Comparison of a fixed-dose combination of 40 mg telmisartan plus 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide with 40 mg telmisartan in the control of mild to moderate hypertension

This study investigated whether a fixed-dose combination of 40 mg of the angiotensin II antagonist telmisartan plus 12.5 mg of the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was superior to 40 mg telmisartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension who failed to respond adequately to 40 mg telmisartan monotherapy. One hundred forty-six patients were withdrawn before randomization. Nonresponders (n = 327) were double blind and randomized to 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ (n = 160) or 40 mg telmisartan (n = 167). After 8 weeks of treatment, 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ lowered diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by an additional 3.5 mm Hg (P <.01) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 7.4 mm Hg (P <.01) compared with 40 mg telmisartan. Most of the additional effect of the combination was seen after 4 weeks of treatment. At week 8, blood pressure was normalized (SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP <90 mm Hg) in 51.6% of patients on 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ compared with 23.5% on 40 mg telmisartan (P <.05). The combination of 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ normalized DBP in 64.8% of patients, whereas 40 mg telmisartan normalized DBP in 40.1% (P <.05). SBP decreased by > or =10 mm Hg from baseline in 63.5% of patients receiving the fixed-dose combination compared with 42.6% of those receiving 40 mg telmisartan (P <.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. Adverse events were predominantly mild, transient, and considered unrelated to therapy. These findings indicate that a fixed-dose combination of 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ is clinically and statistically superior to 40 mg telmisartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension failing to respond to 40 mg telmisartan alone.     

Telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide versus telmisartan or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent surveys reveal continuing deficiencies in the awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension. In many cases, failure to achieve blood pressure targets may be attributable to the use of antihypertensive monotherapy. OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to identify combinations of telmisartan, a new oral angiotensin II type 1-receptor antagonist, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) that might provide greater antihypertensive efficacy than monotherapy with either agent in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. It also examined the dose-response surface for the 2 drugs alone and in combination. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that employed all cells of a 4 x 5 factorial design. After a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, men and women between 18 and 80 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension (defined as mean supine diastolic blood pressure [DBP] between 95 and 114 mm Hg during the last 2 weeks of the placebo run-in period and systolic blood pressure [SBP] between 114 and 200 mm Hg immediately before randomization) were eligible to enter the 8-week, double-blind, double-dummy treatment period. Study comparisons were between once-daily telmisartan monotherapy (20, 40, 80, or 160 mg), HCTZ monotherapy (6.25, 12.5, or 25 mg), 12 combinations of these telmisartan/HCTZ doses, and placebo. The focus was on 2 combinations: telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg. The primary efficacy variable was change in supine trough DBP from baseline to the last evaluable measurement during double-blind treatment. Plasma renin activity and safety parameters, including treatment-emergent adverse events, physical findings, electrocardiograms, and serum electrolyte levels (which are known to increase with HCTZ treatment), were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1293 patients screened, 818 (63.3%) were enrolled at 47 centers. Of these 818, 749 (91.6%) completed the study. The intent-to-treat population (randomized with > or = 1 postrandomization blood pressure measurement) consisted of 807 patients (98.7%). Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg significantly decreased mean supine trough SBP/DBP by 23.9/14.9 mm Hg, a benefit of 8.5/3.4 mm Hg compared with telmisartan 80 mg and of 17.0/7.6 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (both comparisons, P < 0.01). Telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg significantly reduced mean supine SBP by 18.8 mm Hg, a benefit of 6.6 mm Hg compared with telmisartan 40 mg and 11.9 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (both, P < 0.01). This same combination significantly reduced mean supine DBP by 12.6 mm Hg, a benefit of 5.3 mm Hg compared with HCTZ 12.5 mg (P < 0.01), but was not significantly different from telmisartan 40 mg. Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was significantly more effective than telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg in reducing mean supine DBP and SBP (both, P < 0.05). The response surface and responder analyses confirmed the additive antihypertensive efficacy of the combination of telmisartan and HCTZ. All regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was effective and well tolerated when used to reduce SBP and DBP in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In addition to enhancing efficacy, this combination protected against potassium depletion, a common side effect of thiazide monotherapy.     

Review: a single-pill combination of telmisartan plus amlodipine for the treatment of hypertension

Despite an increased proportion of patients with hypertension achieving recommended blood pressure (BP) targets, BP control remains suboptimal in many patients. A range of combination therapies utilizing medications with differing mechanisms of action have been shown to provide superior BP-lowering efficacy than monotherapy with individual components. Single-pill combinations deliver improved convenience and may help to improve patient compliance. A single-pill combination of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) telmisartan and the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine has recently been approved in 4 different doses (telmisartan/amlodipine 40 mg/5 mg, 40 mg/10 mg, 80 mg/5 mg, and 80 mg/10 mg) for antihypertensive use in the United States. In an 8-week clinical study (N = 1461), these combinations were superior to monotherapy with telmisartan or with amlodipine with respect to the primary endpoint, change in diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline (mean baseline BP, 153.2 [± 12.1]/101.7 [± 4.3] mm Hg) to study end (placebo-corrected reductions of 10.3, 14.0, 12.0, and 13.9 mm Hg, respectively), as well as in multiple secondary endpoints, including change in systolic BP (SBP), DBP response, SBP response, BP control (< 140/< 90 mm Hg), and DBP control (< 90 mm Hg). The telmisartan plus amlodipine combinations were well tolerated, with the incidence of adverse events similar to placebo; the incidence of peripheral edema was lower with the 40 mg/10 mg and 80 mg/10 mg combinations than with amlodipine 10 mg alone. In another study (N = 858), the highest-dose combination (80 mg/10 mg) demonstrated superior BP-lowering efficacy than same-dose monotherapy with either telmisartan or amlodipine in patients with severe hypertension (SBP ≥ 180 and DBP ≥ 95 mm Hg). Single-pill telmisartan plus amlodipine combination therapy appears to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment as initial therapy for patients likely to require > 1 antihypertensive agent to reach BP targets.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of telmisartan vs. losartan in control of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of telmisartan with those of losartan after 8 weeks' treatment. In total, 330 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <180 mmHg; diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-109 mmHg) were randomly assigned to receive once-daily treatment with telmisartan 40 mg (n = 164) or losartan 50 mg (n = 166). After 4 weeks' treatment, if a patient's DBP was > or = 90 mmHg, the dose was increased to telmisartan 80 mg or losartan 100 mg, respectively. The results show that mean trough seated blood pressure was reduced significantly more in the telmisartan group than that in the losartan group (SBP 12.5 mmHg vs. 9.4 mmHg, p = 0.037; DBP 10.9 mmHg vs. 9.3 mmHg, p = 0.030). The overall DBP response rate (reduction from baseline in mean seated DBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or a mean seated DBP <90 mmHg) at the end of the study in the telmisartan group was higher than that in losartan group (70.1% vs. 58.7%, p = 0.020). At both the low and high doses, the DBP response rates for telmisartan were significantly higher than those for losartan (telmisartan 40 mg vs. losartan 50 mg: 46.3% vs. 32.5%, p = 0.010; telmisartan 80 mg vs. losartan 100 mg: 79.3% vs. 65.3%, p = 0.008). Adverse events with the two treatments were comparable (telmisartan vs. losartan 23.2% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.952). Most events were mild in intensity and abated within 72 h. Thus, telmisartan 40 mg or 80 mg administered once daily can reduce SBP and DBP effectively and safely.     

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.     

A twelve-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiority trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of imidapril and candesartan in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: the Iberian Multicenter Imidapril Study on Hypertension (IMISH)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the annhypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor imidapril and the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist candesartan in mild to moderate essential hypertension. METHODS: The trial was conducted at 8 centers across Portugal and Spain (the Iberian Multicenter Imidapril Study on Hypertension [IMISH] Study Group). Patients aged between 30 and 70 years with essential hypertension were eligible. Following a 2- to 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive imidapril at doses of up to 20 mg/d, or candesartan at doses up to 16 mg/d, once daily in a double-blind, parallel-group design with a 12-week active-treatment period. To achieve the target systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) of <140/<90 mm Hg, imidapril was titrated from 5 to 20 mg/d and candesartan was titrated from 4 to 16 mg/d. The main end point was the change from baseline in sitting blood pressure (BP) at trough. Secondary end points were response rate, evaluation of SBP and DBP throughout the study, and change of SBP and DBP in subgroup of patients with moderate hypertension, as well as incidence and severity of adverse events related to treatment reported throughout the study. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis consisted of 122 patients (imidapril group, 60 patients; 32 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 54.7 [9.2] years; white race, 59 [99.2%], Hispanic race, 1 [0.8%]; mean [SD] weight, 80.1 [12.8] kg; candesartan group, 62 patients; 36 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [9.9] years; white race, 62 [100%]; mean [SD] weight, 77.6 [14.1] kg). In the imidapril group, the mean (SD) SBP and DBP were, respectively, 155.7 (10.2) and 96.7 (4.7) mm Hg at baseline and 139.4 (11.9) and 86.9 (7.6) mm Hg at the end of the 12-week treatment period (visit 5); SBP had decreased significantly from baseline, by 10.5% (mean [SD] Delta, -16.3 [12.3] mm Hg [95% CI, -19.5 to -13.1; P < 0.001]) and DBP had decreased significantly, by 10.1% (mean [SD] A, -9.8 [7.8] mm Hg [95% CI, -11.8 to -7.8; P < 0.001]). In the candesartan group, the mean (SD) SBP and DBP values were, respectively, 158.4 [11.2] and 98.3 [4.1] mm Hg at baseline and 139.8 [12.5] and 87.6 7.5] mm Hg at 12 weeks, corresponding to decreases of 11.7% in SBP (mean [SD] A, -18.6 [12.8] mm Hg [95% CI, -21.9 to -15.4; P < 0.001]) and 10.9% in DBP (mean [SD] A, -10.7 [7.3] mm Hg [95% CI, -12.5 to -8.8; P < 0.001]). Response rates were 78.3% (47/60) with imidapril and 69.4% (43/62) with candesartan, and BP normalization (<140/<90 mm Hg) was achieved in 55.0% (33/60) of patients with imidapril and 45.2% (28/62) of patients with candesartan. The incidences of adverse events were similar between groups. Most (73.9%) adverse events were mild in intensity. A serious adverse event (severe anxiety) was reported in the candesartan group and led to study discontinuation. No cases of dry cough or hypotension were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that imidapril once daily at doses up to 20 mg and candesartan once daily at doses up to 16 mg were effective in this population of mildly to moderately hypertensive patients. Both treatments were well tolerated.     

Comparison of the effects of doxazosin and atenolol on target organ damage in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension in the CARDHIAC study: a 9-month, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-evaluation trial

Objective: The CARDHIAC(R) (CARduran en pacientes Diabéticos con HIpertensi'on Arterial no Controlada) trial examined the effects of doxazosin gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) and atenolol on 3 separate measures of target-organ damage-left ventricular mass index (LVMI), carotid intima media thickness (IMT), and urinary albumin excretion (UAE) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Method: This trial had a prospextive, open-label, blinded-evaluation design and a duration of 9 months. Patients whose blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled (systolic BP>/=130 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP>/=80 mm Hg) despite at least 1 month of treatment with a reninangiotensin blocker and diuretic were randomly allocated to receive doxazosin GITS 4 mg or atenolol 50 mg once daily in addition to their existing treatment. Seated BP was measured at study visits at 1, 3, 6 and 9 months; if the BP goal was not achieved at any visit, the dose of doxazosin or atenolol was titrated upward to 8 or 100 mg, respectively. Treatment complaince (pill count) and adverse reactions were monitored at each visit. Each patient underwent echocardiography and Doppler ultrasonography at baseline and at the end of the study for evaluation of the change in LVMI. The change in carotid IMT was evaluated by carotid ultrasound examination at the same time points. UAE also was measured at baseline and the end of the study. Results: Sixty patients (100% white; 51% female; mean [SD] age, 63.4 [7.5] years; body mass index, 28.2 [3.4] kg/m(2)) were randomized to receive doxazosin GITS (n=32) or atenolol (n=28) .At baseline, mean BP was 150.2 (10.6)/90.1 (7.3) mm Hg in the doxazasin group and 153.1 (13.8)/92.3 (6.1) mm Hg in the atenolol group (P=NS). At the end of the study, BP had decreased by 10.1 (3.2)/5.2 (1.3) mm Hg in the doxazosin group and 12.2 (4.2)/6.3 (2.1) mm Hg in the atenolol group (both, P<0.001 vs baseline; P=NS between groups). Heart rate at the end of the study was 78(6) beats/min in the doxazosin group (P=NS vs baseline) and 66(7) beats/min in the atenolol group (P < 0.01 vs baseline and between groups). LVMI decreased by 10.8 in the doxazosin group (P=0.001 vs baseline) and 4.2% in the atenolol group (P=NS vs baseline; P=0.03 between groups). The changes in carotid IMT and UAE were not statistically significant between groups. Conclusions: In this study in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, LVMI was significantly decreasded in doxazosin-treated patients relative to baseline and compared with atenolol-treated patients. The differences in carotid IMT and UAE were not statistically significant between groups.     

Effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide in combination with telmisartan and olmesartan in adults with moderate hypertension not controlled with monotherapy: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE), parallel-arm study

Background:The potential combinations of antihypertensive agents are many, and making rational choices depends on the characteristics of each drug and on their complementary mechanisms of action.Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to olmesartan 20 mg or telmisartan 80 mg on blood pressure (BP) in patients with moderate hypertension.Methods: Consecutive outpatients at the Centro per l'Ipertensione e la Fisiopatologia Cardiovascolare, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, of both sexes aged 39 to 75 years were considered eligible for enrollment if they had a sitting diastolic BP (DBP) ->99 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg at the end of an initial 2-week washout period. Patients were random- ized to olmesartan 20 mg QD or telmisartan 80 mg QD according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-arm design. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ->90 mm Hg) received HCTZ 12.5 mg QD for 8 additional weeks. Clinical and ambulatory BPs were measured at the end of the washout period and at the end of both treatment periods. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from spontaneous reports and direct inquiry from investigators.Results: One hundred forty-five patients, all of whom were white, were recruited for the study. After the initial washout period, 13 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 refused to continue. A total of 126 white patients (69 men, 57 women; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.6] years) were randomized to receive monotherapy. Of these, 35 patients (56%) in the olmesartan group and 33 (52%) in the telmisartan group had previously received antihypertensive therapy. At the end of monotherapy, the 52 patients in the olmesartan group and the 49 patients in the telmisartan treatment group who were still in the study and had their BP inadequately controlled by treatment had HCTZ 12.5 mg QD added to their treatment regimen. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP) and DBP reduction than monothera- py (SBP: 145.3 [6.1] in the olmesartan group and 140.1 [6.4] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05; DBP: 88.1 [5.1] in the olmesartan group and 84.9 [4.9] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05). The mean (SD) reduction from baseline in the telmisartan/HCTZ-treated patients (21.5 [10.1]/14.6 [5.2] mm Hg for 24 hours, 21.8 [10.2]/14.9 [5.2] mm Hg for daytime, and 20.4 [10.3]/13.7 [5.9] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline) was significantly greater than that observed in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (18.8 [9.8]/12.3 [4.9] mm Hg for 24 hours, 19.3 [9.8]/12.8 [4.9] mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4 [10.2]/10.6 [5.5] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline), with a significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.01). Compared with mono- therapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg QD administration was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the olmesartan group (P < 0.05); the differ- ence being more evident for nighttime BP values (SBP, P 0.031; DBP, P 0.025). Reported AEs were similar in the olmesartan/HCTZ and the telmisartan/HCTZ groups (4 patients [7%] vs 3 patients [6%]).Conclusion: The addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to telmisartan 80 mg monothera- py was associated with greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 nag monotherapy in these patients previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.     

Comparison of fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/12.5 mg and 80/12.5 mg and a fixed-dose combination of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide 50/12.5 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertension: pooled analysis of two multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) trials

BACKGROUND: High incidences of cardiovascular events coincide with a surge in blood pressure (BP) that occurs in the early morning hours at the time of arousal. Thus, control of BP at this time of day, using oral fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) as required, is important in reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy in the early morning hours and tolerability of oral FDCs of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (40/12.5 mg [T40/H12.5] and 80/12.5 mg [T80/H12.5]) versus a low-dose FDC of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (L50/H12.5). METHODS: Data from 2 similarly designed prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) studies were pooled and analyzed. The studies were conducted at 72 centers across the United States, and 70 centers in Canada, Europe (9 countries), and the Philippines. Adult male and female patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP [DBP], > or =85 mm Hg; seated cuff DBP, 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive T40/H12.5, L50/H12.5, or T80/H12.5, QD (morning) for 6 weeks. Antihypertensive efficacy was assessed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and cuff sphygmomanometry at trough, performed at baseline and on completion of active treatment. The primary end point was the reduction from baseline in mean ambulatory DBP over the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. Secondary end points included other ABPM- and clinic-derived changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP), and control and response rates (SBP response defined as 24-hour mean SBP <130 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP response defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP control defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg). Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, spontaneous reporting, and clinical evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 1402 patients were enrolled(876 men, 525 women; mean [SD] age, 53.1 [9.9] years) (T40/H12.5, n = 517; L50/H12.5, n = 518; and T80/H12.5, n = 367). With T40/H12.5, the mean reduction in last-6-hour mean ambulatory DBP was 1.8 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-11.3 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001), and with T80/H12.5, the mean reduction was 2.6 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-12.0 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). Analysis of secondary end points found that greater BP reduction occurred with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5. ABPM SBP control and response rates were similar between the 3 groups, but the ABPM DBP control and response rates were significantly higher with T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (46.6% vs 34.0% [P < 0.002] and 69.4% vs 55.0% [P < 0.001], respectively). Clinic SBP and DBP control and response rates were higher with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (SBP response, 80.4% and 80.8% vs 68.5% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP response, 66.1% and 67.4% vs 54.4% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP control, 56.5% and 56.4% vs 44.1% [both, P < 0.001] ). The 2 most commonly recorded adverse events (AEs) were headache (T40/H12.5, 2.9%; L50/H12.5, 3.3%; and T80/H12.5, 3.0%) and dizziness (1.2%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, respectively). Most AEs were mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pooled analysis of2 PROBE studies in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension suggest that T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 conferred greater DBP and SBP control compared with low-dose L50/H12.5, including during the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan in patients aged > or = 65 years with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is the preferred mechanism of action for controlling hypertension in select groups of patients, including those with diabetic nephropathy and heart failure. Currently, 2 classes of drugs work by blocking the RAAS, albeit by differing mechanisms: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II angiotensin type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs). OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy and tolerability of the ARB irbesartan and the ACE inhibitor enalapril in patients > or = 65 years of age with mild to moderate hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP], 95 to 110 mm Hg). METHODS: Elderly (> or = 65 years of age) patients were recruited from 26 Canadian study centers for a randomized, double-blind, 8-week clinical trial. Exclusion criteria included sitting DBP >110 mm Hg or sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) >200 mm Hg, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, cardiac procedure, stroke, or transient ischemic attack within 6 months of randomization, as well as other preexisting or present severe medical or psychologic conditions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single daily dose of irbesartan 150 mg (n = 70) or enalapril 10 mg (n = 71) with treatment doses of study drugs doubled at week 4 for sitting DBP > or = 90 mm Hg. Reductions from baseline blood pressure measurements at trough (24 +/- 3 hours after the last dose of medication) were assessed for sitting DBP and sitting SBP. Comparative tolerability to study drugs was also assessed. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis demonstrated similar reductions at week 8 in both DBP and SBP for both groups. For the primary efficacy analysis of sitting DBP, there was a mean reduction from baseline of 9.6 mm Hg and 9.8 mm Hg for the irbesartan and enalapril groups, respectively (P = 0.93). The mean reduction from baseline in sitting SBP was 10.1 mm Hg and 11.6 mm Hg for the irbesartan and enalapril groups, respectively (P = 0.54). Normalization rates (sitting DBP <90 mm Hg) at week 8 did not differ between groups (52.9% in the irbesartan group and 54.9% in the enalapril group; P = 0.81). No statistical difference existed between the 2 groups with respect to serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events. Irbesartan was associated with a significantly lower incidence of cough than was enalapril (4.3% vs 15.5%, respectively; P = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan is an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive for elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This study establishes that irbesartan has better tolerability than enalapril with respect to cough and suggests that irbesartan is as effective at lowering blood pressure but better tolerated than an ACE inhibitor in hypertensive patients > or = 65 years of age.     

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.     

Efficacy and tolerability of nebivolol monotherapy by baseline systolic blood pressure: A retrospective analysis of pooled data from two multicenter, 12-week,randomized, double-blind,placebo-controlled,parallel-group,dose-ranging studies in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

Background: In clinical studies, nebivolol at doses of 2.5 to 40 mg once daily was associated with significant decreases in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in patients with hypertension and was well tolerated.Objectives: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 2 previously published registration studies was conducted to further evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of nebivolol in patients with mild to moderate (stage 1–2) hypertension.Methods: The 2 trials were similarly designed multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, parallel-group, dose-ranging studies in patients 18 years of age and older with stage 1 or 2 hypertension (SBP 140–159 mm Hg and/or DBP 90–99 mm Hg [stage 1] or SBP ≥ 160 mm Hg and/or DBP ≥ 100 mm Hg [stage 2]). The primary efficacy end point of the 2 studies was the change from baseline in mean trough SiDBP at week 12. A secondary end point was the change from baseline to week 12 in mean trough sitting SBP (SiSBP). The present analysis included only patients who received nebivolol 5, 10, or 20 mg (the doses were common to both studies) or placebo, including analyses stratified by baseline SBP, although DBP represented a criterion for entry into the studies. Baseline SBP stratification levels were 140 to 149 mm Hg, 150 to 159 mm Hg, 160 to 169 mm Hg, and 170 to 179 mm Hg. For the tolerability analysis, the prevalences of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were compared between the 3 nebivolol dose groups and the placebo group.Results: Of the 1716 randomized patients who received study medication in the 2 trials, data from 1385 patients were included in this pooled analysis (759 men, 626 women; median age, ~54 years; 13.6% black). Mean (SD) baseline SiSBP and SiDBP values were 151.9 to 152.7 and 99.2 to 99.5 mm Hg, respectively. Reductions from baseline in trough SiSBP were ?10.8 (13.5), ?10.7 (14.7), and ?12.4 (15.5) mm Hg with nebivolol 5, 10, and 20 mg, respectively, compared with ?4.5 (13.4) mm Hg with placebo (all, P < 0.001). Reductions from baseline in trough SiDBP (the primary end point) were ?9.8 (7.9), ?10.5 (8.2), and ?11.1 (8.6) mm Hg with nebivolol 5, 10, and 20 mg, respectively, compared with ?5.1 (8.1) mm Hg with placebo (all, P < 0.001). In a subgroup of 1227 patients stratified by baseline SBP, the reductions in SBP and DBP were significantly greater (P < 0.03 and P < 0.001, respectively) with nebivolol at each dose compared with placebo in those with baseline SBP of 140 to 149 mm Hg and 150 to 159 mm Hg (the lowest 2 baseline strata); in the highest 2 baseline strata (SBP 160–169 and 170–179 mm Hg), the reductions in SBP with nebivolol 5 mg and nebivolol 20 mg in the 160 to 169-mm Hg baseline SBP stratum and in DBP with nebivolol 20 mg in the 170 to 179-mm Hg baseline stratum were significantly greater (P < 0.03) compared with placebo. The most common AE in the nebivolol 5?, 10?, and 20-mg groups and the placebo group was headache (36/409 [8.8%], 25/410 [6.1%], 27/410 [6.6%], and 10/156 [6.4], respectively), fol-lowed by fatigue (9/409 [2.2%], 10/410 [2.4%], 25/410 [6.1%], and 3/156 [1.9%]) and dizziness (6/409 [1.5%], 9/410 [2.2%], 15/410 [3.7%], and 4/156 [2.6%]).Conclusion: The present analysis of pooled data from 2 previously published registration studies found that nebivolol was associated with significant reductions in BP compared with placebo in these patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension, with a tolerability similar to that of placebo.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and enalapril in adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension, as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the MAPAVEL Study (Monitorización Ambulatoria Presión Arterial APROVEL)

BACKGROUND: When blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy is assessed by measurements taken in a clinic setting, angiotensin II-receptor antagonists show similar efficacy to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and better tolerability. A search of MEDLINE to date, however, reveals no randomized, double-blind studies using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to compare the BP-lowering efficacy of irbesartan and enalapril in a large number of patients ( > 200) with essential hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This study compared 24-hour BP reduction and BP control, as assessed by ABPM, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension treated with irbesartan or enalapril. The relative tolerability of the 2 treatments was also evaluated. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (office diastolic BP [DBP] 90-109 mm Hg or systolic BP [SBP] 140-179 mm Hg). After a 3-week, single-blind placebo washout phase, patients with a mean daytime DBP > or = 85 mm Hg, as measured by ABPM between 10 AM and 8 PM, were randomized to 12 weeks of active treatment with irbesartan or enalapril. Starting doses were 150 and 10 mg/d, respectively, with titration to 300 or 20 mg/d if clinic DBP was > or = 90 mm Hg at week 4 or 8. Based on clinic measurements, BP control was defined as a BP reading < 140/90 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in DBP of > or = 10 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders. The ABPM criterion for BP control, independent of clinic values, was achievement of a daytime BP < 130/85 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in 24-hour DBP > or = 5 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders, in dependent of clinic values. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were randomized to treatment, 115 to irbesartan and 123 to enalapril. The study population was approximately 52.0% female and 48.0% male, with a mean ( +/- SD) age of 52.7 +/- 10.6 years. The study was completed by 111 patients in the irbesartan group (dose titrated to 300 mg/d in 72.0% of patients) and 115 patients in the enalapril group (dose titrated to 20 mg/d in 76.5% of patients). BP reductions were similar in the 2 groups, both as measured in the clinic (DBP, 12.7 +/- 8.8 mm Hg irbesartan vs 12.4 +/- 7.4 mm Hg enalapril; SBP, 19.0 +/- 14.1 mm Hg vs 17.5 +/- 14.0 mm Hg) and by 24-hour ABPM (DBP, 9.4 +/- 8.5 mm Hg vs 8.8 +/- 8.5 mm Hg: SBP, 14.7 +/- 14.7 mm Hg vs 12.6 +/- 13.1 mm Hg). As assessed by ABPM, rates of BP control were 40.5% (45/111) for irbesartan and 33.9% (39/115) for enalapril, and the response rates were a respective 71.2% (79/111) and 71.3% (82/115). The overall incidence of adverse events (40.0% irbesartan, 51.2% enalapril) was not statistically different between groups, although the incidence of adverse events considered probably related to antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher with enalapril than with irbesartan (24.6% vs 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.026), essentially because of the higher incidence of cough (8.1% vs 0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: As assessed by ABPM, irbesartan 150 to 300 mg/d was as effective in lowering BP and achieving BP control as enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d. Based on the number of treatment-related adverse events, irbesartan was better tolerated than enalapril.     

A 26-week, prospective, open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter study to evaluate the effect of an escalating-dose regimen of trandolapril on change in blood pressure in treatment-naive and concurrently treated adult hypertensive subjects (TRAIL)

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of an escalating-dose regimen of trandolapril in subjects with stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: This was a 26-week, prospective, open-label,multicenter study in Canadian primary care centers. Subjects with hypertension who were treatment naive or whose disease was uncontrolled on current first-line antihypertensive monotherapy were treated with trandolapril for 26 weeks alone or in addition to their current treatment. Uncontrolled hypertension was defined as systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) >or=140/90 mm Hg in subjects with no other risk factors or >or=130/80 mm Hg in subjects with diabetes or kidney disease. Trandolapril therapy was initiated at 1 mg/d and was titrated as required to 2 or 4 mg at 4 and 9 weeks after initiation of treatment, respectively, in those not achieving BP targets. At 14 weeks after treatment initiation, subjects not achieving BP targets could receive a combination of trandolapril 4 mg plus a calcium channel blocker (verapamil 240 mg) with or without a diuretic. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients reaching target BP after 14 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1683 subjects from 192 general practice clinics across Canada completed the 14-week trandolapril dose-optimization phase, and 1650 completed the full 26-week follow-up. Mean (SD) age was 56.6 (12.6) years, and 49.2% of the subjects were men. At baseline, 82.4% (1359/1650) of subjects were antihypertensive-treatment naive. At the trial end, 73.4% (95% CI, 70.9-75.9) of subjects achieved a target level of SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg. The mean (SD) reductions in SBP and DBP were -21.5 (14.0) and -11.9 (9.1) mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.001), and -22.4 (14.0) and -12.7 (9.0) mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.001), at 26 weeks. A total of 343 predominantly mild, nonserious adverse events were attributed to the study drugs, reported by 252 (15.3%) of the 1650 subjects. The most frequently reported nonserious adverse events were cough (6.3%); gastrointestinal disorders (2.3%), predominantly nausea; and headache (2.1%). No serious adverse events were attributed to the study treatment. Trandolapril was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: A titration-based, escalating-dose regimen of trandolapril was effective and well tolerated in the management of these subjects who were antihypertensive-treatment naive or whose disease was uncontrolled on a diuretic or a calcium channel blocker in this open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter study. Overall, 73.4% of subjects achieved their target blood pressure goal (<140/90 mm Hg).     

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy with irbesartan monotherapy in the treatment of moderate or severe hypertension in diabetic and obese hypertensive patients: a post-hoc analysis review

Hypertension is difficult to treat in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or obesity. Combination therapies are often required to effectively lower blood pressure (BP) and attain BP goals. In this post-hoc analysis of 2 prospective, randomized, controlled studies in patients with uncontrolled or untreated moderate or severe hypertension, the efficacy and safety of treatment with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and irbesartan was assessed in 2 separate analyses: patients with diabetes (n=143) and by obesity status (n=1125). Patients received irbesartan/HCTZ (150 mg/12.5 mg titrated to 300 mg/25 mg) or irbesartan (150 mg titrated to 300 mg) for 7 (severe hypertension study) or 12 (moderate hypertension study) weeks. Efficacy comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact tests. After 7 to 8 weeks of treatment, systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) decreased in patients with diabetes by 26.9/17.8 mm Hg and 21.8/15.8 mm Hg after irbesartan/HCTZ and irbesartan treatment, respectively (P [SBP]=0.09, P [DBP]=0.27). In obese patients (n=544), SBP/DBP decreased by 29.4/20.2 mm Hg and 20.1/15.9 mm Hg after irbesartan/HCTZ and irbesartan treatment, respectively (P<0.0001). More patients with T2DM reached the BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg at week 7 to 8 in the irbesartan/HCTZ group than in the irbesartan group (12% vs 5%), although not statistically significant (P=0.22). Significantly more obese patients reached their respective BP goals in the irbesartan/HCTZ group than in the irbesartan group (48% vs 23%; P<0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar between treatment groups regardless of the presence of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) status. In patients with moderate or severe hypertension and with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2), initial treatment with irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy was more effective than irbesartan monotherapy.     

Assessment of the antihypertensive efficacy of various doses of delapril by office and ambulatory blood pressure measurement: The DEFIND study

This study was undertaken to compare and verify the antihypertensive effects of various delapril doses versus placebo on office and ambulatory blood pressure (BP). After a 2-wk placebo period, 303 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized in a double-blind study to 8 wk of treatment with placebo, or delapril 7.5 mg twice daily, delapril 15 mg twice daily, delapril 30 mg twice daily, or delapril 30 mg once daily. BP changes versus baseline and rates of normalized office systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 90 mm Hg, as well as responder office SBP > 140 mm Hg or reduction ≥20 mm Hg and office DBP > 90 mm Hg or reduction ≥10 mm Hg, were calculated. In the intention-to-treat population (n=296), office SBP and DBP reductions were more notable with 30 mg twice daily (15.6/11.5 mm Hg) and 15 mg twice daily (14.8/12.5 mm Hg) than with other delapril regimens (30 mg once daily: 11.8/10.5 mm Hg; 7.5 mg twice daily: 12.9/10.1 mm Hg) and placebo (P< .05 for DBP;P< .01 for SBP). The same was true for frequency of responders (63.8% and 60.3%; P≤.05 vs placebo) and normalized patients (58.6% and 53.4%;P< .05 vs placebo). Analysis of ambulatory BPs confirmed the accuracy of office BPs. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 3.4% to 6.7% of patients given delapril and in 6.5% of those given placebo. The lowest effective dose of delapril, 15 mg twice daily, may be recommended as the initial dose for patients who begin treatment with this agent.     

Comparison of telmisartan with lisinopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

In this study, telmisartan, a new angiotensin AT ( 1 ) receptor antagonist given as monotherapy and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), was compared with lisinopril as monotherapy and in combination with HCTZ. This 52-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, dose-titration study of 578 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (mean diastolic blood pressure [DBP], >/=95 mm Hg), compared the efficacy and safety of telmisartan (n = 385) with lisinopril (n = 193). Dosage could be increased for both telmisartan (40 --> 80 --> 160 mg) and lisinopril (10 --> 20 --> 40 mg) at each of the first 2 monthly visits if DBP control (<90 mm Hg) had not been established. Once DBP control was established, patients entered the 48-week maintenance period. During this period, the dose of the study drug was fixed, although open-label HCTZ at 12.5 mg or 25 mg was added, when needed, to regain DBP control. At the end of the titration period, DBP control was achieved on monotherapy by 67% and 63% of the telmisartan and lisinopril patients, respectively. At the end of the maintenance period, supine DBP was controlled in 83% and 87% of the telmisartan and lisinopril patients, respectively, with systolic blood pressure over DBP reductions of 23.8/16.6 mm Hg for telmisartan and 19.9/15.6 mm Hg for lisinopril. Treatment-related side effects occurred in fewer telmisartan-treated patients (28%) than in lisinopril-treated patients (40%; P =.001). Significantly fewer patients (P =.018) receiving telmisartan experienced treatment-related cough (3% v 7%), and cough led to discontinuation significantly less often (P =.007) with telmisartan treatment than with lisinopril treatment (0.3% v 3.1%). In addition, two cases of angioedema were observed, both in the lisinopril group. The selective AT (1) receptor antagonist, telmisartan, is extremely effective in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension both as monotherapy and in combination with HCTZ and is at least comparable in efficacy to lisinopril, with a tolerability profile that may offer advantages in terms of a reduced incidence of adverse events.     

Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of two fixed-dose combinations of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide compared with valsartan monotherapy in patients with stage 2 or 3 systolic hypertension: an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with at least 2 antihypertensive agents is usually needed to achieve appropriate blood pressure (BP) control in patients with isolated or predominant systolic hypertension. A currently recommended combination is a diuretic added to an angiotensin-receptor blocker. OBJECTIVE: This was a study of the effects on sitting systolic BP (SBP)of 2 combinations of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) compared with valsartan monotherapy in patients with stage 2 or 3 systolic hypertension (SBP > or =160 mm Hg and < or =200 mm Hg) with or without other cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: After a placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with either valsartan 80 mg OD(monotherapy group) or valsartan 160 mg OD (combination-therapy groups) for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to valsartan 160 mg OD (V160), valsartan 160 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg OD (V160 +HCTZ12.5), or valsartan 160 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg OD (V160 +HCTZ25) for an additional 4 weeks. End points were the change in SBP between the groups receiving combination therapy and the monotherapy group, between-group changes in diastolic BP (DBP), responder rates (SBP <140 mm Hg or a reduction in SBP of > or =20 mm Hg), and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 774 patients were randomized to treatment: 261 to V160, 258 to V160+HCTZ12.5, and 255 to V160 +HCTZ25. The intent-to-treat population consisted of 767 patients (411 men, 356 women; mean age, 60 years; mean weight, 84 kg; clinic mean [SD] baseline BP, 167.5 [8.1]/93.4 [9.1] mm Hg). All treatments produced significant reductions in SBP from baseline (mean [SD] reduction, 20.7 [15.7] mm Hg with V160, 27.9 [13.8] mm Hg with V160 +HCTZ12.5, and 28.3 [13.1] mm Hg with V160+HCTZ25; all, P < 0.05). DBP was reduced by 6.6 (8.9) mm Hg in the V160 group and by 10.2 (7.7) and 10.1 (7.8) mm Hg in the V160+HCTZ12.5 and V160 +HCTZ25 groups, respectively (all, P < 0.05). The additional reductions in BP with V160+HCTZ25 did not reach statistical significance compared with V160+HCTZ12.5. Responder rates were 56.9% in the V160 group, 74.4% in the V160+HCTZ12.5 group, and 75.0% in the V160 +HCTZ25 group P < 0.05, combination therapy vs monotherapy). Adverse events were reported by 27.5% of patients in the monotherapy group, compared with 28.6% and 34.0% in the groups that received V160+HCTZ12.5 and V160+HCTZ25, respectively; the differences were not significant between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with V160 was effective in these patients with stage 2 or 3 systolic hypertension. Significant additional reductions in SBP and DBP and an increase in responder rates were achieved with the addition to V160 of HCTZ12.5 and HCTZ25, with no significant effect on tolerability.     

Blood pressure control in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension switched from nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30 mg to nifedipine GITS 20 mg

BACKGROUND: Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) is a once-daily formulation of nifedipine that provides sustained plasma nifedipine concentrations throughout the 24-hour dosing interval. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine if adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension whose blood pressure had been controlled for > or = 3 months with nifedipine GITS 30 mg could be successfully switched to a 20-mg daily dose with continued antihypertensive efficacy. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients entered a 1-week run-in period during which they continued to receive their usual antihypertensive medication, including nifedipine GITS 30 mg. After baseline assessment, patients entered a 6-week treatment period during which they were randomly assigned to receive nifedipine GITS 30 or 20 mg. Men and women were eligible to participate if they were > or = 55 years of age, had received a diagnosis of mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-114 mm Hg), and had exhibited good blood pressure control (sitting DBP < or = 90 mm Hg) while taking nifedipine GITS 30 mg once daily for > or = 3 months. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), DBP, and heart rate were recorded at baseline and after 1, 3, and 6 weeks of treatment. Adverse events were reported by patients. The responder rate was defined as the percentage of patients whose sitting DBP was < 95 mm Hg at the final study assessment. Results were based on the intent-to-treat analyses, which included data for all patients who received > or = 1 dose and had 1 postbaseline blood pressure assessment. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients entered the 1-week run-in period; 71 patients (94.7%) were randomized to treatment. Twenty-four patients received nifedipine GITS 30 mg for 43.0 +/- 3.3 days, and 47 patients received nifedipine GITS 20 mg for 42.5 +/- 6.7 days. Both groups exhibited a sustained decrease in blood pressure throughout the study; minor variations were not statistically significant. End-point SBP and DBP for the 30- and 20-mg groups were 135.5 +/- 9.8/81.7 +/- 5.4 mm Hg and 138.6 +/- 11.8/82.9 +/- 7.6 mm Hg, respectively. Changes from baseline in end-point SBP and DBP did not differ significantly between groups. At the end of treatment, goal DBP (< 95 mm Hg) was achieved by 24 of 24 patients (100%) receiving the 30-mg dose and 45 of 47 patients (95.7%) receiving the 20-mg dose. Blood pressure control (sitting DBP < 90 mm Hg) was achieved by 21 of 24 (87.5%) patients in the 30-mg group and 35 of 47 (74.5%) patients in the 20-mg group. The most commonly reported adverse event was headache; 2 patients discontinued the study because of adverse events. Overall, 9 of 24 patients (37.5%) in the 30-mg group and 14 of 47 patients (29.8%) in the 20-mg group experienced > or = 1 treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose mild to moderate essential hypertension is controlled with nifedipine GITS 30 mg once daily may be able to switch to 20 mg once daily with continued antihypertensive efficacy. In addition to safety and economic advantages, such a switch may be a reasonable alternative in patients with lower body weight or as an adjunct to existing antihypertensive therapy.