Results of a comparative, phase III, 12-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind assessment of the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of telmisartan and amlodipine versus amlodipine monotherapy in Indian adults with stage II hypertension

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a new fixed-dose combination (FDC) of telmisartan 40 mg + amlodipine 5 mg (T+A) compared with amlodipine 5-mg monotherapy (A) in adult Indian patients with stage II hypertension. METHODS: This comparative, Phase III, 12-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted in Indian patients aged 18 to 65 years with established stage II hypertension. Patients were treated with oral FDC of T+A or A QD before breakfast for 12 weeks; blood pressure (BP) and heart rate were measured in the sitting position. Primary efficacy end points were reduction in clinical systolic BP (SBP)/ diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline to study end and number of responders (ie, patients who achieved target SBP/ DBP <130/<80 mm Hg) at end of study. Tolerability was assessed by treatment-emergent adverse events, identified using physical examination, laboratory analysis, and electrocardiography. RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were enrolled in the study; 203 patients (143 men, 60 women) completed the study while 7 were lost to follow-up (4 patients in the T+A group and 3 in the A group) and considered with-drawn. At study end, statistically significant percentage reductions from baseline within groups and between groups were observed in SBP (T+A [-27.4%]; A [-16.6%]) and DBP (T+A [-20.1%]; A [-13.3%]) (all, P < 0.05). Response rates were 87.3% (89/102) in the T+A group and 69.3% (70/101) in the A group (P < 0.05). The prevalences of adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups (T+A, 16.0% [17/106]; A, 15.4% [16/104]). Peripheral edema was reported in 8.5% patients (9/106) in the T+A group compared with 13.5% (14/104) in the A group, and cough was reported in 3.8% patients (4/106) in the T+A group and 1.0% (1/104) patients in the A group; these differences did not reach statistical significance. The incidences of headache, dizziness, and diarrhea were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among these Indian patients with stage II hypertension, the FDC of T+A was found to be significantly more effective, with regard to BP reductions, than A, and both treatments were well tolerated.     

Manidipine versus enalapril monotherapy in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure reduction is associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular events and death, particularly in patients with both hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and effect on metabolic risk factors of manidipine, a new dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, and enalapril, a widely used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind trial compared manidipine and enalapril in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-104 mm Hg, systolic blood pressure [SBP] < or =190 mm Hg). Following a 3-week, single-blind placebo run-in period, eligible patients were randomized to receive either manidipine 10 mg or enalapril 10 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The dose was doubled after 3 weeks in patients who had not responded to treatment (DBP > or =90 mm Hg). The primary efficacy end point was change in DBP from baseline to the end of the study. Secondary outcomes were the responder rate (DBP <90 mm Hg and/or a DBP reduction of > or =10 mm Hg) at the end of the study. Other secondary measures were changes from baseline to the end of the study in heart rate and in the following measures obtained by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM): 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime mean DBP and SBP, and the trough:peak ratio. Blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, and creatinine were measured at the end of the placebo run-in period and the end of treatment. The study had 80% power to detect a between-treatment difference in mean sitting DBP of >3 mm Hg. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study. After the placebo run-in period, 13 patients were excluded from the study: 4 for DBP values outside the specified limits, 7 at their request, and 2 for adverse events. Thus, 111 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to treatment (53 manidipine, 58 enalapril). The population consisted of 61 men and 50 women with a mean (SD) age of 62 (11) years and a body mass index of 28.2 (2.4) kg/m2. Among patients who completed the study, drug doses were doubled in 67.6% (25/37) of patients in the manidipine group and 60.0% (24/40) of patients in the enalapril group (P = NS). Similar reductions in blood pressure were observed in both groups, from a mean (SD) of 164 (12)/97.5 (5) mm Hg at baseline to 141 (12)/84.5 (6) mm Hg at the end of the study in the manidipine group (P < 0.01), and from 159 (12)/98 (4) mm Hg to 139 (12)/86 (8) mm Hg in the enalapril group (P < 0.01). The proportion of responders was 66.7% (32/48) in the manidipine group and 60.0% (30/50) in the enalapril group; the difference between groups was not significant. Twenty-four-hour ABPM revealed significant (P < 0.01) and similar reductions in blood pressure in both groups, with a trough:peak ratio of approximately -50%. Neither drug affected heart rate. Among the statistically significant changes in metabolic parameters, significant reductions in HbA(1c) (from 6.7% [1.4%] to 6.2% [1.1%]) and blood glucose concentrations (from 152 [44] to 143 [44] mg/dL) were observed only in the manidipine group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, manidipine was as metabolically neutral and as effective as enalapril in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, providing a sustained 24-hour antihypertensive effect.     

Repaglinide versus nateglinide monotherapy: a randomized, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE: A randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter 16-week clinical trial compared efficacy and safety of repaglinide monotherapy and nateglinide monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with diet and exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 150) had received treatment with diet and exercise in the previous 3 months with HbA(1c) >7 and < or =12%. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with repaglinide (n = 76) (0.5 mg/meal, maximum dose 4 mg/meal) or nateglinide (n = 74) (60 mg/meal, maximum dose 120 mg/meal) for 16 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy end points were changes in HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values from baseline, respectively. Postprandial glucose, insulin, and glucagon were assessed after a liquid test meal (baseline, week 16). Safety was assessed by incidence of adverse events or hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) values were similar in both groups (8.9%). Final HbA(1c) values were lower for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (7.3 vs. 7.9%). Mean final reductions of HbA(1c) were significantly greater for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (-1.57 vs. -1.04%; P = 0.002). Mean changes in FPG also demonstrated significantly greater efficacy for repaglinide than nateglinide (-57 vs. -18 mg/dl; P < 0.001). HbA(1c) values <7% were achieved by 54% of repaglinide-treated patients versus 42% for nateglinide. Median final doses were 6.0 mg/day for repaglinide and 360 mg/day for nateglinide. There were 7% of subjects treated with repaglinide (five subjects with one episode each) who had minor hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) versus 0 patients for nateglinide. Mean weight gain at the end of the study was 1.8 kg in the repaglinide group as compared with 0.7 kg for the nateglinide group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients previously treated with diet and exercise, repaglinide and nateglinide had similar postprandial glycemic effects, but repaglinide monotherapy was significantly more effective than nateglinide monotherapy in reducing HbA(1c) and FPG values after 16 weeks of therapy.     

Results of a phase III, 8-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial to assess the effects of amlodipine camsylate versus amlodipine besylate in Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Amlodipine besylate has been used in Korea for the treatment of hypertension for >17 years, with well-established efficacy and tolerability. Amlodipine camsylate is a newer formulation developed for generic use. It has been assessed in terms of physical stability and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and been found to be effective in lowering blood pressure in preclinical and Phase I and II trials. However, to date, no studies have compared the clinical effectiveness of amlodipine camsylate and amlodipine besylate in treating hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of amlodipine camsylate compared with amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This Phase III, 8-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in 13 cardiology centers across the Republic of Korea. Male and female Korean patients aged 18 to 75 years having uncomplicated, mild to moderate, essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] 90-<110 mm Hg) and receiving no antihypertensives in the 2 weeks before randomization were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral treatment with amlodipine camsylate or amlodipine besylate. For the first 4 weeks, patients received amlodipine 5 mg QD (morning). After 4 weeks, if either blood pressure was > or =140/ > or =90 mm Hg or SiDBP had not decreased by > or =10 mm Hg from baseline, the dose of amlodipine was increased to 10 mg QD for 4 weeks. Trough blood pressure and heart rate were measured in duplicate with the patient in the sitting position at each clinic visit (baseline [week 0] and weeks 4 and 8 of treatment); mean values were calculated and recorded. At weeks 4 and 8, tolerability was assessed using history taking and laboratory analysis, and compliance was assessed using pill counts. The primary end point was change from baseline in SiDBP at week 8. Secondary end points were change from baseline in sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) at week 8 in the total population and in the subgroup of patients who had previously received antihypertensive treatment versus those who had not. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were enrolled (mean age, 53 years; 105 women, 84 men; mean body weight, 65.8 kg). One patient in the amlodipine camsylate group dropped out of the study at week 0 of treatment (this patient did not use any study medication) and was excluded from the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Thus, 188 patients were treated and included in the ITT analysis (94 patients per treatment group; ITT analysis); 161 patients were included in the perprotocol (PP) analysis (n = 80 for amlodipine camsylate, n = 81 for amlodipine besylate) (14 patients in the amlodipine camsylate group and 13 patients in the amlodipine besylate group were excluded from the PP analysis due to consistent withdrawal or protocol violation). Mean (SD) SiSBP and SiDBP were significantly decreased from baseline in both groups (amlodipine camsylate, from 146.7 [12.3]/96.6 [5.4] to 127.9 [14.8]/83.4 [7.7] mm Hg [both, P < 0.001]; amlodipine besylate, from 146.8 [12.8]/96.7 [5.1] to 128.0 [10.1]/83.8 [7.5] mm Hg [both, P < 0.001]). The differences in SiSBP/SiDBP between the 2 groups at week 8 were not significant. The SiDBP response rates in the subgroups that had and had not been previously treated with antihypertensives were statistically similar (56/69 [81.2%] and 83/92 [90.2%], respectively). The prevalences of clinical adverse events (AEs) were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups (amlodipine camsylate, 27.3 %; amlodipine besylate, 28.7%). The most common AEs were dizziness and dyspnea (both in 3/94 [3.2%] and 1/94 [1.1%] patients who received amlodipine camsylate and amlodipine besylate, respectively). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and tolerability of amlodipine camsylate were not significantly different from those of amlodipine besylate in these Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

BACKGROUND: Patients with hypertension may require combination therapy to attain the blood pressure targets recommended by US and European treatment guidelines. Combination therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blocker would be expected to provide enhanced efficacy. OBJECTIVES: Two studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of various combinations of amlodipine and valsartan administered once daily with their individual components and placebo in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [MSDBP] >/=95 and < 110 mm Hg). A secondary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. METHODS: The 2 studies were multinational, multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials. In study 1, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg with valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, or placebo. In study 2, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 10 mg once daily, valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 10 mg with valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable in both studies was change from baseline in MSDBP at the end of the study. Secondary variables included the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), response rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a >/= 10-mm Hg decrease from baseline), and control rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg). Safety was assessed in terms of adverse events (spontaneously reported or elicited by questioning), vital signs, and laboratory values. RESULTS: A total of 1911 patients were randomized to treatment in study 1 (1022 amlodipine + valsartan; 507 valsartan; 254 amlodipine; 128 placebo); 1250 were randomized to treatment in study 2 (419, 415, 207, and 209, respectively). In all treatment groups in both studies, the majority of patients were white (79.5% study 1, 79.4% study 2) and male (53.5% and 50.3%, respectively). The overall mean age was 54.4 years in study 1 and 56.9 years in study 2. The mean weight of patients in study 1 was higher than that in study 2 (88.8 vs 79.7 kg). The overall baseline mean sitting BP was 152.8/99.3 mm Hg in study 1 and 156.7/99.1 mm Hg in study 2. With the exception of a few combinations that included amlodipine 2.5 mg, the combination regimens in both studies were associated with significantly greater reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP compared with their individual components and placebo (P < 0.05). A positive dose response was observed for all combinations. The highest response rate in study 1 was associated with the highest dose of combination therapy (amlodipine 5 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 91.3%). Amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan 320 mg, and placebo were associated with response rates of 71.9%, 73.4%, and 40.9%, respectively. In study 2, the 2 doses of combination therapy were associated with similar response rates (amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg: 88.5%; amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 87.5%). Amlodipine 10 mg was associated with a response rate of 86.9%; valsartan 160 and 20 mg were associated with response rates of 74.9% and 72.0%, respectively; and placebo was associated with a response rate of 49.3%. Control rates followed a similar pattern. The incidence of peripheral edema with combination therapy was significantly lower compared with amlodipine monotherapy (5.4% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = 0.014), was significantly higher compared with valsartan monotherapy (2.1%; P < 0.001), and did not differ significantly from placebo (3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In these adult patients with mild to moderate hypertension, the combination of amlodipine + valsartan was associated with significantly greater blood pressure reductions from baseline compared with amlodipine or valsartan monotherapy or placebo. The incidence of peripheral edema was significantly lower with combination therapy than with amlodipine monotherapy.     

Losartan versus valsartan in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trial

BACKGROUND: Losartan, the first of the angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to be introduced, has been studied extensively in comparison with other classes of antihypertensive agents. Less research has been conducted on the efficacy and tolerability of losartan compared with that of other ARBs. OBJECTIVE: This randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group equivalence study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily regimen of losartan with that of valsartan. METHODS: Patients > or = 21 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension, defined as a trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) between 95 and 115 mm Hg, were randomized to receive once-daily losartan (50 mg) or valsartan (80 mg) for 12 weeks. At the end of the sixth treatment week, patients in both groups with trough SiDBP > or = 90 mm Hg had their dose doubled for the remainder of the treatment period. Analysis of variance was used to compare treatment groups with respect to change in mean trough SiDBP from baseline to week 12. Within-treatment changes were analyzed using the paired t test. With at least 220 patients per treatment group, the study had 90% power to place a 90% CI on the difference between losartan and valsartan in SiDBP within the equivalence interval of +/- 2.5 mm Hg. RESULTS: A total of 495 patients were randomized, 247 to the losartan group and 248 to the valsartan group: 456 patients completed the study. Adjusted mean change from baseline values for trough SiDBP atthe end of 12 weeks of treatment were significantly different (P < 0.001) from zero in both the losartan group (-9.9 mm Hg) and the valsartan group (-10.1 mm Hg). At week 12, losartan was as effective as valsartan in lowering SiDBP, with a between-group difference of 0.2 mm Hg (90% CI, -1.3 to 1.7; P = 0.827). At week 6, the difference in SiDBP between groups was -1.3 mm Hg (90% CI, -2.7 to 0.0; P = 0.106). A similar pattern of results was obtained at weeks 6 and 12 for sitting systolic blood pressure. The percentage of patients reaching the SiDBP goal at week 6 (46% [112/2411 losartan; 42% [103/245] valsartan) and week 12 (57% [139/243] losartan; 59% [145/245] valsartan) was not significantly different between the treatment groups. Both losartan and valsartan were similarly well tolerated. Over the 12 weeks, the laboratory profiles of the 2 drugs were similar except for serum uric acid levels, which decreased from 6.0 to 5.7 mg/dL in the losartan group and increased from 5.9 to 6.0 mg/dL in the valsartan group (P = 0.001 for between-treatment difference). CONCLUSIONS: At starting and titrated doses, losartan and valsartan are similarly effective in reducing blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Losartan, but not valsartan, was associated with a decrease in serum uric acid levels.     

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine orotate versus amlodipine besylate in adult patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 8-week follow-up, noninferiority trial

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine orotate with those of amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was designed as a noninferiority study. To be included in the study, previously untreated patients had to have a sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) of 90 to 109 mm Hg. Previously treated patients had to discontinue their current annhypertensive medications and have a baseline SiDBP between 90 and 109 mm Hg after a 2-week washout period. Patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to receive 5 mg amlodipine orotate or 5 mg amlodipine besylate for 8 weeks. The medication dose was doubled (10 mg QD for either amlodipine orotate or amlodipine besylate) 4 weeks after enrollment if SiDBP was >or=90 mm Hg. The primary efficacy analysis was noninferiority of the difference in mean trough SiDBP changes from baseline for amlodipin eorotate as compared with amlodipine besylate after 8 weeks of treatment. For the secondary efficacy analysis, 2 other measures were analyzed after 8 weeks of treatment. The SiDBP response rate was defined as an SiDBP measurement<90 mm Hg at the last clinical follow-up visit or an absolute reduction of >or=10 mm Hg in SiDBP from baseline until the last clinical follow-up visit. In addition, noninferiority of the difference in mean trough sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) changes from baseline was analyzed for amlodipine orotate as compared with amlodipine besylate. The drug compliance rate was estimated by pillcount. RESULTS: Eligible patients (n=109; 43 women and 66 men) were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine orotate (n=53) or amlodipine besylate (n=56). No significant differences were found in sex, age, weight, or current smoking between the groups (all, P=NS). The proportion of patients with previous antihypertensive medications was not different between the groups (47.2% [25/53] in the amlodipine orotate group and 50.0% [28/56] in the amlodipine besylate group; P=NS). No significant differences were found in baseline SiDBP (mean [SD], 100 [6] mm Hg [range, 90-109 mm Hg] in the amlodipine orotate group and 100 [6] mm Hg [range, 90-108 mm Hg] in the amlodipine besylate group; P=NS) or in baseline SiSBP (mean [SD], 149 [14] mm Hg [range, 125-179 mm Hg] in the amlodipine orotate group and 146 [10] mm Hg [range, 123-167 mm Hg] in the amlodipine besylate group; p=NS). The mean (SD) changes in SiDBP were -15.6 (6.3) mm Hg for the amlodipine orotate group and -14.5 (5.5) mm Hg for the amlodipine besylate groups was 1.1 (5.9) mm Hg (95% CI, -0.87 to infinity), and because the lower boundary of the 95% CI was greater than -5 mm Hg, amlodipine orotate was considered noninferior to amlodipine besylate. The response rate was 48 of 51 (94.1%) in the amlodipine orotate group compared with 50 (92.6%) of 54 in the amlodipine besylate group after 8 weeks of treatment (P=NS). The mean (SD) compliance rates were 97.6% (3.6%) in the amlodipine orotate group and 96.5% (4.3%) in the amlodipine besylate group (P=NS). The incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) was similar between the groups (1/53 [1.9%]) in the amlodipine orotate group vs 4/55 [7.3%] in the amlodipine besylate group; P=NS). The most common drug-related AE overall was peripheral edema (2/55 [3.6%]), and the most common of all the AEs was upper respiratory tract infection (4/55 [7.3%]) in the amlodipine besylate group. The most common drug-related AE was headache (1/53 [1.9%]) in the amlodipine orotate group and peripheral edema (2/55 [3.6%]) in the amlodipine besylate group. No severe AEs were found in either group. CONCLUSION: The reduction in SiDBP after 8 weeks of amlodipine orotate treatment was noninferior to that of amlodipine besylate in these Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. The SiDBP response rate and the reduction in SISBP after 8 weeks of amlodipine orotate treatment were not significantly different from those of amlodipine besylate treatment. Both agents were wel tolerated.     

Clindamycin versus chloramphenicol in treatment of anaerobic infections: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Seventy patients with substantiated anaerobic infections were treated parenterally with clindamycin or chloramphenicol in a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. No significant differences in clinical response or toxicity were noted between the two groups of patients.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of two fixed-dose combinations of antihypertensive agents, amlodipine/benazepril versus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a 16-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study

BackgroundHypertension is a prevalent condition that is closely associated with chronic complications in patients with diabetes. Fixed-dose combination therapy is currently recommended for the treatment of hypertension due to the advantage of reducing the pill burden. However, the effects of combination therapy may be diverse because of the different components.ObjectivesWe examined blood pressure reduction and metabolic alterations after amlodipine/benazepril and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, parallel comparison, noninferiority clinical trial included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria detected within the past year. After a 2-week, placebo run-in period, patients were assigned to treatment with amlodipine/benazepril or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide for 16 weeks. The primary end point was mean change in diastolic blood pressure. The prespecified boundary for noninferiority was 3.5 mm Hg of the mean change in diastolic blood pressure between treatments (amlodipine/benazepril minus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide). If the upper limit of the 95% CI fell within 3.5 mm Hg, amlodipine/benazepril would be considered noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide.ResultsOf the 226 patients assessed for eligibility, 169 satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were assigned to a treatment group; 83 patients (54.2% male, mean age of 60.5 [10.0] years) in the amlodipine/benazepril group and 84 patients (64.3% male, mean age of 59.0 [10.6] years) in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group received at least 1 dose of study medication and were included in the intention-to-treat population. In the per-protocol population, amlodipine/benazepril (n = 74) was noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (n = 78) with regard to the mean change in diastolic blood pressure (difference, ?0.9 mm Hg; 95% CI, ?3.5 to 1.6). The mean change in systolic blood pressure was not significantly different (2.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, ?1.2 to 6.0) between study groups (P = 0.195) in the per-protocol population. However, data from the intention-to-treat population suggest that patients in the amlodipine/benazepril group may have better metabolic outcomes than those in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group; specifically, a preservation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (5.7 mL/min/1.73 m² [95% CI, 1.9 to 9.6]; P = 0.004) and improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (?0.5% [95% CI, ?0.7 to ?0.2]; P < 0.001), fasting triglycerides (?0.4 mmol/L [95% CI, ?0.7 to ?0.2]; P = 0.002), HDL-C (0.07 mmol/L [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]; P = 0.022), and uric acid (?57.5 μmol/L [95% CI, ?74.8 to ?40.3]; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse effects between groups, with the exception of more respiratory disorders in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group (17 vs 5; P = 0 .006).ConclusionsThe study results suggest that amlodipine/benazepril is noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide with regard to blood pressure reduction and that this combination exerts beneficial effects on renal function, glucose control, HDL-C, and triglyceride levels compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. However, respiratory adverse events (particularly coughing) were more frequently reported in the amlodipine/benazepril group. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375322.     

Effects of oral fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan plus ramipril and losartan plus ramipril in hypertension: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase iii trial in adult indian patients

Background:

A new oral fixed-dose combination (FDC) of telmisartan plus ramipril is being introduced in India for the treatment of patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of an oral FDC of telmisartan plus ramipril with those of an oral FDC of losartan plus ramipril in adult Indian patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Methods:

This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study was conducted at 5 centers in India. Indian patients aged 18 to 65 years with uncomplicated stage 2 essential hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], >160/>100 mm Hg) were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive telmisartan 40 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (T + R) or losartan 50 mg plus ramipril 5 mg (L + R), PO (tablet) QD (before the morning meal) for 8 weeks. Supine blood pressure (BP) was measured at 0 (baseline) and 8 weeks of treatment. The primary end point was the mean reduction from baseline in BP. Responders were classified as patients who had a DBP <90 mm Hg at the end of 8 weeks of therapy. Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reports of adverse events (AEs) during the follow-up visits and laboratory analyses performed at week 8.

Results:

A total of 289 patients were enrolled (155 men, 134 women; mean age, 50.74 years). Of these, 8 patients in the T + R group and 7 in the L + R group were lost to follow-up and considered withdrawals. At the end of week 8, the mean percentage reduction in SBP was significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (24.1% vs 19.4%; P < 0.05). The mean percentage reduction in DBP was also significantly greater in the T + R group compared with that in the L + R group (17.3% vs 12.5%; P < 0.05). The response rates in the T + R and L + R groups were statistically similar (79.1% vs 68.7%). The most common AEs in the T + R and L + R groups were cough (9 [6.1%] and 11 [7.8%] patients, respectively) and headache (7 [4.7%] and 8 [5.7%] patients, respectively).

Conclusions:

The results in this study in Indian patients with stage 2 essential hypertension suggest that the FDC of T + R controlled BP more effectively compared with the FDC of L + R over 8 weeks. The response rates were similar between the 2 groups. Both treatments were well tolerated.     

Results of a multicenter, 8-week, parallel-group, randomized,double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine maleate versus amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Recently, amlodipine maleate was developed and tested in preclinical and Phase I clinical trials in Korea. The studies found pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics similar to those of amlodipine besylate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine maleate with those of amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 8-week, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III clinical trial. Eligible patients were Korean, aged 18 to 75 years, had hypertension, and were either taking antihypertensive medications or had a documented sitting diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 109 mm Hg. After a washout period of 2 weeks, patients were randomized to amlodipine maleate or amlodipine besylate for 8 weeks. In both groups, the medications were initiated at 5 mg QD. At day 29, the medication dose was increased to 10 mg QD if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) was > or = 90 mm Hg. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were enrolled. Fifty-seven patients received amlodipine maleate (29 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 49.0 [11.4] years) and 61 received amlodipine besylate (35 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 51.6 [9.4] years). Baseline mean (SD) values for sitting systolic blood pressure and SiDBP were 152.0 (12.2) mm Hg and 98.1 (5.6) mm Hg, respectively, for the amlodipine maleate group and 153.4 (14.0) mm Hg and 98.1 (5.5) mm Hg, respectively, for the amlodipine besylate group. In this population, amlodipine maleate was not inferior to amlodipine besylate: the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in SiDBP was greater than -4 mm Hg. The between-group difference in SiDBP response rate (the proportion of patients who experienced adequate SiDBP reductions) did not reach statistical significance: 85.7% (42/49) for the amlodipine maleate group and 91.8% (45/49) for the amlodipine besylate group. Compliance rates were similar between groups, with mean (SD) compliance rates of 97.4% (2.8%) and 97.1% (3.6%) in the amlodipine maleate and amlodipine besylate groups, respectively. Also, there were no significant differences in the incidences of drug-related clinical and laboratory adverse events; the most common were headache, flushing, facial edema, and paresthesia. CONCLUSION: In this population, the efficacy and tolerability observed with amlodipine maleate were similar to those seen with amlodipine besylate.     

Efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram versus citalopram in major depressive disorder: a 6-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatients

BACKGROUND: The S-enantiomer of citalopram (escitalopram) is the active moiety linked to the anti-depressant effects associated with citalopram (the racemate). For escitalopram to be approved for the treatment of depression in Europe, findings from clinical trials of escitalopram are required to match previous results from studies of the racemate, citalopram. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram and citalopram in outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: This prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study was conducted at 8 psychiatric outpatient clinics in the Federation of Russia. Adult outpatients aged 25 to 45 years with MDD and a total score > or =25 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 6 weeks of treatment with fixed daily doses of escitalopram 10 mg, citalopram 10 mg, or citalopram 20 mg. Efficacy assessments were made at weeks 0 (baseline), 1, 4, and 6 (study end or last observation carried forward). The primary efficacy parameter was the change from baseline in MADRS total score. Secondary measures were the change from baseline in MADRS total score in a subgroup of severely depressed patients (baseline MADRS total score, > or =35), MADRS core depression subscale score, and Clinical Global Impression-Severity and Improvement (CGI-S and CGI-I) scores; and the proportions of patients classified as responders and remitters at study end. Tolerability was assessed using adverse events (AEs) recorded by the investigator. RESULTS: Of 330 assessable randomized patients, 8 withdrew, including 7 who withdrew consent and 1 who withdrew due to recurrence of a preexisting event. Thus, 322 patients were included in the assessment (mean age, 35 years; 41.6% male; all white; escitalopram 10 mg, 108 patients; citalopram 10 mg, 106; citalopram 20 mg, 108). At study end, the mean (SE) change from baseline in MADRS total score was significantly greater in the escitalopram arm than in the 10- and 20-rag citalopram arms (-28.70 [0.78] vs -20.11 [0.80] and -25.19 [0.78]; both, P < 0.001). Improvements were more marked in the severely depressed subgroup (-30.33 [0.95] vs -20.87 [0.99] and -26.34 [0.91]). Changes in the CGI-S and CGI-I scores and the rates of response and remission were significantly greater in the escitalopram group compared with those in the citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups (CGI-S: -2.60 [0.10] vs -1.61 [0.10] and -2.05 [0.10]; CGI-I: +1.58 [0.09] vs +2.35 [0.10] and +1.80 [0.09]; response: 95.4% vs 44.3% and 83.3%; remission: 89.8% vs 25.5% and 50.9% [all, P < 0.001]). Mean (SE) changes from baseline in core depression subscale score were -19.00 (0.59), -13.00 (0.60), and -16.52 (0.58) with escitalopram, citalopram 10 mg, and citalopram 20 mg, respectively. The prevalence of AEs was significantly lower in the escitalopram group (7) compared with the citalopram groups (16 and 19 in the 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively; both, P < 0.05). Nausea (2 [1.9%], 5 [4.7%], and 7 [6.5%] patients in the escitalopram and citalopram 10- and 20-mg groups, respectively) and headache (1 [0.9%], 2 [1.9%], and 4 [3.7%]) were the most frequently reported AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study suggest that escitalopram 10 mg was more effective than citalopram 10 and 20 mg at 6 weeks in these adult outpatients with MDD. All treatments were well tolerated.     

Cefditoren pivoxil versus cefpodoxime proxetil for community-acquired pneumonia: results of a multicenter,prospective, randomized,double-blind study

BACKGROUND: According to recently issued treatment guidelines, appropriate empiric choices for ambulatory patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are a macrolide, doxycycline (for patients aged > or = 8 years), or an oral beta-lactam agent with good activity against pneumococci. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to compare cefditoren pivoxil, a new beta-lactam, with cefpodoxime proxetil, a beta-lactam with an established role in the treatment of CAP. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind study conducted in the United States and South Africa. Ambulatory patients with a diagnosis of CAP were randomized to 14 days of treatment with cefditoren 200 or 400 mg BID or cefpodoxime 200 mg BID. Assessments of clinical cure and pathogen eradication were conducted at 2 visits during treatment, 1 posttreatment visit (s48 hours after completion of treatment), and 1 follow-up visit (7-14 days after completion of treatment). The development of resistant pathogens was assessed at the follow-up visit but not thereafter. The relative cost of treatment was not assessed. RESULTS: The study enrolled 851 patients. Comparable clinical cure rates were observed among evaluable patients in the 3 treatment groups at both the posttreatment and followup visits: at the posttreatment visit, cure rates were 90.5% (162/179) for cefditoren 200 mg, 89.7% (148/165) for cefditoren 400 mg, and 92.2% (153/166) for cefpodoxime 200 mg; at the follow-up visit, they were a respective 88.4% (160/181), 87.2% (143/164), and 90.4% (151/167). Of the 171 strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae isolated before treatment, 22 (12.9%) had reduced susceptibility to penicillin, 5 (2.9%) of them penicillin resistant (minimum inhibitory concentration > or = 2 microg/mL). At the posttreatment visit, the overall eradication rates of pathogens isolated from microbiologically evaluable patients were 88.7% (134/151), 89.9% (134/149), and 95.7% (134/140) in the respective treatment groups (P = 0.031, cefditoren 200 mg vs cefpodoxime). Eradication rates of S pneumoniae were 93.8% (45/48), 95.7% (45/47), and 95.6% (43/ 45) in the respective treatment groups; those of Haemophilus influenzae were 90.2% (46/51), 97.7% (43/44), and 97.4% (37/38). The rates of resolution and/or improvement in clinical signs and symptoms were comparable between groups. The study drugs were well tolerated, with 1.7%, 2.5%, and 1.4% of patients in the respective groups discontinuing study drug prematurely due to a treatment-related adverse event, the majority of these associated with the digestive system. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that cefditoren may have a role in the treatment of CAP in ambulatory patients.     

Efficacy of benfluorex in combination with sulfonylurea in type 2 diabetic patients: an 18-week, randomized, double-blind study

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to demonstrate the superiority of benfluorex over placebo as an add-on therapy in type 2 diabetic patients in whom diabetes is insufficiently controlled by sulfonylurea monotherapy and who have a limitation for the use of metformin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Type 2 diabetic patients with HbA(1c) (A1C) (7-10%) who were receiving the maximum tolerated sulfonylurea dose and had a contraindication to or poor tolerance of metformin were randomly assigned (double blind) to receive benfluorex 450 mg/day (n = 165) or placebo (n = 160) for 18 weeks. The main efficacy criterion was A1C, analyzed as the change from baseline to the end of treatment using ANCOVA with baseline and country as covariates. Secondary criteria were fasting plasma glucose (FPG), insulin resistance, and plasma lipid level. RESULTS: Both groups were similar at baseline in the intention-to-treat population. A1C significantly decreased with benfluorex from 8.34 +/- 0.83 to 7.52 +/- 1.04% (P < 0.001) and tended to increase with placebo from 8.33 +/- 0.87 to 8.52 +/- 1.36% (NS), resulting in a mean adjusted difference between groups of -1.01% (95% CI -1.26 to -0.76; P < 0.001). The target A1C (< or =7%) was achieved in 34% of patients receiving benfluorex versus 12% of patients receiving placebo. Significant between-group differences in favor of benfluorex were observed for mean FPG (-1.65 mmol/l) (P < 0.001) and for homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance. Overall tolerance was similar in both groups. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the benfluorex group, without evidence of causality relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Benfluorex as an add-on therapy was superior to placebo in lowering A1C with a between-group difference of 1% in type 2 diabetic patients whose disease was insufficiently controlled with sulfonylurea alone and in whom metformin was contraindicated or not tolerated.     

Comparative clinical trial of S-adenosylmethionine versus nabumetone for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: An 8-week,multicenter, randomized,double-blind,double-dummy,Phase IV study in Korean patients

Background:S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) has antiinflammatory and analgesie effects and has been reported to ameliorate the pain and dysfunction of osteoarthritis (OA). The metabolism of SAMe can be affected by geographic or ethnic factors. However, its efficacy and tolerability versus NSAIDs have not been reported in an Asian population.Objective: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of SAMe 1200 mg/d and nabumetone 1000 mg/d in Korean patients with knee OA.Methods: This study was an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, Phase IV clinical trial. Eligible patients were aged >18 years and had knee OA according to the clinical and radiologic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology, with a symptom duration of ≥3 months and with a baseline pain rating of >40 mm on a visual analog scale (VAS) or a pain rating on the VAS that was increased by >10 mm or 20% during the washout period compared with the screening visit. After a washout period of 2 weeks, patients with OA were randomly assigned to receive SAMe 1200 mg/d (400 mg TID) or nabumetone 1000 mg once a day in the evening for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the patient's assessment of pain intensity using a VAS at week 8, and the secondary end points were functional class, patient's global assessment of disease status, physician's global assessment of response to therapy, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index. Adverse events were assessed based on spontaneous reports by patients during interviews and by laboratory tests.Results: One hundred thirty-four patients, all Asians, were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 treatment groups: 67 patients (56 women, 11 men; mean [SD] age, 63.9 [8.2] years) received SAMe 400 mg TID, and 67 patients (60 women, 7 men; mean age, 62.1 [8.4] years) received nabumetone 1000 mg once daily for 8 weeks. An analysis of changes in pain intensity between weeks 0 and 8 found that both SAMe and nabumetone effectively reduced pain intensity from baseline in each group (mean [SD] change: SAMe, ?13.0 [20.8] mm, P < 0.001; nabumetone, ?15.7 [20.9] mm, P < 0.001), and the degree of decrease in pain intensity was not significantly different between groups. Secondary end points showed significant improvements from baseline to 8 weeks in both groups. The patient's global assessment of disease status, physician's global assessment of response to therapy, and WOMAC index scores were not significantly different between the groups. Use of acetaminophen as rescue medication did not differ significantly between the groups during weeks 0 to 4 (SAMe, 88.5% [54/61]; nabumetone, 81.3% [52/64]) or weeks 4 to 8 (SAMe, 79.5% [35/44]; nabumetone, 68.5% [37/54]). No significant differences were observed between the treatments in the proportions of patients with all adverse events (SAMe, 35.8% [24/67]; nabumetone, 31.3% [21/67]), drugrelated clinical or laboratory-determined adverse events (SAMe, 22.4% [15/67]; nabumetone, 25.4% [17/67]), or discontinuations due to any adverse events (SAMe, 13.4% [9/67]; nabumetone, 10.4% [7/67]).Conclusion: This study found no significant differences in pain relief or tolerability between treatment with SAMe or nabumetone over 8 weeks in Korean patients with knee OA.     

Efficacy and tolerability of two formulations of ramipril in Korean adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension: An 8-week,multicenter, prospective,randomized, open-label,parallel-group noninferiority trial

Objective: This study was designed to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new generic formulation of ramipril (test) and the branded formulation of ramipril (reference) to satisfy regulatory requirements for marketing of the generic product for use in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.Methods: This was an 8-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group non-inferiority trial in adult patients (age > 18 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting dia-stolic blood pressure [SiDBP] 90–109 mm Hg). After a 2-week washout of previous antihypertensive medications, eligible patients were randomized to receive either ramipril 5 mg/d in the morning (low-dose group: baseline SiDBP 90–99 mm Hg) or ramipril 10 mg/d (high-dose group: baseline SiDBP 100–109 mm Hg) for the first 4 weeks. If SiDBP was ≥ 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks of treatment, the dose was increased to 10 mg/d for the remaining 4 weeks in the low-dose group, and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added to the regimen for the remaining 4 weeks in the high-dose group. The primary end point was the change in SiDBP from baseline to week 8. Secondary end points included a noninferiority analysis of the test and reference formulations with respect to the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) from baseline to week 8; SiDBP and SiSBP response rates (proportion of patients achieving an SiDBP < 90 mm Hg and SiSBP < 140 mm Hg, respectively) at 8 weeks; and changes from baseline in SiSBP, pulse wave velocity (PWV), exercise capacity, left-ventricular diastolic function (LVDF), and levels of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP). Laboratory and clinical adverse events (AEs) were monitored at each study visit (4 and 8 weeks).Results: The modified intent-to-treat population consisted of 89 patients (45 test, 44 reference; 60 men, 29 women; mean age, 49.7 years; mean weight, 69.9 kg). At week 8, mean (SD) SiSBP and SiDBP were significantly decreased from baseline in both groups (test: from 145.0 [9.7]/98.1 [5.3] mm Hg to 132.2 [11.1]/ 91.8 [7.1] mm Hg [P < 0.001]; reference: from 145.1 [11.4]/98.0 [5.7] mm Hg to 134.0 [14.6]/92.5 [7.9] mm Hg [P < 0.001]). The changes in blood pressure at week 8 did not differ significantly between the test and reference groups or between the low- and highdose groups in a subgroup analysis. Blood pressure response rates at 8 weeks did not differ significantly between the groups receiving the test and reference formulations (SiDBP: 26.7% and 31.8%, respectively; SiSBP: 37.8% and 40.9%). In addition, there were no significant between-group differences in the change in PWV (?63.8 and ?38.7 cm/sec), LVDF at rest or after exercise, or levels of BNP or hs-CRP. The incidence of AEs was 64.4% in the test formulation group and 68.2% in the reference group formulation (P = NS). The most common AE in both groups was cough (10/45 [22.2%] and 10/44 [22.7%]).Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the efficacy and tolerability of the test and reference formulations of ramipril in these Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension. The new generic formulation was noninferior to the reference formulation in terms of the change in SiDBP at week 8.     

Ertapenem versus ceftriaxone followed by appropriate oral therapy for treatment of complicated urinary tract infections in adults: results of a prospective,randomized, double-blind multicenter study

The efficacy and safety of intravenous (i.v.) ertapenem (1 g once a day) with the option to switch to an oral agent for treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) were compared with that of i.v. ceftriaxone (1 g daily) with the same oral switch option in a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized study. At entry, 592 patients were assigned to one of two strata: acute pyelonephritis or other complicated UTI without acute pyelonephritis. After a minimum of 3 days, patients could be switched to an oral antimicrobial agent. A total of 159 patients in the ertapenem group and 171 patients in the ceftriaxone group were microbiologically evaluable. Approximately 95% of patients in each treatment group were switched to oral therapy. The most common pathogens were Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. At the primary efficacy endpoint 5 to 9 days after treatment, 91.8% of patients who received ertapenem and 93.0% of those who received ceftriaxone had a favorable microbiological response (95% confidence interval for the difference, adjusting for strata, -7.6 to 5.1%), indicating that outcomes in the two treatment groups were equivalent. Microbiological success rates for the two treatment groups were similar when compared by stratum and also by severity of infection. The frequency and severity of drug-related adverse events were generally similar in both treatment groups. In this study, ertapenem was as effective as ceftriaxone for the initial treatment of complicated UTIs in adults, was generally well tolerated, and had a similar overall safety profile.