复方替米沙坦对单药控制不良高血压患者的有效性和安全性

目的 评价复方替米沙坦在替米沙坦单药治疗无充分反应时中国高血压患者中的有效性和安全性.方法 多中心、随机、双盲、双模拟临床试验.经1周安慰剂筛选期,699例符合入选标准的轻、中度高血压患者进入80 mg替米沙坦单药开放治疗期.345例对替米沙坦单药开放治疗8周无充分反应[平均坐位舒张压≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)]的患者进入为期8周的随机双盲治疗期.175例患者进入复方替米沙坦治疗组(80 mg替米沙坦加12.5 mg氢氯噻嗪),170例进入80 mg替米沙坦单药治疗组.每次随访测量坐位和立位的收缩压和舒张压谷值,记录不良事件.筛选期以及开放和随机双盲治疗期结束时进行实验室和心电图检查.结果 (1)与开放治疗期结束(基线)比较,随机双盲治疗8周后,复方替米沙坦组坐位舒张压谷值平均下降10.1 mm Hg,替米沙坦单药组平均下降7.7 mm Hg,两组间比较P=0.0017.复方替米沙坦组坐位收缩压谷值平均下降14.2 mm Hg,替米沙坦单药组平均下降7.4 mm Hg,两组间比较P＜0.0001.(2)与基线比较,随机双盲治疗8周后,复方替米沙坦组立位舒张压和收缩压谷值平均下降幅度大于替米沙坦单药组,两组间比较P=0.0350和P＜0.0001.(3)按照平均坐位舒张压谷值＜90 mm Hg和(或)与基线值相比降低≥10 mm Hg评价,随机双盲治疗8周后,复方替米沙坦组有效率为74.6%(129例患者),替米沙坦单药组为59.2%(100例患者),两组间比较P=0.0016.(4)在随机双盲期,两组与试验药物有关的不良事件发生率分别为3.5%和3.6%,两组间比较P＞0.05.结论 替米沙坦单药治疗无充分反应的中国高血压患者,复方替米沙坦每日口服一次能够进一步降低血压,且安全性良好.     

复方缬沙坦治疗轻中度原发性高血压患者的疗效观察

目的评价复方缬沙坦（缬沙坦80mg／氢氯噻嗪12．5mg复方制剂）治疗经单用缬沙坦80mg控制不良的轻、中度原发性高血压患者疗效和安全性。方法采用多中心、双盲、双模拟、随机、活性药物对照、平行试验方法。对经2周洗脱期的轻、中度原发性高血压患者[坐位舒张压≥95mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）且〈110mmHg]采用单药缬沙坦80mg／d治疗4周,在单药导入结束后,坐位舒张压仍〉190mmHg的864例患者按1：1随机、双盲分为复方缬沙坦组或缬沙坦80mg／d组,继续治疗8周。在治疗4周和结束时评估药物安全性及有效性。结果在轻、中度原发性高血压患者中复方缬沙坦每日1次比单用缬沙坦80mg／d血压进一步下降、达标率提高。治疗结束时平均坐位收缩压多降低3．5mmHg,平均坐位舒张压多下降2．2mmHg,血压控制〈140／90mmHg的患者在复方缬沙坦组和单用缬沙坦80mg／d组分别为53．9％及40．9％。结论轻、中度原发性高血压患者采用复方缬沙坦治疗组降压有效率及达标率均优于每日1次服用缬沙坦80mg／d组。复方缬沙坦适用于缬沙坦单药控制不良的轻、中度原发性高血压患者。     

缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合用药和缬沙坦单药治疗高血压合并2型糖尿病的对照试验

目的 评价缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合用药和缬沙坦单药治疗高血压合并2型糖尿病患者的有效性和安全性.方法 本研究为随机、双盲、平行对照研究.125例高血压合并2型糖尿病患者经2周洗脱期后,给予4周缬沙坦（80 mg/d）单药治疗,89例平均坐位舒张压（SeDBP）仍≥90 mm Hg的患者随机分为缬沙坦（80 mg/d）和氨氯地平（5 mg/d）联合用药治疗组及缬沙坦（80 mg/d）单药治疗组,共随机双盲治疗8周,以SeDBP下降差值和尿白蛋白排泄率（UAER）下降值作为主要疗效指标.54例患者（联合用药组28例,单药组26例）完成了24h动态血压监测,并作为降压疗效的评价指标.结果 随机、双盲治疗8周末,联合用药组SeDBP下降值为（13.7±5.8）mm Hg,达目的血压占65.9％;单药治疗组SeDBP下降值为（7.7±6.9）mm Hg,达目的血压占37.8％,两组组间比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）.联合用药组尿白蛋白排泄率（UAER）为（7.15±2.13）μg/min,单药治疗组尿白蛋白排泄率（UAER）为（8.76±3.01）μg/min（P＜0.05）.24h动态血压监测结果,联合用药组和单药治疗组舒张压/收缩压（DBP/SBP）的谷/峰比率（T/P）分别为83.1％/76.0％和85.8％/79.5％（P＜0.05）.联合用药组与单药治疗组的不良反应发生率分别为5.2％和 10.7％（P＜0.01）.结论 缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合用药治疗高血压合并2型糖尿病的降压疗效明显优于缬沙坦单药治疗,且具有明显的肾脏保护作用.     

复方缬沙坦与血脂康联合治疗原发性高血压的临床研究

目的评价复方缬沙坦(缬沙坦80mg/氢氯噻嗪12.5mg)联合血脂康(600mg)治疗轻、中度原发性高血压患者的疗效和安全性。方法采用随机、双盲对照研究。将280例轻、中度高血压患者随机分为缬沙坦组和对照组。缬沙坦组患者给予复方缬沙坦(缬沙坦80mg/氢氯噻嗪12.5mg,1次/d)和血脂康(600mg,2次/d)治疗,对照组患者降压药物单用缬沙坦(80mg,1次/d)。治疗中每周测量血压。在治疗8周和结束时评价药物安全性和有效性。结果对于轻、中度原发性高血压患者,缬沙坦组较对照组血压进一步下降,达标率显著高于对照组。治疗结束时平均坐位收缩压均降低5mmHg,平均坐位舒张压多下降3mmHg,缬沙坦组和对照组患者中,血压控制<140/90mmHg者分别占54.1%和40.7%。结论轻、中度原发性高血压患者采用复方缬沙坦联合血脂康治疗,降压效果和达标率均优于单用缬沙坦。     

不同剂量缬沙坦联用氨氯地平对原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度的影响

目的探讨不同剂量缬沙坦联合氨氯地平对原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度的影响。方法选取2014年10月至2016年1月在郑州市第九人民医院门诊就诊和住院的1～2级原发性高血压患者作为研究对象,随机分为40mg缬沙坦组71例(氨氯地平5mg/d联合缬沙坦40mg/d),80mg缬沙坦组70例(氨氯地平5mg/d联合缬沙坦80mg/d),160mg缬沙坦组72例(氨氯地平5mg/d联合缬沙坦160mg/d),统计分析3组患者治疗前后收缩压、舒张压、心踝血管指数(CAVI)、同型半胱氨酸(Hcy)、高敏C反应蛋白等的变化。结果入组患者年龄(60.1±5.3)岁。治疗24周后40、80mg缬沙坦组Hcy治疗前后差异无统计学意义(P0.05),160mg缬沙坦组治疗后Hcy下降[由(10.43±0.05)降至(5.62±0.04)μmol/L,P0.05]。治疗后3组血压都有所降低[40mg缬沙坦组:收缩压/舒张压下降(17±8)/(6±5)mm Hg;80mg缬沙坦组:下降(18±11)/(6±6)mm Hg;160mg缬沙坦组:下降(19±9)/(7±6)mm Hg],但3组组间收缩压、舒张压下降幅度差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。治疗后3组患者CAVI与治疗前相比减小(P0.05),其中160 mg缬沙坦组经治疗后CAVI低于80和40 mg缬沙坦组(5.20±0.58比7.05±0.03、8.52±0.04,P0.01)。结论钙拮抗剂氨氯地平联合不同剂量的缬沙坦均可改善动脉僵硬度,且大剂量缬沙坦改善动脉僵硬度更明显。     

奥美沙坦酯和氨氯地平联合治疗原发性高血压的研究

目的:观察奥美沙坦酯和氨氯地平联合治疗控制血压的疗效和安全性。方法:70例2、3级高血压病患者随机接受奥美沙坦酯20 mg与氨氯地平5 mg联合治疗或缬沙坦80 mg与氨氯地平5 mg联合治疗,1次/d,总疗程8周。结果:奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组治疗后血压下降幅度分别为(24.5±9.5/16.0±6.8)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)和(24.3±9.2/15.7±6.6)mm Hg,2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。奥美沙坦酯与氨氯地平和缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合治疗组降压总有效率分别为91.4%和88.6%,2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:2、3级高血压病治疗,奥美沙坦酯与氨氯地平和缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合治疗疗效和不良反应均类似。     

简讯

缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合使用降压效果良好该研究系一“实时”研究(Am Society of Hyper-tension2007Scientific Sessions,May21,2007,Chicogo IL),收治病人894名,都用过单药治疗,如利尿剂、钙拮抗剂、β受体阻滞剂、血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)或血管紧张素受体拮抗剂。疗效不好者,再入选,平均入选时血压150/90mm Hg。443名病人随机分入氨氯地平5mg(缬沙坦160mg)组,另有451名病人分入氨氯地平10mg(缬沙坦160mg)组。8周后如血压下降不理想,可加用氢氯噻嗪,初始量12·5mg,必要时可加到25mg。联合治疗后16周,病人收缩压下降幅度较单药治…     

贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂与贝那普利单药治疗轻中度高血压的多中心随机双盲平行对照研究

目的 评价贝那普利/氨氯地平复方片剂与贝那普利片单药治疗轻、中度高血压患者的有效性和安全性.方法 本研究为多中心、随机、双盲、平行对照研究.356例原发性高血压患者经2周洗脱期后,再给予4周贝那普利片10 mg单药治疗,220例平均坐位舒张压(SeDBP)仍≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)的患者随机分为贝那普利(10 mg)/氨氯地平(5 mg)固定剂量复方片剂组(复方制剂组,1片/d,n=113)和贝那普利片单药组(单药治疗组,20 mg/d,n=107),治疗4周末两组诊室SeDBP≥90 mmHg者剂量加倍.SeDBP＜90 mm Hg者续服原剂量,共随机双盲治疗8周.以总有效率和SeDBP下降差值作为主要疗效指标.其中74例患者(复方片剂组38例,单药组36例)完成了24 h动态血压监测,并作为降压疗效的评价指标.结果 随机、双盲治疗8周末,复方片剂组SeDBP下降值为(11.7±6.8)mm Hg、达目的 血压占65.7%、总有效率为88.5%;单药治疗组SeDBP下降值为(7.7±6.9)mm Hg、达目的 血压占35.5%、总有效率为65.5%.两组组间比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.001).24 h动态血压监测结果,复方制剂组和单药组的舒张压/收缩压(DBP/SBP)的谷/峰比率(T/P)分别为83.1%/76.0%和85.8%/79.5%(P＜0.05).复方制剂组与单药治疗组的不良反应发生率分别为16.8%和35.5%(P＜0.01).结论 贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂治疗原发性高血压患者的降压疗效明显优于贝那普利单药治疗,且有良好的耐受性.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg once-daily therapy, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with mild and moderate hypertension, and to evaluate the 24 h antihypertensive efficacy and the duration of action by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring Methods In a multicenter, randomized,double-blind, parallel controlled trial, 356 cases of hypertensive patients after 2 weeks wash-out, and then given 4 weeks of benazepril 10 mg monotherapy, 220 patients with mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP)remained ≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg = 0. 133 kPa)were randomly divided into benazepril 10 mg/amlodipine 5 mg(BZ10/AML5)fixed-dose combination therapy group(once a day, n = 113), and benazepril monotherapy group(daily 20 mg, n = 107). In the two groups the patients with SeDBP≥90 mm Hg were doubled the dosage of the initial regimen at the end of 4-week treatment for additional 4 weeks , and the patients with SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg remained the initial regimen for additional 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the improvement of SeDBP at the end of 8-week treatment. There were 74 patients(the combination therapy group n = 38, monotherapy therapy group n = 36)completed the 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring which was included in the final efficacy analysis. Results The randomized, doubleblind treatment for 8 weeks, the mean value of SeDBP reduction, the reaching target blood pressure rate and total successful response rate to the treatment(a SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg or a decrease of 10 mm Hg or more from baseline)were(11.7 ± 6.8)mm Hg, 65.7% and 88.5% in the combination therapy group,respectively, and were(7.7 ±6. 9)mm Hg, 35.5% and 65.5% in the monotherapy group, respectively.There were statistically significant difference between the combination therapy and the monotherapy groups in all the 3 indexs(P ＜ 0. 001). The fixed combination significantly reduced systolic blood pressure(SBP)and diastolic blood pressure(DBP)values throughout the 24 h. The trough to peak ratios of DBP/SBP in the fixed compound of benazepril/amlodipine(10 mg/5 mg)and benazepril(20 mg)alone were 83. 1%/76. 0% and 85.8%/79. 5%, respectively. Adverse events rates were 16. 8% in the combination therapy group and 35.5% in the monotherapy group(P ＜ 0. 001). Conclusions The combination therapy with benazepril/amlodipine was superior to benazepril monotherapy and was well tolerated in patients with essential hypertension and allowing a satisfactory BP control for 24 hours.     

缬沙坦联合氨氯地平治疗原发性高血压的临床疗效及安全性

目的探讨原发性高血压患者服用缬沙坦联合氨氯地平的临床治疗效果与服药安全性。方法选择2013年7月~2014年12月于西城区大栅栏社区卫生服务中心就诊的原发性高血压患者120例,男性66例,女性54例,年龄33~82岁。所有患者根据随机原则分为两组,观察组(60例)口服氨氯地平5 mg/d加缬沙坦80 mg/d;对照组(60例)口服氨氯地平5 mg/d,1/日,连续服用4个月。治疗前后测量血压并进行疗效评价。随访记录不良反应情况。结果两组治疗4个月后收缩压和舒张压均较治疗前下降,差异有统计学意义(P均0.05)。与对照组治疗后比较,观察组收缩压和舒张压均下降,数值为[(137.1±16.7)mm Hg vs.(126.7±12.3)mm Hg],[(93.5±10.5)mm Hg vs.(80.4±9.8)mm Hg],差异有统计学意义(P均0.05)。两组患者治疗4个月后,观察组患者总有效率高于对照组(95%vs.70%),差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者的不良反应发生情况比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论缬沙坦联合氨氯地平治疗原发性高血压较单用氨氯地平可以更有效控制血压,不良反应少,安全性高,值得临床推广使用。     

缬沙坦与赖诺普利治疗原发性高血压患者在耐受性、安全性和疗效上的比较

目的 :评价缬沙坦 (valsartan)治疗原发性高血压患者的耐受性、安全性和疗效。　　方法 :146例轻、中度原发性高血压患者采用随机双盲的研究方法分为缬沙坦组 (n=75 )和赖诺普利 (lisinopril)组 (n=71) ,分别接受缬沙坦 80 mg/d或赖诺普利 10 mg/d,4周后血压控制不满意者 (舒张压≥ 90 mm Hg,1mm Hg=0 .133k Pa) ,接受缬沙坦 16 0 mg/d或赖诺普利 2 0 mg/d。　　结果 :缬沙坦与赖诺普利均能有效降低血压。治疗总有效率分别为 6 0 .3%和 6 4.1% ,降压程度及治疗有效率比较统计学无显著性差异 (P>0 .0 5 )。缬沙坦组具有良好的耐受性 ,未见干咳现象 ,而赖诺普利组干咳发生率达 5 .6 %。　　结论 :缬沙坦是治疗轻、中度原发性高血压安全有效的药物。     

Efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan compared with amlodipine monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension: a randomized,double-blind,multicenter study: the EX-EFFeCTS Study

Achieving blood pressure (BP) targets in stage 2 hypertension usually requires two or more drugs, which should be selected from different classes. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week study, 646 patients with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥160 mm Hg) received amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 2 weeks, prior to being force-titrated to amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg, respectively, for a further 6 weeks. Hydrochlorothiazide could be added at Week 4 if MSSBP was ≥130 mm Hg. At endpoint Week 4, reductions in MSSBP were significantly greater in patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan than in those receiving amlodipine (30.1 mm Hg vs. 23.5 mm Hg; P < .0001). Likewise, MSSBP reductions in patients with baseline MSSBP ≥180 mm Hg were also greater for amlodipine/valsartan at Week 4 (40.1 mm Hg vs. 31.7 mm Hg for amlodipine; P = .0018). Differences favoring amlodipine/valsartan were also seen for BP control. Amlodipine/valsartan was generally well tolerated. These findings support the rationale for combining agents with complementary mechanisms of action, such as amlodipine and valsartan, in the management of stage 2 hypertension.     

Combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium channel blocker with HCTZ vs the maximal recommended dose of an ARB with HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension: the exforge as compared to losartan treatment in stage 2 systolic hypertension (EXALT) study

This study compared the efficacy and safety of combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium-channel blocker (CCB) with hydrochlorothiazide (valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ 160/5/2mg) vs maximal available combination doses of an ARB with HCTZ (losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg) in the management of stage 2 hypertension. After 1 to 2 weeks of antihypertensive drug washout, patients with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) of ≥ 160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg were randomized to valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 241) or losartan 100 mg (n = 247). At week 3, HCTZ 25 mg was added to both treatments. The primary end point, reduction in MSSBP from baseline to week 6, was significantly greater in the valsartan/amlodipine group than in the losartan group (least-squares [LS] mean change, -31.8 mm Hg vs -26.4 mm Hg; P<.001). Additional reductions occurred after titrating to 320/10/25 mg at week 6 in the valsartan/amlodipine group and switching from losartan/HCTZ to valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ (week 6, 160/5/25 mg; week 9, 320/10/25 mg) in the losartan group. Achievement of blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg also favored the valsartan/amlodipine group. Dizziness was the only adverse event reported in >5% of patients (5.4% valsartan/amlodipine group, 3.6% losartan group). Moderate doses of an ARB/CCB combination with HCTZ reduced blood pressure more effectively than the maximal dose of an ARB with HCTZ.     

Effects of valsartan or amlodipine alone or in combination on plasma catecholamine levels at rest and during standing in hypertensive patients

To compare the effects of valsartan and amlodipine alone or in combination on plasma norepinephrine (NE) at rest and standing for 10 minutes in patients with hypertension, 47 patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) (DBP)>95 mm Hg and<110 mm Hg were randomized in a double-blind fashion to either valsartan or amlodipine. During the first 4 weeks of treatment, patients received a low dose of either valsartan (80 mg) or amlodipine (5 mg). The patients were force-titrated to the high dose of either drug (160 or 10 mg) for 4 weeks. After 8 weeks of therapy, those who still had a DBP>90 mm Hg (nonresponders) received combination therapy with the other drug, whereas patients with a DBP<90 mm Hg (responders) continued on monotherapy. Decreases in ambulatory BP and clinic systolic BP and DBP were significant (P<.05) after 8 weeks' therapy with no difference between the 2 groups. Amlodipine but not valsartan as monotherapy consistently increased NE levels at rest and enhanced NE levels during standing. Valsartan decreased basal NE in responders. Combination therapy with valsartan and amlodipine did not attenuate the rise in NE levels induced by amlodipine. This study indicates that therapy with amlodipine increases peripheral sympathetic basal tone and reactivity to standing in patients with hypertension, whereas valsartan does not. Combined therapy with amlodipine/valsartan did not attenuate the sympathetic activation induced by amlodipine. The hypotensive action of valsartan may be mediated in part by an inhibition of the sympathetic baroreflex in patients with hypertension.     

Efficacy of the combination of amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with previous monotherapy: the Exforge in Failure after Single Therapy (EX-FAST) study

In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter study, patients whose blood pressure (BP) was uncontrolled by monotherapy were switched directly to amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg (n=443) or 10/160 mg (n=451). After 16 weeks, BP control (levels <140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg for diabetics) was achieved in 72.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.6-76.9) of patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg and in 74.8% (95% CI, 70.8-78.9) receiving amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg. Incremental reductions from baseline in mean sitting systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with the higher dose (20.0+/-0.7 vs 17.5+/-0.7 mm Hg; P=.0003 and 11.6+/-0.4 vs 10.4+/-0.4 mm Hg; P=.0046). Incremental BP reductions were also achieved with both regimens irrespective of previous monotherapy, hypertension severity, diabetic status, body mass index, and age. Peripheral edema was the most frequent adverse event. These results provide support for the BP-lowering benefits of complementary antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine and valsartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled by previous monotherapy.     

Renin inhibition with aliskiren provides additive antihypertensive efficacy when used in combination with hydrochlorothiazide

OBJECTIVES: Aliskiren is a novel, orally active renin inhibitor. Its antihypertensive efficacy and safety, alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were investigated in an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in hypertensive patients. The effects of these treatments on plasma renin activity (PRA) were also assessed. METHODS: A total of 2776 patients aged >or=18 years with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) 95-109 mmHg were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with aliskiren (75, 150 or 300 mg), HCTZ (6.25, 12.5 or 25 mg), the combination of aliskiren and HCTZ, or placebo, in a factorial design. The primary endpoint was the change in MSDBP from baseline to week 8. PRA was assessed at these timepoints at selected study centers. RESULTS: Aliskiren monotherapy was superior to placebo (P < 0.001; overall Dunnett's test) in reducing MSDBP and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP). Combination treatment was superior to both component monotherapies in reducing BP (maximum MSSBP/MSDBP reduction of 21.2/14.3 mmHg from baseline with aliskiren/HCTZ 300/25 mg), and resulted in more responders (patients with MSDBP < 90 mmHg and/or >or=10 mmHg reduction) and better control rates (patients achieving MSSBP/MSDBP < 140/90 mmHg) than either monotherapy. Aliskiren monotherapy reduced PRA by up to 65% from baseline. Although HCTZ monotherapy increased PRA by up to 72%, PRA decreased in all of the combination therapy groups. All active treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Aliskiren monotherapy demonstrated significant BP lowering, and its effect was considerably greater when combined with HCTZ. Renin inhibition with aliskiren neutralized the compensatory rise in PRA induced by HCTZ.     

Comparison of valsartan and amlodipine on ambulatory and morning blood pressure in hypertensive patients

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events occur most frequently in the morning. We aimed to study the effects of monotherapy with the long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan compared with the long-acting calcium antagonist amlodipine on ambulatory and morning blood pressure (BP). METHODS: We performed ambulatory BP monitoring before and after once-daily dose of valsartan (valsartan group, n = 38) and amlodipine (amlodipine group, n = 38) therapy in 76 hypertensive patients. To achieve the target BP of < or =140/90 mm Hg, valsartan was titrated from 40 mg/day to 160 mg/day (mean dose 124 mg/day) and amlodipine was titrated from 2.5 mg/day to 10 mg/day (mean dose 6.4 mg/day). RESULTS: Both drugs significantly reduced clinic and 24-h systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (P <.002). However, the antihypertensive effect of amlodipine was superior to that of valsartan in clinical SBP (-26 mm Hg v -13 mm Hg, P =.001) and 24-h SBP (-14 mm Hg v -7 mm Hg, P =.008). In addition, morning SBP was significantly reduced by amlodipine from 156 to 142 mm Hg (P <.001) but not by valsartan. Both agents reduced lowest night SBP to a similar extent (amlodipine 121 to 112 mm Hg, P <.001; valsartan 123 to 114 mm Hg, P <.002). Reduction in morning SBP surge (morning SBP minus lowest night SBP) was significantly greater in patients treated with amlodipine compared with those treated with valsartan (-6.1 mm Hg v +4.5 mm Hg, P <.02). CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine monotherapy was more effective than valsartan monotherapy in controlling 24-h ambulatory BP and morning BP in hypertensive patients.     

Effect of valsartan addition to amlodipine on ankle oedema and subcutaneous tissue pressure in hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of valsartan addition to amlodipine on ankle foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP), two objective measures of ankle oedema. After a 4-week placebo period, 80 grade 1-2 hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure (DBP)>90 mm Hg and <110 systolic blood pressure (SBP)>140 mm Hg) were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg or valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg plus valsartan 160 mg for 6 weeks according to an open-label, blinded end point, crossover design. At the end of the placebo period and of each treatment period, blood pressure, AFV and PSTP were evaluated. AFV was measured using the principle of water displacement. PSTP was assessed connecting the subcutaneous pretibial interstitial environment with a water manometer. Both amlodipine and valsartan monotherapy significantly reduced SBP (-16.9 and -14.5 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01 vs baseline), and DBP (-12.9 and -10.2 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01 vs baseline) but the reduction was greater with the combination (-22.9 mm Hg for SBP, P<0.01 vs monotherapy; -16.8 mm Hg for DBP, P<0.01 vs monotherapy). Amlodipine monotherapy significantly increased both AFV (+23%, P<0.01 vs baseline) and PSTP (+75.5%, P<0.001 vs baseline) whereas valsartan monotherapy did not influence them. As compared to amlodipine alone, the combination produced a less marked increase in AFV (+6.8%, P<0.01 vs amlodipine) and PSTP (+23.2%, P<0.001 vs amlodipine). Ankle oedema was clinically evident in 24 patients with amlodipine and in six patients with the combination. These results suggest that angiotensin receptor blockers partially counteract the microcirculatory changes responsible for calcium channel blockers induced oedema formation.     

Efficacy of combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride for lowering systolic blood pressure in stage 2 hypertension

The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study compared daily treatment with combination amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride 5/20 mg, amlodipine besylate 5 mg, and benazepril hydrochloride 20 mg in 505 patients aged 55 years of age or older with stage 2 hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] > or =160 and < or =200 mm Hg and diastolic BP > or =60 and < or =100 mm Hg). BP and pulse pressure were assessed by conventional office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In this analysis, combination therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in mean 24-hour BP, pulse pressure, and mean ambulatory BP during various time intervals compared with either monotherapy in the intent-to-treat population, in those with isolated and predominantly systolic hypertension, and in dippers and nondippers. Adverse event rates were low and similar in all treatment groups. This study demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and is well tolerated.