Clinical outcome in hypertensive patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol or plus valsartan

Objective: Several guidelines do not recommend beta-blocker as the first-line treatment for hypertension because of its inferior efficacy in stroke prevention. Combination therapy with beta-blocker is commonly used for blood pressure control. We compared the clinical outcomes in patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol (A + B), a ß1-selective beta-blocker and amlodipine plus valsartan (A + V).Methods: A population-based cohort study was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 2012 to 2019, newly diagnosed adult hypertensive patients who received initial amlodipine monotherapy and then switched to A + V or A + B were included. The efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and coronary revascularization), hemorrhagic stroke, and heart failure. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between outcomes and different treatments.Results: Overall, 4311 patients in A + B group and 10980 patients in A + V group were included. After a mean follow-up of 4.34 ± 1.79 years, the efficacy outcomes were similar between the A + V and A + B groups regarding all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.18), ASCVD event (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.12), and heart failure (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87-1.30). The risk of hemorrhagic stroke was lower in A + B group (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94). The result was similar when taking death into consideration in competing risk analysis. The safety outcomes were similar between the 2 groups.Conclusions: There was no difference of all-cause death, ASCVD event, and heart failure in A + B vs. A + V users. But A + B users had a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Effect of Fixed-dose Combination Amlodipine/Valsartan in Comparison to Two Drug Combination Nebivolol/Valsartan on 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure

BACKGROUND

Nebivolol has a dual mechanism of action, exerting a moderate b- blockade effect and reducing peripheral arterial resistance, as a result, the antihypertensive effect of nebivolol may be higher than that of a potent vasodilator CCB such as amlodipine.

AIM

The study evaluated the effect of two nebivolol/valsartan on 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure versus amlodipine/valsartan in grade II or III hypertension patients or having uncontrolled BP despite treatment. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a powerful method to monitor the changes in blood pressure over the 24 hour.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 74 from 90 patients continued the study. Fourty patients received amlodipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (group I), and thirty-four patients received nebivolol 5 mg/ valsartan 160 mg (group II). Peripheral blood pressure readings were measured at randomization at 6 and 12 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure was measured at randomization and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Both drug combinations showed high efficacy in reducing peripheral and 24 hour ambulatory BP. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in lowering peripheral systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 weeks. Furthermore, both groups failed to show any significant difference in reducing 24 hour SBP and DBP. Regarding day SBP, the blood pressure dropped by -5.63 ± 14.87 in group I and -6.25 ± 11.59 in group II (p = 0.844). Also, group I reduced the day DBP average by -2.53 ± 9.83 and group II by -3.61 ± 9.78 (p = 0.640). In addition, both drug combinations had no statistically significant difference in lowering night SBP and DBP average.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment groups reached the target ambulatory blood pressure, and there was no statistically significant difference between both groups as a regard reduction in all ambulatory blood pressure readings.

Antihypertensive power of Naringenin is mediated via attenuation of mineralocorticoid receptor (MCR)/ angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)/ kidney injury molecule (Kim-1) signaling pathway

Hypertension is a condition with chronic elevation of blood pressure and a common preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease with attendant global morbidity and mortality. The present study investigated the novel antihypertensive and neuroprotective effect of Naringenin on L-N^G-Nitro arginine methyl ester (L-NAME) induced hypertension together with possible molecular mechanism of action. Rats were divided into four groups. Rats in Group A were normotensive. The hypertensive group (Group B) received 40 mg/kg) of L-NAME alone while Groups C and D were concurrently administered Naringenin (50 mg/kg) or Lisinopril (10 mg/Kg) together with L-NAME orally for 3 weeks. Blood pressure parameters, markers of oxidative stress and renal damage were measured. The immunohistochemistry of kidney injury molecule 1, mineralocorticoid receptor and angiotensin converting enzyme were also determined. Results indicated significant increases in malondialdehyde, advanced oxidation protein products, protein carbonyl contents and decrease in serum nitric oxide bioavailability in hypertensive rats. Furthermore, there were significant increases in serum myeloperoxidase, urinary creatinine, albumin and blood urea nitrogen in hypertensive rats in comparison to hypertensive rats treated with either Naringenin or Lisinopril. Immunohistochemistry reveal significant expressions of kidney injury molecule 1, mineralocorticoid receptor and angiotensin converting enzyme in hypertensive rats. However, co-treatment with either Naringenin or Lisinopril mitigated both renal and neuronal oxidative stress, normalized blood pressure and lowered the expressions of kidney injury molecule 1, mineralocorticoid receptor and angiotensin converting enzyme. Collectively, Naringenin offered a novel antihypertensive and neuroprotective effect through down regulation of kidney injury molecule 1, mineralocorticoid receptor and angiotensin converting enzyme.

Pharmacokinetic comparison between fixed-dose combination of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg and the corresponding loose combination through partial replicated crossover study in healthy subjects

Combination therapies of antihypertensive drugs are recommended in cases where hypertension is not controlled by monotherapy. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) between fixed-dose combination (FDC) of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg and the corresponding loose combination. Because of the high intra-subject variability for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of fimasartan, a randomized, open-label, 3×3 partial replicated crossover design was adopted. Subjects received a single dose of FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg or the corresponding loose combination in each period. Blood samples for PK analysis were collected up to 48 hours for fimasartan and 144 hours for amlodipine, respectively. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and its 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the FDC to the loose combination for Cmax and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable time point (AUClast) were calculated. Sixty healthy subjects were randomized, and 57 subjects completed the study. The concentration-time profiles of fimasartan and amlodipine were similar between the FDC and loose combination. The GMRs (90% CIs) of the FDC to the loose combination for Cmax and AUClast were 1.0440 (0.9202-1.1844) and 1.0412 (0.9775-1.1090) for fimasartan, and 1.0430 (1.0156-1.0711) and 1.0339 (1.0055-1.0631) for amlodipine, respectively. The GMRs and its 90% CIs for Cmax and AUClast of fimasartan and amlodipine were included not only in the scaled bioequivalence criteria but also in the conventional bioequivalence criteria. In conclusion, FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg showed comparable PK profiles with the corresponding loose combination, which suggests their bioequivalence.

Pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence study of a telmisartan/S-amlodipine fixed-dose combination (CKD-828) formulation and coadministered telmisartan and S-amlodipine in healthy subjects

Purpose

A new fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of telmisartan 80 mg and S-amlodipine 5 mg (CKD-828) has been developed to increase convenience (as only one tablet is required per day) and improve treatment compliance.

Methods

The pharmacokinetic characteristics and tolerability of an FDC of telmisartan and S-amlodipine were compared to those after coadministration of the individual agents in this randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-way, four-period, crossover study. To analyze the telmisartan and S-amlodipine plasma concentrations using a validated liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method, serial blood samples were collected up to 48 hours post-dose for telmisartan and 144 hours post-dose for S-amlodipine, in each period.

Results

Forty-eight healthy subjects were enrolled, and 43 completed the study. The mean peak plasma concentration (C_max) and the area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time 0 to the last measurement (AUC_0–t) values of telmisartan were 522.29 ng/mL and 2,475.16 ng·h/mL for the FDC, and 540.45 ng/mL and 2,559.57 ng·h/mL for the individual agents concomitantly administered, respectively. The mean C_max and AUC_0–t values of S-amlodipine were 2.71 ng/mL and 130.69 ng·h/mL for the FDC, and 2.74 ng/mL and 129.81 ng·h/mL for the individual agents concomitantly administered, respectively. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) for the telmisartan C_max and AUC_0–t (FDC of telmisartan and S-amlodipine/concomitant administration) were 0.8509 (0.7353–0.9846) and 0.9431 (0.8698–1.0226), respectively. The GMR and 90% CI for the S-amlodipine C_max and AUC_0–t (FDC/concomitant administration) were 0.9829 (0.9143–1.0567) and 0.9632 (0.8798–1.0546), respectively. As the intrasubject variability of the C_max for telmisartan administered individually was 42.94%, all 90% CIs of the GMRs fell within the predetermined acceptance range. Both treatments were well tolerated in this study.

Conclusion

CKD-828 FDC tablets were shown to be bioequivalent to coadministration of the individual agents with the respective strength, in healthy subjects under fasting conditions. There was no significant difference in safety profile between the two treatments.

Comparative pharmacokinetics of a fixed-dose combination vs concomitant administration of telmisartan and S-amlodipine in healthy adult volunteers

Objective

This study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of telmisartan and S-amlodipine with those of concomitant administration of the two drugs.

Materials and methods

This was an open-label, randomized, crossover study in healthy male Koreans. All subjects were administered an FDC tablet containing 40 mg telmisartan and 5 mg S-amlodipine and were also coadministered the same dose of both drugs given separately. The crossover study design included a 14-day washout period between the two treatments. Blood samples were collected up to 168 h following drug administration. The plasma concentrations of telmisartan and S-amlodipine were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. PK parameters and plasma concentration–time curves were compared. Safety was assessed by measuring vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, physical examinations, and patient interviews.

Results

The geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs for the maximum plasma concentration (C_max) and area under the curve from time zero to the last sampling time (AUC_t) were 0.8782 (0.8167–0.9444) and 0.9662 (0.9210–1.0136) for telmisartan and 1.0069 (0.9723–1.0427) and 1.0324 (0.9969–1.0690) for S-amlodipine, respectively. A total of 36 adverse events (AEs) were reported by 23 subjects, but no statistical differences were observed between the two treatments. The most frequently reported AE was a mild-to-moderate headache that was generally self-limiting.

Conclusion

For both telmisartan and S-amlodipine, the C_max and AUC_t 90% CIs were between ln (0.8) and ln (1.25). These results suggest that the FDC formulation is pharmacokinetically bioequivalent and has a similar safety profile to the coadministration of these drugs.

Younger females are at greater risk of vasodilation-related adverse symptoms caused by dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers: results of a study of 11,918 Japanese patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Adequate control of blood pressure in younger females is of crucial importance, because they are at higher risk of hypertensive target organ damage compared with males of similar age. In addition, female sex is a risk factor for adverse effects of antihypertensive drugs, especially dihydropyridines. This study set out to assess the incidence of adverse reactions during dihydropyridine use in a real-life clinical setting, focusing on the influence of female sex and age.

METHODS

The incidence of adverse reactions to dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were investigated in 11,918 Japanese patients who participated in the Drug Event Monitoring project of the Japan Pharmaceutical Association conducted in Kumamoto prefecture. A multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between the incidence of adverse symptoms and female sex, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Vasodilation-related adverse symptoms occurred significantly more often in females than in males (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.28-2.71, p=0.001). Furthermore, among females only, the younger age group (<50 years) complained of vasodilation-related symptoms more frequently (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.02-5.59, p=0.045) and the older age group (≥80 years) complained of vasodilation-related symptoms less frequently (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.95, p=0.030) than the middle age group (50-79 years).

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report showing that younger females are at high risk for vasodilation-related adverse symptoms during dihydropyridine use in a real-life clinical setting. These results should be verified in clinical studies using larger samples of young patients and more parameters.

Blood pressure control and exaggerated blood pressure response in nigerians with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensives is important in preventing cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. This work was done to assess control of BP among Nigerian hypertensives at rest and during exercise.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 85 male hypertensives were recruited consecutively and had clinical evaluation and treadmill (TM) exercise testing using the Bruce protocol. Independent t-test, chi-square, and Fisher’s exact tests were used to compare patients with controlled and uncontrolled BP using SPSS version 16 software. Adjustment for confounders was by logistic regression and general linear model.

RESULTS

Resting systolic BP (rSBP) (mmHg) and resting diastolic BP (rDBP) (mmHg) were significantly lower in the controlled group (115.0 ± 12.29, 133.1 ± 12.27, P = <0.001 and 76.00 ± 6.55, 91.4 ± 8.00, P = <0.001). The proportion of subjects with controlled BP was 37.7%. Adjusted peak SBP (PSBP) during exercise (mmHg) was significantly higher in the uncontrolled than in the controlled group (210.5 ± 27.31, 191.8 ± 20.77, P = 0.001). Adjusted exaggerated blood pressure response (EBPR) was found in 37 subjects (44%) in the uncontrolled group while seven subjects (0.1%) had EBPR in the controlled group (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

This study shows that EBPR is significantly higher in subjects with uncontrolled BP compared with those with controlled BP. Therefore, good BP control may be the key factor in preventing EBPR in hypertensives.

Pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and safety of the single oral administration of AGSAV301 vs Exforge: a randomized crossover study of healthy male volunteers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, is often used with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) such as amlodipine to control hypertension. Recently, the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of amlodipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (Exforge) was approved. Amlodipine is a racemic mixture of CCB; S-amlodipine has higher activity than R-form. Therefore, AGSAV301, the FDC of S-amlodipine 5 mg/valsartan 160 mg was recently developed. The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics of S-amlodipine and valsartan when administered as one tablet each of Exforge and AGSAV301 to healthy male subjects.

METHODS

This was a single-dose, randomized, open-label, two-way, two-period crossover study. Each subject received a single dose of AGSAV301 and Exforge, separated by a 3-week washout period. Plasma samples for the PK analysis of valsartan and S-amlodipine were collected at predose (0) and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, 120, and 168 h after administration. Tolerability was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 29 subjects were enrolled; 24 completed this study. The S-amlodipine maximum plasma concentration (C max) geometric mean ratio (GMR) between AGSAV301 and Exforge was 0.951 (90 % CI 0.983-1.014), and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to last measured time point (AUClast) was 0.917 (90 % CI 0.861-0.976). The GMR of valsartan C max was 0.994 (90 % CI 0.918-1.076), and the AUClast was 0.927 (90 % CI 0.821-1.047). All adverse events (AEs) were resolved without sequelae; no serious AEs were reported. Two drugs showed similar tendencies to lower blood pressure in healthy subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

The PK profiles of AGSAV301 and Exforge were bioequivalent. Both drugs were also well tolerated, with comparable AE profiles and similar blood pressure-lowering tendencies in healthy volunteers, suggesting equivalent therapeutic indications.

Evaluation of effectiveness and safety of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide single-pill combination therapy in hypertensive patients: an observational study

Objective

This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (A + V + H) single-pill combination therapy in the treatment of hypertensive patients in daily practice.

Design and methods

This prospective, open-label, observational study, enroled adults for whom their physician considered treatment with the single pill combination as indicated. The observational period per patient was ∼3 months. Results were evaluated using basic descriptive statistical methods.

Main outcome

Data of 7132 patients were analyzed. At baseline, the mean blood pressure (BP) was 158.8 ± 17.7 mmHg (systolic, sBP) and 91.5 ± 10.7 mmHg (diastolic, dBP). The most common cardiovascular risk factors were positive family history, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. The most commonly used daily doses of A + V + H at study end were 5/160/12.5 mg (30.5%) or 10/160/12.5 mg (33.1%). At the last visit mean BP was 135.0 ± 11.8 mmHg (sBP) and 80.2 ± 7.3 mmHg (dBP). The mean BP reduction at last visit compared with baseline was −23.7 ± 17.5 mmHg (sBP) and −11.3 ± 10.6 mmHg (dBP); 43.5% of the patients reached normalization (BP <140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics or <130/80 mmHg for diabetics) and 71.3% reached therapeutic response (sBP <140 or ≥20 mmHg decrease vs baseline and dBP <90 or ≥10 mmHg decrease vs baseline in non-diabetic patients and sBP <130 mmHg or ≥20 mmHg decrease vs baseline and dBP <80 mmHg or ≥10 mmHg decrease vs baseline in patients with diabetes). Adverse events (AEs) were recorded in 2.3% of the patients, the most frequent being peripheral edema (0.6%) and dizziness (0.2%).

Conclusions

In daily practice, A + V + H single-pill treatment effectively lowered the average BP in patients with essential hypertension and was well tolerated.

Efficacy of newer versus older antihypertensive drugs in black patients living in sub-Saharan Africa

To address the epidemic of hypertension in blacks born and living in sub-Saharan Africa, we compared in a randomised clinical trial (NCT01030458) single-pill combinations of old and new antihypertensive drugs in patients (30-69 years) with uncomplicated hypertension (140-179/90-109 mm Hg). After ≥4 weeks off treatment, 183 of 294 screened patients were assigned to once daily bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide 5/6.25 mg (n=89; R) or amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg (n=94; E) and followed up for 6 months. To control blood pressure (<140/<90 mm Hg), bisoprolol and amlodipine could be doubled (10 mg per day) and α-methyldopa (0.5-2 g per day) added. Sitting blood pressure fell by 19.5/12.0 mm Hg in R patients and by 24.8/13.2 mm Hg in E patients and heart rate decreased by 9.7 beats per minute in R patients with no change in E patients (-0.2 beats per minute). The between-group differences (R minus E) were 5.2 mm Hg (P<0.0001) systolic, 1.3 mm Hg (P=0.12) diastolic, and 9.6 beats per minute (P<0.0001). In 57 R and 67 E patients with data available at all visits, these estimates were 5.5 mm Hg (P<0.0001) systolic, 1.8 mm Hg (P=0.07) diastolic and 9.8 beats per minute (P<0.0001). In R compared with E patients, 45 vs 37% (P=0.13) proceeded to the higher dose of randomised treatment and 33 vs 9% (P<0.0001) had α-methyldopa added. There were no between-group differences in symptoms except for ankle oedema in E patients (P=0.012). In conclusion, new compared with old drugs lowered systolic blood pressure more and therefore controlled hypertension better in native African black patients.

Meta-analysis of three observational studies of amlodipine/valsartan in hypertensive patients with additional risk factors

OBJECTIVES

In this study, the effectiveness of amlodipine/valsartan single-pill combination was assessed in hypertensive patients with diabetes, metabolic risk or overweight.

METHODS

Data from 12,265 patients treated with amlodipine/valsartan from three studies were analyzed in a meta-analysis. These studies focused on (i) non-diabetic hypertensive patients suffering from abdominal obesity; (ii) hypertensive patients with at least one metabolic risk factor; and (iii) hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The observation periods were 16 weeks for the first two and 24 weeks for the latter cohort.

RESULTS

At start of observation, the mean blood pressure was 162.3 mmHg (systolic) and 93.5 mmHg (diastolic). A total of 7.4% of patients were aged ≥ 80 years. At end of the observation, a normalized blood pressure was present in 38.8% of patients. No appreciable differences in blood pressure reduction were evident between the study groups. In both age subgroups (< 80 years and ≥ 80 years) blood pressure reduction was comparable. Tolerability was assessed by treating physicians as "very good" (69.3%) and "good" (27.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In daily practice, treatment of hypertensive patients with additional risk factors with amlodipine/valsartan single-pill combinations is well tolerated and associated with effective reduction of blood pressure.

Pharmacokinetic interaction of telmisartan with s-amlodipine: an open-label, two-period crossover study in healthy Korean male volunteers

BACKGROUND

Telmisartan belongs to a class of orally active angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and S-amlodipine is an enantiomer of amlodipine. Amlodipine is a racemic mixture and the calcium channel blocking (CCB) effect is confined to S-amlodipine, whereas R-amlodipine has a 1000-fold lower activity and no racemization occurs in vivo in human plasma. Combination therapy of ARBs with CCBs provides advantages for blood pressure control and vascular protection over monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of coadministration of telmisartan and S-amlodipine on the steady-state pharmacokinetic properties of each drug as a drug-drug interaction study required before developing the fixed-dose combination agent.

METHODS

This study comprised 2 separate parts, A and B; each was a multiple-dose, open-label, 2-sequence, 2-period, crossover study in healthy male Korean volunteers. In part A, volunteers were administered 80 mg of telmisartan, either alone or with 5 mg of S-amlodipine. In part B, volunteers were administered 5 mg of S-amlodipine, either alone or with 80 mg of telmisartan. Blood samples were taken on days 9 and 37, following the final dose of each treatment, and at 0 (predose), 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours after administration in part A, and were taken at 0 (predose), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 24 hours after administration in part B. Plasma concentrations were determined using LC-MS/MS. The pharmacokinetic properties of each drug after coadministration of telmisartan and S-amlodipine were compared with those of each drug administered alone. Tolerability was assessed using measurements of vital signs, clinical chemistry tests, and interviews.

RESULTS

Fifty-six volunteers were enrolled (32 in part A and 24 in part B), and all completed except 4 volunteers (3 withdrawn in part A and 1 withdrawn in part B). The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% CI) for the C(max,ss) and AUC(τ,ss) of telmisartan (with or without S-amlodipine) were 1.039 (0.881-1.226) and 1.003 (0.926-1.087), respectively. The GMRs (90% CI) for C(max,ss) and AUC(τ,ss) of S-amlodipine (with or without telmisartan) were 0.973 (0.880-1.076) and 0.987 (0.897-1.085). Total 11 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 7 volunteers (21.9%) in part A. A total of 9 AEs were reported in 6 volunteers (25.0%) in part B. Statistical analysis confirmed that the 90% CIs for these pharmacokinetic parameters were within the commonly accepted bioequivalence range of 0.8 to 1.25, indicating that the extent of bioavailability of S-amlodipine was not affected by telmisartan. The intensity of all AEs was considered to be mild, and there were no significant differences in the prevalences of AEs between the 2 formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

Following multiple-dose coadministration of high doses of telmisartan and S-amlodipine, the steady-state pharmacokinetic properties of telmisartan were not significantly affected, and telmisartan had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetic properties of S-amlodipine at steady state in these selected groups of healthy volunteers. Both formulations were generally well-tolerated.