Telmisartan plus amlodipine single-pill combination for the management of hypertensive patients with a metabolic risk profile (added-risk patients)

Fixed-dose combination of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with established metabolic syndrome uncontrolled by previous monotherapy. The ZAMES study (Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome)

OBJECTIVE

Whether all antihypertensive drugs are equally effective in patients with metabolic syndrome is still unclear. The goal of the Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome (ZAMES) study was to investigate whether treatment with the fixed-dose combination of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide is at least as effective as that with the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with metabolic syndrome and essential hypertension, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

METHODS

We enrolled 721 patients in a multicenter, international (Italy and Romania), randomized, double-blind, parallel group, phase III study. Following a 1-week screening withdrawal period, 482 patients (mean age 59 ± 10 years, 53% men) bearing a SBP at least 140 mmHg and/or DBP at least 90 mmHg plus metabolic syndrome (ATP-III criteria) were randomly allocated to a fixed-dose combination of zofenopril 30 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily for a cumulative period of 24 weeks. After 8 and 16 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses were doubled in nonnormalized study participants. The study endpoint was the office DBP reduction at study end. In 20% of patients, an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of diabetes at baseline was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (82%) than in the irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide (73%) group. Baseline-adjusted DBP reductions were superimposable (P = 0.370) with zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 231; 9.8 (95% confidence interval: 11.1, 8.4) mmHg] and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 235; 10.4 (11.8, 9.0) mmHg]. The same was for SBP [17.0 (19.2, 14.8) mmHg zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 18.8 (21.0, 16.6) mmHg irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, P = 0.113]. Rate of normalized and responder patients (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg or SBP reduction more than 20 mmHg or DBP reduction more than 10 mmHg) did not differ at study end (65.8% and 77.5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 67.7% and 81.5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide; P = 0.695, P = 0.301). These results were confirmed in the 69 study participants undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (35 zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 34 irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide), with a comparable 24-h average BP reduction [BP difference between-treatment: SBP: 0.1 (-5.7, 5.9) mmHg, P = 0.975; DBP: -0.9 (-3.8, 2.0) mmHg, P = 0.541]. Both drugs attained similar BP reductions also in the last 6 h of the dosing interval [between-treatment difference SBP: 0.1 (-7.4, 7.5) mmHg P = 0.990; DBP: -0.9 (-4.4, 2.6) mmHg, P = 0.602]. Metabolic and renal indexes were not altered. Few patients were withdrawn for moderate adverse events (5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study supporting the comparable antihypertensive and metabolic response to fixed-dose combinations of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (zofenopril) or angiotensin receptor blockers (Irbesartan) with a diuretic in patients with advanced metabolic syndrome and nonresponders to monotherapy. The results of this study can further improve the clinical management of high cardiovascular risk patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome, because these two drug combinations increase the number of available combinations, which may significantly improve patients' adherence in this special clinical condition that is frequently found in everyday practice.

Prevention of metabolic disorders with telmisartan and indapamide in a Chinese population with high-normal blood pressure

High-normal blood pressure is considered a precursor of stage 1 hypertension that is associated with metabolic disorders. This study aims to investigate whether the pharmacologic treatment of high-normal blood pressure affects metabolism, especially in abdominally obese individuals, and the pharmacoeconomics of two antihypertensive agents, telmisartan and indapamide. Subjects with high-normal blood pressure were randomly assigned to receive telmisartan, indapamide or placebo for 3 years. All the subjects were instructed to modify their lifestyle to reduce blood pressure throughout the study. A total of 221 subjects were randomly assigned to telmisartan, 213 to indapamide and 230 to placebo. After the 3-year intervention, blood pressure was lower in the telmisartan and indapamide groups (P<0.05), FPG in the telmisartan group was lower during the first 2 years (P<0.05) and no characteristic differences were found in those with abdominal obesity among the three groups (P>0.05). The percentage of subjects with metabolic syndrome was significantly decreased in the telmisartan and indapamide groups (P<0.05), but was only significantly decreased in the telmisartan group for subjects with abdominal obesity (P<0.05). The acquisition cost for telmisartan was ~1.86 times higher than for indapamide for a similar antihypertensive effect. The intervention for high-normal blood pressure with telmisartan and indapamide appeared to be feasible and reduced the risk of metabolic syndrome. Telmisartan was more effective, whereas indapamide had better pharmacoeconomic benefits.

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.