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.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure response to combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in stage 2 hypertension by ethnicity: the EVALUATE study

Several studies reported racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive monotherapy. In a 10-week study of stage 2 hypertension, 320/25 mg valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) reduced ambulatory BP (ABP) significantly more effectively than 10/25 mg amlodipine/HCTZ. Results (post hoc analysis) are described in Caucasians (n=256), African Americans (n=79), and Hispanics (n=86). Compared with clinic-measured BP (no significant treatment-group differences in ethnic subgroups), least-squares mean reductions from baseline to week 10 in mean ambulatory systolic BP (MASBP) and mean ambulatory diastolic BP (MADBP) favored valsartan/HCTZ over amlodipine/HCTZ in Caucasians (-21.9/-12.7 mm Hg vs -17.6/-9.5 mm Hg; P=.0004/P<.0001). No treatment-group differences in MASBP/MADBP were observed in African Americans (-17.3/-10.6 vs -17.9/-9.5; P=.76/P=.40) or Hispanics (-17.9/-9.7 vs -14.2/-7.2; P=.20/P=.17). Based on ABP monitoring, valsartan/HCTZ is more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in lowering ABP in Caucasians. In African Americans and Hispanics, both regimens are similarly effective.     

Initial angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/calcium channel blocker combination therapy achieves superior blood pressure control compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension

BACKGROUND: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends initial combination therapy for patients whose blood pressure (BP) is >20/10 mm Hg above goal. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy versus that of monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension, who by definition meet the JNC 7 recommendation for initial combination antihypertensive therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 364 patients with stage 2 hypertension to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d titrated to 10/20 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d titrated to 10 mg/d). RESULTS: Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy (74.2%) compared with those randomized to monotherapy (53.9%; P <.0001) achieved the primary end point (reductions in systolic BP > or =25 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was <180 mm Hg, or > or =32 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was > or =180 mm Hg). Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy compared with monotherapy attained BP goals of <140/90 mm Hg (61.0% v 43.3%; P =.0007) and < or =130/85 mm Hg (35.7% v 19.1%; P =.0004). Among patients with baseline systolic BP > or =180 mm Hg, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater reductions in systolic BP compared with monotherapy (-42.3 v -30.4 mm Hg; P =.001). More than 90% of patients in each group were titrated to the higher dose. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater BP reductions and attainment of BP goals compared with monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension. This evidence supports the recommendation of combination therapy as first-line treatment in stage 2 hypertension.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of night-time graded-release diltiazem versus morning amlodipine in African Americans

BACKGROUND: The effect of a once daily night-time (10 pm) graded-release diltiazem (GRD) on early morning blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and rate-pressure product (RPP) were compared with the effect of morning (8 am) amlodipine in 262 African American individuals with hypertension. METHODS: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-to-effect trial evaluated changes from baseline in BP, HR, and RPP (HR x systolic BP) by ambulatory BP monitoring during the first 4 h after awakening (diastolic BP = primary), between 6 am and 12 noon, and over a 24-h period. Patients were randomized to night-time GRD 360 mg (n = 132) or morning amlodipine 5 mg (n = 130) for 6 weeks, and were titrated to GRD 540 mg or amlodipine 10 mg after 6 weeks if clinic systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) was > or = 130/85 mm Hg. RESULTS: Compared with amlodipine, GRD showed significantly greater DBP reductions of 3.5 mm Hg (P < .0049) and 3.2 mm Hg (P < .0019) during the first 4 h after awakening and between 6 am and 12 noon respectively, as well as comparable reduction for the 24-h mean DBP. The SBP reductions during the morning periods were comparable, but the reduction in the 24-h mean SBP was 3.4 mm Hg greater (P < .0022) for amlodipine. Mean reductions in HR and RPP were significantly greater (P < or = .0008) for GRD during all intervals; amlodipine increased whereas diltiazem reduced HR with mean differences of 6.7 to 9.3 beats/min. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Night-time GRD was more effective than morning amlodipine in reducing early morning DBP, HR, and RPP, as well as 24-h HR and RPP in African American individuals with hypertension. Amlodipine was more effective in reducing SBP over the 24-h period.     

A multicenter, 14-week study of telmisartan and ramipril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) has a circadian pattern with a morning surge that is associated with an increased risk of acute coronary and cerebrovascular events. In a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group, multicenter, forced-titration study of telmisartan and ramipril, the efficacy of both drugs on mean ambulatory diastolic BP (DBP) and systolic BP (SBP) during the last 6 h of a 24-h dosing interval was evaluated. METHODS: After screening and a single-blind run-in phase, 812 adults with mild-to-moderate hypertension (defined as a mean seated DBP > or =95 mm Hg and < or =109 mm Hg and a 24-h ABPM mean DBP 7 > or = 85 mm Hg) were randomized to the open-label, 14-week, forced-titration, active-treatment phase as follows: telmisartan 40 mg/80 mg/80 mg (n = 405) or ramipril 2.5 mg/5 mg/10 mg (n = 407), once daily in the morning. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in the last 6-h mean DBP and SBP at 8 and 14 weeks as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Secondary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in BP control during each of the 24-h periods and in-clinic trough cuff BP. RESULTS: Telmisartan 80 mg was superior to ramipril 5 mg and 10 mg in change from baseline in the last 6-h ABPM mean DBP and SBP at both 8 and 14 weeks (both P < .0001), respectively. At 14 weeks, the adjusted mean change from baseline in DBP for telmisartan 80 mg was -8.8 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -5.4 mm Hg (P < .0001). For SBP, the adjusted mean change from baseline for telmisartan 80 mg was -12.7 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -7.9 mm Hg (P < .0001). At 14 weeks, telmisartan 80 mg also yielded superior reductions from baseline in trough cuff BP compared with ramipril 10 mg (DBP: -11.0 mm Hg v -7.8 mm Hg, respectively; SBP: -14.3 mm Hg v -9.1 mm Hg, respectively; both P < .0001). Measures of 24-h BP control favored telmisartan 80 mg versus ramipril 10 mg (P < .0001), as did other secondary ABPM endpoints during the daytime, night-time, and morning periods. Treatment-related adverse events were uncommon; patients treated with ramipril had a higher incidence of cough than those treated with telmisartan (10.1% v 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 80 mg was consistently more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing both DBP and SBP during the last 6 h of the dosing interval, a measure of the early morning period when patients are at greatest risk of life-threatening cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Telmisartan 80 mg was also more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing BP throughout the entire 24-h dosing interval. Both drugs were well tolerated.     

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.     

缬沙坦/氨氯地平复方片剂对单药控制不良的轻中度高血压患者的疗效观察

目的 评价缬沙坦(80 mg)/氨氯地平(5 mg)复方片剂(复方片剂)治疗经氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg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、平行试验方法进行两项临床研究.在两项研究中对经1～4周洗脱期的轻、中度原发性高血压患者[坐位舒张压≥95 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)且<110 mm Hg]分别采用单药氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg治疗4周,在单药导入结束后,坐位舒张压仍然≥90mm Hg且<110 mm Hg的患者随机进入复方片剂组或继续原有的单药治疗,共8周.其间,在治疗4周和试验结束时评估药物的安全性及有效性.结果 治疗结束时,复方片剂组平均坐位收缩压/平均坐位舒张压下降幅度较氨氯地平单药治疗组多4.4mm Hg/3 mm Hg(P<0.0001);较缬沙坦80 mg组多6.4 mm Hg/4.2 mm Hg(P<0.0001).两项研究中复方片剂组的血压控制率(血压<140/90 mmHg)分别为71.0%及71.2%,显著优于氨氯地平或缬沙坦单药治疗组,不良事件发生率与单药治疗组相当.结论 复方片剂组的血压控制率显著优于其两种成分(氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg)单药的治疗,且具有良好的安全性和耐受性.     

Combination therapy of amlodipine/benazepril versus monotherapy of amlodipine in a practice-based setting

BACKGROUND: Community-based studies are conducted to determine the degree to which therapeutic interventions will succeed in real world settings. This large practice-based clinical trial assessed the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril, compared with amlodipine monotherapy, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. METHODS: Hypertensive patients currently taking amlodipine were selected based on one of two criteria: inadequate blood pressure (BP) control on amlodipine (diastolic BP [DBP] > or = 90 mm Hg; group 1), or inability to tolerate amlodipine (DBP < or = 90 mm Hg, but with edema; group 2). Eligible patients were switched from 5 or 10 mg of amlodipine to 5/10 mg or 5/20 mg of amlodipine/benazepril for 4 weeks. In group 1 (n = 6410), primary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting DBP. A secondary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting systolic BP (SBP). In group 2 (n = 1502), primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients whose edema improved during therapy with amlodipine/benazepril when compared with amlodipine monotherapy. RESULTS: In group 1, mean sitting DBP declined from 96.5 mm Hg at baseline to 84.9 mm Hg at week 4, a mean reduction of 11.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] -11.8 to -11.3 mm Hg; P < .001). From baseline to week 4, mean sitting SBP declined from 152.9 mm Hg to 137.3 mm Hg, a mean reduction of 15.6 mm Hg (95% CI -16.0 to -15.2 mm Hg; P < .001). In group 2, 85% (95% CI 83%-87%) experienced some improvement in edema compared with baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive agent amlodipine/benazepril was safe and effective for patients who experienced either inadequate BP control or edema with amlodipine monotherapy.     

A home blood pressure monitoring study comparing the antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonist fixed combinations

BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan 80 mg v irbesartan 150 mg when combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg. METHODS: Untreated or uncontrolled hypertensive adults (n = 800) were enrolled by primary care physicians. After a 5-week open-label lead-in phase in which all patients received 12.5 mg HCTZ once daily, subjects whose blood pressure (BP) remained uncontrolled were randomized (n = 464) to valsartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg) or irbesartan/HCTZ (150/12.5 mg) for 8 weeks. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) was performed in the morning and in the evening for 5 days, at baseline, and after 8 weeks. Office BP measurements were obtained at baseline and after 8 weeks. RESULTS: Irbesartan/HCTZ produced greater reductions in average systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) measured by HBPM than valsartan/HCTZ (SBP: -13.0 v -10.6 mm Hg, P = .0094; DBP: -9.5 v -7.4 mm Hg, P = .0007). These differences were more pronounced in the morning (trough) than in the evening. Office BP measurements also showed greater reductions in trough seated SBP and DBP with irbesartan/HCTZ compared with valsartan/HCTZ. Normalization rates observed with HBPM (SBP <135 mm Hg and DBP <85 mm Hg) were significantly greater with irbesartan/HCTZ than with valsartan/HCTZ (50.2 v 33.2%; P = .0003). The overall safety was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The superior BP-lowering potency of the fixed combination irbesartan/HCTZ (150/12.5 mg) over valsartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg), evidenced independently from the investigators by HBPM, supports the use of this technique in trials with prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint designs.     

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.     

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.     

Comparative efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine and amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P<.001). Ambulatory and central BP measures were consistent with clinic BP findings, although these were conducted in a small subset of patients (n = 94 in ambulatory BP monitoring substudy and n = 136 for central BP). More patients achieved goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine at week 8 (57.3% vs 48.0%; P = .051). Both treatment groups had similar adverse event rates (35.0% and 32.7%, respectively). The most common adverse events were peripheral edema (7.7% with aliskiren/amlodipine and 9.0% with amlodipine), headache, fatigue, and nausea. The combination of aliskiren/amlodipine reduced peripheral, ambulatory, and central BP more than amlodipine alone with similar tolerability in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension.     

Differing Effects of Aliskiren/Amlodipine Combination and High‐Dose Amlodipine Monotherapy on Ambulatory Blood Pressure and Target Organ Protection

The aim of this study was to compare an aliskiren/amlodipine combination with high‐dose amlodipine monotherapy on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and organ protection. The study was a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open‐label trial in elderly essential hypertensive patients. A total of 105 patients with clinic BP (CBP) ≥140/90 mm Hg with amlodipine 5 mg were randomly allocated to aliskiren (150–300 mg)/amlodipine (5 mg) (ALI/AML group, n=53) or high‐dose amlodipine (10 mg) (h‐dAML group, n=52) and treated for 16 weeks. Each patient's CBP, ABPM, urine albumin‐to‐creatinine ratio (UACR), and brachial‐ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) were measured at baseline and at the end of the study. The ALI/AML and h‐dAML groups showed similarly reduced mean 24‐hour SBP, daytime SBP, nighttime SBP, and baPWV. However, UACR reduction was significantly greater in the ALI/AML group (P=.02). ALI/AML was significantly less effective in reducing early‐morning BP (P=.002) and morning BP surge (P=.001) compared with h‐dAML.     

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

We tested the hypothesis that calcium channel blockers (CCBs: amlodipine group, n = 38)) are superior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs: valsartan group, n = 38) against ambulatory blood pressure variability (BPV) in untreated Japanese hypertensive patients. Both drugs significantly reduced ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP values. With regard to BPV, standard deviation (SD) in SBP did not change with the administration of either drug, but the ARB significantly increased SD in awake DBP (12 ± 4–14 ± 4 mmHg). The ARB also significantly increased the coefficients of variation (CVs)in awake and 24-h SBP/DBP (all P < 0.05), but amlodipine did not change the CV. CCB significantly reduced the maximum values of awake SBP (193 ± 24–182 ± 27 mmHg, P = 0.02), sleep SBP (156 ± 18–139 ± 14 mmHg, P < 0 .001), and awake and sleep DBP (P < 0.01 in both cases), but the ARB did not change the maximum BP values. In conclusion, a once-daily morning dose of CCB amlodipine was more effective at controlling ambulatory BPV than ARB valsartan, especially in reducing maximum BP levels.     

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.     

Peripheral and central blood pressure responses of combination aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine monotherapy in African American patients with stage 2 hypertension: the ATLAAST trial

Efficacy of antihypertensive agents on central blood pressure (BP) in African Americans is not well studied. The authors report on an 8-week double-blind, randomized study of African American patients with stage 2 hypertension that compared brachial and central BP responses (substudy of 53 patients) to combination aliskiren/hydrochlorthiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine monotherapy. Following a 1- to 4-week washout, initial therapy was aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (n=166) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=166) for 1 week, forced-titrated to aliskiren/HCTZ 300/25 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. Mean seated systolic BP reductions from baseline was similar with both treatments (-28.6 mm Hg with aliskiren/HCTZ vs -28.2 mm Hg with amlodipine). In the substudy, significantly greater reductions in central systolic BP was observed with aliskiren/HCTZ vs amlodipine (-30.1 mm Hg vs -21.2; P=.031), although 24-hour mean ambulatory BP reductions between the two groups were similar. Central pressure is considered an important risk factor in African Americans, and these findings may suggest a new treatment option for these patients.     

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.     

Pulse pressure lowering effect of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose ACE inhibition in hypertensive type 2 diabetic subjects: a CALM II study post-hoc analysis

BACKGROUND: Elevated pulse pressure (PP) is strongly associated with micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetic patients. We examined the effect of 12 months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose lisinopril monotherapy on ambulatory PP in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients from the CALM (Candesartan and Lisinopril Microalbuminuria Trial) II study. METHODS: The CALM II study was a 12-month prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-masked study that included 75 type 1 and type 2 diabetic subjects with hypertension. Participants were randomized for treatment with either high-dose lisinopril (40 mg once daily (o.d.)) or for dual blockade treatment with candesartan (16 mg o.d.) and lisinopril (20 mg o.d.). In this article, we present data from the post-hoc subgroup of 51 type 2 diabetic subjects who completed the full 12-month study period with successful ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements at both baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: Baseline 24-h BP values were similar in the two groups (24-h systolic BP (SBP) 130 +/- 12 vs. 127 +/- 9, 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) 77 +/- 8 vs. 74 +/- 7, and 24-h PP 53 +/- 8 vs. 53 +/- 7 mm Hg, for the lisinopril and dual blockade groups, respectively, P > 0.2 for all). Compared with lisinopril monotherapy, dual blockade treatment caused a highly significant reduction in 24-h PP levels (-5 +/- 5 mm Hg, P = 0.003), albeit the difference in the BP lowering effect between the treatment groups did not differ significantly for 24-h systolic (P = 0.21) or diastolic (P = 0.49) BP. Dual blockade treatment significantly lowered 24-h SBP (-5 +/- 11 mm Hg, P = 0.03), but not 24-h DBP (-2 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.29), whereas in the lisinopril group, the opposite effect was observed (24-h SBP -1 +/- 9 mm Hg, P = 0.45, 24-h SBP -3 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril significantly reduced PP when compared with high-dose monotherapy with lisinopril. Larger studies are needed to confirm this observation, and to evaluate whether this effect translates into a greater degree of end-organ protection from dual blockade treatment than from conventional angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition.     

Effects of the angiotensin II receptor blockers telmisartan versus valsartan on the circadian variation of blood pressure: impact on the early morning period

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring has shown that BP typically declines by 10% to 20% during sleep and increases fairly rapidly in the early morning period. Because the early morning period has been associated with both loss of hypertension control and increased rates of myocardial infarction and stroke, there has been interest in evaluating the effects of antihypertensive therapy at this particular time of the day. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of a long half-life (telmisartan, 24 h) versus intermediate half-life (valsartan, 6 to 9 h) on early morning BP in two scenarios: after an active dose and after a missed dose of each agent. METHODS: The study was a double-blind, randomized trial that compared telmisartan (40 to 80 mg once daily) versus valsartan (80 to 160 mg once daily) on early morning BP in 490 patients with hypertension. Ambulatory BP recordings were performed at baseline after a placebo period and again after 6 and 8 weeks of double-blind therapy in a randomized cross-over design. The monitoring patients received either an active dose or a placebo dose (to mimic a "missed" dose). The primary study end point was reduction in the BP in the early morning period (last 6 h of the dosing period). RESULTS: After the active dose, telmisartan reduced the BP during the last 6 h of the dosing period by -11/-7.6 +/- 0.8/0.6 mm Hg compared to -8.7/-5.8 +/- 0.8/0.6 mm Hg on valsartan (P = .02 for systolic BP and.01 for diastolic BP). On the day of the missed dose, telmisartan reduced the early morning BP by -9.0/-6.3 +/- 0.7/0.6 mm Hg versus -7.4/-5.1 +/- 0.7/0.4 mm Hg on valsartan (P = .09 for systolic BP and.06 for diastolic BP). On the day of the missed dose, reductions in 24-h average BP for the two antihypertensive agents were -10.3/-6.9 mm Hg for telmisartan versus -8.7/-5.9 mm Hg for valsartan (P = .06 for systolic BP and.056 for diastolic BP). CONCLUSIONS: On a day of active therapy, telmisartan lowered both systolic and diastolic BP to a greater extent than valsartan for the last 6 h of the dosing interval. On a day in which a dose was missed, there was a notable trend for greater BP reduction during the latter part of the dosing interval on telmisartan versus valsartan. These results demonstrate that telmisartan achieved a greater effect than valsartan on BP during the early morning period in patients with hypertension.     

Gender and age effects on the ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate responses to antihypertensive therapy

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess potential differences in the 24-h antihypertensive response to treatment with the controlled-onset, extended-release (COER) calcium antagonist, verapamil in men versus women and older versus younger patients with hypertension. METHODS: Meta-analyses were performed of three prospective randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with COER-verapamil in patients with mid-stage I to stage III essential hypertension. The trials were conducted at medical clinics in the US and Canada in patients with a mean office diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 115 mm Hg on 2 consecutive weeks and a mean daytime diastolic BP >90 mm Hg. Patients were randomized to treatment with 180 to 540 mg/day of COER-verapamil (N = 273) or placebo (N = 125). Changes from baseline in ambulatory BP and heart rate after COER-verapamil were compared in men versus women and in older versus younger patients. RESULTS: Treatment with COER-verapamil caused significant reductions in 24-h and early-morning systolic and diastolic BP in all of the subpopulations as compared with placebo (P < .001). COER-verapamil induced a greater reduction in both 24-h systolic (-15.1 v -10.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and diastolic (-10.4 v -8.2 mm Hg; P = .003) BP in women compared with men. Older patients showed a greater mean reduction in 24-h diastolic BP (-10.2 v -8.2 mm Hg; P < .05) and heart rate (-5.7 v -4.4 beats/min; P < .05) compared with younger patients. Side effects were similar in all of the COER-verapamil treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both gender and age were significant determinants of the response to COER-verapamil. The antihypertensive effect of verapamil is greater in women than in men and in older patients compared with younger patients.