Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide

Combining angiotensin receptor blockers with chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide - which is the better alternative? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a disease with significant clinical and socio-economic consequences. The reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients treated for hypertension is directly related to the magnitude of blood pressure reduction. Diuretics have proven useful for the prevention of cardiovascular complications in addition to a long history of safety and efficacy. The main aim for this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of the combination of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and chlorthalidone (CTLD) to the combination of ARB and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted through electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsyInfo, Cochrane, eLIBRARY.ru, http://ClinicalTrials.gov and http://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu in July 2020 to identify studies that investigate the effect of the combination of angiotensin receptor blocker with chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide on the systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) expressed as a weighted mean difference (WMD) were our primary outcomes. The random-effects method was chosen as the primary analysis and results were presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Sensitivity analysis was performed and bias was assessed.

RESULTS

Our search returned 2745 titles. Of them, 51 full-text articles remained to be subjected to assessment. Comparisons of ARB/HCTZ versus ARB showed changes in BP of -6.89 (-8.09, -5.69) mmHg for systolic BP and - 3.67 (-4.15, -3.19) mmHg for diastolic BP. For the ARB/CTLD versus ARB/HCTZ comparison changes were - 6.30 (-7.30, -5.29) mmHg for systolic BP and - 3.57 (-4.17, 2.98) mmHg for diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests a small but significant favor for CTLD in blood pressure control when compared to HCTZ. We believe it should be considered as a valuable alternative for HCTZ and an option for fixed dose combinations with an ARB although further research is required.

Effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide in combination with telmisartan and olmesartan in adults with moderate hypertension not controlled with monotherapy: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE), parallel-arm study

BACKGROUND

The potential combinations of antihypertensive agents are many, and making rational choices depends on the characteristics of each drug and on their complementary mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to olmesartan 20 mg or telmisartan 80 mg on blood pressure (BP) in patients with moderate hypertension.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients at the Centro per l'Ipertensione e la Fisiopatologia Cardiovascolare, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, of both sexes aged 39 to 75 years were considered eligible for enrollment if they had a sitting diastolic BP (DBP) ->99 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg at the end of an initial 2-week washout period. Patients were random- ized to olmesartan 20 mg QD or telmisartan 80 mg QD according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-arm design. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ->90 mm Hg) received HCTZ 12.5 mg QD for 8 additional weeks. Clinical and ambulatory BPs were measured at the end of the washout period and at the end of both treatment periods. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from spontaneous reports and direct inquiry from investigators.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five patients, all of whom were white, were recruited for the study. After the initial washout period, 13 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 refused to continue. A total of 126 white patients (69 men, 57 women; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.6] years) were randomized to receive monotherapy. Of these, 35 patients (56%) in the olmesartan group and 33 (52%) in the telmisartan group had previously received antihypertensive therapy. At the end of monotherapy, the 52 patients in the olmesartan group and the 49 patients in the telmisartan treatment group who were still in the study and had their BP inadequately controlled by treatment had HCTZ 12.5 mg QD added to their treatment regimen. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP) and DBP reduction than monothera- py (SBP: 145.3 [6.1] in the olmesartan group and 140.1 [6.4] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05; DBP: 88.1 [5.1] in the olmesartan group and 84.9 [4.9] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05). The mean (SD) reduction from baseline in the telmisartan/HCTZ-treated patients (21.5 [10.1]/14.6 [5.2] mm Hg for 24 hours, 21.8 [10.2]/14.9 [5.2] mm Hg for daytime, and 20.4 [10.3]/13.7 [5.9] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline) was significantly greater than that observed in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (18.8 [9.8]/12.3 [4.9] mm Hg for 24 hours, 19.3 [9.8]/12.8 [4.9] mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4 [10.2]/10.6 [5.5] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline), with a significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.01). Compared with mono- therapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg QD administration was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the olmesartan group (P < 0.05); the differ- ence being more evident for nighttime BP values (SBP, P 0.031; DBP, P 0.025). Reported AEs were similar in the olmesartan/HCTZ and the telmisartan/HCTZ groups (4 patients [7%] vs 3 patients [6%]).

CONCLUSION

The addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to telmisartan 80 mg monothera- py was associated with greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 nag monotherapy in these patients previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.

Triple combination therapy to improve blood pressure control: experience with olmesartan-amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide therapy

INTRODUCTION

Effective treatment of hypertension is a key strategy for preventing and reducing the burden of hypertension-related cardiovascular diseases. In spite of these well-established concepts, hypertension remains poorly controlled, worldwide. Among the different pharmacological strategies required to improve blood pressure (BP) control, a more extensive use of combination therapy is progressively emerging as a cornerstone of a more effective treatment of hypertension. Among different drug combinations currently available for the clinical management of hypertension, those based on the association of drugs inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system, thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers have demonstrated to be very effective in lowering both systolic and diastolic, clinic and 24-h ambulatory BP levels with a good tolerability and safety profile.

AREAS COVERED

In the present manuscript the authors provide an overview of the evidence supporting the use of triple combination therapy with different classes of antihypertensive drugs, with a particular focus on those based on olmesartan medoxomil, a thiazide diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide) and a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate).

EXPERT OPINION

Available data indicate that triple combination therapy based on olmesartan provides effective and sustained clinical and 24-h BP control in a high proportion of individuals among a broad range of hypertensive patients.

What is a preferred angiotensin II receptor blocker-based combination therapy for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with diabetic and non-diabetic renal impairment?

Hypertension has a major associated risk for organ damage and mortality, which is further heightened in patients with prior cardiovascular (CV) events, comorbid diabetes mellitus, microalbuminuria and renal impairment. Given that most patients with hypertension require at least two antihypertensives to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, identifying the most appropriate combination regimen based on individual risk factors and comorbidities is important for risk management. Single-pill combinations (SPCs) containing two or more antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action offer potential advantages over free-drug combinations, including simplification of treatment regimens, convenience and reduced costs. The improved adherence and convenience resulting from SPC use is recognised in updated hypertension guidelines. Despite a wide choice of SPCs for hypertension treatment, clinical evidence from direct head-to-head comparisons to guide selection for individual patients is lacking. However, in patients with evidence of renal disease or at greater risk of developing renal disease, such as those with diabetes mellitus, microalbuminura and high-normal BP or overt hypertension, guidelines recommend renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker-based combination therapy due to superior renoprotective effects compared with other antihypertensive classes. Furthermore, RAS inhibitors attenuate the oedema and renal hyperfiltration associated with calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy, making them a good choice for combination therapy. The occurrence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-induced cough supports the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for RAS blockade rather than ACE inhibitors. In this regard, ARB-based SPCs are available in combination with the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or the calcium CCB, amlodipine. Telmisartan, a long-acting ARB with preferential pharmacodynamic profile compared with several other ARBs, and the only ARB with an indication for the prevention of CV disease progression, is available in two SPC formulations, telmisartan/HCTZ and telmisartan/amlodipine. Clinical studies suggest that in CV high-risk patients and those with evidence of renal disease, the use of an ARB/CCB combination may be preferred to ARB/HCTZ combinations due to superior renoprotective and CV benefits and reduced metabolic side effects in patients with concomitant metabolic disorders. However, selection of the most appropriate antihypertensive combination should be dependent on careful review of the individual patient and appropriate consideration of drug pharmacology.

Role of olmesartan in combination therapy in blood pressure control and vascular function

Angiotensin receptor blockers have emerged as a first-line therapy in the management of hypertension and hypertension-related comorbidities. Since national and international guidelines have stressed the need to control blood pressure to <140/90 mmHg in uncomplicated hypertension and <130/80 mmHg in those with associated comorbidities such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, these goal blood pressures can only be achieved through combination therapy. Of several drugs that can be effectively combined to attain the recommended blood pressure goals, fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine provide additive antihypertensive effects associated with a safe profile and increased adherence to therapy. In this article, we review the evidence regarding the beneficial effects of renin–angiotensin system blockade with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine in terms of blood pressure control and improvement of vascular function and target organ damage.

Safety and tolerability of fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide for rapid control of severe hypertension

This prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial compared the safety and tolerability of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed-dose combination therapy with irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension (seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) >or=110 mm Hg, mean BP 172/113 mm Hg at baseline). Patients were randomized 2:1 to 7 weeks' irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg to 300/25 mg (n = 468) or irbesartan 150 mg to 300 mg (n = 227). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was similar with combination and monotherapy (11.3% and 10.1%), and most AEs were mild-to-moderate. The combined incidence of prespecified AEs was lower with irbesartan/HCTZ than with irbesartan (8.8% vs. 11.5%). There were no treatment-related serious AEs or deaths. At week 5, more patients achieved SeDBP < 90 mm Hg compared to irbesartan (47% vs. 33%; P = 0.0005). Despite more rapid and aggressive BP lowering, initial fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ demonstrated a comparable AE profile to irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension.

Irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension: a subgroup analysis of the INCLUSIVE trial

This post hoc analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Adults with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) (140-179 mm Hg; 130-179 mm Hg in type 2 diabetes) after 4 weeks or more of antihypertensive monotherapy once-daily treatment with placebo for 4-5 weeks, followed by HCTZ 12.5 mg for 2 weeks, irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg for 8 weeks, and then irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg for 8 weeks, in a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension (n = 443) and the total study population (n = 736), irbesartan/HCTZ treatment for 16 weeks provided comparable mean blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline (21.4/10.1 mm Hg vs 21.5/10.4 mm Hg; p < .001 vs baseline) and high SBP control rates (74% vs 77%). Patients with isolated systolic hypertension and concomitant type 2 diabetes experienced smaller BP reductions (17.9/8.7 mm Hg vs 22.9/10.7 mm Hg) and lower rates of SBP control (< 130 mm Hg, 47%) than those without diabetes (< 140 mm Hg, 87%). BP reductions from baseline and SBP control rates were similar across isolated systolic hypertension subgroups (> or = 65 vs < 65 years, sex, race, and metabolic syndrome status). Irbesartan/HCTZ was well tolerated, with drug-related adverse events (dizziness, < or = 3%; upper respiratory tract infection, < or = 2%) occurring with similar rates in the isolated systolic hypertension and total population. Fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ combination treatment provided effective and well-tolerated BP lowering in a diverse population of patients with isolated systolic hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of fixed combinations of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive women: the inclusive trial

OBJECTIVE

This post hoc analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a diverse population of hypertensive women.

METHODS

INCLUSIVE was a multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-arm trial. Adult subjects had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP 140-159 mm Hg; 130-159 mm Hg for those with type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM]) after > or =4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. Treatment was sequential: placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). Mean changes from baseline to treatment end in SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), BP goal attainment, and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Treatment with irbesartan/HCTZ was associated with significant mean reductions in BP (intent-to-treat population, n = 370; SBP/DBP: -22.9/-10.3 +/- 14.7/8.8 mm Hg). Improvements in SBP were observed in all subgroups (p < 0.001): Caucasian (n = 207) -23.5 +/- 13.5 mm Hg; African American (n = 93) -21.0 +/- 17.2 mm Hg; Hispanics/Latino (n = 66) -23.6 +/- 14.3 mm Hg; age <65 years (n = 281) -22.5 +/- 14.7 mm Hg; age > or =65 years (n = 89) -24.3 +/- 14.5 mm Hg; T2DM (n = 97) -19.0 +/- 15.1 mm Hg; and metabolic syndrome (n = 187) -22.1 +/- 14.6 mm Hg. Overall, 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78%-86%) of women achieved their SBP goal, 86% (95% CI 83%-90%) achieved their DBP goal, and 76% (95% CI 71%-80%) achieved their dual SBP/DBP goal. Treatments were well tolerated in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Irbesartan/HCTZ treatment was effective and well tolerated in a diverse population of women whose BP was previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.

Predictors of blood pressure response to angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination therapy: a secondary analysis of the irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide blood pressure reductions in diverse patient populations (INCLUSIVE) study

The secondary analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) clinical trial investigated whether baseline demographic and clinical variables are predictive of different degrees of blood pressure reduction following an angiotensin II receptor blocker/diuretic treatment regimen. Irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide and other angiotensin receptor blocker combinations with a diuretic have been shown to be effective in reducing systolic blood pressure in a diverse patient population previously uncontrolled on monotherapy. Ordinary least squares regression analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat population of the INCLUSIVE study to identify variables predictive of variations in blood pressure changes in response to irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy. Higher baseline systolic blood pressure, female sex, type 2 diabetes, and statin therapy were found to be predictive of additional blood pressure lowering with this combination. The impact of higher baseline systolic blood pressure and diabetic state on changes in systolic blood pressure were diminished in female patients compared with male patients. In conclusion, a significant correlation may exist between certain clinical/demographic characteristics and the extent of the therapeutic response with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide treatment.

Efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan medoxomil in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: the OLMEBEST Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Achieving target BP is important to control the increased cardiovascular risk associated with uncontrolled hypertension. However, failure to respond to therapy is common with all classes of antihypertensive agents. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) possess many of the positive features of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, with fewer adverse effects. However, many patients fail to respond adequately to low-dose monotherapy. This study examined whether olmesartan medoxomil dose titration and olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy were therapeutically equivalent in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension who had shown an inadequate response to low-dose olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, parallel group, partially randomised, double-blind study set in 463 centres in nine European countries. 2306 male and female adult patients aged 18-75 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic BP [DBP] > or =90mm Hg and <110mm Hg) were enrolled. All enrolled patients received open-label olmesartan medoxomil 20mg once daily for 8 weeks. At the end of this period, patients whose BP had not normalised (sitting DBP > or =90mm Hg) were randomised to receive olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy (40mg once daily, n = 302) or olmesartan medoxomil (20mg once daily)/hydrochlorothiazide (12.5mg once daily) combination therapy (n = 325) for 4 weeks. The main outcome measure was change in mean sitting DBP during randomised treatment.

RESULTS

After 8 weeks of open-label treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day, 76% of patients showed a DBP response (sitting DBP <90mm Hg or reduction of > or =10mm Hg). During the randomised phase of the study, both treatments were associated with further improvements in sitting SBP/DBP: a reduction of 5.3/5.1mm Hg with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/day, and a reduction of 10.8/7.9mm Hg with olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy. Final mean BPs of 145.3/90.9mm Hg (olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/day) and 140.7/88.7mm Hg (olmesartan medoxomil 20mg + hydrochlorothiazide) were achieved, compared with a mean BP of 160.8/100.5mm Hg at baseline. The two treatments were not therapeutically equivalent. Sitting DBP showed a response and was normalised (<90mm Hg) in 62% and 47% of olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy patients, respectively. In the combination therapy group, these endpoints were achieved by 71% (response) and 59% (normalisation) of patients. Treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/day was associated with a lower frequency of adverse events than olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy (21.5% vs 28.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

For patients who did not achieve adequate BP control after initial treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil dose titration (to 40 mg/day) or addition of hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg/day) elicited a sitting DBP response in the majority of patients who had failed to respond to low-dose monotherapy, and normalisation of sitting DBP in approximately 50% of patients. Both these strategies represent effective and well tolerated treatment options in patients who show an inadequate response to low-dose monotherapy with olmesartan medoxomil.

Treatment of hypertension with olmesartan medoxomil, alone and in combination with a diuretic: an update

Olmesartan medoxomil is an angiotensin II (Ang II) receptor blocker (ARB) that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of hypertension. It is a prodrug that is hydrolysed in the gut into its active metabolite, olmesartan (RNH-6270). Olmesartan is highly selective for the Ang II type 1 receptor (AT1) to which it binds completely and insurmountably and has very little affinity for the other receptor subtypes AT2 and AT4. After oral administration, in animals and humans, it achieves a maximal blood drug concentration within a maximal time of approximately 2 h. It is then slowly eliminated in the urine and faeces. His half-life is approximately 13 h, which makes it suitable for once-daily administration. Olmesartan medoxomil given orally in single daily doses of 20-40 mg has demonstrated significant blood pressure (BP) lowering effects in hypertensive patients. A medline search for the preparation of this manuscript was conducted and revealed 128 references, from 2000 to 2007. Of these, only 16 well-designed prospective clinical trials were selected. The remaining were either animal studies, reviews or studies in progress. In well-designed clinical trials, olmesartan medoxomil has demonstrated similar antihypertensive actions to the other antihypertensive drugs, as well as other members of its class given the highest recommended doses. In addition, the BP lowering effect of olmesartan, like the other members of its class, is greatly enhanced in combination with a diuretic. Its safety profile is similar to the other ARBs and no different than placebo.

Hydrochlorothiazide added to valsartan is more effective than when added to olmesartan in reducing blood pressure in moderately hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by monotherapy

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects on blood pressure of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg added to valsartan 160 mg or to olmesartan 20 mg in hypertensive patients. After a 2-wk placebo period, 130 patients, aged 35 to 75 y, with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >or=99 and 110 mm Hg were randomly assigned to olmesartan 20 mg once daily or to valsartan 160 mg once daily according to a prospective, parallel-arm study design. After 4 wk of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP >or=90 mm Hg) were given combination treatment with HCTZ 12.5 mg for an additional 4 wk. At the end of the placebo period and at the end of each treatment period, clinical and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded. At the end of the combination therapy period, venous blood samples were drawn 2, 4, and 24 h after drug intake for evaluation of HCTZ plasma concentrations. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory BP reduction than monotherapy. However, mean reduction from baseline in the valsartan/HCTZ-treated patients (-21.5)-14.6 mm Hg for 24 h, -21.8/-14.9 mm Hg for daytime, and -20.4/-13.7 mm Hg for nighttime systolic blood pressure [SBP]/DBP) was greater than in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients )-18.8/-12.3 mm Hg for 24 h, -19.3/-12.8 mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4/-10.6 mm Hg for nighttime SBP/DBP). The difference between the effects of the 2 treatments was significant (P<.01). In particular, compared with monotherapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg was significantly greater in the valsartan group than in those treated with olmesartan; the difference was more evident for nighttime BP values. Plasma concentrations of HCTZ were significantly greater with valsartan than with olmesartan at each determination time (P<.05). These findings suggest that the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to valsartan 160 mg monotherapy produces a greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 mg monotherapy.

The pleiotropic effects of angiotensin receptor blockers

The angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are very effective and safe antihypertensive drugs. They exert their antihypertensive effect through blockage of the angiotensin II, type 1 receptor and quite possibly through stimulation by angiotensin II of the unoccupied type 2 receptor. Besides hypertension, the ARBs have been found recently to be of value in the treatment of heart failure and diabetic nephropathy. In addition, ARBs have emerged lately as being very effective and perhaps superior to other antihypertensive drugs in the prevention of de novo or recurrent strokes. Other actions that may account for their stroke-protective effects include their antiatherogenic, antidiabetic, antiplatelet aggregating, hypouricemic, and atrial antifibrillatory actions. All these actions make the ARBs a true pleiotropic class of drugs. Each of the foregoing effects will be discussed briefly in this concise review.

The Efficacy and Safety of Low- and High- Dose Fixed Combinations of Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide in Patients With Uncontrolled Systolic Blood Pressure on Monotherapy: The INCLUSIVE Trial

This multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-arm study determined the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combinations in patients (n=1005), aged 18 years and older, with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 140-159 mm Hg (130-159 mm Hg for type 2 diabetes mellitus) after at least 4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. Treatment was sequential: placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). Enrolled patients (n=844) were aged 57.3+/-11.2 years; 52% were women, 23% were African American, and 14% were Hispanic. Thirty percent had type 2 diabetes mellitus, 46% had metabolic syndrome, and baseline blood pressure was 154.0+/-10.3/91.3+/-8.8 mm Hg. The mean change in SBP from placebo end to the primary end point, Week 18 (intent-to-treat population, n=736) was -21.5+/-14.3 mm Hg (p<0.001). The mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was -10.4+/-8.7 mm Hg (p<0.001). The mean Week 18 SBP/DBP was 132.9+/-13.8/81.1+/-9.7 mm Hg. Overall, 77% (95% confidence interval, 74%-80%) of patients achieved SBP goal (<140 mm Hg; <130 mm Hg for type 2 diabetes mellitus); 83% (95% confidence interval, 80%-86%) achieved DBP goal (<90 mm Hg; <80 mm Hg for type 2 diabetes mellitus); and 69% (95% confidence interval, 66%-72%) achieved dual SBP/DBP goal. Treatments were well tolerated. This irbesartan/HCTZ treatment regimen achieved SBP goals in more than 75% of patients uncontrolled on monotherapy.