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.     

A titrate-to-goal study of switching patients uncontrolled on antihypertensive monotherapy to fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine and olmesartan medoxomil ± hydrochlorothiazide

In the prospective, open-label, titrate-to-goal Blood Pressure Control in All Subgroups With Hypertension (BP-CRUSH) study, 999 patients with hypertension uncontrolled on monotherapy (mean age, 55.6 ± 11.4 years; baseline blood pressure [BP], 153.7 ± 9.2/91.9 ± 8.6 mm Hg) were switched to fixed-dose amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (AML/OM) 5/20 mg. Patients were uptitrated every 4 weeks to AML/OM 5/40 mg and 10/40 mg to achieve BP < 120/70 mm Hg. Patients were subsequently uptitrated every 4 weeks to AML/OM+hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 10/40+12.5 mg and 10/40+25 mg to achieve BP <125/75 mm Hg. The primary end point, the cumulative percentage of patients achieving seated systolic BP < 140 mm Hg (< 130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) by week 12, was 75.8%. The mean (± standard error) BP changes from baseline during the titration periods ranged from -14.2±0.4 mm Hg/-7.7 ± 0.3 mm Hg for AML/OM 5/20 mg to -25.1 ± 0.7 mm Hg/-13.7 ± 0.4 mm Hg for AML/OM+HCTZ 10/40+25 mg. By week 20, the cumulative BP threshold of <140/90 mm Hg was achieved by 90.3% of patients. An ambulatory BP monitoring substudy (n=243) showed that 24-hour efficacy was maintained. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), mostly mild to moderate in severity, occurred in 529 patients (53.0%). Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 255 patients (25.5%). This well-tolerated, treat-to-goal algorithm enabled a large proportion of patients with uncontrolled hypertension on monotherapy to safely achieve BP control on single-pill AML/OM combination therapy or triple therapy with the addition of HCTZ. .     

Effects of high dose olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on blood pressure control in patients with grade 2 and grade 3 hypertension

High dose (40 mg) olmesartan medoxomil (OM) blocks the angiotensin II receptor, significantly reducing blood pressure (BP). Adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to OM increases efficacy, but has not been evaluated in patients inadequately controlled by OM 40 mg. Patients with grade 2 and grade 3 hypertension with inadequately controlled BP (seated diastolic blood pressure [SeDBP] 90-115 mm Hg and seated systolic blood pressure [SeSBP] 140-180 mm Hg, plus ambulatory BP criteria) after 8 weeks of OM 40 mg open-label treatment were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with OM/HCTZ 40/25 (n=140), 40/12.5 (n=278), 20/12.5 mg (n=280) or OM 40 mg (n=274). Treatment with OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg and 40/12.5 mg significantly reduced SeDBP (-5.3 and -3.4 mm Hg, respectively), and SeSBP (-7.4 and -5.2 mm Hg, respectively), vs OM 40 mg monotherapy (P<0.0001 for each) in patients inadequately controlled on OM 40 mg alone. OM/HCTZ 40/12.5 mg reduced SeSBP significantly more than OM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (-2.6 mm Hg, P=0.0255), and also produced a further reduction in SeDBP vs the lower dose. All treatments were well tolerated, with similar low proportions of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events in all treatment groups. In conclusion, adding HCTZ to OM 40 mg significantly improves BP reductions and target BP rates in harder-to-treat patients and a clear dose-response was observed for efficacy.     

Efficacy and Safety of Long-Term Treatment With the Combination of Amlodipine Besylate and Olmesartan Medoxomil in Patients With Hypertension

The authors report on the 44-week open-label extension of the 8-week, double-blind Combination of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Amlodipine Besylate in Controlling High Blood Pressure (COACH) trial in 1684 patients. Initial therapy was amlodipine (AML) plus olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 5+40 mg/d, up-titrated to AML+OM 10+40 mg/d plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg then 25 mg if patients did not achieve blood pressure (BP) goal (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes). Baseline mean BP decreased from 164/102 mm Hg to 131/82 mm Hg at end of study, with an overall 66.7% of patients, including those with diabetes, achieving BP goal. The BP goal achievement was 80% for AML+OM 5+40 mg/d, 70.6% for AML+OM 10+40 mg/d, 66.6% for AML+OM+HCTZ 10+40+12.5 mg/d, and 46.3% for AML+OM+HCTZ 10+40+25 mg/d. Study medication was safe and well tolerated. Combination antihypertensive therapy with AML+OM±HTCZ, up-titrated as necessary, allowed a majority of patients to achieve BP goal.     

Antihypertensive effects of two fixed-dose combinations of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide versus hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in subjects with ambulatory systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of losartan (L) in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has been demonstrated to reduce blood pressure. However, there are limited data on the effects of L/HCTZ combinations versus HCTZ monotherapies in reducing ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of these treatment approaches in patients with ambulatory systolic hypertension. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive L 50 mg (n = 60) or HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 60) for 6 weeks. Patients were then force-titrated to L 50/HCTZ 12.5 mg and to L 100/HCTZ 25 mg or were sham-titrated to HCTZ 12.5 mg and force-titrated to HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. Clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) were measured at baseline and after each 6-week treatment period. RESULTS: We found that L 50 and HCTZ 12.5 induced significant and similar decreases in clinic and ABP. The combinations of L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 provided significantly greater decreases in clinic and ABP than did HCTZ monotherapies. The L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 combinations provided significant additional decreases in systolic/diastolic ABP during daytime (-5.3/-2.0 mm Hg; P <.001 and -5.8/-3.4 mm Hg; P <.001) and the other periods of the 24-h interval compared with the levels achieved by the previous treatment, indicating a clear dose-response relationship. However, increasing the dose of HCTZ from 12.5 mg to 25 mg was not associated with additional ABP reductions. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 provided greater reductions in clinic and ABP than HCTZ monotherapies, with a clear dose-response relationship with regard to ABP. These results support the use of ABP monitoring when assessing the efficacy of antihypertensive therapies.     

Efficacy and safety of treating stage 2 systolic hypertension with olmesartan and olmesartan/HCTZ: results of an open-label titration study

This study investigated an aggressive treatment program for stage 2 systolic hypertension (pretreatment systolic blood pressure [SBP] > or = 160 mm Hg) using the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). In this open-label, 16-week trial, 170 subjects received OM 20 mg/d for 3 weeks. If seated SBP/diastolic BP remained > or = 120/80 mm Hg, subjects were advanced to successive 3-week courses of OM 40 mg/d, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5 mg/d, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/d. OM 20 mg/d reduced mean SBP by 16.9 mm Hg (P<.001), and there were further dose-dependent decreases in mean SBP to a maximum of 34.5 mm Hg with OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/d. At study end, 75.1% of subjects achieved SBP goal (<140 mm Hg) and 16.0% achieved SBP normalization (<120 mm Hg). Treatment was well tolerated at all doses. The addition of HCTZ did not change serum potassium levels but resulted in a dose-independent but not symptomatic increase in serum glucose and uric acid. The authors conclude that an OM-based regimen, with or without HCTZ in conventional doses, is effective in controlling and normalizing BP in stage 2 systolic hypertension.     

Titration of HCTZ to 50 mg daily in individuals with stage 2 systolic hypertension pretreated with an angiotensin receptor blocker

The authors studied the combination of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 50 mg/d plus olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg/d in stage 2 systolic hypertension during an extension phase of an open-label 12-week dose titration study. Subjects whose blood pressure remained above 120/80 mm Hg (n=105) on OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg/d subsequently received OM 40/HCTZ 50 mg/d for 4 weeks. Increasing HCTZ from 25 mg/d to 50 mg/d decreased systolic blood pressure by 3.6 mm Hg, increased BP control rates (<140/90 mm Hg) from 70.4% to 77.5%, and increased BP normalization rates (<120/80 mm Hg) from 15.4% to 27.8%. The combination was well tolerated. Compared with OM 40 mg/d monotherapy, neither dose of HCTZ affected serum potassium, but both increased serum glucose by about 5%. There was a dose-dependent increase in uric acid but no acute gout attacks. OM 40/HCTZ 50 mg/d is an effective strategy for managing stage 2 systolic hypertension.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension require more than one agent to control blood pressure (BP). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, factorial design study. After a placebo run-in period, eligible patients (n = 502) with a baseline mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) of 100 to 115 mm Hg were randomized to one of 12 groups: placebo, olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy (10, 20, or 40 mg/day, HCTZ monotherapy (12.5 or 25 mg/day), or one of six groups of olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy. The primary endpoint was the change in mean trough SeDBP from baseline at week 8. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine whether at least one combination produced a larger reduction in SeDBP at week 8 than the individual corresponding component doses, but did not compare BP reductions with different combination doses. RESULTS: Olmesartan medoxomil plus HCTZ produced greater reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) at week 8 than did monotherapy with either component. All olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combinations significantly reduced SeDBP and SeSBP compared with placebo in a dose-dependent manner. Reductions from baseline in mean trough SeSBP/SeDBP were 3.3/8.2 mm Hg, 20.1/16.4 mm Hg, and 26.8/21.9 mm Hg with placebo, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg, and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy produced BP reductions of up to 26.8/21.9 mm Hg and was well tolerated.     

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy with irbesartan and HCTZ monotherapy in the treatment of moderate hypertension

This prospective, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized patients with moderate hypertension (seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) 160-179 mm Hg when seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) <110 mm Hg; or SeDBP 100-109 mm Hg when SeSBP <180 mm Hg) 3:1:1 to treatment with irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg combination therapy (n=328), irbesartan 300 mg monotherapy (n=106) or HCTZ monotherapy 25 mg (n=104). Treatment was initiated at half dose, with forced titration to full dose after two weeks followed by ten further weeks' treatment. The primary efficacy variable was the mean reduction in SeSBP from baseline to week 8. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with mean baseline blood pressure approximately 162/98 mm Hg; the mean age was 55 years. At week 8 there was a reduction in SeSBP of 27.1 mm Hg with irbesartan/HCTZ, compared with 22.1 mm Hg with irbesartan monotherapy (P=0.0016) and 15.7 mm Hg with HCTZ (P<0.0001). Both the rate of decline and the total degree of decline achieved were greatest with irbesartan/HCTZ and least with HCTZ. A significantly greater percentage of patients reached a treatment goal of SeSBP <140 mm Hg and SeDBP <90 mm Hg by week 8 with irbesartan/HCTZ (53.4%), compared with irbesartan (40.6%; P=0.0254) and HCTZ (20.2%; P<0.0001) alone. Treatment was well tolerated in all three-treatment groups with a slight increase in adverse events in the combination therapy group. In conclusion, irbesartan/HCTZ (300/25 mg) is well tolerated and achieves rapid and sustained reductions in both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in patients with moderate hypertension.     

Improving Blood Pressure Control: Increase the Dose of Diuretic or Switch to a Fixed‐Dose Angiotensin Receptor Blocker/Diuretic? The Valsartan Hydrochlorothiazide Diuretic for Initial Control and Titration to Achieve Optimal Therapeutic Effect (Val‐DICTATE) Trial

To assess the strategy of increasing the dose of a diuretic compared with using an angiotensin receptor blocker in combination with a diuretic, the authors performed a multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial in hypertensive patients (baseline blood pressure [BP], 153/97 mm Hg) whose BP remained uncontrolled on initial low-dose diuretic monotherapy (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg Hg). Patients with stage 1 and 2 hypertension were randomized to treatment with valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) or to doubling of the HCTZ dose (25 mg). The primary end point was the percentage of patients whose clinic BP values were <140/90 mm Hg following 4 weeks of double-blind therapy. A significantly higher proportion (P<.001) of hypertensive patients met BP control levels in the valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) group compared with the HCTZ 25 mg group (37% vs 16%). Changes from baseline in BP were significantly greater (P<.001) for both systolic BP and diastolic BP in the combination therapy arm compared with the diuretic monotherapy arm (-12. 4/-7.5 mm Hg in valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg group vs -5.6/-2.1 mm Hg in HCTZ 25 mg group). Tolerability and adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. This study suggests that in the management of hypertension, utilizing an angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination was more effective in lowering BP and achieving BP goals when compared with increasing the dose of the diuretic.     

Initial Combination Therapy With Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Baseline Blood Pressure and the Need for Combination Therapy

Hypertension treatment guidelines recommend initiating 2-drug therapy whenever blood pressure (BP) is ≥20 mm Hg systolic or ≥10 mm Hg diastolic above goal. This post hoc pooled analysis of 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled forced-titration studies in 1235 patients with moderate and severe hypertension examined how baseline BP levels relate to the need for combination therapy by comparing the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of once-daily fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 300/25 mg compared with irbesartan 300-mg or HCTZ 25-mg monotherapies. In study 1, patients with severe hypertension (seated diastolic BP [SeDBP] ≥110 mm Hg) were treated for 7 weeks with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy, with forced-titration after week 1. In study 2, patients with moderate hypertension (seated systolic BP [SeSBP] 160–180 mm Hg or SeDBP 100–110 mm Hg) were treated for 12 weeks with irbesartan/HCTZ, irbesartan monotherapy, or HCTZ monotherapy, with forced-titration after week 2. The relationship between baseline BP and the likelihood of achieving BP goals (SeSBP <140 mm Hg or SeDBP <90 mm Hg; SeSBP <130 mm Hg or SeDBP <80 mm Hg) as well as the antihypertensive response was evaluated at week 7/8. The need for combination therapy increased with increasing baseline BP and lower BP goals across the range of BP levels studied, with a comparable adverse effect profile to monotherapy. These results suggest that the likelihood of achieving an early BP goal for a given BP severity should be considered when choosing initial combination therapy vs monotherapy.     

Efficacy and Tolerability of Triple‐Combination Therapy With Olmesartan,Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide: A Subgroup Analysis of Patients Stratified by Hypertension Severity,Age, Sex,and Obesity

This prespecified subgroup analysis of a phase III study examined the effect of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to olmesartan (OLM)/amlodipine (AML) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension stratified by age, sex, body mass index, and hypertension severity. A total of 2690 patients, aged 18 years and older, with seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥160/100 mm Hg received placebo or OLM/AML 20/5 mg, 40/5 mg, or 40/10 mg during a 2‐week, double‐blind, run‐in period, after which they were allocated to one of eight treatment groups with the same OLM/AML dose or with HCTZ 12.5 mg or 25 mg added for 8 weeks. By week 10, greater reductions in SeBP were observed in each OLM/AML/HCTZ group (P<.05, respectively) compared with the corresponding dual dose. Adding HCTZ increased blood pressure–lowering efficacy in all subgroups, with a higher proportion of blood pressure goal achievement vs dual therapy. OLM/AML/HCTZ reduced SeBP to a greater extent than OLM/AML in patients with moderate to severe hypertensive; this was unaffected by baseline hypertension severity, age, sex, and obesity.     

Efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy as initial treatment for rapid control of severe hypertension

Severe hypertension is difficult to control. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial compared efficacy and safety of once-daily irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy with irbesartan monotherapy in severe hypertension. Patients who were untreated or uncontrolled on monotherapy (seated diastolic blood pressure [BP] ≥110 mm Hg) received fixed-dose irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg combination therapy for 7 weeks, force-titrated to irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 mg at week 1 (n=468); or irbesartan 150 mg monotherapy, force-titrated to 300 mg at week 1 (n=269). Significantly more patients on combination therapy achieved seated diastolic BP <90 mm Hg at week 5 (primary end point) compared with monotherapy recipients (47.2% vs 33.2%; P= .0005). Likewise, significantly more patients attained goals per the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) (<140/90 mm Hg) at week 5 (34.6% vs 19.2%, respectively; P< .0001), while the mean difference between combination and monotherapy in seated diastolic BP and seated systolic BP was 4.7 mm Hg and 9.7 mm Hg ( P< .0001). Greater and more rapid BP reduction with irbesartan/HCTZ was achieved without additional side effects.     

Nocturnal reduction of blood pressure and the antihypertensive response to a diuretic or angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in obese hypertensive patients

During a 12-week, multicenter study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) for the treatment of obesity-related hypertension, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring was performed both at baseline and at study completion in 124 patients. Patients were randomized to three groups: placebo, lisinopril (10, 20, or 40 mg/day), or HCTZ (12.5, 25, or 50 mg/day). All groups were matched with regard to sex, race, age, body mass index, and waist/hip ratio. The primary analysis of ABP data revealed that both lisinopril and HCTZ effectively lowered mean 24-h systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure compared with placebo, (mean change from baseline SBP/DBP: −12.0/−8.2, −10.6/−5.5, and −0.3/−0.5 mm Hg, respectively); however, lisinopril lowered DBP better than HCTZ (P < .05). Secondary analyses of groups revealed that men responded better to lisinopril than HCTZ (−11.9/−7.3 v −6.6/−3.5 mm Hg, respectively), whereas women responded well to both drugs. White patients responded better to lisinopril than HCTZ, whereas black patients showed a significant response to HCTZ only. Response to treatment was also influenced by patient classification of 24-h blood pressure profiles, ie, “dipper” or “nondipper.” Overall, the majority of obese hypertensives were nondippers. Nondippers (n = 82) responded well to both drugs (−10.4/−6.9 v −12.5/−5.7 mm Hg, P < .05 v placebo), whereas dippers (n = 42) responded to lisinopril (−11.7/−9.4 mm Hg, P < .05 v placebo and HCTZ), but not HCTZ (−5.6/−4.1 mm Hg, P = NS v placebo). Results of 24-h ABP data show that both lisinopril and HCTZ are effective therapies for obesity-related hypertension and that response to treatment is influenced by sex, race, and dipper/nondipper status.     

Comparison of Office, Ambulatory, and Home Blood Pressure Antihypertensive Response to Atenolol and Hydrochlorthiazide

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12:14–21. ^© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) demonstrate variable associations with outcomes. The authors sought to compare office BP (OBP), home BP (HBP), and ambulatory BP (ABP) for measuring responses to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), atenolol, and their combination. After completing washout, eligible patients were randomized to atenolol 50 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg daily. Doses were doubled after 3 weeks and the alternate drug was added after 6 weeks if BP was >120/70 mm Hg (chosen to allow maximum opportunity to assess genetic associations with dual BP therapy in the parent study). OBP (in triplicate), HBP (twice daily for 5 days), and 24-hour ABP were measured at baseline, after monotherapy, and after combination therapy. BP responses were compared between OBP, HBP, and ABP for each monotherapy and combination therapy. In 418 patients, OBP overestimated BP response compared with HBP, with an average 4.6 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP ( P <.0001) and 2.1 mm Hg greater reduction in diastolic BP ( P <.0001) across all therapies. Results were similar for atenolol and HCTZ monotherapy. ABP response was more highly correlated with HBP response ( r =0.58) than with OBP response ( r =0.47; P =.04). In the context of a randomized clinical trial, the authors have identified significant differences in HBP, OBP, and ABP methods of measuring BP response to atenolol and HCTZ monotherapy.     

Adding Hydrochlorothiazide to Olmesartan/Amlodipine Increases Efficacy in Patients With Inadequate Blood Pressure Control on Dual‐Combination Therapy

This randomized, parallel‐group study in patients inadequately controlled on olmesartan medoxomil/amlodipine (OLM/AML) 40/10 mg assessed the effects of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg and 25 mg, using seated blood pressure (SeBP) measurements and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Enrolled patients were screened and tapered off of therapy if required. All patients received OLM/AML 40/10 mg and those with mean seated BP (SeBP) ≥140/90 mm Hg after 8 weeks (n=808) were randomized (1:1:1) to continue with OLM/AML 40/10 mg or receive OLM/AML/HCTZ 40/10/12.5 or 40/10/25 mg for a further 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from the start to the end of the randomized treatment period. The addition of HCTZ 25 mg significantly reduced SeDBP (?2.8 mm Hg; P<.0001), lowered seated systolic BP (SeSBP) and ambulatory DBP and SBP, and improved BP goal rates. In patients uncontrolled on OLM/AML 40/10 mg, adding HCTZ led to further BP reductions, particularly in ambulatory BP.     

Efficacy and safety of quinapril in the elderly hypertensive patient.

The efficacy and safety of once-daily administration of the new angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor quinapril or quinapril plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were assessed in 64 older (greater than 65 years) patients with mild to moderate hypertension in an uncontrolled, open-label study. Treatment was initiated with 20 mg of quinapril once daily and titrated upward to 40 mg of quinapril or 40 mg of quinapril combined with 25 mg of HCTZ according to efficacy. At the end of the 12-week active-treatment phase, 43 patients received 20 mg of quinapril once daily, 12 patients received 40 mg of quinapril once daily, and 4 patients received 40 mg of quinapril combined with 25 mg of HCTZ once daily. Of 48 patients evaluable for efficacy, the mean decrease from baseline in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was 12.8 mm Hg; 96% of the patients had a blood pressure reduction of greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg, and 98% had a sitting DBP of less than or equal to 90 mm Hg 20 to 28 hours after administration. The decrease in sitting DBP was significant after 1 week and continued for the entire study, as did corresponding changes in sitting systolic blood pressure. We conclude that quinapril administered once daily is well tolerated and effective for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in elderly patients.     

A comparison of the tolerability of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension

Patients with severe hypertension (>180/110 mm Hg) require large blood pressure (BP) reductions to reach recommended treatment goals (<140/90 mm Hg) and usually require combination therapy to do so. This 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy of the novel direct renin inhibitor aliskiren with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP)>or=105 mm Hg and <120 mm Hg). In all, 183 patients were randomized (2:1) to aliskiren 150 mg (n=125) or lisinopril 20 mg (n=58) with dose titration (to aliskiren 300 mg or lisinopril 40 mg) and subsequent addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) if additional BP control was required. Aliskiren-based treatment (ALI) was similar to lisinopril-based treatment (LIS) with respect to the proportion of patients reporting an adverse event (AE; ALI 32.8%; LIS 29.3%) or discontinuing treatment due to AEs (ALI 3.2%; LIS 3.4%). The most frequently reported AEs in both groups were headache, nasopharyngitis and dizziness. At end point, ALI showed similar mean reductions from baseline to LIS in msDBP (ALI -18.5 mm Hg vs LIS -20.1 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 1.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.0, 4.4)) and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (ALI -20.0 mm Hg vs LIS -22.3 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI -1.7, 7.4)). Responder rates (msDBP<90 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline>or=10 mm Hg) were 81.5% with ALI and 87.9% with LIS. Approximately half of patients required the addition of HCTZ to achieve BP control (ALI 53.6%; LIS 44.8%). In conclusion, ALI alone, or in combination with HCTZ, exhibits similar tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy to LIS alone, or in combination with HCTZ, in patients with severe hypertension.