Real-world clinical experience of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: the EXCITE study

Effectiveness of Valsartan's Single-Pill Combination Therapies on Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients: Malaysian Single-Centre Real-World Experience

Background

Uncontrolled hypertension can cause cardiovascular disease and is an important public health issue. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapies possess combined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and may improve compliance to treatment. This study assessed the effectiveness of valsartan (Val)-based SPC therapies in achieving BP control in hypertensive patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective study. Data were extracted from the hybrid medical records of patients from the Institut Jantung Negara (IJN), Malaysia. Adults with established diagnosis of hypertension and on prescription of Val-based SPC therapies as part of routine medical care from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018, with ≥ 1 year of follow-up were included. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients achieving therapeutic BP control (BP < 140/90 mmHg). Secondary outcomes included change from baseline (CFB) in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), and subgroup analysis was based on baseline SBP categories and presence of diabetes.

Results

Study included 409 hypertensive patients. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the population was 65.1 (10.6) years old, with male predominance (61.6%). Proportion of patients achieving target BP between baseline and follow-up were 57.0% (P < 0.001). Mean CFB in SBP and DBP were recorded as 19.52 mmHg and 7.47 mmHg, respectively. Over half of the patients achieved the target BP in all subgroups categorised by SBP at baseline, except the subgroup of SBP 160 mmHg-179 mmHg. SPC therapies were continued in 97.3% of patients at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion

Patients using Val-based SPC therapies had significant reduction in BP with good tolerability, with 57% of patients achieving target BP over a prolonged 1-year follow-up period. Uptake of SPC therapy is warranted to improve patient care and outcomes in hypertension.

A Retrospective, Observational, EMR-Based Real-World Evidence Study to Assess the Incidence of Pedal Edema in Essential Hypertensive Patients on Amlodipine or Cilnidipine

Introduction

Calcium channel blockers have pedal edema as one of the confining factors of treatment. A real-world study may help evident reality of the situation in regular Indian clinical practice. The aim of the study is to assess effectiveness and incidence of pedal edema in essential hypertensive patients treated with amlodipine or cilnidipine monotherapy.

Methods

Retrospective EMR data of adult essential hypertensive patients, prescribed amlodipine (n = 800) or cilnidipine (n = 800) as monotherapy, were analyzed. Incidence of pedal edema from baseline visit was analyzed in terms of dose and duration of treatment. The changes in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline and proportion of patients achieving target BP goals were assessed.

Results

In amlodipine and cilnidipine groups, mean changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to end of the study period were 28.4 and 15.1 mmHg and 24.3 and 13.5 mmHg, respectively (p value <0.05). More than 50% of patients in both groups achieved BP goal at the end of the study (p value 0.266). In amlodipine group, total 23.9% reported pedal edema, while in cilnidipine, 27.6% (p value 0.0863). At the end of the study, 3.5% and 8.2% of patients remain with pedal edema, respectively, in both groups (pvalue <0.005).

Conclusion

Amlodipine demonstrated greater BP reduction at a lower average dose, better efficacy, and tolerability in terms of pedal edema count as a lesser number of patients reported edema at the end of the study and a higher percentage of patients continued the prescribed baseline dosage regimen as compared to cilnidipine. Thus, the study established amlodipine as an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive for Indians.

Effectiveness of Amlodipine on Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Patients in India: A Real-World, Retrospective Study from Electronic Medical Records

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of amlodipine has been reported in clinical trials in India. However, real-world data on the effectiveness of amlodipine in India is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To provide real-world evidence regarding the effectiveness of amlodipine as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs (AHDs) in Indian patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

Electronic medical record data of adult patients who were diagnosed with essential hypertension (≥ 140/90 mmHg) and were prescribed amlodipine as monotherapy or add-on therapy were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were classified based on the number of AHD classes prescribed on initiation of amlodipine. Change in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure from baseline was the primary endpoint. Evaluation of proportion of patients who achieved treatment goals as per 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines was the secondary endpoint. Readings were obtained before initiating amlodipine and after at least a month of therapy with amlodipine.

RESULTS

Among the 462 included patients, the majority (90.7%) were on amlodipine monotherapy or amlodipine + 1AHD. Mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 12.1 [- 14.9, - 9.3] mmHg) and DBP (- 7.5 [- 8.9, - 6.1] mmHg) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 17.8 [- 21.0, - 14.6] mmHg) and DBP (- 9.5 [- 11.0, - 8.0] mmHg) (P < 0.001 for all). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 31.4% and 42.9% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 38.9% and 51.8% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≤ 45 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 11.7 [- 16.0, - 7.4] mmHg; P < 0.001) and DBP (- 7.2 [- 9.7, - 4.7] mmHg; P < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 14.6 [- 21.9, - 7.3] mmHg; P < 0.05) and DBP (- 10.6 [- 14.8, - 6.4] mmHg; P < 0.01). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 35.4% and 33.8% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 48.0% and 56.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD, respectively. Among patients aged ≥ 65 years, mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine monotherapy group was: SBP (- 13.9 [- 20.2, - 7.6] mmHg; P < 0.01) and DBP (- 8.5 [- 11.4, - 5.7] mmHg; P < 0.001) and mean (95% CI) change in the amlodipine + 1AHD group was: SBP (- 22.4 [- - 28.8, - 16.0] mmHg; P < 0.001) and DBP (- 10.8 [- 14.0, - 7.6] mmHg; P < 0.001). SBP and DBP goals were achieved by 25.5% and 13.7% of patients on amlodipine monotherapy and by 29.8% and 14.0% of patients on amlodipine + 1AHD.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine prescribed as monotherapy or add-on therapy during routine clinical practice significantly reduced BP in ≤ 45- and ≥ 65-year-old Indian patients with mild to moderate hypertension, emphasizing that amlodipine may be a good candidate for BP control in Indian patients with essential hypertension in these age groups.

Two-drug fixed-dose combinations of blood pressure-lowering drugs as WHO essential medicines: An overview of efficacy, safety, and cost

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the world's leading cause of death. High blood pressure (BP) is the leading global risk factor for all-cause preventable morbidity and mortality. Globally, only about 14% of patients achieve BP control to systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. Most patients (>60%) require two or more drugs to achieve BP control, yet poor adherence to therapy is a major barrier to achieving this control. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of BP-lowering drugs are one means to improve BP control through greater adherence and efficacy, with favorable safety and cost profiles. The authors present a review of the supporting data from a successful application to the World Health Organization (WHO) for the inclusion of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs on the 21st WHO Essential Medicines List. The authors discuss the efficacy and safety of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs for the management of hypertension in adults, relevant hypertension guideline recommendations, and the estimated cost of such therapies.

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of a Single-Pill Combination of Olmesartan/Amlodipine/Hydrochlorothiazide in Korean Patients with Essential Hypertension (RESOLVE): A Large, Observational, Retrospective, Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination (SPC) of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/AML/HCTZ) have been established previously through multiple studies. However, the real-world data in Korean patients are still limited. This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of SPC of OLM/AML/HCTZ in a real practice setting in Korean patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, multi-center, non-comparative cohort study. Medical records of 9749 patients with essential hypertension who had been prescribed OLM/AML/HCTZ within 1 year of the study were analyzed. The primary outcome was the achievement rate (%) of the target blood pressure goal of a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of < 140 mmHg and a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of < 90 mmHg following administration of OLM/AML/HCTZ. The secondary outcomes included the rate of BP control measured at each visit, the amount of BP reduction compared to the index date, and the prescribing patterns of OLM/AML/HCTZ. Safety and tolerability were assessed by the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs) and discontinuation.

RESULTS

In the effectiveness analysis set (n = 9604), the overall achievement rate of target BP was 82.56%. The mean SBP/DBP was significantly reduced compared to baseline at all visits (all p < 0.0001), with the greatest reduction occurring at week 2. The achievement rate of target BP was above 71%, regardless of the presence of risk factors (diabetes mellitus, DM; cardiovascular disease, CVD; chronic kidney disease, CKD). Patients with CVD and aged > 65 years showed a significantly higher achievement rate (p < 0.05). A significant relationship existed between the primary outcome and age (p < 0.0001). The achievement rate exceeded 74% in all different age groups. In the safety analysis set (n = 9661), AEs were reported in 8.46% of patients, with the most frequent AE being dizziness. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and unexpected adverse events (UAEs) occurred in 0.96% and 3.73% patients, respectively. This was consistent with the previously reported safety profile of OLM/AML/HCTZ. The majority of AEs were mild to moderate and resolved during the observation period. The discontinuation rate of OLM/AML/HCTZ due to AEs was 1.67%.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated significant effectiveness of OLM/AML/HCTZ in achieving target BP in Korean patients with essential hypertension. OLM/AML/HCTZ was well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single pill combination in Egyptian patients with hypertension uncontrolled on any dual therapy: an observational study

Objective: Hypertension is a serious health problem in Egypt, with prevalence rate of 17% as reported in 2015. Despite receiving treatment, many do not achieve blood pressure (BP) control. The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCTZ) single pill combination (SPC) in patients with hypertension from Egypt, who were uncontrolled on any dual therapy.Methods: In this prospective, open label, multicenter, 12-week observational, cohort study, two doses of Aml/Val/HCTZ (5/160/12.5 mg or 10/160/25 mg) SPC were used to evaluate mean change in BP after 12 weeks (primary endpoint). Safety assessments included presence and intensity of ankle edema and other adverse events (AEs).Results: Data were collected from 1080 patients who were treated according to the routine medical practice across 47 centers in Egypt. Significant reduction in systolic and diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) was observed from 165.5 ± 12.83/100.8 ± 7.03 mmHg at baseline to 129.7 ± 8.35/80.6 ± 5.25 mmHg after 12 weeks of treatment (p < .0001). Majority of patients (76.85%) reached the BP goal of <140/90 mmHg. The most commonly reported AE was ankle edema (10.92%).Conclusions: Aml/Val/HCT SPC significantly reduced BP and was well tolerated in Egyptian patients with hypertension not controlled on any previous dual therapy.

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.

New approach to blood pressure control: Triple combination pill

Blood pressure (BP) control remains insufficient worldwide, mostly due to poor adherence to treatments, clinical inertia, adverse effects and underuse of drug-combination strategies. Monotherapy and its uptitration have been long considered the first-line strategy in the treatment of hypertension, often leading to ineffective, time consuming and frustrating results. On the other hand, several studies have demonstrated that starting and continuing antihypertensive therapy based on a drug combination is associated with a greater reduction of BP, an earlier achievement of therapeutic goals and a higher proportion of patients achieving targets with favorable implications on cardiovascular events. However, one-fourth to one-third of hypertensive patients fail to achieve BP control even with dual combination therapies, requiring three or more antihypertensive agents. The aim of this review is to discuss the effects of triple-drug associations in terms of BP lowering and prevention of major cardiovascular events, also in high-risk patients. We also discuss available data on side effects and tolerability of triple combination therapy, and the advantages to use a single-pill formulation to promote simplification and adherence to therapy. The findings reported have provided the background for most recent international guidelines on hypertension that support the use of dual and triple combination therapy for most patients.

A multicenter, randomized, and double-blind phase IV clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine orotate/valsartan 5/160 mg versus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide 160/12.5 mg in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by valsartan 160 mg monotherapy

BACKGROUND

To determine whether the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of amlodipine orotate/valsartan (AML/VAL) 5/160 mg are noninferior to those of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (VAL/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg in hypertensive patients with inadequate response to valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.

METHODS

This 8-week, active-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled, and noninferiority trial was conducted at 17 cardiovascular centers in the Republic of Korea. Eligible patients had mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ≥90 mm Hg despite monotherapy with valsartan 160 mg for 4 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC (AML/VAL) group or VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC (VAL/HCTZ) group once daily for 8 weeks. A total of 238 patients were enrolled (AML/VAL group, n = 121; VAL/HCTZ group, n = 117), of whom 228 completed the study.

RESULTS

At 8 weeks after randomization, msDBP was significantly decreased in both groups (-9.44 ± 0.69 mm Hg in the AML/VAL group and -7.47 ± 0.71 mm Hg in the VAL/HCTZ group, both P < .001 vs baseline). Between group difference was -1.96 ± 1.00 mm Hg, indicating that AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC was not inferior to VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC at primary efficacy endpoint. Control rate of BP defined as the percentage of patients achieving mean sitting SBP (msSBP) <140 mm Hg or msDBP <90 mm Hg (target BP) from baseline to week 8 was significantly higher in the AML/VAL group than that in the VAL/HCTZ group (84.3% [n = 102] in the AML/VAL group vs 71.3% [n = 82] in the VAL/HCTZ group, P = .016). At 8 weeks after randomization, mean uric acid level was significantly increased in the VAL/HCTZ group compared to that at baseline (0.64 ± 0.08 mg/dL; P < .001). However, it was slightly decreased from baseline in the AML/VAL group (-0.12 ± 0.08 mg/dL; P = .085). The intergroup difference was significant (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness and safety AML/VAL 5/160 mg FDC are noninferior to those of VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg FDC in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.

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.

Triple-combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension: a review of the evidence

Hypertension is a serious public health concern with inadequate control of blood pressure (BP) worldwide. Contributing factors include low efficacy of drugs, underuse of combination therapies, irrational combinations, physicians' therapeutic inertia and poor adherence to treatment. Current guidelines recommend the use of initial (dual) combination therapy in high-risk patients for immediate BP response, better short- and long-term BP control, and continued/improved patient adherence. This article aims to review the existing evidence of triple-combination therapies with respect to efficacy, safety and adherence to treatment. It is estimated that three drugs are required to achieve BP control in approximately one-fourth to one-third of patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that triple combinations of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine/olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide produce greater BP reductions, with greater proportions of patients achieving BP control compared with dual therapies. Further evidence also demonstrates that triple-combination therapy is efficacious for moderate to severe hypertension, with substantial additional BP reduction over dual regimens. Both RCTs and post-marketing observational studies have shown consistent and comparable efficacy in both the general population and high-risk hypertensive subgroups. Triple therapies are generally well tolerated with adverse event profiles similar to dual regimens. In addition, fixed-dose combinations used as single pill improve patient adherence leading to better long-term BP control. Depending on regional circumstances, they may also be cost effective. Thus, single-pill triple combinations of different classes of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action help to treat patients to goal with improved efficacy and better adherence to treatment.

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.

Real-life Effectiveness and Safety of Amlodipine/Valsartan Single-pill Combination in Patients with Hypertension in Egypt: Results from the EXCITE Study

BACKGROUND

EXCITE (clinical experience of amlodipine and valsartan in hypertension) evaluated the real-world effectiveness and safety of single-pill combinations (SPCs) of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCTZ) in patients with hypertension from the Middle East and Asia.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to report the results of EXCITE study from Egypt, where all patients were prescribed Aml/Val.

METHODS

This was a 26-week, observational, multicenter, prospective, non-interventional, open-label study. Effectiveness was assessed as change in the mean sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (msSBP/msDBP) from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving the therapeutic blood pressure (BP) goal (<140/90; <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) and BP response (SBP <140 mmHg or reduction of ≥20 mmHg; DBP <90 mmHg or reduction of ≥10 mmHg). Safety was monitored by recording the incidence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs).

RESULTS

A total of 2566 patients (mean age, 52.6 years; mean duration of hypertension, 7.9 years) were prescribed Aml/Val, of whom 2439 (95.1 %) completed the study. At week 26, Aml/Val SPC significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced msSBP/msDBP by -34.5/-19.4 mmHg from baseline (BP: 164.3/100.5 mmHg). Therapeutic goal, SBP response, and DBP response was achieved by 49.3, 91.1, and 91.4 % of patients, respectively. AEs were reported in 12.5 % of patients, with the most common including peripheral edema (1.8 %), bronchitis (1.1 %), and gastritis (0.8 %), and SAEs in 0.5 % of patients. Two deaths were reported during the study, none of which were considered to be study drug related by the investigators.

CONCLUSION

Aml/Val SPC provided clinically significant BP reductions and was generally well tolerated in patients with hypertension from Egypt.

Real-world effectiveness of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in high-risk patients and other subgroups

Background

The clinical EXCITE (EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study reported clinically relevant blood pressure (BP) reductions across all doses of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and Aml/Val/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) single-pill combinations. The study prospectively observed a multiethnic population of hypertensive patients for 26 weeks who were treated according to routine clinical practice. Here, we present the results in high-risk subgroups including the elderly, obese patients, and patients with diabetes or isolated systolic hypertension. In addition, we present a post hoc analysis as per prior antihypertensive monotherapy and dual therapy.

Methods

Patients prescribed Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT were assessed in this 26±8 week, noninterventional, multicenter study across 13 countries in the Middle East and Asia. Changes in mean sitting systolic BP, mean sitting diastolic BP, and overall safety were assessed.

Results

Of a total of 9,794 patients analyzed, 8,603 and 1,191 patients were prescribed Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT, respectively. Among these, 15.5% were elderly, 32.5% were obese, 31.3% had diabetes, and 9.8% had isolated systolic hypertension. Both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations, respectively, were associated with clinically relevant and significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP reductions across all subgroups: elderly patients (−32.2/−14.3 mmHg and −38.5/−16.5 mmHg), obese patients (−32.2/−17.9 mmHg and −38.5/−18.4 mmHg), diabetic patients (−30.3/−16.1 mmHg and −34.4/−16.6 mmHg), and patients with isolated systolic hypertension (−25.5/−4.1 mmHg and −30.2/−5.9 mmHg). Incremental BP reductions with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations were also observed in patients receiving prior monotherapy or dual therapy for hypertension. Overall, both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT were generally well tolerated.

Conclusion

This large, multiethnic study supports the evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/ HCT single-pill combinations are effective in diverse and clinically important subgroups of patients with hypertension.