Prescribing patterns in hypertension: the emerging role of fixed-dose combinations for attaining BP goals in hypertensive patients

Hypertensive Heart Disease: A Narrative Review Series-Part 2: Macrostructural and Functional Abnormalities

Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) remains a major global public health concern despite the implementation of new approaches for the management of hypertensive patients. The pathological changes occurring during HHD are complex and involve the development of structural and functional cardiac abnormalities. HHD describes a broad spectrum ranging from uncontrolled hypertension and asymptomatic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), either a concentric or an eccentric pattern, to the final development of clinical heart failure. Pressure-overload-induced LVH is recognised as the most important predictor of heart failure and sudden death and is associated with an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias. Cardiac arrhythmias are considered to be one of the most important comorbidities affecting hypertensive patients. This is the second part of a three-part set of review articles. Here, we focus on the macrostructural and functional abnormalities associated with chronic high pressure, their involvement in HHD pathophysiology, and their role in the progression and prognosis of HHD.

Antihypertensive prescribing pattern, prescriber adherence to ISH 2020 guidelines, and implication of outpatient drug price on blood pressure control at selected hospitals in Southern Ethiopia

PURPOSE

To determine the impact of drug prescribing pattern, outpatient drug price of medicines, and level of adherence to evidence-based international guidelines on blood pressure (BP) control at selected hospitals in Southern Ethiopia.

METHODS

Hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted. The data entry and analysis were done by using SPSS version 21.0.

RESULTS

A mean age of participants was 55.87 ± 11.02 years. The rate of BP control was 17.5% based on International Society of Hypertension (ISH) guidelines 2020. In about two-thirds of patients, 270 (66.5%) were taking combination therapy. Mean annual cost of drugs for hypertension was 11.39 ± 3.98 US dollar (USD). Treatment was affordable for only 91 (22.4%) of patients. There was considerable variation on prescriber's adherence to evidence-based guidelines. Body mass index (BMI) of 18-24.9 kg/m², adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 3.63 (95% confidence interval (C.I), 1.169-11.251, p = 0.026), physically activity, AOR = 12.69 (95% C.I, 1.424-113.17, p = 0.023), presence of no comorbidity, AOR = 12.82 (95% C.I, 4.128-39.816, p = 0.000), and taking affordable antihypertensive regimen, AOR = 3.493 (95% C.I, 1.4242-9.826, p = 0.018), were positively associated BP control.

CONCLUSION

The level of BP control, affordability of drugs for the management of hypertension and related comorbidities, and the prescriber's adherence to evidence-based guidelines were inadequate. Therefore, addressing factors associated with good BP control including affordability and clinician adherence to evidence-based guidelines by responsible stakeholders could improve BP control and reduce associated complications.

Modifications in drug adherence after switch to fixed-dose combination of perindopril/amlodipine in clinical practice. Results of a large-scale Italian experience. The amlodipine-perindopril in real settings (AMPERES) study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the changes in adherence to treatment, in patients who switched from perindopril and/or amlodipine as a monotherapy (single-pill therapy, SPT) or two-pill combinations to fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy.

METHODS

A large retrospective cohort study, in three Italian Local Health Units, was performed. All adult subjects who received at least one prescription of anti-hypertensive drugs between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 were selected. The date of the first anti-hypertensive prescription was defined as the index-date (ID). For each patient, we evaluated the anti-hypertensive therapy and the adherence to treatment during the two 12-month periods preceding and following the ID. Changes in the level of adherence have been compared in patients who switched to the FDC of perindopril/amlodipine after the ID, as well as in patients who did not.

RESULTS

A total of 24,020 subjects were initially included in the study. Subjects treated with the free dose combination switched more frequently to FDC of perindopril/amlodipine than subjects treated with SPT (p < .001). Adherence to treatment was found to be higher in the 3,597 subjects who switched to the perindopril/amlodipine FDC therapy, than in the 20,423 subjects who did not. A significant decrease in the number of concomitant anti-hypertensive drugs has been observed in patients treated with the same FDC.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that perindopril/amlodipine FDC increases the rate of stay-on-therapy and reduces the number of concomitant anti-hypertensive drugs in subjects previously treated with the same drugs as a two-pill combination or as SPT.

Fixed-Dose Triple Combination of Antihypertensive Drugs Improves Blood Pressure Control: From Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

Blood pressure (BP) control is the main clinical goal in the management of hypertensive patients; however, BP in most of these patients remains uncontrolled, despite the widespread availability of antihypertensive drugs as free-combination therapy. This study compared the efficacy of a fixed-dose triple combination (FDTC) of antihypertensive drugs with that of a free combination of three antihypertensives in patients with uncontrolled hypertension.

METHODS

Ninety-two patients (mean age 60.8 ± 12.1, 58.0% male) with uncontrolled essential hypertension (office systolic BP ≥ 140 or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg) previously treated with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor plus hydrochlorothiazide were switched to once-daily FDTC therapy with perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine (5-10/1.25-2.5/5-10 mg). Patients were age- and sex-matched with a control group of hypertensive patients receiving free-combination therapy with three drugs including a RAAS inhibitor, a diuretic, and a calcium channel blocker. Office BP and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) were evaluated at baseline and after 1 and 4 months.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in ambulatory 24-h, daytime, and nighttime systolic BP, and pulse pressure (PP) were found in the FDTC group relative to reductions seen with free-combination therapy, after the first month only of follow-up. Target BP values (mean 24-h ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP < 130/80 mmHg) were reached by more recipients of FDTC than free-combination therapy (64.8% vs. 46.9%, p < 0.05) at month 4 of follow-up, despite reductions in 24-h ABPM values from baseline being similar in both groups at this time point.

CONCLUSION

FDTC of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine was effective at reducing SBP and PP in previously treated patients with uncontrolled hypertension, and well tolerated, providing support for clinicians in choosing a fixed-dose triple combination over the free-combination of a RAAS inhibitor, a diuretic, and a calcium antagonist.

Practical Applications for Single Pill Combinations in the Cardiovascular Continuum

Despite the availability of new drugs and devices, the treatment of cardiovascular disease remains suboptimal. Single-pill combination therapy offers a number of potential advantages. It can combine different classes of drugs to increase efficacy while mitigating the risks of treatment-related adverse events, reduce pill burden, lower medical cost, and improve patient adherence. Furthermore, in hypertension, single pill combinations include standard to lower doses of each drug than would be necessary to achieve goals with monotherapy, which may explain their better tolerability compared with higher dose monotherapy. Combination therapy is now established in the treatment of hypertension. In ischaemic heart disease, the concept of a preventative polypill has been studied, but its benefits have not been established conclusively. However, the combination of ivabradine and beta-blockers has proven efficacy in patients with stable angina pectoris. This combination has also demonstrated benefits in patients with chronic heart failure.

Blood pressure-lowering effects of nifedipine/candesartan combinations in high-risk individuals: subgroup analysis of the DISTINCT randomised trial

The DISTINCT study (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS-Candesartan Therapy) investigated the efficacy and safety of nifedipine GITS/candesartan cilexetil combinations vs respective monotherapies and placebo in patients with hypertension. This descriptive sub-analysis examined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects in high-risk participants, including those with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate<90 ml min^-1, n=422), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=202), hypercholesterolaemia (n=206) and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (n=971), as well as the impact of gender, age and body mass index (BMI). Participants with grade I/II hypertension were randomised to treatment with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30, 60 mg and/or candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16, 32 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Mean systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions after treatment in high-risk participants were greater, overall, with N/C combinations vs respective monotherapies or placebo, with indicators of a dose-response effect. Highest rates of BP control (ESH/ESC 2013 guideline criteria) were also achieved with highest doses of N/C combinations in each high-risk subgroup. The benefits of combination therapy vs monotherapy were additionally observed in patient subgroups categorised by gender, age or BMI. All high-risk participants reported fewer vasodilatory adverse events in the pooled N/C combination therapy than the N monotherapy group. In conclusion, consistent with the DISTINCT main study outcomes, high-risk participants showed greater reductions in BP and higher control rates with N/C combinations compared with respective monotherapies and lesser vasodilatory side-effects compared with N monotherapy.

Nifedipine plus candesartan combination increases blood pressure control regardless of race and improves the side effect profile: DISTINCT randomized trial results

OBJECTIVES

DISTINCT (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS - Candesartan Therapy) aimed to determine the dose-response and tolerability of nifedipine GITS and/or candesartan cilexetil therapy in participants with hypertension.

METHODS

In this 8-week, multinational, multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adults with mean seated DBP of at least 95 to less than 110 mmHg received combination or monotherapy with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30 or 60 mg and candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16 or 32 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint, change in DBP from baseline to Week 8, was analysed using the response surface model (RSM); this analysis was repeated for mean seated SBP.

RESULTS

Overall, 1381 participants (mean baseline SBP/DBP: 156.5/99.6 mmHg) were randomized. Both N and C contributed independently to SBP/DBP reductions [P < 0.0001 (RSM)]. A positive dose-response was observed, with all combinations providing statistically better blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline versus respective monotherapies (P < 0.05) and N60C32 achieving the greatest reduction [-23.8/-16.5 mmHg; P < 0.01 versus placebo (-5.3/-6.7 mmHg) and component monotherapies]. Even very low-dose (N20 and C4) therapy provided significant BP-lowering, and combination therapy was similarly effective in different racial groups. N/C combination demonstrated a lower incidence of vasodilatory adverse events than N monotherapy (18.3 versus 23.6%), including headache (5.5 versus 11.0%; P = 0.003, chi-square test) and peripheral oedema over time (3.6 versus 5.8%; n.s.).

CONCLUSION

N/C combination was effective in participants with hypertension and showed an improved side effect profile compared with N monotherapy.

Antihypertensive combination therapy in primary care offices: results of a cross-sectional survey in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Most hypertensive patients need more than one substance to reach their target blood pressure (BP). Several clinical studies indicate the high efficacy of antihypertensive combinations, and recent guidelines recommend them in some situations even as initial therapies. In general practice they seem widespread, but only limited data are available on their effectiveness under the conditions of everyday life. The objectives of this survey among Swiss primary care physicians treating hypertensive patients were: to know the frequency of application of different treatment modalities (monotherapies, free individual combinations, single-pill combinations); to see whether there are relationships between prescribed treatment modalities and patient characteristics, especially age, treatment duration, and comorbidities; and to determine the response rate (percentage of patients reaching target BP) of different treatment modalities under the conditions of daily practice.

METHODS

This cross-sectional, observational survey among 228 randomly chosen Swiss primary care physicians analyzed data for 3,888 consecutive hypertensive patients collected at one single consultation.

RESULTS

In this survey, 31.9% of patients received monotherapy, 41.2% two substances, 20.9% three substances, and 4.7% more than three substances. By combination mode, 34.9% took free individual combinations and 30.0% took fixed-dose single-pill combinations. Combinations were more frequently given to older patients with a long history of hypertension and/or comorbidities. In total, 67.8% of patients achieved their BP target according to their physician's judgment. When compared, single-pill combinations were associated with a higher percentage of patients achieving target BP than free individual combinations and monotherapies for the total sample and for patients with comorbidity.

CONCLUSION

Antihypertensive combination therapy was widely used in Swiss primary care practices. The number of prescribed substances depended on age, treatment duration, and type and number of comorbidities. Although the response rate was generally modest under the conditions of daily practice, it was higher for single-pill combinations than for monotherapies and free individual combinations. Further studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Evaluation of blood pressure reduction response and responder characteristics to fixed-dose combination treatment of amlodipine and losartan: a post hoc analysis of pooled clinical trials

Data from four clinical trials compared reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) among patients treated with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs 5/100 mg and amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg and 10 mg. Response rate was assessed as reduction in SBP or DBP (>20/10 mm Hg) and proportion of patients achieving SBP <140 mm Hg or DBP <90 mm Hg. Patients were grouped into quartiles based on baseline SBP and DBP. Mean SBP and DBP were reduced in amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg (n=182) and amlodipine/losartan 5/100 mg (n=95) users across all baseline quartiles. Patients using amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg had significantly greater SBP and DBP reductions vs amlodipine 5 mg (P=.001 and P=.02, respectively). Amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg users had significantly greater SBP reduction vs amlodipine 10 mg (SBP P=.02; DBP P=not significant). The odds of responding to therapy were significantly greater with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg (odds ratio, 5.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-25.5) and were similar vs amlodipine 10 mg (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.017-9.51). These results support the use of combination therapy early in the treatment of hypertension.

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.

Improved blood pressure control associated with a large-scale hypertension program

IMPORTANCE

Hypertension control for large populations remains a major challenge.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a large-scale hypertension program in Northern California and to compare rates of hypertension control in that program with statewide and national estimates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

The Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) hypertension program included a multifaceted approach to blood pressure control. Patients identified as having hypertension within an integrated health care delivery system in Northern California from 2001-2009 were included. The comparison group comprised insured patients in California between 2006-2009 who were included in the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) commercial measurement by California health insurance plans participating in the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) quality measure reporting process. A secondary comparison group was included to obtain the reported national mean NCQA HEDIS commercial rates of hypertension control between 2001-2009 from health plans that participated in the NCQA HEDIS quality measure reporting process.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Hypertension control as defined by NCQA HEDIS.

RESULTS

The KPNC hypertension registry included 349,937 patients when established in 2001 and increased to 652,763 by 2009. The NCQA HEDIS commercial measurement for hypertension control within KPNC increased from 43.6% (95% CI, 39.4%-48.6%) to 80.4% (95% CI, 75.6%-84.4%) during the study period (P < .001 for trend). In contrast, the national mean NCQA HEDIS commercial measurement increased from 55.4% to 64.1%. California mean NCQA HEDIS commercial rates of hypertension were similar to those reported nationally from 2006-2009 (63.4% to 69.4%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults diagnosed with hypertension, implementation of a large-scale hypertension program was associated with a significant increase in hypertension control compared with state and national control rates. Key elements of the program included a comprehensive hypertension registry, development and sharing of performance metrics, evidence-based guidelines, medical assistant visits for blood pressure measurement, and single-pill combination pharmacotherapy.

Economic impact of switching to fixed-dose combination therapy for Japanese hypertensive patients: a retrospective cost analysis

Background

The prescription of fixed-dose combinations (FDC) of antihypertensive drugs has increased rapidly since the relaxation of the prescription-term restriction.

In this study, we used the opportunity of this policy change in Japan as an instrument to assess the causal impact of switching to FDC on hypertensive treatment costs.

Methods

Claims data from 64 community pharmacies located in Tokyo were used to identify hypertensive patients under continuous treatment with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). Patients switching to FDC between December 2010 and April 2011 were compared to patients who did not receive FDC (control group). Changes in annual antihypertensive drug costs were compared using a difference-in-differences approach to adjust for patient characteristics and use of concomitant medication. Subpopulation analyses were also performed, taking into account pre-index treatment patterns and prescribers’ characteristics.

Results

There were 542 patients who switched to FDC and 9664 patients in the control group. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups, except for antihypertensive drug use patterns before the policy change and prescribers’ characteristics. The switch to FDC was associated with an annual saving of 10,420 yen (US$112.0) in antihypertensive drug costs. Approximately 20% of the FDC patients, however, switched from ARB alone, and their drug costs increased by 2376 yen (US$25.5).

Conclusions

For hypertensive patients who required ARB-based combination therapy, switching to FDC drugs had a significant cost-saving effect. However, the policy change of relaxing the prescription-term restriction could encourage aggressive treatment, i.e., switching to a combination therapy from monotherapy, regardless of medical conditions. Further research is required to evaluate the possible negative aspects of FDC drugs.

Treatment of hypertension in central and eastern European countries: self-reported practice of primary care physicians

OBJECTIVES

To describe self-reported hypertension treatment among primary care physicians in central and eastern Europe and to investigate international differences.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of primary care physicians with a questionnaire translated into various languages was carried out in nine central and eastern European countries. Three thousand physicians were randomly selected from the national registers.

RESULTS

Eight hundred and sixty-seven invited primary care physicians responded. For the patients with hypertension and low cardiovascular risk, 49% of physicians reported a treatment goal of less than 140/90 mmHg (69% in Slovenia, 20% in Latvia, P < 0.001). In patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus, blood pressure (BP) targets of less than 130/80 mmHg and less than 120/80 mmHg were reported by 47 and 48% of physicians, respectively, and significant differences between countries were revealed. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were the most common declared drugs used on a daily basis (over 90% of physicians in all countries). Various international differences were observed among the use of diuretics, β-blockers and drugs from other classes. An immediate initiation of pharmacotherapy was declared by 24% of physicians at a SBP level of at least 180 mmHg and 20% at DBP level of at least 110 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

In hypertension treatment, some decisions made by primary care physicians from central and eastern European countries are still done without any supporting evidence from clinical trials. They have declared lower treatment goals and the initiation of pharmacotherapy at lower BP levels than recommended in international guidelines. An innovative approach to continuous medical education should be introduced and the efforts to implement guidelines in everyday practice ought to continue.

Diuretics for hypertension-reasons for a contradiction in primary care prescribing behavior: a qualitative study

There has been a long international discussion on diuretics as first-line therapy for hypertension. In Germany, thiazide diuretics are very rarely prescribed in monotherapy and concurrently highly prescribed in fixed-combinations. The aim of this study was to approach the reasons for this inconsistency in primary care prescribing behavior. A qualitative study design consisting of single interviews with general practitioners (GPs) was chosen. Most GPs perceived diuretics as too weak to treat arterial hypertension effectively in monotherapy. In combination therapy, GPs expected to spare the dose and to offset certain side effects of other drugs. The convenient availability of diuretics in most fixed-dose combinations on the German drug market was seen as an important reason for their frequent prescription in combination therapy. Thus, the reasons given by the GPs differed from the main arguments of the academic debate. Dissemination strategies for guidelines should take the perceptions and opinions of practicing GPs into account.

What is a preferred angiotensin II receptor blocker-based combination therapy for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with diabetic and non-diabetic renal impairment?

Hypertension has a major associated risk for organ damage and mortality, which is further heightened in patients with prior cardiovascular (CV) events, comorbid diabetes mellitus, microalbuminuria and renal impairment. Given that most patients with hypertension require at least two antihypertensives to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, identifying the most appropriate combination regimen based on individual risk factors and comorbidities is important for risk management. Single-pill combinations (SPCs) containing two or more antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action offer potential advantages over free-drug combinations, including simplification of treatment regimens, convenience and reduced costs. The improved adherence and convenience resulting from SPC use is recognised in updated hypertension guidelines. Despite a wide choice of SPCs for hypertension treatment, clinical evidence from direct head-to-head comparisons to guide selection for individual patients is lacking. However, in patients with evidence of renal disease or at greater risk of developing renal disease, such as those with diabetes mellitus, microalbuminura and high-normal BP or overt hypertension, guidelines recommend renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker-based combination therapy due to superior renoprotective effects compared with other antihypertensive classes. Furthermore, RAS inhibitors attenuate the oedema and renal hyperfiltration associated with calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy, making them a good choice for combination therapy. The occurrence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-induced cough supports the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for RAS blockade rather than ACE inhibitors. In this regard, ARB-based SPCs are available in combination with the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or the calcium CCB, amlodipine. Telmisartan, a long-acting ARB with preferential pharmacodynamic profile compared with several other ARBs, and the only ARB with an indication for the prevention of CV disease progression, is available in two SPC formulations, telmisartan/HCTZ and telmisartan/amlodipine. Clinical studies suggest that in CV high-risk patients and those with evidence of renal disease, the use of an ARB/CCB combination may be preferred to ARB/HCTZ combinations due to superior renoprotective and CV benefits and reduced metabolic side effects in patients with concomitant metabolic disorders. However, selection of the most appropriate antihypertensive combination should be dependent on careful review of the individual patient and appropriate consideration of drug pharmacology.

Real-life treatment patterns, compliance, persistence, and medication costs in patients with hypertension in Germany

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective patient data analysis was initiated to describe current treatment patterns of patients in Germany with arterial hypertension, with a special focus on compliance, persistence, and medication costs of fixed-dose and unfixed combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), amlodipine (AML) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) in Germany.

METHODS

The study analyzed prescription data collected by general practitioners, using the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The database was searched for patients with the diagnosis hypertension (ICD-10 code I10) and treatment data in the period 09/2009 to 08/2010. Compliance was measured indirectly based on the medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was defined as the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy. Medication costs were assessed from the statutory health insurance perspective in Germany.

RESULTS

In the IMS DA 406,888 observable patients in Germany were encoded with the diagnosis I10 essential hypertension. In total, 88,716 patients received prescriptions including ARBs, monotherapy (18.6%) or unfixed combinations with other anti-hypertensives (19.3%). The compliance with fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, either dual or with one other anti-hypertensive drug, was significantly better, compared to unfixed combinations (mean compliance 78.1% for fixed-dose vs 71.5% for unfixed combinations of ARB with HCT, p < 0.0001; mean compliance 79.4% vs 72.0%, p < 0.0001 if an additional anti-hypertensive medication was added). Fixed-dose combinations of ARB with HCT, ARB with AML, dual only or prescribed with another anti-hypertensive medication resulted in a substantial increase of persistence, especially for patients on fixed-dose dual combinations (225.7 vs 163.6 days for ARB with HCT; 232.9 vs 178.4 days for ARB with AML, respectively). Fixed-dose combinations (varying from €1.38 to €2.20 per patient and day) were on average cheaper than unfixed combinations.

LIMITATIONS

Persistence and compliance could be under- or over-estimated because their assessment was based on prescription information. For two thirds of 69,060 patients, data on compliance and persistence was missing.

CONCLUSION

The study shows considerable variations in ARB treatment patterns among patients, with the majority of patients treated with fixed-dose or semi-fixed combination therapy. Fixed-dose combinations of ARBs with HCT and/or AML seem to result in better compliance and persistence compared to unfixed regimes of these drug classes, leading to reduction in all-cause hospitalizations, emphasizing the benefit and potential cost-savings of using fixed-dose regimes in a real-life general practice setting in Germany.

Effects of the combinations of amlodipine/valsartan versus losartan/hydrochlorothiazide on left ventricular hypertrophy as determined with magnetic resonance imaging in patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a marker of cardiac end-organ damage, is frequently found in patients with arterial hypertension and is associated with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality. Therefore, LVH regression is an important treatment goal. For amlodipine plus valsartan (A/V) no specific study on LVH has been reported to date.

METHODS

Prospective, open-label, randomized parallel-group study. Patients with essential hypertension and LVH were randomized to 52-week treatment with A/V 10/160 mg (n = 43) or the active comparator losartan/HCT 100/25 mg (L/H, n = 47). Add-on medication was allowed in case of inadequate blood pressure control. LV parameters were measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and adjudicated in a blinded manner. Study identifiers were NCT00446563 and EudraCT 2006-001977-17.

RESULTS

In addition to the study treatment, 35% of patients in the A/V group and 49% in the L/H group received additional antihypertensive medication. Compared to baseline, both treatments reduced measures of LVH significantly after 52 weeks (e.g. LV mass index in the A/V group from 64.7 g/m(2) by -3.5 g/m(2), in the L/H group from 69.1 g/m(2) by -4.4 g/m(2), p < 0.01 for both). LV ejection fraction and LV volumes were not significantly changed by any regimen. A/V and L/H treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Both regimen were effective in reducing LV mass compared to baseline and were well tolerated.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker combinations: from guidelines to clinical practice

European guidelines recommend a combination of at least two antihypertensive drugs to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals in the majority of patients. In addition, they encourage simplification of treatment regimens using single-pill, fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) to aid compliance. Of the preferred combinations, those based on angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may be more desirable than those based on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, because of equivalent efficacy and superior tolerability. Significantly better BP reductions and control rates have been observed with the dual combinations of ARBs with amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide (HCZT) compared with component monotherapies. Furthermore, in the 15-20% of patients who require triple combination therapy to achieve BP goals, fixed-dose triple combinations with an ARB, calcium-channel blocker and diuretic, which have recently become available, provide significantly better BP reductions and control compared with dual combinations. Within the ARB class, olmesartan stands out as being one that has been recently investigated in a considerable number of studies that are relevant to the modern concept of FDC therapy in terms of both dual and triple combination therapy. The availability of such single-pill FDCs has the potential to deliver strong antihypertensive efficacy with good tolerability and improved compliance.

Long-term blood pressure control: what can we do?

There are unique problems associated with the long-term control of blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension. Many of these problems warrant specific discussion for the primary care physician. Up to one-third of high-risk patients are estimated to have uncontrolled hypertension. Although long-term control is essential to avoid complications of cardiovascular disease, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and kidney disease, it can become troublesome because of challenges with patient compliance and adherence to medication regimens. This may be due to low tolerability profiles, complicated regimens, or prohibitive costs. Trials have shown that a combination approach may reduce side effects with complementary therapies such as a calcium channel blocker (CCB)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination. Combination therapy can be used in any patient group not responsive to monotherapy, or who remain 20 mm Hg higher than their BP goal. This method may achieve the goal of reaching target BP sooner as a first-line approach and, in a fixed-dose combination, may be a more economic choice as well as a simpler regimen for the patient. Together with supportive measures, CCB/ARB combinations are a compelling alternative for the long-term treatment of hypertension.

Diuretics for hypertension--an inconsistency in primary care prescribing behaviour

OBJECTIVE

Internationally there is an ongoing debate on diuretics as first-line therapy for most patients with hypertension. In spite of many arguments against them in antihypertensive monotherapy, the authors of the present study perceived them to be regularly prescribed in combination therapy in Germany. The study objective was to look for this discrepancy in prescribing reality as a contribution from clinical practice to an academic debate.

METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study in a yearly contact group (YCG; 1.7.2007-31.06.2008) was conducted based on data from a scientific network of 22 general practitioners in Germany. All patients with hypertension as diagnosed by their general practitioner were included. Antihypertensives were grouped according to the ATC classification. To assess for potential design effects by the given two-level setting, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were adjusted for clustering.

RESULTS

Hypertension had been diagnosed in 9.3% of the 58 852 patients. Of these, 21.6% received no antihypertensives. Of those who were treated, 30.6% (CI [28.6-32.6]) had monotherapy. In monotherapy, 8.6% (CI [7.1-10.2]) were prescribed some diuretic, 1.5% (CI [0.5-3.0]) received hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). Combination therapy was prescribed to 69.4% (CI [67.2-71.6]). These patients received some diuretic in 79.0% (CI [76.9-81.0]) of the cases, of which 80.8% (CI [78.5-83.1]) had a combination with HCT. HCT was prescribed in 76.2% (CI [73.5-78.9]) in fixed-dose formulations.

CONCLUSION

In spite to the many arguments against them, leading to their almost complete disregard in monotherapy, thiazide-diuretics seem to be standard in combination therapy in Germany. This inconsistency can not be explained by the arguments of the current debate. Key limitations of the present study include the lack of ability to tell whether a given monotherapy is the first-line medication, the small sample size and the possible selection bias.

Copayment level, treatment persistence, and healthcare utilization in hypertension patients treated with single-pill combination therapy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relationship between drug copayment level and persistence and the implications of non-persistence on healthcare utilization and costs among adult hypertension patients receiving single-pill combination (SPC) therapy.

METHODS

Patients initiated on SPC with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) + calcium channel blocker, ARB + hydrochlorothiazide, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors + hydrochlorothiazide were identified in the MarketScan Database (2006-2008). Multivariate models were used to assess copayment level as a predictor of 3-month and 6-month persistence. Three levels of copayment were considered (low: ≤$5, medium: $5-30, high: >$30 for <90-day supply; low: ≤$10, medium: $10-60, high: >$60 for ≥90-day supply). Separate models examined the implications of persistence during the first 3 months on outcomes during the subsequent 3-month period, including utilization and changes in healthcare costs from baseline. National- and state-level outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Analyses of 381,661 patients found significantly lower 3-month and 6-month persistence to therapies with high copayments. Relative to high-copayment drugs, risk-adjusted odds ratios at 3 months were 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.26, 1.32) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.24, 1.30) for low- and medium-copayment medications, respectively. The strength of the association between copayment and persistence varied across states. Non-persistent patients had significantly more cardiovascular-related hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.30, 1.43) and emergency room (ER) visits (IRR = 1.51; 95% CI: 1.43, 1.59) than persistent patients. Non-persistence was associated with significantly larger increases in all-cause medical services cost by $277 (95% CI: $225, $329), but lesser increases in prescription costs by -$81 (95% CI: -$85, -$76).

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include the possibility of confounding from unobserved factors (e.g., patient income), and the lack of blood pressure data.

CONCLUSIONS

High copayment for SPC therapy was associated with significantly worse persistence among hypertensive patients. Persistence was associated with substantially lower frequencies of hospitalizations and ER visits and net healthcare cost savings.

Role of olmesartan in combination therapy in blood pressure control and vascular function

Angiotensin receptor blockers have emerged as a first-line therapy in the management of hypertension and hypertension-related comorbidities. Since national and international guidelines have stressed the need to control blood pressure to <140/90 mmHg in uncomplicated hypertension and <130/80 mmHg in those with associated comorbidities such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, these goal blood pressures can only be achieved through combination therapy. Of several drugs that can be effectively combined to attain the recommended blood pressure goals, fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine provide additive antihypertensive effects associated with a safe profile and increased adherence to therapy. In this article, we review the evidence regarding the beneficial effects of renin–angiotensin system blockade with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine in terms of blood pressure control and improvement of vascular function and target organ damage.

Chart review of patients on valsartan-based single-pill combinations vs. ARB-based free combinations for BP goal achievement

OBJECTIVE

To compare blood pressure (BP) goal achievement associated with the use of valsartan-based single pill combinations (SPCs) vs. angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)-based free combinations (FCs) among adult hypertension patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were collected from physician-administered chart review of adult hypertension patients in the South Central region. All patients had uncontrolled BP before initiating one of the index therapies (SPCs: valsartan/amlodipine or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ], FCs: ARB + calcium channel blocker [CCB] or ARB + HCTZ) between 07/2008 and 06/2009. Up to three BP measures were collected starting from 45 days after the therapy initiation. BP goal was <130/80 mmHg for patients with diabetes, chronic renal disease or coronary heart disease; or <140/90 mmHg for patients without these comorbidities. The Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test was used to compare rates of BP goal achievement associated with valsartan-based SPCs vs. ARB-based FCs over time. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the likelihood of BP goal achievement associated with SPCs vs. FCs, controlling for demographics, baseline BP, hypertension history, comorbidities, prior and concurrent use of anti-hypertensive medications, and physician specialty.

RESULTS

The study included 812 patients: 414 on valsartan-based SPCs (209 on valsartan/amlodipine and 205 on valsartan/HCTZ) and 398 on ARB-based FCs (200 on ARB + CCB and 198 on ARB + HCTZ). The ARBs in the FC group included valsartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, irbesartan and candesartan. In the ARB FC group, the most commonly used ARB and CCB were valsartan (29.1%) and amlodipine (81.5%), respectively. During the observation period (81 days for valsartan SPC patients and 90 days for ARB FC patients), 65.9% of valsartan SPC patients and 55.8% of the ARB FC patients achieved BP goal. Over time, the rates of BP goal achievement were consistently higher among valsartan SPC vs. ARB FC patients (p = 0.01): 31.1% vs. 28.9% and 69.1% vs. 59.2% at month 3 and 6 after therapy initiation, respectively. Cox regression confirmed that valsartan SPC patients were more likely to achieve BP goal (HR = 1.22; p = 0.05). A similar trend was observed in the subgroup analyses comparing SPC of valsartan/amlodipine vs. FCs of ARB + CCB and SPC of valsartan/HCTZ vs. FCs of ARB + HCTZ.

LIMITATIONS

Non-randomization of treatments, limited generalizability, and no records of BP measures within 45 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients using valsartan-based SPCs were significantly more likely to achieve BP goal than those treated with ARB-based FCs in the real-world clinical practice in the South Central region. The significance was achieved at two-sided alpha = 0.05.

Evaluation of compliance and health care utilization in patients treated with single pill vs. free combination antihypertensives

OBJECTIVES

To compare compliance/persistence, health care resource utilization, and costs associated with single-pill combination (SPC) vs. free-combination (FC) therapies among adult hypertension patients at the national and state level. Combination therapies with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) + calcium channel blocker, ARB + hydrochlorothiazide, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor + hydrochlorothiazide were evaluated.

METHODS

Patients initiated on SPC or FC were identified in the MarketScan Database (2006-2008). Multivariate regression models were used to compare the health care outcomes of SPC vs. FC use during the 6-month study period. National- and state-level outcomes were analyzed and reported. Compliance was measured by medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was assessed based on treatment discontinuation (i.e., a lapse in therapy exceeding 30 days). Utilization and cost outcomes included frequencies of inpatient and emergency room (ER) visits and changes in health care costs from baseline.

RESULTS

Adjusting for baseline characteristics, SPC patients (N = 382,476) demonstrated significantly higher MPR than FC patients (N = 197,375) (difference = 11.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.4%, 11.7%). SPC patients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.79) and ER visits (adjusted IRR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.89) than FC patients. Results for cardiovascular-related utilization were similar to all-cause results. Compared to FC, SPC patients showed significantly greater reductions post-therapy initiation in all-cause medical costs by -$208 (95% CI: -$302, -$114), but larger increases in hypertension-related prescription costs by $53 (95% CI: $51, $55). State-level results were generally consistent in magnitude and direction for comparisons of compliance and utilization, with greater regional variation in costs. Limitations include the possibility of residual confounding from factors not observable in claims.

CONCLUSION

SPC use was associated with significantly better compliance/persistence and fewer hospitalizations and ER visits than FC in hypertensive patients at the national level and in almost all states. Larger reductions in medical costs with SPC use more than offset higher drug costs within most states.

The role of fixed-dose combinations in the management of hypertension: focus on lercanidipine-enalapril

Achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control is the most important single issue in the management of hypertension, and in most patients, it is difficult or impossible to achieve target levels with one drug. Blocking two or more regulatory systems provides a more effective and more physiologic reduction in BP, and current guidelines have recommended the use of combination therapy as first-line treatment, or early in the management of hypertension. Fixed-dose combination therapy is an efficacious, relatively safe and cost-effective treatment option in most patients with essential hypertension. Of note, the once-daily administration of a fixed-dose enalapril/lercanidipine, by bringing together two distinct and complementary mechanisms of action, reduces BP effectively and has the potential for improved target organ protection relative to either class agent alone.

Cost-utility analysis of eprosartan compared to enalapril in primary prevention and nitrendipine in secondary prevention in Europe--the HEALTH model

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-utility of eprosartan versus enalapril (primary prevention) and versus nitrendipine (secondary prevention) on the basis of head-to-head evidence from randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

The HEALTH model (Health Economic Assessment of Life with Teveten for Hypertension) is an object-oriented probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model. It combines a Framingham-based risk calculation with a systolic blood pressure approach to estimate the relative risk reduction of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events based on recent meta-analyses. In secondary prevention, an additional risk reduction is modeled for eprosartan according to the results of the MOSES study ("Morbidity and Mortality after Stroke--Eprosartan Compared to Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention"). Costs and utilities were derived from published estimates considering European country-specific health-care payer perspectives.

RESULTS

Comparing eprosartan to enalapril in a primary prevention setting the mean costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained were highest in Germany (Euro 24,036) followed by Belgium (Euro 17,863), the UK (Euro 16,364), Norway (Euro 13,834), Sweden (Euro 11,691) and Spain (Euro 7918). In a secondary prevention setting (eprosartan vs. nitrendipine) the highest costs per QALY gained have been observed in Germany (Euro 9136) followed by the UK (Euro 6008), Norway (Euro 1695), Sweden (Euro 907), Spain (Euro -2054) and Belgium (Euro -5767).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering a Euro 30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold per QALY gained, eprosartan is cost-effective as compared to enalapril in primary prevention (patients >or=50 years old and a systolic blood pressure >or=160 mm Hg) and cost-effective as compared to nitrendipine in secondary prevention (all investigated patients).

Next generation multifunctional angiotensin receptor blockers

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are well-tolerated drugs that are known to be useful for inhibiting activity of the renin-angiotensin (RAS) system, treating hypertension and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease. However, inhibition of the RAS does not control all pathophysiological mechanisms of hypertension or cardiovascular risk and many patients continue to suffer from cardiovascular events and metabolic disturbances despite being treated with an ARB, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or both, in addition to other standard therapies for cardiovascular disease. Recently, it has become apparent that bifunctional molecules can be designed that do more than just block AT(1) receptors and that can target additional mechanisms of hypertension, cardiovascular disease and diabetes besides just increased activity of the renin-angiotensin system. Specifically, next generation ARBs are becoming available that are intended to not only antagonize AT(1) receptors, but also block endothelin receptors, function as nitric oxide donors, inhibit neprilysin activity and increase natriuretic peptide levels, or stimulate the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma). In this review, we: (1) discuss the potential importance of multifunctional ARBs that can reduce cardiovascular and metabolic risk through multiple mechanisms that go beyond just inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system and (2) describe specific examples of next generation ARBs in development that are intended to do more than simply block AT(1) receptors.

Effectiveness and tolerability of fixed-dose combination enalapril plus nitrendipine in hypertensive patients: results of the 3-month observational, post-marketing, multicentre, prospective CENIT study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Monotherapy with any class of antihypertensive drug effectively controls blood pressure (BP) in only about 50% of patients. Consequently, the majority of patients with hypertension require combined therapy with two or more medications. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness (systolic BP [SBP]/diastolic BP [DBP] control) and tolerability of the fixed-dose combination enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg administered as a single daily dose in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

This was a post-authorization, multicentre, prospective, observational study conducted in primary care with a 3-month follow-up. Patients throughout Spain with uncontrolled hypertension (> or =140/90 mmHg for patients without diabetes mellitus, or > or =130/85 mmHg for patients with diabetes) on monotherapy or with any combination other than enalapril + nitrendipine, or who were unable to tolerate their previous antihypertensive therapy, were recruited. Change from previous to study treatment was according to usual clinical practice. BP was measured once after 5 minutes of rest in the sitting position. Therapeutic response was defined as follows: 'controlled' meant controlled BP (<140/90 mmHg for nondiabetic patients, or <130/85 mmHg for diabetic patients); 'response' meant controlled BP, or a decrease in SBP of > or =20 mmHg and in DBP of > or =10 mmHg. The main laboratory test parameters were documented at baseline and after 3 months. Patients aged >65 years, with diabetes, with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH; SBP > or =140 mmHg for patients without diabetes, SBP > or =130 mmHg for patients with diabetes) and who were obese (body mass index [BMI] > or =30 kg/m2) were analysed separately.

RESULTS

Of 6537 patients included, 5010 and 6354 patients were assessed in effectiveness and tolerability analyses, respectively. In the tolerability analysis population, there were 3023 men (47.6%) and 3321 women (52.4%). The mean (+/- SD) age of the tolerability analysis group was 62.8 (+/- 10.7) years. A total of 71.1% of the patients presented at least one clinical cardiovascular risk factor other than hypertension, with the most frequent being dyslipidaemia (42.3%), obesity (29.2%) and diabetes (23.9%). After 3 months of treatment, SBP and DBP showed mean (+/- SD) decreases of 26.5 (+/- 14.4) mmHg and 14.9 (+/- 9.0) mmHg, respectively, and 73.0% of patients responded to treatment while 40.9% achieved BP control (70.8%/36.1% in 2658 patients aged >65 years; 61.7%/46.8% in 1521 patients with diabetes; 55.3%/44.2% in 731 patients with ISH; 72.0%/36.4% in 1762 obese patients). Adverse events were reported in 10.8% of patients (n = 689). During the follow-up period, ten patients died and seven patients had serious adverse events; in no case was a causal relationship attributed to the study product.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of SBP/DBP control achieved demonstrates the effectiveness of the fixed-dose enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg combination administered as a single daily dose in patients with essential hypertension not adequately controlled with monotherapy or with any combination other than enalapril + nitrendipine. The proportion and type of adverse events reported were as expected and have already been described for both components of the enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg combination. These results confirm the effectiveness of a strategy based on a fixed-dose enalapril/nitrendipine 10 mg/20 mg combination in reducing BP and achieving BP control goals.

High blood pressure in Latin America: a call to action

High blood pressure (BP) is an enormous global problem, and is especially challenging for low- and middle-income countries such as those of Latin America. Although developed countries have benefited from significant reductions in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease in recent decades, comparable reductions have not been achieved in Latin America. In fact, the prevalence of high BP is increasing in many Latin American countries, and the situation will worsen without definitive efforts to correct it. The growing preponderance of hypertension and chronic diseases, coupled with expected increases in population growth, present a mounting threat to Latin American economies. This report provides a comprehensive overview of the burden of high BP throughout Latin America, and presents recommendations for change. The dismal observations warrant a call to action for improved control of high BP and other cardiovascular risk factors across Latin America. Achieving these ambitious goals will require collaborative efforts by many groups, including policymakers, international organizations, healthcare providers, schools and society as a whole.

Efficacy and safety of the single pill combination of amlodipine 10 mg plus valsartan 160 mg in hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine 10 mg plus olmesartan 20 mg in free combination

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

For patients with moderate hypertension (grade 2, defined as systolic blood pressure [SBP] 160-179 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 100-109 mmHg), current guidelines recommend initial combination therapy and rapid dose-adjustment to achieve blood pressure goal. In this study we investigated the efficacy and tolerability of the single pill combination of amlodipine 10 mg plus valsartan 160 mg (A 10 + Val 160) in patients not controlled by the free combination of amlodipine 10 mg plus olmesartan 20 mg (A 10 + O 20).

METHODS

In this prospective, open-label, non-randomized trial, 257 patients with mean sitting DBP of 100-109 mmHg at trough entered a 4 week treatment phase with A 10 + O 20 in free combination once daily. Patients in whom DBP remained uncontrolled were switched in a second 4 week treatment phase to A 10 + Val 160. The primary efficacy variable was the reduction in DBP at week 8 compared to week 4 in the intent-to-treat population.

RESULTS

In the total cohort, baseline SBP/DBP of 164.2 +/- 9.8/103.6 +/- 2.1 mmHg decreased by 19.2 +/- 12.4/14.1 +/- 7.4 mmHg at week 4. In patients who did not achieve BP control (n = 175), subsequent treatment with A 10 + Val 160 for 4 weeks reduced SBP from 149.6 +/- 11.1 at week 4 by 7.9 mmHg at week 8 (95% CI: 6.1-9.6, p < 0.0001) and DBP from 93.4 +/- 3.9 mmHg by 9.1 mmHg (95% confidence interval: 8.1-10.2, p < 0.0001). The combination of A 10 + Val 160 was well tolerated, and the observed adverse events (15.3% of patients in phase 2) were consistent with the known drug profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

In a study designed to reflect typical clinical practice, in patients not controlled by the free combination of A 10 + O 20, the single pill combination of A 10 + Val 160 produced a statistically and clinically significant additional BP reduction and was well tolerated. Potential limitations of the design (open-label, non-controlled design, short term treatment) have to be taken into account.