Comparison of two single-pill dual combination antihypertensive therapies in Chinese patients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current hypertension guidelines recommend combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker with a calcium-channel blocker or thiazide diuretic as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with monotherapy uncontrolled hypertension. However, to what extent these two different combinations are comparable in blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety remains under investigation, especially in the Chinese population. We investigated the BP-lowering efficacy and safety of the amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies in Chinese patients.

METHODS

In a multi-center, randomized, actively controlled, parallel-group trial, we enrolled patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension from July 2018 to June 2021 in 20 hospitals and community health centers across China. Of the 894 screened patients, 560 eligible patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg (n = 282) or benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg (n = 278), with 213 and 212 patients, respectively, who completed the study and had a valid repeat ambulatory BP recording during follow-up and were included in the efficacy analysis. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to 24 weeks of treatment in 24-h ambulatory systolic BP. Adverse events including symptoms and clinically significant changes in physical examinations and laboratory findings were recorded for safety analysis.

RESULTS

In the efficacy analysis (n = 425), the primary outcome, 24-h ambulatory systolic BP reduction, was - 13.8 ± 1.2 mmHg in the amlodipine/benazepril group and - 12.3 ± 1.2 mmHg in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group, with a between-group difference of - 1.51 (p = 0.36) mmHg. The between-group differences for major secondary outcomes were - 1.47 (p = 0.18) in 24-h diastolic BP, - 2.86 (p = 0.13) and - 2.74 (p = 0.03) in daytime systolic and diastolic BP, and - 0.45 (p = 0.82) and - 0.93 (p = 0.44) in nighttime systolic and diastolic BP. In the safety analysis (n = 560), the incidence rate of dry cough was significantly lower in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group (5.3% vs 10.1%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies were comparable in ambulatory systolic BP lowering. The former combination, compared with the latter, had a greater BP-lowering effect in the daytime and a lower incidence rate of dry cough.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03682692. Registered on 18 September 2018.

A Retrospective Observational Real-Word Analysis of the Adherence, Healthcare Resource Consumption and Costs in Patients Treated with Bisoprolol/Perindopril as Single-Pill or Free Combination

INTRODUCTION

The present real-world analysis aims to compare the drug utilization, hospitalizations and direct healthcare costs related to the use of single-pill combination (SPC) or free-equivalent combination (FEC) of perindopril and bisoprolol (PER/BIS) in a large Italian population.

METHODS

This observational retrospective analysis was based on administrative databases covering approximately 7 million subjects across Italy. All adult subjects receiving PER/BIS as SPC or FEC between January 2017-June 2020 were included. Subjects were followed for 1 year after the first prescription of PER/BIS as FEC (± 1 month) or SPC. Before comparing the SPC and FEC cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the baseline characteristics. Drug utilization was investigated as adherence (defined by the proportion of days covered, PDC) and persistence (evaluated by Kaplan-Meier curves). Hospitalizations and mean annual direct healthcare costs (due to drug prescriptions, hospitalizations and use of outpatient services) were analyzed during follow-up.

RESULTS

The original cohort included 11,440 and 6521 patients taking the SPC and FEC PER/BIS combination, respectively. After PSM, two balanced SPC and FEC cohorts of 4688 patients were obtained (mean age 70 years, approximately 50% male, 24% in secondary prevention). The proportion of adherent patients (PDC ≥ 80%) was higher for those on SPC (45.5%) than those on FEC (38.6%), p < 0.001. The PER/BIS combination was discontinued by 35.8% of patients in the SPC cohort and 41.7% in the FEC cohort (p < 0.001). The SPC cohort had fewer cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations (5.3%) than the free-combination cohort (7.4%), p < 0.001. Mean annual total healthcare costs were lower in the SPC (1999€) than in the FEC (2359€) cohort (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, patients treated with PER/BIS SPC showed higher adherence, lower risk of drug discontinuation, reduced risk of CV hospitalization, and lower healthcare costs than those on FEC of the same drugs.

Efficacy and Safety of Single-Pill Combination of Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe in Chinese Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia Inadequately Controlled by Statin Treatment (ROZEL): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double Dummy, Active-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with primary hypercholesterolemia do not achieve their plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with statin alone under a recommended dose of statin (e.g., 10 mg rosuvastatin) in China. The objective of this phase III study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new single-pill combination (SPC) of rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (R10/E10) in this population.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia inadequately controlled with statin alone. The participants were randomized 1:1 to receive SPC R10/E10 or R10. The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of SPC R10/E10 vs. R10 in reducing the LDL-C levels after 8 weeks.

RESULTS

This trial randomized 305 participants to SPC R10/E10 (n = 153) and R10 (n = 152). The superiority of SPC R10/E10 over R10 was demonstrated with the least square (LS) mean difference of percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 8: - 13.85% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 20.15% to - 7.56%, P < 0.0001). The proportion of participants who achieved the LDL-C target (< 2.6 mmol/l) at week 8 was larger with SPC R10/E10 (n = 80, 54.1%) than with R10 (n = 42, 29.2%) (Odds ratio = 2.80, 95% CI 1.70 to 4.61, P < 0.0001). No unexpected safety findings were reported.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that SPC R10/E10 improve LDL-C reduction and goal achievement in Chinese patients with primary hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled on statin therapy, without new safety findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04669041).

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of a Single-Pill Combination of Olmesartan/Amlodipine/Hydrochlorothiazide in Korean Patients with Hypertension and Cardiovascular Risk Factors

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors pose a challenge by requiring more intensive blood pressure (BP) control. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy can benefit these patients by improving medication adherence.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter observational study assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of an SPC containing olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide (O/A/H) in South Korean patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. BP control rates, defined as the percentage of patients achieving systolic BP (SBP) < 130 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) < 80 mmHg for intensive BP control, and < 140 mmHg and < 90 mmHg, respectively, for standard BP control, were investigated across various cardiovascular risk groups, along with changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

The most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor was age (≥ 45 years in men, ≥ 55 years in women, 86.1%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (64.4%), dyslipidemia (53.7%), body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 (53.5%), and diabetes mellitus (DM) (46.3%). Switching to O/A/H showed significant BP reduction, with a mean change of - 17.8 mmHg/- 9.3 mmHg in SBP/DBP within 4 weeks. The intensive BP control rate was 41.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.5, 43.4), and the standard BP control rate was 73.3% (95% CI 71.5, 75.1), with better control rates in the risk age group (43.1% and 74.1%, respectively) and cardiovascular disease group (42.0% and 73.8%, respectively). The DM group had relatively lower control rates (37.5% for intensive control and 69.4% for standard control). Common adverse drug reactions included dizziness (2.91%), hypotension (1.51%), and headaches (0.70%).

CONCLUSION

The SPC therapy of O/A/H caused a rapid and sustained reduction in SBP/DBP in patients' hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors. The therapy was safe and well tolerated.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0003401 ( https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/20795 ).

Roadmap for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension in the Middle East: Review of the 2022 EVIDENT Summit

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and hypertension are leading risk factors for death and disability in the Middle East. Both conditions are highly prevalent, underdiagnosed and poorly controlled, highlighting an urgent need for a roadmap to overcome the barriers to optimal glycaemic and blood pressure management in this region. This review provides a summary of the Evidence in Diabetes and Hypertension Summit (EVIDENT) held in September 2022, which discussed current treatment guidelines, unmet clinical needs and strategies to improve treatment outcomes for patients with T2DM and hypertension in the Middle East. Current clinical guidelines recommend strict glycaemic and blood pressure targets, presenting several treatment options to achieve and maintain these targets and prevent complications. However, treatment targets are infrequently met in the Middle East, largely due to high clinical inertia among physicians and low medication adherence among patients. To address these challenges, clinical guidelines now provide individualised therapy recommendations based on drug profiles, patient preferences and management priorities. Efforts to improve the early detection of prediabetes, T2DM screening and intensive, early glucose control will minimise long-term complications. Physicians can use the T2DM Oral Agents Fact Checking programme to help navigate the wide range of treatment options and guide clinical decision-making. Sulfonylurea agents have been used successfully to manage T2DM; a newer agent, gliclazide MR (modified release formulation), has the advantages of a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia with no risk of cardiovascular events, weight neutrality and proven renal benefits. For patients with hypertension, single-pill combinations have been developed to improve efficacy and reduce treatment burden. In conjunction with pragmatic treatment algorithms and personalised therapies, greater investments in disease prevention, public awareness, training of healthcare providers, patient education, government policies and research are needed to improve the quality of care of patients with T2DM and/or hypertension in the Middle East.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Bisoprolol/Perindopril Single-Pill Combination in Patients with Arterial Hypertension and a History of Myocardial Infarction: The PRIDE Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

This study assessed the real-life effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of bisoprolol/perindopril for controlling blood pressure (BP) and symptoms of angina in patients with hypertension and a history of myocardial infarction (MI).

METHODS

Eligible patients with arterial hypertension and a history of MI were aged 18-79 years and had initiated bisoprolol/perindopril SPC within 3 months of study enrollment as part of routine Russian clinical practice. The primary endpoint was mean change in systolic and diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) at week 12 compared with baseline (data collected retrospectively). Secondary endpoints were assessed at weeks 4 and 12 and included mean change in resting heart rate (HR), proportion of patients reaching target level of resting HR, antianginal effectiveness of the SPC, and proportion of patients reaching target BP levels.

RESULTS

A total of 504 patients were enrolled, of whom 481 comprised the full analysis set (mean age 61.4 ± 8.9 years, 68% men). Mean baseline SBP/DBP and HR values were 148.9 ± 16.8/87.7 ± 11.0 mmHg and 77.4 ± 10.5 bpm, respectively. Mean durations of hypertension and CAD were 12.8 ± 8.4 and 6.1 ± 6.3 years, respectively, and time since MI was 3.8 ± 5.3 years. At week 12, SBP/DBP had decreased by 24.9/12.2 mmHg (P < 0.001 vs baseline). Target BP (< 140/90 mmHg) was achieved by 69.8% and 95.9% of patients at weeks 4 and 12, respectively, and target HR (55-60 bpm) by 17.3% and 34.5% at weeks 4 and 12 versus 3.1% at baseline (P < 0.001). Reductions in angina attacks, nitrate consumption, and improvements in HR were statistically significant. Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of symptomatic patients with CAD, hypertension, and a history of MI with a bisoprolol/perindopril SPC was associated with significant decreases in SBP/DBP and a high proportion of patients achieving BP treatment goals. This was accompanied by improvements in angina symptoms and reductions in HR in a broad patient population representative of those seen in everyday clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04656847.

Single-pill combination in the management of chronic coronary syndromes: A strategy to improve treatment adherence and patient outcomes?

Chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) represents a major challenge for physicians, particularly in the context of an increasing aging population. Additionally, CCS is often underestimated and under-recognised, particularly in female patients. As patients are frequently affected by several chronic comorbidities requiring polypharmacy, this can have a negative impact on patients' adherence to treatment. To overcome this barrier, single-pill combination (SPC), or fixed-dose combination, therapies are already widely used in the management of conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and diabetes mellitus. The use of SPC anti-anginal therapy deserves careful consideration, as it has the potential to substantially improve treatment adherence and clinical outcomes, along with reducing the failure of pharmacological treatment before considering other interventions in patients with CCS.

Bioequivalence Evaluation in Healthy Volunteers: New Generic Formulations of Sitagliptin and Sitagliptin-Metformin Fixed-Dose Combination Compared with the Originator Products

INTRODUCTION

Three studies compared the bioequivalence (BE) of new generic tablet formulations of sitagliptin (100 mg; fasting) and the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of sitagliptin/metformin (50/850 mg, 50/1000 mg; both fed) in healthy volunteers with the same tablet strengths of the reference products Januvia and Janumet.

METHODS

The study design was open-label, single-dose, randomized with two-way crossover periods. Blood sampling was performed for 72/48 h in the sitagliptin/FDC studies, respectively. Primary pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters for sitagliptin and metformin were area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to last timepoint of measurable concentration (AUC_0-t) and maximum plasma concentration (C_max). Test (T) and reference (R) formulations proved bioequivalent if 90% confidence interval (CI) of geometric least-squares mean ratio for AUC_0-t and C_max were within BE acceptance range of 80.00-125.00%. Safety evaluations included vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Treated/evaluable volunteers for BE per study were: 30/28 (sitagliptin 100 mg), 26/25 (FDC 50/850 mg), and 26/24 (FDC 50/1000 mg). The 90% CI of the geometric means of T/R ratios for primary PK parameters were within predefined BE limits: CI for AUC_0-t and C_max were 95.83-100.37% and 91.85-109.56% (sitagliptin 100 mg); 100.84-103.69% and 93.44-105.10% (FDC 50/850 mg), and 101.26-105.20% and 98.71-112.89% (FDC 50/1000 mg); respective values for metformin were 94.23-101.89% and 91.66-99.38% (FDC 50/850 mg) and 98.45-104.89% and 96.79-105.62% (FDC 50/1000 mg). All AEs were nonserious, transient, and mostly mild. Safety evaluations did not reveal any relevant difference between T and R formulations.

CONCLUSIONS

The new generic tablet formulations of sitagliptin 100 mg and the FDCs sitagliptin/metformin 50/850 mg and 50/1000 mg demonstrated bioequivalence to originator reference products. Therefore, the new products are expected to provide efficacy and tolerability similar to those of the reference products in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT EU Clinical Trials Registry (2014-005437-31); ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05549570 and NCT05549583, both retrospectively registered on 20 September 2022).

Are We There Yet? Exploring the Use of Single-Pill Combination Therapy in the Management of Raised Blood Pressure in Australia

OBJECTIVE

Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy is recommended as first-line therapy for most patients in global hypertension guidelines due to benefits of improved adherence and blood pressure (BP) control. We aimed to understand factors affecting SPC use in the management of raised BP in Australia.

DESIGN

A mixed-method study comprising of qualitative (policy review and interviews) and quantitative (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme [PBS] data) approaches.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Australian and international hypertension guideline recommendations regarding SPC use; the Australian registration and subsidy approval processes of SPCs; use of SPCs on the PBS; cost-analysis of PBS-listed SPCs compared to free-drug combinations; perceptions of healthcare providers towards SPCs.

RESULTS

The 2016 Australian Heart Foundation's "Guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in adults" does not recommend combination therapy (including SPCs) as first-line treatment. Additional challenges in the uptake of SPCs include: (1) the additional PBS requirements and barriers imposed for the listing of SPCs. (2) Script volumes for SPCs have not matched the rise in the number of SPCs listed for subsidy, have plateaued since 2016 and remained significantly lower than single constituent scripts. (3) SPCs are not subsidised by the PBS for initial treatment. Most SPCs provided substantial cost savings for individual patients compared to free-drug combinations. Health care providers were positive about the cost-saving and convenience of SPCs, however perceived negatives included inflexibility of SPCs during dose titration, medicine shortages, and potential adverse effects when initiating treatment with multiple drugs.

CONCLUSION

The safety, efficacy and cost-saving potential of SPCs have been established in the literature but several roadblocks in the existing health system in Australia impede uptake. Interventions addressing these barriers may facilitate improved uptake, which may in turn improve blood pressure control in Australia.

Implementing Single-Pill Combination Therapy for Hypertension: A Scoping Review of Key Health System Requirements in 30 Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Objective

The World Health Organization (WHO) included single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive medications on their 2019 essential medicines list (EML) to encourage uptake and improved hypertension control. We documented key national-level facilitators (SPCs on national EMLs, recommendation for SPCs in national hypertension guidelines and availability of SPCs on the market) supporting uptake of SPCs in the 30 most populous low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

A hierarchical information gathering strategy was used including literature and web searches, the use of organisational databases and personal communications with colleagues to obtain information on (1) whether SPC antihypertensives are on national EMLs, (2) whether SPC antihypertensives are recommended in national hypertension guidelines and (3) whether SPCs are available on the market.

Results

Eleven of 30 LMICs had all facilitators in place being Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, China, the Philippines, Thailand, Iran, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico. Twenty-six countries had national hypertension guidelines (or similar) in place with SPCs being recommended in 18 of these. Apart from Afghanistan, SPCs were available on the market in all countries. The facilitator least present was the inclusion of SPC antihypertensives on national EMLs at 12 of 29 (Turkey does not have an EML).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that many LMICs have made significant progress in their uptake of SPC antihypertensives and several had included SPCs on their EMLs and guidelines prior to their inclusion on the WHO EML. Despite this progress, the uptake of SPC antihypertensives in LMICs could be improved including through their further inclusion on EMLs.

Real-world evidence on the strategy of olmesartan-based triple single-pill combination in Korean hypertensive patients: a prospective, multicenter, observational study (RESOLVE-PRO)

Background

In this prospective, multicenter, non-comparative observational study, the effectiveness and safety of the triple single-pill combination (SPC) of olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (OM/AML/HCTZ) were evaluated in a real clinical practice setting in Korean patients with essential hypertension.

Methods

A total of 3752 patients were enrolled and followed for 12 months after administration of OM/AML/HCTZ. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to month 6 in the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary endpoints included changes from baseline in the mean SBP at month 3, 9, 12 and the mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at month 3, 6, 9, 12; changes in the mean SBP/DBP according to age and underlying risk factors; and blood pressure control rate (%) at different time points. Adherence to and satisfaction with OM/AML/HCTZ treatment among patients and physicians were assessed by medication possession ratio (MPR) and numeric rating scale, respectively, as exploratory endpoints. Safety was evaluated by the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) as well as the discontinuation rate due to AEs.

Results

OM/AML/HCTZ administration led to significant reductions in the mean SBP/DBP by 11.5/6.6, 12.3/7.0, 12.3/7.2, and 12.8/7.4 mmHg from baseline to month 3, 6, 9 and 12, respectively (P < 0.0001). The BP reductions were maintained throughout the 1-year observation period in all patients with different age groups and risk factors (diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and renal disease). The BP control rate (%) of < 140/90 mmHg was 65.9, 67.9, 68.9, and 70.6% at month 3, 6, 9, and 12, respectively. The mean MPR during the observation period was 0.96. The safety results were consistent with the previously reported safety profile of OM/AML/HCTZ.

Conclusions

Treatment with the triple SPC of OM/AML/HCTZ demonstrated significant effectiveness in reducing SBP/DBP and achieving target BP control with high adherence over the 1-year observation period in Korean hypertensive patients and was well-tolerated.

Trial registration

CRIS, KCT0002196, Registered 3 May 2016.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40885-021-00177-z.

Beneficial Effects of a Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients with Diabetes and/or Obesity or Metabolic Syndrome: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Four Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

To assess real-life effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in patients with hypertension (HT) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity and/or metabolic syndrome (MetS).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis pooled raw data from four large observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES, PICASSO). Patients, most with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) on previous treatments were switched to Per/Ind (10 mg/2.5 mg) SPC at study entry. Office systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) were measured at baseline, 1 month and 3 months.

RESULTS

In the overall pooled population (N = 16,763), mean age was 61 ± 12 years, HT duration 11 ± 8 years, and baseline SBP/DBP 162/94 mmHg. T2DM, obesity and MetS were present in 21%, 49% and 27% of patients, respectively. Subgroups had similar mean age and HT duration to the overall population; patients with T2DM were slightly older (64 ± 10 years) with a longer HT duration (13 ± 8 years). Mean BP was approximately 160/95 mmHg in each subgroup. At 1 month, mean SBP decreased by approximately 20 mmHg in the overall population, and by a further 10 mmHg at 3 months. Similar results were observed in the three subgroups, with mean changes from baseline at 3 months of - 28 ± 15/- 13 ± 10 in T2DM; - 30 ± 15/- 14 ± 10 in obesity; and - 31 ± 15/- 15 ± 9 mmHg in MetS. BP decreases were greatest in patients with grade II or grade III HT. BP control rates (< 140/90 mmHg or 140/85 mmHg for T2DM) at 3 months were 59% in T2DM, 67% in obese, and 66% in MetS. No specific safety concerns were raised, particularly concerning ionic (Na, K) or metabolic profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to Per/Ind SPC led to rapid and effective BP decreases in patients with T2DM, obesity, or MetS. BP control was achieved in 6-7 out of 10 previously treated but uncontrolled patients. Treatment was well tolerated. The results confirm the beneficial effects of a Per/Ind SPC for difficult-to-control patient populations.

Statistical analysis plan for management of hypertension and multiple risk factors to enhance cardiovascular health in Singapore: the SingHypertension pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (O'Lone E, Viecelli AK, Craig JC, Tong A, Sautenet B, Herrington WG, et al., Am J Kidney Dis 76(1):109-20, 2020) remains the leading cause of death in Singapore. Uncontrolled hypertension confers the highest attributable risk of CVD and remains a significant public health issue with sub-optimal blood pressure (BP) control rates. The aim of the trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention (MCI) versus usual care on lowering BP among adults with uncontrolled hypertension visiting primary care clinics in Singapore. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the primary and secondary objectives related to intervention effectiveness.

METHODS

The study is a cluster randomized trial enrolling 1000 participants with uncontrolled hypertension aged ≥ 40 years from eight primary care clinics in Singapore. The unit of randomization is the clinic, with eight clusters (clinics) randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either MCI or usual care. All participants will be assessed at baseline, 12 months, and 24 months with measurements of systolic and diastolic BP, antihypertensive and statin medication use, medication adherence, physical activity level, anthropometric parameters, smoking status, and dietary habits. The primary objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of MCI versus usual care on mean SBP at the 2-year follow-up. The primary outcome is SBP at 24 months. SBP at baseline, 12, and 24 months will be modeled at the subject level using a likelihood-based, linear mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis with treatment group and follow-up as fixed effects, random cluster (clinic) effects, Gaussian error distribution, and adjustment to degrees of freedom using the Satterthwaite approximation. Secondary outcomes will be analyzed using a similar modeling approach incorporating generalized techniques appropriate for the type of outcome.

DISCUSSION

The trial will allow us to determine whether the MCI has an impact on BP and cardiovascular risk factors over a 2-year follow-up period and inform recommendations for health planners in scaling up these strategies for the benefit of society at large. A pre-specified and pre-published statistical analysis plan mitigates reporting bias and data driven approaches.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02972619 . Registered on 23 November 2016.

Effectiveness of Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Uncontrolled Patients with Hypertension: A Pooled Analysis of the FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES and PICASSO Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in a broad range of patient profiles, including subgroups with varying hypertension severity, age and cardiovascular risk profiles.

METHODS

Patient data from four large prospective observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, PICASSO, ACES) were pooled. In each study, patients already treated for hypertension were switched to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) measured at the 1-month (M1) and 3-month (M3) visits. Study endpoints included change in SBP and DBP from baseline to M1 and M3 and the percentage of patients achieving BP control (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg for patients without diabetes or < 140/85 mmHg for patients with diabetes).

RESULTS

A total of 16,763 patients were enrolled and received Per/Ind (94% received the full dose of 10/2.5). Mean patient age was 61.4 years (36% were ≥ 65 years old), 57% were women, and 16% had isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Mean baseline office SBP/DBP was 162/94 mmHg, and mean duration of hypertension was 11 years. Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbid conditions were common in this population. Significant mean reductions in SBP (- 23 mmHg) and DBP (- 11 mmHg) were observed at M1 compared with baseline (P < 0.001), which were maintained at M3 (- 30 mmHg and - 14 mmHg, respectively). At M3, BP control was achieved by 70% of patients (78% for ISH). In patients with SBP ≥ 180 mmHg at baseline (grade III hypertension), the mean SBP/DBP decrease was - 51/- 20 mmHg and 53% achieved BP control. Per/Ind was well tolerated with an overall rate of adverse events of 1.3%, most frequently cough and dizziness at rates of 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this hypertensive population including difficult-to-control patient subgroups, switching to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC led to rapid and important reductions in BP. BP control was achieved in 70% of patients overall in an everyday practice context.

Effect of Perindopril/Indapamide on Cerebral Blood Flow in Middle-Aged, Treatment-Naïve Patients with Hypertension

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between blood pressure (BP) and cerebral blood flow (CBF) is not fully understood. This study evaluated the impact of a perindopril arginine/indapamide (Pa/I) single-pill combination (SPC) on CBF in middle-aged patients.

METHODS

A total of 22 treatment-naïve patients with essential hypertension and at least one hypertension-mediated organ damage and 41 healthy controls were enrolled. At baseline, all participants underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); patients with hypertension underwent an additional MRI at end of follow-up. Arterial spin labeling (ASL) was used to calculate CBF in the frontal lobe cortical plate. Patients with hypertension received once-daily Pa/I 5 mg/1.25 mg SPC, which could be increased to Pa/I 10 mg/2.5 mg at 2 weeks if necessary. Patients with hypertension underwent 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) at baseline and end of follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean baseline BP values were 146.2/93.1 and 119.1/76.1 mmHg in the hypertension and control groups, respectively. Patients with hypertension had significantly (p < 0.001) lower CBF in the cortical plate of both left (36.2 ± 8.3 vs. 45.3 ± 3.5 ml/100 g/min) and right (37.9 ± 7.9 vs. 45.8 ± 3.2 ml/100 g/min) frontal lobes compared to normotensive controls. At the end of follow-up, there was a statistically significant (p < 0.001) increase in CBF in the cortical plate of both left (from 36.2 ± 8.3 to 47.5 ± 9.8 ml/100 g/min) and right frontal lobes (from 37.9 ± 7.9 to 47.4 ± 10.1 ml/100 g/min) compared to baseline. No significant difference was found between end of follow-up CBF levels in frontal lobes of patients with hypertension and those of healthy controls at baseline. Office BP decreased by 24.2/15.5 mmHg and 24-h ABPM from 145.5/95.3 to 120.8/79.3 mmHg.

CONCLUSION

In middle-aged, treatment-naïve patients with hypertension, Pa/I SPC was associated with increased CBF in the cortical plate of the frontal lobes, which achieved levels of normotensive controls. The increase in CBF had no clear association with observed BP changes.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN67799751.

Efficacy and Tolerability of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe Compared with a Fixed-Dose Combination of Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Brazilian Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia or Mixed Dyslipidemia: A Multicenter, Randomized Trial

Background: The addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy has been reported to result in increased efficacy for reduction of LDL-C levels and achievement of lipid targets, compared with monotherapy.

Objective: This study was designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of therapy with fixed-dose rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe formulations versus fixed dose simvastatin and ezetimibe formulations for reduction of LDL-C levels in Brazilian patients with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia.

Methods: Phase III, multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label, noninferiority study that included male and female participants (aged 21–80 years) with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia. After a 1-week screening period with washout of lipid-lowering medications when needed, patients were treated with simvastatin 20 mg/d for 5 weeks. Participants with LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL after the initial treatment were submitted to a 1-week washout period, and then randomized 1:1 to receive either combined rosuvastatin 10 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (R/E) or simvastatin 20 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (S/E) for 4 weeks and, if they still did not achieve the stipulated target, doses were readjusted to rosuvastatin 20 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg or simvastatin 40 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg, respectively, for 4 weeks.

Results: One hundred twenty-nine participants were enrolled, including 66 in R/E and 63 in S/E. At the end of simvastatin 20 mg treatment period, mean LDL-C values were 124.79 mg/dL and 121.27 mg/dL for participants randomized to R/E and S/E arms, respectively. After 4 weeks of R/E 10 mg + 10 mg or S/E 20 mg + 10 mg combined treatments, adjusted mean LDL-C values were 74.21 mg/dL and 85.58 mg/dL, respectively (P = 0.0005), and after 9 weeks, with dose adjustment to R/E 20 mg + 10 mg in 6 patients and to S/E 40 mg +10 mg in 19 patients, LDL-C adjusted mean values were 75.29 mg/dL and 86.62 mg/dL, respectively (P = 0.0006). There was a statistically significant difference between the association R/E and S/E (P = 0.0013) in percentage change of LDL-C after 9 weeks of combined treatments. The adjusted mean difference was estimated at –10.32% (95% CI, –16.94% to –3.70%). The LDL-C <100 mg/dL target was achieved in a significantly greater proportion of participants at week 4 in the R/E compared with the S/E arm (84.8% vs 68.2%; P = .0257), and at week 9, the proportion was 81.2% versus 73.0%, respectively (P = 0.23). LDL­C <70 mg/dL was achieved at a significantly greater proportion in the R/E arm, both at week 4 (45.4% vs 15.9%; P = 0.003) and week 9 (40.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.0017). A statistically significant difference at week 9 (P = 0.0106) was observed in fasting blood glucose in the R/E arm, but the overall incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions: Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe fixed dose combination in both 10 mg/10 mg and 20 mg/10 mg doses, respectively, provided significantly lower levels of LDL-C compared with simvastatin and ezetimibe in doses of 20 mg/10 mg and 40 mg/10 mg, respectively. The fixed-dose combinations were both effective and well tolerated in this Brazilian study population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01420549. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX–XXX)

Antihypertensive Prescribing Pattern in Older Adults: Implications of Age and the Use of Dual Single-Pill Combinations

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension, if not appropriately treated, is associated with life-threatening complications.

AIMS

This study evaluated antihypertensive prescribing patterns in older adults (≥ 65 years) versus young adults based on the current guidelines with an emphasis on the use of dual single-pill combinations (SPCs).

METHODS

A nationwide audit of 8746 primary care prescriptions of hypertensive patients with comorbidities in Bahrain was performed.

RESULTS

Antihypertensive combination therapy was prescribed more often to older (77.1%) than young adults (68.6%; P < 0.0001) whereas SPCs were under-used (57.6% vs. 69.4%; P < 0.0001). Recommended dual SPCs, without/with a combination of a free-dose complementary antihypertensive agent, were significantly less often prescribed for the older adult as compared to young adult adults (45.1% vs. 62.99% and 35.97% vs. 46.72%; P < 0.0001), respectively. Unacceptable two- and three-drug combinations (including those with limited clinical evidence and unacceptable ones) were prescribed more often to older adults rather than to young ones (20.06% vs. 12.6%; and 56.5% vs. 46.8%; P < 0.0001), respectively. In both age groups, the top-three antihypertensive classes prescribed as monotherapy were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and β blockers.

CONCLUSION

The updated guidelines for hypertension treatment in older adults have had a limited impact on primary care practice in Bahrain. In both age groups, there was a high positive correlation between the number of antihypertensive drugs prescribed and prescribing unacceptable combinations. Unacceptable combinations comprising SPC-related antihypertensive therapy duplication were more common than those reported elsewhere. Introducing approved triple SPCs may discourage prescribing unacceptable antihypertensive drugs and their combinations that lack robust evidence.

Long-term effect of the perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination on left ventricular hypertrophy in outpatient hypertensive subjects

BACKGROUND

Most antihypertensive drugs used in monotherapy or in combination therapy reduce the left ventricular mass index (LVMI). However, little is known about the effects on LVMI of a triple fixed-dose combination (TFC) therapy, containing in a single pill an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a diuretic and a calcium channel blocker (CCB).

METHODS

In this prospective open-label study, 92 patients with essential hypertension were randomized to treatment with a TFC of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine at different doses or a triple free combination therapy (FCT) including ACEI/diuretic/CCB. Office blood pressure (BP) measurement, 24 h-ambulatory BP monitoring and echocardiography were performed at baseline and during a 14-month follow-up. The BP variability (BPV) over 24 h was calculated as ± standard deviation of the daytime systolic BP. Differences between office and monitored BP and LVMI were evaluated by ANOVA for repeated measures.

RESULTS

A significant BP-lowering effect was observed for both treatments. At follow-up, BPV was reduced in both the treatment groups vs. the baseline (14.0±1.5 vs. 17.0±1.8 and 16.2±2.1 vs. 17.6±2.3, respectively), but it was lower in the TFC vs. the FCT group (14.0±1.5 vs. 16.1±2.2, P < 0.05). LVMI was lower in both the treatment groups, but the change was greater for TFC vs. FCT (-8.3±4.9% vs. -2.0 ±2.1%, P < 0.0001). Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) regression was greater in the TFC vs. the FCT group (43.5% vs. 30.4%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Independently of BP values achieved, the antihypertensive TFC therapy was more effective than FCT in LVMI reduction and LVH regression, possibly related to drugs' intrinsic properties and to BPV modulation.

Management of hypertension and multiple risk factors to enhance cardiovascular health in Singapore: The SingHypertension cluster randomized trial

Background

Hypertension is a serious public health problem in Singapore and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) with considerable implications for health-care resources. The goal of the trial is to compare a multicomponent intervention (MCI) to usual care to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MCI for lowering blood pressure (BP) among adults with uncontrolled hypertension in Singapore primary-care clinics.

Methods/design

The study is a cluster randomized trial in eight polyclinics in Singapore: four deliver a structured MCI and four deliver usual care. The components of the MCI are: (1) an algorithm-driven antihypertensive treatment for all hypertensive individuals using single-pill combination (SPC) and lipid-lowering medication for high-risk hypertensive individuals, (2) a motivational conversation for high-risk hypertensive individuals, (3) telephone-based follow-ups of all hypertensive individuals by polyclinic nurses, and (4) discounts on SPC antihypertensive medications.

The trial will be conducted with 1000 individuals aged ≥ 40 years with uncontrolled hypertension (systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg, based on the mean of the last two of three measurements) in eight polyclinics in Singapore. The primary outcome is change in systolic BP from baseline to follow-up at 24 months post-randomization. The incremental cost of MCI per CVD disability adjusted life years (DALY) averted and quality adjusted life years (QALY) saved will be computed.

Discussion

The demonstration of an effective and cost-effective hypertension control program that is implementable in busy polyclinics would provide compelling evidence for upscaling the program across all primary-care centers in Singapore, and possibly other regional countries with a similar health-care structure.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02972619. Registered on 23 November 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2559-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of a Fixed-Dose, Single-Pill Combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine in Patients with Hypertension: A Non-Interventional Study

INTRODUCTION

We conducted a prospective, non-interventional, multicenter study to examine the effect of a fixed-dose combination of perindopril/amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension.

METHODS

Patients who were previously untreated or required a change in medication were treated with a fixed combination of perindopril/amlodipine (3.5/2.5 or 7.0/5.0 mg) for 12 weeks. Changes in office, home and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) were recorded. Adherence was assessed by the Hill-Bone medication adherence scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 1814 patients (mean age 60.0 ± 13.4 years) were included in 614 German practices, and data of 1770 patients were analyzed. At study entry, 97.7% of patients received perindopril/amlodipine at a daily dose of 3.5 mg/2.5 mg, and 47.9% of patients remained on this dose during the study period. Treatment with perindopril/amlodipine decreased mean office BP from 163.7/95.4 to 133.6/80.3 mmHg (p < 0.0001), resulting in a hypertension control rate of 69.1%. Blood pressure control was comparable in previously untreated and treated patients (70.3 vs. 68.1%), and in younger and older patients (70.6 < 65 vs. 66.3% ≥ 65 years). Ambulatory BP measurements were available in a subgroup of patients (n = 167), and mean 24 h ambulatory BP decreased from 150.6 ± 12.6/88.9 ± 8.8 to 132.4 ± 11.9/79.4 ± 8.5 mmHg (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the proportion of patients with severe hypertension European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) grade II or III decreased from 64.4 to 3.9%, and patients with pre-existing isolated systolic hypertension (n = 284) converted to normal BP in 67.6% of cases. Nearly half of the patients (47.2%) were perfectly adherent during the study. In previously treated patients, the percentage of patients with perfect adherence increased from 20.6% prior to study to 43.5% at final visit (p < 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions were documented for 4.9% of patients.

CONCLUSION

A fixed-dose combination of perindopril/amlodipine shows significant blood pressure reduction and improvement in medication adherence in a primary care setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN26323538.

FUNDING

Servier Deutschland GmbH.

Single-Pill Combination of Perindopril/Indapamide/Amlodipine in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hypertension often require a combination of three antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure control, but very few single-pill triple combinations are available. The aim of this study was to determine whether a single-pill triple combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine was as effective as a dual-pill combination of perindopril/indapamide plus separate amlodipine at reducing blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled, essential hypertension.

METHODS

This international, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted in men or women aged ≥18 years old with confirmed essential hypertension (SBP ≥140 and <160 mmHg and DBP ≥90 and <100 mmHg), uncontrolled on maximal dose antihypertensive monotherapy or with a single dose of dual therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to: single-pill triple combination of perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind/Aml) or dual-pill combination perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg + amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind + Aml) once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in office supine SBP and DBP from baseline to week 12. The proportion of responders defined as those with normalized BP (SBP <140 mmHg and DBP <90 mmHg), and/or decrease of SBP ≥20 mmHg, and/or decrease of DBP ≥10 mmHg at week 12 (W12) compared with baseline was also assessed. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in office supine SBP and DBP, response, and BP control at weeks 4 and 8. The tolerability of the treatments was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 148 patients were randomized: 75 to Per/Ind/Aml and 73 to Per/Ind + Aml. Mean supine SBP and DBP were 149.1 ± 4.7 and 94.1 ± 3.1 mmHg, respectively, with no relevant between-group difference. At week 12, both triple-therapy regimens were associated with clinically significant reductions in SBP compared with baseline (-21.5 ± 11.7 and -20.0 ± 12.9 mmHg, respectively). Reductions in office supine DBP were also clinically significant (-15.3 ± 7.8 and -14.8 ± 9.0 mmHg, respectively). The proportion of treatment responders was high in both groups: 89.2 and 87.1%, respectively. The reduction in office supine SBP/DBP was already evident at week 4 and maintained for the duration of the study in both groups. The majority of patients were treatment responders at week 4 (89.2 and 82.9%, respectively) and had achieved BP control (87.8 vs. 78.6%, respectively), which was maintained until week 12 in both treatment groups. Both treatments were well tolerated with no between-group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

In adult patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension on treatment, single-pill triple-combination therapy with Per/Ind/Aml is as effective as the same dose dual-pill combination of Per/Ind + Aml. Both treatments were associated with clinically significant BP reductions compared with baseline and were well tolerated. Clinical trials number: http://www.controlled-trials.com ISRCTN: 16442558.

FUNDING

Les Laboratoires Servier.

Impact of Statin Therapy on the Blood Pressure-Lowering Efficacy of a Single-Pill Perindopril/Amlodipine Combination in Hypertensive Patients with Hypercholesterolemia

INTRODUCTION

Several lines of research indicate that statins can lower blood pressure (BP) independently of their lipid-lowering effects when used as monotherapy and in combination with antihypertensive agents.

AIM

This short-term, open-label study examined whether statin therapy had a synergistic effect on the BP-lowering efficacy of perindopril/amlodipine in a subgroup of patients in the PERSPECTIVA study with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, with or without statin at baseline.

METHODS

The PERSPECTIVA study recruited 732 adults with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension. This subgroup analysis of PERSPECTIVA included 587 patients with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia (mean age 56.7 years) of whom 226 were receiving a statin at baseline (statin [+] group) and 361 were not (statin [-] group). All patients received treatment with single-pill combination perindopril/amlodipine at a dose of 5/5, 10/5 or 10/10 mg/day. The study duration was 60 days with follow-up visits for BP monitoring at 7, 15, 30 and 60 days.

RESULTS

At day 60, BP control (<140/90 mmHg) was significantly greater in the statin [+] vs statin [-] group: 73 vs 64% respectively (+14%, P < 0.05). In the statin [+] group, the single-pill perindopril/amlodipine combination significantly reduced BP in patients previously untreated (n = 18), or treated with monotherapy (n = 97), dual therapy (n = 93), or triple therapy (n = 18): -38.8/-20.0, -39.1/-20.1, -38.0/-19.4, -39.9/-18.3 mmHg respectively (P < 0.001 vs baseline BP). The greatest BP reductions were observed in the first 7 days. Treatment was well tolerated with a similar rate of adverse events in the statin [+] group (0.9%) vs the statin [-] group (2.5%).

CONCLUSION

BP control rates in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and concomitant hypercholesterolemia are significantly improved with a treatment regimen that combines perindopril/amlodipine with statin therapy, regardless of previous antihypertensive therapy. This subanalysis of the PERSPECTIVA study supports the synergistic BP-lowering effect of statins and perindopril/amlodipine.

Strategies for Diabetes Management: Using Newer Oral Combination Therapies Early in the Disease

INTRODUCTION

The duration of uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) can adversely impact small and large vessels, eventually leading to microvascular and macrovascular complications. Failure of therapeutic lifestyle changes, monotherapy, and clinical inertia contribute to persistent hyperglycemia and disease progression. The aim was to review the complex pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes and how different oral agents can be used effectively as first-line therapy in combination with metformin, as well as in patients not achieving glycemic goals with metformin therapy.

METHODS

For this review, a non-systematic literature search of PubMed, NCBI, and Google Scholar was conducted.

RESULTS

New oral agents have made it possible to improve glycemic control to near-normal levels with a low risk of hypoglycemia and without weight gain, and sometimes with weight loss. Early combination therapy is effective and has been shown to have a favorable legacy effect. A number of agents are available in a single-pill combination (SPC) that provides fewer pills and better adherence. Compared with adding a sulfonylurea, still the most common oral combination used, empagliflozin has been shown to decrease cardiovascular (CV) events in a dedicated CV outcome study, and pioglitazone has been effective in reducing the risk of secondary CV endpoints, whereas sulfonylureas have been associated with an increased risk of CV disease. In those failing metformin, triple oral therapy by adding a non-metformin SPC such as empagliflozin/linagliptin or pioglitazone/alogliptin is a good option for reducing glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) without significant hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians have a comprehensive armamentarium of medications to treat patients with T2DM. Clinical evidence has shown that dual or triple oral combination therapy is effective for glycemic control, and early treatment is effective in getting patients to goal more quickly. Use of SPCs is an option for double or triple oral combination therapy and may result in better adherence.

Telmisartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for the management of patients with hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of telmisartan 40 mg (T40) or 80 mg (T80) plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (H12.5) single-pill combinations (SPCs) with telmisartan monotherapies, in a pooled analysis of patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

Six phase 3, double-blind studies of 8 weeks' duration that assessed the T/H12.5 SPC and T40 or T80 monotherapy, were included in the analysis. Data was pooled separately for the two T40 non-responder studies (T40 NR group, two T80 non-responder studies (T80 NR group), and the two factorial design dose-response studies (FD-DR group).

RESULTS

After 8 weeks' treatment, the adjusted mean reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and the SBP, DBP, and blood pressure (BP) goal rates were significantly higher with the T40/H12.5 SPC than T40 in the T40 NR group and with the T80/H12.5 SPC than T80 in the T80 NR group. In the FD-DR group, the adjusted mean reduction in SBP and DBP, and DBP goal rates were significantly higher for T40/H12.5 versus T40. The percentage of patients with an adverse event was numerically higher with T40/H12.5 versus T40 in the T40 NR group, and was similar in telmisartan monotherapies and the T/H12.5 SPCs in the T80 NR group and FD-DR group. A limitation of this study is the retrospective and pooled nature of the analysis. Also, >75% of patients were <65 years of age, which limits the applicability of the results to older patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild to moderate hypertension, 8 weeks' treatment with the T/H12.5 SPC is significantly more efficacious than telmisartan monotherapies. The safety and tolerability of the T/H12.5 SPC are comparable to that of telmisartan monotherapy and consistent with that reported in previous studies.

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg versus valsartan 160 mg in Chinese hypertensives

BACKGROUND

A majority of hypertensives require treatment with ≥2 antihypertensive therapies to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. Single-pill combinations (SPC) may improve convenience and adherence to therapy and reduce health care resource use and costs. The antihypertensive effects of amlodipine and valsartan are well established. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC for the treatment of hypertension in predominantly Chinese patients not adequately controlled on valsartan 160 mg alone.

METHODS

In this multicentre study (24 centres), adults with stage 1 or 2 hypertension not adequately controlled with valsartan monotherapy were randomised to receive double-blind amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC or valsartan 160 mg once daily for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

The least-square mean change (standard error) from baseline to endpoint in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) at trough, the primary efficacy variable, was -10.3 (0.39) mm Hg with amlodipine/valsartan and -6.6 (0.40) mm Hg with valsartan (difference: -3.7 [0.54] mm Hg, p<0.0001). The corresponding results for mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) were -14.9 (0.61) mm Hg and -7.0 (0.61) mm Hg, respectively (difference: -7.9 [0.84] mm Hg, p<0.0001). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved overall BP control (MSSBP/MSDBP<140/90 mm Hg) with combination therapy (61.3%) versus monotherapy (39.3%; p<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg SPC is a safe and effective therapy for lowering BP in predominantly Chinese adults with stage 1 or 2 hypertension not adequately controlled with valsartan 160 mg monotherapy.