Combination therapy for systemic mycosis

Conclusion The use of antifungals in combination can clearly improve efficacy, broaden spectrum and reduce the duration of therapy. The availability of more systemic antifungals may lead to an increase in the use of triple combinations, especially against fungal infection in immunosuppressed patients. 5-flucytosine plus amphotericin B is still the most active combination with proven clinical application in cryptococcosis and candidosis. Combinations of 5-flucytosine with ketoconazole or itraconazole have shown promising results and may well play a role in human chemotherapy.     

Combination therapy in hypertension

The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to abolish the risks associated with blood pressure (BP) elevation without adversely affecting quality of life. Drug selection is based on efficacy in lowering BP and in reducing cardiovascular (CV) end points, including stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although the choice of initial drug therapy exerts some effect on long-term outcomes, it is evident that BP reduction per se is the primary determinant of CV risk reduction. Available data suggest that at least 75% of patients will require combination therapy to achieve contemporary BP targets, and increasing emphasis is being placed on the practical tasks involved in consistently achieving and maintaining goal BP in clinical practice. It is within this context that the American Society of Hypertension presents this Position Paper on Combination Therapy for Hypertension. It will address the scientific basis of combination therapy, present the pharmacologic rationale for choosing specific drug combinations, and review patient selection criteria for initial and secondary use. The advantages and disadvantages of single-pill (fixed) drug combinations and the implications of recent clinical trials involving specific combination strategies will also be discussed.     

Combination therapy in hypertension

The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to abolish the risks associated with blood pressure (BP) elevation without adversely affecting quality of life. Drug selection is based on efficacy in lowering BP and in reducing cardiovascular (CV) end points including stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Although the choice of initial drug therapy exerts some effect on long-term outcomes, it is evident that BP reduction per se is the primary determinant of CV risk reduction. Available data suggest that at least 75% of patients will require combination therapy to achieve contemporary BP targets, and increasing emphasis is being placed on the practical tasks involved in consistently achieving and maintaining goal BP in clinical practice. It is within this context that the American Society of Hypertension presents this Position Paper on Combination Therapy for Hypertension. It will address the scientific basis of combination therapy, present the pharmacologic rationale for choosing specific drug combinations, and review patient selection criteria for initial and secondary use. The advantages and disadvantages of single pill (fixed) drug combinations, and the implications of recent clinical trials involving specific combination strategies will also be discussed.     

Combination therapy as first-line treatment for hypertension

With the cut-off point between "normal" and "high" blood pressure (BP) being pushed increasingly downward, especially for patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, most hypertensives need more than one antihypertensive agent to reach their target BP. In this article, we examine the rationale for combining drugs from different classes that have synergistic or additive effects and properties that might offset one another’s adverse hemodynamic and/or metabolic reactions. We suggest circumstances in which the initiation of therapy with a fixed two-drug combination might be preferable to the usual practice of starting with monotherapy followed by upward titration and addition of other agents, and we briefly review the existing fixed drug combinations. We end with the intriguing and provocative notion of the future "polypill," a fixed combination of agents addressing various components of the metabolic syndrome as well as other coexisting common risk factors in both high-risk patients with conditions requiring polypharmacy and in healthy, asymptomatic individuals.     

Combination therapy of amlodipine/benazepril versus monotherapy of amlodipine in a practice-based setting

BACKGROUND: Community-based studies are conducted to determine the degree to which therapeutic interventions will succeed in real world settings. This large practice-based clinical trial assessed the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril, compared with amlodipine monotherapy, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. METHODS: Hypertensive patients currently taking amlodipine were selected based on one of two criteria: inadequate blood pressure (BP) control on amlodipine (diastolic BP [DBP] > or = 90 mm Hg; group 1), or inability to tolerate amlodipine (DBP < or = 90 mm Hg, but with edema; group 2). Eligible patients were switched from 5 or 10 mg of amlodipine to 5/10 mg or 5/20 mg of amlodipine/benazepril for 4 weeks. In group 1 (n = 6410), primary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting DBP. A secondary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting systolic BP (SBP). In group 2 (n = 1502), primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients whose edema improved during therapy with amlodipine/benazepril when compared with amlodipine monotherapy. RESULTS: In group 1, mean sitting DBP declined from 96.5 mm Hg at baseline to 84.9 mm Hg at week 4, a mean reduction of 11.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] -11.8 to -11.3 mm Hg; P < .001). From baseline to week 4, mean sitting SBP declined from 152.9 mm Hg to 137.3 mm Hg, a mean reduction of 15.6 mm Hg (95% CI -16.0 to -15.2 mm Hg; P < .001). In group 2, 85% (95% CI 83%-87%) experienced some improvement in edema compared with baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive agent amlodipine/benazepril was safe and effective for patients who experienced either inadequate BP control or edema with amlodipine monotherapy.     

An overview of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of amlodipine in elderly persons with systemic hypertension

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data were compared between elderly and young patients with hypertension who received single intravenous doses of amlodipine, a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, followed by oral administration of amlodipine up to 10 mg once daily for 12 weeks. After intravenous administration, elderly patients had prolonged elimination half-life values (58 ± 11 vs 42 ± 8 hr; p < 0.05) caused by decreased clearance (19 ± 5 vs 7 liters/hr; p < 0.05). Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly decreased from baseline throughout the 3-month treatment period in both groups. After long-term oral administration, elderly and young patients had comparable decreases in mean blood pressure at a given drug plasma concentration. The antihypertensive effect of amlodipine is well correlated with plasma concentration and, at a given concentration, is similar in both elderly and young patients.     

Combination therapy for multidrug‐resistant cytomegalovirus disease

Multidrug‐resistant (MDR) cytomegalovirus (CMV) emerged after transient responses to ganciclovir, foscarnet, and cidofovir in a CMV‐seropositive recipient who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from a CMV‐seronegative donor. Experimental treatments using leflunomide and artesunate failed. Re‐transplantation from a CMV‐seropositive donor supported by adoptive transfer of pp65‐specific T cells and maribavir was followed by lasting suppression. This case illustrates that successful MDR CMV therapy may require individualized multidisciplinary approaches.     

Long-term efficacy and safety of triple-combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate and hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:149–157. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Most patients with hypertension require combination therapy in order to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. This 40‐week open‐label extension of the 12‐week double‐blind Tri ple Therapy With Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hyperten si ve Patient s Study (TRINITY) evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple‐combination treatments with olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate, and hydrochlorothiazide (OM/AML/HCTZ) in 2112 participants with moderate to severe hypertension. Following 2 weeks of initial treatment with OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 12.5 mg, participants not achieving BP goal were titrated to OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 25 mg or OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 12.5 mg on a randomized basis. At week 16, participants who did not achieve BP goal were further titrated to OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg. At the end of the study, 44.5% to 79.8% of participants reached BP goal and the mean BP decreased from 168.6/100.7 mm Hg (baseline BP at randomization) to 125.0 to 136.8 mm Hg/77.8 to 82.5 mm Hg, depending on treatment. Long‐term treatment with OM/AML/HCTZ was well tolerated and effective with no new safety concerns.     

Loperamide therapy in a patient with diarrhea and resistant hypertension

A 65-year-old man was admitted to our hospital for resistant essential hypertension. He had a past history of bowel resections due to Crohn’s disease. We assumed that in this patient insufficient drug absorption might be a cause of resistant hypertension and that even increased antihypertensive regimens would fail to decrease blood pressure. We administered loperamide, which may increase drug absorption from the residual intestine. Blood pressure was successfully decreased, with a concomitant increase in blood concentration of antihypertensive drugs. In patients with impaired drug absorption, we should make an effort to restore drug obstruction before considering increased drug regimens.     

Diltiazem and captopril alone or in combination for treatment of mild to moderate systemic hypertension

The efficacy and safety of sustained-release diltiazem, 60 to 180 mg twice daily, was compared with that of captopril, 25 to 75 mg twice daily, alone and in combination, in 132 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure [BP] 95 to 114 mm Hg). All patients received placebo for 4 to 6 weeks, followed by randomization to diltiazem or captopril during the double-blind monotherapy phase. Either study drug was titrated over 6 weeks to achieve a goal supine diastolic BP reduction of at least 10 mm Hg and a diastolic BP of less than 90 mm Hg. Patients achieving the goal BP reduction were maintained on monotherapy for an additional 8 weeks. Patients not achieving the treatment goal after 8 weeks with either drug alone received the other drug in combination, titrated to achieve goal BP response. Both drugs lowered BP significantly and, at the doses used, diltiazem had a greater effect on diastolic BP than did captopril. The mean changes from baseline at week 8 were -10.6 and -7.3 mm Hg, respectively, (p = 0.01). Goal BP was achieved in 38% of patients taking diltiazem monotherapy and in 34% of patients taking captopril monotherapy. There were no significant differences between diltiazem and captopril in diastolic or systolic BP reductions by race or age. The addition of alternate therapy for non-goal achievers at week 8 resulted in significant reductions in diastolic and systolic BP by week 16.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Combination therapy for hypertension 2013: An update

We provide a review of recent additions to the antihypertensive armamentarium in the form of combination therapy. These include two-drug and three-drug combinations in a single pill. There is evidence that such combinations are more efficacious than the individual components and that patient adherence to therapy is improved.     

Transcatheter therapy for aortic coarctation with severe systemic hypertension during pregnancy

Aortic coarctation is an unusual cause of hypertension during pregnancy and its management is not clarified. We report transcatheter balloon dilatation and stenting for native aortic coarctation in a 22‐year‐old pregnant woman with severe and uncontrolled systemic hypertension. Arterial blood pressure could be successfully controlled with medical treatment during the rest of the pregnancy and the patient underwent uneventful delivery. No adverse events or recoarctation was observed during 24 months clinical follow‐up. In conclusion, native aortic coarctation can be successfully treated during pregnancy with transcatheter therapy. More experience is needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of such management. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Combination therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus

Summary Development of drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is an uncommon complication of the use of D-penicillamine and sulphasalazine. We report two cases of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who developed symptoms and signs of SLE and suggest that increasing use of these two agents as combination therapy in RA may cause an additive risk to the occurrence of this complication.     

奥美沙坦酯和氨氯地平联合治疗原发性高血压的研究

目的:观察奥美沙坦酯和氨氯地平联合治疗控制血压的疗效和安全性。方法:70例2、3级高血压病患者随机接受奥美沙坦酯20 mg与氨氯地平5 mg联合治疗或缬沙坦80 mg与氨氯地平5 mg联合治疗,1次/d,总疗程8周。结果:奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组治疗后血压下降幅度分别为(24.5±9.5/16.0±6.8)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)和(24.3±9.2/15.7±6.6)mm Hg,2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。奥美沙坦酯与氨氯地平和缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合治疗组降压总有效率分别为91.4%和88.6%,2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:2、3级高血压病治疗,奥美沙坦酯与氨氯地平和缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合治疗疗效和不良反应均类似。