Effect of Amlodipine/Nebivolol combination therapy on central BP and PWV compared to Amlodipine/Valsartan combination therapy

Effect of nebivolol monotherapy or combination therapy on blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension: an updated systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis of 91 randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To systematically appraise and summarize the available evidence from published randomized controlled trials considering the effect of nebivolol on blood pressure in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Literature search was performed through Medline (via PubMed), Cochrane Library and Scopus until December 15, 2023. Double-independent study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Evidence was pooled with three-level mixed-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 7,737 participants with hypertension, who were treated with nebivolol, were analyzed across 91 RCTs. Nebivolol was associated with significantly greater reduction in office systolic and diastolic BP compared to placebo (MD = - 6.01 mmHg; 95% CI = [- 7.46, - 4.55] and MD = - 5.01 mmHg; 95% CI = [- 5.91, - 4.11], respectively). Moreover, resulted a similar reduction in systolic BP (MD = - 0.22 mmHg; 95% CI = [- 0.91, 0.46]) and a significantly greater reduction in diastolic BP compared to the active comparator (MD = - 0.71 mmHg; 95% CI = [- 1.27, - 0.16]). When considering the effect of nebivolol on 24-hour ambulatory BP, notable reductions were observed compared to placebo. In contrast, compared to the active comparators, there was no significant difference in systolic BP reduction, but a significant reduction in diastolic BP favoring nebivolol. Based on moderator analyses, the impact of nebivolol on the pooled estimates remained independent of the dose of nebivolol, age, male sex, trial duration, body mass index (BMI), baseline diabetes, heart failure, and baseline systolic and diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Nebivolol, compared to placebo, showed a significant BP reduction and was non-inferior to other active comparators in terms of BP reduction.

Extemporaneous combination therapy with nebivolol/amlodipine for the treatment of hypertension: a real-world evidence study in Europe

OBJECTIVE

The investigation of the real-world use of the extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine (NA-EXC) in adult patients diagnosed with hypertension in Europe.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data extracted from seven databases of patient medical records and prescriptions from Italy, Germany, France, Hungary, and Poland, to determine the prevalence and incidence of NA-EXC use and to estimate the number of patients potentially eligible for a single-pill combination of the two antihypertensives. Secondary objectives included: the description of the population of NA-EXC users and the assessment of their adherence to treatment based on the proportion of days covered.

RESULTS

The use of NA-EXC was found to be common in Europe and ranged between 2.9% to 9.9% of all patients identified in the databases with a prescription of nebivolol and/or amlodipine. The estimated numbers of patients potentially eligible in 2019 for a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine in Italy and Germany were, respectively, 178,133 and 113,240. Users of NA-EXC were mostly aged 70-79 years, had metabolic disorders and other comorbidities; >70% of them had received ≥2 concomitant medications before starting NA-EXC. Adherence to NA-EXC was defined as high only in 15.6% to 35% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine is commonly prescribed in Europe, however adherence to the therapy is poor. The development of a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine may improve adherence by reducing the number of pills administered to patients and thus simplifying treatment regimens.

Comparison of arterial stiffness indices measured by pulse wave velocity and pulse wave analysis for predicting cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in a Chinese population

Arterial stiffness measured by pulse wave velocity and pulse wave analysis has been widely studied in different populations in terms of its correlation with cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. It remains unknown which arterial stiffness index is better for risk stratification in the general population. We included 4129 participants from Gaoyou County, Jiangsu Province, China, with a median follow-up of 11 years. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular mortality, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Harrell's C-index, net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) based on the Cox proportional hazards regression model were evaluated to assess predictive discrimination and accuracy. The associations between the 4 indices and cardiovascular mortality remained significant after adjusting for the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) and/or associated risk factors. Considering reclassification based on the newly integrated models (FRS model combined with the 4 indices), NRI for cardiovascular mortality showed that haPWV and baPWV had more significant improvement in reclassification compared with C1 and C2 [NRI with 95% CI: haPWV 0.410 (0.293, 0.523); baPWV 0.447 (0.330, 0.553); C1 0.312 (0.182, 0.454); C2 0.328 (0.159, 0.463); all P < 0.05]. This study showed that pulse wave velocity (haPWV and baPWV) provides better discrimination of long-term risk than arterial elasticity indices (C1 and C2) in the general population.