Efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of metoprolol extended release/amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: a randomized, parallel-group, multicentre comparison with losartan plus amlodipine

Blood pressure lowering effects of β-blockers as add-on or combination therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The authors performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of non-atenolol β-blockers as add-on to monotherapy or as a component of combination antihypertensive therapy in patients with hypertension. The authors searched and identified relevant randomized controlled trials from PubMed until November 2021. Studies comparing blood pressure lowering effects of β-blockers with diuretics, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were included. The analysis included 20 studies with 5544 participants. β-blockers add-on to monotherapy significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure as compared with non-β-blocker monotherapy (weighted mean difference in mm Hg [95% confidence interval]: -4.1 [-6.0, -2.2] and -3.7 [-4.6, -2.8], respectively). These results were consistent across the comparisons with diuretics (systolic pressure, -10.2 [-14.2, -6.2]; diastolic pressure, -5.4 [-8.2, -2.6]), CCBs (systolic pressure, -4.1 [-7.1, -1.0]; diastolic pressure, -2.8 [-4.1, -1.5]), and ACEIs/ARBs (systolic pressure, -2.9 [-4.3, -1.5]; diastolic pressure, -4.2 [-5.0, -3.4]). There was no significant difference in blood pressure lowering effects between combinations with and without a β-blocker (systolic pressure, -1.3 mm Hg [-5.8, 3.2]; diastolic pressure, -.3 mm Hg [-2.7, 2.1]). Metoprolol add-on or combination therapy had a significantly greater blood pressure reduction than non-β-blocker therapy (systolic pressure, -3.6 mm Hg [-5.9, -1.3]; diastolic pressure, -2.1 mm Hg [-3.5, -.7]). In conclusion, non-atenolol β-blockers are effective in lowering blood pressure as add-on to monotherapy or as a component of combination antihypertensive therapy. In line with the current hypertension guideline recommendations, β-blockers can and should be used in combination with other antihypertensive drugs.

Evaluation of research on interventions aligned to WHO 'Best Buys' for NCDs in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review from 1990 to 2015

Background

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with low-income and middle-income countries experiencing a disproportionately high burden. Since 2010 WHO has promoted 24 highly cost-effective interventions for NCDs, dubbed ‘best buys’. It is unclear whether these interventions have been evaluated in low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs).

Aim

To systematically review research on interventions aligned to WHO ‘best buys’ for NCDs in LLMICs.

Methods

We searched 13 major databases and included papers conducted in the 83 World Bank-defined LLMICs, published between 1 January 1990 and 5 February 2015. Two reviewers independently screened papers and assessed risk of bias. We adopted a narrative approach to data synthesis. The primary outcomes were NCD-related mortality and morbidity, and risk factor prevalence.

Results

We identified 2672 records, of which 36 were included (608 940 participants). No studies on ‘best buys’ were found in 89% of LLMICs. Nineteen of the 36 studies reported on the effectiveness of tobacco-related ‘best buys’, presenting good evidence for group interventions in reducing tobacco use but weaker evidence for interventions targeting individuals. There were fewer studies on smoking bans, warning labels and mass media campaigns, and no studies on taxes or marketing restrictions. There was supportive evidence that cervical screening and hepatitis B immunisation prevent cancer in LLMICs. A single randomised controlled trial supported polypharmacy for cardiovascular disease. Fourteen of the ‘best buy’ interventions did not have any good evidence for effectiveness in LLMICs.

Conclusions

We found studies on only 11 of the 24 interventions aligned with the WHO ‘best buys’ from LLMIC settings. Most LLMICs have not conducted research on these interventions in their populations. LLMICs should take action to implement and evaluate ‘best buys’ in their national context, based on national priorities, and starting with interventions with the strongest evidence base.

Combination therapy in the extended cardiovascular continuum: a focus on perindopril and amlodipine

The progression of cardiovascular disease could be regarded as following atherosclerosis-related and age-related pathways. The starting points for these pathways are different--risk factors or aortic ageing--but they conclude in the same way: end-stage heart disease. Together these interlinked pathways form the extended cardiovascular continuum. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors have been shown to interrupt or slow the progression of cardiovascular disease along one pathway, the cardiovascular atherosclerotic continuum. Cardiovascular protection with RAAS inhibitors varies; different RAAS inhibitors offer different levels of protection. Similarly, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) also have clearly shown protective effect of cardiovascular system, especially as it regards cerebrovascular disease risk. The AngloScandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) showed that a combination of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor perindopril and CCB amlodipine offered better cardiovascular protection in at-risk hypertensive patients than beta-blocker and thiazide. By attenuating the deleterious effects of cardiovascular disease at multiple stages of the extended cardiovascular continuum on top of lowering blood pressure (BP), perindopril and amlodipine could interrupt and slow the progression of cardiovascular disease. These antihypertensive agents have complementary vascular effects that enhance cardiovascular protection and reduce side-effects. Evidence from ASCOT shows that antihypertensive and vascular effects of amlodipine with and without perindopril have translated into real-life clinical benefits. A strategy using ACE inhibitors and CCBs, such as perindopril and amlodipine, to target multiple stages in both pathways of cardiovascular disease could effectively reduce cardiovascular risk and lower BP.

Efficacy and tolerability of fixed dose combination of metoprolol and amlodipine in Indian patients with essential hypertension

Background:

This open-labeled, post-marketing study was conducted to assess the efficacy and tolerability of fixed dose combination of amlodipine and metoprolol extended release capsules in mild to moderate hypertension in adult Indian patients.

Materials and Methods:

Of 101 enrolled patients, 64 drug naïve patients were treated with regimen A (amlodipine 5 mg + metoprolol 25 mg) and those with prior history of hypertension (n = 37) were treated with regimen B (amlodipine 5 mg + metoprolol 50 mg) for 8 weeks. Treatment response was assessed at week 4 and 8. Dose up titration to regimen B was carried out for those who failed to achieve the target blood pressure (BP) at week 4 in regimen A and additional antihypertensives were added to those in regimen B. Safety laboratory tests were performed at baseline and end of study.

Results:

Mean age (±SD) of patients was 53.36 (±11.26) years and body weight (±SD) 63.40 (10.03) kg. Ninety five patients (94.06%) were only hypertensive and 6 (5.94%) had hypertension with history of coronary artery disease; mean duration (±SD) of hypertension was 42.50 (48.07) months. At baseline, patients had a mean (±SD) systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 154.98 (±7.76) mmHg and 95.55 (±5.70) mmHg respectively. There was a statistically significant (P < 0.001) reduction of 12.16% and 14.69% in SBP, 11.49% and 14.65% in DBP at week 4 and week 8 respectively, compared to baseline. Normalization of overall BP was achieved in 49.49% and 70.71% patients at week 4 and 8, respectively. Peripheral edema was reported in 2.97% (3/101) patients.

Conclusion:

This combination was safe, efficacious, and well-tolerated in study population.