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

Single-Pill, Triple Antihypertensive Therapy in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa: Preliminary Experience

INTRODUCTION

Worldwide, arterial hypertension is the foremost preventable and modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. In addition to lifestyle changes, recent international guidelines recommend single-pill, low-dose combinations as initial treatment strategy. We investigated whether this approach is feasible in a rural sub-Saharan Africa setting.

METHODS

Diagnosis of hypertension was established over three sets of blood pressure measurements, performed according to the European Society of Hypertension recommendations by trained personnel, using a validated, automated, oscillometric device OMRON M7 IT-HEM-7322-E. In 98 individuals with arterial hypertension, a once-daily, single-pill combination of olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide was prescribed at an appropriate dose. Patients were instructed on its administration and potential side effects and encouraged towards lifestyle modifications. The treatment regimen was adjusted, if needed, at each outpatient clinic scheduled after 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients (aged 61 [53-70] years; median and interquartile range) strictly adhered to the treatment schedule, while 19 individuals (70 [65-80] years) dropped out. Blood pressure was < 140/90 mmHg after 4 weeks in 44 (56%), after 8 weeks in 62 (78%), after 12 weeks in 69 (87%), and after 16 weeks in 74 (94%) participants. Excellent tolerance was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide real-life evidence that hypertension management with a once-daily, single-pill combination of olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide as initial treatment is feasible and effective also in a rural sub-Saharan setting. Single-pill combinations should be made available also in rural and remote areas in low- and middle-income countries as a reliable first-line treatment strategy.

Single-Pill Combination to Improve Hypertension Treatment: Pharmaceutical Industry Development

Multiple illness is an increasingly common phenomenon. Its consequence is the need for polytherapy, which is particularly common among people suffering from arterial hypertension. The development of combined preparations (containing at least two API-active pharmaceutical ingredients) dedicated to the treatment of hypertension is a response to increased compliance, especially in elderly patients. In our work, we describe in particular the possibilities of using β-adrenergic receptors blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in combinations. The combinations of APIs are used as single pills in patients with arterial hypertension with concomitant diseases such as hyperlipidemia; blood coagulation problems and diabetes mellitus were also discussed successively. Pharmacoeconomic analysis for the API combinations shown is also presented. As a final conclusion, numerous benefits of using the combined preparations should be indicated, especially by the elderly and/or in patients with coexistence of other diseases.

Adherence to Single-Pill Versus Free-Equivalent Combination Therapy in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Poor adherence to antihypertensive therapy is a major cause of poor blood pressure (BP) control in patients with hypertension. Regimen simplification may improve adherence and BP control. This systematic review assessed whether single-pill combination (SPC) therapy led to improved adherence, persistence, and better BP control compared with free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy in patients with hypertension. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched until July 2020, in addition to manual searching of relevant congress abstracts from 2014 to 2020 for studies including adults with hypertension aged ≥18 years receiving SPC or FEC antihypertensive therapy measuring any of the following: adherence, persistence, and reductions in systolic BP and/or diastolic BP. Adherence and persistence were summarized in a narrative analysis; direct pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted to compare BP reductions with SPC therapy versus FEC therapy using fixed-effect and random-effects models. Following screening, 44 studies were included. The majority (18 of 23) of studies measuring adherence showed adherence was significantly improved in patients receiving SPCs versus FECs. Overall, 16 studies measured persistence, of which 14 showed that patients receiving SPCs had significantly improved persistence or were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy than patients receiving FECs. Systolic BP (mean difference, -3.99 [95% CI, -7.92 to -0.07]; P=0.05) and diastolic BP (-1.54 [95% CI, -2.67 to -0.41]; P=0.0076) were both significantly reduced with SPC therapy compared with FEC therapy at week 12. SPC therapy leads to improved adherence and persistence compared with FEC therapy and may lead to better BP control in patients with hypertension.

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.

Nifedipine GITS/Candesartan Combination Therapy Lowers Blood Pressure Across Different Baseline Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Categories: DISTINCT Study Subanalyses

DISTINCT was an 8‐week, double‐blind, randomized study to investigate the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of various nifedipine gastrointestinal treatment system (GITS)/candesartan cilexetil (N/C) dose combinations, vs respective monotherapies or placebo, in patients with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥95 to <110 mm Hg. The current prespecified analysis compared BP reduction in participants with mild vs moderate baseline hypertension (ie, systolic [S]BP <160 mm Hg vs ≥160 mm Hg and DBP <100 mm Hg vs ≥100 mm Hg). A total of 1362 patients were analyzed by descriptive statistics. In all patient subgroups investigated, the NC combinations (ie, N: 20, 30, or 60 mg; C: 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg daily) provided greater SBP and DBP lowering and higher rates of BP control (defined as BP <140/90 mm Hg) than respective monotherapies or placebo, with greatest absolute BP reductions observed in the moderately elevated SBP or DBP subgroups. A trend to dose‐response relationship was observed in each subgroup. In each SBP and DBP subgroup, treatment‐related vasodilatory events (flushing, headache, or edema) were less frequent for patients receiving NC combination therapy than N monotherapy. These analyses support the use of calcium antagonist and angiotensin receptor blocker combination therapy in patients with both mild and moderate hypertension, for whom effective BP normalization and good drug tolerance would greatly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.

Updated national and international hypertension guidelines: a review of current recommendations

Despite the availability of effective pharmacological treatments to aid the control of blood pressure, the global rate of uncontrolled blood pressure remains high. As such, further measures are required to improve blood pressure control. Recently, several national and international guidelines for the management of hypertension have been published. These aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare professionals and patients to aid the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. In this review, we have compared new and current guidelines from the American and International Societies of Hypertension; the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology and the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention; the panel appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee; the European Societies of Hypertension and Cardiology; the French Society of Hypertension; the Canadian Hypertension Education Program; the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK); the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Chinese Hypertension League. We have identified consensus opinion regarding best practises for the management of hypertension and have highlighted any discrepancies between the recommendations. In general there is good agreement between the guidelines, however, in some areas, such as target blood pressure ranges for the elderly, further trials are required to provide sufficient high-quality evidence to form the basis of recommendations.

Triple combination therapy in hypertension: the antihypertensive efficacy of treatment with perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide SR

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The blood pressure (BP) of most patients on antihypertensive monotherapy or bitherapy remains uncontrolled. Our study evaluated the efficacy of triple therapy with perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide sustained release (SR) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension on previous antihypertensive therapy.

METHODS

This 4-month, multicenter, prospective, observational, open-label study included patients switched from previous antihypertensive therapy to triple therapy with perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide SR. The main outcome was change in office BP from baseline to 4 months, as well as changes in 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) parameters in a subgroup of patients.

RESULTS

Age was 62.8 ± 11.3 years in 6,088 patients (55 % were male). Office BP at baseline was 158.1 ± 13.0/92.6 ± 8.8 mmHg. By 4 months, office BP decreased by 26.7 ± 13.3/12.9 ± 9.4 mmHg (p < 0.001). ABPM was performed in 62 patients. In these patients, 24-h systolic BP decreased (from 138.7 ± 12.5 to 125.5 ± 12.8 mmHg), as did 24-h diastolic BP (from 77.5 ± 11.4 to 70.4 ± 8.7 mmHg) (both p < 0.0001). Heart rate remained unchanged. In patients previously on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor/amlodipine, 24-h ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP decreased from 136.9 ± 12.8 to 125.4 ± 13.3 mmHg (p = 0.0003) and from 76.3 ± 12.6 to 70.2 ± 9.5 mmHg (p = 0.0005). In those previously on RAAS inhibitor/hydrochlorothiazide, 24-h ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP decreased from 137.8 ± 12.7 to 122.7 ± 15.4 mmHg (p = 0.0039) and from 73.6 ± 9.4 to 65.7 ± 7.3 mmHg (p = 0.002). Most (74 and 80 %, respectively) patients reached target ABPM values (<130/80 mmHg).

CONCLUSION

A triple combination of perindopril, amlodipine, and indapamide SR controlled BP effectively in hypertensive patients uncontrolled by previous antihypertensive monotherapy or bitherapy, including RAAS inhibitor/amlodipine or RAAS inhibitor/hydrochlorothiazide combinations.

Clinical implications of the 2013 ESH/ESC hypertension guidelines: targets, choice of therapy, and blood pressure monitoring

The European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2013 guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension included simplified blood pressure (BP) targets across patient groups, more balanced discussion on monotherapy vs. combination therapy, as well as reconfirmation of the importance of out-of-office BP measurements. In light of these updates, we wished to review some issues raised and take a fresh look at the role of calcium channel blocker (CCB) therapy; an established antihypertensive class that appears to be a favorable choice in many patients. Relaxed BP targets for high-risk hypertensive patients in the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines were driven by a lack of commanding evidence for an aggressive approach. However, substantial evidence demonstrates cardiovascular benefits from more intensive BP lowering across patient groups. Individualized treatment of high-risk patients may be prudent until more solid evidence is available. Individual patient profiles and preferences and evidence for preferential therapy benefits should be considered when deciding upon the optimal antihypertensive regimen. CCBs appear to be a positive choice for monotherapy, and in combination with other agent classes, and may provide specific benefits beyond BP lowering. Ambulatory and home BP monitoring have an increasing role in defining the diagnosis and prognosis of hypertension (especially non-sustained); however, their value for comprehensive diagnosis and appropriate treatment selection should be more widely acknowledged. In conclusion, further evidence may be required on BP targets in high-risk patients, and optimal treatment selection based upon individual patient profiles and comprehensive diagnosis using out-of-office BP measurements may improve patient management.

NAD(P)H:quinone oxidoreductase 1 activation reduces blood pressure through regulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase acetylation in spontaneously hypertensive rats

BACKGROUND

Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) is involved in blood pressure (BP) regulation through the production of nitric oxide. Sirtuin I (SIRT1), an NAD-dependent protein deacetylase, promotes vascular relaxation through deacetylation and activation of eNOS. β-Lapachone (βL) increases the cellular NAD(+)/NADH ratio by activating

NAD(P)H

quinone oxidoreductase 1 (NQO1). In this study, we verified whether activation of NQO1 by βL modulates BP through regulation of eNOS acetylation in a hypertensive animal model.

METHODS

Spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) and an endothelial cell line (bEnd.3 cells) were used to investigate the hypotensive effect of βL and its mechanism of action.

RESULTS

βL treatment significantly lowered the BP in SHRs, but this hypotensive effect was completely blocked by eNOS inhibition with ω-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester. In vitro studies revealed that βL activated eNOS, which was accompanied by an increased NAD(+)/NADH ratio. Moreover, βL significantly decreased acetylation of eNOS; however, this reduced eNOS acetylation was completely precluded by inhibition of SIRT1 in the bEnd.3 cells and in the aorta of the SHRs. Consistent with these effects, βL-induced reduction in BP was also abolished by SIRT1 inhibition in the SHRs.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that eNOS acetylation can be regulated by NQO1 activation in an SIRT1-dependent manner, which is correlated with the relief of hypertension. These findings provide strong evidence that NQO1 might be a new therapeutic target for hypertension.

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.

Telmisartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for the management of patients with hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of telmisartan 40 mg (T40) or 80 mg (T80) plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (H12.5) single-pill combinations (SPCs) with telmisartan monotherapies, in a pooled analysis of patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

Six phase 3, double-blind studies of 8 weeks' duration that assessed the T/H12.5 SPC and T40 or T80 monotherapy, were included in the analysis. Data was pooled separately for the two T40 non-responder studies (T40 NR group, two T80 non-responder studies (T80 NR group), and the two factorial design dose-response studies (FD-DR group).

RESULTS

After 8 weeks' treatment, the adjusted mean reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and the SBP, DBP, and blood pressure (BP) goal rates were significantly higher with the T40/H12.5 SPC than T40 in the T40 NR group and with the T80/H12.5 SPC than T80 in the T80 NR group. In the FD-DR group, the adjusted mean reduction in SBP and DBP, and DBP goal rates were significantly higher for T40/H12.5 versus T40. The percentage of patients with an adverse event was numerically higher with T40/H12.5 versus T40 in the T40 NR group, and was similar in telmisartan monotherapies and the T/H12.5 SPCs in the T80 NR group and FD-DR group. A limitation of this study is the retrospective and pooled nature of the analysis. Also, >75% of patients were <65 years of age, which limits the applicability of the results to older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild to moderate hypertension, 8 weeks' treatment with the T/H12.5 SPC is significantly more efficacious than telmisartan monotherapies. The safety and tolerability of the T/H12.5 SPC are comparable to that of telmisartan monotherapy and consistent with that reported in previous studies.

Efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan plus amlodipine in asian patients not adequately controlled on either monotherapy or on low-dose combination therapy

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the telmisartan plus amlodipine (T/A) single-pill combination (SPC) in Asian patients with hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not adequately controlled on either monotherapy or on low-dose combination therapy. Patients and Methods. Data are presented from five Boehringer Ingelheim-sponsored phase 3, double-blind, 8-week, studies: two studies in nonresponders to amlodipine (data pooled for amlodipine), two studies on nonresponders to telmisartan (pooled data), and one on nonresponders to low-dose T/A SPC. Results. After 8 weeks' treatment, mean reductions from the reference baseline in diastolic BP (DBP; primary endpoint), systolic BP (SBP), and SBP, DBP goal, and response rates were higher with the T/A SPC than respective monotherapies. The T80/A5 SPC resulted in greater reductions in DBP and SBP, and higher DBP goal and response rate than the low-dose T40/A5 SPC. Peripheral edema incidence was low (amlodipine 0.5%, telmisartan 0.0%, and T/A SPC 0.7%). Discussion and Conclusion. In Asian patients whose BP is not adequately controlled with telmisartan or amlodipine monotherapy, T/A SPC treatment results in greater BP reduction, and higher DBP and SBP goal and response rates. The safety and tolerability of the T/A SPC are comparable to those of the respective monotherapies and consistent with those reported in previous studies.

A randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg versus amlodipine 5 mg in hypertensive Asian patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (T80/A5) single-pill combination versus A5 in patients with essential hypertension not adequately controlled on A5 monotherapy.

METHODS

Asian patients ≥18 years old, with inadequately controlled blood pressure (BP) at enrolment, who failed to achieve a seated diastolic BP (DBP) goal (≥90 mmHg) following 6-weeks' open-label A5 treatment, were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to 8 weeks' double-blind treatment with T80/A5 single-pill combination or A5.

RESULTS

A total of 324 patients entered the double-blind treatment phase. The adjusted mean ± SE reduction in seated trough DBP from baseline to week 8 was significantly greater with T80/A5 (12.4 ± 1.0 mmHg) than A5 (10.2 ± 0.9 mmHg [primary endpoint, n = 314]). Results were similar in the subset of 262 Chinese patients. Treatment-related adverse events were 1.9% with T80/A5 and 2.4% with A5.

CONCLUSIONS

In Asian patients with hypertension, T80/A5 single-pill combination provided improved BP reduction after 8 weeks' treatment compared with A5 monotherapy. Both treatments were well tolerated.