Valsartan addition to amlodipine is more effective than losartan addition in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by amlodipine

Renoprotective effects of stevia (Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni), amlodipine, valsartan, and losartan in gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity in the rat model: Biochemical, hematological and histological approaches

The current study investigated the renoprotective effects of stevia, angiotensin-II type 1 receptor (AT1) blocker and calcium (Ca2+) channel blocker in gentamycin-induced nephrotoxicity in rat models. Six groups of male Sprague-Dawley rats of eight weeks old were taken for the experiment: sham control, nephrotoxicity, treatment with amlodipine (4 mg/kg/day); stevia (200 mg/kg/day); losartan (15 mg/kg/day) and valsartan (5 mg/kg/day), accordingly. The blood sample was taken for the assessment of renal and hepatic-functional variables like serum creatinine, blood urea, BUN and SGPT, SGOT, and total serum bilirubin. Hematological parameters were also examined. Histological examination has been done on kidneys and liver. Alterations of the body weight and the organ's weight were documented. Treatment with stevia and valsartan significantly decreased serum creatinine levels. A reduction of liver enzymes, and total serum bilirubin levels were observed in all the treatment groups. Treatment with valsartan and amlodipine, remarkably and stevia, mildly reduced the renal tissue damage, inflammation, and tubular necrosis. However, the present study demonstrated that losartan treatment aggravated kidney damage by increasing protein cast, calcification, tubular necrosis, and injury. This comparison indicated that both stevia and valsartan have beneficial renoprotective effect and valsartan offers a better treatment option in renal damage over losartan.

Calcium channel blockers in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy

This paper summarizes the pharmacological properties of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), their established therapeutic uses for cardiovascular disorders and the current improvement of their clinical effects through drug combinations. Their identification resulted from study of small molecules including coronary dilators, which were named calcium antagonists. Further experiments showed that they reduced contraction of arteries by inhibiting calcium entry and by interacting with binding sites identified on voltage-dependent calcium channels. This led to the denomination calcium channel blockers. In short-term studies, by decreasing total peripheral resistance, CCBs lower arterial pressure. By unloading the heart and increasing coronary blood flow, CCBs improve myocardial oxygenation. In long-term treatment, the decrease in blood pressure is more pronounced in hypertensive than in normotensive patients. A controversy on the safety of CCBs ended after a large antihypertensive trial (ALLHAT) sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. There are two main types of CCBs: dihydopyridine and non-dihydropyridine; the first type is vascular selective. Dihydropyrines are indicated for hypertension, chronic, stable and vasospastic angina. Non-dihydropyridines have the same indications plus antiarrythmic effects in atrial fibrillation or flutter and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. In addition, CCBs reduced newly formed coronary lesions in atherosclerosis. In order to reach recommended blood pressure goals, there is a recent therapeutic move by combination of CCBs with other antihypertensive agents particularly with inhibitors acting at the level of the renin-angiotensin system. They are also combined with statins. Prevention of dementia has been reported in hypertensive patients treated with nitrendipine, opening a way for further studies on CCBs' beneficial effect in cognitive deterioration associated with aging.

Combination therapy in hypertension

Hypertension is recognized as a major risk factor for cardiovascular and renal diseases and represents the leading cause of mortality worldwide. In spite of proven benefits of hypertension treatment, blood pressure control rates are poor, even in high-income countries with virtually full-access to therapies. Nearly 75% of hypertensive patients do not achieve adequate control with monotherapy, thus needing combination treatment. Strategies to improve blood pressure control include the prompt shift from monotherapy to combination therapy, the initial treatment with a two-drug combination, and the use of fixed-dose combinations in a single pill. Currently, preferred combinations include a renin-angiotensin blocker, either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker plus a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic. Some patients will also require a triple combination to achieve blood pressure control.

Efficacy and safety of valsartan compared to enalapril in hypertensive children: a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE

This study compares efficacy and safety of valsartan with enalapril in hypertensive children aged 6-17 years.

METHOD

This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled study. After a single-blind placebo run-in period (4-28 days), patients with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) (MSSBP) at least 95th percentile for age, gender, and height were randomized to receive half the assigned dose for first week, and force-titrated to full dose for 11 weeks (≥18 to <35 kg - valsartan: 80 mg, enalapril: 10 mg; ≥35 to <80 kg - valsartan: 160 mg, enalapril: 20 mg; ≥80 to ≤160 kg - valsartan: 320 mg, enalapril: 40 mg). The primary efficacy variable was changed from baseline in MSSBP to show noninferiority of valsartan to enalapril. Other efficacy variables were changed from baseline in MSDBP, SBP control rate, and 24-h ambulatory BP parameters.

RESULTS

Of 300 randomized patients, 281 (94%) completed the study. At week 12, MSSBP reductions were similar for valsartan and enalapril (primary endpoint of noninferiority, P < 0.0001). Least square mean BP reductions from baseline of -15.4/-9.4 mmHg were observed for valsartan compared with -14.1/-8.5 mmHg for enalapril. A similar proportion of patients achieved SBP control (valsartan: 67%; enalapril: 70%). In the subset of patients who underwent ambulatory BP assessments, valsartan provided greater reductions than enalapril in mean 24-h SBP (valsartan: -9.8 mmHg, enalapril: -7.2 mmHg: P = 0.03). The overall incidence of AEs was similar (valsartan 60%, enalapril 58%) with headache, cough, and nasopharyngitis reported most frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

Valsartan and enalapril provided comparable BP reductions and effective BP control and were well tolerated in hypertensive children aged 6-17 years.

Amlodipine/valsartan single-pill combination: a prospective, observational evaluation of the real-life safety and effectiveness in the routine treatment of hypertension

INTRODUCTION

As several international guidelines on hypertension have now recommended, single-pill/fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapies may be particularly beneficial as first-line therapy in high-risk patients, in whom more rapid and pronounced blood pressure (BP) control is desired. Upon the single-pill combination of amlodipine and valsartan becoming available, the authors conducted this international, observational study to evaluate its efficacy and safety in a real-life practice setting.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, postmarketing surveillance study enrolled adults with arterial hypertension (systolic BP >140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP >90 mmHg) who were prescribed antihypertensive therapy with single-pill combination amlodipine/valsartan 5/80, 5/160, or 10/160 mg once daily. Patients were observed over a 3-month period (12 weeks) with approximately monthly intervals between clinic visits.

RESULTS

A total of 8336 patients completed all study visits and were included in the efficacy analysis. Mean age was 54.7 years and 83.4% of patients had received prior antihypertensive therapy. BP reductions were dose related. Overall, mean BP was reduced from 165.0/99.3 mmHg at baseline to 128.7/80.4 mmHg at 12 weeks (36.3/18.9 mmHg; P<0.0001). The magnitude of BP reduction rose with increasing severity of baseline BP. Control of BP (<140/90 mmHg) was achieved in 77.7% of patients. Efficacy was consistent in subgroups of patients with comorbidities and regardless of whether patients were previously treated with monotherapy or combination therapy. Adverse events were reported in 5.3% of patients. The incidence of edema declined from 10.4% at baseline to 8.5% at study end.

CONCLUSION

Single-pill combination amlodipine/valsartan safely and effectively reduced BP across all hypertension grades and allowed the vast majority of patients to achieve BP goals.