy with two or more antihypertensive drugs with a complementary mechanism of action is necessary. Drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in combination with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and a diuretic have been shown to be the most effective combinations to accomplish this goal. However, this will require the administration of multiple drugs given separately, which will decrease the patient compliance and adherence to treatment. Poor patient compliance and adherence to treatment is a major factor for poor BP control. Several studies have shown that patient compliance is inversely related to the number of drugs being administered. To overcome this problem, several dual and triple-drug, fixed-dose combinations with a RAS blocker, a CCB and a diuretic have been developed and marketed, which are easier to administer, and have been shown to increase patient compliance and adherence to treatment. In this concise review, the effectiveness and safety of the fixed-dose, triple-combination of the RAS blocker olmesartan medoxomil, the CCB amlodipine besylate and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide, as well as other similar combinations for the treatment of hypertension, will be discussed. These drug combinations have been shown to be effective, safe and well tolerated by most patients.

TRIple pill vs Usual care Management for Patients with mild-to-moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH): Study protocol

BACKGROUND

Hypertension management strategies have traditionally focused on "tailored therapy" and "stepped-care" approaches. These tend to be costly and time consuming and often fail to achieve adequate blood pressure (BP) control. The TRIUMPH study aims to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and acceptability of early use of a 3-in-1 BP-lowering pill ("Triple Pill") compared with usual care for the management of hypertension.

METHODS

The prospective, open, randomized controlled clinical trial (n = 700) will compare Triple Pill-based strategy to usual care among individuals with persistent mild-to-moderate hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg, or systolic BP >130 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) on no or minimal drug therapy. The study will be conducted within approximately 20 hospital-based clinics in India. Participants will be randomized to the Triple Pill (initially strength 1-telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 6.25 mg, with the option of subsequent titration to strength 2-telmisartan 40 mg, amlodipine 5 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg) or continued usual care. Participants will be followed up for 6 months. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants achieving target BP at the end follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This study will determine whether early use of a low-dose triple combination therapy has the potential to address some of the challenges in hypertension control through earlier achievement of BP control, better adherence, and fewer adverse effects, in the context of less intensive clinical follow-up.

Differential treatment of hypertension by primary care providers and hypertension specialists in a barber-based intervention trial to control hypertension in Black men

Black men have less physician contact than other groups and thus lower rates of hypertension treatment and control. In the Barber-Assisted Reduction in Blood Pressure among Ethnic Residents trial, hypertension control in 8 active-intervention barbershops where barbers offered blood pressure (BP) checks with haircuts and motivated black male patrons with high BP to seek provider follow-up showed a small improvement over that in 7 comparison shops where patrons received hypertension pamphlets but not barber-BP checks. Undertreatment of hypertension, which is common in primary care, may have impacted the outcomes. Thus, in patrons with a baseline systolic BP of ≥140 mm Hg and 10-month follow-up including BP and medication data, we performed post hoc comparison of systolic BP reduction between comparison-arm patrons (n = 68) treated by primary care providers (PCPs) with (1) intervention-arm patrons (n = 37) treated by PCPs or (2) intervention-arm patrons (n = 33) who lacked access to PCPs and were treated by hypertension specialist physicians serving as safety net providers. The latter group had higher baseline systolic BP than the others (162 ± 3 vs 155 ± 2 and 154 ± 2 mm Hg, respectively, p <0.01). After adjustment for baseline systolic BP and other covariates, systolic BP reduction was 21 ± 4 mm Hg greater than in the comparison group (p <0.0001), when barbers referred patrons to hypertension specialists but was no different when they referred to PCPs (4 ± 4 mm Hg, p = 0.31). Specialist-treated patrons received more BP medication and different classes of medication than PCP-treated patrons. In conclusion, the barber-based intervention-if connected directly to specialty-level medical care-could have a large public health impact on hypertensive disease in black men.

Management of hypertension with fixed-dose triple-combination treatments

The objective of this review is to evaluate the role of fixed-dose triple-combination therapy for the management of hypertension. An assessment of clinical trials showed that half the patients with hypertension have uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), with underlying factors including therapeutic inertia and poor patient adherence. Many patients will require three antihypertensive agents to achieve BP goals, and current guidelines recommend combining drugs with complementary mechanisms of action. Three single-pill triple-combination treatments are available and each includes an agent affecting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone pathway (either a direct renin inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker) in combination with a calcium channel blocker and diuretic. These triple-combination therapies consistently demonstrated significantly greater BP reduction relative to the component dual combinations, with BP reductions documented across a range of patient populations. Triple-combination treatments were well tolerated in all clinical trials reviewed. The use of single-pill, triple-combination antihypertensive therapy has been shown to be an effective, well-tolerated, and convenient treatment strategy that can help patients achieve BP control.

Optimizing combination therapy in the management of hypertension: the role of the aliskiren, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination

High blood pressure is the leading risk factor for death and disability worldwide, and the prevalence is increasing. Effective treatment decreases the risk of adverse events in proportion to blood pressure reduction. Combination antihypertensive therapy reduces blood pressure promptly and effectively. Single-pill combinations reduce the pill burden and improve adherence, efficacy, and tolerability of treatment compared with single drug pills. A significant portion of the hypertensive population will require three drugs for adequate control. The single-pill combination of aliskiren, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide is based on complementary mechanisms of action. Clinical trials have shown it to be a safe and effective treatment for hypertension. This combination is a reasonable choice in clinical practice for patients with hypertension that requires three drugs for effective treatment.

Combined olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide therapy in randomized patients with hypertension: a subgroup analysis of the TRINITY study by age

Background

Hypertension is often inadequately controlled in older people.

Objective

This prespecified subgroup analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg/amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg triple-combination treatment compared with the 3 components as dual-combination treatments in participants with hypertension who were <65 and ≥65 years of age. Within the ≥65 years of age subgroup, efficacy and safety were also summarized for participants ≥75 years of age.

Study design

12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study.

Setting

317 ambulatory care sites in the US and Puerto Rico.

Participants

Individuals ≥18 years of age with mean seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥140/100 or ≥160/90 mmHg off antihypertensive medication on 2 consecutive clinic visits with no recent history of significant cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, heart failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV), severe renal insufficiency, or uncontrolled diabetes (HbA_1c >9 %).

Intervention

Participants were randomized, stratified by age, diabetes status, and race to one of four treatment assignments: OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40/AML 10 mg, OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg.

Main Outcome Measure

Least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at week 12 (last observation carried forward) in each age subgroup (prespecified analysis).

Results

Of the 2492 randomized participants in the study (total cohort), 2021 (81.1 %) were <65 and 471 (18.9 %) were ≥65 years of age, including 79 (3.2 %) who were ≥75 years of age. OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg triple-combination treatment resulted in a significantly greater reduction in LS mean SeDBP at week 12 than dual-combination component treatments in participants in both cohorts: <65 years (21.0 vs. 14.2–17.2 mmHg; p < 0.0001) and ≥65 years (23.7 vs. 17.3–20.0 mmHg; p ≤ 0.002). Similarly, triple-combination treatment resulted in a greater reduction in LS mean seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) at week 12 than dual-combination component treatments: <65 years (38.2 vs. 28.3–31.4 mmHg; p < 0.0001) and ≥65 years (39.2 vs. 29.3–31.1 mmHg; p < 0.0001). Triple-combination treatment was more effective than dual-combination treatments in enabling participants to reach SeBP goal (<140/90 mmHg [<130/80 mmHg in participants with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or chronic cardiovascular disease]) in both age subgroups (<65 years: 65 vs. 34–50 %, respectively, p < 0.0001 and ≥65 years: 63 vs. 32–39 %; p ≤ 0.0004). All 4 treatments were safe and well tolerated with low discontinuation rates in both age subgroups. There were no clinically relevant differences in the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events between participants <65 and ≥65 years of age receiving triple-combination treatment.

Conclusion

Triple-combination treatment with OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg was well tolerated and more effective in lowering BP than the component dual-combination treatments in elderly and non-elderly subgroups.

Strategies for combination therapy in hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To achieve the target blood pressure (BP) mandated by current guidelines, a large majority of patients require simultaneous administration of multiple antihypertensive agents. The purpose of this review is to focus attention on the rational selection of effective drug combinations, and upon ways to use them efficiently to achieve therapeutic objectives. The topic is widely relevant given that more than 46  million ambulatory care visits are conducted in the United States annually for hypertension management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recommended drug combinations exhibit complimentary pharmacology and additive BP reduction, are well tolerated, and include components with demonstrated endpoint reduction in long-term clinical trials. Recently, the choice of diuretics has emerged as a controversial issue with some evidence favoring the long-acting agent, chlorthalidone, in preference to hydrochlorothiazide. For resistant hypertension, mineralocorticoid antagonists are increasingly used as preferred add-on agents. Practical strategies for the optimal use of combination therapy continue to evolve from the older stepped-care approach to the use of low-dose combinations, and to initiation of combination therapy in a broader range of hypertensive patients.

SUMMARY

Thoughtful use of drug combinations is critical for achieving therapeutic objectives in hypertensive individuals and populations - more rapid BP control and more effective endpoint reduction. Practical strategies for the optimal use of combination therapy continue to evolve from the older stepped-care approach to more recent recommendations favoring the use of low-dose combinations, and initiation therapy of combination treatment, particularly in patients with Stage 2 hypertension.

Olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in participants with hypertension and diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or chronic cardiovascular disease: a subanalysis of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group TRINITY study

BACKGROUND

Patients with hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) usually require two or more antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals.

METHODS

The efficacy/safety of olmesartan (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus the component dual-combinations (OM 40/AML 10 mg, OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) was evaluated in participants with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD in the Triple Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertensive Patients Study (TRINITY). The primary efficacy end point was least squares (LS) mean reduction from baseline in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) at week 12. Secondary end points included LS mean reduction in SeSBP and proportion of participants achieving BP goal (<130/80 mm Hg) at week 12 (double-blind randomized period), and LS mean reduction in SeBP and BP goal achievement at week 52/early termination (open-label period).

RESULTS

At week 12, OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg resulted in significantly greater SeBP reductions in participants with diabetes (-37.9/22.0 mm Hg vs -28.0/17.6 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -26.4/14.7 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -27.6/14.8 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), CKD (-44.3/25.5 mm Hg vs -39.5/23.8 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -25.3/17.0 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -33.4/20.6 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), and chronic CVD (-37.8/20.6 mm Hg vs -31.7/18.2 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, -30.9/17.1 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and -27.5/16.1 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) (P<0.05 for all subgroups vs dual-component treatments). BP goal achievement was greater for participants receiving triple-combination treatment compared with the dual-combination treatments, and was achieved in 41.1%, 55.0%, and 38.9% of participants with diabetes, CKD, and chronic CVD on OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. At week 52, there was sustained BP lowering with the OM/AML/HCTZ regimen. Overall, the triple combination was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD, short-term (12 weeks) and long-term treatment with OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg was well tolerated, lowered BP more effectively, and enabled more participants to reach BP goal than the corresponding 2-component regimens. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: NCT00649389.

Efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide fixed-dose combination therapy in patients aged 65 years and older with stage 1 and 2 hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND

The incidence of hypertension, particularly isolated systolic hypertension, increases with increasing age, as does the risk of fatal cardiovascular disease. A combination antihypertensive therapy regimen may be required to reach recommended BP goals in older patients.

OBJECTIVES

This study set out to report blood pressure (BP) data in elderly patients across the subgroups of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (prespecified subgroup) and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) [post hoc].

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a subgroup analysis of a prospective, open-label study carried out in a multicenter, outpatient setting (e.g. the BeniSILVER [Benicar Efficacy: New Investigation Shows OM Treatment Increasingly Leads to Various Elderly Populations to Safe BP Reductions; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00412932] study). The study included 176 patients with a mean age of approximately 72 years; stage 1 hypertension, 60, stage 2 hypertension, 116, and ISH, 98.

INTERVENTION

After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, patients were uptitrated every 3 weeks from olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 20 mg daily to OM 40 mg, OM/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40 mg/12.5 mg, and OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg, if seated cuff BP (SeBP) was ≥120/70 mmHg.

MEASUREMENTS

Measurements included change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP and SeBP after 12 weeks of treatment, percentage of patients achieving a cumulative SeBP goal of <140/90 mmHg (stage 1 and stage 2 cohorts) or seated cuff systolic BP (SeSBP) goal of <140 mmHg (ISH cohort), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Combination therapy was required by 159 patients. Changes from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP (± standard deviation [SD]) were -24.2 (± 11.8)/-11.8 (± 6.9) mmHg, -26.5 (± 11.8)/-12.6 (± 6.7) mmHg, and -24.7 (± 12.5)/-11.2 (± 6.4) mmHg in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively (all p < 0.001 vs baseline). Mean SeBP changes (± SD) from baseline in patients titrated to OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg were -24.6 (± 11.4)/-10.5 (± 7.3) mmHg in the stage 1 cohort, -26.4 (± 17.2)/-11.3 (± 9.7) mmHg in the stage 2 cohort, and -21.5 (± 15.6)/-6.8 (± 7.8) mmHg in the ISH cohort (all p < 0.001). The cumulative proportions of patients achieving an SeBP goal of <140/90 mmHg by week 12 were 88.3%, 56.0%, and 72.4% in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively, while 72.4% of patients achieved an SeSBP of <140 mmHg in the ISH cohort. Treatment-emergent AEs ranged from 32.3% to 32.8%, with <3% of patients reporting drug-related hypotension.

CONCLUSION

An OM/HCTZ-based titration regimen enabled elderly patients with hypertension to safely reduce BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval and allowed the majority of these patients to achieve a BP target of <140/90 mmHg or <140 mmHg.

Aliskiren, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide triple combination for hypertension

Cardiovascular-related morbidity and mortality is linked to hypertension with proportional gains in cardiovascular risk factor reduction with the lowering of blood pressure. Clinical trial data has shown that attaining goal blood pressure requires, for most patients, at least two antihypertensive medications, with a significant proportion requiring regimens of three or more medications. Single-pill triple combinations have returned to the market following results of increased efficacy and adherence over dual- and mono-therapy. The combination of aliskiren, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide is a rational choice for combination therapy and recent studies suggest that it is safe and effective in lowering blood pressure in patients who fail dual combination therapy.

Single-pill triple-combination therapy: an alternative to multiple-drug treatment of hypertension

Hypertension (HTN) affects an estimated 76.4 million US adults. Despite improvements in blood pressure (BP) control rates and the availability of effective antihypertensive agents, only 50% of these individuals achieve BP control. It is now recognized that many patients will require ≥ 2 antihypertensive agents to achieve BP control. Both the current US and reappraisal of the 2007 European guidelines include dual-combination regimens among recommended treatments for initial HTN therapy. For patients requiring 3 drugs, the combination of agents with complementary mechanisms of action (ie, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blocker, calcium channel blocker, and diuretic) has been recognized as rational and effective. Three single-pill triple-drug combinations have recently been approved for use in HTN in the United States: valsartan (VAL)/amlodipine (AML)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ); olmesartan medoxomil (OM)/AML/HCTZ; and aliskiren (ALI)/VAL/HCTZ. Triple-combination regimens have resulted in a greater proportion of patients achieving BP control compared with dual-combination regimens, with significantly lower BP levels documented after only 2 weeks at maximum doses. Single-pill combinations offer convenience to address barriers to BP control such as poor adherence to therapy and therapeutic inertia. Additional benefits of combining antihypertensive agents from different classes include improved efficacy, safety, and reduction of cardiovascular risk. In patients with essential HTN for whom dual therapy is inadequate, single-pill triple-drug therapy can offer a simplified and effective treatment strategy.

Three in one: safety, efficacy, and patient acceptability of triple fixed-dose combination medicine in the management of hypertension

Hypertensive patients whose blood pressures are more than 20 mmHg above their goal will often require three or more medications. Careful selection of medications whose actions are complementary or have an improved adverse effect profile when combined can affect not only the blood pressure but also patient acceptance, thus improving persistence in taking the medications as prescribed. This review will highlight the three single-pill three-drug combinations currently available in the US and will address their efficacy, safety, and tolerability. All three include the dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker, amlodipine, and the thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide. They each contain a different renin-angiotensin system blocker. One includes the angiotensin-receptor blocker, olmesartan, while another contains valsartan. The third combination includes the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren. All three fixed-dose combinations (FDC) at maximum doses of each component lowers the blood pressure of patients with stage II hypertension by 37 to 40 mmHg systolic and 21 to 25 mmHg diastolic, which is superior to any two of the components that comprise the three-drug FDC. These drugs are effective in males and females, the elderly, diabetics, minority populations, and patients with metabolic syndrome. Triple-drug FDCs are well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse effects, the most common being peripheral edema related to amlodipine. Extrapolation of data from two-drug FDC suggests that medication compliance (adherence and persistence) should be better with these FDCs than with the individual components taken as separate medications, although additional studies are necessary to confirm this.