Effect of low-dose perindopril/indapamide on albuminuria in diabetes: preterax in albuminuria regression: PREMIER

Development of new stability indicating UPLC-UV method for the extraction and quantification of perindopril and indapamide from human plasma

Background

The hypertension and cardiovascular ailments are the leading cause of deaths worldwide. The combination therapy was found to be effective on the cardiovascular illness by reducing the blood pressure. The indapamide and perindopril combination therapy showed excellent results on reducing high blood pressure. With this in mind, the stability indicating reverse phase UPLC method was developed for the simultaneous identification and quantification of indapamide and perindopril from human plasma. In this work, we developed a new solid phase extraction method for the extraction of indapamide and perindopril in human plasma. It is a simple, accurate, and selective method for the extraction of these two drugs from human plasma with elution time of 2 min. The extracted drugs were identified and quantified by using stability indicating UPLC method. The method showed high recovery rate as well as low detection and quantification limits of two drugs.

Results

A novel, simple, highly accurate, and precise stability indicating ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) method was developed for the identification and quantification of perindopril (PP) (brand name Coversyl) and indapamide (IP) (brand name Lorvas) from human plasma. In this UPLC method, HSS C18 column (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.8 μm) and mobile phase acetonitrile (ACN), 10 mM KH2PO4 buffer solution (pH 3.0) mixture was used in the ratio of 65:35. Colum temperature of 30 °C, flow rate of 1.0 mL per minute and UV wave length of 254 nm were used. PP and IP were eluted below 2 min runtime with high resolution. Solid phase extraction (SPE) method was used for the extraction of PP and IP from human plasma. Different solvents were used to extract the analyte from SPE such as ACN, methanol, acetone, tertiary butyl diethyl ether (TBDE), chloroform (CHCl3), and ethanol (EtOH). Among these, ACN gave good recovery percentages (94.56 to 101.58%). From the linearity graph, good correlation coefficient values of 0.9996 for PP and 0.9997 for IP were achieved. The coefficient variance values for intra and inter day precision is in between 1.08 and 12.5%. The LOD and LOQ values were determined by the signal to noise ratio method. LOD and LOQ values for IP and PP were found to be 8.6 and 33.5 ng/mL and 28.33 and 110.5 ng/mL respectively. The developed method was statistically validated as per ICH guidelines.

Conclusion

In summary, a novel stability indicating UPLC-UV method was developed and validated for the simultaneous identification and quantification of perindopril and indapamide drugs in human plasma and tested the stability as per ICH guidelines. It is a simple, accurate, and specific method for the extraction of these two drugs from human plasma and eluted within 2 min runtime. The method showed high recovery rate as well as low detection and quantification limits of two drugs. The developed method is suitable for routine analysis as well as in bioanalytical and clinical studies.

Graphical abstract

Beneficial Effects of a Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients with Diabetes and/or Obesity or Metabolic Syndrome: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Four Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

To assess real-life effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in patients with hypertension (HT) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity and/or metabolic syndrome (MetS).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis pooled raw data from four large observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES, PICASSO). Patients, most with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) on previous treatments were switched to Per/Ind (10 mg/2.5 mg) SPC at study entry. Office systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) were measured at baseline, 1 month and 3 months.

RESULTS

In the overall pooled population (N = 16,763), mean age was 61 ± 12 years, HT duration 11 ± 8 years, and baseline SBP/DBP 162/94 mmHg. T2DM, obesity and MetS were present in 21%, 49% and 27% of patients, respectively. Subgroups had similar mean age and HT duration to the overall population; patients with T2DM were slightly older (64 ± 10 years) with a longer HT duration (13 ± 8 years). Mean BP was approximately 160/95 mmHg in each subgroup. At 1 month, mean SBP decreased by approximately 20 mmHg in the overall population, and by a further 10 mmHg at 3 months. Similar results were observed in the three subgroups, with mean changes from baseline at 3 months of - 28 ± 15/- 13 ± 10 in T2DM; - 30 ± 15/- 14 ± 10 in obesity; and - 31 ± 15/- 15 ± 9 mmHg in MetS. BP decreases were greatest in patients with grade II or grade III HT. BP control rates (< 140/90 mmHg or 140/85 mmHg for T2DM) at 3 months were 59% in T2DM, 67% in obese, and 66% in MetS. No specific safety concerns were raised, particularly concerning ionic (Na, K) or metabolic profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to Per/Ind SPC led to rapid and effective BP decreases in patients with T2DM, obesity, or MetS. BP control was achieved in 6-7 out of 10 previously treated but uncontrolled patients. Treatment was well tolerated. The results confirm the beneficial effects of a Per/Ind SPC for difficult-to-control patient populations.

Effectiveness of Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Uncontrolled Patients with Hypertension: A Pooled Analysis of the FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES and PICASSO Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in a broad range of patient profiles, including subgroups with varying hypertension severity, age and cardiovascular risk profiles.

METHODS

Patient data from four large prospective observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, PICASSO, ACES) were pooled. In each study, patients already treated for hypertension were switched to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) measured at the 1-month (M1) and 3-month (M3) visits. Study endpoints included change in SBP and DBP from baseline to M1 and M3 and the percentage of patients achieving BP control (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg for patients without diabetes or < 140/85 mmHg for patients with diabetes).

RESULTS

A total of 16,763 patients were enrolled and received Per/Ind (94% received the full dose of 10/2.5). Mean patient age was 61.4 years (36% were ≥ 65 years old), 57% were women, and 16% had isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Mean baseline office SBP/DBP was 162/94 mmHg, and mean duration of hypertension was 11 years. Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbid conditions were common in this population. Significant mean reductions in SBP (- 23 mmHg) and DBP (- 11 mmHg) were observed at M1 compared with baseline (P < 0.001), which were maintained at M3 (- 30 mmHg and - 14 mmHg, respectively). At M3, BP control was achieved by 70% of patients (78% for ISH). In patients with SBP ≥ 180 mmHg at baseline (grade III hypertension), the mean SBP/DBP decrease was - 51/- 20 mmHg and 53% achieved BP control. Per/Ind was well tolerated with an overall rate of adverse events of 1.3%, most frequently cough and dizziness at rates of 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this hypertensive population including difficult-to-control patient subgroups, switching to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC led to rapid and important reductions in BP. BP control was achieved in 70% of patients overall in an everyday practice context.

First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review originally published in 2017. Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used no language restrictions. We also searched clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs on the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drugs with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and performed data entry. The primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial), and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarised data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

This update included one new study in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. As none of the four included studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment, we asked investigators for data for this subgroup. One study (PREVER-treatment 2016) used a combination of thiazide-type diuretic/potassium-sparing diuretic; as the former is not indicated in monotherapy, we analysed this study separately. The three original trials in the main comparison (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants) included outpatients, mostly European and white people. Two trials only included people with type 2 diabetes; the remaining trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia, or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. It is very uncertain whether combination therapy versus monotherapy reduces total mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 21.72), cardiovascular mortality (zero events reported), cardiovascular events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.41), serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92), or withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.35); all outcomes had 568 participants, and the evidence was rated as of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and for using a subgroup that was not defined in advance. The confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. The PREVER-treatment 2016 trial, which used a combination therapy with potassium-sparing diuretic (monotherapy: 84 participants; combination therapy: 116 participants), included outpatients. This trial was conducted in Brazil and had a follow-up of 18 months. The number of events was very low and confidence intervals very wide, with zero events reported for cardiovascular mortality and withdrawals due to adverse events. It is very uncertain if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of included participants, and hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the review question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Combination Antihypertensive Therapy with Perindopril and Indapamide in Patients with Essential Hypertension: Effect on Endothelial and Cognitive Markers of Vascular Improvement

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/indapamide (PER/IND) at full doses (10/2.5 mg) on endothelial and cognitive function as a clinical intermediate marker of vascular improvement.

METHODS

This open-label, uncontrolled, observational study enrolled 30 patients (20 females and 10 males) with grade II-III uncontrolled arterial hypertension (SBP/DBP ≥ 160/100 mmHg) and no evidence of cerebrovascular disease. All patients underwent assessment of macro- and microvascular endothelial function parameters at baseline and after 12 months of treatment with SPC PER/IND using photoplethysmography and video capillaroscopy. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale (MoCA).

RESULTS

All patients (mean age 60.06 ± 10.19 years) were at high risk for cardiovascular events: mean body mass index (BMI) 31.2 ± 3.9 kg/m², 33% diagnosed with coronary artery disease angina class I, 30% with impaired glucose tolerance, and 7% with type 2 diabetes. Impaired endothelial function was observed at the both micro- and macrovascular levels. Endothelial function parameters improved after 12-month treatment with SPC PER/IND with an increase in occlusion index from 1.4 to 1.8 (P < 0.00005) and phase shift from 5.0 to 10.8 (P < 0.00001); all values achieved levels in the normal range. Resting capillary network density (CND) increased from 44.8 to 52 cap/mm² (P < 0.00007), and CND after a venous occlusion test increased from 55 to 61 cap/mm² (P < 0.006). Signs of cognitive impairment were present at baseline with a mean MoCA score of 23 (normal cognitive function score ≥ 26), but improved after 12-month treatment with a mean MoCA score of 27 (P< 0.0001). Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

SPC PER/IND at full doses for 12 months improves endothelial function, structural and functional parameters of the microcirculation, as well as cognitive function in patients with arterial hypertension at high cardiovascular risk.

FUNDING

Les Laboratoires Servier.

Vascular legacy beyond blood pressure control: benefits of perindopril/indapamide combination in hypertensive patients with diabetes

OBJECTIVES

Much of the chronic care of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension involves the prevention of diabetic complications. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors are recommended as first-line therapies because of their nephroprotective properties. Their combination with metabolically neutral diuretics is recommended to reduce blood pressure, morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to review the mechanisms by which the combination of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, perindopril, and metabolically neutral thiazide-like diuretic, indapamide, targets the pathways involved in microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications.

METHODS

For this narrative review, extensive literature searches were performed using PubMed/Medline. Articles published in English describing clinical trials and mechanism of action studies that were relevant to the treatment of patients with perindopril and/or indapamide were included.

RESULTS

Perindopril/indapamide treatment has been shown to reduce blood pressure and to have significant beneficial effects on arterial distensibility, kidney structure and function, and endothelial function. Recent data also suggests that perindopril may reduce the deleterious accumulation of advanced glycation end products in diabetic tissue. In the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation diabetes trial, perindopril/indapamide treatment significantly reduced the relative risk of microvascular and macrovascular events by 9%, cardiovascular mortality by 18%, and all-cause mortality by 14%. Interestingly, 6 years after the end of the double-blind period, follow-up data showed that the beneficial effects on mortality continued to be significant even though differences in blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin levels had not been significant for several years. Together this data suggests that treatment with perindopril/indapamide has microvascular and macrovascular effects that extend beyond blood pressure lowering and that this treatment might confer a long-lasting beneficial vascular legacy.

CONCLUSION

Moving forward, understanding the pathophysiological bases of the effects that extend beyond those of blood pressure control will help us differentiate between anti-hypertensive choices.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Fixed-Dose Combination Perindopril/Indapamide in Hypertensive Patients with a History of Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack: PICASSO Trial

INTRODUCTION

In everyday medical practice, physicians often need to manage patients whose blood pressure is not well controlled. Those with a history of cerebrovascular disease are a high-risk group in need of rapid blood pressure control.

METHODS

The PICASSO study was a real-life, observational trial involving 9257 inadequately treated hypertensive patients who were switched from previous therapy to the fixed-dose combination of perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg (PI) for 3 months. A subanalysis of data of 1117 hypertensive patients who met the clinical criteria of previous stroke or transient ischemic attack was performed. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (ABPMs) were also done in a small group of patients (n:38).

RESULTS

At baseline, mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) was 161.5 ± 15.2/93.1 ± 9.9 mmHg. After 1 month with the fixed dose of PI, average office SBP/DBP decreased to 140.0 ± 11.9/83.5 ± 7.7 mmHg. After 3 months, SBP/DBP had dropped to 132.9 ± 9.8/80.0 ± 6.2 mmHg, by 28.6 ± 15.5/13.1 ± 10.0 mmHg (p < 0.001). Blood pressure control rate (< 140/90 mmHg) was 67.3% after 3 months. When data were stratified by baseline blood pressure, decreases in SBP/DBP were statistically significant in patients with all grades (1-3) of hypertension. In patients previously treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ± hydrochlorothiazide (n = 677), blood pressure decreased by 29.8 ± 15.5/13.3 ± 10.2 mmHg (p < 0.001). Decreases in 24-h ABPM values were also significant (n = 38). Treatment was well tolerated; only a few adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that fixed combination perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for patients with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack.

FUNDING

EGIS Pharmaceuticals Plc.

Type 2 Diabetes and Thiazide Diuretics

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes, the use of thiazides as antihypertensive agents has been challenged because associated metabolic adverse events, including new-onset diabetes.

RECENT FINDINGS

These metabolic disturbances are less marked with low-dose thiazides and, in most but not all studies, with thiazide-like diuretics (chlorthalidone, indapamide) than with thiazide-type diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide). In post hoc analyses of subgroups of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes, thiazides resulted in a significant reduction in cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure compared to placebo and generally were shown to be non-inferior to other antihypertensive agents. Benefits attributed to thiazide diuretics in terms of cardiovascular event reduction outweigh the risk of worsening glucose control in type 2 diabetes and of new-onset diabetes in non-diabetic patients. Thiazides still play a key role in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

Adhering to the principles of clinical pharmacology - the correct fixed combinations of antihypertensive drugs

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is one of the primary modifiable risk factor for cardiac and renal diseases with the prevalence around 30-45% of the general population, with a steep increase with ageing. The administration of blood pressure-lowering drugs is to reduce the risk of major clinical cardiovascular outcomes. Hypertension guidelines recommend combination therapy in patients with high cardiovascular risk and with subclinical organ damage as well as when monotherapy fails. Areas covered: As the etiology of essential hypertension is multifactorial, combination therapy using different classes of antihypertensive agents have greater effect than each on its own (synergistic effect), may have better tolerability (two components minimizing each other's side effects) and lead to improved patient compliance. Several studies assess the hypotensive efficacy on drug combination; there are also studies on triple drug combination. Expert commentary: At present, dual and triple combination therapy is available to hypertensive patients with good clinical outcomes, compliance and low profile of side effects. It is critical as patients' adherence to the pharmacological therapy significantly decreases the risk of long-term adverse events including mortality. It appears that combinations not only of hypotensive drugs but also with statins (as well as antidiabetics) will be widely used.

Comparison between the effects of hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide on the kidney in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled with losartan

The aim of the study is to compare the effects of hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide on the kidney in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled with losartan. A total of 140 patients who met the criteria and inadequately controlled with losartan 50 mg per day for 2 weeks were randomized in two groups and administered either hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg per day (n=70) or indapamide (sustained release) 1.5 mg per day (n=70) in combination with losartan 50 mg per day. Office blood pressure (BP) were collected at baseline and upon each follow-up visit. Creatinine, urine albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR), urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) and renal resistive index (RRI) were also collected at baseline and at the 24-week follow-up. None of the baseline characteristics was statistically significantly different between the two groups. After excluding those patients with office BP uncontrolled, 46 patients in the hydrochlorothiazide group (45.7% males, 58.8±10.8 years) and 44 patients in the indapamide group (38.4% males, 61.5±10.9 years) were analysed. There were insignificant changes in creatinine and significant decreases in ACR, NGAL and RRI compared to baseline levels in the two groups. The decrease in ACR (3.8 (0, 28.7) vs 4.2 (0.4, 64.8) mg g^-1, P=0.485) was not significantly different between the two groups, while the decrease in NGAL (16.07±7.07 vs 28.77±7.64 ng ml^-1, P<0.001) and RRI (0.04±0.02 vs 0.07±0.04, P<0.001) was more significant in the indapamide group than in the hydrochlorothiazide group. In conclusion, indapamide is superior to hydrochlorothiazide to improve renal tubular injury and renal haemodynamics in combination with losartan in hypertensive patients with controlled BP.

Full-dose Perindopril/Indapamide in the Treatment of Difficult-to-Control Hypertension: The FORTISSIMO Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients remains poor worldwide, particularly in high-risk patients with hypertension and diabetes. Guidelines recommend that such patients receive prompt pharmacological therapy at maximal doses to rapidly control BP. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of single-pill combination (SPC) perindopril/indapamide (PER/IND) at full dose (10/2.5 mg) in hypertensive patients, including diabetics, with BP uncontrolled by previous medication.

METHODS

Twelve-week prospective, observational study in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (≥160-200 mmHg systolic BP [SBP] and <110 mmHg diastolic BP [DBP]) on a previous SPC or free-dose combination of renin-angiotensin system blocker plus thiazide diuretic, substituted with PER/IND 10/2.5 mg. Office BP, quality of life, and blood parameters were evaluated in the whole cohort and patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

2120 ambulatory hypertensive patients were enrolled, including 307 with type 2 diabetes. Two weeks after substitution, SBP significantly decreased from 171.0 ± 13.3 to 148.6 ± 13.4 mmHg, and DBP from 98.6 ± 8.3 to 88.8 ± 7.9 mmHg (both p < 0.00001). A similar rapid decrease was noted in the diabetes subgroup. After 12 weeks, BP had reduced by 42/19 mmHg in the whole cohort (diabetes subgroup: 41/18 mmHg). Most (84%; diabetes subgroup: 77%) patients reached BP target (<140/90 mmHg). Laboratory tests and quality of life improved in the whole cohort and the diabetic subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to PER/IND at full dose (10/2.5 mg) was well tolerated, leading to fast BP reduction and control in the majority of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, including difficult-to-treat patients with diabetes.

First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2016. We searched in clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs in Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drug with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events or serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data. Primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial) and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarized data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

We found three studies in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment so we asked investigators for data for this subgroup (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants). They included outpatients, and mostly European and white people. Two trials included only people with type 2 diabetes, whereas the other trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. Certainty of evidence was very low due to the serious imprecision, and for using a subgroup not defined in advance. Confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of included participants and, hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Antihypertensive Agents for Adult Diabetic Patients with Microalbuminuric Kidney Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive treatment mitigates the progression of chronic kidney disease. Here, we comparatively assessed the effects of antihypertensive agents in normotensive and hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuric kidney disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antihypertensive agents in adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. The primary efficacy outcome was reduction in albuminuria, and the primary safety outcomes were dry cough, presyncope, and edema. Random-effects pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to produce outcome estimates for all RCTs, only hypertensive RCTs, or only normotensive RCTs. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability rankings were calculated for all outcomes. Sensitivity analyses on type 2 diabetes status, age, or follow-up duration were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-calcium channel blocker (ACEI-CCB) combination therapy of captopril+diltiazem was most efficacious in reducing albuminuria irrespective of blood pressure status. However, the ACEI-angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI-ARB) combination therapy of trandolapril+candesartan was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while the ACEI-CCB combination therapy of fosinopril+amlodipine was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. The foregoing combination therapies displayed inferior safety profiles relative to ACEI monotherapy with respect to dry cough, presyncope, and edema. With respect to type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, the Chinese herbal medicine Tangshen formula followed by the ACEI ramipril were the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria.

CONCLUSIONS

Trandolapril+candesartan appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while fosinopril+amlodipine appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. For practitioners opting for monotherapy, our SUCRA analysis supports the use of trandolapril and fosinopril in normotensive and hypertensive adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, respectively.

Not just chlorthalidone: evidence-based, single tablet, diuretic alternatives to hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension

Accounting for 15 % of deaths worldwide, hypertension is often treated with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (50 million prescriptions annually). HCTZ has a <24-h duration of action, is less potent than chlorthalidone and all major antihypertensive drug classes, and is inferior to four antihypertensive drugs for cardiovascular event (CVE) reduction. If there were alternative diuretics, why prescribe HCTZ? Chlorthalidone is often offered as an alternative to HCTZ, but has limited pharmaceutical formulations. However, there are seven evidence-based, single-tablet, alternative diuretics. For reducing CVE, the following are superior to their comparators: chlorthalidone versus four antihypertensives in multiple hypertensive populations; indapamide versus placebo in elderly Chinese (and versus enalapril for left ventricular hypertrophy), triamterene-HCTZ versus placebo in elderly Europeans, amiloride-HCTZ versus three antihypertensives, and indapamide-perindopril versus placebo in three populations. Additionally, chlorthalidone-azilsartan and spironolactone-HCTZ are potent combinations The aldosterone antagonist component of the latter combination has been shown to reduce total mortality by 30 % in heart failure. Five of these seven have multiple dose formulations. Six cost $4-$77 monthly. In conclusion, based on both scientific and practical grounds, new prescriptions for HCTZ are rarely justified.

Evidence-based diuretics: focus on chlorthalidone and indapamide

Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are cornerstone treatments for hypertension. However, unlike chlorthalidone (CTD) and indapamide (IDP), hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) lacks evidence for reducing morbidity and mortality as monotherapy compared with placebo or control. Despite this fact, HCTZ is prescribed much more frequently than CTD or IDP. We believe that all hypertension guidelines should follow the National Institute for Health and Excellence (NICE) and make IDP and CTD first choice 'thiazide-like diuretics.' This article will focus on the available evidence pertaining to HCTZ versus CTD and IDP. We will review the pharmacological differences between these three diuretics, as well as the clinical trial data and important side effects.

The effect of indapamide versus hydrochlorothiazide on ventricular and arterial function in patients with hypertension and diabetes: results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to compare the effects of 2 types of diuretics, indapamide and hydrochlorothiazide, added to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, on ventricular and arterial functions in patients with hypertension and diabetes.

METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized, active-controlled, PROBE design study in 56 patients (57 ± 9 years, 52% men) with mild-to-moderate hypertension and type 2 diabetes, with normal ejection fraction, randomized to either indapamide (1.5 mg Slow Release (SR)/day) or hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg/d), added to quinapril (10-40 mg/d). All patients had conventional, tissue Doppler and speckle tracking echocardiography and assessment of endothelial and arterial functions and biomarkers, at baseline and after 6 months.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups; systolic and diastolic blood pressures decreased similarly, by 15% and 9% on indapamide and by 17% and 10% on hydrochlorothiazide (P < .05). Mean longitudinal systolic velocity and longitudinal strain increased by 7% and 14% on indapamide (from 5.6 ± 1.8 to 6.0 ± 1.1 cm/s and from 16.2% ± 1.8% to 18.5% ± 1.1%, both P < .05), but did not change on hydrochlorothiazide (P < .05 for intergroup differences), whereas ejection fraction and radial systolic function did not change. Similarly, mean longitudinal early diastolic velocity increased by 31% on indapamide (P < .05), but did not change on hydrochlorothiazide (P < .05 for intergroup differences). These changes were associated with improved endothelial and arterial functions on indapamide, but not on hydrochlorothiazide.

CONCLUSION

Indapamide was found to improve measures of endothelial and arterial functions and to increase longitudinal left ventricular function compared with hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension and diabetes, after 6 months of treatment. This study suggests that indapamide, a thiazide-like diuretic, has important vascular effects that can improve ventriculoarterial coupling.

Antihypertensive efficacy of triple combination perindopril/indapamide plus amlodipine in high-risk hypertensives: results of the PIANIST study (Perindopril-Indapamide plus AmlodipiNe in high rISk hyperTensive patients)

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate a triple-drug antihypertensive strategy for blood pressure control in patients with difficult-to-treat hypertension.

DESIGN

The Perindopril-Indapamide plus AmlodipiNe in high rISk hyperTensive patients (PIANIST) trial was an observational, 4-month, open-label study.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

A total of 4,731 patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk with hypertension that was not properly controlled [ , and for [corrected] whom study treatment (fixed-dose perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg + amlodipine 5 or 10 mg) was consistent with their existing therapeutic plan, were included.

OUTCOMES

One-sample t tests and Chi-squared tests were performed to evaluate changes in blood pressure.

RESULTS

Mean baseline office blood pressure (OBP) was 160.5 ± 13.3/93.8 ± 8.7 mmHg. After 4 months of therapy, OBP decreased by 28.3 ± 13.5/13.8 ± 9.4 to 132.2 ± 8.6/80.0 ± 6.6 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Blood pressure targets were reached by 72.0% of patients and by 81 and 91% of patients previously treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/hydrochlorothiazide or an angiotensin receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide, respectively. Changes in OBP were 18.7 ± 8.3/9.7 ± 7.2 mmHg for grade 1 (n = 1,679), 30.4 ± 10.1/14.7 ± 8.6 mmHg for grade 2 (n = 2,397), and 45.4 ± 15.1/20.7 ± 12.1 mmHg for grade 3 patients (n = 655; all p < 0.0001). In patients who underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (n = 104), 24-h mean blood pressure decreased from 147.4 ± 13.8/82.1 ± 11.9 to 122.6 ± 9.1/72.8 ± 7.4 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Ankle edema was infrequent (0.2% of patients).

CONCLUSION

Triple combination perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine was effectively and safely administered to a large population of high- and very high-risk hypertensive patients who had not reached target OBP values with previous treatment.

Efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination of perindopril/indapamide in type 2 diabetes mellitus: PICASSO trial

Background

Hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) synergistically deteriorate the vascular environment, making blood pressure reduction challenging, and substantially increasing cardiovascular risk.

Methods

In the real-life, open-label, observational, PICASSO study, 9,257 hypertensive patients unsuccessfully treated with antihypertensives were switched to fixed-dose combination of perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg. In this subgroup analysis, we analyzed changes in blood pressure and laboratory parameters of 2,762 hypertensive patients with T2DM or pre-diabetes.

Results

After 3 months of treatment, significant decreases in office blood pressure were noted in the whole cohort (−27.0 ± 14.8/−12.7 ± 9.8 mmHg; p < 0.001). Significant decreases were also recorded in patients with grade 1 hypertension (19.2 ± 10.0/−9.4 ± 7.9 mmHg), grade 2 (29.2 ± 10.9/−13.3 ± 8.7 mmHg) and grade 3 (−45.1 ± 15.4/−21.5 ± 11.2 mmHg). Significant decreases in ambulatory blood pressure were also noted (n = 93). In patients previously treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ± hydrochlorothiazide or angiotensin receptor blocker ± hydrochlorothiazide, mean 24-h blood pressure decreased by 23.4 ± 13.9/11.5 ± 9.7 and 22.3 ± 8.7/10.4 ± 13.2 mmHg, respectively (p < 0.001). Treatment was well tolerated and the switch to treatment with perindopril/indapamide was associated with improvements in laboratory parameters.

Conclusions

Data from this diabetes subgroup analysis suggest that fixed combination of perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg should be routinely considered for the treatment of hypertension in diabetic patients who are unsuccessfully managed with other antihypertensive medications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0107-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perindopril/indapamide combination in the first-line treatment of hypertension and end-organ protection

This article examines evidence-based findings in the literature on the efficacy of perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg, a first-line, low-dose antihypertensive drug combination. In regulatory Phase II and III trials, perindopril/indapamide significantly lowered blood pressure compared with other first-line therapies (atenolol, losartan and irbesartan). This was also the case in STRAtegies of Treatment in Hypertension: Evaluation, a postregistration study versus current monotherapies and stepped-care therapy with different classes of antihypertensive agents. The efficacy/safety ratio (both clinical and with regard to laboratory parameters) of perindopril/indapamide was good. Perindopril/indapamide provides additional antihypertensive efficacy compared with each component used alone and with current monotherapies, with major efficacy on systolic blood pressure, an important predictor of cardiovascular risk. It also reduces pulse pressure, an independent cardiovascular risk factor, large-vessel arterial stiffness and microcirculatory alterations. The fixed dosage of a once-daily tablet, ensures optimal ease of use and enhances patient compliance. Perindopril/indapamide also reduces target organ damage in patients at high cardiovascular risk, such as patients with cardiac hypertrophy and Type 2 diabetics with albuminuria. These benefits, together with the good efficacy/tolerability ratio, fulfill the requirements of the European Society of Hypertension and of the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure guidelines for low-dose, first-line combination therapy in hypertension.

Blood pressure and metabolic efficacy of fixed-dose combination of perindopril and indapamide in everyday practice

The aim of the PICASSO study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg in everyday medical practice. In this 3-month, open-label, observational study, outpatients with primary hypertension who did not reach the blood pressure goal (< 140/90 mmHg) with antihypertensive treatment were enrolled if their treating physician had planned, as part of their ongoing therapy, to switch them to fixed-dose perindopril 10 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg. Blood pressure, heart rate, and metabolic parameters and - optionally - ambulatory blood pressure were measured. Data from 9257 patients were evaluated. Over the course of 3 months, mean blood pressure decreased from 159/93 mmHg to 132/80 mmHg (p < 0.001) and heart rate decreased from 79 to 73 beats/min (p < 0.001). The target blood pressure was reached by 72.7% of patients. Reductions in total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-c), triglycerides, fasting glucose and uric acid levels were clinically significant. Blood levels of high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-c), sodium and potassium remained unchanged. Beneficial changes in metabolic parameters were primarily attributed to the reduction in therapy with drugs with unfavourable metabolic profiles (thiazides and beta-blockers). Perindopril/indapamide is an effective and safe antihypertensive treatment in everyday medical practice.

Emerging drug combinations to optimize renovascular protection and blood pressure goals

Hypertension and renal disease are closely related. In fact, there is an inverse linear relationship between renal function and prevalence of hypertension. Hypertensive patients with renal dysfunction exhibit a poor clinical profile, which markedly increases their risk for cardiovascular outcomes. This review considers the available evidence on the best therapeutic approach for optimizing renovascular protection in the hypertensive population. To effectively reduce or at least slow the establishment and progression of renal disease in the hypertensive population it is critical to reach blood pressure targets. Many studies have shown that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers prevent or at least delay the development of microalbuminuria in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes, reduce the incidence of overt diabetic nephropathy, and are also beneficial in patients with nondiabetic renal disease. Therefore, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition plays a key role in the prevention of renal outcomes. As the majority of patients with hypertension will need at least two antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure goals, the use of RAS inhibitors is a mandatory part of antihypertensive therapy. The question of which antihypertensive agent is the best choice for combining with RAS blockers should be considered. Many studies have shown that diuretics and calcium channel blockers are the best choice. However, more studies are needed to clarify the subgroups of patients who will benefit more from a combination with a diuretic or from a combination with a calcium channel blocker. To date, RAS inhibitors recommended in this context are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Aliskiren, the first oral direct renin inhibitor available, has shown promising results.

Secondary arterial hypertension: improvements in diagnosis and management in the last 10 years

The diagnosis and management of secondary hypertension has improved in the last decade as a result of the advances in the acknowledgment of some physiopathologic mechanisms and mainly by the development of new diagnostic methods. Furthermore, the treatment of some types of secondary hypertension may be solved by noninvasive techniques. Hypertension of renal and renovascular origin, coarctation of the aorta, primary hyperaldosteronism, and adrenal medullary tumors are analyzed. The main results of some relevant studies on diagnostic and treatment of those diseases are presented. Also, some experimental methods are mentioned, taking into account the possibility of clinical use in the near future.

Combination perindopril/indapamide for the treatment of hypertension: a review

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular complications and the need to treat this condition has been well established. Despite the availability of many antihypertensive drugs, it is often necessary to combine several of these drugs. The compound perindopril/indapamide offers the opportunity to start with a fixed combination of two effective agents as first-line treatment. Large outcome trials so far show that the perindopril/indapamide compound has favourable prognostic effects in elderly hypertensives as well as in patients with high cardiovascular risks, regardless of their level of blood pressure.

AREAS COVERED

This review examines the prevalence of hypertension, the major risk factors, its pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and clinical efficacy, and also looks at the results of large outcome trials. This review will allow the reader to put the role of the perindopril/indapamide combination in perspective, at least from a clinical point of view.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the positive trial results, there are still issues that deserve attention, for example safety with respect to drug levels in special patient groups. Also, in the large outcome trials placebo treatment (whether or not in addition to other medication) was taken as the comparator, and it is uncertain whether the combination of perindopril and indapamide performs better than established modes of treatment. More studies are needed to establish whether the combination drug has similar positive effects in the long run in 'ordinary' patients and those with comorbid conditions or those who are treated with other drugs as well. Nevertheless, it is fair to state that the low-dose perindopril/indapamide combination adds to our pharmaceutical arsenal and can be applied as first-line treatment by physicians who care for patients with elevated blood pressure or, more broadly, those with cardiovascular disease.

Evidence-based diuretic therapy for improving cardiovascular prognosis in systemic hypertension

Diuretics are among the most commonly prescribed cardiovascular (CV) medications. The strength of evidence supporting the effectiveness of diuretics in lowering blood pressure and for preventing major adverse CV events in patients with hypertension varies considerably among diuretic classes and even among agents within the same class. Unfortunately, common prescribing habits among American physicians, including specialists in CV diseases, are not in line with the existing evidence regarding diuretic therapy for improving CV prognosis. In conclusion, although hydrochlorothiazide is the standard diuretic used for hypertension, the outcomes data suggest that chlorthalidone, indapamide, and possibly even the aldosterone receptor blockers (spironolactone and eplerenone) may be superior agents.

Proteinuria in diabetes: bystander or pathway to cardiorenal disease?

The development of albuminuria in diabetics is closely associated with an enhanced risk of renal and cardiovascular disease. However, the role of albuminuria in the pathogenesis of these clinical conditions remains controversial. Whether albuminuria is simply a biomarker or qualifies as a surrogate endpoint for cardiorenal disease has wide-ranging implications from the monitoring and treatment of patients to the design of clinical trials and drug development. We critically review available data to determine whether the association between albuminuria and cardiorenal disease is causative. Current evidence suggests the significance of albuminuria depends on its severity (degree or level) and on the specific clinical outcome under consideration. For diabetic kidney disease, there is convincing epidemiologic and experimental evidence to assign clinical albuminuria status as a surrogate endpoint, but for lower levels of albuminuria (microalbuminuria and normoalbuminuria), the evidence is inconclusive or not available. Albuminuria of any degree is unlikely to be causally related to diabetic cardiovascular disease, but its onset might be useful to identify those subjects at cardiovascular risk and to detect and treat other modifiable risk factors.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor associated cough: deceptive information from the Physicians' Desk Reference

BACKGROUND

Dry cough is a common, annoying adverse effect of all angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. The present study was designed to compare the rate of coughs reported in the literature with reported rates in the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR)/drug label.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL for articles published from 1990 to the present about randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of ACE inhibitors with a sample size of at least 100 patients in the ACE inhibitors arm with follow-up for at least 3 months and reporting the incidence or withdrawal rates due to cough. Baseline characteristics, cohort enrolled, metrics used to assess cough, incidence, and withdrawal rates due to cough were abstracted.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria enrolled 198,130 patients. The pooled weighted incidence of cough for enalapril was 11.48% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.54% to 13.41%), which was ninefold greater compared to the reported rate in the PDR/drug label (1.3%). The pooled weighted withdrawal rate due to cough for enalapril was 2.57% (95% CI, 2.40-2.74), which was 31-fold greater compared to the reported rate in the PDR/drug label (0.1%). The incidence of cough has increased progressively over the last 2 decades with accumulating data, but it has been reported consistently several-fold less in the PDR compared to the RCTs. The results were similar for most other ACE inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of ACE inhibitor-associated cough and the withdrawal rate (the more objective metric) due to cough is significantly greater in the literature than reported in the PDR/drug label and is likely to be even greater in the real world when compared with the data from RCTs. There exists a gap between the data available from the literature and that which is presented to the consumers (prescribing physicians and patients).

Evidence-based approach for managing hypertension in type 2 diabetes

Blood pressure (BP) control is a critical part of managing patients with type 2 diabetes. Perhaps it is the single most important aspect of diabetes care, which unlike hyperglycemia and dyslipidemia can reduce both micro- and macrovascular complications. Hypertension is more prevalent in individuals with diabetes than general population, and in most cases its treatment requires two or more pharmacological agents (about 30% of individuals with diabetes need 3 or more medications to control BP). In this article we describe the key evidence that has contributed to our understanding that reduced BP translates into positive micro- and macrovascular outcomes. We review the data supporting current recommendation for BP target < 130/80 mmHg. Two studies suggest that a lower BP goal could be even more beneficial. We also present the comparative benefits of various antihypertensive drugs in reducing diabetes-related micro- and macrovascular complications. Finally we propose an evidence-based algorithm of how to initiate and titrate antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in affected individuals. Overall, achieving BP < 130/80 mmHg is more important than searching for the “best” antihypertensive agent in patients with diabetes.

Complementary mechanisms of action and rationale for the fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide in treating hypertension - update on clinical utility

Although reducing blood pressure is the most important approach to reduce cardiovascular outcomes in the hypertensive population, the majority of patients fail to attain the targets. Most patients with hypertension need at least 2 antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure goals. The 2007 European hypertension guidelines state that combined therapy is needed when monotherapy does not attain blood pressure objectives and as a first-line treatment in high-risk patients. This point has been reinforced in the 2009 update of the European guidelines. The advantages of combination therapy are well documented with the potential for increased antihypertensive efficacy as a result of different mechanisms of action, and a lower incidence of adverse effects because of the lower doses used and the possible compensatory responses. Moreover, the use of fixed dose combinations are specially recommended as they facilitate treatment compliance. The inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system appears to be very beneficial in the treatment of patients with hypertension along the cardiovascular continuum and the combination of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor and a diuretic is particularly recommended. Many clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of the fixed combination perindopril/indapamide in the treatment of hypertension. The aim of this manuscript is to update the published data on the efficacy and safety of this fixed combination.

The ADVANCE trial: clarifying the role of perindopril/indapamide fixed-dose combination in the reduction of cardiovascular and renal events in patients with diabetes mellitus

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus exhibit a marked increase in cardiovascular and renal risk. A number of interventional trials have shown that these patients benefit greatly from aggressive BP lowering, especially when the drug regimen comprises an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin system. The results of the placebo-controlled ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: PreterAx and DiamicroN MR Controlled Evaluation) trial, conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes, are exemplary in this respect. The systematic use of a fixed-dose combination containing the ACE inhibitor perindopril and the diuretic indapamide afforded substantial protection against cardiovascular mortality and myocardial infarction, while providing important renoprotection, reducing the development of micro- and macroalbuminuria, and allowing regression of nephropathy. The beneficial effects were obtained regardless of baseline BP and whether or not the patients were receiving antihypertensive therapy.

Evaluation of high dose of perindopril/indapamide fixed combination in reducing blood pressure and improving end-organ protection in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread notion that controlling hypertension is essential to improve cardiovascular outcome, uncontrolled hypertension rates remain high. Fixed-dose combinations are used routinely to reduce the impact of hypertension. Treatment with fixed-combination perindopril/indapamide, for example, at the currently approved doses (perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg [Per2/Ind0.625] and perindopril 4 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg [Per4/Ind1.25]), reduces blood pressure, end-organ damage, and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a wide range of hypertensive patients.

AIM AND SCOPE

This article reviews three published randomised trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the highest dose of perindopril/indapamide (perindopril 8 mg/indapamide 2.5 mg [Per8/Ind2.5]) in blood pressure lowering and end-organ protection studies.

RESULTS

In the first (dose-finding) study, incremental reductions in SBP/DBP were observed with each dose doubling. After 8 weeks of treatment, decreases in supine SBP/DBP were statistically significant compared to placebo for all three doses, with incremental and progressive reductions with each dose doubling: ranging from SBP/DBP respectively -14/-9 mmHg for Per2/Ind0.625 to -23/-15 mmHg for Per8/Ind2.5 compared to -5/-5 mmHg for placebo. In the PICXEL and PREMIER trials, SBP/DBP decreases of 16.3/8.1 mmHg (p < 0.0001) and 2.5/2.6 mmHg, respectively, were noted when Per4/Ind1.25 was doubled to Per8/Ind2.5 (decreases from 167.7/101.7 to 151.4/93.6 in PICXEL and from 154.9/92.1 to 152.4/89.5 in PREMIER, respectively). As a consequence more patients had normalised blood pressure (22% and 17%), more patients responded to treatment (68% and 45%), and 29% and 10% of non-responders became responders, in PICXEL and PREMIER, respectively. Additional end-organ benefits were also noted with Per8/Ind2.5. In PICXEL, significant decreases from baseline in left ventricular mass were noted with all three doses, with a 17.5 g/m(2) decrease from baseline in patients whose maximum dose was Per8/Ind2.5 (from 148.5 g/m(2) +/- 39.5 (mean +/- SD) to 131 g/m(2); p < 0.0001). In PREMIER, changes in albumin excretion rate were also noted with all three doses, with a 45% reduction from baseline in patients whose maximum dose was Per8/Ind2.5 (p < 0.0001). When safety data, including potassium levels, were analysed, the increase in dose to Per8/Ind2.5 did not have a notable impact on the safety profile of perindopril/indapamide.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on data available from an evaluation of three randomised clinical trials, fixed-combination Per8/Ind2.5 provided a significant, incremental reduction in blood pressure as well as cardiac and renal end-organ protection while remaining safe and well-tolerated.

Latin American guidelines on hypertension. Latin American Expert Group

Hypertension is a highly prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in the world and particularly overwhelming in low and middle-income countries. Recent reports from the WHO and the World Bank highlight the importance of chronic diseases such as hypertension as an obstacle to the achievement of good health status. It must be added that for most low and middle-income countries, deficient strategies of primary healthcare are the major obstacles for blood pressure control. Furthermore, the epidemiology of hypertension and related diseases, healthcare resources and priorities, the socioeconomic status of the population vary considerably in different countries and in different regions of individual countries. Considering the low rates of blood pressure control achieved in Latin America and the benefits that can be expected from an improved control, it was decided to invite specialists from different Latin American countries to analyze the regional situation and to provide a consensus document on detection, evaluation and treatment of hypertension that may prove to be cost-utility adequate. The recommendations here included are the result of preparatory documents by invited experts and a subsequent very active debate by different discussion panels, held during a 2-day sessions in Asuncion, Paraguay, in May 2008. Finally, in order to improve clinical practice, the publication of the guidelines should be followed by implementation of effective interventions capable of overcoming barriers (cognitive, behavioral and affective) preventing attitude changes in both physicians and patients.

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

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

New insights from ADVANCE

OBJECTIVES

ADVANCE (Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease - PreterAx and DiamicroN MR Controlled Evaluation) is a large-scale clinical trial designed to investigate the benefits of blood pressure lowering and intensive glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

METHODS AND PARTICIPANTS

ADVANCE is a 2 x 2 factorial randomized trial evaluating the benefits of the low-dose fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide versus placebo to lower blood pressure and of an intensive gliclazide-MR-based regimen, targeting glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 6.5% or less versus standard therapy to lower blood glucose. The two primary outcomes, taken separately and jointly, are a composite macrovascular endpoint and a composite microvascular endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 11 140 participants were randomized between July 2001 and March 2003 from among 12 878 individuals with type 2 diabetes recruited from 215 centres in 20 countries, who entered a 6-week run-in phase. The average (SD) baseline blood pressure of 145(22)/81 (11) mmHg fell by 8/3 mmHg during the run-in phase during which participants received one tablet of open-labelled perindopril 2 mg-indapamide 0.625 mg. Only 3.6% of the 12 878 patients who entered the run-in phase withdrew because of suspected intolerance to perindopril-indapamide. With over 4 years of follow-up on average so far, over 80% of participants are still adhering to randomized therapy. Follow-up of the blood pressure arm will be completed during 2007.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of perindopril-indapamide in lowering blood pressure and of a gliclazide-MR-based regimen in lowering blood glucose have been established with the completion of a 6-week run-in phase and of more than 4 years of post-randomization follow-up. It is anticipated that ADVANCE will provide many new insights including: whether blood pressure lowering with perindopril-indapamide reduces the risk of both macrovascular and microvascular events irrespective of baseline blood pressure; whether more intensive blood pressure lowering with a gliclazide-MR-based regimen targeting on HbA1c levels of 6.5% or less reduces these two outcomes compared with standard guidelines therapy; and finally whether the separate benefits of these two treatment regimens are additive.

Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes

BP is an important determinant of kidney disease among patients with diabetes. The recommended thresholds to initiate treatment to lower BP are 130/80 and 125/75 mmHg for people with diabetes and nephropathy, respectively. We sought to determine the effects of lowering BP below these currently recommended thresholds on renal outcomes among 11,140 patients who had type 2 diabetes and participated in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed combination perindopril-indapamide or placebo, regardless of their BP at entry. During a mean follow-up of 4.3 yr, active treatment reduced the risk for renal events by 21% (P < 0.0001), which was driven by reduced risks for developing microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (both P < 0.003). Effects of active treatment were consistent across subgroups defined by baseline systolic or diastolic BP. Lower systolic BP levels during follow-up, even to <110 mmHg, was associated with progressively lower rates of renal events. In conclusion, BP-lowering treatment with perindopril-indapamide administered routinely to individuals with type 2 diabetes provides important renoprotection, even among those with initial BP <120/70 mmHg. We could not identify a BP threshold below which renal benefit is lost.

Effects of high sodium intake and diuretics on the circadian rhythm of blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients treated with an angiotensin II receptor blocker

BACKGROUND

The inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system in the diabetic condition was reported to enhance the sodium sensitivity of blood pressure. In patients with sodium-sensitive hypertension, high sodium intake reduces the nocturnal fall in blood pressure. Therefore, we examined the effects of the amount of sodium intake or diuretics in patients with diabetes treated with an angiotensin receptor blocker.

METHODS

We recruited 32 Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with base line blood pressure > or =130/80 mmHg and treated with valsartan (80 mg daily). At baseline, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure and 24-h urinary excretion of sodium were measured. The patients were then randomly assigned to take either combination therapy with 50 mg of losartan plus 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide or monotherapy with 160 mg of valsartan for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

At baseline, 22 of 32 (69%) patients were classified as non-dippers, and the night/day ratio of mean arterial pressure was significantly correlated with 24-h urinary sodium excretion. The combination therapy resulted in a significantly higher fall than the monotherapy in 24-h mean, daytime, night-time and morning blood pressures. The night/day ratio of mean arterial pressure was significantly reduced from the baseline at the end of the study in the combination therapy group, but not in the monotherapy group. In non-dipper patients, the diminished nocturnal fall in blood pressure was restored by the combination therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Excessive intake of salt causes non-dipping and diuretics restored nocturnal BP fall in type 2 diabetic patients treated with angiotensin 2 receptor blockers.

Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibition on microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis of the Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART)

The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART) showed the advantage of ARB over CCB beyond the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect in reducing microalbuminuria. To further assess the impact of BP control or renin-angiotensin system inhibition on microalbuminuria, the SMART patients were re-analyzed. Hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were randomly assigned to valsartan or amlodipine treatment groups for 24 weeks. Target blood pressure was set at <130/80 mmHg. Changes in the urinary albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) from baseline were assessed in the valsartan monotherapy (VM) group (n=33), the amlodipine monotherapy (AM) group (n=36), the concomitant valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor group (VA) (n=33), and the concomitant amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (AA) group (n=38). At the end of the study, mean BP was not different among the four treatment groups. The changes in ACR from baseline to the end of the treatment period in VM, AM, VA, and AA were -36%, +30%, -26%, and +8%, respectively. The dissociation between the anti-albuminuric and antihypertensive effects of valsartan or amlodipine was observed in the respective monotherapy groups. In the AA group, however, a significant positive relationship was found between the changes in ACR and those in systolic BP. In conclusion, RAS inhibitors may be necessary in order for calcium channel blockers to have an effect on microalbuminuria. Therefore, RAS inhibitors are first-line drugs for hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.