Efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan combination therapy in hypertensive patients not adequately controlled on valsartan monotherapy

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy.

METHODS

Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography.

FINDINGS

In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study.

IMPLICATIONS

The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).

Efficacy of single-pill combination in uncontrolled essential hypertension: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.

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.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan/Amlodipine Combined Therapy Versus Fimasartan Monotherapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Unresponsive to Fimasartan Monotherapy

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of fimasartan/amlodipine combination therapy was superior to that of fimasartan monotherapy after 8 weeks of treatment in patients with hypertension who had failed to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy.

METHODS

This trial was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, Phase III clinical study. Patients who failed to respond after 4 weeks of treatment with 60 mg daily of fimasartan (sitting systolic blood pressure [SiSBP]) ≥140 mm Hg) were randomized to receive either daily fimasartan 60 mg or fimasartan/amlodipine 60 mg/10 mg. The primary efficacy end point was the change in SiSBP from baseline to week 8. Secondary end points included the change in SiSBP from baseline to week 4, the changes in sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to weeks 4 and 8, and the response rate (SiSBP <140 mm Hg or decrease in SiSBP ≥20 mm Hg) or control rate (SiSBP <140 mm Hg) at week 8. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also assessed.

FINDINGS

Of 143 patients randomized to treatment, 137 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 59.1 (8.9) years, and 100 (73.0%) were male. Baseline SiSBP and sitting diastolic blood pressure were 150.6 (9.2) mm Hg and 91.7 (8.6) mm Hg, respectively. In the fimasartan/amlodipine combination group, a greater reduction in SiSBP from baseline to week 8 was observed compared with the fimasartan group (7.8 [13.3] mm Hg in the fimasartan group vs 20.5 [14.6] mm Hg in the fimasartan/amlodipine group; P < 0.0001). This reduction was observed after 4 weeks. The mean SiSBP changes from baseline to week 4 were 8.1 (15.8) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and 20.1 (14.7) mm Hg in the fimasartan/amlodipine group (P < 0.0001). At week 8, the response rate was significantly higher in the fimasartan/amlodipine (82.1%) group than in the fimasartan (32.9%) group (P < 0.0001). The control rate at week 8 was also higher in the fimasartan/amlodipine (79.1%) group than in the fimasartan (31.4%) group (P < 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions were observed in 9 patients (6.3%), with no significant differences between treatment groups. There were no serious adverse events associated with the study drugs.

IMPLICATIONS

Fimasartan/amlodipine combination therapy exhibited superior efficacy in reducing blood pressure, with no increase in adverse drug reactions, compared with fimasartan monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02152306.

Valsartan 160 mg/Amlodipine 5 mg Combination Therapy versus Amlodipine 10 mg in Hypertensive Patients with Inadequate Response to Amlodipine 5 mg Monotherapy

Background and Objectives

When monotherapy is inadequate for blood pressure control, the next step is either to continue monotherapy in increased doses or to add another antihypertensive agent. However, direct comparison of double-dose monotherapy versus combination therapy has rarely been done. The objective of this study is to compare 10 mg of amlodipine with an amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination in patients whose blood pressure control is inadequate with amlodipine 5 mg.

Subjects and Methods

This study was conducted as a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Men and women aged 20-80 who were diagnosed as having hypertension, who had been on amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy for at least 4 weeks, and whose daytime mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥135 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥85 mmHg on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were randomized to amlodipine (A) 10 mg or amlodipine/valsartan (AV) 5/160 mg group. Follow-up 24-hour ABPM was done at 8 weeks after randomization.

Results

Baseline clinical characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Ambulatory blood pressure reduction was significantly greater in the AV group compared with the A group (daytime mean SBP change: -14±11 vs. -9±9 mmHg, p<0.001, 24-hour mean SBP change: -13±10 vs. -8±8 mmHg, p<0.0001). Drug-related adverse events also did not differ significantly (A:AV, 6.5 vs. 4.5 %, p=0.56).

Conclusion

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination was more efficacious than amlodipine 10 mg in hypertensive patients in whom monotherapy of amlodipine 5 mg had failed.

Adding Hydrochlorothiazide to Olmesartan/Amlodipine Increases Efficacy in Patients With Inadequate Blood Pressure Control on Dual-Combination Therapy

This randomized, parallel-group study in patients inadequately controlled on olmesartan medoxomil/amlodipine (OLM/AML) 40/10 mg assessed the effects of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg and 25 mg, using seated blood pressure (SeBP) measurements and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Enrolled patients were screened and tapered off of therapy if required. All patients received OLM/AML 40/10 mg and those with mean seated BP (SeBP) ≥140/90 mm Hg after 8 weeks (n=808) were randomized (1:1:1) to continue with OLM/AML 40/10 mg or receive OLM/AML/HCTZ 40/10/12.5 or 40/10/25 mg for a further 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from the start to the end of the randomized treatment period. The addition of HCTZ 25 mg significantly reduced SeDBP (-2.8 mm Hg; P<.0001), lowered seated systolic BP (SeSBP) and ambulatory DBP and SBP, and improved BP goal rates. In patients uncontrolled on OLM/AML 40/10 mg, adding HCTZ led to further BP reductions, particularly in ambulatory BP.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose amlodipine/losartan and losartan in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled with losartan: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Fixed-dose combination drugs may enhance blood pressure (BP) goal attainment through complementary effects and reduced side effects, which leads to better compliance.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of once-daily combination amlodipine/losartan versus losartan.

METHODS

This was an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase III study conducted in outpatient hospital clinics. Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg were administered amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination versus losartan 100 mg. The main outcome measures were changes in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and BP response rate from baseline values, which were assessed after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

RESULTS

At week 8, both groups achieved significant reductions from baseline in DBP (11.7 ± 7.0 and 3.2 ± 7.9 mmHg), which was significantly greater in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination (n = 70) group (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination group achieved significantly greater reductions in SBP at week 8 and in SBP and DBP at week 4 compared with the losartan 100 mg (n = 72) group (all p < 0.0001). Response rates were significantly higher in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg group versus the losartan 100 mg group (81.4% vs 63.9% at week 4, p < 0.0192; 90.0% vs 66.7% at week 8, p < 0.001). Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Switching to a fixed-dose combination therapy of amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in BP and superior achievement of BP goals compared with a maintenance dose of losartan 100 mg in Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00940680.

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg versus valsartan 160 mg in Chinese hypertensives

BACKGROUND

A majority of hypertensives require treatment with ≥2 antihypertensive therapies to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. Single-pill combinations (SPC) may improve convenience and adherence to therapy and reduce health care resource use and costs. The antihypertensive effects of amlodipine and valsartan are well established. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC for the treatment of hypertension in predominantly Chinese patients not adequately controlled on valsartan 160 mg alone.

METHODS

In this multicentre study (24 centres), adults with stage 1 or 2 hypertension not adequately controlled with valsartan monotherapy were randomised to receive double-blind amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC or valsartan 160 mg once daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

The least-square mean change (standard error) from baseline to endpoint in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) at trough, the primary efficacy variable, was -10.3 (0.39) mm Hg with amlodipine/valsartan and -6.6 (0.40) mm Hg with valsartan (difference: -3.7 [0.54] mm Hg, p<0.0001). The corresponding results for mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) were -14.9 (0.61) mm Hg and -7.0 (0.61) mm Hg, respectively (difference: -7.9 [0.84] mm Hg, p<0.0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved overall BP control (MSSBP/MSDBP<140/90 mm Hg) with combination therapy (61.3%) versus monotherapy (39.3%; p<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC is a safe and effective therapy for lowering BP in predominantly Chinese adults with stage 1 or 2 hypertension not adequately controlled with valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.

Chronotherapy with valsartan/amlodipine fixed combination: improved blood pressure control of essential hypertension with bedtime dosing

Administration of valsartan at bedtime as opposed to upon wakening improves the sleep-time relative blood pressure (BP) decline towards a more normal dipper pattern without loss of 24-h efficacy. Amlodipine, however, has been shown to be effective in reducing BP throughout the day and night, independent of dosing time. A large proportion of hypertensive subjects cannot be properly controlled with a single medication. However, no study has yet investigated the potential differing effects of combination therapy depending of the time-of-day of administration. Accordingly, the authors investigated the administration-time-dependent BP-lowering efficacy of valsartan/amlodipine combination. The authors studied 203 hypertensive subjects (92 men/111 women), 56.7 +/- 12.5 yrs of age, randomized to receive valsartan (160 mg/day) and amlodipine (5 mg/day) in one of the following four therapeutic schemes: both medications on awakening, both at bedtime, either one administered on awakening and the other at bedtime. BP was measured by ambulatory monitoring for 48 consecutive hours before and after 12 wks of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every min by wrist actigraphy to accurately determine the beginning and end of daytime activity and nocturnal sleep. BP-lowering efficacy (quantified in terms of reduction of the 48-h mean of systolic/diastolic BP) was highest when both hypertension medications were ingested at bedtime, as compared to any one of the three other tested therapeutic schemes (17.4/13.4 mm Hg reduction with both medications on awakening; 15.1/9.6 mm Hg with valsartan on awakening and amlodipine at bedtime; 18.2/12.3 mm Hg with valsartan at bedtime and amlodipine on awakening; 24.7/13.5 mm Hg with both medications at bedtime; p < .018 between groups). The sleep-time relative BP decline was significantly increased towards a more normal dipper pattern only when both medications were jointly ingested at bedtime (p < .001). Bedtime dosing of the combination of the two medications also resulted in the largest percentage of controlled subjects among all the assessed therapeutic schemes (p = .003 between groups). In subjects requiring combination therapy to achieve proper BP control, the association of amlodipine and valsartan efficiently reduces BP for the entire 24 h independent of dosing time. However, the greater proportion of controlled patients, improved efficacy on lowering asleep BP mean, and increased sleep-time relative BP decline suggest valsartan/amlodipine combination therapy should be preferably administered at bedtime.

Efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination of amlodipine/valsartan in Asian hypertensive patients inadequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The antihypertensive efficacy of amlodipine/valsartan combination has not been evaluated in Asian patients as previous large-scale studies enrolled very few patients. This multicentre, randomised, double-blind study assessed the efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination of amlodipine/valsartan versus amlodipine in Asian hypertensive patients.

METHODS

After a 1-4-week washout period, patients (mean sitting diastolic BP [msDBP]: >or=95-<110 mmHg) were treated with amlodipine 5 mg for 4 weeks. Patients inadequately controlled on amlodipine (msDBP >or=90 and <110 mmHg) were randomised to receive amlodipine/valsartan 5/80 mg (n = 349) or amlodipine 5 mg (n = 349) for 8 weeks. Efficacy variables were change in msDBP, mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) from baseline (at randomisation) to week 8 endpoint, and BP control rate (<140/90 mmHg) at week 8 endpoint. Safety assessments included monitoring and recording of adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. Most patients were Chinese (86.4%), men (65.1%), with a baseline BP 139.5/94.5 mmHg. At week 8 endpoint, the least square mean reduction in BP was significantly greater with amlodipine/valsartan combination than amlodipine monotherapy (-11.4/-9.7 vs. -7.4/-7.1 mmHg; p < 0.0001) with a higher BP control rate (69.2 vs. 57.6%; p = 0.0013). Ambulatory BP monitoring in a subgroup of patients (n = 82), showed a significant 24-h mean BP reduction from baseline with amlodipine/valsartan (-7.3/-6.3 mmHg; p < 0.0001), whereas the reduction was not significant with amlodipine (-0.2/+0.3 mmHg; p > 0.05). The overall incidence of AEs was similar in both groups. Peripheral oedema occurred only in the amlodipine group n = 4 (1.1%) and not in the amlodipine/valsartan combination. Hypotension was reported in only one patient in the amlodipine/valsartan combination. Six patients (0.9%) experienced serious AEs, of which only one SAE, i.e. gastric ulcer, was reported to be related to amlodipine treatment.

CONCLUSION

The single-pill combination of amlodipine/valsartan was efficacious and well-tolerated in Asian hypertensive patients who were inadequately controlled on amlodipine alone. As with all clinical trials, the entry criteria may limit the extrapolation of these results to a broader population. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00413049.

Economic impact of switching from valsartan to other angiotensin receptor blockers in patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

The approaching availability of lower-cost generic angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect formulary policies for patients maintained on the ARB valsartan.

OBJECTIVE

Estimate the economic impact of switching from valsartan (including valsartan-based single-pill combinations) to other ARBs without apparent medical reasons.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with essential hypertension and at least 6 months of continuous valsartan treatment free of hospitalization, cardiovascular events, renal events or ARB-associated adverse events were identified from the MarketScan administrative claims database from January 1, 2004 to March 31, 2008. Those who subsequently switched to a different ARB with at least a 5% copayment decrease (switchers) were matched to those who did not switch (maintainers) according to propensity score quintiles and selected baseline characteristics. Refills were not required after the index fill for the switched-to ARB or maintained valsartan. Matched switchers and maintainers were compared in terms of medication discontinuation, healthcare resource use and costs during the 6 months following the index fill.

RESULTS

A total of 99,926 valsartan maintainers and 2150 switchers (with a mean copayment decrease of $16.5 per month) were identified and matched. After matching, switching from versus maintaining valsartan was associated with an 8% higher risk of medication discontinuation (p < 0.008), 19.1 additional outpatient visits/100 patients (p = 0.002) and 9.3 additional hypertension-related inpatient days/100 patients (p = 0.030). Concurrently, switching from versus maintaining valsartan was associated with higher total medical costs by $748/patient (p < 0.001), driven largely by higher costs for hypertension-related medical services by $492/patient (p = 0.004).

LIMITATIONS

Exact reasons for switching were not available and the study assessed only the short-term impacts of switching.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertension patients maintained on valsartan who switched to a different ARB with a lower copayment experienced substantial increases in medication discontinuation, healthcare resource use and costs compared to those who maintained valsartan treatment.

Efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan combination therapy in hypertensive patients not adequately controlled on amlodipine monotherapy

ABSTRACT (ARB), in essential hypertensive patients not adequately controlled by amlodipine monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study in patients with essential hypertension. After a washout period followed by a single-blind amlodipine 10 mg run-in period, patients with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) > or =90 mmHg and <110 mmHg were randomised to receive amlodipine/valsartan (10/160 mg o.d.) or amlodipine (10 mg o.d.) for 8 weeks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00171002.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in msDBP at study endpoint. Secondary efficacy variables were change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), responder rate (msDBP <90 mmHg or > or =10 mmHg reduction from baseline) and DBP control rate (msDBP <90 mmHg).

RESULTS

Of the 1283 patients enrolled in single-blind period, 944 were randomised to receive amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg (n = 473) and amlodipine 10 mg (n = 471). Statistically significant greater reductions (p < 0.0001) from baseline in msSBP/msDBP were observed with combination therapy (12.9/11.4 mmHg) compared to monotherapy (10.0/9.3 mmHg). Responder rate was significantly greater (p = 0.0011) with combination therapy (79.0%) compared to monotherapy (70.1%). The percentage of patients with controlled DBP was also significantly (p < 0.0001) higher with combination therapy (77.8%) compared to monotherapy (66.5%). Incidence of peripheral oedema was slightly higher with amlodipine monotherapy (9.4%) compared to combination therapy (7.6%).

CONCLUSION

The combination of amlodipine/valsartan in this 8-week double-blind study provided additional BP control and was well tolerated in patients inadequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy. Results should be interpreted with the knowledge that study entry criteria may limit application to a wider population.

Valsartan combination therapy in the management of hypertension - patient perspectives and clinical utility

The morbidity and mortality benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients are well established, with most individuals requiring multiple agents to achieve BP control. Considering the important role of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in the pathophysiology of hypertension, a key component of combination therapy should include a RAAS inhibitor. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) lower BP, reduce cardiovascular risk, provide organ protection, and are among the best tolerated class of antihypertensive therapy. In this article, we discuss two ARB combinations (valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] and amlodipine/valsartan), both of which are indicated for the treatment of hypertension in patients not adequately controlled on monotherapy and as initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve BP goals. Randomized, double-blind studies that have assessed the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of these combinations in the first-line treatment of hypertensive patients are reviewed. Both valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/valsartan effectively lower BP and are well tolerated in a broad range of patients with hypertension, including difficult-to-treat populations such as those with severe BP elevations, prediabetes and diabetes, patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome, and individuals who are obese, elderly, or black. Also discussed herein are patient-focused perspectives related to the use of valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/valsartan, and the rationale for use of single-pill combinations as one approach to enhance patient compliance with antihypertensive therapy.