Differential time effect profiles of amlodipine, as compared to valsartan, revealed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, self blood pressure measurements and dose omission protocol

Amlodipine and valsartan are once-daily antihypertensive agents. To date, no comparison between these agents given as monotherapies was reported. This study was aimed to evaluate the therapeutic coverage and safety of amlodipine and valsartan in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparative study. After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, 246 outpatients with office diastolic blood pressure 95 < or = DBP < or =110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 180 mmHg, in addition to a mean daytime SBP and/or DBP > 135/85 mmHg on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), were randomly allocated to once-daily amlodipine 5-10 mg or valsartan 40-80 mg, for 12 weeks. In a subgroup of patients, 48-h ABPM were performed at the end of the treatment period. Dose omission was simulated by a single-blind placebo dosing. The primary efficacy end-point was the 24-h trough office BP after 12 weeks of active therapy. The reductions in 24-h trough BP were more pronounced in amlodipine compared with valsartan group as well in office [SBP: -17.8 +/- 10.9 vs. -14.6 +/- 11.2, P = 0.025, DBP: -12.7 +/- 7.2 vs. -10.9 +/- 7.8 mmHg, P = 0.06) as in ambulatory BP (SBP/DBP: -13.0 +/- 13.7/-10.8 +/- 9.1 vs. -7.2 +/- 19.4/-4.9 +/- 13.4 mmHg, P < 0.05). Forty-eight hours after the last active dose, the slope of the morning BP surge (4-9 h) was less steep with amlodipine vs. valsartan [DBP (P < 0.04), SBP (n.s.)]. Ankle edema were more often reported in amlodipine group. These results suggest a superior BP lowering and a longer duration of action with amlodipine compared with valsartan.     

Angiotensin II receptor blocker telmisartan: effect on blood pressure profile and left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with arterial hypertension

In this open-label, non-comparative study, the anti-hypertensive efficacy and effect on left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) of 24 weeks' treatment with once-daily telmisartan 40-80 mg was evaluated in 24 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and LVH. Patients were titrated to the higher dose of study drug at week 4 if they did not achieve blood pressure normalization (i.e. systolic blood pressure [SBP]/diastolic blood pressure [DBP] remained > or = 140/90 mmHg). The anti-hypertensive action of telmisartan was assessed using clinic cuff measurements and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) was determined by two-dimensional echocardiography at baseline and after 24 weeks of therapy. Telmisartan significantly reduced mean 24-h, daytime and night-time SBP and DBP compared with baseline after 12 and 24 weeks of therapy. Target blood pressure levels, defined as SBP/DBP < 140/90 mm Hg, were achieved in 16 (69.6%) patients at the end of the treatment period. After 24 weeks of telmisartan treatment, LVMI decreased from 151.6 +/- 5.4 to 135.1 +/- 5.9 g/m2. In conclusion, anti-hypertensive treatment with telmisartan for 24 weeks produced significant reductions in blood pressure and regression of LVH, as assessed by LVMI, in patients with hypertension and LVH.     

A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, 8 mg, and losartan, 50 mg, as monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, using 36-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

This double-blind, randomised, controlled study compared the efficacy of candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (n = 87) and losartan 50 mg (n = 89), once daily for 6 weeks, relative to placebo (n = 80) in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure (DBP): 95-115 mmHg). Ambulatory BP measurements were done every 15 min over 36 h. At the end of the 6-week treatment, the mean change in DBP between the baseline and the 0-24-h period after the last dose of study medication was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-7.3 mmHg +/- 6.9 mmHg) compared with losartan 50 mg (-5.1 mmHg +/- 4.9 mmHg) (p < 0.05) or placebo (0.3 mmHg +/- 6.5 mmHg) (p < 0.001). The mean change in systolic BP (SBP) during this time was greater in patients receiving candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (-10.8 mmHg +/- 11.3 mmHg), or losartan 50 mg (-8.8 mmHg +/- 8.9 mmHg) than placebo (1.2 mmHg +/- 9.9 mmHg) (p < 0.001). Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg was associated with a greater reduction in DBP and SBP, relative to placebo, when compared with losartan 50 mg, during both daytime and night-time, and between 12 and 24 h after dosing (p < 0.001). Both active treatments were well tolerated. In patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, candesartan cilexetil 8 mg therefore had greater, more consistent antihypertensive efficacy throughout the day and the night, and long-lasting efficacy after the last dose, compared with losartan 50 mg. This greater efficacy is maintained with an excellent tolerability associated with members of the angiotensin Il type 1-receptor blocker class.     

The efficacy and tolerability of barnidipine hydrochloride in Thai patients with hypertension

This open-label, blinded study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of barnidipine at a titrated dose of 10-15 mg once daily for 8 weeks in the treatment of essential hypertension in 40 Thai patients. 'Office' blood pressure (BP) and 24-h ambulatory BP measurements were recorded. A systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) reduction of 18.0 +/- 13.6/9.1 +/- 6.6 mmHg was obtained. The full response rate among patients with systolic and diastolic hypertension was 63% using either SBP or DBP criteria, and 54% using both SBP and DBP criteria. One of the two patients with isolated systolic hypertension had a full response, and the BP in two of the three patients with isolated diastolic hypertension was normalized. The trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index for SBP/DBP were acceptable (0.76 +/- 0.63/0.55 +/- 0.26 and 1.2 +/- 0.4/1.2 +/- 0.3, respectively). In conclusion, once-daily barnidipine monotherapy provides effective 24-h BP control and is generally well tolerated in ambulatory patients.     

Effectiveness and safety of eprosartan on pulse pressure for the treatment of hypertensive patients

A multicentre, prospective, non-comparative open-label study was conducted to assess the effect of eprosartan, 600 mg/day, on pulse pressure (PP) in patients with hypertension (stage I or II, Joint National Committee, sixth report) treated in the primary care setting, as well as safety and compliance. The duration of treatment was 16 weeks. Eprosartan decreased PP (-13 mmHg), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-26 mmHg), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (-13 mmHg) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) (-17.4 mmHg) significantly (p < 0.0001). The PP/MAP ratio changed significantly from 62 to 59%, so that the reduction of PP was 3% higher than the overall decrease in MAP. Twenty adverse events, mostly gastrointestinal complaints, were recorded in 12 patients (1.9%). Compliance with treatment at the end of the study was 94%. Eprosartan was a well-tolerated and an effective drug in reducing PP, SBP and DBP below the recommended levels in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, allowing a high therapeutic compliance.     

The efficacy of telmisartan compared with perindopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

In this study, efficacy of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker telmisartan given as monotherapy was compared with that of perindopril monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 60 patients were randomised to double-blind, once-daily treatment with telmisartan 80 mg or perindopril 4 mg for 6 weeks. Clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and clinical laboratory evaluation were performed at the end of the placebo run-in and active treatment phases. Both telmisartan and perindopril significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) compared with baseline values. Also, both drugs significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced 24-h mean ambulatory SBP and DBP compared with baseline. Comparison of the mean hourly antihypertensive activities showed that the reduction in mean ambulatory DBP for the last 8 h of the dosing interval was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in telmisartan-treated patients. A 24-h mean DBP of <85 mmHg was observed in 66.6% of the telmisartan-treated patients but in only 46.6% of the perindopril-treated patients (p < 0.05). It is concluded that telmisartan and perindopril both produce significant reductions in clinic SBP and DBP, but the mean reduction in ambulatory DBP during the last 8 h of the dosing interval is greater in patients treated with telmisartan.     

A double-blind ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40 mg in comparison with losartan 50 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension in Taiwanese patients

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was used to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40 mg and once-daily losartan 50 mg in Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. The initial 2-week placebo run-in phase was followed by randomisation to treatment with telmisartan 40 mg (n = 31) or losartan 50 mg (n = 30) for 6 weeks. The reduction in 18- to 24-h mean (SE) ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline was significantly greater with telmisartan 40 mg (-12.1 +/- 1.6 mmHg, p = 0.036) than with losartan 50 mg (-7.0 +/- 1.8 mmHg). The reduction in 18- to 24-h mean (SE) ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline was also greater with telmisartan 40 mg (-16.0 +/- 2.4 mmHg) than with losartan 50 mg (-11.8 +/- 2.7 mmHg), but did not achieve statistical significance. Telmisartan was well tolerated; no serious adverse events occurred.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg once daily vs. atenolol 50 mg once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

The objective of this open-label, parallel-group comparative study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of once-daily treatment for 8 weeks with telmisartan 80 mg in comparison with atenolol 50 mg on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (morning supine SBP 141-199 mmHg, DBP 95-114 mmHg). A total of 58 patients were enrolled. The comparability of the two treatment groups was statistically documented at the beginning of the study. Telmisartan was more effective than atenolol, with a decrease in SBP of 21.7 mmHg vs. 11.8 mmHg (p = 0.03) and a non-significant decrease in DBP of 14.7 mmHg vs. 10.1 mmHg. The safety profiles of both drugs were very similar; both drugs were well tolerated. In conclusion, once-daily telmisartan 80 mg is more effective than once-daily atenolol 50 mg in lowering SBP with no negative chronotropism. Furthermore, telmisartan was as well tolerated as atenolol in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in adults.     

A comparison of nisoldipine ER and amlodipine for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension

This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine extended release (10-40 mg) and amlodipine (2.5-10 mg) in 161 patients. The primary end point was a between-treatment comparison of change from baseline to week 8 in mean office diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The least squares mean reductions in systolic (S)BP/DBP (+/- standard error) for nisoldipine and amlodipine were -11.7/-9.3 +/- 1.4/0.8 and -14.3/-12.0 +/- 1.4/0.8 mmHg, respectively. The DBP treatment difference was 2.7 mmHg (90% confidence interval: 1.1 to 4.3 mmHg; p = 0.005). Tolerability profiles were similar between treatments. The drug acquisition cost per mmHg DBP reduction was 40% lower with nisoldipine; an acquisition cost analysis revealed that amlodipine was 80% more expensive than nisoldipine for treating hypertension. In summary, nisoldipine and amlodipine provide clinically equivalent antihypertensive efficacy; however, nisoldipine is more economical than amlodipine.     

ABPM comparison of the anti-hypertensive profiles of telmisartan and enalapril in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

In this multicentre, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) study, the efficacy of 12 weeks' treatment with once-daily telmisartan 40-80 mg and enalapril 10-20 mg was evaluated using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in 522 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were titrated to the higher dose of study drug at week 6 if mean seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was > or = 90 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in ambulatory DBP in the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval after 12 weeks' treatment. Telmisartan and enalapril produced similar reductions from baseline in DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) over all ABPM periods evaluated (last 6 h, 24-h, daytime and night-time). Telmisartan produced a significantly greater reduction in mean seated trough DBP, measured unblinded with an automated ABPM device in the clinic, amounting to a difference of -2.02 mmHg (P < 0.01). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved a seated diastolic response with telmisartan than enalapril (59% versus 50%; P < 0.05), also measured with the same ABPM device. Both treatments were well tolerated. Compared with telmisartan, enalapril was associated with a higher incidence of cough (8.9% versus 0.8%) and hypotension (3.9% versus 1.1%). Therefore, telmisartan may provide better long-term compliance and, consequently, better blood pressure control than enalapril.     

Morning rise of systolic blood pressure (by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring) and platelet aggregability in essential hypertension patients

AIM: To investigate the relationship between platelet aggregability (PA) and parameters of blood pressure (BP) in patients with essential hypertension (EH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 24-h BP recordings (SL-90207, 15-min day and 30 min night time intervals) of 47 hospitalized males with mild to moderate EH (mean age 48 +/- 1 years) to assess the following parameters: mean 24-h, awake (Aw) and nighttime (N) systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP. We assessed the morning rise (MR) of BP using the new index: a relative morning rise of systolic BP-RMRSBP--(max value of SBP from 6 am to 12 am/mean asleep SBP) x 100%. The kinetics of mean aggregate size (MAS) changes was studied with aggregation analyzer model (230LA Biola Ltd., Russia). The following parameters were used for estimation of platelet aggregability: a relative increase in MAS 2 min after beginning of sample stirring--for spontaneous aggregation (SPA) and the maximum increase in the light transmission for 0.5 microM ADP-induced aggregation (ADPI-PA). The patients were divided into two groups according to the median value of RMRSBP: group 1 (n = 25, RMRSBP < 121%) and group 2 (n = 22, RMRSBP > 121%). The differences in estimated parameters were tested by Student two tailed t-tests and presented by M +/- SE. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: No significant differences have been found between the groups by mean age, body mass index, duration of arterial hypertension, mean 24-h, awake DBP and SBP. Statistically significant differences have been found between groups by SPA, ADPI-PA, night SBP, night DBP, RMRSBP, RMRDBP. In group 2 there was a correlation between RMRSBP and SPA, but not in group 1. CONCLUSIONS: The morning rise of systolic BP is associated with an increase of ADP-induced and spontaneous platelet aggregability in the patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and apparently that association is more pronounced at high values of morning BP (more than 20% from mean nocturnal values of SBP).     

Time-effect profile of antihypertensive agents assessed with trough/peak ratio,smoothness index and dose omission: an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study with trandolapril vs. quinapril

The duration of action of antihypertensive drugs may be assessed by several methods using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). The aim of this double-blind, randomized study was to compare the time-effect profile of once daily Trandolapril (Tra) 2 mg vs. Quinapril (Qui) 20 mg in 92 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. All patients received placebo during a 30-day run-in period followed by 2 months of active therapy and 1-day medication omission. ABPM was conducted on each period. 24 h antihypertensive coverage was assessed by trough:peak ratio (T/P) and smoothness index (SI) methods. Residual lowering of blood pressure after single-blind, 1 day medication omission was investigated as the SBP/DBP 48-h trough effect. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups in the mean SBP/DBP peak or trough effect. Individual T/P were not normally distributed and had very large variations explained by BP random- and activity-related fluctuations. Group T/P were 0.85 for Tra and 0.62 for Qui. The SI values were normally distributed and not statistically different between the two treatment groups. After dose omission, Qui was ineffective at 48-h trough while Tra retained a significant effect (SBP/DBP = -3.4/-4.3 mmHg) and this difference was even greater in ABPM-responders. Comparison of the trough:peak ratios and smoothness indexes of Tra and Qui failed to show any statistically significant difference on 24-h antihypertensive coverage. Nevertheless, residual lowering of blood pressure at 48-h trough suggests that Tra had a longer duration of action than Qui.     

Basic results of the multicenter trial NOKTURN

AIM: Integration of noliprel treatment of arterial hypertension with educational programs on correction of associated risk factors in outpatient practice for reduction of the overall cardiovascular risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An open, multicenter, non-comparative trial with participation of 140 physicians from 14 regions of Russia comprised 1195 patients aged 30-65 years with mild-to-moderate hypertension (SBP = 140-179 mmHg, and/or DBP = 90-109 mm Hg) who had never received regular antihypertensive therapy. This one-year study had an active 3-month stage and follow-up stage for 9 months. RESULTS: Noliprel significantly decreased both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. The response to the treatment was achieved in 95.6% patients, the target blood pressure was achieved in 76.2% patients. A mean level of total cholesterol lowered from 5.5 +/- 1.0 mmol/l to 5.1 +/- 0.8 mmol/l (p < 0.001), body mass index--from 28.4 +/- 4.5 to 27.2 +/- 4.3 (p < 0.001). Hypercholesterolemia occurred before the study in 65.5% patients, at the end of the study--in 49.2%, obesity was registered in 79 and 70.2%, smoking in 21.6 and 14.6%, respectively. The mean overall risk to develop fatal cardiovascular events reduced from 2.5 +/- 3.6% at initiation of the study to 1.3 +/- 1.8% in the end of the study (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The integration of medication with noliprel and training program successfully lowered overall risk to develop fatal outcomes of cardiovascular diseases in primary health care service.     

Disorders of 24-h rhythm of blood pressure in patients with chronic glomerulonephritis

AIM: To characterize 24-h profile of blood pressure (BP) and to clarify prognostic significance of 24-h BP variability in patients with chronic glomerulonephritis (CGN) with intact renal function and hypofunction of the kidneys. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 38 hypertensive CGN patients (29 males and 9 females, mean age 37.9 +/- 12.4 years) entered the trial. All the patients had systolic BP (SBP) > 140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP (DBP > 90 mm Hg. RESULTS: Twenty patients with renal hypofunction (creatinine > 1.4 mg/dl) had significantly higher (p < 0.05) SBP, day and 24-h SBP duration, high variability of day-time and 24-h SBP. Significantly higher mean day-time, night-time and 24-h SBP, SBP day-time and 24-h duration SBP duration, variability of SBP and DBP for a day and 24-h, respectively, were observed in 15 patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. Of prognostic significance in relation to renal survival estimated by Cox in 21 patients in multifactorial analysis were blood creatinine level, glomerular filtration rate, the patient's age, SBP duration for day, night and 24 hours. In multifactorial analysis, the final model included only age of the patient and blood creatinine. CONCLUSION: CGN patients with renal hypofunction had higher SBP and its variability associated with left ventricular variability.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg once daily compared with enalapril 20 mg once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of a multicentre study

The efficacy and safety of once-daily telmisartan 80 mg vs. once-daily enalapril 20 mg in the treatment of essential hypertension were evaluated in a multicentre, single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. In total, 68 patients (49 females, 19 males) with mild-to-moderate hypertension, defined as morning supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) 141-149 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-114 mmHg, were enrolled. After a 4-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with telmisartan or enalapril administered once daily in the morning for 8 weeks. No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of patients in either group. Both SBP and DBP were decreased in both treatment groups, but the reductions were statistically different in favour of telmisartan (SBP, p = 0.013; DBP, p = 0.002). The incidence of adverse effects was lower in the telmisartan group, with the absence of cough. In conclusion, telmisartan is more effective and better tolerated than enalapril for the treatment of hypertension and has the advantage that it does not cause cough.     

An 18-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of amlodipine/ramipril combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension: the assessment of combination therapy of amlodipine/ramipril (ATAR) study

BACKGROUND: A combination of antihypertensive agents of different drug classes in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) may offer advantages in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and treatment compliance. Combination of a calcium channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor may act synergistically to reduce blood pressure (BP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an amlodipine/ramipril FDC with those of amlodipine monotherapy. METHODS: This 18-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted at 8 centers across Brazil. Patients with stage 1 or 2 essential hypertension were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients received amlodipine/ramipril 2.5/2.5 mg or amlodipine 2.5 mg, after which the doses were titrated, based on BP, to 5/5 then 10/10 mg (amlodipine/ramipril) and 5 then 10 mg (amlodipine). The primary end point was BP measured in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Hematology and serum biochemistry were assessed at baseline and study end. Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, laboratory analysis, and physical examination, including measurement of ankle circumference to assess peripheral edema. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients completed the study (age range, 40-79 years; FDC group, 117 patients [mean dose, 7.60/7.60 mg]; monotherapy, 105 patients [mean dose, 7.97 mg]). The mean (SD) changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), as measured using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and in the physician's office, were significantly greater with combination therapy than monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP (ABPM, -20.76 [1.25] vs -15.80 [1.18] mm Hg and -11.71 [0.78] vs -8.61 [0.74] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.004]; office, -27.51 [1.40] vs -22.84 [1.33] mm Hg [P = 0.012] and -16.41 [0.79] vs -14.64 [0.75] mm Hg [P = NS], respectively). In the ITT analysis, the mean changes in ambulatory, but not office-based, BP were statistically significant (ABPM: SBP, -20.21 [1.14] vs -15.31 [1.12] mm Hg and DBP, -11.61 [0.72] vs -8.42 [0.70] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.002]; office: SBP, -26.60 [1.34] vs -22.97 [1.30] mm Hg and DBP, -16.48 [0.78] vs -14.48 [0.75] mm Hg [both, P = NS]). Twenty-nine patients (22.1%) treated with combination therapy and 41 patients (30.6%) treated with monotherapy experienced > or =1 adverse event considered possibly related to study drug. The combination-therapy group had lower prevalence of edema (7.6% vs 18.7%; P = 0.011) and a similar prevalence of dry cough (3.8% vs 0.8%; P = NS). No clinically significant changes in laboratory values were found in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this population of patients with essential hypertension, the amlodipine/ramipril FDC was associated with significantly reduced ambulatory and office-measured BP compared with amlodipine monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP. Both treatments were well tolerated.     

Is triple combination of different neurohormonal modulators recommended for treatment of mild-to-moderate congestive heart failure patients? (Results of Sadko-CHF study)

AIM: To assess effects of different variants of neurohormonal (NH) modulation with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE-I) quinapril (Q), angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan (V) and their combination in addition to beta-adrenergic blocker bisoprolol (B) on functional status, quality of life (QOL), parameters of left ventricular (LV) remodeling, main indices of 24-h heart rate variability (HRV) and NH profile in patients with stable mild-to-moderate congestive heart failure (CHF). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty three patients with CHF (NYHA class II-III) as a result of ischemic heart disease and dilated cardiomyopathy with LV EF < 40% were randomly assigned to one of the treatment variants on 1:1:1 basis: B+Q (n = 22), B+V (n = 23) and combination of B+Q + V (n = 18). At baseline, all the patients in this study were on background B treatment and according to the study design Q or V were then added to B at randomization. NYHA FC, 6-min walking test (6MT), QOL, 2D-echocardiography, plasma renin activity (PRA), angiotensin II (AT-II), aldosterone (Ald), norepinephrine (NE), epinephrine (E), brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations and 24-hour HRV parameters were investigated at baseline, 3 and 6 months after randomization. RESULTS: During the study NYHA FC improvement was revealed in all three treatment groups with comparative significant changes in 6MT distance by 20.4%, 19.1% and 19.4% in B+Q, B+V and B+Q+V groups, respectively. QOL maximally decreased in B+V combination (from 45 to 21 points). LV volumes significantly decreased and LV ejection fraction (EF) increased in all groups to the end of the study. Triple combination had no additional effect on LV volumes and LVEF changes compared to B+Q and B+V groups. Plasma NE concentrations decreased maximally in B+Q group (from 650 to 430 pg/ml, p = 0.007). The lesser effect was observed in the combination of B+Q+V, with any NE changes in B+ V group. The E concentration increased significantly (from 215 to 295 pg/ml, p = 0.024) in the B+Q+V group at the end of the study. Plasma A-II concentration did not differ from the baseline during the study in B+Q group, but significantly increased in B+V group and maximally in B+Q+V group (from 11.4 to 23.5 pg/ml, p = 0.009). To the end of the study plasma Ald concentrations remain reduced significantly only in B+V group. The level of BNP significantly decreased in all 3 treatment groups. Significant changes in HRV indices, both in time and frequency domain, were revealed in the B+Q group at 3-month follow-up and SDNN increased on month 24 (p = 0.039). These changes became insignificant at the end of the study. The lesser effect was revealed in B+Q+V group, with insignificant trend toward an increase of SDNN to the end of the study. HRV indices did not improve in the B+V group. CONCLUSION: During long-term treatment the triple combination of B+Q+ V has no significant advantages over B+Q and B+V by the functional status, QOL and parameters of LV remodeling in patients with mild-to-moderate CHF. The combination of B+Q has more potent effect on 24-hour HRV parameters, sympatho-adrenal activity and renal function compared to B+V and B+Q+V groups in CHF patients in our study. The combination B+Q+V may have a negative effect on NH profile (excessive activation of ATII and E) in CHF patients. The triple combination is not recommended for therapy of stable mild-to-moderate CHF patients.     

Effect of telmisartan 80 mg once daily on 24-h blood pressure profile in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension failing to respond to prior antihypertensive therapy

Blood pressure is not adequately controlled in almost 50% of patients with hypertension who are in receipt of antihypertensive therapy. This multicentre, prospective, open-label trial was designed to determine whether or not once-daily telmisartan 80 mg reduced blood pressure during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension who were unresponsive to previous antihypertensive therapy. The study comprised 100 patients (47 males, 53 females) who had failed to respond satisfactorily to prior treatment given for a minimum of 3 months. At screening, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was conducted after the patient had been treated with the currently prescribed antihypertensive medication. Following 5 weeks of telmisartan 80 mg treatment, ABPM was repeated. Telmisartan significantly reduced mean systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and pulse pressure compared with previous antihypertensive therapy over each time interval (24-h, morning, night-time and the last 6 h of the dosing interval [2.00 a.m.-8.00 a.m.]) analysed. In addition, more than 90% of patients responded successfully (clinic DBP <90 mmHg or a >10 mmHg reduction in clinic DBP) at the end of telmisartan treatment. In conclusion, telmisartan provides effective blood pressure control throughout the 24-h dosing interval in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension who were unresponsive to previous antihypertensive medication.     

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg vs. enalapril 10 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, double-blind study in Taiwanese patients

The purpose of this randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg once daily vs. enalapril 10 mg once daily in 147 Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-109 mmHg). After 6 weeks' treatment, telmisartan produced a significantly greater reduction from baseline in the primary endpoint of trough seated DBP compared with enalapril 10 mg (11.7 vs. 8.7 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.02). Numerically greater reductions compared with baseline in seated systolic blood pressure (SBP), standing DBP, and standing SBP were achieved with telmisartan compared with enalapril. Also, numerically greater proportions of patients achieved blood pressure control (DBP/systolic blood pressure [SBP] <90/140 mmHg) and responded to treatment (reduction from baseline in trough seated DBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment DBP <90 mmHg; reduction from baseline in trough seated SBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment SBP <140 mmHg) with telmisartan 40 mg compared with enalapril 10 mg. Although both treatments were well tolerated, the incidence of cough was markedly lower with telmisartan 40 mg (8.5%) than with enalapril 10 mg (18.4%) in this population of Taiwanese hypertensive patients.     

Co-renitek treatment of patients with moderate and severe forms of hypertensive disease

AIM: To evaluate efficacy and tolerance of a compound drug co-renitec combining an ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate and diuretic hydrochlorothiazide co-renitec taken for 16 weeks in essential hypertension (EH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 28 patients with EH (16 males and 12 females aged 47-74 years) of mean duration 13.1 +/- 1.6 years. Blood pressure (BP) was monitored for 24 hours with the device SL 90207 (SpaceLabs Medical, USA). Microalbuminuria (MAU) was estimated with the use of immunoturbodimetric test. RESULTS: By 24-hour monitoring, co-renitec reduced day BP by 14.9/8.9 +/- 3/2 mm Hg, nocturnal BP lowered by 18.6/11.4 +/- 3/2 mmHg, pulse pressure also fell. Coefficient T/P was 53.5% for systolic BP (SBP) and 59.6% for diastolic BP (DBP). The target SBP was reached in 77% patients, target DBP--in 69%. Co-renitec significantly decreased MAU, albumines excretion normalized in 46% patients. CONCLUSION: Co-renitec lowers both day and nocturnal blood pressure, improves 24-h rhythm of BP, has a positive effect on the kidneys. This allows its recommendation as a first-line drug in patients with moderate and severe EH.