Double-blind study of dilevalol and captopril, both in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with moderate to severe hypertension.

Sixty-one patients (41 men, 20 women) aged 29-73 years, with moderate to severe hypertension, were enrolled in a multicentre study to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dilevalol (D) and captopril (C). At the end of the baseline period, supine diastolic blood pressure (SuDBP) was 105-140 mm Hg on hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg once daily and placebo t.i.d. Patients were randomly assigned to D + HCTZ (n = 29) or C + HCTZ (n = 32) and entered phase II titration of D (100-800 mg b.i.d.) or C (12.5 mg b.i.d. to 50 mg t.i.d.). If SuDBP was greater than 99 mm Hg, hydralazine was added (25 mg once daily to 50 mg b.i.d.). If SuDBP was less than or equal to 99 mm Hg, patients entered phase III, a 3-month maintenance period. Demographic profiles were not significantly different between the two groups. Baseline supine BP (mean +/- SEM) was similar in the two groups (D + HCTZ: 182 +/- 3/112 +/- 1; C + HCTZ: 179 +/- 4/113 +/- 1 mm Hg), as was baseline standing BP (D + HCTZ: 175 +/- 3/114 +/- 2; C +/- HCTZ: 173 +/- 4/113 +/- 1 mm Hg). At the end of phase II, there were no significant differences between treatments with respect to the changes in BP from baseline.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Efficacy and tolerability of valsartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of two combination regimens of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with valsartan monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled with valsartan 80mg once daily. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 708 patients with inadequately controlled blood pressure after 4 weeks' treatment with valsartan 80mg once daily participated in this double-blind comparative trial. Patients were randomly allocated once-daily treatment with valsartan 80mg, valsartan 160mg, valsartan 80mg + HCTZ 12.5mg or valsartan 80mg + HCTZ 25mg for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Statistically significant decreases in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) from baseline were seen in all treatment groups (least squares mean change from baseline SDBP: -5.1mm Hg, -6.2mm Hg, -8.2mm Hg, -10.8mm Hg; SSBP: -3.9mm Hg, -6.5mm Hg, -9.8mm Hg, -16.0mm Hg for valsartan 80mg, valsartan 160mg, HCTZ 12.5mg combination, HCTZ 25mg combination, respectively). A significant difference for mean SDBP, SSBP and responder rates in favour of the combination regimens was observed compared with either valsartan monotherapy. All treatments were well tolerated with the percentage of patients reporting treatment-related adverse experiences at any time ranging from 9.9% (valsartan 160mg) to 21.0% (HCTZ 25mg combination). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that a combination of valsartan 80mg and HCTZ 12.5mg or 25mg provides an effective and well tolerated treatment in patients who need additional blood pressure control beyond valsartan monotherapy.     

Antihypertensive effect of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide alone or in combination with quinapril in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension

In this study, using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, the authors assessed the potential for BP control using hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily), given as a monotherapy over 12 months to 49 black South African patients with mild to moderate hypertension (mean day diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or = 90 and < 115 mmHg). Uncontrolled patients received fixed combination of quinapril/HCTZ 10/12.5, 20/12.5, and 20/25 mg, with dose titration at 3 monthly intervals if BP control was not achieved (day DBP < 90 mmHg). Overall, profound and sustained BP reduction was observed at the end of the study. The 24-hour BP decreased from 151 +/- 14/98 +/- 7 to 136 +/- 15/87 +/- 9 mmHg (p < 0.0001 at end of study vs. baseline); the mean day BP decreased from 155 +/- 14/104 +/- 7 to 140 +/- 15/91 +/- 10 mmHg (p < 0.0001 at end of study vs. baseline). The overall control (mean day DBP < 90 mmHg) and response (decrease in day DBP > or = 10 mmHg) rates were 49% and 61%, respectively. At the end of the study, only 2 patients (4%) remained on treatment with HCTZ. Out of the initial 12 patients controlled on HCTZ at 3 months (12/49, 24%), 5 patients remained controlled at 6 months and only 1 patient at 12 months. In contrast, quinapril/HCTZ combinations maintained their antihypertensive effect up to 9 months, with a significant number of patients (22/49, 45%) requiring the highest dose of the combination (20/25 mg daily). In conclusion, low-dose HCTZ should not be recommended as monotherapy in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension due to the fact that the BP-lowering effect is attenuated already at 6 months of treatment, with most patients requiring the addition of the ACE inhibitor.     

Atenolol-nifedipine combinations compared to atenolol alone in hypertension: efficacy and tolerability.

1. In a double-blind, randomised, three-way-crossover study, 25 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 120 mm Hg (Phase V) after 4 weeks' run-in on atenolol 50 mg twice daily, received atenolol 50 mg twice daily alone, atenolol 50 mg plus nifedipine 20 mg each twice daily and atenolol 50 mg plus nifedipine 40 mg each twice daily in three treatment periods each lasting 4 weeks. 'Washout' periods were not included. 2. The two combination treatment regimes lowered the 12 h post-dose blood pressure more effectively than did atenolol alone, but the high dose nifedipine combination was no more effective than the low dose nifedipine combination. Sitting systolic BP (+/- s.e. mean) at the end of each period was 174 +/- 5 mm Hg after the atenolol run-in, 170 +/- 5 mm Hg with atenolol alone, 156 +/- 5 mm Hg with the low dose combination and 158 +/- 4 mm Hg with the high dose combination. Corresponding diastolic BP readings were 106 +/- 2 mm Hg, 106 +/- 2 mm Hg, 97 +/- 2 mm Hg and 99 +/- 2 mm Hg respectively. 3. Side-effects tended to occur less commonly with the low dose of the fixed combination than with atenolol alone. An increased number of side-effects occurred with the 40 mg twice daily doses of nifedipine, particularly flushing/erythema, oedema of the ankles/feet, and a hot feeling in the legs. These differences did not reach significance. 4. Overall compliance was good (98 +/- 0.7 s.e. mean %) and was similar within the different treatment regimes.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Metabolic effects of the combination of captopril and hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive subjects

The medium-term (16 weeks) effects of the combination of captopril and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) on some metabolic indexes, particularly on plasma lipoproteins, were evaluated in 20 mild to moderate hypertensive outpatients. After a 4-week wash-out period, the subjects were given one tablet of a new commercially available fixed combination once/daily (i.e., captopril 50 mg + HCTZ 25 mg). The dose could be titrated to a maximum of one tablet twice daily according to individual blood pressure responses. Both systolic and diastolic blood pressure significantly decreased at week 4 and showed a further decrease thereafter; the rate of responders (diastolic blood pressure at or below 90 mm Hg at the end of the study) was very high (90%). The only metabolic change was a small though significant increase in HDL cholesterol (P less than .05), almost entirely due to an increase in the denser HDL3 subfraction. The atherogenic fractions, namely total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and apoprotein B, showed no significant changes. Plasma triglycerides underwent a transient increase at week 8 (P less than .05) but thereafter fell. Plasma glucose, creatinine, uric acid, and potassium were unchanged. The fixed combination of captopril and HCTZ seems highly effective in lowering blood pressure and seems devoid of untoward metabolic effects. Its overall impact on the coronary risk profile in hypertensive subjects seems therefore to be favorable.     

Aliskiren: a review of its use in the management of hypertension

Aliskiren (Tekturna) is an orally active, nonpeptidic inhibitor of renin, the enzyme involved in the initial and rate-limiting step of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). In the US, aliskiren is approved for the treatment of hypertension and may be used alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents.Monotherapy with aliskiren 150-300mg once daily was effective in lowering blood pressure (BP) and providing 24-hour BP control; it was generally well tolerated when administered for up to 1 year to patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In the short term (1-3 months), the BP-lowering effect of aliskiren 150-300mg once daily was significantly greater than that of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5-25mg once daily and noninferior to, or significantly greater than, that of ramipril 5-10mg once daily. It was similar to that of valsartan 160-320mg once daily and losartan 100mg once daily, and similar to, or significantly greater than, that of irbesartan 150mg once daily. Aliskiren provided significant additional BP-lowering effects when combined with HCTZ 12.5-25 mg/day, ramipril 5-10 mg/day, amlodipine 5mg once daily or valsartan 160-320 mg/day; combination therapy was well tolerated. Long-term administration of aliskiren-based therapy was superior to HCTZ- and ramipril-based therapies in lowering BP after 6 months, and was similarly well tolerated.The ultimate role of aliskiren will be determined by the results of target organ protection studies, which are ongoing, and a cardiovascular outcome trial, which is planned. Nonetheless, by offering a new approach to the blockade of the RAS, aliskiren provides a useful addition to the therapeutic options available to treat patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Candesartan cilexetil plus hydrochlorothiazide combination: a review of its use in hypertension

The combination of candesartan cilexetil [an angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonist] plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic), has been used in the treatment of patients with hypertension. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of various doses of this combination, administered orally once a day for 4 to 52 weeks, has been demonstrated in clinical trials. These studies showed that combinations of candesartan cilexetil 4 to 16 mg with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg induced significant reductions reductions in systolic (S) BP and diastolic (D) BP from baseline in patients with mild to severe hypertension. Data from clinical trials indicated that reductions in BP induced by candesartan cilexetil 4 to 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combinations were significantly greater than those observed after monotherapy with either drug. Treatment for 8 weeks with candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or candesartan cilexetil 16 mg induced SBP/DBP reductions of 12.0/7.5 mm Hg and 7.5/5.5mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.05 both comparisons). Moreover, data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study in 1038 patients with mild to moderate hypertension showed that the greatest reductions in SBP/DBP were achieved by candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Significant differences in BP reduction in favour of the combination were observed when hypertensive patients were given candesartan cilexetil 4 or 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy for 8 weeks. Additionally, greater efficacy of the combination compared to monotherapy with either drug was demonstrated by response rates to treatment. Moreover, a fixed combination of candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg demonstrated a greater antihypertensive effect than losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in two clinical trials. Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg showed a similar antihypertensive effect compared with that of combined lisinopril 10 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination was well tolerated in patients with hypertension. Combined data from placebo-controlled trials showed that most adverse events were uncommon and not serious. Patients receiving combination therapy exhibited, among other adverse events, headache (3.2 vs 5.5% for candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and placebo, respectively), back pain (3.0 vs 2.4%), dizziness (2.6 vs 1.2%) and respiratory infection (2.5 vs 1.4%). Moreover, 3.3 and 2.7% of patients receiving candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide or placebo, respectively, discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The combination of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide (AT(1)-receptor antagonist and thiazide diuretic, respectively) is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension. Data from randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that this combination is significantly more efficacious than either agent alone. Moreover, the combination of these two agents showed an excellent adverse event profile. Current data support the use of this combination as an alternative when monotherapy with either agent is not effective, and there are no compelling or specific indications for other drugs. However, data from large clinical trials, evaluating morbidity and mortality outcomes, are needed to determine the precise role of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination in the treatment of patients with hypertension.     

Efficacy and Safety of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide Compared with Benazepril and Amlodipine Besylate

BACKGROUND: Most patients with stage 2 hypertension require two or more antihypertensive agents in order to achieve the BP goals recommended in current treatment guidelines. Accordingly, combinations of two drugs with different mechanisms of antihypertensive action are widely used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, multicenter 12-week study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a combination of olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with that of benazepril plus amlodipine besylate in patients with stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: Patients were eligible for randomization following a 3- to 4-week placebo run-in period if they had either (i) mean seated DBP>or=90 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg and mean seated SBP>or=160 mm Hg but <200 mm Hg, or (ii) mean seated DBP>or=100 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg. The difference in mean seated SBP measured on two separate visits during the run-in period was required to beor=95 mm Hg and<115 mm Hg or SBP>145 mm Hg and相似文献   

Felodipine vs hydralazine: a controlled trial as third line therapy in hypertension. Cooperative Study Group.

In a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized, parallel group study one hundred and one patients with supine diastolic blood pressure greater than or equal to 100 mm Hg phase V, despite treatment with atenolol 100 mg plus chlorthalidone 25 mg once daily also received either felodipine 5-20 mg twice daily or hydralazine 25-100 mg twice daily for 6 weeks. Felodipine achieved a lower supine blood pressure (mean +/- s.d. 177/108 +/- 29/8-138/82 +/- 19/8 mm Hg) than hydralazine (174/109 +/- 25/8-149/92 +/- 26/11 mm Hg), (P less than 0.05/P less than 0.001). Felodipine also lowered supine diastolic blood pressure to less than 90 mm Hg more often than hydralazine (42 vs 22 patients, P less than 0.001). The incidence of unwanted effects was similar in both groups. The felodipine treated patients experienced more ankle swelling and flushing than those in the hydralazine group who experienced more headache and minor gastro-intestinal upset.     

Delapril/manidipine

Delapril/manidipine 30 mg/10 mg is a new oral, once-daily, fixed combination of an ACE inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension. In a dose-finding study in 400 patients with mild to moderate hypertension, delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily produced the greatest reduction in blood pressure (BP) of the combinations tested. Delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily for 6 weeks reduced systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) by 15/13mm Hg. In nonresponders to monotherapy with delapril (n = 155) or manidipine (n = 152), delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily for 12 weeks reduced mean SBP/DBP by 16/11mm Hg and 16/10mm Hg, respectively. Delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily for 12 weeks in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (n = 131) demonstrated significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than monotherapy with manidipine 10mg once daily (n = 134) or delapril 15mg twice daily (n = 136). Mean SBP/DBP reductions from baseline were 19/14, 15/11 and 14/10mm Hg, respectively. After 50 weeks of therapy with delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily, mean SBP/DBP was reduced by 22/14mm Hg in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (n = 309). Delapril/manidipine 30mg/10mg once daily was generally well tolerated. The incidence and nature of adverse events were similar to those observed in recipients of monotherapy with the individual agents. Combination therapy was associated with less ankle oedema than manidipine monotherapy.     

Safety and antihypertensive efficacy of carvedilol and atenolol alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide

Carvedilol has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with essential hypertension when given as monotherapy. In this double-blind, randomized, group-comparative study, 2 groups of 59 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension [median supine systolic/diastolic blood pressure at baseline (SBP/DBP), 168/105 mm Hg] were treated with either 25 mg carvedilol once daily (o. d.) or 50 mg atenolol o. d. for 4 weeks. Responders at 4 weeks (DBP, < 90=" mmhg)=" terminated=" the=" study.=" nonresponders=" continued=" the=" study.=" hydrochlorothiazide=" (hctz)=" was=" added=" at=" 25=" mg=" o.=" d.=" for=" a=" further=" 6=" weeks.=" the=" median=" blood=" pressure=" decreased=" under=" monotherapy=" with=" carvedilol=">n = 59) from 167/105 at baseline to 155/94 mmHg after 4 weeks, and in the atenolol group (n=59) it decreased from 168/105 to 162/97 mmHg. The patients who received carvedilol in combination with HCTZ and were evaluated for efficacy (n = 38) showed a decrease in SBP/DBP from 156/97 at the end of monotherapy to 145/88 mmHg after 10 weeks; the combination of atenolol with HCTZ (n = 44) reduced BP from 162/97 to 147/88. Both carvedilol and atenolol were safe when given either alone or in combination with HCTZ. In conclusion, after long-term administration, 25 mg carvedilol o. d. and 50 mg atenolol o. d. significantly reduced both SBP and DBP over 24 h. The addition of HCTZ led to a further increase in antihypertensive efficacy. Combined treatment with carvedilol or atenolol and HCTZ was very well tolerated, without hypotensive events or relevant changes in objective safety parameters.     

Antihypertensive effects of a new sustained-release formulation of nifedipine

The blood pressure response to a new sustained-release formulation of nifedipine was evaluated in an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Twenty-nine patients with mild essential hypertension were randomized to receive placebo (N = 9), 30 mg nifedipine (N = 10), or 60 mg nifedipine (N = 10). During treatment, 30-mg and 60-mg doses of nifedipine administered once daily decreased office blood pressures from 137/98 +/- 8/2 mm Hg and 141/98 +/- 15/2 mm Hg at baseline, respectively, to 126/89 +/- 9/7 mm Hg and 126/86 +/- 6/7 mm Hg (P less than .005). Noninvasive automatic ambulatory blood pressure monitoring demonstrated a marginally significant (P less than .10) reduction in the mean 24-hour blood pressure of 2/6 +/- 8/8 mm Hg and 5/6 +/- 9/9 mm Hg for patients taking 30 mg and 60 mg nifedipine once daily, respectively. Diastolic blood pressure load (the percentage of ambulatory diastolic blood pressure readings greater than 90 mm Hg) during 24 hours was decreased by 41% and 35%, with 30 mg and 60 mg nifedipine administered once daily, respectively. No significant dose response to nifedipine at these dose levels was observed. Although the once-daily formulation of nifedipine achieved effective control of office blood pressure, similar control was not observed in awake and 24-hour periods in all patients.     

Effects of valsartan versus olmesartan addition to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination in treating stage 2 hypertensive patients

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the effects of valsartan or olmesartan addition to dual therapy with amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension.

Research design and methods: 180 patients with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 99 and < 110 mm Hg were treated with amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg combination. After 4 weeks, 149 patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled, were randomized to the combination of valsartan 160 mg + amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg or olmesartan 20 mg + amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg for 4 weeks.

Main outcome measures: At the end of each period, clinical and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded.

Results: Both triple combinations produced greater ambulatory and clinical SBP/DBP reduction than dual therapy. However, mean reduction from baseline in the valsartan + amlodipine + HCTZ-treated patients was significantly greater than in the olmesartan + amlodipine + HCTZ-treated patients. Compared with dual therapy, the add-on effect of valsartan was significantly greater than that of olmesartan, the difference being more evident for nighttime SBP/DBP values (-3.3 (95% CI 0.44 – 3.51)/3.0 (95% CI 0.59 – 3.34) mm Hg, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: The addition of valsartan to amlodipine + HCTZ produced greater BP reduction than the addition of olmesartan.     

Influence of metoprolol and cilazapril on blood pressure and on sleep apnea activity.

Up to 50% of hypertensive men are subject to sleep apnea (SA). With a prevalence in men of up to 10%, SA is a common illness and hypertension (HT) one of its early symptoms. It is important to have available a drug treatment that will effectively control blood pressure (BP) without exacerbating symptoms of SA. Twelve patients with SA and HT were investigated in a double-blind, comparative trial. Patients were randomly allocated to either metoprolol (M) 100 mg daily or cilazapril (C) 2.5 mg daily. Polysomnographic measurements under standardized conditions including intraarterial BP monitoring were taken on two consecutive nights each before and after the 1-week treatment. Values in the M group were (mean +/- 95% CI) systolic BP 161 +/- 2.1 vs. 148 +/- 2.2 mm Hg (p less than 0.01); diastolic BP 98 +/- 1.8 vs. 93 +/- 1.8 mm Hg (p less than 0.01); and HR 73 +/- 1.2 vs 65 +/- 1.1 beats/min (p less than 0.01). Corresponding figures for the C group were systolic BP 140 +/- 2.1 vs. 127 +/- 2.1 mm Hg (p less than 0.01); diastolic BP 95 +/- 1.7 vs. 78 +/- 1.7 mm Hg (p less than 0.01); and HR 82 +/- 1.1 vs. 79 +/- 1.2 beats/min (p less than 0.01). Whereas C reduced both BP and HR in all sleep phases, M produced no changes during REM sleep. SA activity was 45 (range 15-91) vs. 34 (range 2-57) apneas per hour of sleep in the M group and 54 (range 21-84) vs. 40 (range 8-72) apneas per hour in the C group (p less than 0.01). There were no changes in total sleep time or in the proportions of non-REM to REM sleep. Both M and C reduce nocturnal BP in SA patients, but the effect of C is seen in all sleep phases. C has a more favorable effect on the disturbed nocturnal blood pressure of SA patients.     

厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪初始治疗2级高血压80例临床观察

目的 评价厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪片初始治疗2级高血压的疗效及安全性.方法 采用自身对照,开放单一治疗试验设计方法,对80例新发2级高血压病人口服厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪片1片,4周时血压不达标则剂量加倍,观察8周,记录治疗前后诊所血压及24h动态血压的变化,观察不良反应,以评价疗效与安全 性.结果 厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪片治疗1周后血压即...     

Efficacy and safety of valsartan 160/HCTZ 25 mg in fixed combination in hypertensive patients not controlled by candesartan 32 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg in free combination

ABSTRACT

Objective: Free combination hypertension medication is associated with a lower compliance and less persistence compared to fixed combination therapy and can, there­fore, be associated with insufficient blood pressure reductions. This non-randomized study investigated whether valsartan 160?mg/ hydrochlorothiazide 25?mg (Val 160/HCTZ 25) in fixed dose combination could provide additional blood pressure control in hypertensive patients not adequately controlled by the free combination of candesartan 32?mg plus HCTZ 25?mg.

Research design and methods: One hundred and ninety-seven patients with a mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) between 100 and 110?mmHg entered a 4-week treatment phase with 32?mg of candesartan in free combination with 25?mg of HCTZ once daily. One hundred and thirty-eight patients with uncontrolled BP at Week 4, entered a second 4-week treatment phase with Val160/ HCTZ 25 once daily.

Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy parameter was the reduction in MSDBP at trough between Week 4 and Week 8 in the intent-to-treat population.

Results: At baseline, MSDBP was 103.0 ± 2.8?mmHg. After Week 4, MSDBP had decreased to 93.8 ± 4.5?mmHg. Subsequent treatment with Val 160/HCTZ 25 for 4 weeks reduced MSDBP to 88.7 ± 8.6?mmHg. This represented an additional decrease in MSDBP of 5.1 ± 7.9?mmHg (?p < 0.0001). Val 160/ HCTZ 25 reduced mean sitting systolic BP by 3.4 ± 13.0?mmHg (?p = 0.0029).

Conclusions: The fixed dose combination of valsartan 160/HCTZ 25?mg provided a statistically and clinically significant additional BP reduction in patients not controlled by the free combination of candesartan 32?mg and HCTZ 25?mg.     

A comparison of fosinopril and hydrochlorothiazide with hydrochlorothiazide in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients with mild to moderate hypertension

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of the tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy of once-daily fosinopril 20 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg (FOS/HCTZ) compared with once-daily hydrochlorothiazide 25mg (HCTZ) was conducted in 142 patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) and mild to moderate essential hypertension. After 12 weeks of treatment, both groups had statistically significant mean changes from baseline in seated diastolic and systolic blood pressures (FOS/HCTZ, -15.0mm Hg; HCTZ, -11.9mm Hg for seated diastolic blood pressure). The difference between treatment groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In addition, normalisation of seated diastolic blood pressure was achieved in 85% of FOS/HCTZ patients compared with 71% of HCTZ patients. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in favour of FOS/HCTZ was observed for the total number of favourable responses (normalisation or >/=10mm Hg reduction in seated diastolic blood pressure) at week 12 and for the end-point analysis. One FOS/HCTZ patient and 5 HCTZ patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No clinically significant changes in serum glucose, potassium or cholesterol were observed. A slight but statistically significant increase in fasting triglycerides occurred with FOS/HCTZ compared with HCTZ (+26.1 vs +13.5 mg/dl, respectively; p < 0.05). These results show that the combination of fosinopril and hydrochlorothiazide has considerable potential as an effective antihypertensive regimen that does not significantly alter glucose or lipid metabolism in patients with NIDDM.     

Antihypertensive treatment in elderly patients aged 75 years or over: a 24-week study of the tolerability of candesartan cilexetil in relation to hydrochlorothiazide

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and tolerability of the AT1-receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil in relation to the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in elderly patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: A multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel group study. 32 general practice centres and 3 hospital centres in Denmark and Finland participated in this study. Patients: 185 patients aged > or =75 years with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95 to 114mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: After a placebo run-in period of 4 to 8 weeks, patients were randomised to once daily treatment with candesartan cilexetil 8mg or HCTZ 12.5mg for 24 weeks. In both treatment groups the dosage could be doubled after > or =2 weeks [according to blood pressure (BP) response] and, if necessary, subsequently decreased if the higher dosage was poorly tolerated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients with at least 1 adverse event; changes in laboratory values, electrocardiogram and BP during the double-blind treatment period. RESULTS: Once daily candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16mg was very well tolerated. The most common adverse events in both treatment groups were dizziness or vertigo and headache. Although the profile of adverse events was generally similar in the 2 treatment groups, it was notable that hypokalaemia and hyperuricaemia were not found in patients treated with candesartan cilexetil but occurred in 8.1 and 6.5%, respectively, of patients treated with HCTZ. At week 24, the adjusted mean changes in sitting DBP (24 hours postdose) from baseline were -12.0mm Hg [95% confidence interval (CI) -1 0.4 to -13.6] in patients treated with candesartan cilexetil and -11.4mm Hg (95% CI -9.3 to -13.6) in patients treated with HCTZ. The difference between treatments in favour of candesartan cilexetil was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that antihypertensive treatment with candesartan cilexetil in elderly patients (aged > or =75 years) is well tolerated with a good safety profile and avoids the metabolic adverse effects of diuretic therapy.     

Efficacy and safety of triple antihypertensive therapy with the olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination

Background: European hypertension guidelines estimate that up to 15-20% of hypertensive patients are not controlled on a dual antihypertensive combination and require three or more different antihypertensive drug classes to achieve blood pressure (BP) control. Objective: This study in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension assessed the efficacy and safety of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5?mg and 25?mg to a range of olmesartan medoxomil (OLM)/amlodipine (AML) doses. Study Design: This phase III, multicentre study had a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design that included a double-blind safety run-in and a double-blind treatment period. Intervention: Enrolled patients were screened and previous therapy was discontinued if required. During a 2-week, double-blind, safety run-in period (Weeks 0-2), patients were randomized to receive placebo, OLM/AML 20?mg/5?mg, OLM/AML 40?mg/5?mg or OLM/AML 40?mg/10?mg. During an 8-week, double-blind treatment period (Weeks 3-10), patients were allocated to eight groups depending on their initial treatment. They were either randomized to continue with the same dose of OLM/AML, or have HCTZ 12.5?mg or 25?mg added to treatment. Main Outcome Measure: The primary endpoint was formulated before data collection began. It was the change in mean diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline to Week 10 in groups with HCTZ added to OLM/AML, compared with the corresponding dual OLM/AML therapy. Results: Of 3195 patients who were screened, 2690 were randomized. Patients in every triple OLM/AML/HCTZ group had significantly greater mean reductions in DBP (p?≤?0.032 for each comparison) and systolic BP (SBP) by Week 10 (p?≤?0.0034 for each comparison), compared with patients on the corresponding OLM/AML therapy dose. The significant improvements in DBP and SBP reduction with triple OLM/AML/HCTZ therapy, compared with dual OLM/AML therapy, were observed after 4 and 6 weeks of therapy. Patients in each triple therapy group also had a significantly higher rate of BP <140/90?mmHg threshold achievement (p?≤?0.05 for each treatment comparison), compared with the dual OLM/AML groups. In three of the OLM/AML/HCTZ groups (40?mg/5?mg/25?mg, 40?mg/10?mg/12.5?mg and 40?mg/10?mg/25?mg), BP <140/90?mmHg threshold achievement by Week 10 was over 70%. Across the triple and dual combination therapy groups, treatment was well tolerated and no safety concerns for either treatment were identified. Conclusion: Adding HCTZ to a range of OLM/AML dose combinations is well tolerated and improved BP control by significantly lowering DBP and SBP and significantly increasing BP threshold achievement in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov identifier as NCT00923091.     

Lercanidipine: a review of its use in hypertension

Lercanidipine is a vasoselective dihydropyridine calcium antagonist which causes systemic vasodilation by blocking the influx of calcium ions through L-type calcium channels in cell membranes. It is a highly lipophilic drug and as such has a slower onset and longer duration of action than a number of other calcium antagonists. Preclinical evidence suggests that lercanidipine has antiatherogenic potential and it may also protect against end-organ damage. In well controlled clinical studies, once daily administration of lercanidipine 10 or 20mg effectively reduced blood pressure (BP) compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypertension without affecting heart rate. Response rate (percentage of patients with diastolic BP < or =90mm Hg or reduced by > or =10mm Hg from baseline) ranged from 50 to 66% with lercanidipine 10 mg/day and up to 86% with lercanidipine 20 mg/day. The drug had a long duration of action: clinical measurements for diastolic BP yielded a trough/peak ratio of >0.8 for both lercanidipine dosages in 1 study. Comparative trials, either published in full or as abstracts, found lercanidipine 10mg once daily for > or =4 weeks to be at least as effective as atenolol 50mg once daily, candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/day, captopril 25mg twice daily, enalapril 20 mg/day, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg once daily, irbesartan 150 mg/day and slow release nifedipine 20mg twice daily in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In addition, lercanidipine 20 mg/day was as effective as amlodipine 10 mg/day. Lercanidipine is effective in the treatment of elderly patients (aged 60 to 85 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension and in those with isolated systolic hypertension. In addition, monotherapy with lercanidipine 20 or 40 mg/day has shown efficacy in patients with severe hypertension, and add-on therapy helped control BP in a large proportion of patients with severe hypertension not responding sufficiently to beta-blockers, diuretics or ACE inhibitors. Unpublished data indicate that the drug reduces blood pressure in patients with type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, without adversely affecting glucose homeostasis. Lercanidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most treatment-related adverse events typical of dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, namely headache, flushing, dizziness and ankle oedema. CONCLUSIONS: Lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated once daily antihypertensive agent in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In addition, the drug may reduce BP when used as monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension or when used adjunctively in patients with resistant hypertension. Importantly, lercanidipine appears to be at least as effective and well tolerated as other commonly used antihypertensive agents. The drug therefore represents a useful therapeutic option in the management of patients with hypertension and will be particularly useful in patients not responding to, or intolerant of, antihypertensive agents from other drug classes.