Efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan plus HCTZ compared with losartan plus HCTZ in patients with essential hypertension

Telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, is an effective once-daily antihypertensive agent available either alone or in fixed-dose combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). This multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) study assessed the efficacy and safety of six weeks' treatment with telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 199) and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 200) versus losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 198) in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. During the last six hours of the dosing interval, telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg reduced mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) to a greater extent than losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (treatment differences 1.8 mmHg [p < 0.05] and 2.5 mmHg [p < 0.001], respectively). Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg also lowered mean 24-hour DBP by 2.3 mmHg more than losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (p < 0.001). Telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg produced greater reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure versus losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg of 2.5 mmHg and 3.4 mmHg, respectively, during the last six hours of the dosing interval (p < 0.05), and of 2.1 mmHg and 3.4 mmHg, respectively, over the entire 24-hour dosing interval (p < 0.05). All treatments were well tolerated.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40-80 mg vs. losartan 50-100 mg in Taiwanese hypertensive patients

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, dose-titration study was conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40-80 mg once daily compared with losartan 50-100 mg once daily in 180 Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. After an initial 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomised in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion to receive either telmisartan 40 mg or losartan 50 mg. If blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] <90 mmHg or > or = 10 mmHg reduction in DBP) was achieved after 4 weeks, the dose was maintained for the second 4 weeks of the active treatment phase; if not, the dose was doubled to telmisartan 80 mg or losartan 100 mg, respectively, for the second 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. Telmisartan 40-80 mg (n = 86) was as effective as losartan 50-100 mg (n = 90) in reducing trough seated DBP (11.1 vs. 8.7 mmHg, p = 0.144), and was significantly more effective than losartan in reducing trough seated systolic blood pressure (SBP) (22.1 vs. 16.5 mmHg, p = 0.032) and standing SBP (21.0 vs. 16.3 mmHg, p = 0.033). Significantly fewer patients treated with telmisartan than those treated with losartan required uptitration after 4 weeks' treatment (32.6% vs. 61.5%, p = 0.001). Both telmisartan and losartan were well tolerated.     

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

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

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.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

An open-label study investigating the efficacy and safety of 12-96 weeks of telmisartan treatment in patients with hypertension

This open-label, multicentre, multinational trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of telmisartan used alone or as add-on therapy in 2121 adults with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients received telmisartan 40-80 mg once daily for 12 weeks and could participate in the study for up to 96 weeks, or until a marketed supply of telmisartan became available. Mean change from baseline in mean seated trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 weeks' treatment, the primary endpoint, was -11.8 mmHg in the intent-to-treat population. The corresponding mean change in mean seated trough systolic blood pressure (SBP) was -20.2 mmHg. Both changes were statistically significant. Mean DBP and SBP reductions were apparent from week 4 and maintained throughout the treatment period. Telmisartan was well tolerated; the most common adverse events were headache (6%) and dizziness (3%), and 10% of adverse events were considered drug-related. In conclusion, telmisartan is an effective and well-tolerated drug when used as monotherapy or add-on treatment in this broad population of patients.     

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.     

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.     

24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in male children receiving stimulant therapy

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether cardiac indices are altered as assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in male children receiving either chronic methylphenidate or dextroamphetamine/levoamphetamine (Adderall) therapy. METHODS: Boys 7-11 years old who were receiving methylphenidate or Adderall for a minimum of 2 months were asked to participate. Subjects wore ambulatory blood pressure monitors for 24-hour periods both off and on stimulant therapy. RESULTS: Subjects (n = 17; 8 methylphenidate, 9 Adderall) were well matched. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate differed between off and on stimulant therapy (p < 0.05). DBP load calculated from ABPM reference data was increased significantly (9.0% +/- 5.6% on and 4.8% +/- 4.5% off therapy; p < 0.05) while subjects were taking Adderall. There was a trend toward a greater elevation in blood pressure load during awake hours and a more pronounced decrease during the asleep hours for periods on compared with off-stimulant therapy. This trend resulted in significant (p < 0.05) nocturnal dipping on-stimulant phases compared with off-stimulant therapy for both SBP and DBP (Adderall) and SBP (methylphenidate). Two subjects (1 Adderall, 1 methylphenidate) met the criteria to be considered hypertensive based both on mean awake and 24-hour blood pressure load assessments during their on-treatment period. One additional subject receiving Adderall therapy met the criteria to be considered hypertensive based on blood pressure load criteria while off therapy only. Positive correlation coefficients (p < 0.05) were found when comparing stimulant dose (mg/kg) with the percent change of mean SBP, DBP, and heart rate between off and on therapy (r = 0.56, 0.61, and 0.58, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary data suggest that blood pressure and heart rate appear to be altered in male patients while receiving stimulant therapy for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Blood pressure and heart rate screening and monitoring during stimulant therapy to determine whether alterations become clinically significant is encouraged.     

Efficacy of telmisartan in chronic obstructive lung disease wtih arterial hypertension

The study included evaluation of respiratory function, bronchial conductivity, gas homeostasis, and 24-hour profile of blood pressure (BP) in 15 male patients with chronic obstructive lung disease and I-II stage arterial hypertension prior to and after 2 weeks of therapy with telmisartan. The drug, administered in a dose of 80 mg/day, significantly increased 1 sec forced expiratory volume, peak expiratory flow rate, decreased effective bronchial resistance and CO2 partial pressure in arterial blood. Telmisartan also significantly reduced mean systolic BP (SBP) (p < 0.003) and diastolic BP (DBP) (p < 0.001) during day hours, SBD (p < 0.01) and pulse BP (p < 0.05) during night hours, significantly reduced SBP load (p < 0.02) and DBP load (p < 0.003) during day hours, and SBP load during night hours (p < 0.02).     

Ambulatory monitoring of systolic hypertension in the elderly: Eprosartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (INSIST trial)

Introduction

Systolic hypertension is very common in the elderly and is strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. The control of systolic hypertension is difficult and most patients require combination antihypertensive therapy. Few data are available regarding the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor antagonists on systolic hypertension of the elderly. The aim of this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study was to assess the efficacy of eprosartan 600 mg in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg in comparison with losartan 50 mg in combination with HCTZ 12.5 mg, in reducing blood pressure in elderly patients with grade 2 systolic hypertension who did not optimally respond to eprosartan or losartan monotherapy.

Methods

After a 3-week placebo wash-out, 155 patients with an Office trough sitting systolic blood pressure (Office sitSBP) ≥160 mmHg and <180 mmHg were randomized to eprosartan 600 mg (n=78) or losartan 50 mg (n=77) once daily for 6 weeks. In patients not optimally responding to monotherapy (Office sitSBP≥130 mmHg) 12.5 mg HCTZ was added as fixed combination once daily for 6 weeks. A 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed at the end of wash-out and at the end of the fixed-combination period.

Results

No statistically significant difference was found between eprosartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ on the primary endpoint (24-hour ABPM SBP) with an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 3.1 mmHg (95% CI: ?0.32–6.59). However, the mean 24-hour ABPM SBP significantly decreased by 16.7 mmHg with eprosartan/HCTZ and 20.3 mmHg with losartan/HCTZ (P<0.001 vs. baseline). The mean Office sitSBP significantly decreased by 28.7 mmHg and 29.6 mmHg respectively, with eprosartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ (P<0.001 vs.baseline and vs. monotherapy).

Conclusion

In this study, eprosartan/HCTZ did not demonstrate to be superior to losartan/HCTZ in reducing ABPM systolic hypertension in the elderly.     

Response of diastolic blood pressure to long-term sodium restriction is posture related.

Eighty-five subjects, aged 31-55 years, suffering from uncomplicated essential hypertension and receiving no regular medication were randomized to sodium restriction and control groups. Systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were measured during an orthostatic test at baseline and after 6 months sodium restriction. The mean daily sodium excretion of 43 treated subjects decreased from 193 +/- 91 mmol to 95 +/- 70 mmol (p less than 0.001). Treated patients were divided on the basis of their mean overall out-patient clinic (OC) DBP decrease in the sitting position during the 6 months (monthly measurements) into sodium-sensitive (DBP decrease greater than 10 mmHg, n = 17), indeterminate (DBP decrease 5-10 mmHg, n = 18) and sodium-resistant (DBP decrease less than 5 mmHg, n = 8) subgroups. At 6 months the level of DBP in the supine position was lower than at baseline in both sensitive and resistant subgroups, whereas in the standing position a lower DBP than at baseline was seen only in the sodium-sensitive subgroup. The magnitude of the subsequent OC DBP decrease was significantly associated with a high baseline seated OC DBP (p less than 0.001) and a high, for baseline OC DBP adjusted orthostatic DBP increase (p = 0.014). Our data suggest that posture should be included in the concept of sodium sensitivity and that an orthostatic test is useful in the prediction of seated and standing DBP decrease produced by moderate, long-term sodium restriction.     

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.     

Comparative efficacy of perindopril and enalapril once daily using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

ACE inhibitors are important therapeutic agents in controlling hypertension, correcting some of its pathophysiological derangement and improving its prognosis. While there are many such agents, there may be some important differences between them. This placebo run-in, double blind, crossover study, using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, compares the efficacy of perindopril 4-8 mg and enalapril 10-20 mg as once daily antihypertensive agents on 32 patients. For diastolic blood pressure (DBP), perindopril had a placebo-corrected peak (P) reduction of blood pressure (BP) of -6.4 +/- 1.3 mmHg vs its placebo-corrected trough (T) of -5.2 +/- 1.7 mmHg. Enalapril had a reduction in DBP of -8.5 +/- 1.3 mmHg (P) and -5.7 +/- 1.7 mmHg (T). For systolic blood pressure (SBP), perindopril had a reduction of -7.5 +/- 1.6 mmHg (P) vs -7.3 +/- 2.2 mmHg (T) compared to enalapril with -10.8 +/- 1.6 mmHg (P) vs -8.3 +/- 2.3 mmHg (T). Placebo-corrected trough-to-peak ratio (SBP/DBP) for perindopril was 0.97/0.81 vs 0.77/0.67 for enalapril. There was no difference noted in 24-hour mean BP, area under the curve or post-dose casual BP measurements. Both perindopril and enalapril were well tolerated and the two treatment groups had similar safety profiles. Perindopril thus had a predictable and sustained blood pressure effect giving a 24-hour cover for the patient without excessive peak effect or poor trough effect.