Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interactions between amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Plasma Trough Concentrations of Antihypertensive Drugs for the Assessment of Treatment Adherence: A Meta-Analysis

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Biochemical drug screening by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in plasma is an accurate method for the quantification of plasma concentrations of antihypertensive medications in patients with hypertension. Trough concentrations could possibly be used as drug-specific cutoff values in the biochemical assessment of (non-)adherence. We performed a literature review and meta-analysis of pharmacokinetic studies to determine plasma trough concentrations of amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and valsartan. PubMed was searched for pharmacokinetic studies up to September 2020. Eligible studies reported steady-state mean trough concentration and their variance. Pooled trough concentrations were estimated using a three-level random effects meta-analytic model. Moderator analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity. One thousand three hundred eighteen potentially relevant articles were identified of which 45 were eligible for inclusion. The pooled mean trough concentration was 9.2 ng/mL (95% CI, 7.5–10.8) for amlodipine, 41.0 ng/mL (95% CI, 17.4–64.7) for hydrochlorothiazide, and 352.9 ng/mL (95% CI, 243.5–462.3) for valsartan. Substantial heterogeneity was present for all 3 pooled estimates. Moderator analyses identified dosage as a significant moderator for the pooled trough concentration of amlodipine (β₁=0.9; P<0.05), mean age, and mean body weight for the mean trough concentration of hydrochlorothiazide (β₁=2.2, P<0.05, respectively, β₁=−4.0, P<0.05) and no significant moderators for valsartan. Plasma trough concentrations of amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and valsartan, measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, are highly heterogeneous over the different studies. Use of the pooled trough concentration as a cutoff in the biochemical assessment of adherence can result in inaccurate diagnosis of (non-)adherence, which may seriously harm the patient-physician relationship, and is therefore not recommended.

Renal secretion of hydrochlorothiazide involves organic anion transporter 1/3, organic cation transporter 2, and multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 2-K

Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is the most widely used thiazide diuretic for the treatment of hypertension either alone or in combination with other antihypertensives. HCTZ is mainly cleared by the kidney via tubular secretion, but the underlying molecular mechanisms are unclear. Using cells stably expressing major renal organic anion and cation transporters [human organic anion transporter 1 (hOAT1), human organic anion transporter 3 (hOAT3), human organic cation transporter 2 (hOCT2), human multidrug and toxin extrusion 1 (hMATE1), and human multidrug and toxin extrusion 2-K (hMATE2-K)], we found that HCTZ interacted with both organic cation and anion transporters. Uptake experiments further showed that HCTZ is transported by hOAT1, hOAT3, hOCT2, and hMATE2-K but not by hMATE1. Detailed kinetic analysis coupled with quantification of membrane transporter proteins by targeted proteomics revealed that HCTZ is an excellent substrate for hOAT1 and hOAT3. The apparent affinities (K_m) for hOAT1 and hOAT3 were 112 ± 8 and 134 ± 13 μM, respectively, and the calculated turnover numbers (k_cat) were 2.48 and 0.79 s^-1, respectively. On the other hand, hOCT2 and hMATE2-K showed much lower affinity for HCTZ. The calculated transport efficiency (k_cat/K_m) at the single transporter level followed the rank order of hOAT1> hOAT3 > hOCT2 and hMATE2-K, suggesting a major role of organic anion transporters in tubular secretion of HCTZ. In vitro inhibition experiments further suggested that HCTZ is not a clinically relevant inhibitor for hOAT1 or hOAT3. However, strong in vivo inhibitors of hOAT1/3 may alter renal secretion of HCTZ. Together, our study elucidated the molecular mechanisms underlying renal handling of HCTZ and revealed potential pathways involved in the disposition and drug-drug interactions for this important antihypertensive drug in the kidney.

A new strategy for taste masking on bitter drug by other combined drug in fixed-dose combination: bitterness of Amlodipine besylate could be masked efficiently by Valsartan

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bitterness of amlodipine besylate (AML) combined with other five antihypertensive drugs: alacepril, benazepril, hydrochlorothiazide, telmisartan (TEL) and valsartan (VAL), which have possibility of usage as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) drugs.

Methods

The bitterness of individual six drugs and AML combined with each of the five drugs was evaluated using taste sensor SA402B (Intelligent Sensor Technology Inc.). AML combined with TEL or VAL was evaluated by taste sensor and human gustatory sensation tests. The interaction between AML with TEL or VAL was evaluated by 1H-NMR.

Key findings

The bitterness of AML was significantly decreased by addition of VAL, whereas it remained unchanged by the addition of TEL in taste sensor and human gustatory sensation test. In the 1H-NMR spectrum of AML with VAL, signal shifts of protons in AML were observed compared to that in AML alone. On the other hand, in the 1H-NMR spectrum of AML with TEL, signal shifts of protons in AML were not observed.

Conclusions

It was suggested that when VAL was mixed with AML, the electrostatic interactions between positive charged amino group of AML and negative charged tetrazole group of VAL were caused, and thereby led the suppression the bitterness of AML.

Amlodipine and celecoxib for treatment of hypertension and osteoarthritis pain

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis constitutes one of the leading causes of pain and disability worldwide with a significant impact on health-care costs. Patients with osteoarthritis are often affected by a number of cardiovascular comorbidities, including hypertension, which is present in about 40% of cases. Just recently, a single tablet combination of amlodipine besylate, a calcium channel blocker, and celecoxib, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, indicated for patients for whom treatment with amlodipine for hypertension and celecoxib for osteoarthritis are appropriate, has been recently approved. Areas covered: We reviewed data from clinical studies that investigated safety and efficacy of the combination of amlodipine and celecoxib in hypertensive patients with osteoarthritis published before 31 August 2018. The literature search was conducted using research Methodology Filters. Expert commentary: The advantages of this single formulation over sequential administration include increased compliance, possibly reduced cost, and less likelihood of dosage-related issues. Moreover, this single tablet formulation combines the anti-inflammatory activity of the celecoxib with the systemic vasodilatation induced by the amlodipine. It is a promising treatment for patients with osteoarthritis and hypertension. Nevertheless, celecoxib may cause a variable degree of blood pressure increase and only a small clinical trial has been conducted before approval to assess interactions related to blood pressure effect between these two molecules.

No pharmacokinetic interactions between candesartan and amlodipine following multiple oral administrations in healthy subjects

PURPOSE

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of candesartan and amlodipine in the absence and presence of each other in healthy subjects.

METHODS

This study consisted of two parts: part 1, the effect of amlodipine on candesartan; part 2, the effect of candesartan on amlodipine. Each part was designed as a randomized, open-label, two-sequence, two-period, two-intervention crossover study with 20 subjects and performed separately in different populations. Pharmacokinetic assessments were performed over 48 hours for candesartan in part 1 and 72 hours for amlodipine in part 2 after drug administration on Day 10. Safety data included the results of physical examinations, clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, an electrocardiogram, and adverse events.

RESULTS

For both candesartan and amlodipine, the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the time of dosing interval of 24 hours and maximum concentration after drug administration fell within the bioequivalence acceptance criteria. Although this study was conducted in normotensive subjects, blood pressure lowering effects were observed in all intervention groups and co-administration of candesartan and amlodipine reduced blood pressure more than amlodipine alone, but similar to candesartan alone. No serious adverse event was reported throughout the study, and all treatment emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and were recovered without sequelae.

CONCLUSION

Co-administration of candesartan and amlodipine did not change the systemic exposure of each drug alone in healthy subjects. The administration of candesartan 32 mg alone, amlodipine 10 mg alone, and co-administration of candesartan and amlodipine were well tolerated during the study.

Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Rosuvastatin, Telmisartan, and Amlodipine in Healthy Male Korean Subjects: A Randomized, Open-label, Multiple-dose, 2-period Crossover Study

PURPOSE

Rosuvastatin, a hydroxy methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor; telmisartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker; and amlodipine, a calcium channel inhibitor, are commonly prescribed together for the treatment of hypertension nonresponsive to monotherapy and accompanied by dyslipidemia. However, the pharmacokinetic interactions among these 3 substances are not well understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions among rosuvastatin, telmisartan, and amlodipine in a healthy Korean male population.

METHODS

In both parts of this randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, 2-part, 2-period crossover study, subjects aged 19 to 55 years were enrolled. In part 1, each subject received rosuvastatin 20 mg with and without 2 fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablets of telmisartan/amlodipine 40/5 mg, once daily for 9 consecutive days. In part 2, each subject received 2 FDC tablets of telmisartan/amlodipine 40/5 mg with and without rosuvastatin 20 mg, once daily for 9 consecutive days. In both parts, there was a 13-day washout period between treatments. Pharmacokinetic samples were collected up to 72 hours after the last dose in subjects who received rosuvastatin only, and up to 144 hours after the last dose in subjects who received telmisartan/amlodipine with or without rosuvastatin. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed via interviews and physical examinations.

FINDINGS

Forty-eight subjects were enrolled, of whom 19 in part 1 and 22 in part 2 completed the study. In Part 1, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (coadministration of rosuvastatin and telmisartan/amlodipine to monotherapy with rosuvastatin) of the primary pharmacokinetic parameters (AUCτ and Cmax,ss) were: rosuvastatin, 1.1436 to 1.3059 and 1.8970 to 2.3514, respectively; and N-desmethyl rosuvastatin, 0.8441 to 1.0200 and 1.1971 to 1.5457. In part 2, the 90% CIs of the GMRs (coadministration to monotherapy with telmisartan/amlodipine) were: telmisartan, 1.1204 to 1.4228 and 0.9940 to 1.5940; amlodipine, 0.9705 to 1.0636 and 0.9813 to 1.0779. There were no significant differences in the prevalences of AEs between the treatments, and all reported AEs were mild or moderate.

IMPLICATIONS

These results demonstrate that when rosuvastatin, telmisartan, and amlodipine are coadministered to healthy male subjects, pharmacokinetic exposure increases with respect to rosuvastatin and telmisartan, whereas no change occurs with respect to amlodipine. However, based on previous analyses, the degree of increase in the exposure observed was not regarded as clinically significant. All treatments were well-tolerated.

Pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of the single oral administration of AGSAV301 vs Exforge: a randomized crossover study of healthy male volunteers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, is often used with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) such as amlodipine to control hypertension. Recently, the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of amlodipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (Exforge) was approved. Amlodipine is a racemic mixture of CCB; S-amlodipine has higher activity than R-form. Therefore, AGSAV301, the FDC of S-amlodipine 5 mg/valsartan 160 mg was recently developed. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics of S-amlodipine and valsartan when administered as one tablet each of Exforge and AGSAV301 to healthy male subjects.

METHODS

This was a single-dose, randomized, open-label, two-way, two-period crossover study. Each subject received a single dose of AGSAV301 and Exforge, separated by a 3-week washout period. Plasma samples for the PK analysis of valsartan and S-amlodipine were collected at predose (0) and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, 120, and 168 h after administration. Tolerability was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 29 subjects were enrolled; 24 completed this study. The S-amlodipine maximum plasma concentration (C max) geometric mean ratio (GMR) between AGSAV301 and Exforge was 0.951 (90 % CI 0.983-1.014), and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to last measured time point (AUClast) was 0.917 (90 % CI 0.861-0.976). The GMR of valsartan C max was 0.994 (90 % CI 0.918-1.076), and the AUClast was 0.927 (90 % CI 0.821-1.047). All adverse events (AEs) were resolved without sequelae; no serious AEs were reported. Two drugs showed similar tendencies to lower blood pressure in healthy subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

The PK profiles of AGSAV301 and Exforge were bioequivalent. Both drugs were also well tolerated, with comparable AE profiles and similar blood pressure-lowering tendencies in healthy volunteers, suggesting equivalent therapeutic indications.