Efficacy and Tolerability of Nilvadipine in Combination with an Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Uncontrolled Study

Background: Combination therapy with different classes of antihypertensive drugs often is needed to achieve controlled blood pressure (BP). The combination of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (AIIA) and a calcium antagonist is a preferred option for reducing uncontrolled BP.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of nilvadipine, a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, in combination with an AIIA.Methods: Patients with essential hypertension whose BP was not controlled by an AIIA alone were eligible for this multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled study. One of 3 AIIAs (candesartan cilexetil, losartan potassium, or valsartan) was given for at least 10 weeks before the addition of nilvadipine (daily dose, 4 or 8 mg orally). This combination therapy was given for 8 weeks. BP and heart rate were measured between 2 and 4 weeks before and 0, 4, and 8 weeks after the start of combination therapy. Adverse events were monitored at each visit.Results: Thirty-one patients (18 women [58.1%], 13 men [41.9%]; mean [SD] age, 58.5 [10.5] years) were enrolled. At weeks 4 and 8 of combination therapy, mean systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were significantly decreased (P<0.01) (at week 8, by 22.0 mm Hg and 12.5 mm Hg, respectively). The mean BP-lowering effect did not differ significantly between the 3 AIIAs tested. Pulse pressure also decreased significantly at week 8, by 9.6 mm Hg (P<0.01). The responder rate (ie, the percentage of patients with DBP <90 mm Hg or a decrease in DBP ≥10 mm Hg) was 72.0% at week 8. Three patients experienced a total of 4 adverse events: mild or severe flushing, mild headache, and mild palpitation. All of these symptoms resolved after nilvadipine treatment was discontinued.Conclusions: Nilvadipine in combination with an AIIA showed good antihypertensive efficacy and was well tolerated in the hypertensive patients in this study. This combination also significantly decreased pulse pressure, suggesting that this combination therapy also may have a beneficial effect in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension.     

Comparison of amlodipine and enalapril in the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: an open-label, randomized, parallel-group study

Background: The benefits of treating isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) are well established, but the most appropriate drug choice is still uncertain.Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare amlodipine, a calcium channel blocker, with enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, in the treatment of ISH in a cohort of elderly patients (≥60 years of age).Methods: Ambulatory patients with ISH (seated systolic blood pressure [SBP] >160 mm Hg and <220 mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure [DBP] <95 mm Hg) who had not been treated previously or who had stopped their medication at least 4 weeks before the study were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 5 mg/d or enalapril 10 mg/d. After 4 weeks of treatment, the dose was doubled for those patients whose sitting SBP had not decreased to <150 mm Hg or by >20 mm Hg, and treatment was continued for an additional 4 weeks.Results: A total of 89 patients were randomized to treatment, 46 to amlodipine and 43 to enalapril; 1 patient in the enalapril group died due to ischemic stroke despite adequate blood pressure control. The absolute reductions in seated and standing SBP/DBP were similar with both drugs after 8 weeks: 27 mm Hg/4.6 mm Hg with amlodipine and 23.9 mm Hg/3.9 mm Hg with enalapril (sitting) and 25.1 mm Hg/4.1 mm Hg and 21.3 mm Hg/4.2 mm Hg (standing) with amlodipine and enalapril, respectively (P = NS). At 4 weeks, 24 patients (52.2%) in the amlodipine group and 33 patients (76.7%) in the enalapril group had their medication dose doubled because their SBP was not adequately controlled with the initial dose (P < 0.01). At the end of the study, 24 patients were taking 10 mg amlodipine and 22 patients were taking 5 mg (mean dose 7.6 ± 2.5 mg); 33 patients were taking 20 mg enalapril and 10 patients were taking 10 mg (mean dose 17.8 ± 4.1 mg). Side effects occurred significantly more frequently in the amlodipine group (P = 0.01).Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that amlodipine and enalapril are similarly effective in treating ISH in elderly patients, with few side effects.     

Effects of valsartan treatment on indicators of cardiovascular damage in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients: A prospective, twelve-month, open-label, pilot study

Background: Myocardial fibrosis and dysfunction can be detected in the early phases of organ damage associated with hypertension. Valsartan, an angiotensin-II receptor blocker, is efficacious in lowering blood pressure (BP) and reducing left ventricular mass in patients with hypertension. Levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and procollagen type I carboxy-terminal propeptide (PICP) are correlated with organ damage in patients with overt congestive heart failure; however, few data are available in patients with hypertension.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of 12 months of valsartan treatment on echocardiographic measures and indices of organ damage (NT-proBNP and PICP) in newly diagnosed patients with hypertension.Methods: This was a prospective, open-label, single-center, exploratory study. Patients with newly diagnosed, previously untreated hypertension were treated for 12 months with valsartan 160 mg/d and compared with an equal number of healthy, untreated control subjects. Baseline and follow-up visits at 3, 6, and 12 months included physical examination, systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) measurements, ECG, echocardiography, and NT-proBNP and PICP determination.Results: A total of 20 patients (mean [SD] age, 48.05 [7.29] years) were enrolled and compared with 20 healthy controls (age, 49-6 [6.95] years). Compared with baseline, valsartan was associated with reduced BP in the group with hypertension after 12 months of treatment (mean SBP, 150.05 [11.15] vs 120.00 [8.43] mm Hg, P < 0.001; DBP, 97.80 [8.36] vs 79-50 [4.26] mm Hg, P < 0.001). Compared with the control group, at baseline, the group with hypertension had significantly higher mean left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (119.88 [22.86] vs 87.31 [15.77] g/m²; P < 0.001), relative wall thickness (thickness/radius [h/r] ratio: 0.45 [0.08] vs 0.35 [0.07]; P = 0.001), and NT-proBNP (50.00 [32.01] vs 25.47 [9.69] pg/dL; P = 0.002). PICP was higher, but the difference was not statistically significant (46.10 [15.69] vs 37.50 [7.20] μg/L). After 12 months, treatment with valsartan was associated with significant reductions in all measured parameters compared with baseline (LVMI, 106.51 [17.12] g/m², P = 0.004; h/r, 0.41 [0.07], P = 0.026; NT-proBNP, 22.55 [13.52] pg/dL, P = 0.001; PICP, 35.20 [9-19] μg/L, P < 0.008). At 12 months, patients with hypertension treated with valsartan achieved NT-proBNP and PICP levels not statistically different from those of the healthy controls (NT-proBNP, 22.55 [13-52] vs 25.24 [8.43] pg/dL; PICP, 35.20 [9.19] vs 36.90 [6.41] μg/L).Conclusion: Patients treated with valsartan for 12 months had significant reductions in BP, LVMI, and indices of subclinical organ damage (NT-proBNP and PICP) compared with baseline.     

Effects of Verapamil Slow Release Plus Trandolapril Combination Therapy on Essential Hypertension

Background: Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapy has been recommended for patients with essential hypertension who are unresponsive to monotherapy or as a first-line treatment.Objective: We investigated the effects of a fixed-dose combination of the phenylalkylamine-type calcium channel blocker verapamil slow release (SR)plus the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor trandolapril on blood pressure (BP), serum lipid profile, urinary albumin excretion (UAE), left ventricular mass (LVM), and LVM index (LVMI), as well as the adverse events associated with this treatment.Methods: Patients aged 30 to 65 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension were included in the study. All of the patients received capsules containing combination treatment with verapamil SR 180 mg plus trandolapril 2 mg orally, daily for 12 weeks. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Serum lipid profile, UAE, LVM, LVMI, and body mass index (BMI) were determined at baseline and at the end of the study period. All patients underwent electrocardiography and echocardiography at baseline and week 12. The primary end point of the study was to achieve an SBP/DBP ≤140/≤90 mm Hg (ie, normotensive) during week 12. All adverse events were assessed as mild, moderate, or severe at each visit. According to the response rate at week 12, patients were divided into 2 groups: those who became normotensive (responders) or those who remained hypertensive (SBP/DBP >140/>90 mm Hg; nonresponders).Results: Forty-one patients (29 women, 12 men; mean [SD] age, 47.7 [7.8] years; mean [SD] BMI, 29.4 [3.5] kg/m²) were enrolled. The median durationof hypertension prior to enrollment was 5 months. Mean MAP, SBP, DBP, UAE, total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), LDL-C/highdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio, LVM, LVMI, and BMI decreased significantly after 12 weeks of combination treatment; HR and triglyceride level did not change significantly. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 31.7% of patients, and none were severe or caused any patient to withdraw from the study. The most common adverse events were cough, constipation, headache, and dryness in the throat. Microalbuminuria, which may be a marker of endothelial dysfunction, was found in 7 (17.1%) patients at baseline and regressed significantly after 12 weeks.Conclusions: In this study population, the fixed-dose combination of verapamil-trandolapril was an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive therapy. This combination significantly reduced MAP, BP, TC, LDL-C, LDL-C/HDL-C ratio, UAE, LVM, and LVMI. Also, microalbuminuria decreased after this treatment. Verapamil-trandolapril may be useful in preventing microalbuminuria and left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with essential hypertension.     

Antihypertensive effect of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide versus zofenopril monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension according to their cardiovascular risk level: A post hoc analysis

Background: International guidelines recommend the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, possibly in combination with other antihypertensive drugs, to treat hypertension with associated risk factors.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive effect of the combination of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide versus zofenopril monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, according to their cardiovascular risk level.Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a previously published efficacy and tolerability study. After a 4-week placebo washout, patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-115 mm Hg), aged 18 to 75 years, were randomized at a ratio of 2:1:1 to treatment with zofenopril 30 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or monotherapy with zofenopril 30 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 12 weeks in an international, multicenter, double-blind study. This period was followed by 24 weeks of open-label treatment. Systolic BP [SBP] and DBP were measured by mercury sphygmomanometry, and changes associated with treatment were calculated. Patients' cardiovascular risk was computed using the Heart Score algorithm. Patients were classified in quartiles according to distribution of cardiovascular risk level, and comparisons were limited to the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and zofenopril monotherapy treatment groups. The primary end point was change in office DBP.Results: Two hundred forty-six patients (139 men, 107 women; mean [SD] age, 54 [11] years) were included in the analysis. Mean baseline cardiovascular risk was similar in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the zofenopril monotherapy group (7% vs 9%). DBP and SBP reductions with treatment were significantly greater (both, P < 0.01) with combination treatment than with monotherapy for each quartile of cardiovascular risk. Cardiovascular risk reduction at the end of the 12 weeks of double-blind treatment was greater in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the zofenopril monotherapy group (1.9% vs 0.2%; P < 0.01), particularly in the group of patients with the highest cardiovascular risk at baseline (5.2% vs 2.0%). At the end of the 24-week open-label treatment period, the mean reduction in cardiovascular risk was also significantly greater in the combination treatment group than in the monotherapy group (1.4% vs 0.5%; P < 0.01).Conclusions: In these hypertensive patients, combination treatment with zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide was associated with a significantly greater decrease in BP compared with zofenopril monotherapy, regardless of the patient's cardiovascular risk. The difference between combination treatment and monotherapy was particularly evident for the group of patients at highest risk.     

Poster 22: Comparison between the cardiovascular responses of the 6-minute walk test and that of treadmill testing in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation

Objective: To compare the cardiovascular responses between the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and treadmill exercise test (TET) in patients undergoing a phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation program. Design: Prospective cross-sectional study. Setting: Tertiary care general hospital. Participants: 25 patients with coronary artery disease, functional class 1 based on New York Heart Association classification, who will undergo phase 2 cardiac rehabilitation. Interventions: Patients underwent the 6MWT and the treadmill stress test. Cardiovascular parameters were tabulated, compared, and analyzed. Main Outcome Measures: Peak heart rate, systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures, and mean arterial blood pressure. Results: The cardiovascular responses to the 6MWT were significantly of lower magnitude compared with those of the treadmill stress test. Paired t test revealed significant differences between the means ± SD of the heart rate (6MWT, 89±13; TET, 132±30; P<.00), SBP (6MWT, 134±13; TET, 161±21; P<.05) and DBP (6MWT, 82±9; TET, 94±8; P<.00), and mean arterial blood pressure (6MWT, 117±10; TET, 142±20; P<.01). Conclusion: Care should be taken when interpreting the results of the 6MWT because it may underestimate the true functional capacity of patients with coronary artery disease.     

Effects of the fixed combination of manidipine plus delapril in the treatment of hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy with either component: a phase III, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial

Background: Failure to achieve good blood pressure (BP) control is probably the most important reason for high rates of morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension. Combination therapy has been shown to increase the percentage of patients in whom BP control is achieved. One combination is a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I).Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of the fixed combination of the CCB manidipine and the ACE-I delapril in the treatment of hypertensive patients already given monotherapy with either component but with poor results (ie, insufficient BP control or adverse events [AEs]).Methods: In this Phase III, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial, patients with mild to moderate hypertension were assigned to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 comprised patients whose diastolic BP (DBP) was >90 mm Hg or who experienced AEs with manidipine 20 mg once daily. Group 2 comprised patients who had a DBP >90 mm Hg or who experienced AEs with delapril 30 mg BID. In both groups, patients aged <65 years were to be treated with a fixed combination of manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks, whereas patients aged ≥65 years were to be treated with manidipine 5 mg plus delapril 15 mg once daily for 2 weeks and then manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg once daily for 10 weeks. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. At each visit, systolic blood pressure (SBP), DBP, and heart rate were measured 24 hours after dosing, and AEs were recorded.Results: Group 1 included 154 patients (80 men, 74 women; mean [SD] age, 55 [6] years); group 2 included 158 patients (79 men, 79 women; mean [SD] age, 56 [5] years). Mean BP decreased significantly in both groups (P<0.01). Compared with baseline values, mean SBP/DBP decreased 16.2 (3.8)/10.1 (1.9) mm Hg in group 1 and 15.8 (3.1)/11.0 (1.5) mm Hg in group 2 at the last visit. The success rate—rate of normalized DBP (≤90 mm Hg) and responder rate (DBP reduction ≥10 mm Hg)—was 79% in group 1 and 82% in group 2. The rates of treatment-related AEs were 11% in group 1 and 8% in group 2. In group 1, heart rate significantly increased from baseline only at 2 weeks (P<0.05); in group 2, at each visit (P<0.05) except at week 12. However, none of these differences were clinically significant.Conclusion: In this study population of patients whose BP was not adequately controlled by monotherapy, the fixed combination of manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg, once daily, was effective and well tolerated.     

Effects of barnidipine on blood pressure and left ventricular diastolic function in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome: A 12-week, open-label noncomparison study

Background: Barnidipine is one of a new generation of dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers. Despite evidence of favorable effects on blood pressure (BP) and insulin sensitivity, this drug has rarely been tested in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome (MS).Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of barnidipine on BP and left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients with hypertension and MS.Methods: Consecutive subjects aged 18 to 75 years with systolic BP (SBP) of 140 to 179 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP (DBP) of 90 to 109 mm Hg and MS (based on Adult Treatment Panel III criteria) were assessed for inclusion in the study. Lifestyle changes according to current guidelines were recommended and barnidipine monotherapy 10 mg daily was initiated. All patients entered a 2-week run-in period. After a 6-week treatment period, the daily dosage was doubled for the remainder of the study in patients whose BP remained uncontrolled (≥140/≥90 mm Hg). We assessed the glycolipidic profile and LV structure and function using standard Doppler and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) echocardiography before and after 12 weeks of treatment. Ambulatory BP records and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic tracings were coded and shipped to a central laboratory for blinded analysis. Possible adverse events (AEs) were recorded at predetermined intervals throughout the follow-up period and at unplanned intervals whenever an AE became known to the investigators.Results: Thirty-four consecutive patients were assessed for inclusion. Thirty consecutive patients (20 men, 10 women; mean {SD| age, 55.9 {10.3| years; 5 current smokers) were included in the study. At study entry, mean office SBP was 146 mm Hg, DBP was 87 mm Hg, and heart rate was 72 beats/min. At the study end, mean office SBP/DBP was <140/90 mm Hg in 20 patients (66.7%). From baseline to study end, 24-hour ambulatory BP decreased significantly by 12 and 8 mm Hg for SBP and DBP, respectively (both, P = 0.001). The smoothness index was 0.92 for SBP and 0.82 for DBP. Fasting plasma glucose concentration decreased significantly from 110 to 104 mg/dL (P = 0.001). Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations did not change significantly. From baseline to study end, there were no significant changes in LV structure or systolic function (LV mass, 50.7 vs 50.6 g/ht^2.7; LV diastolic/systolic diameters, 47.50/29.80 vs 48.40/30.76 mm; wall motion score index, 1.0 vs 1.0; ejection fraction, 61% vs 60%), while the peak E/A velocity ratio on TDI increased from 1.078 to 1.245 (P = 0.009). No AEs (including AEs reflected by chemistry values) either unrelated or related to treatment were noted during the 12-week duration of the study.Conclusions: In these hypertensive patients with MS, a 12-week treatment period with barnidipine in addition to lifestyle modifications was associated with significant reductions in 24-hour BP and BP variability, reduction in plasma glucose concentration, and improvement in LV diastolic relaxation. No significant changes in lipid concentrations, LV structure, or systolic function were found.     

Efficacy and Tolerability of Delapril Plus Indapamide Versus Lisinopril Plus Hydrochlorothiazide Combination Treatments in Mild to Moderate Hypertension: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Study

Background: Several studies have shown that antihypertensive monotherapy is commonly insufficient to control blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients and that concomitant use of ≥2 drugs is necessary in ∼50% of these patients. The combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a diuretic, delapril plus indapamide (D + I), has been shown to be effective and tolerable, with no interaction between the 2 components. Another widely used combination of ACE inhibitor and diuretic is lisinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (L + H).Objectives: The aims of this study were to confirm the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of D + I in mild to moderate hypertension, and to compare its therapeutic efficacy and tolerability with that of L + H.Methods: The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of D + I (30-mg + 2.5-mg tablets once daily) or L + H (20-mg + 12.5-mg tablets once daily) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension were compared in a multinational, multicenter, randomized, 2-armed, parallel-group study. Eligible patients were aged 18 to 75 years and had a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95 to 115 mm Hg and a systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤180 mm Hg, both measured in the sitting position. After a single-blind, placebo run-in period of 2 weeks, patients were randomized to receive 1 of the 2 treatments for a 12-week period. The primary efficacy end point was the BP normalization rate (ie, the percentage of patients with a sitting DBP ≤90 mm Hg) after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points were as follows: (1) the responder rate (ie, the percentage of patients whose sitting DBP was reduced by ≥10 mm Hg from baseline or had a DBP ≤90 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment), (2) the percentage of patients with a DBP ≤85 mm Hg, and (3) changes in sitting SBP and DBP after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment.Results: A total of 159 hypertensive patients (88 women, 71 men) were randomized to receive D + I (44 women, 36 men; mean [SD] age, 53 [¹¹] years) or L + H (44 women, 35 men; mean [SD] age, 55 [¹⁰] years). No significant between-group differences were found in any of the primary or secondary end points of the study. Both combinations induced a significant reduction in sitting DBP and SBP from baseline (P<0.001 for both groups at week 12), without significant differences between the groups. Five mild to moderate adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred in each treatment group. No patient dropped out of the study because of an ADR.Conclusion: This study showed no difference between D + I and L + H interms of antihypertensive efficacy or tolerability in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Effect of antihypertensive treatment on the prevalence of ventricular arrhythmias among patients with isolated systolic hypertension without left ventricular hypertrophy

Background: The high incidence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is well documented. However, few studies have been conducted on the prevalence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with isolated systolic hypertension without LVH.Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (1) determine the prevalence of ventricular arrhythmias in patients with systolic hypertension without LVH and (2) estimate the effect of a perindopril/indapamide combination, which does not have an antiarrhythmic effect, on the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias.Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed isolated systolic hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >160 mm Hg) and a control group of normotensive patients were enrolled. During the 2-week washout period, patients underwent physical examination (including blood pressure measurements), ambulatory electrocardiography monitoring, echocardiography, and laboratory urine and blood tests. Absence of LVH was confirmed by echocardiographic examination. The group of hypertensive patients received 1 tablet of 2 mg perindopril/0.625 mg indapamide per day for a total of 4 weeks. Physical examinations and ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring were repeated after treatment.Results: A total of 60 hypertensive (mean age, 63.1 years; mean SBP, 176.8 ± 3.1 mm Hg; mean diastolic blood pressure, 82.6 ± 2.9 mm Hg) and 60 normotensive patients were enrolled. Ambulatory electrocardiographic monitoring indicated that 18 of the 60 hypertensive patients (30%) had ventricular arrhythmias: 17 had ventricular premature contractions (>100/24 h) and 1 had ventricular tachycardia plus ventricular premature contractions. In the control group, 7 of 60 subjects (11.7%) had ventricular premature contractions. The difference between the 2 groups in incidence of ventricular arrhythmias was significant (P < 0.01). After treatment, mean SBP decreased to 136.1 ± 3.2 mm Hg, and ventricular premature contractions were found in 9 of 60 hypertensive patients (15%) (P < 0.02 vs pretreatment).Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that in patients with isolated systolic hypertension without LVH, (1) the prevalence of ventricular arrhythmia is higher than in normotensive patients and (2) treatment with perindopril/indapamide decreases the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias.     

Evaluation of long-term efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan in elderly hypertensive patients with renal impairment in an open-label study

Background: Hypertension, left untreated, can lead to serious complications, including stroke myocardial infarction, and renal failure. Because lowering blood pressure correlates with slowing of renal disease progression, the control of hypertension in the presence of renal disease is essential.Objective: We evaluated the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of irbesartan alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents in elderly patients with hypertension and chronic renal insufficiency.Methods: Patients > 65 years of age with hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] 90-115 mm Hg) and chronic renal sufficiency that was mild (creatinine clearance [CrCL] 30-60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) or moderate to severe CrCL 10-29 mL/min per 1.73 m²) were enrolled. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, irbesartan was administered for 12 months at 150 mg/d. After 4 weeks of therapy, patients whose blood pressure was not adequately controlled (ie, SiDBP ≥90 mm Hg or <5 mm Hg decrease from baseline) had an additional antihypertensive agent added to their daily irbesartan regimen; dosage adjustment of the second drug was permitted after 2 weeks to optimize blood pressure control. Twenty-four-hour CrCL was determined, and renal clearance studies of inulin and p-aminohippurate were performed in a subset of patients.Results: A total of 32 patients (21 men, 11 women; mean age, 70.4 years) were enrolled. Thirty patients had mild renal insufficiency (mean CrCL, 44.45 mL/min per 1.73 m²) and 2 patients had moderate to severe renal insufficiency (mean CrCL 21.32 mL/min per 1.73 m²). Trough sitting blood pressures were reduced at the end of the first week of treatment in all groups. After 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 1 year of treatment, the mean reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were −11.9/−8.7 mm Hg, −10.8/−9.4 mm Hg, and −14.7/−12.1 mm Hg, respectively, in patients with mild renal insufficiency and −7.7/−6.3 mm Hg, −13.1/−11.8 mm Hg, and −14.1/−10.6 mm Hg in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency. CrCL, glomerular filtration rate, and effective renal plasma flow, as measured in a subset of 11 patients, were stable. Treatment was discontinued for 3 patients because of a clinical adverse event or laboratory parameter abnormality. Hyperkalemia (>6 mEq/L) requiring discontinuation of irbesartan occurred in 1 patient with moderate to severe renal insufficiency.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that irbesartan, as monotherapy (150 mg once daily) or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs, is effective in reducing blood pressure in elderly hypertensive patients with chronic renal impairment and that irbesartan regimens are well tolerated in this population.     

Effects of amlodipine and candesartan on arterial stiffness estimated by cardio-ankle vascular index in patients with essential hypertension: A 24-week study

Background: Aortic stiffness assessed by brachio-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) can be used to predict cardiovascular events. However, baPWV is dependent on blood pressure. Antihypertensive drugs have been reported to reduce baPWV; but it is difficult to determine if this effect is associated with lowered blood pressure or reduced arterial stiffness.Objectives: The primary end point of this study was to assess whether antihypertensive drugs reduce arterial stiffness as estimated by cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI). The secondary end point was to compare the effects of 2 widely used drugs, the calcium-channel blocker amlodipine and the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan, on arterial stiffness.Methods: Between October 2005 and September 2006, consecutive Japanese outpatients with essential hypertension (EHT) (defined as using antihypertensive drugs at screening, systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 140 mm Hg, or diastolic BP [DBP] >90 mm Hg) were assigned to treatment for 24 weeks with either amlodipine (5-10 mg/d) or candesartan (8-12 mg/d). Arterial stiffness was evaluated with CAVI before and after 24 weeks of treatment. Relative change in arterial stiffness from baseline was also compared. The evaluator was blinded to treatment.Results: Twenty patients (11 men, 9 women; mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years) were included in the study. There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics between the 2 groups. At baseline, mean (SD) CAVI was not significantly different in the amlodipine group compared with the candesartan group (8.93 [0.93] vs 8.46 [1.34], respectively). During the 24-week treatment period, mean SBP and DBP decreased significantly in both the amlodipine (14/10 mm Hg; P = 0.006 and P = 0.005) and the candesartan groups (13/11 mm Hg; P = 0.033 and P = 0.005). Amlodipine was associated with a significant change in CAVI from baseline (8.93 [0.93] vs 8.60 [1.50]; P = 0.017), whereas candesartan was not (8.46 [1.34] vs 8.81 [1.20]). The percentage change in CAVI was significantly different in the amlodipine group compared with the candesartan group (−7.14 [8.83] vs 5.85 [16.0], respectively; P = 0.038). After 24 weeks of treatment, the CAVI of the amlodipine group was still numerically larger than baseline CAVI of the candesartan group, although the difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in absolute CAVI between the 2 groups after 24 weeks, but the relative change from baseline was significant in favor of amlodipine. Logistic regression analysis revealed that amlodipine improved CAVI independent of its antihypertensive effect.Conclusion: These data suggest that amlodipine and candesartan had different effects on aortic stiffness estimated by CAVI, despite similar effects on brachial blood pressure after 24 weeks of treatment in these Japanese patients with EHT.     

Efficacy and tolerability of amifostine in elderly cancer patients

Background: Amifostine is a cytoprotective agent used to prevent cisplatin nephrotoxicity. It is associated with dose-limiting acute toxicities of emetic symptoms (nausea and vomiting) and transient hypotension.Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the efficacy and tolerability of amifostine in elderly cancer patients.Methods: This 18-month, prospective, comparative study was conducted at the Department of Internal Medicine, Adnan Menderes University Hospital (Aydin, Turkey). Adult (aged 40−<85 years) hospitalized patients with advanced-stage cancer without comorbid diseases were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups: age <70 years (group 1) and ≥70 years (group 2). All patients were treated with amifostine + cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT). Amifostine 910 mg/m² (maximum, 1500 mg) was administered as a 15-minute IV infusion. Clinical systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively) were measured at 0 minute (baseline), at 8 and 15 minutes of amifostine infusion, and at 30 minutes after the start of amifostine infusion. In addition to physical examination, chest radiography, electrocardiography, blood chemistry (including serum electrolytes and renal function tests), complete blood count, and complete urinalyses were performed before each CT administration and at the post-CT day of toxicity assessment.Results: Thirty-five consecutive patients were enrolled (22 men, 13 women; mean [SD] age, 61 [12] years; group 1, n = 22; group 2, n = 13). Patients received a total of 153 CT cycles (median, 4 cycles/patient; group 1, 96 cycles; group 2, 57 cycles). Amifostine caused significant SBP and DBP reductions at 8 minutes of infusion compared with baseline in groups 1 (both P < 0.001) and 2 (P = 0.002 and P = 0.006, respectively). Overall, 20 patients (57.1%) experienced ≥ 1 symptomatic hypotensive episode; these rates were not significantly different between groups 1 (11 cases, 50.0%) and 2 (9 cases, 69.2%). Amifostine infusion was interrupted a similar number of times (6 times in group 1 and 4 times in group 2 [6.3% and 7.0% of administrations, respectively]) due to hypotension, but could be restarted in all. At 15 minutes, mean SBP and DBP values were not significantly different from baseline in either group. The mean baseline SBP values were similar between groups at baseline, and, overall, the differences in mean SBP and DBP values were not significant between groups at any time point. All other toxicities were comparable, and serum creatinine concentrations did not change significantly from baseline with CT in either group.Conclusions: In this study of the efficacy and tolerability of amifostine in elderly patients with advanced-stage cancer without comorbid diseases, amifostine was effective in reducing cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity, with transient systolic and diastolic hypotension being the most prominent adverse effect. All other toxicities were either low grade or preventable. No significant differences in amifostine tolerability or toxicities were observed between the study groups.     

Effects of orlistat, simvastatin, and orlistat + simvastatin in obese patients with hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, open-label trial

Background: Many obese patients have comorbidities that worsen their prognoses, particularly if hypercholesterolemia is present. In these patients, dietary restrictions are not sufficient to reduce hypercholesterolemia and lose body weight.Objective: This 1-year, single-center, randomized, open-label study assessed the effects of diet and exercise plus treatment with orlistat, simvastatin, and orlistat + simvastatin on lipid profile, body composition, and blood pressure in obese patients with hypercholesterolemia.Methods: Obese, normotensive patients with hypercholesterolemia aged > 45 years were eligible. Patients were prescribed a restricted-calorie diet and were randomized to receive orlistat 120 mg TID (group O), Simvastatin 20 mg/d (group S), or orlistat 120 mg TID plus simvastatin 20 mg/d (group OS) for 1 year. Serum total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), highdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglyceride (TG) levels; body mass index (BMI); waist-circumference reduction (WCR); body weight loss (BWL); and diastolic blood pressure (DBF) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were measured at baseline and after 6 months and 1 year of treatment.Results: We enrolled 87 patients (45 women, 42 men; mean age, 55 years). Four patients dropped out due to nontransient adverse events. After 1 year of treatment, significant improvements were found in all measured parameters in all treatment groups versus baseline values, except for HDL-C in group O. Significant between-group differences at 1 year included the following: TC, LDL-C, and TG levels and BMI, WCR, and BWL were significantly decreased in group OS versus groups O and S; DBP was significantly decreased in group OS versus group O; SBP and DBF were significantly decreased in group OS versus group S. HDL-C was significantly increased in group OS but not in groups O and S. Five patients in group O and 1 patient in group OS experienced transient gastrointestinal adverse events.Conclusions: In this study population, all 3 treatments produced significant improvements in most measured parameters from baseline. The combination treatment showed significantly greater reductions in serum TC and LDL-C levels, BMI, WCR, and BWL than with either orlistat or simvastatin alone. Small but significant differences in blood pressure were found with combination treatment.     

Effects of fosinopril on blood pressure, lipid profile, and lipoprotein(a) levels in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria: An open-label, uncontrolled study

Background: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus often have other cardiovascular risk factors, and alterations in lipid profile play an important role. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are often used in these patients, particularly those with type 2 diabetes and proteinuria.Objective: This study evaluated the effects of fosinopril therapy on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), lipid profile, and lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), levels in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria.Methods: Normotensive (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <130 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [DBP] <85 mm Hg) patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria and a normal lipid profile were enrolled. Patients had their diabetes controlled by diet alone or diet plus oral hypoglycemic agents. Fosinopril 10 mg/d was administered for 6 months and then interrupted for 1 month. FPG, glycosylated hemoglobin, SBP, DBP, lipid profile (total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides), Lp(a), albumin excretion rate (AER), and creatinine levels were evaluated at baseline; 1, 3, and 6 months after initiation of treatment; and 1 month after interruption of treatment.Results: A total of 120 patients were enrolled (63 men, 57 women; mean age ± SD, 54 ± 10 years; duration of diabetes, 7 ± 2 years). Significant decreases versus baseline were observed in the following parameters at month 6: SBP (122 ± 7 vs 117 ± 9.1 mm Hg, P < 0.01), DBP (80 ± 4.8 vs 74 ± 4.5 mm Hg, P < 0.05), TC (186 ± 11 vs 176 ± 10 mg/dL, P < 0.05), LDL-C (124 ± 10 vs 114 ± 11 mg/dL, P < 0.05), Lp(a) (24 ± 10 vs 19 ± 7.5 mg/dL, P < 0.05), and AER (103 ± 45 vs 48 ± 21 mg/24 hours, P < 0.01). When fosinopril therapy was interrupted for 1 month, the values for all these parameters tended to return to baseline values; SBP, TC, and Lp(a) values were significantly different from month 6 values, whereas DBP, LDL-C, and AER did not change significantly during the washout period.Conclusions: Fosinopril therapy for 6 months resulted in a reduction of microalbuminuria and an improvement in lipid profile and Lp(a) levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. This suggests that fosinopril may improve lipid profile and reduce Lp(a) levels by lowering proteinuria or by other more direct actions on lipid and Lp(a) metabolism. Additional controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.     

Comparison of the efficacy, tolerability, and smoothness indexes of two nifedipine formulations: a randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, controlled trial

Background: Nifedipine is an effective dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist used in the treatment of high blood pressure (BP), although side effects related to its potency and short half-life have led to development of a sustained-release formulation, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (N-GITS) with osmotic pump.Objective: This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and smoothness indexes of 2 formulations of nifedipine—N-GITS and slow-release microgranules (N-MG)—in patients with hypertension.Methods: This was a randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, controlled trial in outpatients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic BP [DBP] >90 and <115 mm Hg). Patients were randomized to receive either N-GITS 30 mg plus N-MG placebo or N-MG 30 mg plus N-GITS placebo once daily for 12 weeks. In patients who had not achieved adequate BP control (DBP <90 mm Hg or a decrease in DBP of >10 mm Hg compared with baseline) at week 3, the dose of the respective formulations was increased to 60 mg once daily for the remainder of the trial. The primary end point was change in mean BP over 24 hours. In addition, the smoothness indexes of both formulations were compared between groups to evaluate the homogeneity of their antihypertensive effects. Tolerability was assessed in terms of the incidence of adverse events.Results: Fifty-four outpatients (44 women, 10 men; mean age, 54 years) were enrolled, 26 in the N-GITS-treated group and 28 in the N-MG-treated group. A decrease in mean BP over 24 hours was observed in both groups, with no significant differences between groups. The N-GITS-treated group showed a slight but statistically significant increase in heart rate (HR) at 12 weeks (P = 0.017); the N-MG-treated group showed a slight but statistically significant decrease in HR (P = 0.03). Smoothness index values (mean ± SD) for active drug versus comparison-drug placebo in all patients (including nonresponders) were 0.466 ± 0.5 for the N-GITS—treated group and 0.459 ± 0.4 for the N-MG—treated group. The corresponding smoothness index values when nonresponders (N-GITS, 1 nonresponder, 25 responders; N-MG, 3 nonresponders, 25 responders) were excluded were 0.716 ± 0.5 and 0.707 ± 0.7, respectively. No statistically significant difference in smoothness index was found between the 2 groups.Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that N-GITS and N-MG have similar therapeutic effects and smoothness indexes.     

Comparison of candesartan and felodipine alone and combined in the treatment of hypertension: a single-center, double-blind, randomized, crossover trial

Background: In the past decade, many studies have indicated that the combination of low doses of different classes of antihypertensive agents may be more efficacious than monotherapy while minimizing the likelihood of dose-dependent adverse effects (AEs).Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether combination therapy with lower doses of candesartan and a calcium antagonist, felodipine, would be more effective and tolerable in controlling mild to moderate hypertension compared with either drug used alone.Methods: In this 18-week, single-center, double-blind, crossover study, patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups after a 2-week placebo washout period. Patients in group 1 received candesartan 16 mg once daily and patients in group 2 received felodipine 5 mg once daily, for 6 weeks. All patients then received half-dose combination therapy (candesartan 8 mg plus felodipine 2.5 mg, once daily) for 6 weeks. Finally, patients received 6 weeks of monotherapy with the alternate medication (group 1 received felodipine 5 mg once daily and group 2 received candesartan 16 mg once daily).Results: Thirty patients (18 men, 12 women; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [4.9] years; range, 39-62 years) were included in the study. During both monotherapy periods, candesartan and felodipine significantly reduced blood pressure (BP) (both P<0.001). BP further decreased with combination therapy (P<0.001 in both groups). Overall, 90.0% (27/30) of the patients achieved the target BP at the end of combination therapy. The incidence of AEs was similar with combination therapy compared with either monotherapy.Conclusions: In this study population, candesartan and felodipine had additive effects when used in combination, even at low doses, in the treatment of hypertension. Therefore, the combination of candesartan and felodipine is an effective alternative to that of candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide.     

Effects of Valsartan on Inflammatory and Oxidative Stress Markers in Hypertensive, Hyperglycemic Patients: An Open-Label, Prospective Study

Background: Diabetes mellitus and hypertension are aggravated by activation of the renin-angiotensin system caused by increased oxygen stress and local inflammatory responses. Several studies have suggested that angiotensin II type 1 receptors can reduce inflammatory markers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], interleukin [IL]-6, IL-18, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule [VCAM]-I, and l-selectin) and oxidative stress markers (urinary 8-hydroxy-7,8-dihydro-2'-deoxyguanosine [8-OHdG] and 8-epi-prostaglandin F_2α [8-isoprostane]) in hypertensive patients.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, on inflammatory and oxidative stress markers in hypertensive patients with mild diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance.Methods: In this open-label, prospective study, hypertensive patients aged >20 years with mild diabetes (requiring treatment by diet alone or an oral hypoglycemic), seen on an outpatient basis at the Division of Diabetes, Metabolism, and Endocrinology, Omori Hospital, Toyko, Japan, who were receiving a therapeutic dietary regimen for ≥1 month in the treatment of diabetes or hypertension, were eligible for enrollment. Blood pressure, inflammatory markers (hs-CRP, IL-6, IL-18, VCAM-1, and L-selectin), and oxidative stress markers (urinary 8-OHdG and 8-isoprostane) were monitored before treatment commencement with valsartan (40-80 mg/d) and after 3 months of treatment.Results: A total of 26 patients (18 men, 8 women; mean [SD] age, 57.7 [11.3] years; mean [SD] weight, 65.3 [13.1] kg) were enrolled in the study. After 3 months of treatment, patients' mean (SD) blood pressure had significantly decreased from 153.1 (11.2)/88.3 (11.4) to 143.7 (13.7)/85.2 (9.0) mm Hg (P < 0.05). Among the inflammatory and oxidative stress markers, hs-CRP, VCAM-1, and urinary 8-OHdG concentrations decreased significantly from 0.231 (0.199) to 0.134 (0.111) mg/dL (P = 0.043), 471.1 (193.9) to 403.2 (135.2) ng/mL (P = 0.012), and 12.12 (5.99) to 8.07 (3.36) ng/mg · creatinine (P = 0.001), respectively. The reductions in these markers were observed in patients regardless of whether or not their glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) concentration improved (defined as a decrease of ≥1% in HbA_1c).Conclusion: This small, open-label, prospective study found that a 3-month treatment with valsartan was associated with a significant reduction of hs-CRP, VCAM-1, and urinary 8-OHdG concentrations independent of improvement in HbA_1c concentration in these hypertensive patients with hyperglycemia.     

Ambulatory Blood Pressure Response to Once-Daily Fimasartan: An 8-Week,Multicenter, Randomized,Double-Blind,Active-Comparator,Parallel-Group Study in Korean Patients With Mild To Moderate Essential Hypertension

Background

Fimasartan, a selective angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, was approved in Korea for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 24-hour blood pressure (BP) profiles before and after 8-week treatment with fimasartan and to compare them with those of valsartan.

Methods

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Korean patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were enrolled and randomly received once-daily oral fimasartan 60 or 120 mg or valsartan 80 mg for 8 weeks. ABPM was performed before and after 8-week treatment, and clinic BP was also measured. Based on ABPM data, trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index were derived. Tolerability was monitored throughout the study.

Results

Ninety-two patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 54.1 [8.2] years; weight, 67.9 [10.2] kg). After 8 weeks, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs (SBP and DBP, respectively) were significantly decreased in all 3 treatment groups (range: SBP, –9.2 to –15.6 mm Hg; DBP, –5.0 to –10.7 mm Hg; P <0.0001–<0.05). The global trough-to-peak ratios of ambulatory DBP in the fimasartan groups were 0.74 (60 mg/d) and 0.81 (120 mg/d)—45.1% and 58.8% higher, respectively, than the ratio of 0.51 in the valsartan group. Fimasartan 60 mg/d was associated with 53.5% (SBP) and 68.3% (DBP) greater smoothness index scores compared with those with valsartan 80 mg/d (SBP, 1.52 vs. 0.99; DBP, 1.38 vs. 0.82). The decrease in clinic-measured DBP was significantly greater in the fimasartan 60-mg/d group compared with that in the valsartan 80-mg/d group (–14.0 vs –8.7 mm Hg; P = 0.0380). Fimasartan was well tolerated; headache was the most common adverse event.

Conclusion

Once-daily fimasartan effectively maintained a BP-reduction profile over the full 24-hour dosing interval; this profile was comparable to or slightly better than that of once-daily valsartan. Fimasartan was well tolerated; headache was the most common adverse event. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00922441.