Treating Systolic Hypertension in the Very Elderly With Valsartan-Hydrochlorothiazide vs Either Monotherapy: ValVET Primary Results

A randomized titrate-to-target study comparing fixed-dose combinations of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone with olmesartan and hydrochlorothiazide in stage-2 systolic hypertension

Background:

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has been developed in fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) with chlorthalidone (CTD).

Objective/methods:

We compared FDCs of AZL-M/CTD 20/12.5 mg once daily titrated to 40/25 mg if needed or AZL-M/CTD 40/12.5 mg once daily titrated to 80/25 mg if needed with an olmesartan medoxomil (OLM)-hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 20/12.5 mg FDC once daily titrated to 40/25 mg if needed in a randomized, double-blind, 8-week study of 1085 participants with clinic SBP 160–190 mmHg and DBP 119 mmHg or less. Titration to higher doses occurred at week 4 if BP was at least 140/90 mmHg (≥130/80 mmHg if diabetes or chronic kidney disease). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in clinic SBP; 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring was also measured.

Results:

Greater reductions in clinic SBP from a baseline of 165 mmHg were observed (P < 0.001) in both AZL-M/CTD arms (−37.6 and −38.2 mmHg) versus OLM/HCTZ (−31.5 mmHg), despite greater dose titration in the OLM/HCTZ group. At 8 weeks, both AZL-M/CTD FDCs reduced 24-h SBP more than OLM/HCTZ (−26.4 and −27.9 versus −20.7 mmHg; both P < 0.001), and higher proportions in both AZL-M/CTD groups achieved target BP compared with the OLM/HCTZ group (69.4 and 68.9 versus 54.7%, both P < 0.001). Adverse events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 6.2, 9.5, and 3.1% with the AZL-M/CTD lower and higher doses, and OLM/HCTZ, respectively.

Conclusion:

This large, titration-to-target BP study demonstrated AZL-M/CTD FDCs to have superior antihypertensive efficacy compared with the maximum approved dose of OLM/HCTZ.

Influence of Age and Race on 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Responses to Valsartan, Hydrochlorothiazide, and Their Combination: Implications for Clinical Practice

The effects of race and age on 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) responses to sequential 4-week periods of angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (valsartan [VAL] 160 mg/d then 320 mg/d and combination VAL/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 320/12.5 mg/d) were compared in 304 patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. There were lesser blood pressure (BP) responses from baseline with VAL monotherapy in black than Caucasian patients (-2.9 and -4.0 mm Hg vs -8.2 and -9.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<.001 each) but VAL/HCTZ BP responses were similar in both groups (-12 vs -15 mm Hg). Participants 65 years and older had lower BP responses with VAL 160 mg/d and 320 mg/d than those younger than 65 years (-2.8 and -4.5 mm Hg vs -6.5 and -7.5 mm Hg, respectively; P<.001) but similar responses to VAL/HCTZ (-14 vs -17 mm Hg). No BP response differences were found between those older than and those younger than 55 years. The authors conclude that: (1) adding low-dose HCTZ (12.5 mg daily) to VAL is more effective than VAL titration, irrespective of age or race, (2) VAL BP efficacy is lower in blacks than Caucasians, and (3) ARB responses are diminished in patients older than 65 years. Guidelines for stage 1 or 2 hypertension that suggest age 55 should determine initial monotherapy choice (eg, ARB vs thiazide diuretic) or that fail to recommend initial ARB-thiazide combination therapy should be reconsidered.

Ambulatory 24-hour cardiac oxygen consumption and blood pressure-heart rate variability: effects of nebivolol and valsartan alone and in combination

We compared an angiotensin receptor blocker (valsartan; VAL), a beta-blocker (nebivolol; NEB) and the combination of NEB/VAL with respect to 24-hour myocardial oxygen consumption (determined by 24-hour ambulatory heart rate-central systolic pressure product [ACRPP]) and its components. Subjects with hypertension (systolic blood pressure >140 or diastolic blood pressure >90; n = 26) were studied in a double-blinded, double-dummy, forced-titration, crossover design with 3 random-order experimental periods: VAL 320 mg, NEB 40 mg, and NEB/VAL 320/40 mg daily. After 4 weeks of each drug, ambulatory pulse wave analysis (MobilOGraph) was performed every 20 minutes for 24 hours. All three treatments resulted in nearly identical brachial and central systolic blood pressures. NEB alone or in combination with VAL resulted in lower ACRPP (by 11%-14%; P < .001 each) and heart rate (by 18%-20%; P < .001 each) compared with VAL, but stroke work (ACRPP per beat) was lower with VAL. Relative and adjusted variability (standard deviation and coefficient of variation) of heart rate were also lower with NEB and NEB/VAL than VAL. Results in African Americans, the majority subpopulation, were similar to those of the entire treatment group. We conclude that the rate-slowing effects of NEB cause ambulatory cardiac myocardial oxygen consumption to be lower with NEB monotherapy or NEB/VAL combination therapy than with VAL monotherapy. NEB/VAL is not superior to NEB alone in controlling heart rate, blood pressure, or ACRPP. Heart rate variability but not ACRPP variability is reduced by NEB or the combination NEB/VAL. There is no attenuation of beta-blocker-induced rate-slowing effects of in African Americans.

Effects of combining azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension

Objective

The aim of the study was to measure the effects on blood pressure (BP) of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil, in 40 and 80 mg doses, combined with 5 mg of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine and to compare these effects with placebo plus amlodipine 5 mg.

Methods

This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind study of 6 weeks’ duration in 566 patients with stage 2 hypertension. The primary endpoint was 24-h systolic BP by ambulatory monitoring.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 58 years; men and women were equally represented, and baseline 24-h BP (153–154/93 mmHg) and clinic BP (165–166/94–95 mmHg) were similar across the three treatment groups. After 6 weeks, 24-h BP decreased by 25/15 mmHg in both the azilsartan medoxomil/amlodipine 40/5 and 80/5 mg groups. These reductions were each greater than the 14/8 mmHg decrease with placebo plus amlodipine 5 mg (P≤0.001 for both comparisons). All treatments were well tolerated, and adverse events did not increase with the azilsartan medoxomil doses. Edema or fluid retention was less common in both combination groups (2.6 and 2.7%) than with placebo plus amlodipine (7.6%).

Conclusion

Coadministration of azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine was well tolerated and led to meaningful additional BP reductions compared with placebo plus amlodipine.

Home and clinic blood pressure responses in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring may enhance assessment of BP control. In this 16-week study, men and women 70 years or older with systolic BP between 150 and 200 mm Hg were randomized to receive valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (V/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg (n = 128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 128), or V 160 mg (n = 128) for 4 weeks. Participants whose BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were uptitrated to a maximum of V/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Participants were evaluated by home BP monitoring using an automated device weekly before taking daily study medication (n = 301). Baseline BP ± SD for clinic (165.5 ± 11.8/85.1 ± 9.5 mm Hg) was approximately 3/1 mm Hg greater than home readings (162.5 ± 15.8/84.3 ± 10.2 mm Hg). Reductions in BP ± SEM at week 4 were similar for clinic (12.6 ± 1.0/4.7 ± 0.5 mm Hg) and home (10.9 ± 1.1/3.8 ± 0.5 mm Hg) readings (P = .25/P = .23; clinic versus home); differences between V/HCTZ and HCTZ or V were also similar for both home and clinic readings and results by either technique correlated significantly (P < .0001). Home BP measurements confirm that treatment initiated with V/HCTZ versus monotherapy resulted in greater antihypertensive efficacy. Home BP monitoring, if done with proper technique, provides a reliable indicator of BP control in elderly patients and may help guide drug dosing and titration.

Azilsartan Medoxomil Plus Chlorthalidone Reduces Blood Pressure More Effectively Than Olmesartan Plus Hydrochlorothiazide in Stage 2 Systolic Hypertension

Azilsartan medoxomil, an effective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, is a new treatment for hypertension that is also being developed in fixed-dose combinations with chlorthalidone, a potent, long-acting thiazide-like diuretic. We compared once-daily fixed-dose combinations of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone force titrated to a high dose of either 40/25 mg or 80/25 mg with a fixed-dose combination of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil plus the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 40/25 mg. The design was a randomized, 3-arm, double-blind, 12-week study of 1071 participants with baseline clinic systolic blood pressure 160 to 190 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure ≤119 mm Hg. Patients had a mean age of 57 years; 59% were men, 73% were white, and 22% were black. At baseline, mean clinic blood pressure was 165/96 mm Hg and 24-hour mean blood pressure was 150/88 mm Hg. Changes in clinic (primary end point) and ambulatory systolic blood pressures at week 12 were significantly greater in both azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone arms than in the olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide arm ( P <0.001). Changes in clinic systolic blood pressure (mean±SE) were −42.5±0.8, −44.0±0.8, and −37.1±0.8 mm Hg, respectively. Changes in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure were −33.9±0.8, −36.3±0.8, and −27.5±0.8 mm Hg, respectively. Adverse events leading to permanent drug discontinuation occurred in 7.9%, 14.5%, and 7.1% of the groups given azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone 40/25 mg, azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone 80/25 mg, and olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/25 mg, respectively. This large, forced-titration study has demonstrated superior antihypertensive efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone fixed-dose combinations compared with the maximum approved dose of olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide.