Control of Home Blood Pressure with an Amlodipine- or Losartan-Based Regimen and Progression of Carotid Artery Intima-media Thickness in Hypertensive Patients: The HOSP Substudy

Carotid artery intima-media thickness (IMT) has emerged as a predictor of cardiovascular events. Home blood pressure (BP) is more closely associated with cardiovascular prognosis than clinic BP. The aim of this study was to compare the progression of carotid IMT with respect to strict and mild control of morning home systolic BP (SBP) and amlodipine- and losartan-based antihypertensive therapy in hypertensive patients. Subjects included 80 hypertensive outpatients who participated in the Hypertension Control Based on Home Systolic Pressure (HOSP) pilot study. After a 1-month drug-free period, the patients were randomly assigned to either the strict control group (target SBP <130 mm Hg) or the mild control group (130–139 mm Hg) and to either the amlodipine group or the losartan group. Additional antihypertensive drugs were added if target BP was not achieved with monotherapy. Morning SBP achieved target levels during 5 years in the strict control group and in the mild control group, while it was comparable between amlodipine and losartan groups. In all patients, mean and maximum carotid IMT increased significantly. Changes in carotid IMT did not differ between strict and mild control groups. Changes in mean carotid IMT in amlodipine group were smaller than those in losartan group at year 1, but were not different between the two groups at year 5. In conclusion, carotid IMT increased over time in hypertensive patients in spite of the strict control of home BP. Amlodipine may slow the progression of IMT more than losartan, although a difference was not obvious after 5 years.     

Efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan compared with amlodipine monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension: a randomized,double-blind,multicenter study: the EX-EFFeCTS Study

Achieving blood pressure (BP) targets in stage 2 hypertension usually requires two or more drugs, which should be selected from different classes. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week study, 646 patients with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥160 mm Hg) received amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 2 weeks, prior to being force-titrated to amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg, respectively, for a further 6 weeks. Hydrochlorothiazide could be added at Week 4 if MSSBP was ≥130 mm Hg. At endpoint Week 4, reductions in MSSBP were significantly greater in patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan than in those receiving amlodipine (30.1 mm Hg vs. 23.5 mm Hg; P < .0001). Likewise, MSSBP reductions in patients with baseline MSSBP ≥180 mm Hg were also greater for amlodipine/valsartan at Week 4 (40.1 mm Hg vs. 31.7 mm Hg for amlodipine; P = .0018). Differences favoring amlodipine/valsartan were also seen for BP control. Amlodipine/valsartan was generally well tolerated. These findings support the rationale for combining agents with complementary mechanisms of action, such as amlodipine and valsartan, in the management of stage 2 hypertension.     

Randomized Pilot Trial Between Prostaglandin I2 Analog and Anti‐Platelet Drugs on Peripheral Arterial Disease in Hemodialysis Patients

The effect of the prostaglandin I₂ analog, beraprost sodium (BPS), on hemodialysis (HD) patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) has not been fully elucidated. The effect of BPS was compared to that of PAD drugs in HD patients with PAD in a multicenter randomized prospective interventional pilot study (J‐PADD). Seventy‐two PAD patients on HD were entered and randomly divided into two groups; that is, BPS group (Group A: n = 35) and PAD drug (cilostazol or sarpogrelate) group (Group B: n = 37). Primary endpoint was changes in skin perfusion pressure (SPP). Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL) score, cardiovascular events, PAD events, and adverse events were also evaluated. SPP increased significantly in both groups at 24 weeks from their basal levels. The absolute increase of SPP in Group A and Group B were 15.4 ± 30.0 mm Hg (P < 0.0001) and 20.2 ± 22.1 mm Hg (P = 0.025) (instep), and 13.8 ± 19.3 mm Hg (P < 0.0001) and 9.2 ± 16.3 mm Hg (P = 0.041) (sole), respectively. Changes of KDQOL score showed significantly better result in the role of physical score in Group A compared with Group B. Although heart rate was unchanged in Group A, 9.3/min increase was seen in Group B patients who received cilostazol. There was no intergroup difference in cardiovascular events and/or PAD events between the two groups during the study period. This exploratory pilot study suggested BPS was as effective as anti‐platelet drugs in improving microcirculation in HD patients.     

缬沙坦/氨氯地平复方片剂对单药控制不良的轻中度高血压患者的疗效观察

目的 评价缬沙坦(80 mg)/氨氯地平(5 mg)复方片剂(复方片剂)治疗经氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg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、平行试验方法进行两项临床研究.在两项研究中对经1～4周洗脱期的轻、中度原发性高血压患者[坐位舒张压≥95 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)且<110 mm Hg]分别采用单药氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg治疗4周,在单药导入结束后,坐位舒张压仍然≥90mm Hg且<110 mm Hg的患者随机进入复方片剂组或继续原有的单药治疗,共8周.其间,在治疗4周和试验结束时评估药物的安全性及有效性.结果 治疗结束时,复方片剂组平均坐位收缩压/平均坐位舒张压下降幅度较氨氯地平单药治疗组多4.4mm Hg/3 mm Hg(P<0.0001);较缬沙坦80 mg组多6.4 mm Hg/4.2 mm Hg(P<0.0001).两项研究中复方片剂组的血压控制率(血压<140/90 mmHg)分别为71.0%及71.2%,显著优于氨氯地平或缬沙坦单药治疗组,不良事件发生率与单药治疗组相当.结论 复方片剂组的血压控制率显著优于其两种成分(氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg)单药的治疗,且具有良好的安全性和耐受性.     

Predictors of antihypertensive drug responses: initial data from a placebo-controlled, randomized, cross-over study with four antihypertensive drugs (The GENRES Study)

BACKGROUND: Only a minority of hypertensive individuals is adequately controlled for their hypertension, partially because reliable predictors for efficient antihypertensive drug therapy are lacking. METHODS: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled study (The GENRES Study), 208 moderately hypertensive Finnish men (aged 35 to 60 years) were treated for 4 weeks with antihypertensive drugs from four different classes: amlodipine (5 mg), bisoprolol (5 mg), hydrochlorothiazide (25 mg), or losartan (50 mg) daily. Each individual received each of the four monotherapies in a randomized order. Four-week placebo periods were included before and between drug treatment periods. Antihypertensive responses were assessed with 24-h ambulatory and office measurements and analyzed according to age, body mass index, triceps skin fold thickness, waist-to-hip ratio, duration of hypertension, number of previous antihypertensive drugs, number of affected parents, and blood pressure (BP) levels, and profiles during placebo periods. RESULTS: The median BP responses in 24-h ambulatory recordings (systolic/diastolic) were 11/8 mm Hg for bisoprolol, 9/6 mm Hg for losartan, 7/5 mm Hg for amlodipine, and 5/2 mm Hg for hydrochlorothiazide. The highest pairwise within-subject correlations in BP responses were seen for the combinations of bisoprolol-losartan and amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide. The BP responses to bisoprolol and losartan did not vary according to the variables. Amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide responses were positively correlated with age, placebo BP level, and lower night-time dipping on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline clinical and BP parameters may be used to predict the efficacy of antihypertensive therapies. The GENRES Study material should provide an excellent platform for future pharmacogenetic analyses of antihypertensive drug responsiveness.     

贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂与贝那普利单药治疗轻中度高血压的多中心随机双盲平行对照研究

目的 评价贝那普利/氨氯地平复方片剂与贝那普利片单药治疗轻、中度高血压患者的有效性和安全性.方法 本研究为多中心、随机、双盲、平行对照研究.356例原发性高血压患者经2周洗脱期后,再给予4周贝那普利片10 mg单药治疗,220例平均坐位舒张压(SeDBP)仍≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)的患者随机分为贝那普利(10 mg)/氨氯地平(5 mg)固定剂量复方片剂组(复方制剂组,1片/d,n=113)和贝那普利片单药组(单药治疗组,20 mg/d,n=107),治疗4周末两组诊室SeDBP≥90 mmHg者剂量加倍.SeDBP＜90 mm Hg者续服原剂量,共随机双盲治疗8周.以总有效率和SeDBP下降差值作为主要疗效指标.其中74例患者(复方片剂组38例,单药组36例)完成了24 h动态血压监测,并作为降压疗效的评价指标.结果 随机、双盲治疗8周末,复方片剂组SeDBP下降值为(11.7±6.8)mm Hg、达目的 血压占65.7%、总有效率为88.5%;单药治疗组SeDBP下降值为(7.7±6.9)mm Hg、达目的 血压占35.5%、总有效率为65.5%.两组组间比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.001).24 h动态血压监测结果,复方制剂组和单药组的舒张压/收缩压(DBP/SBP)的谷/峰比率(T/P)分别为83.1%/76.0%和85.8%/79.5%(P＜0.05).复方制剂组与单药治疗组的不良反应发生率分别为16.8%和35.5%(P＜0.01).结论 贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂治疗原发性高血压患者的降压疗效明显优于贝那普利单药治疗,且有良好的耐受性.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg once-daily therapy, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with mild and moderate hypertension, and to evaluate the 24 h antihypertensive efficacy and the duration of action by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring Methods In a multicenter, randomized,double-blind, parallel controlled trial, 356 cases of hypertensive patients after 2 weeks wash-out, and then given 4 weeks of benazepril 10 mg monotherapy, 220 patients with mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP)remained ≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg = 0. 133 kPa)were randomly divided into benazepril 10 mg/amlodipine 5 mg(BZ10/AML5)fixed-dose combination therapy group(once a day, n = 113), and benazepril monotherapy group(daily 20 mg, n = 107). In the two groups the patients with SeDBP≥90 mm Hg were doubled the dosage of the initial regimen at the end of 4-week treatment for additional 4 weeks , and the patients with SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg remained the initial regimen for additional 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the improvement of SeDBP at the end of 8-week treatment. There were 74 patients(the combination therapy group n = 38, monotherapy therapy group n = 36)completed the 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring which was included in the final efficacy analysis. Results The randomized, doubleblind treatment for 8 weeks, the mean value of SeDBP reduction, the reaching target blood pressure rate and total successful response rate to the treatment(a SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg or a decrease of 10 mm Hg or more from baseline)were(11.7 ± 6.8)mm Hg, 65.7% and 88.5% in the combination therapy group,respectively, and were(7.7 ±6. 9)mm Hg, 35.5% and 65.5% in the monotherapy group, respectively.There were statistically significant difference between the combination therapy and the monotherapy groups in all the 3 indexs(P ＜ 0. 001). The fixed combination significantly reduced systolic blood pressure(SBP)and diastolic blood pressure(DBP)values throughout the 24 h. The trough to peak ratios of DBP/SBP in the fixed compound of benazepril/amlodipine(10 mg/5 mg)and benazepril(20 mg)alone were 83. 1%/76. 0% and 85.8%/79. 5%, respectively. Adverse events rates were 16. 8% in the combination therapy group and 35.5% in the monotherapy group(P ＜ 0. 001). Conclusions The combination therapy with benazepril/amlodipine was superior to benazepril monotherapy and was well tolerated in patients with essential hypertension and allowing a satisfactory BP control for 24 hours.     

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in patients with essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of amlodipine (2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg) once daily was compared with atenolol (50 mg to 100 mg) once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study. One hundred and twenty-five patients were randomly allocated at the end of a 4-week run-in placebo period to 8 weeks' double-blind treatment with amlodipine (n = 41), atenolol (n = 43), or placebo (n = 41). The mean changes from baseline in blood pressure 24 h postdose for amlodipine (mean daily dose 8.8 mg) were -12.8/-10.1 mm Hg for supine and -11.5/-9.8 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (P < .001). For atenolol (mean daily dose 83.7 mg) the changes were -11.3/-11.7 mm Hg for supine and -13.3/-12.3 mm Hg for standing blood pressure (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between treatments. The responder rates for amlodipine, atenolol, and placebo were 61.1%, 64.9%, and 11.1%, respectively. Determinations taken over the 24-h period at the final visit revealed that amlodipine and atenolol maintained the group mean supine blood pressure at or below 140/90 mm Hg throughout the period of observation; the corresponding time-effect curve for the placebo group was clearly in the hypertensive range. Heart rate was significantly lowered by atenolol only. Both amlodipine and atenolol were well-tolerated. Only one patient was withdrawn because of the development of peripheral edema, arthralgia, and fatigue after treatment with amlodipine. This study demonstrates that once-daily administration of amlodipine or atenolol to mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients was well-tolerated and provided adequate blood pressure control throughout the 24-h dosing interval.     

Management of hypertension in patients with diabetes using an amlodipine-, olmesartan medoxomil-, and hydrochlorothiazide-based titration regimen

The safety and efficacy of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based titration regimen was assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, 207 patients received amlodipine 5 mg and were uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 5/20, 5/40, and 10/40 mg and then amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 and 25 mg in a step-wise manner at 3-week intervals if the seated blood pressure (BP) remained ≥120/70 mm Hg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP after 12 weeks of treatment. The baseline mean ± SD seated cuff systolic/diastolic BP was 158.8 ± 13.1/89.1 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the mean ± SD 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was 144.4 ± 11.7/81.6 ± 9.8 mm Hg. At week 12, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was -19.9 ± 0.8/-11.2 ± 0.5 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), and 70% of patients had achieved a 24-hour ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mm Hg. At the end of 18 weeks of active treatment in patients uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM seated BP was -28.0 ± 1.5/-13.7 ± 1.0 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), with 62% of patients reaching the guideline-recommended seated BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 19.3% of patients. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (6%), dizziness (3%), and hypotension (2%). In conclusion, this amlodipine/OM-based titration regimen was well tolerated and effectively lowered BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.     

A noninferiority comparison of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination versus amlodipine in black hypertensives

The objective of the study was to demonstrate that reduction in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was not inferior to 10 mg amlodipine in hypertensive blacks. A total of 482 blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (mean seated blood pressure 140 to 180/90 to 110 mm Hg) were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, prospective study. After a placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 160 mg valsartan or 5 mg amlodipine for 2 weeks, then force-titrated to 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide or 10 mg amlodipine for an additional 10 weeks. Blood pressure was assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Other assessments included quality of life, peripheral edema, and safety. Noninferiority of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide to amlodipine was demonstrated by comparable reductions in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with both treatments (-10.2+/-8.6 mm Hg versus -9.1+/-8.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<0.001 for noninferiority), as well as in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (-15.9+/-12.1 mm Hg versus -14.5+/-12.2 mm Hg; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The proportion of patients reporting adverse events and the incidence of most events were similar in both treatment groups, although more patients treated with amlodipine reported peripheral edema (5.8% versus 1.7%; P=0.03) and joint swelling (2.9% versus 0%; P=0.008) compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. We conclude that a starting dose of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (160/12.5 mg) is as effective as high-dose amlodipine (10 mg) in reducing blood pressure in blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is better tolerated.     

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.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure control with triple-therapy amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with moderate to severe hypertension

To determine the effectiveness and safety of once-daily combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, a multicenter, double-blind study was performed (N=2271) that included ABP monitoring in a 283-patient subset. After a single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg), valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (320/25?mg), amlodipine/valsartan (10/320?mg) or amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (10/25?mg) each morning for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in all these parameters occurred in all treatment groups (P<0.0001, all comparisons versus baseline). At week 8, least squares mean reductions from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were 30.3/19.7, 31.2/20.5 and 28.0/17.8?mm?Hg, respectively, with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide; corresponding reductions with dual therapies ranged from 18.8-24.1/11.7-15.5, 19.0-25.1/12.0-16.0 and 18.3-22.6/11.1-14.3?mm?Hg (P≤0.01, all comparisons of triple versus dual therapy). Treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide maintained full 24-h effectiveness, including during the morning hours; all hourly mean ambulatory SBP and mean ambulatory DBP measurements were ≤130/85?mm?Hg at end point. Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy was well tolerated. Once-daily treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg) reduces ABP to a significantly greater extent than component-based dual therapy and maintains its effectiveness over the entire 24-h dosing period.     

Effects of valsartan or amlodipine alone or in combination on plasma catecholamine levels at rest and during standing in hypertensive patients

To compare the effects of valsartan and amlodipine alone or in combination on plasma norepinephrine (NE) at rest and standing for 10 minutes in patients with hypertension, 47 patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) (DBP)>95 mm Hg and<110 mm Hg were randomized in a double-blind fashion to either valsartan or amlodipine. During the first 4 weeks of treatment, patients received a low dose of either valsartan (80 mg) or amlodipine (5 mg). The patients were force-titrated to the high dose of either drug (160 or 10 mg) for 4 weeks. After 8 weeks of therapy, those who still had a DBP>90 mm Hg (nonresponders) received combination therapy with the other drug, whereas patients with a DBP<90 mm Hg (responders) continued on monotherapy. Decreases in ambulatory BP and clinic systolic BP and DBP were significant (P<.05) after 8 weeks' therapy with no difference between the 2 groups. Amlodipine but not valsartan as monotherapy consistently increased NE levels at rest and enhanced NE levels during standing. Valsartan decreased basal NE in responders. Combination therapy with valsartan and amlodipine did not attenuate the rise in NE levels induced by amlodipine. This study indicates that therapy with amlodipine increases peripheral sympathetic basal tone and reactivity to standing in patients with hypertension, whereas valsartan does not. Combined therapy with amlodipine/valsartan did not attenuate the sympathetic activation induced by amlodipine. The hypotensive action of valsartan may be mediated in part by an inhibition of the sympathetic baroreflex in patients with hypertension.     

The comparison of hypotensive efficiency and tolerability of amlodipine and enalapril in patients with essential hypertension

In this multicentre, double-blind trial in 176 patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension were randomized to amlodipine or enalapril monotherapy after 2-week period of placebo. Doses of amlodipine (2.5-10 mg once daily) and enalapril (5-20 mg once daily) were titrated to achieve office blood pressure below 140/90 mm Hg during 8 weeks of therapy. Both drugs were similarly effective in lowering blood pressure and goal blood pressure was achieved in 72.4% patients treated with amlodipine and 67.4% with enalapril. Also, degree of reduction of blood pressure was similar in both groups. Compared to initial values: systolic/diastolic blood pressure decreased by 23.5/14.9 mm Hg in amlodipine group and 23.2/14.0 mm Hg in subjects receiving enalapril. However, adverse effects, especially dry cough were more frequent in enalapril-treated patients. Both amlodipine and enalapril provide significant blood pressure reduction in stage I-II hypertension. Tolerance of short-term therapy was good in both groups however number of adverse events was significantly lower in amlodipine-treated patients.     

Blood pressure control, drug therapy, and kidney disease

The African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension examined the effect on renal function decline of 2 blood pressure (BP) goals (low mean arterial pressure [MAP] < or =92 versus usual MAP 102 to 107 mm Hg) and 3 antihypertensives (ramipril versus amlodipine versus metoprolol). We previously reported that in all drug groups combined the BP intervention had similar effects on the primary outcome of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) slope or the main secondary clinical composite outcome of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), death, or GFR decline by 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. This report examines the effect of the BP intervention separately in the 3 drug groups. The BP effect was similar among the drug groups for either GFR slope or the main clinical composite. However, the BP effect differed significantly among the drug groups for the composite of ESRD or death (P=0.035) and ESRD alone (P=0.021). Higher event rates for amlodipine patients assigned to the usual BP goal (0.087 per patient-year for ESRD or death and 0.064 per patient-year for ESRD) were seen compared with the remaining groups of the factorial design (range, 0.041 to 0.050 for ESRD or death; and range, 0.027 to 0.036 for ESRD). The low BP goal was associated with reduced risk of ESRD or death (risk reduction 51%; 95% confidence interval, 13% to 73%) and ESRD (54%; 8% to 77%) for amlodipine patients, but not for patients assigned to the other drug groups. These secondary analyses suggest a benefit of the low BP goal among patients assigned to amlodipine, but they must be interpreted cautiously.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine and amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P<.001). Ambulatory and central BP measures were consistent with clinic BP findings, although these were conducted in a small subset of patients (n = 94 in ambulatory BP monitoring substudy and n = 136 for central BP). More patients achieved goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine at week 8 (57.3% vs 48.0%; P = .051). Both treatment groups had similar adverse event rates (35.0% and 32.7%, respectively). The most common adverse events were peripheral edema (7.7% with aliskiren/amlodipine and 9.0% with amlodipine), headache, fatigue, and nausea. The combination of aliskiren/amlodipine reduced peripheral, ambulatory, and central BP more than amlodipine alone with similar tolerability in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension.     

Addition of spironolactone in patients with resistant arterial hypertension (ASPIRANT): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

There is currently limited data on which drug should be used to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with resistant hypertension. This study was designed to assess the effect of the addition of 25 mg of spironolactone on BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension. Patients with office systolic BP >140 mm Hg or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg despite treatment with at least 3 antihypertensive drugs, including a diuretic, were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. One hundred seventeen patients were randomly assigned to receive spironolactone (n=59) or a placebo (n=58) as an add-on to their antihypertensive medication, by the method of simple randomization. Analyses were done with 111 patients (55 in the spironolactone and 56 in the placebo groups). At 8 weeks, the primary end points, a difference in mean fall of BP on daytime ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), between the groups was -5.4 mm Hg (95%CI -10.0; -0.8) for systolic BP (P=0.024) and -1.0 mm Hg (95% CI -4.0; 2.0) for diastolic BP (P=0.358). The APBM nighttime systolic, 24-hour ABPM systolic, and office systolic BP values were significantly decreased by spironolactone (difference of -8.6, -9.8, and -6.5 mm Hg; P=0.011, 0.004, and 0.011), whereas the fall of the respective diastolic BP values was not significant (-3.0, -1.0, and -2.5 mm Hg; P=0.079, 0.405, and 0.079). The adverse events in both groups were comparable. In conclusion, spironolactone is an effective drug for lowering systolic BP in patients with resistant arterial hypertension.     

A randomized,double‐blind clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed‐dose combination of amlodipine/rosuvastatin in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension

This multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group phase III clinical trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin + amlodipine combination compared with that of rosuvastatin or amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia. A total of 106 patients of 15 institutions in Korea were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: rosuvastatin 20 mg + amlodipine 10 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 20 mg. After 8 weeks of treatment, the mean ± SD of change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) was −22.82 ± 12.99 mm Hg in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group, the most decreased among the treatment groups. The percentage of patients whose msSBP decreased ≥20 mm Hg or msDBP decreased ≥10 mm Hg was also highest in this group (74.29%). The mean ± SD percentage change in low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) level from baseline after 8 weeks was −52.53% ± 11.21% in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group, the most decreased among the treatment groups. More patients in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group achieved their target LDL‐C goal at 8 weeks, compared with the other treatment groups (97.14%). No serious adverse events or adverse drug reactions were observed in all groups. In hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia, combination treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg + amlodipine 10 mg effectively reduced blood pressure and LDL‐C levels while maintaining safety.     

Amlodipine is comparable to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor for long-term renoprotection in hypertensive patients with renal dysfunction: a one-year, prospective, randomized study

Unlike angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), few long-term studies have shown calcium antagonists to retard the progression of renal dysfunction. Our aim was to prospectively compare the effects of amlodipine and ACEI (enalapril) on renal function in hypertensive patients with renal impairment due to chronic glomerulonephritis and essential hypertension. A total of 72 hypertensive patients with serum creatinine (Cr) > 1.5 mg/dL were randomly allocated to treatment with either drug. During a 1-year period, 33% of the patients treated with ACEI dropped out due to adverse events, whereas 9% of patients with amlodipine dropped out. Data of 28 patients were available for analysis of more than 1-year follow-up. Reductions in blood pressure were comparable between the amlodipine (from 165/101 to 138/81 mm Hg) and ACEI groups. Serum Cr increased from 2.1+/-0.8 (SD) to 2.6+/-1.0 mg/dL with amlodipine (n = 16), but the difference was equivalent to that with ACEI (n = 12). Creatinine clearance (Ccr) in the moderate dysfunction group (basal Cr, 1.5 to 2.0 mg/dL) changed from 36+/-10 to 33+/-11 mL/min (not significant) with amlodipine, and the change was similar to that noted with ACEI. Annual declines in Ccr with amlodipine (-3.7 mL/min/year) and ACEI (-2.6 mL/min/year) were comparable, and both tended to be smaller than the annual decline in glomerular filtration rate reported in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study (-6 mL/min/year). Serum potassium was increased significantly (P < .01), from 4.5+/-0.4 to 5.3+/-0.8 mEq/L, only in the ACEI group. This 1-year prospective study demonstrated the effect of amlodipine on renal function to be likely the same as that of ACEI. Furthermore, amlodipine was better tolerated than ACEI for hypertensive patients with renal dysfunction.     

Effects of candesartan compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: candesartan antihypertensive survival evaluation in Japan trial

The Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan Trial was designed to compare the long-term effects of the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine on the incidence of cardiovascular events, represented as a composite of sudden death and cerebrovascular, cardiac, renal, and vascular events in high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label study with blinded assessment of the end point in 4728 Japanese hypertensive patients (mean age: 63.8 years; mean body mass index: 24.6 kg/m(2)). Patients were followed for an average of 3.2 years. Blood pressure was well controlled with both treatment-based regimens (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure: 136.1/77.3 mm Hg for candesartan-based regimens and 134.4/76.7 mm Hg for amlodipine-based regimens after 3 years). Primary cardiovascular events occurred in 134 patients with both the candesartan- and amlodipine-based regimens. The 2 treatment-based regimens produced no significant differences in cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in the high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients (hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.28; P=0.969). In each primary end point category, there was no significant difference between the 2 treatment-based regimens. New-onset diabetes occurred in fewer patients taking candesartan (8.7/1000 person-years) than in those taking amlodipine (13.6/1000 person-years), which resulted in a 36% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97; P=0.033). We disclosed that candesartan-based and amlodipine-based regimens produced no statistical differences in terms of the primary cardiovascular end point, whereas candesartan prevented new-onset diabetes more effectively than amlodipine.     

Efficacy and duration of benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide on 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure control

The combination of benazepril plus amlodipine was shown to be more effective than benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular events in the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. There was a small difference in clinic systolic blood pressure between the treatment arms favoring benazepril plus amlodipine. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides a more rigorous estimate of blood pressure effects. A subset of 573 subjects underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring during year 2. Readings were obtained every 20 minutes during a 24-hour period. Between-treatment differences (benazepril plus amlodipine versus benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide) in mean values were analyzed using ANOVA. Treatment comparisons with respect to categorical variables were made using Pearson's χ2. At year 2, the treatment groups did not differ significantly in 24-hour mean daytime or nighttime blood pressures (values of 123.9, 125.9, and 118.1 mm Hg for benazepril plus amlodipine group versus 122.3, 124.1, and 116.9 for the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group), with mean between-group differences of 1.6, 1.8, and 1.2 mm Hg, respectively. Blood pressure control rates (24-hour mean systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) were greater than 80% in both groups. Nighttime systolic blood pressure provided additional risk prediction after adjusting for the effects of drugs. The 24-hour blood pressure control was similar in both treatment arms, supporting the interpretation that the difference in cardiovascular outcomes favoring a renin angiotensin system blocker combined with amlodipine rather than hydrochlorothiazide shown in the ACCOMPLISH trial was not caused by differences in blood pressure, but instead intrinsic properties (metabolic or hemodynamic) of the combination therapies.