Efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine in patients with poorly controlled mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (CC/HCTZ), 12.5 mg was compared with that of amlodipine, in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy. After a two week run-in period on existing therapy, patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90-110 mmHg and a sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) 相似文献   

Long-term,open-label evaluation of the safety and efficacy of telmisartan 80 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg fixed-dose combination alone or with other antihypertensive medication

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with telmisartan 80 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (T80/H25) fixed-dose combination (FDC) in patients who completed a previous double-blind study, in which T80/H25 provided more blood pressure (BP) reduction and produced a BP response in more patients than did T80/H12.5 FDC. Methods: Patients received open-label T80/H25 for 24 weeks; further antihypertensive medication was permitted. Seated trough BP was measured at weeks 0, 4, 12 and 24. Results: Primary end point (seated trough diastolic BP (DBP) control (< 90 mmHg)) was achieved in 71.4% of patients versus 52.4% at baseline (n = 639). The improvement was apparent at week 4 and sustained thereafter. In patients who received more antihypertensive medication (111/639 (17.4%)), DBP control increased from 24.8% at baseline to 58.6% at week 24. Seated trough systolic BP (SBP)/DBP were reduced from 141.0/89.0 mmHg at baseline by 4.6/3.6 mmHg by week 24. SBP response (< 140 or ≥ 20 mmHg reduction from start of previous trial) and DBP response (< 90 or ≥ 10 mmHg reduction from start of previous trial) increased at week 24 versus baseline from 51.8 to 69.3% and from 55.8 to 74.3%, respectively. At week 24, 110 (17.4%) patients achieved normal SBP/DBP (< 130/< 85 mmHg) and a further 24 (3.8%) patients achieved optimal SBP/DBP (< 120/< 80 mmHg). T80/H25 FDC was well tolerated; drug-related adverse events occurred in 29 (4.5%) patients. Conclusion: T80/H25 provides sustained and well-tolerated additive BP control, given alone or as part of a multi-antihypertensive therapy.     

国产氨氯地平治疗慢性肾功能不全并高血压的临床观察

目的 评价国产氨氯地平(兰迪)治疗慢性肾功能不全合并轻中度高血压的降压疗效和安全性.方法 慢性肾功能不全(血清肌酐值265-442 μmol/L)合并高血压患者61例,随机分为两组:兰迪组(31例)、氨氯地平组(络活喜组,30例),分别服用兰迪或络活喜5 mg每日1次,治疗4周末坐位DBP＜80 mm Hg且SBP＜130 mm Hg者继续原剂量治疗至8周末;坐位DBP≥80 mm Hg或SBP≥130 mm Hg者剂量分别加倍至10 mg 每日1次治疗至8周末.分别观察患者服药前后血压、心率和肝肾功能等生化指标变化及其不良反应.结果 61例患者均完成8周的临床试验.降压总有效率兰迪组达87%,络活喜组达90%,若以血压为130/80 mm Hg为靶目标值则:兰迪组8周后11例(36%)达标;络活喜组9例(30%)达标.两组不良反应轻,试验结束时主要实验室检查指标与试验前比较差异无统计学意义.结论 国产氨氯地平(兰迪)5～10 mg,每日1次是治疗慢性肾功能不全合并轻中度肾性高血压有效药物之一,且安全性好.     

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

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

厄贝沙坦单用及合用治疗轻、中度原发性高血压60例

目的 :比较国产厄贝沙坦单用以及与非洛地平或雷米普利合用对轻、中度原发性高血压的降压疗效。方法 :6 0例轻、中度高血压病人 ,经 2wk安慰剂导入期后 ,单服厄贝沙坦 15 0mg ,qd。 4wk后随机分 2组 ,分别联合服用非洛地平 5mg ,qd ,或雷米普利 5mg ,qd ,均为 4wk。治疗前及治疗后 4wk和 8wk行 2 4h动态血压监测 ,并测治疗前后坐位血压。结果 :厄贝沙坦单用 4wk后 ,坐位血压和2 4h动态血压均下降 (P <0 .0 5或P <0 .0 1) ,收缩压和舒张压的谷峰比值为 0 .82和 0 .86。厄贝沙坦与非洛地平或雷米普利合用 4wk后 ,坐位血压总有效率从 4 0 %增加为 89%和 70 % ;动态血压显示联合用药降压作用较明显。结论 :厄贝沙坦单用有长效的降压作用 ,与非洛地平或雷米普利联合用药有叠加降压作用     

Comparison of benazepril-amlodipine and captopril-thiazide combinations in the management of mild-to-moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of benazepril 10 mg + amlodipine 5 mg combination (BZ+AM) versus captopril 50 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (CP+HT) combination. MATERIAL: 405 outpatients with mild-to-moderate arterial hypertension not adequately controlled by a monotherapy with ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers or diuretics entered this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. METHOD: After a 2-week placebo run-in, 397 patients with sitting diastolic (D) blood pressure (BP) > 95 mmHg and/or sitting systolic (S) BP > 160 mmHg were randomized to receive either BZ+AM (201 patients) or CP+HT (196 patients) once daily for 12 weeks. Main outcome measure was sitting DBP and SBP values at the end of active treatment. The response rate was defined as the proportion of patients with either a final sitting DBP < 90 mmHg or decreased by at least 10 mmHg or a sitting SBP < 150 mmHg or decreased by at least 20 mmHg from baseline. RESULTS: The DBP and SBP values obtained with BZ+AM were, respectively, 2.7 and 3.7 mmHg lower than those obtained with CP+HT (both p < 0.001 vs. CP+HT). The response rate in the BZ+AM group (94.8%) was better than that observed in the CP+HT group (86.0%, p = 0.004). The incidence of adverse events was similar with the 2 treatment regimens (17.9% for both). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a higher antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed combination BZ 10 mg+AM 5 mg as compared with CP 50 mg+HT 25 mg.     

Evaluation of long-term efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR in elderly hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term antihypertensive efficacy and acceptability of indapamide SR 1.5 mg in elderly hypertensive patients (> or = 65 years). STUDY DESIGN: Open, 12-month, follow-up study of 444 patients, treated with indapamide SR, who were responders and/or achieved target BP levels following a 3-month, randomised, controlled, double-blind short-term comparison of indapamide SR versus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and amlodipine 5 mg. RESULTS: The long-term decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 months follow-up with indapamide SR was -24.0/-13.1 mmHg from baseline (M0). The percentage of patients that achieved target BP levels (DBP < 95 mmHg, SBP < or = 160 mmHg) was 80.1% [84.3% for isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) subgroup], and the response rate (BP < 140/90 mmHg or decrease in supine diastolic BP > or = 10 mmHg or in supine systolic BP > or = 20 mmHg) 81.5%. Blood pressure (BP) remained stable throughout the 12 months follow-up period (M3-M15), whatever the previous treatment received during the 3-month, doubleblind period (M0-M3). Clinical and biological acceptability was good. A low occurrence of withdrawals (7.2%), was reported. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the long-term, 12-month follow-up study, indapamide SR was shown to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive therapy, even after a switch from amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, in patients aged 65 years-80 years with systolo-diastolic hypertension (SDH) or ISH.     

Effects of nilvadipine and amlodipine in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: a double blind, prospective, randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: This double blind, prospective, randomised, parallel group clinical trial was aimed at investigating the effects of nilvadipine or amlodipine in mild to moderate hypertensive patients over a 3-month treatment period. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible outpatients (supine DBP > or = 90 mmHg and < or = 110 mmHg and supine SBP < or = 180 mmHg) entered a maximum 15-day placebo run-in period and were randomised to receive once daily nilvadipine 8 mg or amlodipine 5 mg (to be doubled in the case of lack of response at day 30). Follow-up visits with measurement of supine and orthostatic blood pressure and heart rate were performed after 15, 30, 60 and 90 days of treatment. Standard laboratory tests and 12-lead ECG were performed at study entry and at the end of treatment; adverse events were collected at any time. RESULTS: A total number of 168 patients, 83 in the nilvadipine and 85 in the amlodipine group, took part in the study: 15 and 14 in the two groups, respectively, were prematurely withdrawn. Supine DBP at endpoint similarly decreases in the two groups (-11.0 +/- 7.1 mmHg in the nilvadipine group and -12.7 +/- 8.2 mmHg in the amlodipine group), with no significant differences between groups at any time point. Measurements in the orthostatic position also did not show between-groups differences. Blood pressure was normalised in 61.8% of patients in the nilvadipine group and in 63.0% in the amlodipine group; responders to therapy were 64.5% and 69.1% in the two groups, respectively. Results of SBP also did not show differences between groups at any time point, except a more marked decrease in the amlodipine group compared to nilvadipine in the supine measurements at endpoint. A total number of 30 patients (36.6%) in the nilvadipine group and 23 (27.1%) in the amlodipine group reported adverse events (p = 0.24 between groups), which mainly consisted of vasodilatory effects (e.g. oedema, flushing and headache). A favourable lipid profile, i.e. a significant (p = 0.002 between groups) decrease of triglycerides levels and an increase of HDL-C, was observed in the nilvadipine group, compared with an increase of triglycerides in the amlodipine group. No effects on haematology, liver and renal function were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Nilvadipine or amlodipine produced comparable effects on DBP and shared a similar adverse effect profile. A favourable effect on lipid profile was observed following nilvadipine treatment.     

国产苯磺酸氨氯地平和络活喜治疗慢性肾功能不全合并高血压的对比研究

目的评价苯磺酸氨氯地平(压氏达)和络活喜对慢性肾功能不全合并高血压的患者的治疗效果和安全性。方法慢性肾功能不全(血清肌酐值265~442μmol.L-1)合并高血压患者(坐位DBP 90~105mmHg和/或坐位SBP≤170mmHg)63例被随机分为两组,分别服用压氏达或络活喜5mg每日1次,治疗4周末坐位DBP<80mmHg,且SBP<130mmHg者继续原剂量治疗至8周末;坐位DBP≥80mmHg或SBP≥130mmHg者剂量分别加倍至10mg每日1次治疗至8周末。分别观察患者服药前后血压、心率和肝肾功能等生化指标变化及其不良反应。结果 63例病人均完成8周的临床试验。与试验前比较,用药第4周起,两组患者的收缩压和舒张压均有显著性下降(P<0.01),降压总有效率压氏达组达87%,络活喜组达90%,若以血压为130/80mmHg为靶目标值则:压氏达组8周后12例(37.5%)达标;络活喜组10例(32.3%)达标。两组不良反应轻,试验结束时主要实验室检查指标与试验前比较无统计学差异。结论压氏达5~10mg每日1次是治疗慢性肾功能不全合并高血压的有效药物之一,且安全性好。     

Effect of three months' treatment with irbesartan on blood and pulse pressure of hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients: open, observational study in 31,793 patients

OBJECTIVES: In hypertensive diabetics the cardiovascular risk is substantially increased. Therefore, an effective reduction of both blood pressure and pulse pressure is of particular importance for these patients. The aim of the prospective observational study in hypertensive type 2 diabetics was to assess the effect of a switch from the previous antihypertensive therapy to the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan (alone or in combination with HCTZ) on the reduction of blood pressure and pulse pressure, the reduction of diabetic nephropathy (microalbuminuria), and tolerability. METHODS: 8714 general practitioners included 31,793 type 2 diabetics aged at least 18 years in an open observational study. After inclusion in to the study the patients received irbesartan 300 mg as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (HCTZ). Main outcome measures for efficacy were the reduction of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures, reduction of pulse pressure, and blood pressure responder (reduction in DBP > or = 10 mmHg or diastolic < 90 mmHg), diastolic normalization (DBP < 90 mmHg) and overall normalization rates (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg) after 3 months. Further outcome measures included the reduction of microalbuminuria or proteinuria, and adverse events (AEs) as a measure of tolerability. RESULTS: Thirty-eight per cent of patients received irbesartan 300 mg and 61% irbesartan in combination with HCTZ. Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 22.5 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure by 10.7 mmHg (baseline values: 160.2 and 93.2 mmHg). Pulse pressure fell on average by 11.6 mmHg. 83.4% of the patients were responders, with an overall normalization rate of 42.7% (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg), respectively 73.8% (DBP < 90 mmHg). The antihypertensive benefit was achieved irrespective of the previous medication. Mean albuminuria decreased by about 27.7 mg/L. Only 0.3% of patients experienced adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetics with hypertension and either uncontrolled or no previous antihypertensive therapy a change to treatment with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ for 3 months resulted in a distinct reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures, with concomitant effective reductions of pulse pressure and microalbuminuria.     

Efficacy and tolerability of rilmenidine compared with isradipine in hypertensive patients with features of metabolic syndrome

OBJECTIVES: A high prevalence of associated metabolic cardiovascular risk factors is often observed among hypertensive subjects. The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of 1-2 mg/day of rilmenidine, a centrally acting antihypertensive agent with selectivity for I(1) imidazoline receptors, vs. 2.5-5 mg/twice daily of isradipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, in hypertensive patients with features of the metabolic syndrome. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this 6-month multicentre, comparative, double-blind, parallel group study, the primary objective was to assess the effects of the treatments on blood pressure (BP); the secondary endpoints were to assess glucose and lipid metabolism, in addition to clinical and biological tolerability. In non-responder patients, dose adjustment was possible from the first month and adding a diuretic from the third month. RESULTS: Of an intention-to-treat population of 93 patients, 84 per protocol patients completed the study: 42 in the rilmenidine group and 42 in the isradipine group. BP decreased significantly (p < 0.001) and similarly in both groups (systolic blood pressure, SBP: -16.0 +/- 17.2 mmHg and -15.0 +/- 13.0 mmHg, and diastolic blood pressure, DBP: -9.0 +/- 9.4 mmHg and -9.0 +/- 8.7 mmHg with rilmenidine and isradipine, respectively). Normalisation (DBP < 90 mmHg and SBP < 140 mmHg) and response (normalisation or decrease in SBP >or= 20 mmHg or decrease in DBP >or= 10 mmHg) rates were respectively 57% and 72% with rilmenidine and 64% and 79% with isradipine (NS between groups). The effects of the treatments on both glucose and lipid metabolism were comparable: no significant difference from baseline was observed on the main parameters including insulin sensitivity indexes. The two treatments appeared to be well tolerated throughout the study, with no serious adverse reaction reported in the rilmenidine group and one serious adverse event in the isradipine group (a perimalleolar oedema), leading to withdrawal from the study for the affected patient. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that in hypertensive patients with metabolic disorders, rilmenidine is an effective antihypertensive treatment, comparable to isradipine, with metabolic neutrality and a good tolerance profile.     

Treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension with calcium channel blockers: a multicentre comparison of once-daily nifedipine GITS with once-daily amlodipine

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the most important causes of cardiovascular disease, and treatment of hypertension leads to a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Although calcium channel blockers are regarded as an important part of the therapeutic armamentarium against cardiovascular diseases, and are among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive medications, concern has been aroused about these drugs, particularly the short-acting dihydropyrldine derivatives. However, the value of nifedipine GITS(Adalat-Crono), the long-acting dihydropyrldine, is in need of being re-established. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of once-daily nifedipine and amlodipine treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. DESIGN: Randomised multicentre trial with an open comparison of treatments for 12 weeks, with a preceding placebo run-in period of 2 weeks (patients on beta-blockers at the time of enrollment entered a mandatory 2-week wash-out period before being allowed In the placebo run-in period;this wash-out period was one week for patients using any antihypertensive medication other than beta-blockers). SETTING: Nine centres (all university hospitals) in Turkey. PATIENTS: 155 patients with essential hypertension(diastolic blood pressure 95-109 mmHg). INTERVENTIONS: Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 30 mg nifedipine GlTS (n = 76; (Adalat-Crono tablets), or 5 mg amlodipine (n = 79; Norvasct5-mg tablets), either administered once daily, as a morning dose, or f the blood pressure was not below 140/90 mmHg, or the reduction In diastolic blood pressure was lower than 10 mmHg after a treatment period of 6 weeks, the dose was increased (Step 2) to 60 mg once daily in the nifedipine group, or 10 mg once daily in the amlodipine group. MAIN EFFICACY PARAMETER: Diastolic blood pressure at trough after 12 weeks of active compound therapy adjusted to baseline. RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.1 and 81.9 mmHg,in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively (p = 0.436). The mean decrease in systolic blood pressure (28.5 +/- 11.9 and 28.2 +/- 11.2 mmHg in the nifadipine and amlodipine groups, respectively) and the mean decrease in diastolic blood pressure (16.4A +/- 7.0 and 17.5 +/- 6.9 mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively), as well as the responder rates (88.1%and 92.1%, in the nifediplne and amlodipine groups, respectively) were comparable at the end of the study. No significant differences between groups were detected In the efficacy parameters assessed in this study. Both drugs were well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events was 7.9% in the nifadipine group and 10.1% In the amlodipine group. However, more patients discontinued treatment prematurely in the amlodipine group (13 patients; 19.7%), than in the nifedipine group (four patients; 5.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrated that once-daily nifedipine in GITS formation and amlodipine are comparably safe and effective treatment options in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.     

Irbesartan/Amlodipine: A Review of its Use in Adult Patients with Essential Hypertension Not Adequately Controlled with Monotherapy

Combination therapy is often required in patients with hypertension, and fixed-dose single-pill combinations have been shown to provide an easier regimen for patients, improving adherence. Irbesartan/amlodipine (Aprovasc^®) is an angiotensin-receptor blocker/calcium-channel blocker fixed-dose single-pill combination, whose constituent drugs exert additive effects when coadministered. In two randomized, open-label, multicentre, phase III trials, fixed-dose combination therapy with irbesartan/amlodipine was more effective than continuation of irbesartan or amlodipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension not adequately controlled with initial irbesartan or amlodipine monotherapy; there was a significantly greater decrease from baseline in mean seated home systolic blood pressure (primary endpoint) with the fixed-dose combination. The fixed-dose combination was also associated with a greater decrease in mean seated home diastolic blood pressure and mean seated office systolic and diastolic blood pressure than monotherapy. The fixed-dose combination of irbesartan/amlodipine was well tolerated in these patients; most treatment-emergent adverse events were of mild or moderate severity. The most frequent adverse event was peripheral oedema, generally associated with amlodipine treatment.     

PK-PD modeling of irbesartan in healthy Chinese adult volunteers under non-steady-state conditions.

The purpose of this study was to construct a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model (PK-PD model) of irbesartan in healthy Chinese adult volunteers under non-steady-state conditions and provide relevant PK/PD parameters for use in clinical practice. Thirty-six healthy Chinese adult male volunteers received 150 or 300 mg irbesartan orally in tablet form (2 groups; n = 18 per group). Plasma concentrations were determined by HPLC and pharmacological effects, including effects on systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were measured simultaneously. The experimental data were quantitatively analyzed according to the PK-PD model construct. PK/PD parameters were calculated. Blood pressure remained almost unchanged at an irbesartan dose of 150 mg under non-steady-state conditions. After a single dose of 300 mg, the pharmacokinetic profiles of irbesartan conformed to a two-compartment model. There were hysteresis loops between drug effects and plasma concentrations. The relationship between effects and effect compartment concentrations (Ce) could be represented by the sigmoid-Emax model. The Emax values for the inhibitory effects on SBP and DBP of irbesartan were 14.8 +/- 1.5 and 9.8 +/- 2.1 mmHg respectively, the EC50 values were 0.29 +/- 0.11 and 0.18 +/- 0.07 microg x ml(-1), while the K(eo) values were 0.62 +/- 0.09 and 0.68 +/- 0.07 h(-1), respectively. The PK-PD model of irbesartan was developed in healthy Chinese adult male volunteers, and may provide a more rational basis for dosage individualization.     

Optimization of blood pressure treatment with fixed-combination perindopril/amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension

Background: Fixed-dose combination treatments using an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, such as perindopril, plus a calcium channel blocker (CCB), such as amlodipine, have been endorsed by guidelines because they improve blood pressure control and cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients, while being well tolerated and well adhered to by patients. Objective: This study aimed to assess the blood pressure-lowering effects of fixed-combination perindopril/amlodipine in patients previously treated with an ACE inhibitor and/or a CCB. Methods: This was a prospective, real-life, open-label, longitudinal, phase IV study conducted in 223 outpatient medical centres across Slovakia. 2132 previously treated patients whose hypertension was insufficiently controlled at baseline or who tolerated treatment poorly were included. Patients were treated for 3 months with fixed-combination perindopril/amlodipine 5?mg/5?mg, 5?mg/10?mg, 10?mg/5?mg and 10?mg/10?mg. The main outcome measure was a reduction in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and achievement of blood pressure targets (SBP/DBP <140/90?mmHg or <130/80?mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or high cardiovascular risk). Results: After 3 months of treatment, mean?±?SD SBP/DBP had decreased from 158.5?±?17.5/93.6?±?9.8?mmHg to 132.9?±?10.6/80.7?±?6.2?mmHg (p?相似文献   

Efficacy and safety of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and ramipril alone or in combination in patients with diabetes and hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the combination of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and ramipril in patients with diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicentre trial, 837 patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [BP] > 95 and < 110 mmHg) were randomised to once-daily aliskiren (150 mg titrated to 300 mg after four weeks; n=282), ramipril (5 mg titrated to 10 mg; n=278) or the combination (n=277) for eight weeks. Efficacy variables were cuff mean sitting diastolic BP (msDBP) and mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP); 24-hour ambulatory BP, plasma renin activity (PRA) and plasma renin concentration (PRC) were also assessed. RESULTS: At week 8, aliskiren, ramipril and aliskiren/ramipril lowered msDBP (mean+/-SEM) by 11.3+/-0.5, 10.7+/-0.5 and 12.8+/-0.5 mmHg, and msSBP by 14.7+/-0.9, 12.0+/-0.9 and 16.6+/-0.9 mmHg, respectively. Aliskiren/ramipril provided superior msDBP reductions to ramipril (p=0.004) or aliskiren (p=0.043) monotherapy; adding aliskiren to ramipril provided an additional mean BP reduction of 4.6/2.1 mmHg. Aliskiren monotherapy was non-inferior to ramipril for msDBP reduction (p=0.0002) and superior for msSBP reduction (p=0.021). All treatments significantly lowered mean 24-hour ambulatory BP. Aliskiren significantly reduced PRA from baseline as monotherapy (by 66%, p<0.0001) or in combination with ramipril (by 48%, p<0.0001), despite large increases in PRC in all treatment groups. Aliskiren was well tolerated as monotherapy or in combination with ramipril. CONCLUSIONS: Combining aliskiren with ramipril provided a greater reduction in msDBP than either drug alone in patients with diabetes and hypertension.     

Effect of three months’ treatment with irbesartan on blood and pulse pressure of hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients: open,observational study in 31 793 patients

ABSTRACT

Objectives: In hypertensive diabetics the cardiovascular risk is substantially increased. Therefore, an effective reduction of both blood pressure and pulse pressure is of particular importance for these patients. The aim of the prospective observational study in hypertensive type 2 diabetics was to assess the effect of a switch from the previous antihypertensive therapy to the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan (alone or in combination with HCTZ) on the reduction of blood pressure and pulse pressure, the reduction of diabetic nephropathy (microalbuminuria), and tolerability.

Methods: 8714 general practitioners included 31?793 type 2 diabetics aged at least 18 years in an open observational study. After inclusion in to the study the patients received irbesartan 300?mg as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg (HCTZ). Main outcome measures for efficacy were the reduction of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures, reduction of pulse pressure, and blood pressure responder (reduction in DBP ≥ 10 mmHg or diastolic < 90 mmHg), diastolic normalization (DBP < 90 mmHg) and overall normalization rates (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg) after 3 months. Further outcome measures included the reduction of microalbuminuria or proteinuria, and adverse events (AEs) as a measure of tolerability.

Results: Thirty-eight per cent of patients received irbesartan 300?mg and 61% irbesartan in combination with HCTZ. Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 22.5?mmHg, diastolic blood pressure by 10.7?mmHg (baseline values: 160.2 and 93.2?mmHg). Pulse pressure fell on average by 11.6?mmHg. 83.4% of the patients were responders, with an overall normalization rate of 42.7% (SBP < 140?mmHg and DBP < 90?mmHg), respectively 73.8% (DBP < 90?mmHg). The antihypertensive benefit was achieved irrespective of the previous medication. Mean albuminuria decreased by about 27.7?mg/L. Only 0.3% of patients experienced adverse events.

Conclusions: In type 2 diabetics with hypertension and either uncontrolled or no previous antihypertensive therapy a change to treatment with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ for 3 months resulted in a distinct reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures, with concomitant effective reductions of pulse pressure and microalbuminuria.     

Antihypertensive effect of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide alone or in combination with quinapril in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension

In this study, using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, the authors assessed the potential for BP control using hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily), given as a monotherapy over 12 months to 49 black South African patients with mild to moderate hypertension (mean day diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or = 90 and < 115 mmHg). Uncontrolled patients received fixed combination of quinapril/HCTZ 10/12.5, 20/12.5, and 20/25 mg, with dose titration at 3 monthly intervals if BP control was not achieved (day DBP < 90 mmHg). Overall, profound and sustained BP reduction was observed at the end of the study. The 24-hour BP decreased from 151 +/- 14/98 +/- 7 to 136 +/- 15/87 +/- 9 mmHg (p < 0.0001 at end of study vs. baseline); the mean day BP decreased from 155 +/- 14/104 +/- 7 to 140 +/- 15/91 +/- 10 mmHg (p < 0.0001 at end of study vs. baseline). The overall control (mean day DBP < 90 mmHg) and response (decrease in day DBP > or = 10 mmHg) rates were 49% and 61%, respectively. At the end of the study, only 2 patients (4%) remained on treatment with HCTZ. Out of the initial 12 patients controlled on HCTZ at 3 months (12/49, 24%), 5 patients remained controlled at 6 months and only 1 patient at 12 months. In contrast, quinapril/HCTZ combinations maintained their antihypertensive effect up to 9 months, with a significant number of patients (22/49, 45%) requiring the highest dose of the combination (20/25 mg daily). In conclusion, low-dose HCTZ should not be recommended as monotherapy in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension due to the fact that the BP-lowering effect is attenuated already at 6 months of treatment, with most patients requiring the addition of the ACE inhibitor.     

Control of blood pressure in hypertensive patients with felodipine extended release or nifedipine retard.

1. This multicentre hospital study compared the antihypertensive efficacy and the tolerability of once daily felodipine extended release (ER) with twice daily nifedipine retard (R) in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled on metoprolol monotherapy. 2. One hundred patients, aged 20-70 years, whose seated diastolic blood pressure was 100-115 mmHg after 4 to 6 weeks of metoprolol (200 mg day-1) monotherapy, were randomised, double-blind, to receive felodipine ER 10 mg once daily or nifedipine R 20 mg twice daily for 8 weeks. The dosage of felodipine or nifedipine was doubled if seated diastolic blood pressure exceeded 95 mmHg, 2 or 4 weeks after randomisation. Metoprolol 200 mg once daily was taken throughout the trial. 3. Fifty-one patients received felodipine ER and 49 nifedipine R; 46 and 45 respectively completed the 8 week trial. About half of patients on each treatment needed the higher dose. The baseline characteristics of the felodipine and nifedipine groups were generally well balanced. 4. Seated diastolic blood pressure was reduced by 17 mmHg for felodipine (24 h post-dose) and by 9 mmHg for nifedipine (12 h post-dose), a difference between treatments of 8 mmHg (95% confidence interval 5 to 12 mmHg, P less than 0.0001). The attained blood pressures at the end of the study (felodipine 90 +/- 10, mmHg, mean +/- s.d.; nifedipine 95 +/- 10) were also significantly different (95% confidence interval for the 5 mmHg difference, -9 to -1 mmHg, P less than 0.02).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of long-term treatment with manidipine or amlodipine in patients with essential hypertension

This double-blind, multicenter trial compared antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of manidipine and amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were randomly assigned to 48 weeks of once-daily manidipine, 10-20 mg, or amlodipine, 5-10 mg. Patients who did not respond to treatment after 12 weeks were also given enalapril, 10-20 mg, for the study's duration. The main efficacy end point was equivalence in sitting systolic (SiSBP) and diastolic (SiDBP) blood pressure reduction between the two drugs after 8 weeks (per protocol analysis). An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed in all patients with at least one efficacy determination during treatment. Quality of life was assessed by the "Subjective Symptoms Assessment Profile" (SSA-P) and "General Well-being Schedule" (GWBS), after 12 weeks of treatment. SiSBP reduction after 8 weeks was equivalent for manidipine (15.2 mm Hg, n = 227) and amlodipine (17.0 mm Hg, n = 219). The corresponding figure for SiDBP was 11.3 mm Hg for manidipine and 12.3 mm Hg for amlodipine. In the larger ITT population SiDBP was similarly and significantly reduced by manidipine (from 102 +/- 5 to 88 +/- 9 mm Hg, n = 241) and amlodipine (from 101 +/- 5 to 87 +/- 8 mm Hg, n = 240). Similar results were observed for SiSBP and standing SBP and DBP. Neither drug changed sitting or standing heart rate compared with baseline. SSA-P scores improved with manidipine but not amlodipine. GWBS total and partial scores increased more with manidipine than with amlodipine. Safety profile favored manidipine, which was associated with significantly less ankle edema than was amlodipine. This study shows for the first time that long-term treatment with the long-acting calcium channel blocker manidipine is as effective as treatment with amlodipine, has a better tolerability profile, and induces greater improvement in quality of life than amlodipine.