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

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.

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.

Economic evaluation of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination for hypertension treatment in China

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination vs olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine single drug, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients from payer perspective in China.Methods: A Markov model was constructed, which included five health states of hypertensive patients who are aged 35-84 years at baseline and free of cardiovascular disease. Clinical data were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Epidemiology data, adverse events (AEs), cost, and utility data were obtained from the literature. The cost associated with AEs was estimated based on the cost of same symptoms of hypertensive patients in an electric medical record database. The model projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, total costs per patient in a 20-year time horizon, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probability sensitivity analyses (PSA) and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted for the main parameters to test the robustness of the model.Results: Compared to olmesartan and amlodipine free combination, amlodipine, and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, treatment with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination led to fewer CVD events and deaths; resulted in an incremental cost of ¥-5,439 ($-791.36), ¥6,530 ($950.09), and ¥-1,019 ($-148.26) and gained additional QALYs of 0.052, 0.094, and 0.037 per patient, respectively. Compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was dominant. Compared with amlodipine alone, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were below the WHO recommended cost-effectiveness threshold, indicating the olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination was a cost-effective option for hypertensive patients in China. The 10-years' time horizon scenario analysis showed similar results to the 20-years' time horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and one-way sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the model results.Conclusions: Olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination confers better health outcomes and costs less compared with olmesartan and amlodipine free combination and valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination, and is cost-effective compared to amlodipine for hypertension treatment in China.

A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis on Clinical Effectiveness and Economic Assessment of Compound Reserpine and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablets (CRH) for Hypertension

Background/Objective

As the first generation of anti-hypertensive drug independently developed by China, Compound Reserpine and Hydrochlorothiazide Tablet (CRH) has been widely used in China for more than 40 years. However, limited studies are available for the performance of CRH for the treatment of hypertension in real-world setting in China. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and treatment costs between CRH and three other anti-hypertensive agents that include, Triprolidine Hydrochloride (TH: Diovan), Amlodipine Besylate Tablet (ABT: Norvasc), and Nifedipine Tablets (NT: Procardin) in real-world clinical practice.

Methods

This was a multicentre, retrospective study conducted from May 2011 to May 2016 at four tertiary hospitals in China. Data from patients’ electronic medical records (EMR) were retrieved and analysed. A retrospective propensity score-matched analysis was used for three pairs of comparisons. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and overall blood pressure (BP) control rate on the 10th and 20th days after treatment were compared. The overall cost of treatment was analysed across groups.

Results

In three pairs of comparison, the patients who received CRH treatment obtained better blood pressure control at both day 10 and day 20. In addition, the patients who received CRH had lower total treatment costs compared with the other three anti-hypertensive drugs. Influential factor analysis showed that CRH is associated with a higher probability of BP control compared with the other three monotherapies in real-world clinical practice.

Conclusion

The patients received CRH showed a higher overall BP control rate than the other three commonly prescribed anti-hypertensive drugs, which indicates that CRH has a better benefit in BP control for hypertensive patients. Also, the total cost for hypertension treatment is lower in CRH patients compared with the other three comparator drugs. These findings suggest that CRH could be an effective and cost-effective option for hypertensive patients.

China STudy of valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination-bAsed long-Term blood pressUre management in HypertenSive patients: a one-year registry (China STATUS III)

Objective: The present observational study evaluated long-term management of hypertension in patients who received treatment with valsartan and amlodipine in a single-pill combination (Val/Aml SPC) in a real-world setting in China (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry number ChiCTR1900021324). Methods: This was a prospective, observational, multicenter, real-world registry study wherein patients with hypertension who had already received Val/Aml SPC (80/5 mg) for at least 4 weeks before study enrollment were observed for 1 year. Investigators recorded patient data every 3 months and essentially five times during the 1 year follow-up period. Effectiveness was assessed by the blood pressure (BP) control rate and average duration of treatment at the end of the study. Safety was monitored by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). Results: Overall, 985 patients were enrolled (mean ± standard deviation [SD] age: 60.3 ± 11.5 years); of these, 894 were included in the full analysis set, 758 of whom completed the study. At baseline, BP was controlled (<140/90 mmHg) in 64.3% of patients on Val/Aml SPC for at least 4 weeks before enrollment. Office BP control rates significantly improved from baseline in 74.1% of patients at 1 year (p < .0001). Overall, 575 (87.0%) patients remained on Val/Aml SPC at 1 year (average exposure: 311.5 days). AEs were reported in 23.3% of patients. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate, and 0.6% of patients discontinued Val/Aml SPC because of SAEs. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that Val/Aml SPC effectively reduced BP over the long term among Chinese hypertensive patients, with a good adherence and tolerability profile, and that most hypertensive patients may benefit from this combination.

A randomized multicenter study on ambulatory blood pressure and arterial stiffness in patients treated with valsartan/amlodipine or nifedipine GITS

In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of a 12-week randomized multicenter study, we investigated effects of valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg single-pill combination (n = 75) and nifedipine GITS 30 mg (n = 75) on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness assessed by brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (PWV) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. At week 12, the between-treatment mean differences in systolic/diastolic BP were smaller for 24-hour and daytime (-2.1/-1.7 and -2.0/-1.5 mm Hg, respectively, P ≥ 0.22) but greater (P < 0.01) for nighttime (-4.0/-2.8 mm Hg, P ≤ 0.09), especially in sustained uncontrolled hypertension (-5.0/-4.1 mm Hg, P ≤ 0.04) and non-dippers (-6.5/-3.7 mm Hg, P ≤ 0.07), in favor of valsartan/amlodipine. At week 12, PWV was significantly reduced from baseline by valsartan/amlodipine (n = 59, P < 0.0001) but not nifedipine (n = 59, P = 0.06). The changes in PWV were significantly associated with that in ambulatory systolic BP and pulse pressure in the nifedipine (P ≤ 0.0008) but not valsartan/amlodipine group (P ≥ 0.57), with a significant interaction (P ≤ 0.045). The valsartan/amlodipine combination was more efficacious than nifedipine GITS in lowering nighttime BP in sustained uncontrolled hypertension and non-dippers, and in lowering arterial stiffness independent of BP lowering.

Effectiveness and safety of valsartan/amlodipine in hypertensive patients with stroke: China Status II subanalysis

High blood pressure (BP) is a major risk factor associated with stroke in China. This is a subanalysis of patients from the China Status II study, aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) single-pill combination (SPC) in hypertensive patients with different stroke subtypes (hemorrhagic, ischemic, or mixed).China Status II was a multicenter, postmarketing, prospective observational study in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on monotherapy. The study was an 8-week open-label treatment period with 2 4-week follow-ups. Change in BP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8, BP control rate, and response rate at weeks 4 and 8, and safety of 8-week treatment with Val/Aml (80/5 mg) were assessed.A total of 565 hypertensive patients with different types of stroke were analyzed in this China Status II substudy. Significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP (MSSBP/MSDBP) reductions from baseline to week 8 were observed across all stroke subtypes (P < .0001). At week 8, percentages of patients achieving MSSBP response (≥20 mm Hg reduction from baseline) were 76.3%, 74.4%, and 85.7%, MSDBP response (≥10 mm Hg reduction from baseline) were 67.8%, 65.9%, and 64.3%, and BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) were 74.6%, 80.5%, and 92.9%, in the hemorrhagic, ischemic, and mixed stroke subgroups, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were reported in 5 patients (1%) and 1 patient (0.2%), respectively, in the ischemic stroke subgroup, while no AEs were reported in hemorrhagic and mixed stroke subgroups.Val/Aml SPC was effective in hypertensive patients with different stroke subtypes and was well tolerated.

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.

Effectiveness of Valsartan/Amlodipine Single-pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients With Excess Body Weight: Subanalysis of China Status II

Obesity is a major global health concern and is associated with hypertension. However, there is a lack of studies evaluating the effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in Chinese hypertensive patients with excess body weight uncontrolled by monotherapy. To evaluate this effectiveness and its association with obese categories, we performed a prespecified subanalysis and a post hoc analysis of patients from China status II study. In this subanalysis, 11,289 and 11,182 patients stratified by body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC), respectively, were included. Significant mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline were observed at week 8 across all BMI and WC subgroups (P < 0.001). The percentages of patients achieving BP control were 65.2%, 62.8%, and 64.5% (men 64.5% and women 64.4%) in the overweight, obesity, and abdominal obesity subgroups, respectively. The positive association between BP control and obese categories could only be found in subgroups stratified by BMI other than WC. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in Chinese hypertensive patients with excess body weight uncontrolled by monotherapy, and its effectiveness was better associated with BMI than WC.

High-dose calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy vs combination therapy of standard-dose CCBs and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension: a meta-analysis

In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of high-dose calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy and standard-dose CCBs combined with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for patients with hypertension. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed in December 2015. Randomized controlled trials designed to identify the above goal were included. Thirteen trials including 2371 patients were identified. The standard-dose CCB/ARB combination resulted in a greater reduction of systolic blood pressure (WMD -2.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.76 to -1.28) and diastolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.07, 95% CI: -3.73 to -0.42) compared to high-dose CCB monotherapy. The overall hypertension control rate for the CCB/ARB combination was higher than that for CCB monotherapy (relative risk (RR): 1.17, 95% CI: 1.08-1.26). Furthermore, the CCB/ARB combination treatment yielded significantly fewer overall adverse events (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.95), oedema (RR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.18-0.52) and rash (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08-0.96, P=0.04) than did CCB monotherapy. The standard-dose CCB/ARB combination is superior to high-dose CCB monotherapy for lowering blood pressure and reducing adverse events in hypertensive patients. Future research should focus on the cost-effectiveness and long-term effects of these two treatment strategies for patients with hypertension.

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.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of adding an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to a calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy

BACKGROUND

We conducted this meta-analysis to systematically review and analyze the clinical benefits of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combined with calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for articles published until August 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical benefits of ARB combined with CCB following ineffective CCB monotherapy were included. The primary efficacy endpoint of the studies was normal rate of blood pressure, the secondary efficacy endpoints were the response rate and change in blood pressure from baseline. The safety endpoint of the studies was incidence of adverse events. Differences are expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity across studies was tested by using the I(2) statistic.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included and had sample sizes ranging from 185 to 1,183 subjects (total: 3,909 subjects). The pooled analysis showed that the on-target rate of hypertension treatment was significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group (RR =1.59; 95% CI, 1.31-1.91; P<0.01). The response rate of systolic blood pressure (SBP) (RR =1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58; P<0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P=0.04) were significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group. The change in SBP (RR =-3.56; 95% CI, -7.76-0.63; P=0.10) and DBP (RR =-3.03; 95% CI, -6.51-0.45; P=0.09) were higher in hypertensive patients receiving amlodipine + ARB but the difference did not reach statistical significance. ARB + amlodipine treatment carried a lower risk of adverse events relative to amlodipine monotherapy (RR =0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate that adding an ARB to CCB after initial ineffective CCB monotherapy, significantly improved blood pressure control and the percentage of on-target hypertension treatment with significantly reduced incidence of adverse events compared with continued CCB monotherapy.

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.

Efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination in 11,422 Chinese patients with hypertension: an observational study

Introduction

Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy of two drugs is recommended by international guidelines, including the Chinese guidelines (2010), for the treatment of hypertension in high-risk patients who require marked blood pressure (BP) reductions. Real-world data on the efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) SPC are scarce. The present study is the first observational study in China to evaluate the efficacy (primary endpoint) and safety of Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC in Chinese patients with hypertension whose BP was not adequately controlled by monotherapy in a real-world setting.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, open-label, post-marketing observational study included 11,422 Chinese adults (≥18 years) with essential hypertension from 238 sites of 29 provinces who were prescribed once-daily Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC. Patients were treated for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable of the study included changes in mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) and mean diastolic BP (MSDBP) from baseline to week 8 (end point). The secondary efficacy variable of the study included BP control rate and response rate at week 4 and 8. Safety assessments included recording and measurement of all adverse events (AEs) and vital signs in the safety population.

Results

A significant reduction of 27.1 mmHg in MSSBP (159.6 vs. 132.5 mmHg; P < 0.0001) and 15.2 mmHg in MSDBP (95.6 vs. 80.4 mmHg; P < 0.0001) from baseline was observed at week 8. The BP-lowering efficacy of Val/Aml SPC was independent of age and comorbidities. BP control of <140/90 mmHg was achieved in 76.8% (n = 8,692) of the patients. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness (0.2%), headache (0.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (0.2%), and edema (0.2%). Only three serious AEs were reported and they were not drug-related.

Conclusion

This is the first evidence-based real-world data in Chinese hypertensive patients which demonstrate the efficacy and safety of Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-014-0132-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Indirect treatment comparison between fixed-dose-combinations of amlodipine/losartan and amlodipine/valsartan in blood pressure control

AIMS

This study compared blood pressure (BP) changes after 8 weeks of therapy between a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of amlodipine/losartan and amlodipine/valsartan using a network meta-analysis because no trials directly compared amlodipine/losartan with other FDCs.

METHODS

A systematic search identified six randomised controlled trials (amlodipine/losartan-3, amlodipine/valsartan-3) of FDCs and their component monotherapies. Conventional fixed-effects methods were used to conduct the comparisons. The primary and secondary effect measures were the changes in sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressure (sitDBP, sitSBP) at 8 weeks post-randomisation.

RESULTS

The estimated amlodipine/valsartan - amlodipine/losartan difference (95% confidence interval) in sitDBP reduction was -1.27 mmHg, (-5.7, 2.2) for lower dosages and -0.45 mmHg, (-3.7, 2.7) for higher dosages; for sitSBP, the values were -3.74 mmHg, (-9.0, 2.9) for lower dosages and 0.2 mmHg, (-6.2, 6.0) for higher dosages. The confidence of a greater reduction in BP (fixed difference = 0) on amlodipine/losartan 5/50 than on amlodipine/valsartan 5/80 was 77% for sitDBP and 89% for sitSBP. The corresponding confidence for the higher doses was 61% for sitDBP and 48% for sitSBP. The findings support asserting with (fixed) 95% confidence that the BP reduction on amlodipine/valsartan 5/80 exceeds the amlodipine/losartan 5/50 reduction by at most 1.6 mmHg for sitDBP, and at most 1.26 mmHg for sitSBP. The corresponding upper bounds for the higher dosages were 2.31 mmHg (sitDBP) and 5.38 mmHg (sitSBP).

CONCLUSIONS

The BP lowering effect with amlodipine/losartan and amlodipine/valsartan was comparable. Potential superiority of the reductions realised with amlodipine/valsartan relative to amlodipine/losartan, are unlikely to be clinically material.

A review of the efficacy and tolerability of combination amlodipine/valsartan in non-white patients with hypertension

This article discusses racial/ethnic disparities in hypertension, with particular focus on non-white populations including blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians. Hypertension and its related morbidity and mortality affect a disproportionate number of black patients compared with white patients. Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians have poor rates of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. Given the high prevalence of comorbidities (e.g., obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome) in these populations, renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers are a good choice for foundation therapy. This review also discusses the importance of adherence and persistence with antihypertensive medication, which remain suboptimal in these non-white populations. Evidence suggests improvement with the use of single-pill combination therapy. Lastly, clinical trial data on the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the combination of a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin receptor blocker, a widely utilized combination, in non-white populations are presented. PubMed was searched using the title/abstract key words (amlodipine AND valsartan AND [hypertension OR hypertensive] AND [black(s) OR African American(s) OR Hispanic(s) OR Latino(s) OR Mexican(s) OR Asian(s)]). In total, eight studies in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension were identified (n = 1,111 black, n = 389 Hispanic/Latino, and n = 3,094 Asian). Results showed that treatment with the combination of amlodipine plus valsartan is a reasonable choice for initial therapy or in patients who fail to respond to monotherapy. These drug classes have complementary mechanisms of action and, when used concomitantly, the magnitude of blood pressure lowering in these non-white populations is generally comparable with that seen in non-Hispanic white patients.

Valsartan/amlodipine compared to nifedipine GITS in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Current hypertension guidelines recommend single-pill combinations because they not only improve convenience and compliance to therapy and thus blood pressure (BP) control, but also reduce health-care costs. This study compared the efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination with nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in Chinese patients with hypertension who were inadequately controlled with monotherapy.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study, 564 patients with hypertension not adequately controlled by prior monotherapy were randomized to receive valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 540), valsartan/amlodipine (n = 272) showed a least-square mean reduction of -16.6 versus -10.8 mmHg by nifedipine GITS (n = 268; mean between-treatment difference: -5.8 mmHg; P < 0.0001) from baseline to week 12. The corresponding results for mean sitting diastolic BP were -8.6 and -4.6 mmHg, respectively (difference: -4.0 mmHg; P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients achieving the BP target (<140/90 or <130/80 mmHg in the absence or presence of diabetes mellitus, respectively) was significantly higher with valsartan/amlodipine (79.0%) versus nifedipine GITS (57.4%; P < 0.0001). The overall incidence rate of adverse events was lower with valsartan/amlodipine (19.2%) than with nifedipine GITS (29.4%; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg single-pill combination is well tolerated and more effective than nifedipine GITS 30 mg for BP control in Chinese patients with hypertension.

Are fixed-dose combination antihypertensives suitable as first-line therapy?

OBJECTIVE

To contemplate how initial antihypertensive therapy with fixed-dose combinations (FDC) might be incorporated into clinical practice, based on a compilation of evidence comparing FDCs with monotherapy and loose-dose combinations in varying patient populations.

METHODS

A non-systematic search of PubMed (from 2007 to 2012) was performed for randomized, controlled trials in order to capture the evidence on FDC versus monotherapy and loose-dose combinations as first-line therapy. The literature search focused on calcium channel blocker (CCB)-renin angiotensin system (RAS) blocker combinations. Additionally, any relevant papers known to the authors were included. International recommendations from published hypertension treatment guidelines were also consulted.

RESULTS

The results of this literature review identified two emergent issues. Firstly, there is a discord between antihypertensive use and actual blood pressure (BP) control achieved - despite an increase in the use of antihypertensives over the last 10 years, BP control rates remain low. Secondly, a greater association between BP and cardiovascular risk in Asians may magnify this discrepancy. A number of international guidelines are recommending early combination therapy, such as CCB-RAS blocker combinations in the majority of patients based on the available evidence, with such combinations showing benefits in terms of compliance, BP lowering and control, and safety. Additionally, recent studies have indicated that improved BP control may be achieved with simplified guidelines and the use of FDCs. Overall, these findings indicate that FDC could be used as first-line.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings from this literature review suggest that physicians may need to readdress their approach to antihypertensive treatment. Earlier use of antihypertensive FDC (including first-line) may help to shrink the current gap between antihypertensive use and BP target control achieved. Most guidelines acknowledge that combination therapy is required in the majority of patients, and FDC are regarded as a suitable alternative, having demonstrated better compliance compared with loose-dose combinations.

Efficacy and tolerability of initial therapy with single-pill combination telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide 80/25 mg in patients with grade 2 or 3 hypertension: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with grade 2 or 3 hypertension may require high-dose combination therapy to achieve blood pressure (BP) targets in a timely manner.

OBJECTIVES

This study compared the effectiveness and tolerability of a single-pill combination (SPC) of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide 80/25 mg (T80/H25) with T80 monotherapy.

METHODS

In a Phase IV, multinational, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-group trial, 894 patients with mean seated trough cuff systolic BP [SBP] ≥160 mm Hg and diastolic BP [DBP] ≥100 mm Hg were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive T40/H12.5 SPC or telmisartan 40 mg monotherapy for 1 week before the dose was uptitrated to T80/H25 SPC or T80, respectively, administered for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline in mean seated cuff trough SBP. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 888 patients received treatment (294 and 594 patients in the T80/H25 and T80 groups, respectively) (mean age, 57.0 years; age ≥65 years, 25.7%; male, 53.8%; white, 68.0%); 61 patients prematurely discontinued. Mean baseline SBP/DBP values were 172.3/104.3 mm Hg (T80/H25) and 173.3/104.5 mm Hg (T80). After 7 weeks, SBP was changed by -37.0 and -28.5 mm Hg in the T80/H25 and T80 groups (P < 0.0001); DBP was changed by -18.6 and -15.4 mm Hg respectively (P < 0.0001). These differences were significant after 2 weeks at the higher dosage (P < 0.0001). BP target (SBP/DBP <140/<90 mm Hg) was achieved in 55.5% and 34.7% of patients in the T80/H25 and T80 groups (P < 0.0001). T80/H25 SPC and T80 had a similar frequency of overall AEs (16.0% vs 17.0%). The prevalences of treatment-related AEs with T80/H25 SPC and T80 were low (4.6% and 2.8%), as were the rates of AEs that led to discontinuation (1.0% and 2.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

In these patients with grade 2 or 3 hypertension, initial therapy with T80/H25 was associated with a significantly greater reduction in mean seated cuff trough SBP compared with T80 alone, as well as with improved hypertension goal attainment rates. Both treatments appeared to be well tolerated.

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.

Peripheral edema associated with calcium channel blockers: incidence and withdrawal rate--a meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral edema is considered to be a common and annoying adverse effect of calcium channel blockers (CCBs). It has been thought to occur secondary to arteriolar dilatation causing intracapillary hypertension and fluid extravasation. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and withdrawal rate of peripheral edema with CCBs.

METHODS

A systematic search was made in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1980 to January 2011 for randomized clinical trials reporting peripheral edema with CCBs in patients with hypertension. Trials enrolling at least 100 patients in the CCB arm and lasting at least 4 weeks were included in the analysis. Both the incidence and withdrawal rate due to edema were pooled by weighing each trial by the inverse of the variance. Head-to-head comparison was done to evaluate the risk of edema between newer lipophilic dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs and older DHPs.

RESULTS

One hundred and six studies with 99 469 participants, mean age 56 ± 6 years, satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. The weighted incidence of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the CCBs group when compared with controls/placebo (10.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, the withdrawal rate due to edema was higher in patients on CCBs compared with control/placebo (2.1 vs. 0.5%, P < 0.0001). Both the incidence of edema and patient withdrawal rate due to edema increased with the duration of therapy with CCBs reaching 24 and 5%, respectively, after 6 months. The risk of peripheral edema with lipophilic DHPs was 57% lower than with traditional DHPs (relative risk 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.53; P < 0.0001). Incidence of peripheral edema in patients on DHPs was 12.3% compared with 3.1% with non-DHPs (P < 0.0001). Edema with high-dose CCBs (defined as more than half the usual maximal dose) was 2.8 times higher than that with low-dose CCBs (16.1 vs. 5.7%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of peripheral edema progressively increased with duration of CCB therapy up to 6 months. Over the long term, more than 5% of patients discontinued CCBs because of this adverse effect. Edema rates were lower with both non-DHPs and lipophilic DHPs.