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

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

Efficacy and safety of delapril plus manidipine compared with enalapril plus hydrochlorothiazide in mild to moderate essential hypertension: results of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The use of combination therapy is required to achieve blood pressure targets in 40% to 75% of patients with hypertension. There have been few studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of the new fixed combination of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor delapril 30 mg and the calcium channel antagonist manidipine 10 mg with those of a standard combination of another ACE inhibitor and a diuretic. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of delapril 30 mg given alone or with manidipine 10 mg with those of enalapril 20 mg given alone or with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. After an initial 2-week placebo run-in period, patients aged 18 to 75 years with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or =90 and < or =109 mm Hg were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive delapril or enalapril for 8 weeks. After the initial 8 weeks, nonresponders (DBP > or =85 mm Hg) received an additional 8 weeks of treatment with a fixed combination of delapril + manidipine or enalapril + HCTZ; patients whose DBP was normalized continued their initial monotherapy through the end of the study. The primary efficacy variable was the change in sitting DBP at the end of treatment. Secondary efficacy variables were the percentage of patients whose DBP was normalized (DBP Z:85 mm Hg) and the percentage of responders (> or =10-mm Hg reduction in DBP or DBP <85 mm Hg). RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients (84 men, 76 women) were randomized to receive delapril (n = 106) or enalapril (n = 54). After 16 weeks of treatment, the mean (SD) reduction in DBP was similar with the 2 treatments (delapril, -14 [8] mm Hg; enalapril, -15 [8] mm Hg). In the delapril and enalapril groups, DBP was normalized in a respective 55 (51.9%) and 29 (53.7%) patients, and 77 (72.6%) and 38 (70.4%) were responders; there was no significant difference between groups. Tolerability was also similar in both groups--10 (9.4%) patients in the delapril group and 5 (9.3%) in the enalapril group experienced adverse events that were judged related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that delapril alone or combined with manidipine is well tolerated and as effective as enalapril alone or combined with HCTZ in lowering blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

Association between human atrial natriuretic peptide Val7Met polymorphism and baseline blood pressure, plasma trough irbesartan concentrations, and the antihypertensive efficacy of irbesartan in rural Chinese patients with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND: Individual variations in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antihypertensive drugs are influenced by genetic and environmental factors. The ANP gene, which encodes the precursor of atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), is among the candidate genes for genetic susceptibility to hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the relationship between ANP Val7Met polymorphism (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism database ID: rs5063) and baseline blood pressure (BP), plasma trough irbesartan concentrations, and the antihypertensive efficacy of irbesartan in rural Chinese patients with essential hypertension. METHODS: Patients with essential hypertension who had taken no antihypertensive medications within 4 weeks of study initiation received oral irbesartan 150 mg/d for 4 weeks. Genotyping was performed for all patients. BP was measured before dosing on the 1st and 28th days of treatment. Plasma irbesartan concentrations were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography with fluorescent detection. Antihypertensive efficacy was defined as attainment of a diastolic BP (DBP) <90 mm Hg (DBP analysis), a systolic BP (SBP) <140 mm Hg (SBP analysis), and a DBP <90 mm Hg and SBP <140 mm Hg (DBP and SBP analysis). RESULTS: The study included 756 patients, 621 with the Val/Val genotype and 135 with the Val/Met+Met/Met genotypes. There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, sex, education level, occupation, alcohol consumption, or smoking status between the 2 groups. Patients with the Val/Met+Met/Met genotypes had a significantly lower mean baseline DBP compared with those with the Val/Val genotype (adjusted regression coefficient [SE]: -2.5 [1.0] mm Hg; P = 0.012) and significantly lower mean steady-state plasma trough irbesartan concentrations (adjusted regression coefficient: -12.6 [4.1]; P = 0.002). No significant association was found between antihypertensive efficacy and Val7Met polymorphism in the overall population, but in an analysis by baseline DBP status, patients with the Val/Met+Met/Met genotype a baseline DBP > or =100 mm Hg had significantly smaller reductions in DBP (adjusted regression coefficient: -5.7 [1.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001) and SBP compared with those with the Val/Val genotype and a baseline DBP > or =100 mm Hg (adjusted regression coefficient: -9.8 [2.9] mm Hg; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study suggest that in these rural Chinese patients with essential hypertension, ANP Val7Met polymorphism may be a genetic marker for baseline DBP, plasma irbesartan concentrations, and the antihypertensive efficacy of short-term irbesartan therapy.     

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.     

Manidipine versus enalapril monotherapy in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure reduction is associated with a reduced risk for cardiovascular events and death, particularly in patients with both hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and effect on metabolic risk factors of manidipine, a new dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, and enalapril, a widely used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind trial compared manidipine and enalapril in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-104 mm Hg, systolic blood pressure [SBP] < or =190 mm Hg). Following a 3-week, single-blind placebo run-in period, eligible patients were randomized to receive either manidipine 10 mg or enalapril 10 mg once daily for 24 weeks. The dose was doubled after 3 weeks in patients who had not responded to treatment (DBP > or =90 mm Hg). The primary efficacy end point was change in DBP from baseline to the end of the study. Secondary outcomes were the responder rate (DBP <90 mm Hg and/or a DBP reduction of > or =10 mm Hg) at the end of the study. Other secondary measures were changes from baseline to the end of the study in heart rate and in the following measures obtained by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM): 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime mean DBP and SBP, and the trough:peak ratio. Blood glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, uric acid, and creatinine were measured at the end of the placebo run-in period and the end of treatment. The study had 80% power to detect a between-treatment difference in mean sitting DBP of >3 mm Hg. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study. After the placebo run-in period, 13 patients were excluded from the study: 4 for DBP values outside the specified limits, 7 at their request, and 2 for adverse events. Thus, 111 patients met the eligibility criteria and were randomized to treatment (53 manidipine, 58 enalapril). The population consisted of 61 men and 50 women with a mean (SD) age of 62 (11) years and a body mass index of 28.2 (2.4) kg/m2. Among patients who completed the study, drug doses were doubled in 67.6% (25/37) of patients in the manidipine group and 60.0% (24/40) of patients in the enalapril group (P = NS). Similar reductions in blood pressure were observed in both groups, from a mean (SD) of 164 (12)/97.5 (5) mm Hg at baseline to 141 (12)/84.5 (6) mm Hg at the end of the study in the manidipine group (P < 0.01), and from 159 (12)/98 (4) mm Hg to 139 (12)/86 (8) mm Hg in the enalapril group (P < 0.01). The proportion of responders was 66.7% (32/48) in the manidipine group and 60.0% (30/50) in the enalapril group; the difference between groups was not significant. Twenty-four-hour ABPM revealed significant (P < 0.01) and similar reductions in blood pressure in both groups, with a trough:peak ratio of approximately -50%. Neither drug affected heart rate. Among the statistically significant changes in metabolic parameters, significant reductions in HbA(1c) (from 6.7% [1.4%] to 6.2% [1.1%]) and blood glucose concentrations (from 152 [44] to 143 [44] mg/dL) were observed only in the manidipine group (P < 0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, manidipine was as metabolically neutral and as effective as enalapril in reducing blood pressure in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, providing a sustained 24-hour antihypertensive effect.     

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

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

Dose-related efficacy of irbesartan in patients, with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE: A prospective open multicentre study was conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension to compare the efficacy on diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and tolerance of treatment with either irbesartan 150mg od (once daily) or irbesartan 300mg od in patients who were defined as non-normalised responders with irbesartan 150mg od. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 14 820 hypertensive patients were included in the study. After 6 weeks with irbesartan 150mg od, in terms of their response to treatment, 8861 (61.9%) were normalised (DBP <90mm Hg), 1963 (13.7%) non-normalised responders (DBP > or = 90mm Hg with a decrease in DBP > or = 10mm Hg) and 3154 (22%) non-normalised non-responders (DBP > or = 90mm Hg with a decrease in DBP <10mm Hg); 842 patients did not respect the protocol and could not be evaluated. The 1963 non-normalised responders were randomly assigned at week 6 to either irbesartan 150mg od (n = 963) or irbesartan 300mg od (n = 1000) for 5 weeks. A greater reduction in mean DBP was found in the group treated with irbesartan 300mg (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in terms of number or severity of adverse events between the two groups of patients.     

Once-daily fixed-combination irbesartan 300 mg/ hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and circadian blood pressure profile in patients with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND: More than 60% of patients with hypertension included in morbidity and mortality trials needed >or=2 drugs to achieve a substantial, sustained reduction in blood pressure. Tolerable combinations using higher doses of antihypertensive drugs are frequently required to control blood pressure. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the effect of a once-daily fixed combination of irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg on the circadian blood pressure profile in patients with essential hypertension that was not controlled with full-dose single therapy or low-dose combined therapy. METHODS: Study patients were recruited consecutively from the outpatient hypertension clinics of 3 university hospitals in Spain. After a 1-week washout period, patients with a mean daytime blood pressure >135/85 mm Hg were treated with irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 mg once daily for 12 weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at the end of the washout period and during the last week of treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with essential hypertension (28 men, 29 women) were enrolled; their mean (SD) age was 60.4 (7.2) years (range, 45-78 years). After treatment, a significant reduction in both clinic and ambulatory mean (SD) blood pressure values was observed in the whole group of 57 patients (from 146.0 [11.0] mm Hg to 123.3 [13.3] mm Hg, P < 0.001 for 24-hour systolic blood pressure [SBP]; from 89.9 [8.2] mm Hg to 76.5 [9.4] mm Hg, P < 0.001 for 24-hour diastolic blood pressure [DBP]. The mean lowering of ambulatory SBP and DBP at peak was 25.2 (14.5) mm Hg and 14.7 (9.5) mm Hg, respectively, and at trough, 22.3 (18.3) mm Hg and 12.3 (10.9) mm Hg. The trough-to-peak ratio of the group was 0.92 for SBP (0.97 in responders) and 0.84 for DBP (0.89 in responders). The smoothness index, calculated as the mean of all individual values, was 1.7 (1.0) for SBP (1.8 [0.9] in responders) and 1.3 (0.8) for DBP (1.5 [0.6] in responders). Seven side effects in 6 patients were reported. No metabolic changes were observed, and no patient discontinued the study because of treatment-related adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combination of irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 administered once daily produced a crude meaningful effect in reducing 24-hour blood pressure and was well tolerated. The circadian profile was preserved, as shown by trough-to-peak ratios and smoothness index values for both SBP and DBP.     

Efficacy of valsartan in patients aged > or =65 years with systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial investigated the effects of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, on systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients aged > or =65 years with systolic hypertension, with or without diastolic hypertension. BACKGROUND: Hypertension in older persons is a public health problem of epidemic proportions. SBP, which increases with age, is a better predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and all-cause mortality than is diastolic blood pressure (DBP). SBP is now thought to be a major modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The study population consisted of 146 outpatients (74 female and 72 male) with a mean (+/- SD) age of 73.0+/-6.7 years and a trough mean sitting SBP > or =160 mm Hg; 88.4% were white. Patients with clinically relevant cardiac valvular disease, documented or suspected renal artery stenosis, and a serum creatinine level >2.5 mg/dL were excluded from the study. After a 2- to 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive valsartan 80 mg or placebo once daily for 4 weeks and were then force-titrated to valsartan 160 mg or matching placebo once daily for an additional 4 weeks. Median DBP was 90 mm Hg, and >50% of the patients had isolated systolic hypertension. RESULTS: For the primary efficacy variable, the change from baseline to end point in trough mean sitting SBP, treatment with valsartan was superior to placebo, with reductions of 19.2 mm Hg compared with 8.8 mm Hg, respectively (P < 0.001, 95% CI -15.7, -5.5). Valsartan also produced superior reductions in trough mean sitting DBP (5.2 mm Hg and 1.2 mm Hg for valsartan and placebo, respectively; P < 0.001, 95% CI -6.4, -2.3). The tolerability of valsartan was comparable to that of placebo, with adverse events occurring in 31 (42.5%) valsartan-treated patients compared with 28 (38.4%) patients who received placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient population of hypertensive patients aged > or =65 years, valsartan was effective and well tolerated and offers a promising new approach to the treatment of systolic hypertension.     

安博维与依伦平治疗原发性高血压的比较

目的对安博维与依伦平治疗原发性高血压进行比较研究。方法将132例入选血压90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)≤舒张压(DBP)110 mm Hg,且收缩压(SBP)180 mm Hg的来院治疗的患者分成两组,一组(n=62)加用安博维(厄贝沙坦)150 mg,每日1次;另一组(n=70)加用依伦平(厄贝沙坦150 mg+氢氯噻嗪12.5 mg)片,每日1次,观察8周,对两组血压、心率、血压达标率、降压有效率、不良反应进行比较。结果两组在分组后1周SBP、DBP和脉压(PP)均开始下降,依伦平组在分组后1周,安博维在分组后2周SBP、DBP和PP下降幅度较分组时差异有统计学意义(P0.01);两组间SBP、DBP和PP在整个观察期内相比,同时间随访观察值、心率(HR)差异无统计学意义。结论安博维与依伦平在治疗原发性高血压方面的疗效、安全性和耐受性方面均较好,相比之下依伦平起效更快,降压有效率、达标率更高,是原发性高血压治疗的理想用药。     

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

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

Aliskiren: renin inhibitor for hypertension management

Background: The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has long been recognized to play a significant role in hypertension pathophysiology. Certain agents that modify the RAAS can control blood pressure and improve cardiovascular outcomes. Aliskiren is the first of a new class of antihypertensive agents known as renin inhibitors. Objective: The goal of this article was to discuss the clinical pharmacology of aliskiren and its use in the management of hypertension, as well as potential uses in other cardiovascular disorders. Methods: Peer-reviewed articles and abstracts were identified from the MEDLINE and Current Contents databases (both 1966-October 1, 2007) using the search terms aliskiren, drug interaction, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacology. Citations from available articles were reviewed for additional references. Abstracts presented at recent professional meetings were also examined. Results: Nine published clinical studies have evaluated the effect of aliskiren in lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients, either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents. This review summarizes those studies. Patients treated with alis-kiren had significantly lower blood pressure compared with patients with mild to moderate hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] 140-180 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-110 mm Hg) who received placebo. Aliskiren in doses of 75 to 300 mg daily produced reductions of SBP (-5.3 to -15.8 mm Hg) and DBP (-5.8 to -12.3 mm Hg); placebo produced reductions of SBP that ranged from -2.85 to -10.0 mm Hg and DBP reductions from -3.26 to -8.6 mm Hg (P < 0.05 in all studies between aliskiren and placebo). Aliskiren's blood pressure-lowering effect at doses of 75 to 300 mg daily was comparable to irbesartan 150 mg daily and valsartan 80 to 360 mg daily alone. When aliskiren was added to ramipril, hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, irbesartan, or valsartan, significant additive blood pressure-lowering effects were reported (P < 0.05 in all clinical trials). The total incidence of adverse events was similar to placebo and other comparative agents, including irbesartan, val-sartan, losartan, ramipril, and hydrochlorothiazide. The overall adverse-event rates were 22%, 35% to 52%, 25% to 52%, 34% to 55%, and 33% to 52% for aliskiren 37.5, 75, 150, 300, and 600 mg, respec-tively. The most commonly reported adverse events included headache, dizziness, and fatigue. Studies with cardiovascular outcomes as end points have not been performed with aliskiren. Conclusions: Aliskiren is an effective alternative agent for blood pressure management. Before aliskiren can be recommended as a routine first-line agent, however, clinical studies must explore if the blood pressure-lowering effect will translate into improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.     

Stress management versus lifestyle modification on systolic hypertension and medication elimination: a randomized trial

Isolated systolic hypertension is common in the elderly, but decreasing systolic blood pressure (SBP) without lowering diastolic blood pressure (DBP) remains a therapeutic challenge. Although stress management training, in particular eliciting the relaxation response, reduces essential hypertension its efficacy in treating isolated systolic hypertension has not been evaluated. We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial comparing 8 weeks of stress management, specifically relaxation response training (61 patients), versus lifestyle modification (control, 61 patients). Inclusion criteria were >or=55 years, SBP 140-159 mm Hg, DBP <90 mm Hg, and at least two antihypertensive medications. The primary outcome measure was change in SBP after 8 weeks. Patients who achieved SBP <140 mm Hg and >or=5 mm Hg reduction in SBP were eligible for 8 additional weeks of training with supervised medication elimination. SBP decreased 9.4 (standard deviation [SD] 11.4) and 8.8 (SD 13.0) mm Hg in relaxation response and control groups, respectively (both ps <0.0001) without group difference (p=0.75). DBP decreased 1.5 (SD 6.2) and 2.4 (SD 6.9) mm Hg (p=0.05 and 0.01, respectively) without group difference (p=0.48). Forty-four (44) in the relaxation response group and 36 in the control group were eligible for supervised antihypertensive medication elimination. After controlling for differences in characteristics at the start of medication elimination, patients in the relaxation response group were more likely to successfully eliminate an antihypertensive medication (odds ratio 4.3, 95% confidence interval 1.2-15.9, p=0.03). Although both groups had similar reductions in SBP, significantly more participants in the relaxation response group eliminated an antihypertensive medication while maintaining adequate blood pressure control.     

厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪片治疗社区高血压的合理用药探讨

目的:浅析在社区高血压患者的治疗中予厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪片的给药合理性.方法:纳入本单位2018年8月至2019年12月间社区高血压患者100例作研究样本,采用随机数字表法分组,取其中50例为对照组,施行厄贝沙坦治疗方案;另50例为研究组,施行厄贝沙坦氢氯噻嗪片治疗方案.比较两组系统治疗下的收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP...     

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.     

Comparative Efficacy of Irbesartan/ Hydrochlorothiazide and Valsartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Combination in Lowering Blood Pressure: A Retrospective Observational Study in Oman

Objective

To compare blood pressure (BP) control in patients receiving irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and valsartan/HCTZ at a tertiary care university hospital in Oman.

Subjects and Methods

This was a retrospective observational study, where 232 patients'' medical records were reviewed during a 3-month period, July to September 2010, at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital in Oman. BP readings of the previous 6 months were also retrieved from the electronic medical records. Analyses were conducted using univariate statistical techniques.

Results

The mean age of the cohort was 58 ± 11 years (range: 21–88). Sixty-nine (30%) patients were on the irbesartan/HCTZ combination (150/12.5 mg) and 163 (70%) were on the valsartan/HCTZ combination. The patients on the valsartan/HCTZ combination were divided into two subgroups: 117 (72%) received 160/12.5 mg and 46 (28%) 80/12.5 mg. Diabetic patients (43/69, 62%, vs. 61/163, 37%, p < 0.001) and those with diabetic nephropathy (8/69, 12%, vs. 7/163, 4%, p = 0.039) were prescribed more often irbesartan/HCTZ than valsartan/HCTZ. In comparison to the valsartan/HCTZ cohort, the irbesartan/HCTZ group was associated with significant reductions in both systolic BP (SBP; −9 vs. −2 mm Hg; p = 0.021) and diastolic BP (DBP; −5 vs. 0 mm Hg; p = 0.022). BP reductions were noted more in diabetics than nondiabetics with the irbesartan/HCTZ patients associated with significant reductions in both SBP (−12 vs. 5.1 mm Hg; p < 0.001) and DBP (−6.4 vs. 1.9 mm Hg; p = 0.001).

Conclusions

The irbesartan/HCTZ combination was associated with significant reductions in both SBP and DBP when compared with the valsartan/HCTZ combination. Specifically, the reductions were noted more in diabetics than nondiabetics.Key Words: Irbesartan, Valsartan, Hypertension, Diabetes mellitus, Nephropathy     

Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide compared with amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with other cardiovascular risk factors: the VAST study

BACKGROUND: Recent antihypertensive treatment guidelines recommend greater use of combination therapies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether combination therapy with valsartan 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg OD would be more effective than monotherapy with amlodipine 10 mg OD in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with moderate (stage II) hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of the study treatments on circulating markers of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week study. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 3 groups, 2 of them receiving valsartan 160 mg OD and 1 receiving amlodipine 5 mg OD. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg OD was added to valsartan in one of the treatment groups (V+HCTZ12.5), HCTZ 25 mg OD was added to the other (V+HCTZ25), and the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg OD (A10). The primary efficacy variable was change in mean sitting SBP at week 24. Other variables were changes in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean pulse pressure (PP) from baseline, and response rate (systolic response defined as mean sitting SBP <140 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting SBP of > or =20 mm Hg from baseline; diastolic response defined as mean sitting DBP <90 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting DBP of > or =10 mm Hg from baseline). Changes in the following markers of endothelial dysfunction were determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, and 24 in all randomized patients from the participating European and South African centers: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), vascular tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL). RESULTS: The study enrolled 1088 patients with moderate hypertension (mean age, 61 years; 82% white; 53% women). The intent-to-treat population consisted of 1079 patients: 357 in the V+HCTZ12.5 group, 363 in the V+HCTZ25 group, and 359 in the A10 group. At baseline, the groups were comparable in terms of blood pressure and most other characteristics; the only statistically significant difference between groups was in the proportion of patients aged > or =65 years, which was lower in the amlodipine group (P = 0.01). At the end of the study, the least squares mean (SD) changes from baseline in mean sitting SBP were 27.1 (13.7), 29.7 (13.7), and 27.6 (13.8) mm Hg in the V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10 groups, respectively, with corresponding percent changes of 16%, 18%, and 17% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). The changes in mean sitting DBP did not differ significantly between groups. The reductions in PP were 17.5 (11.3), 18.7 (11.3), and 16.9 (11.3) mm Hg, with percent changes of 24%, 26%, and 23% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). Significant reductions in t-PA antigen were observed in both combination-therapy groups compared with the amlodipine monotherapy group at week 12 (P < 0.05); the reductions remained significant through the end of the study in the V+HCTZ12.5 group. There was a significant reduction in IL-6 and hs-CRP at week 12 with V+HCTZ25 compared with A10 (P < 0.05). Oxidized LDL values were reduced by approximately 10% with all treatments. Rates of total adverse events were significantly lower with the valsartan-based treatments compared with amlodipine monotherapy (49.7%, 49.6%, and 67.5% with V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10, respectively; P < 0.05). Rates of total discontinuations were a respective 10.1%, 9.0%, and 24.5%, and discontinuation rates due to AEs were 4.2%, 3.5%, and 18.2%. Leg edema was more common with amlodipine monotherapy than with the valsartan-based combinations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with moderate hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition, similar and greater antihypertensive effects were seen with the fixed-dose combinations of valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 and 25 mg OD, respectively, compared with amlodipine 10 mg OD, with significantly lower rates of treatment-related adverse events and possible beneficial effects on vascular markers.     

Fixed combinations of delapril plus indapamide vs fosinopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in mild to moderate essential hypertension

This 12-week randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study compared fixed combinations of delapril (D) 30 mg plus indapamide (I) 2.5 mg and fosinopril (F) 20 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (H) 12.5 mg in 171 adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. After a 2-week placebo run-in, sitting and standing systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was measured by conventional sphygmomanometry. The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of normalized (sitting DBP ≤90 mm Hg) and responder (sitting DBP reduction of ≥10 mm Hg or DBP ≤90 mm Hg) patients. Treatment effects were analyzed in the intention-to-treat (ITT; n = 171) and the per-protocol (PP; n = 167) populations. The percentage of normalized and responder patients did not differ significantly between the D + I (87.4% and 92%) and the F + H (81% and 86.9%) ITT groups. Similar results were seen in the PP population. In ITT and PP patients, sitting and standing SBP and DBP values were comparable at baseline in the two groups and were significantly (P<.01) and similarly reduced at weeks 4, 8, and 12. Neither treatment induced reflex tachycardia, and both regimens were well tolerated. Four patients in the F + H group dropped out because of adverse events. In this study, the efficacy and safety of D + I were comparable to those of F + H in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg vs. enalapril 10 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, double-blind study in Taiwanese patients

The purpose of this randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg once daily vs. enalapril 10 mg once daily in 147 Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-109 mmHg). After 6 weeks' treatment, telmisartan produced a significantly greater reduction from baseline in the primary endpoint of trough seated DBP compared with enalapril 10 mg (11.7 vs. 8.7 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.02). Numerically greater reductions compared with baseline in seated systolic blood pressure (SBP), standing DBP, and standing SBP were achieved with telmisartan compared with enalapril. Also, numerically greater proportions of patients achieved blood pressure control (DBP/systolic blood pressure [SBP] <90/140 mmHg) and responded to treatment (reduction from baseline in trough seated DBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment DBP <90 mmHg; reduction from baseline in trough seated SBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment SBP <140 mmHg) with telmisartan 40 mg compared with enalapril 10 mg. Although both treatments were well tolerated, the incidence of cough was markedly lower with telmisartan 40 mg (8.5%) than with enalapril 10 mg (18.4%) in this population of Taiwanese hypertensive patients.