24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combinations compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients at increased cardiovascular risk: a VAST sub-study

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the effects of angiotensin-receptor blocker and diuretic combinations on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, the effects on 24-h ABP of the combination valsartan 160 mg od and hydrochlorothiazide 25 or 12.5 mg during 24 weeks of therapy were compared with the effects of amlodipine 10 mg monotherapy (group A10) in 474 stage-II hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. After a two-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg od or amlodipine 5 mg od. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg (group V160/HCTZ12.5) and 25 mg (group V160/HCTZ25) were added to the valsartan groups and in the A10 patients the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg od. RESULTS: All three treatments reduced 24-h BP as well as night-time and daytime BP levels from baseline. Twenty-four hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 15.9+/-1.0 mmHg (least-squares mean change+/-SE), 19.3+/-1.0 mmHg and 16.1+/-1.1 mmHg in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/HCTZ25 and A10 groups, respectively and 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced by 9.3+/-0.6 mmHg, 11.4+/-0.6 mmHg and 9.6+/-0.7 mmHg in the three groups. The differences between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the A10 group were significant (p<0.05) for the changes in 24-h systolic BP as well as for changes in daytime systolic BP and night-time diastolic BP. Control rates defined as ABPM < or =130/80 mmHg were: 48.4%, 60.8% and 50.9% in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/25 and A10 groups, respectively. The differences in control rates between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the other two treatment groups were significant at p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed-dose combination of valsartan 160 mg+HCTZ 25 mg od is an attractive therapeutic option measured on the effects on 24-h ABPM, night-time and daytime BP reduction and control rates in hypertensive patients at additional cardiovascular risk.     

Efficacy and safety of two treatment combinations of hypertension in very elderly patients

The study compared valsartan/amlodipine combination with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination in very elderly hypertensives. After a 4-week placebo period, 94 hypertensives, aged 75-89 years were randomized to valsartan 160mg/amlodipine 5mg or irbesartan 300mg/HCTZ 12.5mg for 24 weeks according to a prospective, parallel group study. After 4 weeks amlodipine or HCTZ was doubled in non-responders. Patients were checked every 4 weeks. At each visit clinical sitting, lying and standing blood pressure (BP), systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were evaluated, and an electrocardiogram was performed. At the end of the placebo period and of the treatment period a non-invasive 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed and electrolytes and uric acid were evaluated. Both combinations significantly reduced ambulatory BP. In the valsartan/amlodipine group the mean reduction (-29.9/-15.6 for 24h, -28.6/-14.5mmHg for day-time and -26.2/-17.4mmHg for night-time SBP/DBP) was similar to that of the irbesartan/HCTZ group (-29.6/-15.4 for 24h, -29.3/-14.9mmHg for day-time and -25.4/-16.9mmHg for night-time SBP/DBP). Both combinations significantly reduced clinical sitting and lying BP values with no difference between treatments. BP changes from lying to standing position were significantly greater in the irbesartan/HCTZ group (-17.2/-9.1mmHg) than in the valsartan/amlodipine group (-10.1/-1.9mmHg, p<0.05 for SBP and p<0.01 for DBP vs. irbesartan/HCTZ). Potassium significantly decreased and uric acid significantly increased (-0.4mmol/l, p<0.05 and +0.5mg/dl, p<0.05 vs. baseline, respectively) only in the irbesartan/HCTZ group. In conclusion, both combinations were similarly effective in reducing ambulatory and clinical BP in very elderly hypertensives. However, valsartan/amlodipine offered some advantages in terms of less pronounced BP orthostatic changes and absence of metabolic adverse effects.     

Antihypertensive effects of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in essential hypertension.

Fixed-dose combination therapy has received increased interest since publication of JNC-VI report and WHO/ISH guidelines 1999. We compared in a randomized, double-blind study the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan 80 mg combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to monotherapy with either HCTZ 12.5 mg or 25 mg in patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled by previous HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy. Two hundred and seventeen patients whose blood pressure (BP) control remained poor (95 mmHg < or = sitting diastolic BP < 115 mmHg) after a 4-week single-blind period with HCTZ 12.5 mg were randomized to receive either combination therapy with valsartan 80 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg (V/HCTZ) or monotherapy with HCTZ 12.5 mg or HCTZ 25 mg for 8 weeks. Reduction of sitting trough diastolic BP between baseline and week 8 as well as tolerability was evaluated. Reduction in trough diastolic BP was most pronounced in the V/HCTZ group (-11.3 mmHg) and significantly greater than in the HCTZ 12.5 mg group (-2.9 mmHg, p < 0.001) and the HCTZ 25 mg group (-5.7 mmHg, p < 0.001). Tolerability of study medication was comparable between all three groups. In conclusion, switching to V/HCTZ combination therapy provides an additional lowering of BP compared to dosage increase of the thiazide in patients with BP insufficiently controlled by HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy.     

Comparison of the effects on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure of valsartan and amlodipine, alone or in combination with a low-dose diuretic, in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (Val-syst Study)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the time-effect profiles of a once-daily administration of valsartan and amlodipine, each given alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, in terms of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-four elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension received valsartan 80 mg (n=79) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=85) once daily for eight weeks, after which the patients with poorly controlled office BP were up-titrated to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily. If their office systolic BP was still >140 mmHg after eight weeks at these doses, 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was added for a further eight weeks. The hourly BP decreases in all of the patients were calculated on the basis of 24-h ambulatory recordings made after the placebo period and at the end of active treatment. The trough/peak ratio and smoothness index were calculated in the responders. RESULTS: Both the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments effectively lowered mean 24-h, daytime and night-time systolic ambulatory BP (all p<0.001) without any significant differences between the two regimens. Ambulatory heart rate decreased in the subjects on valsartan and slightly increased in those on amlodipine (the differences in 24-h and daytime heart rate were significant (p=0.008 and 0.002 respectively). Among the 138 responders, the valsartan-based treatment had a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime hours (p=0.02), a difference that was also significant for average 24-h BP (p=0.02). The mean systolic BP trough/peak ratio was 0.56 in the patients on valsartan, and 0.77 in those on amlodipine (NS). The smoothness index was respectively 1.70 and 1.58 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The present results show that both the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments lead to a similar long-term reduction in 24-h systolic BP. However, in treatment responders, valsartan has a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime.     

复方缬沙坦治疗轻中度原发性高血压患者的疗效观察

目的评价复方缬沙坦（缬沙坦80mg／氢氯噻嗪12．5mg复方制剂）治疗经单用缬沙坦80mg控制不良的轻、中度原发性高血压患者疗效和安全性。方法采用多中心、双盲、双模拟、随机、活性药物对照、平行试验方法。对经2周洗脱期的轻、中度原发性高血压患者[坐位舒张压≥95mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）且〈110mmHg]采用单药缬沙坦80mg／d治疗4周,在单药导入结束后,坐位舒张压仍〉190mmHg的864例患者按1：1随机、双盲分为复方缬沙坦组或缬沙坦80mg／d组,继续治疗8周。在治疗4周和结束时评估药物安全性及有效性。结果在轻、中度原发性高血压患者中复方缬沙坦每日1次比单用缬沙坦80mg／d血压进一步下降、达标率提高。治疗结束时平均坐位收缩压多降低3．5mmHg,平均坐位舒张压多下降2．2mmHg,血压控制〈140／90mmHg的患者在复方缬沙坦组和单用缬沙坦80mg／d组分别为53．9％及40．9％。结论轻、中度原发性高血压患者采用复方缬沙坦治疗组降压有效率及达标率均优于每日1次服用缬沙坦80mg／d组。复方缬沙坦适用于缬沙坦单药控制不良的轻、中度原发性高血压患者。     

Combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium channel blocker with HCTZ vs the maximal recommended dose of an ARB with HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension: the exforge as compared to losartan treatment in stage 2 systolic hypertension (EXALT) study

This study compared the efficacy and safety of combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium-channel blocker (CCB) with hydrochlorothiazide (valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ 160/5/2mg) vs maximal available combination doses of an ARB with HCTZ (losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg) in the management of stage 2 hypertension. After 1 to 2 weeks of antihypertensive drug washout, patients with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) of ≥ 160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg were randomized to valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 241) or losartan 100 mg (n = 247). At week 3, HCTZ 25 mg was added to both treatments. The primary end point, reduction in MSSBP from baseline to week 6, was significantly greater in the valsartan/amlodipine group than in the losartan group (least-squares [LS] mean change, -31.8 mm Hg vs -26.4 mm Hg; P<.001). Additional reductions occurred after titrating to 320/10/25 mg at week 6 in the valsartan/amlodipine group and switching from losartan/HCTZ to valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ (week 6, 160/5/25 mg; week 9, 320/10/25 mg) in the losartan group. Achievement of blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg also favored the valsartan/amlodipine group. Dizziness was the only adverse event reported in >5% of patients (5.4% valsartan/amlodipine group, 3.6% losartan group). Moderate doses of an ARB/CCB combination with HCTZ reduced blood pressure more effectively than the maximal dose of an ARB with HCTZ.     

Comparison of aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy and amlodipine monotherapy in patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patients with stage 2 hypertension and diabetes are at high cardiovascular risk and require large blood pressure (BP) reductions to reach treatment goals. This randomized double-blind study compared aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy with amlodipine monotherapy in 860 patients with mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) ≥160 mm Hg to <200 mm Hg and type 2 diabetes. Patients received either once-daily aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week then force-titrated to double the doses for 7 weeks. Baseline BP was 167.7/91.4 mm Hg. At week 8 end point, aliskiren/HCTZ provided significantly greater reductions in msSBP than amlodipine (28.8 mm Hg vs 26.2 mm Hg; P<.05). Mean sitting diastolic BP reductions were similar with aliskiren/HCTZ (9.9 mm Hg) and amlodipine (9.0 mm Hg). Achievement of BP control (<130/80 mm Hg) was significantly greater with aliskiren/HCTZ (23.2%) than amlodipine (13.8%; P<.0001). Aliskiren/HCTZ provides substantial msSBP reductions and greater BP control rates than amlodipine, and offers an attractive treatment option for patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus.     

Renin inhibition with aliskiren provides additive antihypertensive efficacy when used in combination with hydrochlorothiazide

OBJECTIVES: Aliskiren is a novel, orally active renin inhibitor. Its antihypertensive efficacy and safety, alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were investigated in an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in hypertensive patients. The effects of these treatments on plasma renin activity (PRA) were also assessed. METHODS: A total of 2776 patients aged >or=18 years with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) 95-109 mmHg were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with aliskiren (75, 150 or 300 mg), HCTZ (6.25, 12.5 or 25 mg), the combination of aliskiren and HCTZ, or placebo, in a factorial design. The primary endpoint was the change in MSDBP from baseline to week 8. PRA was assessed at these timepoints at selected study centers. RESULTS: Aliskiren monotherapy was superior to placebo (P < 0.001; overall Dunnett's test) in reducing MSDBP and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP). Combination treatment was superior to both component monotherapies in reducing BP (maximum MSSBP/MSDBP reduction of 21.2/14.3 mmHg from baseline with aliskiren/HCTZ 300/25 mg), and resulted in more responders (patients with MSDBP < 90 mmHg and/or >or=10 mmHg reduction) and better control rates (patients achieving MSSBP/MSDBP < 140/90 mmHg) than either monotherapy. Aliskiren monotherapy reduced PRA by up to 65% from baseline. Although HCTZ monotherapy increased PRA by up to 72%, PRA decreased in all of the combination therapy groups. All active treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Aliskiren monotherapy demonstrated significant BP lowering, and its effect was considerably greater when combined with HCTZ. Renin inhibition with aliskiren neutralized the compensatory rise in PRA induced by HCTZ.     

Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with severe systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the potent angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil were evaluated in 217 adult patients (68% men, 41% black) with severe systemic hypertension on background therapy with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =110 mm Hg during the placebo run-in received HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily for 1 week. Those with sitting diastolic BP >95 mm Hg after the HCTZ run-in were randomized (2:1) to receive candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily (n = 141) or placebo (n = 76), plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. After 1 week of double-blind treatment, patients with sitting diastolic BP > or =90 mm Hg were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or matching placebo, plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; 84% required uptitration. Primary efficacy measurement was a change in trough (24+/-3 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic BP from the end of the HCTZ run-in to double-blind week 4. Mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with candesartan cilexetil than with placebo, -11.3/-9.1 mm Hg versus -4.1/-3.1 mm Hg, p <0.001/p <0.001, respectively. Patients with higher sitting diastolic BP at the end of the HCTZ run-in tended to have greater decreases in BP (p <0.05). Most patients (53%) receiving candesartan cilexetil were responders (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10 mm Hg decrease) and 32% were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Tolerability and safety profiles were similar in the candesartan and placebo groups. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16 mg once daily was an effective and well-tolerated therapy for lowering BP when added to HCTZ 12.5 mg in a diverse population of patients with severe systemic hypertension in the United States.     

Combination of hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril with valsartan in hypertensive patients unresponsive to valsartan alone.

OBJECTIVE : The aim of this open multicentric study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the addition of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (benazepril, 10 mg/day) or a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide, 12.5 mg/day) for 4 weeks in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension having been treated for 4 weeks by an angiotensin II antagonist (valsartan, 80 mg/day) but still having a diastolic blood pressure (BP) > 90 mmHg on this medication given alone. METHODS : A total of 327 patients were included in the trial and 153 patients (46%) had their diastolic BP 相似文献   

Effect of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide combination on ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs lisinopril/HCTZ combination on ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients. A total of 160 patients, 76 men and 84 women, aged 61-75 years, with sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP)>90 mmHg and <110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP)>140 mmHg were randomized to receive temisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. or lisinopril 20 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. for 24 weeks, according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-group design. At the end of a 2-week wash-out period and after 12 and 24 weeks of active treatment, 24-h noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed and cognitive function was evaluated through six different tests (verbal fluency, Boston naming test, word-list memory, word-list recall, word-list recognition and Trails B). Both treatments significantly reduced ambulatory BP. However, the telmisartan/HCTZ combination produced a greater reduction in 24-h, day-time and night time ABPM values. Lisinopril/HCTZ did not induce significant changes in any of the cognitive function test scores at any time of the study, whereas at both 12 and 24 weeks telmisartan/HCTZ significantly improved the word-list memory score (+17.1 and +15.7%, respectively, P<0.05 vs baseline), the word-list recall score (+13.5 and +16.9%, P<0.05) and the Trails B score (-33 and -30.5%, P<0.05). These results suggest that in elderly hypertensive patients treatment with telmisartan/HCTZ produces a slightly greater reduction in ambulatory BP than lisinopril/HCTZ combination and, unlike this latter, improves some of the components of cognitive function, particularly episodic memory and visuospatial abilities.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure response to combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in stage 2 hypertension by ethnicity: the EVALUATE study

Several studies reported racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive monotherapy. In a 10-week study of stage 2 hypertension, 320/25 mg valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) reduced ambulatory BP (ABP) significantly more effectively than 10/25 mg amlodipine/HCTZ. Results (post hoc analysis) are described in Caucasians (n=256), African Americans (n=79), and Hispanics (n=86). Compared with clinic-measured BP (no significant treatment-group differences in ethnic subgroups), least-squares mean reductions from baseline to week 10 in mean ambulatory systolic BP (MASBP) and mean ambulatory diastolic BP (MADBP) favored valsartan/HCTZ over amlodipine/HCTZ in Caucasians (-21.9/-12.7 mm Hg vs -17.6/-9.5 mm Hg; P=.0004/P<.0001). No treatment-group differences in MASBP/MADBP were observed in African Americans (-17.3/-10.6 vs -17.9/-9.5; P=.76/P=.40) or Hispanics (-17.9/-9.7 vs -14.2/-7.2; P=.20/P=.17). Based on ABP monitoring, valsartan/HCTZ is more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in lowering ABP in Caucasians. In African Americans and Hispanics, both regimens are similarly effective.     

Adding hydrochlorothiazide to olmesartan dose dependently improves 24-h blood pressure and response rates in mild-to-moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To test whether adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (12.5 or 25 mg) to olmesartan 20 mg improves 24-h blood pressure in patients whose conventional diastolic blood pressure is inadequately controlled by olmesartan monotherapy. PATIENTS: Male and female patients > or = 18 years with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 100-115 mmHg, mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 150 mmHg, mean 24-h DBP of at least 84 mmHg, and at least 30% of DBP daytime readings > 90 mmHg. INTERVENTIONS: Four weeks of single-blind treatment with olmesartan 20 mg once daily, followed in non-responders by 8 weeks of randomized double-blind treatment with placebo or HCTZ (12.5 or 25 mg) once-daily, added to olmesartan. RESULTS: HCTZ 25 mg added to olmesartan 20 mg decreased mean daytime DBP significantly more (P = 0.0012) than placebo added to olmesartan 20 mg. Compared to olmesartan monotherapy, mean 24-h DBP and SBP were significantly reduced by combination therapy with olmesartan/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (-1.9 mmHg, P = 0.0167 and -3.9 mmHg, P = 0.0018, respectively) and 20/25 mg (-3.7 and -7.4 mmHg respectively, P < 0.0001 for both). Mean 24-h DBP and SBP and mean night-time SBP reductions were significantly greater for HCTZ 25 mg than for HCTZ 12.5 mg. Response rates (mean daytime DBP assessed by ambulatory blood pressure measurement < or = 85 mmHg) approximately doubled following the addition of HCTZ (12.5 mg = 57.6% and 25 mg = 69.5%). CONCLUSION: Combination of olmesartan 20 mg with HCTZ provides significantly better 24-h blood pressure reduction than olmesartan monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Moreover, increasing the dose of HCTZ from 12.5 to 25 mg is a reasonable step to reach better daytime and night-time blood pressure control.     

The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension

The calcium channel blocker amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were compared for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Following a 2-week placebo run-in, 440 adults (45-80 years old) were randomized to receive either amlodipine 5 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. Patients who failed to meet the sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) reduction goal of 相似文献   

Increasing the doses of both diuretics and angiotensin receptor blockers is beneficial in subjects with uncontrolled systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND:

Blood pressure (BP) control is frequently difficult to achieve in patients with predominantly elevated systolic BP. Consequently, these patients frequently require combination therapy including a thiazide diuretic such as hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and an agent blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Current clinical practice usually limits the daily dose of HCTZ to 25 mg. This often leads to the necessity of using additional antihypertensive agents to control BP in a high proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the efficacy of two doses of losartan (LOS)/HCTZ combinations in patients with uncontrolled ambulatory systolic hypertension after six weeks of treatment with LOS 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg (LOS100/HCTZ25).

METHODS:

Following a two- to four-week washout period, subjects with a mean clinic sitting systolic BP of 160 mmHg or higher and a mean ambulatory daytime systolic BP (MDSBP) of 135 mmHg or higher on LOS100/HCTZ25 (n=105; 33 women and 72 men) were randomly assigned to receive LOS 150 mg/HCTZ 25 mg (group 1; n=53) or LOS 150 mg/HCTZ 37.5 mg (LOS150/HCTZ37.5, group 2; n=52). The primary end point was the difference in MDSBP reductions.

RESULTS:

At the end of the six-week treatment period, the respective additional decreases in MDSBP were 1.2 mmHg (P=0.335) on LOS 150 mg/HCTZ 25 mg and 5.6 mmHg (P<0.0001) on LOS150/HCTZ37.5 (difference of 4.4 mmHg; P=0.011). Daytime systolic ambulatory BP goal (lower than 130 mmHg) achievement tended to be higher (25% versus 17%; P=0.313) with LOS150/HCTZ37.5, while it was significantly higher (65% versus 43%; P=0.024) for mean daytime diastolic BP (lower than 80 mmHg). No deleterious metabolic changes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS:

In patients with uncontrolled systolic ambulatory hypertension receiving LOS100/HCTZ25, increasing both HCTZ and LOS dosages simultaneously to LOS150/HCTZ37.5 may be an effective strategy that does not affect metabolic parameters.     

AT1-receptor blockade improves augmentation index: a double-blind,randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE: Arterial hypertension leads to vascular structural and functional adaptive processes that are influenced by angiotensin II. To analyze the effects of AT receptor blockade on vascular function we determined augmentation index. METHODS AND DESIGN: A total of 60 patients (53 +/- 10 years) with essential hypertension mean [blood pressure (BP) 173 +/- 9/102 +/- 3 mmHg] were randomized to 6 weeks double-blind therapy with either valsartan 80 mg, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg or placebo once daily. Radial artery pressure wave was determined by applanation tonometry before and after therapy. The central aortic pressure wave and augmentation index were derived by a generalized transfer function. RESULTS: Active therapy similarly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) (valsartan: -22 +/- 18/-11 +/- 11 mmHg, HCTZ: -22 +/- 23/-14 +/- 14 mmHg, all P < 0.001). However, only valsartan, but no HCTZ reduced the augmentation index (valsartan: from 148 +/- 18 to 126 +/- 24, < 0.001; HCTZ: from 145 +/- 19 to 142 +/- 18, NS). Augmentation index reduction was greater with valsartan (-22 +/- 11) than with HCTZ (-3 +/- 11) and placebo (0 +/- 13) (P < 0.01 for pairwise comparison of valsartan versus HCTZ and placebo after Bonferroni correction). Differences remained significant after taking changes in supine BP into account (covariance, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure reduction with the AT receptor antagonist valsartan but not with hydrochlorothiazide reduced the augmentation index in essential hypertension.     

Comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of irbesartan/HCTZ and valsartan/HCTZ combination therapy: impact of age and gender

This analysis aimed to explore whether low-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has superior blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy over low-dose valsartan/HCTZ in the elderly and across both genders. This is a post-hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, parallel group, open-label, blinded-endpoint study in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with HCTZ monotherapy. The reduction in systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) and rate of BP control achieved following 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or valsartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg were analyzed for older (≥65 years) vs. younger (<65 years) patients and for men vs. women. Blood pressure measurements were by home BP monitoring (HBPM). In the age and gender subgroups, both treatments significantly decreased home SBP and DBP (p < 0.0001). The reduction in home SBP and DBP was numerically greater with irbesartan/HCTZ compared to valsartan/HCTZ for all subgroups: the difference in DBP was significant for all except the elderly (p < 0.05), and the difference in SBP was significant in the elderly and in men (p < 0.03). In all subgroups, more patients achieved BP control (HBPM ≤135/85 mmHg) in the irbesartan/HCTZ arm (range 45%-58%) than in the valsartan/HCTZ arm (range, 23%-39%; p < 0.02). Both combination therapies were well tolerated and safety parameters were similar in both age and gender subgroups. More patients with mild or moderate hypertension, uncontrolled in HCTZ monotherapy alone, had their BP controlled with irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg than with valsartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg, irrespective of age or gender.     

Ketanserin and hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of arterial hypertension

The chronic antihypertensive effect of the combination of ketanserin (KET) 40 mg + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was evaluated in 20 patients with arterial hypertension of mild to moderate degree. After a 2-week wash-out period, patients were prescribed a single oral dose of KET 40 mg or HCTZ 25 mg in a randomized order at 2-day intervals and blood pressure and heart rate were measured during the following 24 hrs by an automatic recorder. Thereafter patients were given the combination of KET 40 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg for 6 weeks and 24 hrs blood pressure was recorded after the first dose of the combination and at the end of treatment. Ketanserin induced a significant fall in systolic and diastolic pressures for up to 8 hrs; thiazide did not induce any change in these parameters. The combination of KET + HCTZ in the acute study reduced significantly systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures for up to 10 hrs. After 6 weeks of treatment with KET + HCTZ, blood pressure showed a further fall at each time period and was normalized (BP greater than 160/80 mmHg) for 8 hrs after dosing. The results of this study indicate that once daily oral administration of the combination of KET 40 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg in mild to moderate primary hypertensives significantly reduces blood pressure over 24 hrs. Fairly good control of BP, i.e. BP less than 160/90 mmHg, was, however, achieved only up to 8 hrs after drug administration, indicating that this combination given once daily is not able to normalize BP over the following 24 hrs.     

Comparison of the Antihypertensive Efficacy of Irbesartan//HCTZ and Valsartan//HCTZ Combination Therapy: Impact of Age and Gender

This analysis aimed to explore whether low-dose irbesartan//hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has superior blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy over low-dose valsartan//HCTZ in the elderly and across both genders. This is a post-hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, parallel group, open-label, blinded-endpoint study in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with HCTZ monotherapy. The reduction in systolic BP (SBP)//diastolic BP (DBP) and rate of BP control achieved following 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan//HCTZ 150//12.5 mg or valsartan//HCTZ 80//12.5 mg were analyzed for older (≥65 years) vs. younger (<65 years) patients and for men vs. women. Blood pressure measurements were by home BP monitoring (HBPM). In the age and gender subgroups, both treatments significantly decreased home SBP and DBP (p < 0.0001). The reduction in home SBP and DBP was numerically greater with irbesartan//HCTZ compared to valsartan//HCTZ for all subgroups: the difference in DBP was significant for all except the elderly (p < 0.05), and the difference in SBP was significant in the elderly and in men (p < 0.03). In all subgroups, more patients achieved BP control (HBPM ≤135//85 mmHg) in the irbesartan//HCTZ arm (range 45%%–58%%) than in the valsartan//HCTZ arm (range, 23%%–39%%; p < 0.02). Both combination therapies were well tolerated and safety parameters were similar in both age and gender subgroups. More patients with mild or moderate hypertension, uncontrolled in HCTZ monotherapy alone, had their BP controlled with irbesartan//HCTZ 150//12.5 mg than with valsartan//HCTZ 80//12.5 mg, irrespective of age or gender.     

Effects of manidipine/delapril versus olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in elderly hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The purpose of this study was to compare the combination treatments of manidipine/delapril and olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in elderly diabetic hypertensives. After a 4-week placebo period, 158 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes (age range: 66 to 74 years) were randomized to receive combination treatment of 10 mg manidipine plus 30 mg delapril or 20 mg olmesartan plus 12.5 mg HCTZ for 48 weeks in a prospective, parallel arm trial. After 12 weeks, manidipine or HCTZ was doubled in nonresponders (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > or =130 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or =80 mmHg). Patients were checked at the end of the placebo period and every 12 weeks thereafter. At each visit, lying, sitting and standing BP as well as fasting glycemia, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), electrolytes, uric acid, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) were evaluated. Both combinations reduced sitting SBP (-27.7 and -28.3 mmHg, respectively; both p<0.001) and DBP (-15.1 and -14.8 mmHg, respectively; both p<0.01) with no difference between the two treatments. Standing DBP was more markedly reduced by olmesartan/HCTZ (-19.5 mmHg; p<0.001) than by manidipine/delapril (-14.7 mmHg; p<0.05 vs. olmesartan/HCTZ). No changes in metabolic parameters were observed with manidipine/delapril, whereas an increase in HbA1c (+0.7%; p<0.05), uric acid (+0.4 mg/dL; p<0.05) and TG (+41.3 mg/dL; p<0.05), and a decrease in serum potassium (-0.3 mmol/L; p<0.05) and HDL-C (-3.4 mg/dL; p<0.05) were found in the olmesartan/HCTZ group. In conclusion, both combinations were similarly effective in reducing BP in elderly hypertensive diabetic patients. However, manidipine/delapril offered some advantages in terms of the less-pronounced BP orthostatic changes and absence of metabolic adverse effects.