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

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

Effects of valsartan or ramipril addition to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination on left ventricular mass in diabetic hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare valsartan or ramipril addition to amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) on blood pressure (BP) and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in hypertensive diabetic patients with LVH.

Research design and methods: 293 patients were treated with amlodipine 10 mg + HCTZ 12.5 combination and then randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg or ramipril 5 mg, in addition to the previous therapy, for 1 year.

Main outcome measures: Clinic BP was measured every month; echocardiographic assessments were performed at the end of the placebo period, both before the randomization and after 1-year of triple combination therapy.

Results: Both triple regimens similarly reduced SBP/DBP values (-13.5/10.9 mm Hg in the valsartan group and -13.4/10.4 mm Hg in the ramipril group). Triple combination including valsartan better reduced LVMI (-20.1%, p < 0.001), interventricular septal thickness (IVST) (-20.3%, p < 0.001) and left ventricular posterior wall thickness (PWT) (-16.3%, p < 0.001), compared with triple combination including ramipril (-14%, p < 0.01; -16.2%, p < 0.001 and -9%, p < 0.01, respectively); the difference between treatments being statistically significant (p < 0.05). Triple combination with valsartan gave a greater increase of E/A ratio (p < 0.05 between groups).

Conclusions: Valsartan addition to dual therapy with amlodipine + HCTZ was more effective than ramipril addition in reducing LVH.     

Randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of amlodipine and valsartan in african-americans with hypertension using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of amlodipine and valsartan in African-American patients with hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison study. SETTING: University-affiliated cardiac center clinic. PATIENTS: Twenty African-Americans (12 men, 8 women), with a history of uncomplicated hypertension (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day or valsartan 80 or 160 mg/day for 8-10 weeks, depending on response. Dosages were titrated to achieve a blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or below. For patients whose blood pressures were not controlled, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day was added to their regimens. Patients then underwent 24-hour ABPM. After an intervening washout period during which baseline blood pressure was reestablished, patients received the other treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean +/- SD baseline blood pressure before the two ABPM periods were 155 +/- 12/100 +/- 8 mm Hg and 156 +/- 11/101 +/- 9 mm Hg, respectively. Fifteen (75%) patients achieved goal blood pressure with amlodipine and 14 (70%) with valsartan (p=0.62). Final daily dosages were as follows: amlodipine 5 mg in nine patients, 10 mg in five patients, and 10 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide in six patients; valsartan 80 mg in nine patients, 160 mg in four patients, and 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide in seven patients. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was not completed in three patients due to adverse effects: headache and dizziness (one patient each, amlodipine and valsartan) and hyperkalemia (one patient, valsartan). Four patients (20%) in each treatment group had drug-related adverse effects. Results of ABPM including averages for 24-hour, daytime, nighttime, first 4 hours, and last 8 hours, and trough:peak ratios were not significantly different between the amlodipine- and valsartan-based treatments. CONCLUSION: Based on both clinic blood pressure measurements and ABPM data, amlodipine and valsartan produced similar reductions in blood pressure in African-American patients with uncomplicated hypertension.     

Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in the initial treatment of severe hypertension

ABSTRACT

Objective: Most patients with severe hypertension are at high risk for cardiovascular events and require prompt blood pressure (BP)-lowering and combination therapy to achieve BP goals. This study evaluated the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of initial treatment with the combination of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) compared with valsartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension.

Research design and methods: This was a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, forced titration study that compared initial therapy with the combination of valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5?mg (force titrated to 160/25?mg after 2 weeks and to 320/25?mg after 4 weeks) to monotherapy with valsartan 160?mg (force titrated to 320?mg after 2 weeks and sham-titrated to 320?mg after 4 weeks). Eligible patients were 18–80 years old with severe essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP?≥?110?mmHg and <120?mmHg and mean sitting systolic BP?≥?140?mmHg and <200?mmHg). The Clinical Trial Registry number was NCT00273299.

Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy variable was the rate of BP control (mean sitting BP?<?140/90?mmHg) at Week 4. Tolerability was evaluated by monitoring all adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory tests including hematology and biochemistry.

Results: A total of 608 patients were randomized to either valsartan/HCTZ (n?=?307) or valsartan monotherapy (n?=?301). Significantly more patients achieved overall BP control (<140/90?mmHg) with valsartan/HCTZ compared to monotherapy at Week 4 (primary efficacy variable and timepoint) (39.6% vs. 21.8%; p?<?0.0001) and Week 6 (48.2% vs. 27.2%; p?<?0.0001). Mean reductions in BP at Week 4 were significantly greater for valsartan/HCTZ (30.8/22.7?mmHg vs. 21.7/17.5?mmHg; p?<?0.0001), with further reductions at Week 6. BP control rates were greater with combination therapy as early as Week 2. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the combination therapy (34.9%) and monotherapy (36.7%) treatment groups. A potential limitation of the forced-titration design is that some patients were titrated to higher doses despite having achieved goal BP. This may impact the interpretation of the incidence of dose-dependent adverse events.

Conclusions: Initial therapy with valsartan/HCTZ is effective and well tolerated in patients with severe hypertension.     

Losartan

? Losartan binds selectively to the angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor, blocking the activity of angiotensin II. ? Losartan 50–100 mg/day was compared with atenolol 50–100 mg/ day in patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) [n = 9193] in the randomized, double-blind Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study. Two substudies compared these drugs in patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 1195) or isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) [n = 1326]. ? The target BP (‘140/90mm Hg) was achieved in ≈45% of losartan and atenolol recipients in the LIFE study. Significant regression of LVH occurred with losartan versus atenolol in the LIFE study, as well as in the diabetes mellitus and ISH substudies. ? In the LIFE study, although BP reduction was similar for the two treatments, the risk of a cardiovascular event (the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and myocardial infarction; primary endpoint), stroke, or new-onset diabetes mellitus was significantly lower with losartan than with atenolol. ? Losartan was generally well tolerated in patients with hypertension and LVH in the LIFE study. Significantly fewer losartan than atenolol recipients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, drug-related adverse events, or serious, drug-related adverse events.     

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.     

缬沙坦/氢氯噻嗪复方制剂和缬沙坦降压疗效的比较

目的:对比缬沙坦/氢氯噻嗪(缬沙坦80mg/氢氯噻嗪12.5mg)复方制剂与缬沙坦(缬沙坦80mg)治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的谷峰比值(TPR)和平滑指数(SI),评价缬沙坦/氢氯噻嗪的降压疗效。方法:选择轻、中度原发性高血压病患者[SBP≥140mmHg且<160mmHg(1mmHg=0.133kPa),DBP≥95mmHg并且<110mmHg]84例,随机分为缬沙坦/氢氯噻嗪和缬沙坦组,共服药8周,观察服药前后血压及生化指标的变化。结果:治疗8周后,缬沙坦/氢氯噻嗪组和缬沙坦组降压有效率分别为84.2、52.5,达标率分别为73.9、42.9,两组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。缬沙坦/氢氯噻嗪组TPR为SBP76.7、DBP71.2,均>50;SI为SBP1.14±0.39、DBP1.09±0.27,均>1。缬沙坦组的TPR为SBP77.6、DBP71.3,均>50;SI为SBP1.24±0.39、DBP1.19±0.27,均>1。两组的TPR和SI差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:缬沙坦80mg/氢氯噻嗪12.5mg复方制剂治疗轻中度原发性高血压患者疗效优于单用缬沙坦80mg,TPR和SI...     

Efficacy and Safety Study of Olmesartan Medoxomil,Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide Combination Therapy in Patients with Hypertension Not Controlled with Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide Combination Therapy: Results of a Randomized,Double-Blind,Multicenter Trial

Background

This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 20  mg, amlodipine (AML) 5 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg (OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5) in Korean patients with moderate hypertension not controlled with dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5).

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, Korean patients aged 20 to 75 years with stage 2 hypertension who had a mean seated diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ≥100 mmHg were enrolled when their BP was uncontrolled [mean seated systolic BP (msSBP)/msDBP >140/90 mmHg or msSBP/msDBP >130/80 mmHg with diabetes or chronic kidney disease] with 4-week dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5). The patients were randomized to receive either OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 or OM/HCTZ 20/12.5 once daily for 8 weeks. At the end of 8 weeks, patients with uncontrolled BP were assigned to receive either OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 or OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 in an additional 8-week open-label extension period.

Results

A total of 623 patients received a 4-week run-in treatment with OM/HCTZ, 341 patients were randomized, and finally, 167 patients in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and 171 patients in the OM/HCTZ group were analyzed for the full analysis set. Non-responders after the 8 weeks of double-blind treatment continued the 8-week open-label treatment with OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 mg (n = 32) or OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg (n = 71). After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the changes in msDBP were ?9.50 (8.46) mmHg in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and ?4.23 (7.41) mmHg in the OM/HCTZ group (both p < 0.0001 vs. baseline; p < 0.0001 between groups). The response rates for both msSBP and msDBP at week 8 were 65.27 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and 37.43 % in the OM/HCTZ group (p < 0.0001 between groups). The response rates for both msSBP and msDBP at week 16 after open-label treatment were 18.75 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 group and 46.48 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 group (p = 0.0073 between groups). All medications were well tolerated.

Conclusion

In Korean patients with moderate hypertension not controlled with dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5) as first-line therapy, switching to triple FDC therapy (OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5) was associated with significant BP reductions and greater achievement of BP goals, and was well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01838850).

     

Comparative evaluation of effect of valsartan/amlodipine and atenolol/amlodipine combinations on atrial fibrillation recurrence in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of valsartan/amlodipine and atenolol/amlodipine combination in preventing the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertensive diabetic patients with a history of recent paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Two hundred ninety-six hypertensive patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes in sinus rhythm but with at least 2 ECG-documented episodes of AF in the previous 6 months were randomized to 160 mg of valsartan plus amlodipine (titrated from 2.5 to 10 mg) or to 100 mg of atenolol plus amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg) in addition to their previous antiarrhythmic treatment (if any) and were followed up for 1 year. Blood pressure (BP) and a 24-hour ECG were evaluated monthly. The patients were asked to report any episode of symptomatic AF and to perform an ECG as early as possible. SBP/DBP values were significantly reduced after 12 months with valsartan/amlodipine (from 150.4/93.5 to 126.37/7.4 mm Hg, P < 0.001) and atenolol/amlodipine (from 151.1/94.2 to 127.1/77.9 mm Hg, P < 0.001), with no difference between the 2 regimens. At least 1 ECG-documented episode of AF was reported in 20.3% of the patients treated with valsartan/amlodipine and in 34.1% of those treated with atenolol/amlodipine, with a significant difference between treatments (P < 0.01). The positive effect of valsartan/amlodipine combination on AF recurrence was more evident in patients treated with amiodarone or propafenone than in patients treated with other antiarrhythmic drugs or without antiarrhythmic treatment. Despite similar BP reduction, valsartan/amlodipine combination was more effective in patients treated with amiodarone or propafenone than atenolol/amlodipine in preventing new episodes of AF in hypertensive diabetic patients.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy and safety compared to hydrochlorothiazide

Objective: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of a new angiotensin II antagonist, valsartan, with a reference therapy, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Methods: In this double-blind study, 167 adult outpatients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension were randomly allocated in equal number to receive valsartan 80 mg or HCTZ 25 mg for 12 weeks. In patients whose blood pressure (BP) remained uncontrolled after 8 weeks of monotherapy, atenolol 50 mg was added to the initial treatment. Patients were assessed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic BP (SDBP) at 8 weeks. Secondary variables included change in sitting systolic BP (SSBP) and responder rates (percentage of patients with SDBP <90 mmHg or drop ≥10 mmHg compared to baseline) at 8 weeks. Results: Valsartan and HCTZ were both effective at lowering diastolic and systolic blood pressure at all time points. Similar falls were seen in both groups with no significant differences between treatments. For the primary variable (decrease in SDBP) there was no significant difference between treatments. For SSBP there was also no significant difference observed. Responder rates at 8 weeks were 74% for valsartan and 62% for HCTZ (P = 0.10). Both treatments were well tolerated, both as monotherapy, and when combined with atenolol 50 mg per day. Conclusion: The data show valsartan 80 mg to be as effective as HCTZ in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. The results also show valsartan to be well tolerated when taken alone or in combination with atenolol. Received: 7 March 1996 / Accepted in revised form: 29 July 1996     

Amlodipine/Valsartan/Hydrochlorothiazide

Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is a fixed-dose combination of the well established antihypertensive agents amlodipine (a calcium channel antagonist), valsartan (an angiotensin II receptor antagonist), and HCTZ (a thiazide diuretic). In patients with moderate or severe hypertension, triple combination therapy with amlodipine + valsartan + HCTZ produced significantly greater reductions from baseline in mean sitting systolic and diastolic BP (msSBP and msDBP) than either valsartan + HCTZ, amlodipine + HCTZ, or amlodipine + valsartan in a large, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, multinational, phase III trial. Furthermore, the proportion of patients achieving overall BP control at endpoint was significantly greater with the triple combination regimen than with any of the dual regimens, with significantly more triple combination recipients achieving msSBP and msDBP control at each assessment throughout the trial. Subgroup analyses of this study suggested that amlodipine + valsartan + HCTZ was generally more effective in reducing BP and providing overall BP control than the dual combination therapies, irrespective of age, race, gender, ethnicity, or hypertension severity. Several smaller studies provide data that support the efficacy of amlodipine + valsartan + HCTZ in patients whose BP is inadequately controlled with amlodipine + valsartan, amlodipine + HCTZ, or valsartan + HCTZ dual combination therapy. Treatment with amlodipine + valsartan + HCTZ for up to 8 weeks was generally well tolerated in the large, phase III trial, with most adverse events being transient and of mild to moderate severity.     

Once vs twice daily administration of a fixed combination of captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension: a double-blind crossover study in known responders to a standard combination.

The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, crossover trial was to compare the hypotensive effects of a fixed combination of captopril (C) 50 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (C 50/HCTZ 25) once daily with those of a fixed combination of C 25 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg (C 25/HCTZ 12.5) twice daily. We studied 199 patients (108 M, 91 F) with mild to moderate essential hypertension whose BP was already controlled by the co-administration of C 25 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg twice daily. They were randomly assigned to either C 25/HCTZ 12.5 twice daily during the first 6 weeks and C 50/HCTZ 25 once daily during the second 6 weeks or C 50/HCTZ 25 once daily followed by C 25/HCTZ 12.5 twice daily. Both regimens showed comparable efficacy on office diastolic BP (91.6 vs 91.3 mm Hg). Systolic BP was slightly but significantly higher (P = 0.02) with the once daily formulation (141.2 vs 139.1 mm Hg). Fixed combinations once daily and twice daily resulted in identical working ambulatory BP (133.7 +/- 13/83.6 +/- 8 mm Hg vs 132.4 +/- 11/83.3 +/- 7 mm Hg) without affecting heart rate. Adverse events were reported by 16% of patients and cough was the most common occurring in 7%. In conclusion, these results indicate that the fixed combination of C 50/HCTZ 25 given once daily controls office and working BP as well as the fixed combination C 25/HCTZ 12.5 given twice daily in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪和氨氯地平治疗高血压伴左室肥厚的临床对比观察

目的通过比较缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪和氨氯地平治疗高血压伴左室肥厚(LVH)的临床效果,选出最优的治疗方案。方法将244例高血压伴LVH患者随机分为地平组122例和噻嗪组120例。噻嗪组给予缬沙坦80～160mg/d和氢氯噻嗪12.5～25mg/d,地平组服用缬沙坦80～160mg/d和氨氯地平2.5～10mg/d。记录患者入组时和随访2年后的室间隔舒张末期厚度(IVST)、左室舒张末期内径(LVDD)和舒张末期左室后壁厚度(LVPT),以及不良发应和随访期间发生的心血管事件。结果 2组患者治疗2年后IVST、LVDD及LVPT水平均优于入组时,差异均有统计学差异(P<0.05);但2组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。地平组胃肠道反应和总不良反应发生率均低于噻嗪组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。地平组心力衰竭、严重心律失常及心血管事件总发生率均低于噻嗪组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪和氨氯地平治疗高血压伴LVH效果相当,但联合氨氯地平更能降低心血管事件的发生率,不良反应更少,预后更好,患者获益更多。     

Effects of valsartan and perindopril combination therapy on left ventricular hypertrophy and aortic arterial stiffness in patients with essential hypertension

Objective To compare the effects of combined therapy of an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB; valsartan) and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI; perindopril) on blood pressure (BP), metabolic profiles, plasma brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, echocardiographic findings, and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) with those of respective monotherapy in never-treated patients with essential hypertension.Methods This was a prospective randomized trial, in which there were 31 patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) who visited the outpatient clinic of Oita Red Cross Hospital (14 women and 17 men; mean±SD age, 59±5 years). Each patient was randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/day, V group, n=10), perindopril (8 mg/day, P group, n=11), or a combination of valsartan (80 mg/day) and perindopril (4 mg/day, V+P group, n=10) for 40 weeks. Ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), echocardiographic findings, metabolic findings, plasma BNP levels, and brachial-ankle PWV (baPWV) were evaluated before and after the 40-week therapy.Results The baseline and post-therapeutic BP levels were similar among the three groups. At baseline ABPM, non-dipping was observed in 80, 82, and 80% in the V, P, and V+P groups, respectively. Each 40-week therapy regimen comparably reduced ABP. The plasma BNP levels (P<0.0001 for each), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (P<0.01 for each), and PWV values (P<0.0001 for each) were also reduced. However, when compared with either V or P group, the percentage reduction in LVMI (P<0.05 and P<0.005, respectively), BNP (P<0.05 for each), and baPWV values (P<0.005 and P<0.001, respectively) was greater in the V+P group.Conclusions Our findings suggest that, when compared with each monotherapy, perindopril and valsartan combination therapy exerts greater beneficial effects regarding the regression of LVH, reduction in BNP, and improvement of PWV in a selected group of essential hypertensive patients with LVH and high prevalence of non-dipping patterns.     

A comparison of felodipine and propranolol as additions to hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension

Summary Eighty one patients with uncomplicated hypertension who required additional antihypertensive medication (diastolic Phase V [dBP]95 mm Hg) after 4 weeks treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg o.m. were randomized to receive felodipine 5 mg b.i.d. (n=40) or propranolol (n=41) 80 mg b.i.d. in addition to HCTZ 25 mg o.m. If the dBP measured about 12 h post-dose was not 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks, the dose of felodipine or propranolol was doubled. The double blind trial period was 8 weeks for all patients.Over the 8 week period, felodipine reduced the seated dBP from 100 to 83 mm Hg and propranolol from 101 to 86 mm Hg. The attained seated dBPs were significantly different in the two groups. About one third of patients in each group received the high dose of second-line therapy. After 8 weeks 91% of patients receiving HCTZ+felodipine and 84% receiving HCTZ+propranolol had a dBP 90 mm Hg. Both regimens were well-tolerated with an equal incidence but different pattern of adverse events (felodipine: flushing, headache and peripheral oedema; propranolol: dyspepsia, fatigue and vasospasm).In this 8-week study, felodipine and propranolol were safe and effective second-line antihypertensive drugs when added to hydrochlorothiazide. At the doses selected, felodipine was at least as effective as propranolol.     

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

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

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

Telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in the treatment of essential hypertension

Telmisartan is an angiotensin-II receptor blocker that has demonstrated efficacy in the reduction of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Patients with hypertension commonly require two or more antihypertensives to reduce their blood pressure to safe levels, and the choice of combination therapy should be informed by clinical trial data. Telmisartan is available in fixed-dose combination with hydrochlorothiazide (telmisartan/HCTZ) in doses of 40 mg/12.5 mg and 80 mg/12.5 mg. Telmisartan/HCTZ has been studied in a number of clinical trials in essential hypertension, for the most part using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. It has been compared with monotherapy in full patient populations and in non-responders, and has been compared with other drug combinations. Telmisartan/HCTZ provides significantly greater reductions in blood pressure than monotherapy, and significantly increases the percentage of patients who achieve target blood pressure. The reduction in blood pressure achieved by adding HCTZ to telmisartan is greater than that achieved by adding HCTZ to atenolol, despite the fact that telmisartan and atenolol monotherapy had similar efficacy. Telmisartan/HCTZ provides significantly greater reductions than losartan plus HCTZ in 24-h mean blood pressure, primarily due to a significantly greater effect in the risky, early morning hours. Telmisartan/HCTZ is effective and well-tolerated in the elderly, diabetics and African-American patients. Ongoing studies are comparing the efficacy of telmisartan/HCTZ with valsartan plus HCTZ and amlodipine plus HCTZ in overweight, hypertensive diabetics and in patients with isolated systolic hypertension – two patient groups who are particularly at risk of target organ damage.     

缬沙坦联用依那普利对高血压患者心功能及左心室肥厚的影响

目的探讨缬沙坦联用依那普利,对高血压患者心功能及左心室肥厚的影响。方法45例高血压患者随机分为治疗组23例和对照组22例,观察2组血压,采用彩色超声心动图测定治疗前及治疗12个月后左心功能及左心室参数变化,观察临床疗效及不良反应。结果治疗组治疗后每搏输出量（SV）、每分输出量（CO）、左室射血分数（LVEF）均高于治疗前和对照组（P〈0.05）;左室舒张未期内径（LVDd）、左室收缩未期内径（LVSd）、左室质量指数（LVMI）均下降,与治疗前及对照组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。结论缬沙坦联用依那普利,改善高血压患者心功能及左室肥厚作用优于单独应用依那普利。