Bisoprolol/amlodipine combination therapy improves blood pressure control in patients with essential hypertension following monotherapy failure

Objective: The efficacy of a bisoprolol/amlodipine fixed-dose combination (FDC) in patients with essential hypertension who had not responded to bisoprolol or amlodipine monotherapy was investigated.

Research design and methods: In an 18 week, multicenter, randomized, comparative phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01977794), patients with blood pressure uncontrolled by bisoprolol or amlodipine monotherapy (5?mg OD) began treatment with bisoprolol/amlodipine FDC 5/5?mg OD. Patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) at week 6/12 continued at current FDC strength, and patients with uncontrolled BP received FDC dose uptitration (maximum dose: 10/10?mg). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at week 18 versus baseline (corresponding to SBP under monotherapy), and secondary endpoints included change from baseline in SBP after week 6/12 and percentage of BP-controlled patients at week 6, 12 and 18. Safety was assessed by number/types of adverse events (AEs).

Results: Two hundred patients were randomized to treatment (100 with uncontrolled BP under bisoprolol and 100 under amlodipine monotherapy). Overall, 196 patients were eligible for analysis. The patient groups displayed similar mean SBP reductions from baseline by study end (bisoprolol monotherapy failure: 25.9?±?12.82?mmHg reduction; amlodipine monotherapy failure: 24.7?±?11.67?mmHg reduction; p?<?0.001 for both). Overall mean SBP decreased by 25.3?±?12.25?mmHg (p?<?0.001). Mean heart rate reductions were also observed (bisoprolol monotherapy failure: 6.6?±?9.67 bpm reduction; amlodipine monotherapy failure: 11.5?±?8.65 bpm reduction; p?<?0.001 for both). Most patients (83.2%) displayed BP control with bisoprolol/amlodipine 5/5?mg at 6 weeks. Treatment was well tolerated at all dose levels; treatment-related AEs (mostly of mild/moderate intensity) were reported by 52.5% of patients, with no severe or serious treatment-related AEs reported. As the study focused on hypertension, total cardiovascular risk was not assessed.

Conclusions: Bisoprolol/amlodipine FDC therapy is associated with significant BP improvements in patients with essential hypertension following monotherapy failure.     

Combination Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide

Background

The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ] has previously been shown to produce significantly greater SBP/DBP reductions than monotherapy with either agent alone in a randomized, double-blind, factorial study in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Compared with the evaluation of a single mean BP reduction in a patient population, determining the efficacy of an antihypertensive agent in achieving multiple BP targets provides additional information about the range of BP reductions attainable within this study population.

Objective

To conduct a secondary analysis of this study to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving combined SBP/DBP targets recommended in current hypertension treatment guidelines as well as individual SBP and DBP targets.

Methods

A total of 502 patients with DBP ≥100 and ≤115 mmHg were randomized to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil 10, 20, or 40 mg/day, or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 10/12.5, 10/25, 20/12.5, 20/25, 40/12.5, or 40/25 mg/day. Mean baseline SBP ranged from 151.9 to 156.6 mmHg and mean baseline DBP ranged from 102.6 to 104.4 mmHg across the twelve treatment arms. The chi-squared test was used to compare the proportion of patients achieving each BP goal in each of the 11 active treatment regimens with that in the placebo group.

Results

The proportion of patients achieving an SBP <140 or <130 mmHg, DBP <90, <85, or <80 mmHg and combined SBP/DBP <140/90, <130/85, <130/80, or <120/80 mmHg typically increased with escalating dosages of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ when administered alone or in combination, but was always highest in those treated with the combination. As the BP goal became progressively more stringent, the proportion of patients achieving the BP goal decreased in each treatment group, although the trend toward greater reductions in patients treated with combination therapy remained intact. All combined SBP/DBP goals were achieved by a statistically significant proportion of patients (p<0.05) in the olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/25, 40/12.5, and 40/25 treatment groups.

Conclusions

A majority of patients with uncomplicated stage 2 hypertension can achieve recommended BP goals when treated with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ.     

A double-blind,randomized study evaluating losartan potassium monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide versus placebo in obese patients with hypertension

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of losartan ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) versus placebo in obese patients with systolic and diastolic hypertension.

Research design and methods: Randomized patients (n = 261) were non-diabetic with systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 and ≤ 180?mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥ 95 and ≤ 115?mmHg, body mass index > 30?kg/m², and waist circumference > 40 (males)/> 35 (females)?inches. Patients were randomized to placebo or a forced titration of losartan 50?mg titrated at 4-week intervals to losartan 100?mg, losartan 100?mg/HCTZ 12.5?mg, and losartan 100?mg/HCTZ 25?mg. Primary efficacy measurements were change from baseline in SBP and DBP at 12 weeks. Secondary measurements were change from baseline in BPs at 8 and 16 weeks, percent responders at 12 and 16 weeks, and safety/tolerability. Post-hoc analyses were BP at 4 weeks and achieve­ment of controlled BP (SBP < 140 and/or DBP < 90?mmHg) at 12 and 16 weeks.

Results: Losartan 50?mg reduced BP from 151.6/99.2?mmHg at baseline to 140.1/89.8?mmHg at week 4 (post hoc), 139.5/89.6?mmHg with losartan 100?mg at week 8 (secondary), 134.3/85.9?mmHg with losartan 100?mg/HCTZ 12.5?mg at week 12 (primary), and 132.1/84.9?mmHg with losartan 100?mg/HCTZ50?mg at week 16 (secondary) (all p < 0.05). Rates of clinical adverse experi­ences were similar between treatment groups. A limitation of these analyses is the relatively rapid rate of study drug titration, which may not have allowed for the evaluation of the full treatment effect at each titration step.

Conclusions: We conclude that losartan alone or in combination with HCTZ was generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of elevated systolic and diastolic BP in obese patients with hypertension.     

Efficacy and safety of the single pill combination of amlodipine 10 mg plus valsartan 160 mg in hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine 10 mg plus olmesartan 20 mg in free combination

ABSTRACT

Background and objective: For patients with moderate hypertension (grade 2, defined as systolic blood pressure [SBP] 160–179?mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 100–109?mmHg), current guidelines recommend initial combination therapy and rapid dose-adjustment to achieve blood pressure goal. In this study we investigated the efficacy and tolerability of the single pill combination of amlodipine 10?mg plus valsartan 160?mg (A?10?+?Val 160) in patients not controlled by the free combination of amlodipine 10?mg plus olmesartan 20?mg (A?10?+?O 20).

Methods: In this prospective, open-label, non-randomized trial, 257 patients with mean sitting DBP of 100–109?mmHg at trough entered a 4 week treatment phase with A?10?+?O 20 in free combination once daily. Patients in whom DBP remained uncontrolled were switched in a second 4 week treatment phase to A?10?+?Val 160. The primary efficacy variable was the reduction in DBP at week 8 compared to week 4 in the intent-to-treat population.

Results: In the total cohort, baseline SBP/DBP of 164.2?±?9.8/103.6?±?2.1?mmHg decreased by 19.2?±?12.4/14.1?±?7.4?mmHg at week 4. In patients who did not achieve BP control (n?=?175), subsequent treatment with A?10?+?Val 160 for 4 weeks reduced SBP from 149.6?±?11.1 at week 4 by 7.9?mmHg at week 8 (95% CI: 6.1–9.6, p?<?0.0001) and DBP from 93.4?±?3.9?mmHg by 9.1?mmHg (95% confidence interval: 8.1–10.2, p?<?0.0001). The combination of A?10?+?Val 160 was well tolerated, and the observed adverse events (15.3% of patients in phase 2) were consistent with the known drug profiles.

Conclusions: In a study designed to reflect typical clinical practice, in patients not controlled by the free combination of A?10?+?O 20, the single pill combination of A?10?+?Val 160 produced a statistically and clinically significant additional BP reduction and was well tolerated. Potential limitations of the design (open-label, non-controlled design, short term treatment) have to be taken into account.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of indapamide SR in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with a background therapy: the NATIVE study*

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Antihypertensive monotherapy rarely achieves blood pressure (BP) control. NATIVE (NATrilix SR use in combInation antihypertensiVe thErapy) evaluated indapamide sustained release (SR) in hypertensive patients receiving background therapy.

Research design and methods: Patients remaining hypertensive (systolic BP [SBP], 145–180?mmHg; diastolic BP [DBP], 95–105?mmHg) while receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (n = 709), β-blocker (n = 629), calcium-channel blocker (CCB; n = 493), angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB; n = 75), α-blocker (n = 29) or other therapy (n = 6) were enrolled, recruited by physicians from 228 centres in Pakistan. Indapamide SR 1.5?mg was administered daily for 3 months with background therapy. BP was assessed every 2 weeks, and blood glucose and total cholesterol were evaluated at baseline and study end in a patient subgroup. Adverse events were also recorded.

Main outcome measures and results: Of 2073 enrolled patients (49% males; mean age 51 years), 1941 received indapamide SR and background therapy. SBP and DBP decreased significantly (SBP, 166 ± 16?mmHg at baseline vs. 132 ± 12?mmHg at 3 months; DBP, 102 ± 8?mmHg vs. 83 ± 6?mmHg; both p < 0.0001 vs. baseline). Patients uncontrolled with an ACE inhibitor, β-blocker, CCB or ARB achieved an SBP/DBP decrease of 34 ± 15/19 ± 9, 33 ± 17/19 ± 10, 33 ± 15/18 ± 8 or 35 ± 16/20 ± 12?mmHg, respectively (all p < 0.0001). In all, 84% of patients achieved target SBP (≤?140?mmHg) and 61% achieved BP normalisation (SBP <?140, DBP <?90?mmHg). The absence of placebo control may lead to an overestimation of the extent of the BP reduction achieved. Glucose and cholesterol levels were unaffected by indapamide SR. Four percent of patients experienced side-effects, which were mild-to-moderate in severity.

Conclusions: In patients with hypertension despite antihypertensive therapy, indapamide SR significantly reduced BP with a good acceptability profile. Indapamide SR may represent an effective additional therapy for patients who do not achieve BP goals with other antihypertensive agents.     

A randomized,comparative study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of losartan-low dose chlorthalidone (6.25 mg) combination with losartan-hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg) combination in Indian patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

Objective: The relationship of blood pressure (BP) to cardiovascular risk is linear, positive, and continuous. Lowering elevated BP reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. The primary objective of this randomized, multicenter, comparative, 3-month, open-label study was to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of losartan/chlorthalidone versus losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Methods: A total of 137 eligible patients underwent a 2-week placebo washout period, following which 131 patients were randomized to losartan (L) 25mg/chlorthalidone (C) 6.25 mg (66/131) or to losartan 25 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (H) 12.5 mg (65/131) at three centers. Patients not responding after 4 weeks of therapy were escalated to losartan 25 mg/chlorthalidone 12.5 mg and losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, respectively. Results: Both treatment groups were similar with respect to demography and baseline characteristics. Altogether, 120 patients completed the study. After 4 weeks of therapy, both treatments showed a significant fall from baseline in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (L/C: -20.17/-10.30; L/H: -17.63/-10.20). Both treatments were similar with respect to mean fall in SBP (p = 0.258), DBP (p = 0.934) and response rate (p = 0.769). Both step-up therapies were similar with respect to mean fall in SBP (p = 0.418), DBP (p = 0.389) from baseline and response rate (p = 0.769). All reported adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity, except for two serious AEs that occurred in patients who received L/H. Conclusions: The losartan/low-dose chlorthalidone (6.25 mg) combination is as effective as the widely used losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in lowering BP and is well tolerated, thus providing a useful therapeutic option for treating mild-to-moderate hypertension.     

Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) single-pill combinations in patients who are non-responsive to HCT 25 mg alone*

ABSTRACT

Objective: Thiazide diuretics such as hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) are a widely used first-line treatment for hypertension, but most patients will not achieve blood pressure (BP) control with HCT alone and so will require combination therapy. In this study the efficacy, safety and tolerability of a single-pill combination (SPC) of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren with HCT were investigated in patients non-responsive to HCT 25?mg therapy.

Methods: In this study, 722 patients with hypertension and an inadequate response to 4?weeks of HCT 25?mg (mean sitting diastolic BP ≥90 and <110?mmHg) were randomized to once-daily, double-blind treatment for 8?weeks with an SPC of aliskiren/HCT 300/25?mg or 150/25?mg, or continued HCT 25?mg monotherapy. Least-squares mean changes in mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP (msSBP/DBP) from double-blind baseline were analyzed for the ITT population at week?8 endpoint.

Results: Aliskiren/HCT 300/25?mg and 150/25?mg SPCs lowered msSBP/DBP from baseline by 16.7/10.7 and 12.9/8.5?mmHg, respectively, both significantly greater reductions than HCT 25?mg alone (7.1/4.8?mmHg; both p?<?0.001). Rates of BP control (<140/90?mmHg) were also significantly higher with aliskiren/HCT 300/25?mg (58%) and 150/25?mg (49%) than with HCT (26%; both p?<?0.001). Aliskiren/HCT 300/25?mg provided significantly greater msSBP/DBP reductions and rates of BP control than the 150/25?mg SPC dose (all p?<?0.05). Aliskiren/HCT SPC treatment showed similar tolerability to HCT alone and a numerically lower incidence of hypokalemia (serum potassium <3.5?mmol/L; aliskiren/HCT, 1.3–2.2%: HCT alone, 3.4%).

Conclusion: Aliskiren/HCT SPCs provide clinically significant BP reductions and improved BP control rates in patients who are non-responsive to HCT 25?mg monotherapy. Limitations of the study were the mainly Caucasian patient population and the non-responder design.     

An Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment Algorithm is Effective in Achieving 24-Hour BP Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Regardless of Age, Race, Sex, or Severity of Hypertension

Background

Hypertension often occurs concomitantly with diabetes mellitus, such that >50% of adults with type 2 diabetes have hypertension. These individuals are at a greater risk of developing renal and cardiovascular disease. The currently recommended BP goal of <130/80 mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes is achieved in only 37.5% of treated patients with diabetes and hypertension.

Methods

The antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was investigated in prespecified subgroups (age <65/≥65 years, Blacks/non-Blacks, males/females, or stage 1/ stage 2 hypertension) of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes enrolled in an open-label, single-arm study (n= 192). Patients started treatment with OM 20 mg/day and were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to OM 40, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day if BP was ≥120/70 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 12, assessed by mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Secondary endpoints included changes in mean 24-hour ambulatory DBP, mean daytime ambulatory BP, mean nighttime ambulatory BP, and mean office seated BP, and the proportions of patients achieving prespecified ambulatory BP targets.

Setting

This was a multicenter study (24 sites) that took place between November 2006 and November 2007 in the US.

Results

BP reductions were significant (p<0.0001) and similar among subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes. Following dose titration to OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day, similar proportions of patients in the age, race, and sex subgroups (approximately 60–64% across these subgroups) achieved an ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mmHg. A larger proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 hypertension achieved this same goal compared with patients with stage 2 hypertension (75% vs 46.3%). The combination of OM/HCTZ was well tolerated in all patient subgroups irrespective of age, race, sex, or hypertension severity.

Conclusions

In this open-label study, OM/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in subgroups of patients with diabetes and hypertension.     

Comparison of monotherapy with irbesartan 150 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.

OBJECTIVE. The primary objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor blocker irbesartan 150 mg and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine 5 mg in the treatment of patients with seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-110 mmHg. DESIGN. Multicentre, randomised, double-blind, comparative pilot study. METHODS. Subjects were 18-65 years of age, with DBP 95-110 mmHg, and of non-African American origin. Following a three week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 181 subjects were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-daily irbesartan 150 mg (n=89) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=92) for four weeks. Trough (24+/-3 hours post-dosing) BP measurements were obtained at baseline and at Weeks 2 and 4 under standardised, controlled conditions. Response was defined as DBP <90 mmHg or a reduction from baseline of 10 mmHg. RESULTS. After four weeks of treatment, the mean (+/-SE) decrease from baseline in DBP was 9.4+/-0.6 mmHg in the irbesartan group vs. 9.6+/-0.6 mmHg in the amlodipine group (p=0.806). The mean decrease from baseline in seated systolic BP was 12.2+/-1.0 mmHg in the irbesartan group vs. 12.0+/-1.0 mmHg in the amlodipine group (p=0.885). Overall, 62% of subjects in the irbesartan group and 63% in the amlodipine group had a response (p=0.609), and 54% and 56% of patients (p=0.596), respectively, had their DBP normalised (<90 mmHg). Adverse events were reported by 21.3% of patients receiving irbesartan and 20.7% receiving amlodipine. Conclusions. Irbesartan 150 mg demonstrated comparable efficacy to amlodipine 5 mg, thereby confirming its value as an antihypertensive treatment option in non-African American patients with DBP 95-110 mmHg.     

Effect of successful hypertension control by manidipine or lisinopril on albuminuria and left ventricular mass in diabetic hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria

Objective The aim of this open-labelled, randomised, parallel-group study was to evaluate the effect of long-term monotherapy with manidipine or lisinopril on albumin excretion rate (AER) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in hypertensive patients with type-2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.Methods After a 4-week wash-out period, 174 patients with essential hypertension [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >80 mmHg and <100 mmHg], type-2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were randomised to manidipine 10 mg o.d. or lisinopril 10 mg o.d.; after 8 weeks, the dose was doubled in non-responders (DBP >80 mmHg); after 3 months, treatment was discontinued in the non-responder patients and in those complaining of side effects; the remaining 121 patients continued their therapy with manidipine or lisinopril, and 99 completed the 2-year study. At the end of the wash-out period, of the titration period and after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of treatment, BP was measured, AER, creatinine clearance, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated and an echocardiographic evaluation was performed.Results The 99 patients who completed the study were statistically analysed according to a per-protocol evaluation. Manidipine and lisinopril significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP levels (at 24 months, –22.3/15.5 mmHg, P<0.001 versus baseline and –21.4/15.7 mmHg, P<0.01 versus baseline, respectively). Both drugs provided a significant decrease in AER, but it was significantly more pronounced with lisinopril (at 24 weeks, –37.2 mg/24 h, P<0.001 versus baseline) than with manidipine (–29.9 mg/24 h, P<0.05 versus baseline) and became evident earlier in the lisinopril group (after 3 months versus 6 months of treatment). Manidipine produced a greater reduction of LVMI than lisinopril (–14.9 g/m² versus –10.8 g/m² at 24 months). The effect was more pronounced in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy at baseline (–19.8 g/m² versus –12.8 g/m², P<0.05).Conclusion These data suggest that, despite similar BP lowering, non-haemodynamic factors play an important role in the pharmacological reduction of AER and LVMI in diabetic hypertensive patients.     

Telmisartan 80 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg single-pill combination in the treatment of hypertension

Introduction: International guidelines emphasize the importance of blood pressure (BP) control to reduce cardiovascular risk. Telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, provides large BP reductions and also prevents cardiovascular events in patients at high risk. The thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), has a complementary mode of action, and combination with telmisartan is an established and rational treatment option for patients uncontrolled on monotherapy. A single-pill combination (SPC) of telmisartan 80 mg with high-strength HCTZ 25 mg (T80/H25) is widely available.

Area covered: Clinical data on T80/H25 SPC for the management of hypertension was identified via MEDLINE searches. T80/H25 SPC provides greater BP reductions and higher goal achievement rates in patients who cannot achieve BP goal with T80/HCTZ 12.5 mg SPC, and also as initial therapy compared with T80 monotherapy. T80/H25 also reduced BP significantly more than valsartan 160 mg/H25 combination, and demonstrated favorable tolerability in clinical trials.

Expert opinion: Patients with hypertension often do not achieve BP goal, even when treated, leaving them at increased cardiovascular risk. In part this is due to poor adherence, which can be exacerbated by treatment side effects. High BP goal achievement with SPC T80/H25, with maintained tolerability, provides a treatment option for increasing BP control.     

Dose-Dependent Antihypertensive Efficacy and Tolerability of Perindopril in a Large, Observational, 12-Week, General Practice-Based Study

Background

Current guidelines recommend the use of full therapeutic dosages of antihypertensive agents, or combination therapy, to improve BP control of hypertensive patients in primary healthcare.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the dose-dependent antihypertensive efficacy and safety of perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day in the clinical setting.

Study Design and Setting

The CONFIDENCE study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial. This was a real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 880 general practitioners/primary-care clinics and 113 specialists in Canada.

Patients

The study included untreated or inadequately managed patients with hypertension (i.e. seated BP≥140/90 mmHg, or ≥130/80 mmHg in the presence of diabetes mellitus, renal disease, or proteinuria) without coronary artery disease (CAD).

Intervention

Treatment consisted of perindopril 4 mg/day, uptitrated to 8 mg/day as required for BP control at visit 2, for 12 weeks. Among the patients already being treated at baseline, perindopril either directly replaced all previous ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]), or was added to antihypertensive treatment with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), diuretics, or β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers).

Main Outcomes Measures

The primary outcomes were the mean changes in BP from baseline following treatment with perindopril 4 and 8 mg/day as well as the proportion of patients achieving BP control (BP <140/90 mmHg, or <130/80 mmHg in diabetic patients) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included the incidence of adverse events and compliance.

Results

A total of 8298 hypertensive patients entered the study: 56% with newly diagnosed hypertension and 44% with uncontrolled hypertension. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (152.5 ±10.8/89.5 ±9 mmHg) over 12 weeks (?18.5/?9.7 mmHg; p < 0.001). At visit 2, 23% of patients were uptitrated to perindopril 8 mg/day, which resulted in an additional mean 10.1/5.3 mmHg BP reduction; this reduction was even greater (15.1/5.7 mmHg) among a separate group of severely hypertensive patients (i.e. SBP >170 mmHg or DBP > 109 mmHg at baseline). Target BP was achieved in 54% of the ITT population. Both perindopril 4 mg/day and perindopril 8 mg/day were well tolerated and compliance was high throughout the study.

Conclusion

In the clinical outpatient setting, perindopril was found to be an effective dose-dependent and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with good compliance. Uptitration to the full therapeutic dosage of perindopril is an efficient approach for the management of a broad range of hypertensive patients without CAD.     

Efficacy and safety of losartan 100 mg or losartan 100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in the treatment of patients with essential arterial hypertension and CV risk factors: obser-vational,prospective study in primary care

ABSTRACT

Background: Patients with high cardiovascular risk are prevalent in ambulatory care. To achieve adequate blood pressure control, such patients require higher drug doses and/or combination therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of losartan 100?mg as monotherapy or in fixed-dose combination with hydrochlorothiazide 25?mg.

Design and methods: Multicentre, prospective, open observational study over 13 weeks in patients with essential hypertension, whose blood pressure was not adequately controlled despite pretreatment. Main outcome parameters were the systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure reduction, the rate of normalized patients at study end compared to baseline, and the number and type of adverse events (AEs).

Results: Of the 7702 documented patients, 53.1% (N?=?4088) were men, with a mean age of 63.5?±?10.7 years. Comorbidities were frequent (diabetes mellitus in 57.4% [N?=?4418], coronary heart disease in 30.3% [N?=?2330], left ventricular hypertrophy in 28.2% [N?=?2172], heart failure in 14.0% [N?=?1079], and peripheral arterial disease in 9.0% [N?=?690]). Patients received losartan 100?mg in 45.7% (N?=?3521), losartan/HCTZ in 53.8% (N?=?4143); additional antihypertensive drugs were given in 45.5% (N?=?3505). Physicians reported somewhat lower target values than those stipulated by the guidelines (irrespective of age, gender, and concomitant diseases except for diabetes). Mean SBP/DBP decreased from a baseline value of 158/93?mmHg by 24/12?mmHg at study end. The BP lowering effect was similar in subgroups by treatment or comorbidity, respectively, however target attainment rates were substantially higher in non-diabetic patients. Metabolic and renal parameters (fasting glucose, HbA_1c, serum creatinine and albumin in urine) showed trends for improvement. Tolerability was very good, as only 0.43% (N?=?33) experienced an AE (in 0.31% [N?=?24] serious AEs), and 0.08% (N?=?6) discontinued therapy due to reasons related to study drug.

Conclusion: In high-risk patients, treatment with losartan 100?mg or losartan/HCTZ 100/25?mg was effective and well tolerated, irrespective of comorbidity. These findings from a real-life setting are in line with those from randomized controlled trials.     

Efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine in patients with poorly controlled mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (CC/HCTZ), 12.5 mg was compared with that of amlodipine, in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy. After a two week run-in period on existing therapy, patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90-110 mmHg and a sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) 相似文献   

Evaluation of long-term efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR in elderly hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term antihypertensive efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR 1.5 mg in elderly hypertensive patients (> or = 65 years). STUDY DESIGN: Open, 12-month, follow-up study of 444 patients, treated with indapamide SR, who were responders and/or achieved target BP levels following a 3-month, randomised, controlled, double-blind short-term comparison of indapamide SR versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and amlodipine 5 mg. RESULTS: The long-term decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 months follow-up with indapamide SR was -24.0/-13.1 mmHg from baseline (M0). The percentage of patients that achieved target BP levels (DBP < 95 mmHg, SBP < or = 160 mmHg) was 80.1% [84.3% for isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) subgroup], and the response rate (BP < 140/90 mmHg or decrease in supine diastolic BP > or = 10 mmHg or in supine systolic BP > or = 20 mmHg) 81.5%. Blood pressure (BP) remained stable throughout the 12 months follow-up period (M3-M15), whatever the previous treatment received during the 3-month, doubleblind period (M0-M3). Clinical and biological acceptability was good. A low occurrence of withdrawals (7.2%), was reported. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the long-term, 12-month follow-up study, indapamide SR was shown to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive therapy, even after a switch from amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, in patients aged 65 years-80 years with systolo-diastolic hypertension (SDH) or ISH.     

Effects of valsartan compared with enalapril on blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly patients with essential hypertension

Objective This prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was to compare the effects of the angiotensin II (Ang II) AT1 receptor antagonist valsartan with those of the ACE inhibitor enalapril on blood pressure (BP) and cognitive functions in elderly hypertensive patients.Methods One hundred and forty-four patients aged 61–80 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (DBP 95 mmHg and 110 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo run-in period) were randomly assigned to once daily (o.d.) treatment with valsartan 160 mg (n=73) or enalapril 20 mg (n=71) for 16 weeks. The patients were examined every 4 weeks during the study, with pre-dose BP (standard mercury sphygmomanometer, Korotkoff I and V) and heart rate (pulse palpation) being recorded at each visit. Cognitive function was evaluated at the end of the wash-out period and after 16 weeks of active treatment by means of five tests (verbal fluency, the Boston naming test, word list memory, word list recall and word list recognition).Results Both valsartan and enalapril had a clear antihypertensive effect, but the former led to a slightly greater reduction in SBP/DBP at 16 weeks (18.6±4.6/13.7±4.0 mmHg vs 15.6±5.1/10.9±3.9 mmHg; P<0.01). Enalapril did not induce any significant changes in any of the cognitive function test scores; valsartan significantly increased the word list memory score (+11.8%; P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs enalapril) and the word list recall score (+18.7%; P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs enalapril), but not those of the other tests.Conclusion These findings indicate that, in elderly hypertensive patients, 16 weeks of treatment with valsartan 160 mg o.d. is more effective than enalapril 20 mg o.d. in reducing BP, and (unlike enalapril) improves some of the components of cognitive function, particularly episodic memory.     

Effect of three months’ treatment with irbesartan on blood and pulse pressure of hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients: open,observational study in 31 793 patients

ABSTRACT

Objectives: In hypertensive diabetics the cardiovascular risk is substantially increased. Therefore, an effective reduction of both blood pressure and pulse pressure is of particular importance for these patients. The aim of the prospective observational study in hypertensive type 2 diabetics was to assess the effect of a switch from the previous antihypertensive therapy to the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan (alone or in combination with HCTZ) on the reduction of blood pressure and pulse pressure, the reduction of diabetic nephropathy (microalbuminuria), and tolerability.

Methods: 8714 general practitioners included 31?793 type 2 diabetics aged at least 18 years in an open observational study. After inclusion in to the study the patients received irbesartan 300?mg as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg (HCTZ). Main outcome measures for efficacy were the reduction of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures, reduction of pulse pressure, and blood pressure responder (reduction in DBP ≥ 10 mmHg or diastolic < 90 mmHg), diastolic normalization (DBP < 90 mmHg) and overall normalization rates (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg) after 3 months. Further outcome measures included the reduction of microalbuminuria or proteinuria, and adverse events (AEs) as a measure of tolerability.

Results: Thirty-eight per cent of patients received irbesartan 300?mg and 61% irbesartan in combination with HCTZ. Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 22.5?mmHg, diastolic blood pressure by 10.7?mmHg (baseline values: 160.2 and 93.2?mmHg). Pulse pressure fell on average by 11.6?mmHg. 83.4% of the patients were responders, with an overall normalization rate of 42.7% (SBP < 140?mmHg and DBP < 90?mmHg), respectively 73.8% (DBP < 90?mmHg). The antihypertensive benefit was achieved irrespective of the previous medication. Mean albuminuria decreased by about 27.7?mg/L. Only 0.3% of patients experienced adverse events.

Conclusions: In type 2 diabetics with hypertension and either uncontrolled or no previous antihypertensive therapy a change to treatment with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ for 3 months resulted in a distinct reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures, with concomitant effective reductions of pulse pressure and microalbuminuria.     

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.     

Efficacy and tolerability of rilmenidine compared with isradipine in hypertensive patients with features of metabolic syndrome

ABSTRACT

Objectives: A high prevalence of associated metabolic cardiovascular risk factors is often observed among hypertensive subjects. The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of 1–2?mg/day of rilmenidine, a centrally acting antihypertensive agent with selectivity for I1 imidazoline receptors, vs. 2.5–5?mg/twice daily of isradipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, in hypertensive patients with features of the metabolic syndrome.

Research design and methods: In this 6‐month multicentre, comparative, double-blind, parallel group study, the primary objective was to assess the effects of the treatments on blood pressure (BP); the secondary endpoints were to assess glucose and lipid metabolism, in addition to clinical and biological tolerability. In non-responder patients, dose adjustment was possible from the first month and adding a diuretic from the third month.

Results: Of an intention-to-treat population of 93 patients, 84 per protocol patients completed the study: 42 in the rilmenidine group and 42 in the isradipine group. BP decreased significantly (?p < 0.001) and similarly in both groups (systolic blood pressure, SBP: –16.0 ± 17.2?mmHg and –15.0 ± 13.0?mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure, DBP: –9.0 ± 9.4?mmHg and –9.0 ± 8.7?mmHg with rilmenidine and isradipine, respectively). Normalisation (DBP < 90?mmHg and SBP < 140?mmHg) and response (normalisation or decrease in SBP ≥ 20?mmHg or decrease in DBP ≥ 10?mmHg) rates were respectively 57% and 72% with rilmenidine and 64% and 79% with isradipine (NS between groups). The effects of the treatments on both glucose and lipid metabolism were comparable: no significant difference from baseline was observed on the main parameters including insulin sensitivity indexes. The two treatments appeared to be well tolerated throughout the study, with no serious adverse reaction reported in the rilmenidine group and one serious adverse event in the isradipine group (a perimalleolar oedema), leading to withdrawal from the study for the affected patient.

Conclusion: This study suggests that in hypertensive patients with metabolic disorders, rilmenidine is an effective antihypertensive treatment, comparable to isradipine, with metabolic neutrality and a good tolerance profile.     

急性期脑卒中血压变化及其和预后的关系

目的：探讨急性期脑卒中血压变化规律、影响因素及血压和预后的关系。方法对发病24 h以内入院的226例脑卒中患者连续监测10 d血压,随访1月死亡及6月死亡／残疾及复发情况。结果急性期脑卒中高血压的发生率为81．9％,入院后第6天血压基本稳定。多元线性逐步回归分析显示,脑卒中类型独立影响入院时血压且影响最大,高血压病史、吸烟史影响入院时收缩压（ SBP）,年龄、发病至入院时间影响入院时舒张压（ DBP）。急性期脑卒中血压和预后呈U型关系,入院时血压在150／90 mmHg左右、第1～6天血压在140／90 mmHg左右预后较好。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,入院后第24小时SBP＜120 mmHg独立影响脑卒中1月死亡,入院后24小时内DBP下降程度及第42小时DBP独立影响6月死亡／残疾。亚组分析显示,入院后第24小时SBP＜120 mmHg独立影响脑梗死1月死亡,入院时SBP＜140 mmHg、入院后第24小时SBP＜120 mm-Hg及DBP＜90 mmHg均独立影响6月死亡／残疾;入院第4天平均SBP独立影响脑出血1月死亡,入院后24 h内DBP下降程度及第5天平均SBP独立影响6月死亡／残疾。结论急性期脑卒中血压常升高,血压呈自发下降趋势。急性期脑卒中血压是预后的独立影响因素。