Modern clinical management of arterial hypertension: fixed or free combination therapies?

Blood Pressure Target Achievement Under Monotheraphy: A Real-Life Appraisal

INTRODUCTION

Despite hypertension guidelines suggest that the most effective treatment strategy to improve blood pressure (BP) target achievement is to implement the use of combination treatment, monotherapy is still widely used in the clinical practice of hypertension.

AIM

To investigate BP control under monotherapy in the setting of real-life.

METHODS

We extracted data from a medical database of adult outpatients who were referred to the Hypertension Unit, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Rome (IT), including anthropometric data, CV risk factors and comorbidities, presence or absence of antihypertensive therapy and concomitant medications. Among treated hypertensive patients, we identified only those under single antihypertensive agent (monotherapy). Office BP treatment targets were defined according to 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines as: (a) < 130/80 mmHg in individuals aged 18-65 years; (b) < 140/80 mmHg in those aged > 65 years.

RESULTS

From an overall sample of 7797 records we selected 1578 (20.2%) hypertensive outpatients (47.3% female, age 59.5 ± 13.6 years, BMI 26.6 ± 4.4 kg/m²) treated with monotherapies, among whom 30.5% received ACE inhibitors, 37.7% ARBs, 15.8% beta-blockers, 10.6% CCBs, 3.0% diuretics, and 2.0% alpha-blockers. 36.6% of these patients reached the conventional clinic BP goal of < 140/90 mmHg, whilst the 2018 European guidelines BP treatment targets were fulfilled only in 14.0%. In particular, 10.2% patients aged 18-65 years and 20.4% of those aged > 65 years achieved the recommended BP goals. All these proportions results significantly lower than those achieved with dual (18.2%) or triple (22.2%) combination therapy, though higher than those obtained with life-style changes (10.8%). Proportions of patients on monotherapies with normal home and 24-h BP levels were 22.0% and 30.2%, respectively, though only 5.2% and 7.3% of these patients achieved sustained BP control, respectively. Ageing and dyslipidaemia showed significant and independent positive predictive value for the achievement of the recommended BP treatment targets, whereas European SCORE resulted a negative and independent predictor in outpatients treated with monotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data showed a persistent use of monotherapy in the clinical practice, though with unsatisfactory BP control, especially in light of the BP treatment targets suggested by the last hypertension guidelines.

Comparison of Efficacies of Commonly Used Hypertension Treatment Modalities: A Retrospective Study of 1900 Participants in a Hypertension Clinic

BACKGROUND Although various antihypertensive medications are available, some hypertensive patients have uncontrolled blood pressures, especially in the clinic. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacies of various antihypertensive therapies in our hypertension (HTN) clinic (monotherapy vs. combination therapy, fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free equivalent combination (FEC), and diuretics versus non-diuretics. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this retrospective study, patients at the HTN clinic of the Third Xiangya Hospital with primary hypertension were enrolled from June 2016 to February 2017. Data on participants' basic characteristics, blood pressure data, and treatment modalities were collected. The proportions of participants attaining target blood pressure after treatment with antihypertensive modalities were calculated and compared. RESULTS Among 1900 participants, combination therapy had a better control efficacy than monotherapy (P<0.0005). When HTN was treated by 2 kinds of drugs, FEC was used much more frequently than FDC (P<0.0005). In grade 3 HTN, FDC had a higher control rate (P=0.002). If more than 2 kinds of drugs were used, FDC+OTHER had a slightly higher control rate in grade 2 and 3 (42.1% vs. 38.5%, P=0.724; 36.2% vs. 31.0%, P=0.526, respectively). Therapies with diuretics had better control rates than those without diuretics (43.1% vs. 36.9%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS In our clinic, FEC was prescribed more often than FDC. When blood pressure is significantly elevated, especially at levels 2 or 3, FDC seems to have a better control rate than FEC. Therapies with diuretics controlled HTN more efficiently.

Development of Sustained Release "NanoFDC (Fixed Dose Combination)" for Hypertension - An Experimental Study

Objectives

The present study was planned to formulate, characterize and evaluate the pharmacokinetics of a novel “NanoFDC” comprising three commonly prescribed anti-hypertensive drugs, hydrochlorothiazide (a diuretic), candesartan (ARB) and amlodipine (a calcium channel blocker).

Basic Methods

The candidate drugs were loaded in Poly (DL-lactide-co-gycolide) (PLGA) by emulsion- diffusion-evaporation method. The formulations were evaluated for their size, morphology, drug loading and in vitro release individually. Single dose pharmacokinetic profiles of the nanoformulations alone and in combination, as a NanoFDC, were evaluated in Wistar rats.

Results

The candidate drugs encapsulated inside PLGA showed entrapment efficiencies ranging from 30%, 33.5% and 32% for hydrochlorothiazide, candesartan and amlodipine respectively. The nanoparticles ranged in size from 110 to 180 nm. In vitro release profile of the nanoformulation showed 100% release by day 6 in the physiological pH 7.4 set up with PBS (phosphate buffer saline) and by day 4-5 in the intestinal pH 1.2 and 8.0 set up SGF (simulated gastric fluid) and SIF (simulated intestinal fluid) respectively. In pharmacokinetic analysis a sustained-release for 6 days and significant increase in the mean residence time (MRT), as compared to the respective free drugs was noted [MRT of amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide and candesartan changed from 8.9 to 80.59 hours, 11 to 69.20 hours and 9 to 101.49 hours respectively].

Conclusion

We have shown for the first time that encapsulating amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide and candesartan into a single nanoformulation, to get the “NanoFDC (Fixed Dose Combination)” is a feasible strategy which aims to decrease pill burden.

Open-label study assessing the long-term efficacy and safety of triple olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy for hypertension

INTRODUCTION

To reduce cardiovascular risk associated with hypertension, the majority of patients require at least two drugs to control their blood pressure (BP), and many require three or more.

METHODS

An open-label extension of a 10-week double-blind study assessed the long-term efficacy and safety of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/AML/HCTZ) triple combination treatment in 2,509 patients with Grade 2-3 hypertension. After 8 weeks of single-blind OLM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg treatment, patients at BP goal [seated systolic/diastolic BP (SeSBP/SeDBP) <140/90 mmHg, or <130/80 mmHg for patients with diabetes, or chronic kidney or cardiovascular disease] entered open-label treatment for 36 weeks. Patients not at goal received 8 weeks of randomized, double-blind treatment before entering open-label treatment. During open-label treatment, patients received OLM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5, 40/5/12.5, 40/5/25, 40/10/12.5 or 40/10/25 mg with up- or down-titration as needed to achieve BP goals.

RESULTS

During open-label treatment, mean SeSBP/SeDBP levels remained within the ranges 120-140 and 75-85 mmHg, respectively. At study end, significant reductions from baseline were seen in each group for SeSBP (37-43 mmHg) and SeDBP (22-27 mmHg), and 78.1% of patients overall achieved BP goal. Categorical analysis of patients by baseline SeSBP (150-159, 160-169, 170-179, 180-189, 190 to <200 mmHg) correlated with changes in SeSBP. Patients in the lowest baseline category (150-159 mmHg) showed a reduction of 34.3 mmHg, and those in the highest category (190 to <200 mmHg) showed a 59.4 mmHg reduction. At baseline, 90.8% of patients had Grade 2 or 3 hypertension, but at study end 91.9% had normal/high-normal BP. The incidence of adverse events was similar across the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with Grade 2-3 hypertension, long-term treatment with OLM/AML/HCTZ triple combination therapy was well tolerated and effective. A high level of BP control and a substantial reduction in the level of hypertension severity were achieved.

Valsartan/amlodipine compared to nifedipine GITS in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Current hypertension guidelines recommend single-pill combinations because they not only improve convenience and compliance to therapy and thus blood pressure (BP) control, but also reduce health-care costs. This study compared the efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination with nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in Chinese patients with hypertension who were inadequately controlled with monotherapy.

METHODS

In this multicenter, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study, 564 patients with hypertension not adequately controlled by prior monotherapy were randomized to receive valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 540), valsartan/amlodipine (n = 272) showed a least-square mean reduction of -16.6 versus -10.8 mmHg by nifedipine GITS (n = 268; mean between-treatment difference: -5.8 mmHg; P < 0.0001) from baseline to week 12. The corresponding results for mean sitting diastolic BP were -8.6 and -4.6 mmHg, respectively (difference: -4.0 mmHg; P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients achieving the BP target (<140/90 or <130/80 mmHg in the absence or presence of diabetes mellitus, respectively) was significantly higher with valsartan/amlodipine (79.0%) versus nifedipine GITS (57.4%; P < 0.0001). The overall incidence rate of adverse events was lower with valsartan/amlodipine (19.2%) than with nifedipine GITS (29.4%; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

The valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg single-pill combination is well tolerated and more effective than nifedipine GITS 30 mg for BP control in Chinese patients with hypertension.