Real-life effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan or amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single-pill combination in patients with hypertension from Pakistan

Management of Hypertension in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Structured Review

This article reviews available evidence regarding hypertension management in the Asia-Pacific region, focussing on five research questions that deal with specific aspects: blood pressure (BP) control, guideline recommendations, role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in clinical practice, pharmacological management and real-world adherence to guideline recommendations. A PubMed search identified 2537 articles, of which 94 were considered relevant. Compared with Europeans, Asians have higher systolic/diastolic/mean arterial BP, with a stronger association between BP and stroke. Calcium channel blockers are the most-commonly prescribed monotherapy in Asia, with significant variability between countries in the rates of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and single-pill combination (SPC) use. In clinical practice, ARBs are used more commonly than ACEis, despite the absence of recommendation from guidelines and clinical evidence supporting the use of one class of drug over the other. Ideally, antihypertensive treatment should be tailored to the individual patient, but currently there are limited data on the characteristics of hypertension in Asia-Pacific individuals. Large outcome studies assessing RAAS inhibitor efficacy and safety in multi-national Asian populations are lacking. Among treated patients, BP control rates were ~ 35 to 40%; BP control in Asia-Pacific is suboptimal, and disproportionately so compared with Western nations. Strategies to improve the management of hypertension include wider access/availability of affordable treatments, particularly SPCs (which improve adherence), effective public health screening programs targeting patients to drive health-seeking behaviours, an increase in physician/patient awareness and early implementation of lifestyle changes. A unified Asia-Pacific guideline on hypertension management with pragmatic recommendations, particularly in resource-limited settings, is essential.

Effectiveness of Valsartan's Single-Pill Combination Therapies on Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients: Malaysian Single-Centre Real-World Experience

Background

Uncontrolled hypertension can cause cardiovascular disease and is an important public health issue. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapies possess combined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and may improve compliance to treatment. This study assessed the effectiveness of valsartan (Val)-based SPC therapies in achieving BP control in hypertensive patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. Data were extracted from the hybrid medical records of patients from the Institut Jantung Negara (IJN), Malaysia. Adults with established diagnosis of hypertension and on prescription of Val-based SPC therapies as part of routine medical care from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018, with ≥ 1 year of follow-up were included. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving therapeutic BP control (BP < 140/90 mmHg). Secondary outcomes included change from baseline (CFB) in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), and subgroup analysis was based on baseline SBP categories and presence of diabetes.

Results

Study included 409 hypertensive patients. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the population was 65.1 (10.6) years old, with male predominance (61.6%). Proportion of patients achieving target BP between baseline and follow-up were 57.0% (P < 0.001). Mean CFB in SBP and DBP were recorded as 19.52 mmHg and 7.47 mmHg, respectively. Over half of the patients achieved the target BP in all subgroups categorised by SBP at baseline, except the subgroup of SBP 160 mmHg-179 mmHg. SPC therapies were continued in 97.3% of patients at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Patients using Val-based SPC therapies had significant reduction in BP with good tolerability, with 57% of patients achieving target BP over a prolonged 1-year follow-up period. Uptake of SPC therapy is warranted to improve patient care and outcomes in hypertension.

Contribution of single-pill combinations in the management of hypertension: perspectives from China, Europe and the USA

Uncontrolled hypertension is associated with an increased risk of adverse clinical vascular outcomes and death. Hypertension management guidelines from China and the USA recommend initiation of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy with a single drug for patients without severe hypertension at presentation. Current European hypertension guidelines take a different approach and recommend the use of combination therapy from the time of diagnosis of hypertension for most patients. This article reviews the burden of hypertension in these countries and summarises the evidence base for the use of antihypertensive combination therapy contained within a single tablet (single-pill combinations, SPC). Typically, half or less of populations from China, Europe and the USA who were found to have hypertension were aware of their condition, less than half of those receiving treatment, and fewer still achieved adequate blood pressure (BP) control. The reasons for the unaddressed burden of hypertension are complex and multifactorial, with contributions from factors related to patients, healthcare providers and healthcare systems. The use of SPCs of antihypertensive therapies helps to optimise adherence with therapy and is likely to result in superior BP control. There is a strong evidence base to support current European guideline recommendations on the initiation of antihypertensive therapy with SPCs for the majority of people with hypertension.

A Retrospective, Observational, EMR-Based Real-World Evidence Study to Assess the Incidence of Pedal Edema in Essential Hypertensive Patients on Amlodipine or Cilnidipine

INTRODUCTION

Calcium channel blockers have pedal edema as one of the confining factors of treatment. A real-world study may help evident reality of the situation in regular Indian clinical practice. The aim of the study is to assess effectiveness and incidence of pedal edema in essential hypertensive patients treated with amlodipine or cilnidipine monotherapy.

METHODS

Retrospective EMR data of adult essential hypertensive patients, prescribed amlodipine (n = 800) or cilnidipine (n = 800) as monotherapy, were analyzed. Incidence of pedal edema from baseline visit was analyzed in terms of dose and duration of treatment. The changes in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline and proportion of patients achieving target BP goals were assessed.

RESULTS

In amlodipine and cilnidipine groups, mean changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to end of the study period were 28.4 and 15.1 mmHg and 24.3 and 13.5 mmHg, respectively (p value <0.05). More than 50% of patients in both groups achieved BP goal at the end of the study (p value 0.266). In amlodipine group, total 23.9% reported pedal edema, while in cilnidipine, 27.6% (p value 0.0863). At the end of the study, 3.5% and 8.2% of patients remain with pedal edema, respectively, in both groups (pvalue <0.005).

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine demonstrated greater BP reduction at a lower average dose, better efficacy, and tolerability in terms of pedal edema count as a lesser number of patients reported edema at the end of the study and a higher percentage of patients continued the prescribed baseline dosage regimen as compared to cilnidipine. Thus, the study established amlodipine as an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive for Indians.

Effectiveness of Amlodipine on Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients in India: A Real-World, Retrospective Study from Electronic Medical Records

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of amlodipine has been reported in clinical trials in India. However, real-world data on the effectiveness of amlodipine in India is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence regarding the effectiveness of amlodipine as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs (AHDs) in Indian patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

Electronic medical record data of adult patients who were diagnosed with essential hypertension (≥ 140/90 mmHg) and were prescribed amlodipine as monotherapy or add-on therapy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified based on the number of AHD classes prescribed on initiation of amlodipine. Change in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure from baseline was the primary endpoint. Evaluation of proportion of patients who achieved treatment goals as per 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines was the secondary endpoint. Readings were obtained before initiating amlodipine and after at least a month of therapy with amlodipine.

RESULTS

Among the 462 included patients, the majority (90.7%) were on amlodipine monotherapy or amlodipine + 1AHD. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 12.1 [- 14.9, - 9.3] mmHg) and DBP (- 7.5 [- 8.9, - 6.1] mmHg) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 17.8 [- 21.0, - 14.6] mmHg) and DBP (- 9.5 [- 11.0, - 8.0] mmHg) (P < 0.001 for all). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 31.4% and 42.9% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 38.9% and 51.8% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≤ 45 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 11.7 [- 16.0, - 7.4] mmHg; P < 0.001) and DBP (- 7.2 [- 9.7, - 4.7] mmHg; P < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 14.6 [- 21.9, - 7.3] mmHg; P < 0.05) and DBP (- 10.6 [- 14.8, - 6.4] mmHg; P < 0.01). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 35.4% and 33.8% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 48.0% and 56.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≥ 65 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 13.9 [- 20.2, - 7.6] mmHg; P < 0.01) and DBP (- 8.5 [- 11.4, - 5.7] mmHg; P < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 22.4 [- - 28.8, - 16.0] mmHg; P < 0.001) and DBP (- 10.8 [- 14.0, - 7.6] mmHg; P < 0.001). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 25.5% and 13.7% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 29.8% and 14.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine prescribed as monotherapy or add-on therapy during routine clinical practice significantly reduced BP in ≤ 45- and ≥ 65-year-old Indian patients with mild to moderate hypertension, emphasizing that amlodipine may be a good candidate for BP control in Indian patients with essential hypertension in these age groups.

Amlodipine/Valsartan (Avsar®): Efficacy in Hypertensive Patients - A Real World Observational Study (ALERT)

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is a significant public health problem and one of the major noncommunicable diseases at the endemic level in Pakistan. This study was done to determine the efficacy of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) once-daily dose in reducing blood pressure (BP) after eight weeks of therapy.

METHODS

This study is an open-labeled observational study carried out for a period of 12 months. Some 769 participants of either gender between the ages of 18 and 70 years selected after taking written informed consent had a BP of >139/89 mmHg (not controlled) on monotherapy with a minimum 30 days of treatment. Therapy to control their high BP was initiated with Aml/Val (Avsar®, PharmEvo Pvt Ltd, Karachi, Pakistan) at the time of their enrolment in the study. Pregnant females and patients with secondary hypertension were excluded. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 and chi-square test was used for inferential analysis. p-values less than 0.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

At the end of week one, less than half of the patients achieved the desired level of BP while the majority achieved this level by the end of the study. Some 75.6% patients achieved targeted BP with Aml/Val 80/5 mg tablet, 18.5% achieved targeted BP with Aml/Val 160/5 mg tablet, and 5.9% achieved the targeted BP with Aml/Val 160/10 mg tablet at the end of the eighth week. The compliance rate was 99.2% at the first week, 98.9% at the fourth week, and 99.9% at the eighth week of treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our study concluded that Aml/Val (Avsar) combination therapy was very effective in controlling BP among patients who were uncontrolled with other monotherapies for at least one month.

Efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination in Egyptian patients with hypertension uncontrolled on any dual therapy: an observational study

Objective: Hypertension is a serious health problem in Egypt, with prevalence rate of 17% as reported in 2015. Despite receiving treatment, many do not achieve blood pressure (BP) control. The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCTZ) single pill combination (SPC) in patients with hypertension from Egypt, who were uncontrolled on any dual therapy.Methods: In this prospective, open label, multicenter, 12-week observational, cohort study, two doses of Aml/Val/HCTZ (5/160/12.5 mg or 10/160/25 mg) SPC were used to evaluate mean change in BP after 12 weeks (primary endpoint). Safety assessments included presence and intensity of ankle edema and other adverse events (AEs).Results: Data were collected from 1080 patients who were treated according to the routine medical practice across 47 centers in Egypt. Significant reduction in systolic and diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) was observed from 165.5 ± 12.83/100.8 ± 7.03 mmHg at baseline to 129.7 ± 8.35/80.6 ± 5.25 mmHg after 12 weeks of treatment (p < .0001). Majority of patients (76.85%) reached the BP goal of <140/90 mmHg. The most commonly reported AE was ankle edema (10.92%).Conclusions: Aml/Val/HCT SPC significantly reduced BP and was well tolerated in Egyptian patients with hypertension not controlled on any previous dual therapy.

Efficacy and effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: randomized controlled versus observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to compare the results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (Val/Aml/HCTZ) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg).

METHODS

Data was pooled from 15 RCTs (N = 5542) and 8 RWE studies (N = 1397) for Val/Aml; and 2 RCTs (N = 804) and 5 RWE studies (N = 9380) for Val/Aml/HCTZ. Patients who received Val/Aml (80/5, 160/5, 160/10, 320/5, or 320/10 mg), Val/Aml/HCTZ (160/5/12.5, 160/5/25, 160/10/12.5, 160/10/25, or 320/10/25 mg) or placebo were considered for this analysis. Only patients with both baseline and follow-up assessment within 60-90 days after baseline had been included in the analysis. Patients with missing values were excluded from the analysis. Using fitted linear mixed-effects model and random factors, treatment interactions and study design with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), diastolic BP (msDBP) and pulse pressure (msPP) reductions from baseline to Week 8-12 of treatment were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics and patient characteristics were comparable between RCT and RWE datasets and within Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ treatment groups. In both RCT and RWE studies, least-squares mean (LSM) reduction in msSBP/msDBP and msPP from baseline were significant (p < .05) across all dosages. The efficacy of Val/Aml in RCTs was statistically significantly greater than in RWE studies for msSBP/msDBP (-23.1/-13.8 vs. -17.9/-9.1 mmHg) but the difference was non-significant for msPP (-8.6 vs. -9.3 mmHg; p = .77). For Val/Aml/HCTZ, no direct comparison was available but a similar trend was observed. The difference observed for msSBP and msDBP may be due to routine practice setting, larger populations may have more confounders and different behaviors towards treatment adherence.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that the efficacy of Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ in RCTs was more pronounced compared with their effectiveness in RWE studies in different ethnic populations although the overall benefit was not different.

Formulations of Amlodipine: A Review

Amlodipine (AD) is a calcium channel blocker that is mainly used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. However, latest findings have revealed that its efficacy is not only limited to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases as it has shown to possess antioxidant activity and plays an important role in apoptosis. Therefore, it is also employed in the treatment of cerebrovascular stroke, neurodegenerative diseases, leukemia, breast cancer, and so forth either alone or in combination with other drugs. AD is a photosensitive drug and requires protection from light. A number of workers have tried to formulate various conventional and nonconventional dosage forms of AD. This review highlights all the formulations that have been developed to achieve maximum stability with the desired therapeutic action for the delivery of AD such as fast dissolving tablets, floating tablets, layered tablets, single-pill combinations, capsules, oral and transdermal films, suspensions, emulsions, mucoadhesive microspheres, gels, transdermal patches, and liposomal formulations.

Real-life Effectiveness and Safety of Amlodipine/Valsartan Single-pill Combination in Patients with Hypertension in Egypt: Results from the EXCITE Study

BACKGROUND

EXCITE (clinical experience of amlodipine and valsartan in hypertension) evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of single-pill combinations (SPCs) of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCTZ) in patients with hypertension from the Middle East and Asia.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report the results of EXCITE study from Egypt, where all patients were prescribed Aml/Val.

METHODS

This was a 26-week, observational, multicenter, prospective, non-interventional, open-label study. Effectiveness was assessed as change in the mean sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (msSBP/msDBP) from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving the therapeutic blood pressure (BP) goal (<140/90; <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) and BP response (SBP <140 mmHg or reduction of ≥20 mmHg; DBP <90 mmHg or reduction of ≥10 mmHg). Safety was monitored by recording the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 2566 patients (mean age, 52.6 years; mean duration of hypertension, 7.9 years) were prescribed Aml/Val, of whom 2439 (95.1 %) completed the study. At week 26, Aml/Val SPC significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced msSBP/msDBP by -34.5/-19.4 mmHg from baseline (BP: 164.3/100.5 mmHg). Therapeutic goal, SBP response, and DBP response was achieved by 49.3, 91.1, and 91.4 % of patients, respectively. AEs were reported in 12.5 % of patients, with the most common including peripheral edema (1.8 %), bronchitis (1.1 %), and gastritis (0.8 %), and SAEs in 0.5 % of patients. Two deaths were reported during the study, none of which were considered to be study drug related by the investigators.

CONCLUSION

Aml/Val SPC provided clinically significant BP reductions and was generally well tolerated in patients with hypertension from Egypt.