Efficacy and safety of two treatment combinations of hypertension in very elderly patients

The study compared valsartan/amlodipine combination with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination in very elderly hypertensives. After a 4-week placebo period, 94 hypertensives, aged 75-89 years were randomized to valsartan 160mg/amlodipine 5mg or irbesartan 300mg/HCTZ 12.5mg for 24 weeks according to a prospective, parallel group study. After 4 weeks amlodipine or HCTZ was doubled in non-responders. Patients were checked every 4 weeks. At each visit clinical sitting, lying and standing blood pressure (BP), systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were evaluated, and an electrocardiogram was performed. At the end of the placebo period and of the treatment period a non-invasive 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed and electrolytes and uric acid were evaluated. Both combinations significantly reduced ambulatory BP. In the valsartan/amlodipine group the mean reduction (-29.9/-15.6 for 24h, -28.6/-14.5mmHg for day-time and -26.2/-17.4mmHg for night-time SBP/DBP) was similar to that of the irbesartan/HCTZ group (-29.6/-15.4 for 24h, -29.3/-14.9mmHg for day-time and -25.4/-16.9mmHg for night-time SBP/DBP). Both combinations significantly reduced clinical sitting and lying BP values with no difference between treatments. BP changes from lying to standing position were significantly greater in the irbesartan/HCTZ group (-17.2/-9.1mmHg) than in the valsartan/amlodipine group (-10.1/-1.9mmHg, p<0.05 for SBP and p<0.01 for DBP vs. irbesartan/HCTZ). Potassium significantly decreased and uric acid significantly increased (-0.4mmol/l, p<0.05 and +0.5mg/dl, p<0.05 vs. baseline, respectively) only in the irbesartan/HCTZ group. In conclusion, both combinations were similarly effective in reducing ambulatory and clinical BP in very elderly hypertensives. However, valsartan/amlodipine offered some advantages in terms of less pronounced BP orthostatic changes and absence of metabolic adverse effects.     

Antihypertensive effects of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in essential hypertension.

Fixed-dose combination therapy has received increased interest since publication of JNC-VI report and WHO/ISH guidelines 1999. We compared in a randomized, double-blind study the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan 80 mg combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to monotherapy with either HCTZ 12.5 mg or 25 mg in patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled by previous HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy. Two hundred and seventeen patients whose blood pressure (BP) control remained poor (95 mmHg < or = sitting diastolic BP < 115 mmHg) after a 4-week single-blind period with HCTZ 12.5 mg were randomized to receive either combination therapy with valsartan 80 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg (V/HCTZ) or monotherapy with HCTZ 12.5 mg or HCTZ 25 mg for 8 weeks. Reduction of sitting trough diastolic BP between baseline and week 8 as well as tolerability was evaluated. Reduction in trough diastolic BP was most pronounced in the V/HCTZ group (-11.3 mmHg) and significantly greater than in the HCTZ 12.5 mg group (-2.9 mmHg, p < 0.001) and the HCTZ 25 mg group (-5.7 mmHg, p < 0.001). Tolerability of study medication was comparable between all three groups. In conclusion, switching to V/HCTZ combination therapy provides an additional lowering of BP compared to dosage increase of the thiazide in patients with BP insufficiently controlled by HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy.     

Adding hydrochlorothiazide to olmesartan dose dependently improves 24-h blood pressure and response rates in mild-to-moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To test whether adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (12.5 or 25 mg) to olmesartan 20 mg improves 24-h blood pressure in patients whose conventional diastolic blood pressure is inadequately controlled by olmesartan monotherapy. PATIENTS: Male and female patients > or = 18 years with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 100-115 mmHg, mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 150 mmHg, mean 24-h DBP of at least 84 mmHg, and at least 30% of DBP daytime readings > 90 mmHg. INTERVENTIONS: Four weeks of single-blind treatment with olmesartan 20 mg once daily, followed in non-responders by 8 weeks of randomized double-blind treatment with placebo or HCTZ (12.5 or 25 mg) once-daily, added to olmesartan. RESULTS: HCTZ 25 mg added to olmesartan 20 mg decreased mean daytime DBP significantly more (P = 0.0012) than placebo added to olmesartan 20 mg. Compared to olmesartan monotherapy, mean 24-h DBP and SBP were significantly reduced by combination therapy with olmesartan/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (-1.9 mmHg, P = 0.0167 and -3.9 mmHg, P = 0.0018, respectively) and 20/25 mg (-3.7 and -7.4 mmHg respectively, P < 0.0001 for both). Mean 24-h DBP and SBP and mean night-time SBP reductions were significantly greater for HCTZ 25 mg than for HCTZ 12.5 mg. Response rates (mean daytime DBP assessed by ambulatory blood pressure measurement < or = 85 mmHg) approximately doubled following the addition of HCTZ (12.5 mg = 57.6% and 25 mg = 69.5%). CONCLUSION: Combination of olmesartan 20 mg with HCTZ provides significantly better 24-h blood pressure reduction than olmesartan monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Moreover, increasing the dose of HCTZ from 12.5 to 25 mg is a reasonable step to reach better daytime and night-time blood pressure control.     

Comparison of the effects on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure of valsartan and amlodipine, alone or in combination with a low-dose diuretic, in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (Val-syst Study)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the time-effect profiles of a once-daily administration of valsartan and amlodipine, each given alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, in terms of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-four elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension received valsartan 80 mg (n=79) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=85) once daily for eight weeks, after which the patients with poorly controlled office BP were up-titrated to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily. If their office systolic BP was still >140 mmHg after eight weeks at these doses, 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was added for a further eight weeks. The hourly BP decreases in all of the patients were calculated on the basis of 24-h ambulatory recordings made after the placebo period and at the end of active treatment. The trough/peak ratio and smoothness index were calculated in the responders. RESULTS: Both the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments effectively lowered mean 24-h, daytime and night-time systolic ambulatory BP (all p<0.001) without any significant differences between the two regimens. Ambulatory heart rate decreased in the subjects on valsartan and slightly increased in those on amlodipine (the differences in 24-h and daytime heart rate were significant (p=0.008 and 0.002 respectively). Among the 138 responders, the valsartan-based treatment had a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime hours (p=0.02), a difference that was also significant for average 24-h BP (p=0.02). The mean systolic BP trough/peak ratio was 0.56 in the patients on valsartan, and 0.77 in those on amlodipine (NS). The smoothness index was respectively 1.70 and 1.58 (NS). CONCLUSIONS: The present results show that both the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments lead to a similar long-term reduction in 24-h systolic BP. However, in treatment responders, valsartan has a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime.     

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with losartan and hydrochlorothiazide in elderly hypertension

We examined the effect and safety of combination therapy with low-dose diuretics (hydrochlorothiazide: HCTZ) and angiotensin II receptor antagonist (losartan) in elderly cases of hypertension, using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Elderly hypertensive patients (mean age 75 +/- 2 years) were treated with either losartan (25-50 mg/day) or HCTZ (12.5 mg/day) for at least 4 weeks, and then 24-hour blood pressure (BP) was measured by ABPM. Combination therapy with addition of other drug was initiated in 14 patients whose 24-hour systolic BP or daytime systolic BP was over 140 mmHg (160 mmHg for the patients of 80 years or older). After 4 weeks of the combination therapy, ABPM was repeated. Blood cell count and blood chemistry were also done before and after initiation of combination therapy. In the losartan-preceding group (n = 9), the combination therapy with HCTZ reduced 24-hour BP by 19.3 +/- 2.3/6.6 +/- 2.3 mmHg. Similarly, daytime and nighttime BP decreased by 21.4 +/- 4/8.4 +/- 2.8 mmHg and 15.2 +/- 4/4.2 +/- 2.4 mmHg, respectively. In the HCTZ-preceding group, the combination with losartan also decreased 24-hour BP by 12.2 +/- 4.8/3.4 +/- 1.4 mmHg. The decreases of daytime and nighttime BP were 13.8 +/- 6.6/4 +/- 1.1 mmHg and 10 +/- 4.7/3 +/- 2.4 mmHg, respectively. Heart rate did not change with combination therapy in the losartan-preceding group, while heart rate during daytime tended to decrease by addition of losartan in the HCTZ-preceding group (3.8 +/- 1.7/min). Serum electrolytes, uric acid, lipids, renal function and body weight did not change during the study period. Thus, combination therapy of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide seems useful in the treatment of elderly hypertension, showing additive BP lowering effect without metabolic adverse effects.     

Improving Blood Pressure Control: Increase the Dose of Diuretic or Switch to a Fixed‐Dose Angiotensin Receptor Blocker/Diuretic? The Valsartan Hydrochlorothiazide Diuretic for Initial Control and Titration to Achieve Optimal Therapeutic Effect (Val‐DICTATE) Trial

To assess the strategy of increasing the dose of a diuretic compared with using an angiotensin receptor blocker in combination with a diuretic, the authors performed a multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial in hypertensive patients (baseline blood pressure [BP], 153/97 mm Hg) whose BP remained uncontrolled on initial low-dose diuretic monotherapy (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg Hg). Patients with stage 1 and 2 hypertension were randomized to treatment with valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) or to doubling of the HCTZ dose (25 mg). The primary end point was the percentage of patients whose clinic BP values were <140/90 mm Hg following 4 weeks of double-blind therapy. A significantly higher proportion (P<.001) of hypertensive patients met BP control levels in the valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) group compared with the HCTZ 25 mg group (37% vs 16%). Changes from baseline in BP were significantly greater (P<.001) for both systolic BP and diastolic BP in the combination therapy arm compared with the diuretic monotherapy arm (-12. 4/-7.5 mm Hg in valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg group vs -5.6/-2.1 mm Hg in HCTZ 25 mg group). Tolerability and adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. This study suggests that in the management of hypertension, utilizing an angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination was more effective in lowering BP and achieving BP goals when compared with increasing the dose of the diuretic.     

Valsartan improves arterial stiffness in type 2 diabetes independently of blood pressure lowering

Increased arterial stiffness, as estimated from aortic pulse wave velocity (Ao-PWV), and albuminuria are independent predictors for cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), drugs with cardio-renal protective effects, improve Ao-PWV to a greater extent than other equipotent antihypertensive medications remains unclear. After a 4-week washout phase, we compared the effects of valsartan (n=66), an ARB, with that of amlodipine (n=65), a calcium channel blocker on Ao-PWV in 131 T2DM patients with pulse pressure (PP) >or=60 mm Hg and raised albumin excretion rate (AER) in a 24-week randomized, double-blind, parallel group study. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg/d was added to valsartan 160 mg and amlodipine 5 mg/od uptitrated to 10 mg/od after 4 weeks to ensure equivalent BP control. After 24 weeks brachial and central aortic PP had fallen to a similar extent with attained mean (SD) brachial and central PP of 61.6 (13.6) and 47.3 (14.1) mm Hg in the valsartan/HCTZ group and 61.5 (12.2) and 47.3 (9.9) mm Hg in the amlodipine group, respectively. Ao-PWV showed a significantly greater reduction, mean (95% CI), -0.9 m/s (-1.4 to -0.3) for valsartan/HCTZ compared to amlodipine (P=0.002). AER fell significantly only with Val/HCTZ from 30.8(20.4, 46.5) to 18.2(12.5, 26.3) mcg/min, (P=0.01) with between treatment difference in favor of Val/HCTZ of -15.3mcg/min (P<0.001). Changes in AER and Ao-PWV were not correlated. Valsartan/HCTZ improves arterial stiffness and AER to a significantly greater extent than amlodipine despite similar central and brachial BP control. These 2 effects, which appear independent of each other, may explain the specific cardio-renal protective properties of ARBs.     

Differential effects of strict blood pressure lowering by losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy and high-dose amlodipine monotherapy on microalbuminuria: the ALPHABET study

We investigated the effects of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combination therapy and high-dose amlodipine monotherapy on BP measurements and target organ protection. In this open-label multicenter trial, hypertensive patients were randomly allocated to receive losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 4 weeks, and the treatments were changed to combination of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for a further 4 weeks. A total of 91 hypertensive patients (age 63.6 years), 47 in the losartan/HCTZ group and 44 in amlodipine group, were enrolled. After 8 weeks, the clinic BP, home BP, and 24-hour ambulatory BP were successfully controlled to the same level in both treatment groups (P < .001). Furthermore, both groups showed the same degree of BP reduction in the 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime (P < .001). B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) also significantly decreased to the same level in both groups, whereas the reduction of urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was greater in the losartan/HCTZ group than in the high-dose amlodipine group (–47.6% vs 2.4%, P < .001). Losartan/HCTZ combination and high-dose amlodipine have similar effects on clinic, home, and ambulatory BP control and BNP reduction, whereas losartan/HCTZ has superior effect on UACR reduction when compared with high-dose amlodipine.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure control with triple-therapy amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with moderate to severe hypertension

To determine the effectiveness and safety of once-daily combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, a multicenter, double-blind study was performed (N=2271) that included ABP monitoring in a 283-patient subset. After a single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg), valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (320/25?mg), amlodipine/valsartan (10/320?mg) or amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (10/25?mg) each morning for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in all these parameters occurred in all treatment groups (P<0.0001, all comparisons versus baseline). At week 8, least squares mean reductions from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were 30.3/19.7, 31.2/20.5 and 28.0/17.8?mm?Hg, respectively, with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide; corresponding reductions with dual therapies ranged from 18.8-24.1/11.7-15.5, 19.0-25.1/12.0-16.0 and 18.3-22.6/11.1-14.3?mm?Hg (P≤0.01, all comparisons of triple versus dual therapy). Treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide maintained full 24-h effectiveness, including during the morning hours; all hourly mean ambulatory SBP and mean ambulatory DBP measurements were ≤130/85?mm?Hg at end point. Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy was well tolerated. Once-daily treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg) reduces ABP to a significantly greater extent than component-based dual therapy and maintains its effectiveness over the entire 24-h dosing period.     

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.     

Comparison of antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients with hypertension not controlled by angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the additional antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients whose hypertension is not controlled by full-dose angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) that was not controlled by valsartan 160 mg once daily were allocated randomly to two groups: those in group A (n = 35) were assigned randomly to treatment with benazepril 20 mg once daily or chlorthalidone 12.5 mg once daily, whereas patients in group B (n = 29) were assigned randomly to benazepril 20 mg once daily or amlodipine 5 mg once daily. All individuals continued to receive background valsartan 160 mg once daily. After 5 weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative valsartan-based combination treatment of each group for a second 5-week period. Twenty-four-hour ABP monitoring was performed before the random allocation to groups and at the end of each randomized combination pharmacotherapy period. RESULTS: Sixty-four individuals completed the study: 32 men and 32 women (mean +/- SD age 48.2 +/- 7.9 years, average 24-h ABP on valsartan monotherapy 143.4 +/- 12.6/87.7 +/- 7.8 mmHg). Significant additional antihypertensive effects on the average 24-h ABP were obtained with benazepril (8.6 +/- 8.8/6.3 +/- 6.7 mmHg), amlodipine (15.2 +/- 12.9/9.9 +/- 6.8 mmHg) and chlorthalidone (13.5 +/- 11.6/9.5 +/- 7.7 mmHg) (P < 0.001 for all additional antihypertensive effects). The additional effects of amlodipine and chlorthalidone added to valsartan were approximately 6/3.5 mmHg (P < 0.05) greater than that of benazepril. CONCLUSIONS: In patients in whom hypertension was not controlled by full-dose ARB monotherapy, a diuretic, a calcium antagonist or an ACE inhibitor provided significant additional antihypertensive effect. The antihypertensive effects of the ARB-diuretic and the ARB-calcium antagonist combinations were superior to that of the ARB-ACE inhibitor combination.     

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.     

Effectiveness of add-on low-dose diuretics in combination therapy for hypertension: losartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs. candesartan/amlodipine.

In guidelines, a combination therapy of two or more antihypertensives is recommended for treatment of hypertension where monotherapy is ineffective. Although diuretics or calcium channel blockers are commonly used as add-ons to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), the most effective and safe combination has not been established. In this randomized 4-month study, the efficacy and safety were compared between an ARB/diuretics (losartan/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ]) combination and the most prescribed combination, ARB/calcium channel blocker (candesartan/amlodipine) in hypertensive patients for whom 8 mg/day of candesartan proved ineffective. After 36 patients were recruited and allocated into two groups, changes in blood pressure (BP) and laboratory values were analyzed in 31 patients: 16 patients received losartan (50 mg/day)/HCTZ (12.5 mg/day) (L/H group), and 15 patients received candesartan (8 mg/day)/amlodipine (5 mg/day) (C/A group) after 5 patients were withdrawn. After 4 months, L/H significantly (p<0.001) reduced mean systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline 160/89 +/- 13/11 mmHg to 140/80 +/- 9/8 mmHg, and C/A reduced BP from 161/90 +/- 10/11 mmHg to 141/79 +/- 10/7 mmHg. The efficacy in reducing BP was similar between the two combination therapies. L/H significantly reduced serum potassium, but within the normal range, and did not increase serum uric acid or serum triglyceride. With L/H, the percentage of patients who attained the BP goal in SBP was higher in elderly patients than in younger patients. As L/H is more cost-effective than candesartan/amlodipine and has fewer adverse effects on uric acid and other metabolic parameters than diuretic monotherapy, it is concluded to be useful for the management of hypertension.     

A noninferiority comparison of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination versus amlodipine in black hypertensives

The objective of the study was to demonstrate that reduction in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was not inferior to 10 mg amlodipine in hypertensive blacks. A total of 482 blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (mean seated blood pressure 140 to 180/90 to 110 mm Hg) were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized, prospective study. After a placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 160 mg valsartan or 5 mg amlodipine for 2 weeks, then force-titrated to 160 mg valsartan and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide or 10 mg amlodipine for an additional 10 weeks. Blood pressure was assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Other assessments included quality of life, peripheral edema, and safety. Noninferiority of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide to amlodipine was demonstrated by comparable reductions in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure with both treatments (-10.2+/-8.6 mm Hg versus -9.1+/-8.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<0.001 for noninferiority), as well as in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (-15.9+/-12.1 mm Hg versus -14.5+/-12.2 mm Hg; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The proportion of patients reporting adverse events and the incidence of most events were similar in both treatment groups, although more patients treated with amlodipine reported peripheral edema (5.8% versus 1.7%; P=0.03) and joint swelling (2.9% versus 0%; P=0.008) compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. We conclude that a starting dose of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (160/12.5 mg) is as effective as high-dose amlodipine (10 mg) in reducing blood pressure in blacks with stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is better tolerated.     

A multicenter, randomized double-blind study of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination versus amlodipine in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE : To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily fixed valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination and amlodipine in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. SUBJECTS AND SETTING : In this multicentre, double-blind, randomized, comparative trial, 690 patients with sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) > or = 160 mmHg and sitting diastolic BP > or = 95 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo wash-out period were randomized to valsartan-based treatment (n = 342) or amlodipine (n = 348). METHODS : The patients received valsartan 80 mg o.d. or amlodipine 5 mg o.d for 4 weeks; in the case of an unsatisfactory blood pressure response, the treatments could be respectively changed to the fixed combination of valsartan 80 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. for a further 8 weeks. RESULTS : Both treatment approaches decreased systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure to the same extent. The rate of responders to treatment at the end of fourth week (before up-titration) was 57.4% among the valsartan-treated patients and 61.9% among the amlodipine-treated patients (ns). At the end of the study, the rate of responders was not significantly different between the two groups (74.9 versus 72.1%). Valsartan-based treatment had a slightly lower incidence of adverse events (1.5 versus 5.5%; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS : The results of this trial demonstrate that the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine are equally effective in lowering BP, and that the combination is better tolerated.     

Time to achieve blood-pressure goal: influence of dose of valsartan monotherapy and valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess time to achieve blood-pressure (BP) goal with incremental doses of valsartan alone, and together with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. METHODS: This analysis pooled patient-level data from nine randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled trials (N = 4278) of once-daily valsartan 80 mg, 160 mg, and 320 mg, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 80/12.5 mg, 160/12.5 mg, 160/25 mg, 320/12.5 mg, and 320/25 mg. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated the cumulative proportion of patients achieving BP <140/90 mm Hg over 8 weeks and the median time to BP goal. The HCTZ 12.5-mg and 25-mg doses were pooled for the time-to-goal analysis in patients receiving combinations with valsartan 160 mg or 320 mg. RESULTS: Overall, the median time-to-goal was 8.1 weeks with valsartan 160 mg, 6.1 weeks with valsartan 320 mg, 2.6 weeks with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ, and 2.1 weeks with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ. In patients with stage 2 hypertension, the median time-to-goal was 4.3 weeks with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ and 2.4 weeks with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ. Goal rates by Week 4 for valsartan/HCTZ exceeded rates by Week 8 with the same doses of valsartan alone. Overall, the proportion that achieved BP goal by Week 8 was 32.6% with valsartan 80 mg, 48.4% with valsartan 160 mg, 54.2% with valsartan 320 mg, 74.6% with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ, and 84.8% with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ, versus 24.2% with placebo. With valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ, 75.8% of stage 2 patients and 94% of stage 1 patients reached BP goal by Week 8. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were generally low across doses. CONCLUSIONS: In both stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, BP control is achieved more frequently and promptly when patients receive higher doses of valsartan monotherapy or valsartan combination therapy, with a favorable benefit-risk profile.     

Office and ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs. hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy in obese, hypertensive patients

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:731–738. ©2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.The authors evaluated the blood pressure (BP)–lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs amlodipine/HCTZ in a 16‐week, double‐blind, randomized, forced‐titration study and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) substudy involving centrally obese hypertensive patients 40 years and older. Patients were started on valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy, force‐titrated at week 4 to valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg and HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. The HCTZ group initiated amlodipine 5 mg at week 8 and 10 mg at week 12. A subset of patients had 24‐hour ABPM at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. At week 16 in the intent‐to‐treat population (n=401), valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/HCTZ lowered office systolic BP (−30.6 vs −28.3 mm Hg; P=.14). In the ABPM subgroup (n=111), valsartan/HCTZ was more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in reducing 24‐hour systolic BP (−20.6 vs −14.5 mm Hg; P=.011). In obese hypertensive patients, valsartan/HCTZ reduced office BP similar to amlodipine/HCTZ but lowered 24‐hour systolic BP more. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). ****;**:**–**.

The coexistence of abdominal obesity and a combination of blood pressure (BP), glucose, and lipid abnormalities, termed the cardiometabolic syndrome, has become an increasingly prevalent clinical problem. ¹ Of all the various elements comprising the cardiometabolic syndrome, hypertension has been identified as the key contributor to the significant cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality rates among overweight or obese individuals. ² Overall, considering the high propensity for patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome to develop target‐organ damage not only from hypertension but also other contributing causes, aggressive BP lowering to target BP <130/80 mm Hg has been recommended. ³ Obese patients are prone to develop salt‐sensitive hypertension, which may be the clinical consequence of the sodium‐retentive effects of hyperinsulinemia (resulting from insulin resistance) and/or hyperaldosteronism known to be associated with increased abdominal adiposity. ⁴ , ⁵ The renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAAS) is believed to play a role in the characteristic salt sensitivity and insulin resistance of obese patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome, ⁴ and RAAS inhibitors are considered preferred agents in these patients, having demonstrated the ability to lower BP while attenuating insulin resistance. ⁶ Given the frequency of salt‐sensitive hypertension and corresponding volume expansion among patients with cardiometabolic syndrome, there is a rationale for use of low‐dose diuretic therapy. ³ Data from the Antihypertensive and Lipid‐Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) support that thiazide‐like diuretics are appropriate as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with cardiometabolic syndrome. ⁷ , ⁸ , ⁹ , ¹⁰ While diuretics have established efficacy in reducing BP and associated CV morbidity and mortality, they are known to produce adverse metabolic and inflammatory effects for which the mechanism(s) and influence on long‐term outcomes are not well understood. ¹¹ , ¹² , ¹³ , ¹⁴ However, outcome studies to date have noted a marked decrease in CV morbidity and mortality when diuretics are used as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs. ¹⁰ The Valsartan and Hydrochlorothiazide In Hypertensive Abdominally Obese (VITAE) trial ¹⁵ was a randomized double‐blind study designed to examine whether treatment of obese hypertensive patients with a combination of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan plus the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) would achieve a greater reduction in systolic BP (SBP) with a more favorable metabolic profile relative to treatment with an HCTZ‐based regimen. Results of the metabolic aspects of the trial have been published, supporting an enhanced glucose‐stimulated insulin secretory response for valsartan/HCTZ relative to HCTZ monotherapy. ¹⁵ The overarching clinical question that formed the basis of the VITAE trial was whether initiating antihypertensive therapy with a RAAS blocker/diuretic combination would be more beneficial than diuretic monotherapy specifically in obese patients. The add‐on use of the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine at week 8 in the HCTZ monotherapy arm also allows a comparison of the relative BP‐lowering effects of valsartan/HCTZ vs amlodipine/HCTZ at the end of the 16‐week study period. Additionally, given the well‐recognized shortcomings of office BP measurements in reflecting a patient’s true BP status ¹⁶ and the ability of 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to provide a better reflection of CV risk, ¹⁷ a subset of VITAE patients participated in an ABPM substudy. It is important to assess whether any differences exist in terms of 24‐hour BP lowering with the non‐RAAS blocker–based approach (initial HCTZ with add‐on amlodipine) vs the RAAS blocker–based approach (valsartan/HCTZ) used in VITAE, as both treatment strategies could be recommended for patients with comorbid obesity and hypertension. Herein, we report these findings as well as a comparison of office BP and ABPM findings in the ABPM substudy population.     

AT1-receptor blockade improves augmentation index: a double-blind,randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE: Arterial hypertension leads to vascular structural and functional adaptive processes that are influenced by angiotensin II. To analyze the effects of AT receptor blockade on vascular function we determined augmentation index. METHODS AND DESIGN: A total of 60 patients (53 +/- 10 years) with essential hypertension mean [blood pressure (BP) 173 +/- 9/102 +/- 3 mmHg] were randomized to 6 weeks double-blind therapy with either valsartan 80 mg, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg or placebo once daily. Radial artery pressure wave was determined by applanation tonometry before and after therapy. The central aortic pressure wave and augmentation index were derived by a generalized transfer function. RESULTS: Active therapy similarly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) (valsartan: -22 +/- 18/-11 +/- 11 mmHg, HCTZ: -22 +/- 23/-14 +/- 14 mmHg, all P < 0.001). However, only valsartan, but no HCTZ reduced the augmentation index (valsartan: from 148 +/- 18 to 126 +/- 24, < 0.001; HCTZ: from 145 +/- 19 to 142 +/- 18, NS). Augmentation index reduction was greater with valsartan (-22 +/- 11) than with HCTZ (-3 +/- 11) and placebo (0 +/- 13) (P < 0.01 for pairwise comparison of valsartan versus HCTZ and placebo after Bonferroni correction). Differences remained significant after taking changes in supine BP into account (covariance, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Blood pressure reduction with the AT receptor antagonist valsartan but not with hydrochlorothiazide reduced the augmentation index in essential hypertension.     

Effect of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide combination on ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs lisinopril/HCTZ combination on ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients. A total of 160 patients, 76 men and 84 women, aged 61-75 years, with sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP)>90 mmHg and <110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP)>140 mmHg were randomized to receive temisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. or lisinopril 20 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. for 24 weeks, according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-group design. At the end of a 2-week wash-out period and after 12 and 24 weeks of active treatment, 24-h noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed and cognitive function was evaluated through six different tests (verbal fluency, Boston naming test, word-list memory, word-list recall, word-list recognition and Trails B). Both treatments significantly reduced ambulatory BP. However, the telmisartan/HCTZ combination produced a greater reduction in 24-h, day-time and night time ABPM values. Lisinopril/HCTZ did not induce significant changes in any of the cognitive function test scores at any time of the study, whereas at both 12 and 24 weeks telmisartan/HCTZ significantly improved the word-list memory score (+17.1 and +15.7%, respectively, P<0.05 vs baseline), the word-list recall score (+13.5 and +16.9%, P<0.05) and the Trails B score (-33 and -30.5%, P<0.05). These results suggest that in elderly hypertensive patients treatment with telmisartan/HCTZ produces a slightly greater reduction in ambulatory BP than lisinopril/HCTZ combination and, unlike this latter, improves some of the components of cognitive function, particularly episodic memory and visuospatial abilities.     

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。