Perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day: a review of its place in the management of hypertension

The fixed low-dose combination of the ACE inhibitor perindopril and the non-thiazide diuretic indapamide has been evaluated in the management of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Combination therapy aims to improve overall therapeutic efficacy while minimising adverse effects. In well-designed multicentre clinical trials, perindopril/indapamide at doses ranging from 2/0.625 to 8/2.5 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving adequate blood pressure (BP) control. A similar reduction in supine BP was observed when combined perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day was compared with losartan 50 mg/day or atenolol 50 mg/day. Similar reductions in 24-hour ambulatory BP were also seen with perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day and irbesartan 150 mg/day. However, response and normalisation rates were significantly higher with combination therapy than with losartan or irbesartan monotherapy. Combined perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day therapy effectively reduced BP in elderly patients aged 65 to 85 years to a significantly greater extent than either atenolol 50 mg/day or placebo. Supine BP was also normalised in approximately two-thirds of patients in a small noncomparative trial in patients with hypertension and renal impairment. Low-dose perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day was well tolerated in clinical trials; the most common adverse events were headache and cough. Hypokalaemia, associated with the use of diuretics, occurred with a higher incidence with combined perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day therapy than with either atenolol 50 mg/day or placebo. Perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day has shown efficacy in well designed comparative trials with atenolol, losartan and irbesartan including elderly patients and patients with renal impairment. Studies comparing this dosage of perindopril/ indapamide with other combination therapies would be beneficial in allowing the place of perindopril/indapamide to be more accurately determined. The fixed-low dose combination of perindopril/indapamide provides a promising and well tolerated treatment option in the management of patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Perindopril. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in cardiovascular disorders.

Perindopril is a long acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which displays similar pharmacodynamic properties to other agents in this class. In common with enalapril, it is also a prodrug. After absorption, perindopril is hydrolysed to the active metabolite, perindoprilat, and with once daily administration adequate 24-hour inhibition of ACE is obtained. Perindopril 4 to 8mg once daily is usually effective for blood pressure control in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Those patients who do not respond adequately to monotherapy with perindopril usually respond with the addition of a second agent, such as a thiazide diuretic. General practice trials indicate that perindopril is at least as effective and as well tolerated as usual therapeutic dosages of captopril, atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide plus amiloride in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Preliminary results indicate that perindopril may also be effective in patients with severe hypertension or congestive heart failure. Perindopril is generally well tolerated and has an adverse effect profile similar to that of other ACE inhibitors. It further clinical experience confirms initial findings, perindopril is likely to represent a useful alternative to other members of the ACE inhibitor class in all grades of hypertension and congestive heart failure.     

Perindopril: an updated review of its use in hypertension

Perindopril erbumine (perindopril) is a prodrug ester of perindoprilat, an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. Perindopril 4 to 8 mg once daily significantly reduces supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline values in hypertensive patients. These reductions are maintained for at least 24 hours, as evidenced by trough/peak ratios of >50%. Vascular abnormalities associated with hypertension were improved or normalised during perindopril treatment. Perindopril 4 to 8 mg once daily significantly decreased carotid-femoral aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV), improved arterial compliance, reduced left ventricular mass index and, in patients with recent cerebral ischaemia and/or stroke, preserved cerebral blood flow despite significantly reducing SBP and DBP. Further research is needed to establish the significance of promising results showing that reductions in aortic PWV were associated with reduced mortality in patients with end-stage renal failure, a third of whom received perindopril. Response rates (numbers of patients with supine DBP < or = 90 mm Hg) were significantly higher with perindopril 4 to 8 mg once daily (67 to 80%) than with captopril 25 to 50 mg twice daily (44 to 57%) in 3 randomised double-blind trials. In other clinical trials, the antihypertensive effects of perindopril were similar to those of other ACE inhibitors (including enalapril) and calcium-channel antagonists. Combination treatment with perindopril and an antihypertensive agent from another treatment class provided additional benefits, either as first-line treatment or in patients failing to respond to monotherapy. Perindopril monotherapy was also effective in the elderly and in patients with hypertension and concomitant disease. Perindopril has a similar adverse event profile to that of other ACE inhibitors; cough is the most common event reported during treatment, and is also the most common adverse event responsible for treatment withdrawal. Conclusions: Perindopril is a well tolerated ACE inhibitor that is significantly better than captopril (in terms of response rates) in the treatment of hypertension, and as effective as other ACE inhibitors. Perindopril appears to reverse some of the vascular abnormalities associated with hypertension, including arterial stiffness and left ventricular hypertrophy, although further research is needed to confirm promising results regarding its ability to decrease associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Results from ongoing studies will help confirm the place of perindopril in the treatment of hypertension; currently, it is an effective and well tolerated treatment for patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

The effect of perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide alone and in combination on blood pressure and on the renin-angiotensin system in hypertensive subjects

Summary The pharmacodynamic effects and acceptability of perindopril (4 mg daily) and hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg daily) given alone or in combination for 1 month were investigated in a double-blind, placebo controlled, parallel group study. The pharmacokinetics of perindopril and its active metabolite perindoprilat and the time course of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition were studied for 72 h following the last dose of treatment in the two appropriate groups.Similar decreases in blood pressure were seen 24 h after the last dose of perindopril or hydrochlorothiazide (11/7 mm Hg supine) given alone at these doses. The effect of these drugs given together was additive on diastolic blood pressure and synergistic on systolic blood pressure (24.5/12.6 mm Hg supine) taking into account the placebo response. The significant increase in plasma renin activity produced by perindopril alone was potentiated by concurrent administration of hydrochlorothiazide.The formation of perindoprilat was slightly reduced in the group also receiving hydrochlorothiazide and there was a very small reduction in ACE inhibition in this group.Perindopril, whether given alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, was well tolerated and produced no clinically significant change in routine haematology or serum biochemistry.The additive or synergistic effects of perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide on blood pressure must be due to their complementary physiological actions and not to a pharmacokinetic interaction.     

Safety and antihypertensive efficacy of carvedilol and atenolol alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide

Carvedilol has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with essential hypertension when given as monotherapy. In this double-blind, randomized, group-comparative study, 2 groups of 59 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension [median supine systolic/diastolic blood pressure at baseline (SBP/DBP), 168/105 mm Hg] were treated with either 25 mg carvedilol once daily (o. d.) or 50 mg atenolol o. d. for 4 weeks. Responders at 4 weeks (DBP, < 90=" mmhg)=" terminated=" the=" study.=" nonresponders=" continued=" the=" study.=" hydrochlorothiazide=" (hctz)=" was=" added=" at=" 25=" mg=" o.=" d.=" for=" a=" further=" 6=" weeks.=" the=" median=" blood=" pressure=" decreased=" under=" monotherapy=" with=" carvedilol=">n = 59) from 167/105 at baseline to 155/94 mmHg after 4 weeks, and in the atenolol group (n=59) it decreased from 168/105 to 162/97 mmHg. The patients who received carvedilol in combination with HCTZ and were evaluated for efficacy (n = 38) showed a decrease in SBP/DBP from 156/97 at the end of monotherapy to 145/88 mmHg after 10 weeks; the combination of atenolol with HCTZ (n = 44) reduced BP from 162/97 to 147/88. Both carvedilol and atenolol were safe when given either alone or in combination with HCTZ. In conclusion, after long-term administration, 25 mg carvedilol o. d. and 50 mg atenolol o. d. significantly reduced both SBP and DBP over 24 h. The addition of HCTZ led to a further increase in antihypertensive efficacy. Combined treatment with carvedilol or atenolol and HCTZ was very well tolerated, without hypotensive events or relevant changes in objective safety parameters.     

Effects of hydrochlorothiazide combined with amiloride in atenolol-resistant hypertensive patients

Twenty hypertensive outpatients WHO stage I or II, with supine diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 95 mmHg at the end of a 4-week treatment period with atenolol (Tenormin) 100 mg daily, continued atenolol in free association with half a tablet of Moduretic (i.e., hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg + amiloride 2.5 mg) for a further 4 weeks. Atenolol monotherapy induced a drop of systolic blood pressure from 175.0 +/- 11 (mean +/- s.d.) mmHg to 158.7 +/- 6 mmHg (p less than 0.01), and of diastolic blood pressure from 113.5 +/- 8 mmHg to 102.7 +/- 5 mmHg (p less than 0.01). After 4 weeks with atenolol in association with half a tablet of Moduretic, systolic blood pressure further decreased to 145.7 +/- 8 mmHg (p less than 0.01), and diastolic blood pressure to 90.2 +/- 10 mmHg (p less than 0.01). Seven out of 20 patients remained with diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 95 mmHg despite the above combination therapy. In these patients, the doubling of diuretic dose (hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg + amiloride 5 mg) in combination with atenolol resulted in a further drop in systolic pressure (to 142.1 +/- 9 mmHg) and diastolic (to 92.1 +/- 6 mmHg) (both p less than 0.01). Plasma potassium concentration showed a slight and non-significant increase during atenolol monotherapy (from 4.4 +/- 0.5 mEq/l to 4.6 +/- 0.7 mEq/l; n.s.).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Evaluation of long-term efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR in elderly hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term antihypertensive efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR 1.5 mg in elderly hypertensive patients (> or = 65 years). STUDY DESIGN: Open, 12-month, follow-up study of 444 patients, treated with indapamide SR, who were responders and/or achieved target BP levels following a 3-month, randomised, controlled, double-blind short-term comparison of indapamide SR versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and amlodipine 5 mg. RESULTS: The long-term decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 months follow-up with indapamide SR was -24.0/-13.1 mmHg from baseline (M0). The percentage of patients that achieved target BP levels (DBP < 95 mmHg, SBP < or = 160 mmHg) was 80.1% [84.3% for isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) subgroup], and the response rate (BP < 140/90 mmHg or decrease in supine diastolic BP > or = 10 mmHg or in supine systolic BP > or = 20 mmHg) 81.5%. Blood pressure (BP) remained stable throughout the 12 months follow-up period (M3-M15), whatever the previous treatment received during the 3-month, doubleblind period (M0-M3). Clinical and biological acceptability was good. A low occurrence of withdrawals (7.2%), was reported. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the long-term, 12-month follow-up study, indapamide SR was shown to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive therapy, even after a switch from amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, in patients aged 65 years-80 years with systolo-diastolic hypertension (SDH) or ISH.     

Perindopril for control of blood pressure in patients with hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors: an open-label, observational, multicentre, general practice-based study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hypertension, one of the major treatable cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, usually occurs in association with other major risk factors. As well as providing rapid blood pressure (BP) goal attainment, antihypertensive therapy should also provide reductions in CV events and mortality in a wide range of patients. For this, higher dosages and combinations of antihypertensive agents are often required. ACE inhibitors are recommended as first-line agents for control of hypertension in patients with additional CV risk factors. The PEACH (Perindopril's Effect At Controlling Hypertension) study was a community-based study performed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of high-dose perindopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and additional risk factors for CV disease. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre observational study conducted in Canadian general practice clinics. The study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of perindopril given once daily for 10 weeks uptitrated to the maximal recommended dose of perindopril as required for BP control in newly diagnosed or previously treated patients with uncontrolled mild to moderate hypertension and >or=1 additional risk factor. Patients not achieving target BP after 2 weeks of therapy were uptitrated from perindopril 4 mg to perindopril 8 mg once daily. Efficacy endpoints included reduction in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) BP and BP control. Tolerability assessments included adverse effects and physicians' assessment of tolerability. The number of missed doses was also recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 2220 patients with hypertension and >or=1 other risk factor were prescribed perindopril at 291 centres; 51.9% were male, 78.3% Caucasian, 12.8% Asian, 36.2%>or=65 years of age and 34.5% had uncontrolled BP despite previous antihypertensive treatment. Compared with previously treated patients, treatment-naive patients had fewer risk factors, and a higher proportion were Asian (p<0.05 for all comparisons). Most patients (76%) had 1-2 risk factors. Perindopril produced significant SBP/DBP reductions at 2 and 10 weeks (-15.8/-8.0 and -21.1/-11.0 mmHg, respectively). Overall, at week 10, BP control rate was 53.6%, better than at week 2 in the overall cohort and in all subgroups. Uptitration to high-dose perindopril to achieve BP control was required in 46% of patients with one additional risk factor compared with 64% of patients with >or=4 additional risk factors. These results demonstrate that the more risk factors the patient has, the greater the need for high-dose perindopril to achieve BP control. Perindopril was well tolerated as indicated by the high proportion of physicians (95.9%) reporting 'good' to 'excellent' tolerability at week 10. CONCLUSION: In this community-based clinical practice trial, up to 10 weeks' perindopril therapy, uptitrated to the maximal recommended dose as required for BP control, significantly reduced SBP/DBP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and additional CV risk factors. Patients with more risk factors were more likely to require high-dose perindopril.     

Enalapril in moderate to severe hypertension: A comparison with atenolol

Patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension (mean untreated supine blood pressure 190/112 mm Hg) received once daily enalapril 20-40 mg or atenolol 50-100 mg, supplemented if required by hydrochlorothiazide 25-100 mg, in a randomized observer-blind trial. Both regimens produced a highly significant reduction in supine and standing blood pressure. There was no significant difference in the antihypertensive effects of enalapril and atenolol when they were used as monotherapy. After hydrochlorothiazide was added to patients not achieving 'target' blood pressure, the fall in systolic pressure was significantly greater in the enalapril group than in the atenolol group, despite similar dosage of hydrochlorothiazide in the two groups. At the end of 6 months' treatment, a supine diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or below was achieved in 74% of patients on enalapril plus hydrochlorothiazide and 56% of patients on atenolol plus hydrochlorothiazide. This difference was not statistically significant. A small rise in plasma urea and creatinine was observed in the enalapril group and a small rise of urea only in the atenolol group. These changes were statistically significant but of uncertain clinical importance. This study confirms that once daily enalapril and atenolol, both alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, are effective drugs in the management of moderate to severe hypertension.     

培哚普利与卡托普利治疗原发性高血压各60例的比较

目的 :比较培哚普利与卡托普利对原发性高血压的治疗作用。方法 :中度原发性高血压病人12 0例 ,随机分为 2组。培哚普利组 60例 (男性 4 5例 ,女性 15例 ;年龄 60±s 15a) ,采用培哚普利 4～ 8mg ,po ,qd× 4wk ;卡托普利组 60例 (男性 4 5例 ,女性 15例 ;年龄 60± 14a) ,采用卡托普利 12 .5～ 2 5mg ,po ,tid× 4wk。每组 16例进行了 2 4h动态血压监测。结果 :培哚普利组总有效率为92 % ,卡托普利组总有效率为 78% ,2组差异不显著(P >0 .0 5) ;不良反应发生率 ,培哚普利组 12 % ,卡托普利组 2 8% (P <0 .0 5) ,均轻微。结论 :培哚普利与卡托普利对中度高血压病疗效均较好 ,培哚普利组不良反应较少     

Perindopril + indapamide: new preparation. Simple trick

(1) The combination of perindopril 4 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg is approved for second-line treatment of hypertension after failure of perindopril alone. (2) The other combination, of a low dose of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (2 mg of perindopril) and a diuretic (0.625 mg of indapamide), is being promoted as first-line treatment of hypertension. (3) The clinical files for both preparations are limited to the strict minimum. (4) A dose-finding study showed that the perindopril 4 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg dose combination offered the best risk-benefit ratio by comparison with combinations containing the same perindopril dose but other indapamide doses. (5) A double-blind trial suggests that the antihypertensive activity of the perindopril 4 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg combination is equivalent to that of the captopril 50 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and enalapril 20 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combinations. The safety profile was the same for the three combinations. (6) The 2-mg perindopril combination has not been compared with perindopril monotherapy at the usual dose of 4 mg, or with indapamide monotherapy at a mean dose of 2.5 mg. (7) The two combinations are costlier than their competitors.     

Dose-Dependent Antihypertensive Efficacy and Tolerability of Perindopril in a Large, Observational, 12-Week, General Practice-Based Study

Background

Current guidelines recommend the use of full therapeutic dosages of antihypertensive agents, or combination therapy, to improve BP control of hypertensive patients in primary healthcare.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and safety of perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day in the clinical setting.

Study Design and Setting

The CONFIDENCE study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial. This was a real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 880 general practitioners/primary-care clinics and 113 specialists in Canada.

Patients

The study included untreated or inadequately managed patients with hypertension (i.e. seated BP≥140/90 mmHg, or ≥130/80 mmHg in the presence of diabetes mellitus, renal disease, or proteinuria) without coronary artery disease (CAD).

Intervention

Treatment consisted of perindopril 4 mg/day, uptitrated to 8 mg/day as required for BP control at visit 2, for 12 weeks. Among the patients already being treated at baseline, perindopril either directly replaced all previous ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]), or was added to antihypertensive treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, or β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers).

Main Outcomes Measures

The primary outcomes were the mean changes in BP from baseline following treatment with perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day as well as the proportion of patients achieving BP control (BP <140/90 mmHg, or <130/80 mmHg in diabetic patients) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included the incidence of adverse events and compliance.

Results

A total of 8298 hypertensive patients entered the study: 56% with newly diagnosed hypertension and 44% with uncontrolled hypertension. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (152.5 ±10.8/89.5 ±9 mmHg) over 12 weeks (?18.5/?9.7 mmHg; p < 0.001). At visit 2, 23% of patients were uptitrated to perindopril 8 mg/day, which resulted in an additional mean 10.1/5.3 mmHg BP reduction; this reduction was even greater (15.1/5.7 mmHg) among a separate group of severely hypertensive patients (i.e. SBP >170 mmHg or DBP > 109 mmHg at baseline). Target BP was achieved in 54% of the ITT population. Both perindopril 4 mg/day and perindopril 8 mg/day were well tolerated and compliance was high throughout the study.

Conclusion

In the clinical outpatient setting, perindopril was found to be an effective dose-dependent and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with good compliance. Uptitration to the full therapeutic dosage of perindopril is an efficient approach for the management of a broad range of hypertensive patients without CAD.     

Comparison of benazepril-amlodipine and captopril-thiazide combinations in the management of mild-to-moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of benazepril 10 mg + amlodipine 5 mg combination (BZ+AM) versus captopril 50 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (CP+HT) combination. MATERIAL: 405 outpatients with mild-to-moderate arterial hypertension not adequately controlled by a monotherapy with ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers or diuretics entered this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. METHOD: After a 2-week placebo run-in, 397 patients with sitting diastolic (D) blood pressure (BP) > 95 mmHg and/or sitting systolic (S) BP > 160 mmHg were randomized to receive either BZ+AM (201 patients) or CP+HT (196 patients) once daily for 12 weeks. Main outcome measure was sitting DBP and SBP values at the end of active treatment. The response rate was defined as the proportion of patients with either a final sitting DBP < 90 mmHg or decreased by at least 10 mmHg or a sitting SBP < 150 mmHg or decreased by at least 20 mmHg from baseline. RESULTS: The DBP and SBP values obtained with BZ+AM were, respectively, 2.7 and 3.7 mmHg lower than those obtained with CP+HT (both p < 0.001 vs. CP+HT). The response rate in the BZ+AM group (94.8%) was better than that observed in the CP+HT group (86.0%, p = 0.004). The incidence of adverse events was similar with the 2 treatment regimens (17.9% for both). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a higher antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed combination BZ 10 mg+AM 5 mg as compared with CP 50 mg+HT 25 mg.     

Antihypertensive Effect and Tolerability of Perindopril in Indian Hypertensive and Type 2 Diabetic Patients: 1-Year Randomised, Double-Blind, Parallel Study vs Atenolol

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the antihypertensive effect and acceptability of a perindopril-based group with that of an atenolol-based group in Indian hypertensive type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: 100 ambulant patients aged between 35 and 69 years were recruited into this monocentric, randomised, double-blind study in two parallel groups for 1 year after a 1-month washout period on placebo. The setting was a tertiary care institution. PATIENTS: All patients had stable, essential hypertension between 95mm Hg and 115mm Hg, type 2 diabetes with glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) <12%, and albuminuria between 300mg and 3.5g/24 hours. There were 50 patients per treatment group and two patient population groups were studied, intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP). The former constituted all patients, whilst the latter included those without major protocol deviation and who completed the 12-month study. INTERVENTIONS: The study drugs were perindopril 4 to 8mg once daily or atenolol 50 to 100mg once daily. In each group therapeutic adjustment was planned by doubling the dose and then by the addition of hydrochlorothiazide 25mg daily. Nifedipine 30 to 60mg daily was subsequently added if the desired drop in blood pressure was not obtained. The ITT group was analysed by Student's t-test, and a 2-way analysis of variance was performed for the PP population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comparison of the control of hypertension, biochemical abnormalities, blood sugar and adverse effects was performed in the atenolol group versus the perindopril group. RESULTS: On single-dose therapy after 1 month 17 patients (60%) had normal blood pressure [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 相似文献   

Comparative haemodynamic responses to the first dose of short- and long-acting ACE inhibitors in patients with congestive heart failure

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitors (ACEi's) confer significant mortality and morbidity benefits in all functional grades of chronic heart failure (CHF). However, physicians' concerns regarding the possible occurrence of first-dose hypotension appear to be a contributing factor to their under-utilisation in both hospital and primary care settings. We investigated whether long-acting and short-acting ACEi's differ in their haemodynamic responses to the first-dose in patients with CHF. METHOD: This was a multicentre, randomised, open, two-parallel-group study of captopril 6.25 mg and perindopril 2 mg. 240 patients with CHF, age 68.9 +/- 8.9 years, of whom 66% were male, NYHA II-IV, with average blood pressure baseline values of 132.2 +/- 16.2/78.5 +/- 10.5 mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 31.3 +/- 7.4% received either captopril (n = 124) or perindopril (n = 116). Blood pressure was continuously monitored during the 8 h following drug intake. Minimum levels and maximum decreases in systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressures were measured, along with the incidence of hypotensive episodes defined as mean blood pressure (MBP) fall > 20 mmHg, whether symptomatic or not. Subgroups of patients distributed according to age, baseline blood pressure (BP) and LVEF were subsequently analysed. RESULTS: Overall, a statistically significant treatment effect in favour of perindopril was observed. First-dose hypotension was observed more frequently following captopril than perindopril administration, with lower MAP minimal levels (78.0 +/- 8.9 vs. 84.5 +/- 10.1 mmHg, p < 0.0001), greater maximum falls (17.6 +/- 8.3 vs. 12.8 +/- 7.3 mmHg, p < 0.0001) and more frequent hypotensive episodes (42% vs. 15%, p < 0.0001). The incidence of at least one symptomatic episode was also significantly higher with captopril (10 patients vs. one patient, p = 0.029). Subgroup analyses according to age (< or = 70 years or > 70 years) or LVEF (< or = 30% or > 30%) reflected the main result. CONCLUSION: Initiation of treatment with ACE inhibitors is associated with different haemodynamic and clinical tolerances in CHF patients, regardless of their risk for hypotension, with possible clinical implications.     

Candesartan cilexetil plus hydrochlorothiazide combination: a review of its use in hypertension

The combination of candesartan cilexetil [an angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonist] plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic), has been used in the treatment of patients with hypertension. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of various doses of this combination, administered orally once a day for 4 to 52 weeks, has been demonstrated in clinical trials. These studies showed that combinations of candesartan cilexetil 4 to 16 mg with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg induced significant reductions reductions in systolic (S) BP and diastolic (D) BP from baseline in patients with mild to severe hypertension. Data from clinical trials indicated that reductions in BP induced by candesartan cilexetil 4 to 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combinations were significantly greater than those observed after monotherapy with either drug. Treatment for 8 weeks with candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or candesartan cilexetil 16 mg induced SBP/DBP reductions of 12.0/7.5 mm Hg and 7.5/5.5mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.05 both comparisons). Moreover, data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study in 1038 patients with mild to moderate hypertension showed that the greatest reductions in SBP/DBP were achieved by candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Significant differences in BP reduction in favour of the combination were observed when hypertensive patients were given candesartan cilexetil 4 or 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy for 8 weeks. Additionally, greater efficacy of the combination compared to monotherapy with either drug was demonstrated by response rates to treatment. Moreover, a fixed combination of candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg demonstrated a greater antihypertensive effect than losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in two clinical trials. Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg showed a similar antihypertensive effect compared with that of combined lisinopril 10 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination was well tolerated in patients with hypertension. Combined data from placebo-controlled trials showed that most adverse events were uncommon and not serious. Patients receiving combination therapy exhibited, among other adverse events, headache (3.2 vs 5.5% for candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and placebo, respectively), back pain (3.0 vs 2.4%), dizziness (2.6 vs 1.2%) and respiratory infection (2.5 vs 1.4%). Moreover, 3.3 and 2.7% of patients receiving candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide or placebo, respectively, discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The combination of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide (AT(1)-receptor antagonist and thiazide diuretic, respectively) is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension. Data from randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that this combination is significantly more efficacious than either agent alone. Moreover, the combination of these two agents showed an excellent adverse event profile. Current data support the use of this combination as an alternative when monotherapy with either agent is not effective, and there are no compelling or specific indications for other drugs. However, data from large clinical trials, evaluating morbidity and mortality outcomes, are needed to determine the precise role of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination in the treatment of patients with hypertension.     

Persistence of anti-hypertensive effect after missed dose of perindopril

AIMS: To assess the persistence of the antihypertensive effect of the ACE-inhibitor perindopril after one missed dose. METHODS: After a placebo run-in period, 10 hypertensive patients were started on perindopril 4 mg once daily in the morning, increased to 8 mg once daily after 4 weeks if office diastolic BP >85 mmHg. 24 h BP monitoring was performed at the end of the placebo run-in period and during active treatment in week 9 and 10 on either active treatment or a placebo-day using a double-blind, randomized, cross-over design. RESULTS: Office BP decreased from 155+/-3/100+/-2 mmHg at the end of placebo to 139+/-3/89+/-2 mmHg (P<0.05 vs placebo) after 8 weeks of active treatment. After 2 months of active treatment, 24 h ABP showed significant decreases in day BP by -11+/-1/-7+/-1 mmHg and in night BP by -11+/-2/-7+/-1 mmHg while on active treatment. During the placebo-day, daytime BP showed decreases by -10+/-1/-5+/-1 and night BP by -8+/-2/-6+/-1 mmHg (NS vs active treatment day). CONCLUSIONS: Perindopril 4-8 mg day-1 causes a persistent decrease in BP during the 24 h dosing interval, which is mostly maintained over the 24-48 h after dosing.     

Interactions between levetiracetam and cardiovascular drugs against electroconvulsions in mice

BackgroundHypertension and heart failure belong to common comorbid conditions with epilepsy so drug interactions between antiepileptics and cardiovascular drugs are possible in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of angiotensin AT₁ receptor antagonists (losartan potassium and candesartan cilexetil), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (captopril and perindopril arginine) and diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide and ethacrynic acid) on the anticonvulsant activity of levetiracetam (LEV) in mice.MethodsThe protective action of LEV was examined in the maximal electroshock seizure threshold test. Drugs were administered intraperitoneally (ip). Additionally, combinations of cardiovascular drugs with LEV were tested for adverse effects in the passive avoidance task and the chimney test.ResultsLosartan potassium (50 mg/kg), candesartan cilexetil (8 mg/kg), captopril (50 mg/kg), hydrochlorothiazide (100 mg/kg) and ethacrynic acid (100 mg/kg) did not affect the anticonvulsant activity of LEV. Perindopril arginine (10 mg/kg) raised the convulsive threshold for LEV administered at doses of 100, 300 and 500 mg/kg. This interaction could be pharmacodynamic in nature because the brain concentration of LEV remained unchanged by perindopril. The adverse effects of the combined treatment with LEV and cardiovascular drugs were not observed in the passive avoidance task or the chimney test.ConclusionsAlthough experimental data can be hardly extrapolated to clinical practice, it is suggested that perindopril arginine may positively influence the anticonvulsant action of LEV in epileptic patients. The use of losartan potassium, candesartan cilexetil, captopril, hydrochlorothiazide or ethacrynic acid in patients treated with LEV seems neutral regarding its anticonvulsant activity.     

Clinical Experience with Perindopril in Elderly Hypertensive Patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of perindopril in a subgroup of 3010 elderly (> or =65 years) hypertensive patients, who participated in a large US general practice-based community trial. METHODS: All patients received open-label perindopril 4 mg once a day for 6 weeks. After 6 weeks the dosage was either maintained (group I) or increased to 8 mg/day (group II) based on the physician's assessment of blood pressure (BP) response. Patients were then followed for another 6 weeks for a total study duration of 12 weeks. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics revealed a higher proportion of women, longer duration of hypertension and higher baseline systolic BP (SBP) among elderly than young (<65 years, n = 7332) hypertensive patients. A clinically relevant BP reduction of similar magnitude was obtained in elderly and young patients with perindopril monotherapy. At week 12, the mean reduction in BP from baseline was 18.4/8.7 mm Hg in the elderly and 17.5/11.3 mm Hg in the young. Elderly patients with hypertension not responding adequately to the 4 mg/day dosage at week 6 had a BP reduction of 6.3/3.6 mm Hg (group II). Up-titration to an 8 mg/day dosage for another 6 weeks gave an additional 8.9/3.5 mm Hg reduction resulting in a total reduction of 15.2/7.1 mm Hg from baseline. A similar magnitude of increase in response to up-titration of perindopril was seen in young patients. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) on perindopril monotherapy was achieved in 41.4% of elderly and 51.9% of young patients. In both age groups, up-titration to an 8.0 mg/day dosage in group II patients increased BP control by approximately 5-fold at week 12 (28.2% in the elderly and 36.4% in the young). A similar increased response on BP reduction and BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) with up-titration was seen in elderly subgroups of African American and diabetic patients. The 7th Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommended target goal of <130/80 mm Hg was achieved with perindopril monotherapy in 15.6% of hypertensive diabetic patients. Perindopril reduced BP effectively and safely in very elderly (> or =75 years) hypertensive patients. Perindopril was well tolerated in elderly patients including high-risk groups. The incidence of cough (7-10%), the most common symptom, was similar in all age groups. The low incidence of postural hypotension (< or =0.2%) observed in the elderly and very elderly further supports the good tolerance and safety profile of the drug.Data analysis from this study suggests that community physicians, in general, are less aggressive in controlling BP in the elderly and more inclined to treat or control diastolic BP than SBP. CONCLUSION: Perindopril treatment is effective and well tolerated in elderly patients with hypertension.     

The response to the first dose of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in uncomplicated hypertension--a placebo controlled study utilising ambulatory blood pressure recording.

1. The importance of total dose to the initial hypotensive response with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (quinapril) was assessed using a suggested 'maintenance' dose (20 mg) or matched placebo in a randomised double-blind study in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. 2. Thirty-two patients were recruited who were not on therapy or had not received diuretic therapy in their existing drug treatment in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary causes of hypertension had previously been excluded and sustained clinic blood pressures of SBP greater than 160 mmHg and/or DBP greater than 90 mmHg were taken as indications for a trial of adjuvant or monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor. 3. After uneventful supervised therapy with quinapril in an open pilot study (n = 5) 27 patients entered a double-blind, randomised, crossover study of quinapril or placebo using ambulatory monitoring to assess BP response. 4. All patients remained asymptomatic and both therapy and monitoring were well tolerated. A smooth onset of antihypertensive effect was noted with an overall 24 h placebo corrected fall in systolic BP of 9.9 mmHg (7.2-12.6 95% CI) and diastolic BP of 6.4 mmHg (4.2-8.8) with no significant effect on heart rate. Individual placebo corrected maximal responses during the first 8 h following quinapril showed a wide range for both systolic (+1.56 to 44.0 mmHg) and diastolic (+2.3 to -35.6 mmHg) pressure. Larger falls tended to be associated with higher baseline pretreatment pressures but in no case did absolute systolic pressure fall below 100 mmHg during the first 8 h following administration of placebo or quinapril.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)