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   

Combination Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide

Background

The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ] has previously been shown to produce significantly greater SBP/DBP reductions than monotherapy with either agent alone in a randomized, double-blind, factorial study in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Compared with the evaluation of a single mean BP reduction in a patient population, determining the efficacy of an antihypertensive agent in achieving multiple BP targets provides additional information about the range of BP reductions attainable within this study population.

Objective

To conduct a secondary analysis of this study to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving combined SBP/DBP targets recommended in current hypertension treatment guidelines as well as individual SBP and DBP targets.

Methods

A total of 502 patients with DBP ≥100 and ≤115 mmHg were randomized to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil 10, 20, or 40 mg/day, or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 10/12.5, 10/25, 20/12.5, 20/25, 40/12.5, or 40/25 mg/day. Mean baseline SBP ranged from 151.9 to 156.6 mmHg and mean baseline DBP ranged from 102.6 to 104.4 mmHg across the twelve treatment arms. The chi-squared test was used to compare the proportion of patients achieving each BP goal in each of the 11 active treatment regimens with that in the placebo group.

Results

The proportion of patients achieving an SBP <140 or <130 mmHg, DBP <90, <85, or <80 mmHg and combined SBP/DBP <140/90, <130/85, <130/80, or <120/80 mmHg typically increased with escalating dosages of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ when administered alone or in combination, but was always highest in those treated with the combination. As the BP goal became progressively more stringent, the proportion of patients achieving the BP goal decreased in each treatment group, although the trend toward greater reductions in patients treated with combination therapy remained intact. All combined SBP/DBP goals were achieved by a statistically significant proportion of patients (p<0.05) in the olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/25, 40/12.5, and 40/25 treatment groups.

Conclusions

A majority of patients with uncomplicated stage 2 hypertension can achieve recommended BP goals when treated with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ.     

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   

Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide : in moderate to severe hypertension

* The fixed-dose combination of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is approved in the US for use as initial therapy in patients who are likely to need multiple agents to achieve their blood pressure (BP) goals. * In a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, multicentre trial in 538 patients with moderate hypertension that was untreated or uncontrolled by monotherapy, the mean reduction from baseline in seated systolic BP (SeSBP) at week 8 (primary endpoint) was significantly greater with irbesartan/HCTZ than with either irbesartan or HCTZ as monotherapy. * In addition, the proportion of patients with moderate hypertension achieving controlled BP (SeSBP < 140 mmHg/seated diastolic BP [SeDBP] < 90 mmHg) at 12 weeks was significantly greater with irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy than with irbesartan or HCTZ monotherapy. * In a 7-week, randomized, double-blind, multicentre trial in 697 patients with severe hypertension that was untreated or uncontrolled by monotherapy, a significantly greater proportion achieved a trough SeDBP of < 90 mmHg following 5 weeks of combination therapy with irbesartan/HCTZ compared with irbesartan monotherapy (primary endpoint). * Furthermore, the proportion of patients with severe hypertension achieving controlled BP of < 140/90 mmHg was significantly greater at all timepoints of the trial compared with irbesartan monotherapy. * Irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy had a similar tolerability profile to irbesartan and HCTZ monotherapy. Most adverse events were of mild to moderate intensity.     

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.     

A double-blind,randomized study evaluating losartan potassium monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide versus placebo in obese patients with hypertension

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of losartan ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) versus placebo in obese patients with systolic and diastolic hypertension.

Research design and methods: Randomized patients (n = 261) were non-diabetic with systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 and ≤ 180?mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) ≥ 95 and ≤ 115?mmHg, body mass index > 30?kg/m², and waist circumference > 40 (males)/> 35 (females)?inches. Patients were randomized to placebo or a forced titration of losartan 50?mg titrated at 4-week intervals to losartan 100?mg, losartan 100?mg/HCTZ 12.5?mg, and losartan 100?mg/HCTZ 25?mg. Primary efficacy measurements were change from baseline in SBP and DBP at 12 weeks. Secondary measurements were change from baseline in BPs at 8 and 16 weeks, percent responders at 12 and 16 weeks, and safety/tolerability. Post-hoc analyses were BP at 4 weeks and achieve­ment of controlled BP (SBP < 140 and/or DBP < 90?mmHg) at 12 and 16 weeks.

Results: Losartan 50?mg reduced BP from 151.6/99.2?mmHg at baseline to 140.1/89.8?mmHg at week 4 (post hoc), 139.5/89.6?mmHg with losartan 100?mg at week 8 (secondary), 134.3/85.9?mmHg with losartan 100?mg/HCTZ 12.5?mg at week 12 (primary), and 132.1/84.9?mmHg with losartan 100?mg/HCTZ50?mg at week 16 (secondary) (all p < 0.05). Rates of clinical adverse experi­ences were similar between treatment groups. A limitation of these analyses is the relatively rapid rate of study drug titration, which may not have allowed for the evaluation of the full treatment effect at each titration step.

Conclusions: We conclude that losartan alone or in combination with HCTZ was generally well tolerated and effective in the treatment of elevated systolic and diastolic BP in obese patients with hypertension.     

Telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide: in the treatment of essential hypertension

Oral telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combines two antihypertensive agents, a selective angiotensin II receptor antagonist with a long half-life and once-daily administration, and a thiazide diuretic. In two large, 8-week, double-blind trials, patients with hypertension unresponsive to monotherapy who received combined telmisartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 or 40/12.5 mg/day, achieved significantly larger reductions in diastolic and systolic blood pressure (BP), than recipients of continued telmisartan monotherapy (p < 0.05 for all). Compliance with telmisartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg/day was 98.9%. In patients with hypertension, telmisartan/HCTZ resulted in similar BP reductions to oral enalapril/HCTZ and atenolol/HCTZ in 26-week double-blind trials and greater reductions than oral losartan/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg/day in a 6-week randomised open-label trial (p < 0.001). Up to one-third of patients with hypertension initially responsive to telmisartan 40 or 80 mg/day in a 4-year study required the eventual addition of HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg/day and/or another agent to maintain BP control. BP was controlled in about 75% of these by adding only HCTZ. In clinical trials of up to 4 years, including elderly patients, telmisartan/HCTZ had similar tolerability to placebo, with few reports of hypokalaemia. Most adverse events were mild to moderate.     

Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in the initial treatment of severe hypertension

ABSTRACT

Objective: Most patients with severe hypertension are at high risk for cardiovascular events and require prompt blood pressure (BP)-lowering and combination therapy to achieve BP goals. This study evaluated the therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of initial treatment with the combination of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) compared with valsartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension.

Research design and methods: This was a 6-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, forced titration study that compared initial therapy with the combination of valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5?mg (force titrated to 160/25?mg after 2 weeks and to 320/25?mg after 4 weeks) to monotherapy with valsartan 160?mg (force titrated to 320?mg after 2 weeks and sham-titrated to 320?mg after 4 weeks). Eligible patients were 18–80 years old with severe essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic BP?≥?110?mmHg and <120?mmHg and mean sitting systolic BP?≥?140?mmHg and <200?mmHg). The Clinical Trial Registry number was NCT00273299.

Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy variable was the rate of BP control (mean sitting BP?<?140/90?mmHg) at Week 4. Tolerability was evaluated by monitoring all adverse events, vital signs, and laboratory tests including hematology and biochemistry.

Results: A total of 608 patients were randomized to either valsartan/HCTZ (n?=?307) or valsartan monotherapy (n?=?301). Significantly more patients achieved overall BP control (<140/90?mmHg) with valsartan/HCTZ compared to monotherapy at Week 4 (primary efficacy variable and timepoint) (39.6% vs. 21.8%; p?<?0.0001) and Week 6 (48.2% vs. 27.2%; p?<?0.0001). Mean reductions in BP at Week 4 were significantly greater for valsartan/HCTZ (30.8/22.7?mmHg vs. 21.7/17.5?mmHg; p?<?0.0001), with further reductions at Week 6. BP control rates were greater with combination therapy as early as Week 2. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the combination therapy (34.9%) and monotherapy (36.7%) treatment groups. A potential limitation of the forced-titration design is that some patients were titrated to higher doses despite having achieved goal BP. This may impact the interpretation of the incidence of dose-dependent adverse events.

Conclusions: Initial therapy with valsartan/HCTZ is effective and well tolerated in patients with severe hypertension.     

Value of rilmenidine therapy and its combination with perindopril on blood pressure and left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with essential hypertension (VERITAS)

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the effects of rilmenidine monotherapy and in combination with perindopril on blood pressure (BP) in patients assessed with grade 1 or 2 essential hypertension. The study also examined the effects of 2-year rilmenidine monotherapy on left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and on diastolic function of the left ventricle, along with the effects of rilmenidine on left ventricular mass index in hypertensive patients with no LVH, and the relationship between BP reduction and any change in LVH. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients (n = 500) were enrolled in a multicentre 2-year open study and treated with rilmenidine (1-2 mg per day) monotherapy or rilmenidine plus perindopril (2, 4 or 8 mg per day) if control of hypertension was not achieved with rilmenidine monotherapy within 12 weeks. Blood pressure was recorded at regular intervals by the investigators and LVH measured by centralised single-blind echocardiographic reading. RESULTS: Rilmenidine monotherapy (average dose 1.42 mg) produced a significant decrease in BP from the baseline of 163 +/- 10/100 +/- 5 mmHg to 134 +/- 10/86 +/- 7 mmHg at 1 year and to 136 +/- 10/84 +/- 7 mmHg at 2 years (p < 0.001 for both). In 188 patients with LVH, the left ventricular mass index was significantly reduced from 161.4 +/- 30.5 to 131.3 +/- 26.5 at 1 year and to 134.1 +/- 26.0 g/m(2) at 2 years (p < 0.001 for both). Addition of perindopril to those patients whose BP was not normalised by rilmenidine monotherapy after 12 weeks further decreased BP significantly from 150 +/- 13/93 +/- 8 mmHg to 142 +/- 14/89 +/- 7 mmHg at the end of the 2nd year. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term rilmenidine monotherapy was shown to be efficient in controlling BP and in reducing LVH. The addition of perindopril to rilmenidine monotherapy proved to be effective and well tolerated in those patients who did not respond to rilmenidine alone.     

氢氯噻嗪与螺内酯长期联用对高血压患者左室重量指数的影响

目的:探讨氢氯噻嗪(HCTZ)与螺内酯长期联用对高血压患者左室重量指数的影响。方法:采用多中心双盲研究设计,选择9所开滦矿区医院,筛选出轻、中度高血压患者。入选患者经安慰剂洗脱2周,HCTZ(12.5mg,qd)导入6周后加服螺内酯(20mg,qd),共服药36个月。治疗期间每月随访1次,监测血压。洗脱期末和治疗12、24、36个月末行超声心动图测量并计算左室重量指数(LVMI),采静脉血行实验室检查。结果:治疗12个月末患者血压及LVMI出现明显下降;36个月末与12个月末比较,舒张压、LVMI进一步下降(P<0.05)。结论:HCTZ与螺内酯长期联用有效降低血压的同时,显著降低LVMI,且随治疗时间延长疗效更显著。     

Safety and antihypertensive efficacy of carvedilol and atenolol alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide

Carvedilol has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with essential hypertension when given as monotherapy. In this double-blind, randomized, group-comparative study, 2 groups of 59 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension [median supine systolic/diastolic blood pressure at baseline (SBP/DBP), 168/105 mm Hg] were treated with either 25 mg carvedilol once daily (o. d.) or 50 mg atenolol o. d. for 4 weeks. Responders at 4 weeks (DBP, < 90=" mmhg)=" terminated=" the=" study.=" nonresponders=" continued=" the=" study.=" hydrochlorothiazide=" (hctz)=" was=" added=" at=" 25=" mg=" o.=" d.=" for=" a=" further=" 6=" weeks.=" the=" median=" blood=" pressure=" decreased=" under=" monotherapy=" with=" carvedilol=">n = 59) from 167/105 at baseline to 155/94 mmHg after 4 weeks, and in the atenolol group (n=59) it decreased from 168/105 to 162/97 mmHg. The patients who received carvedilol in combination with HCTZ and were evaluated for efficacy (n = 38) showed a decrease in SBP/DBP from 156/97 at the end of monotherapy to 145/88 mmHg after 10 weeks; the combination of atenolol with HCTZ (n = 44) reduced BP from 162/97 to 147/88. Both carvedilol and atenolol were safe when given either alone or in combination with HCTZ. In conclusion, after long-term administration, 25 mg carvedilol o. d. and 50 mg atenolol o. d. significantly reduced both SBP and DBP over 24 h. The addition of HCTZ led to a further increase in antihypertensive efficacy. Combined treatment with carvedilol or atenolol and HCTZ was very well tolerated, without hypotensive events or relevant changes in objective safety parameters.     

Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy by a candesartan-based regimen in clinical practice. The VIPE study.

The VIPE study was a prospective, non-comparative, open-label clinical evaluation of 97 hypertensive patients (69.1% female; 68.9 +/- 9.5 years; mean blood pressure (BP) 160 +/- 12/90 +/- 9 mmHg) with echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Patients were treated for six months with a candesartan-based regimen (8 mg/16 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg + additional drugs to lower BP < 140/90 mmHg). After six months, systolic/diastolic BP was decreased by 19.3 +/- 8/9.4 +/- 5 mmHg (p<0.001 for both), and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) decreased 17.01 g/m2 (95%CI: -13.2 to -20.99; p<0.001). During treatment with the candesartan-based regimen all echocardiographic parameters related to LVMI were significantly reduced and 28% achieved a target LVMI [< 134 g/m(2) (men) and < 110 g/m(2) (women)]. No significant changes were observed in ejection fraction, shortening fraction or LV diastolic function. Univariate analysis showed that both age (p=0.03) and diabetes (p=0.029) were predictive of LVH regression. Thus, a candesartan-based regimen for six months significantly reduced echocardiographic LVH in hypertensive patients in general practice. The drug was very well tolerated and no serious adverse events were reported.     

An Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment Algorithm is Effective in Achieving 24-Hour BP Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Regardless of Age, Race, Sex, or Severity of Hypertension

Background

Hypertension often occurs concomitantly with diabetes mellitus, such that >50% of adults with type 2 diabetes have hypertension. These individuals are at a greater risk of developing renal and cardiovascular disease. The currently recommended BP goal of <130/80 mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes is achieved in only 37.5% of treated patients with diabetes and hypertension.

Methods

The antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was investigated in prespecified subgroups (age <65/≥65 years, Blacks/non-Blacks, males/females, or stage 1/ stage 2 hypertension) of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes enrolled in an open-label, single-arm study (n= 192). Patients started treatment with OM 20 mg/day and were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to OM 40, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day if BP was ≥120/70 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 12, assessed by mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Secondary endpoints included changes in mean 24-hour ambulatory DBP, mean daytime ambulatory BP, mean nighttime ambulatory BP, and mean office seated BP, and the proportions of patients achieving prespecified ambulatory BP targets.

Setting

This was a multicenter study (24 sites) that took place between November 2006 and November 2007 in the US.

Results

BP reductions were significant (p<0.0001) and similar among subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes. Following dose titration to OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day, similar proportions of patients in the age, race, and sex subgroups (approximately 60–64% across these subgroups) achieved an ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mmHg. A larger proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 hypertension achieved this same goal compared with patients with stage 2 hypertension (75% vs 46.3%). The combination of OM/HCTZ was well tolerated in all patient subgroups irrespective of age, race, sex, or hypertension severity.

Conclusions

In this open-label study, OM/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in subgroups of patients with diabetes and hypertension.     

Seated cuff blood pressure-lowering efficacy of an olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment regimen in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background: Hypertension is a common co-morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and well tolerated, effective therapies are needed to achieve guideline-recommended blood pressure (BP) goals in these patients.Objective: The aim of this study was to present the results of a prespecified analysis of key secondary endpoints from a 12-week, open-label, single-arm study evaluating the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.Study Design and Methods: After a placebo run-in period, 192 patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20mg/day for 3 weeks. If BP remained ≥120/70mmHg, patients were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to olmesartanmedoxomil 40mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/12.5mg/day, and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25mg/day.Main Outcome Measure: Endpoints evaluated in this analysis were the change from baseline in mean seated cuff BP (SeBP), proportions of patients achieving SeBP goals, and distribution of SeBP reductions.Results: Mean SeBP was 158.1/90.0mmHg at baseline. The mean±standard error of BP reductions at 12 weeks for systolic and diastolic BP were 21.3±1.1mmHg and 9.8±0.6 mmHg, respectively (p<0.0001 for each). At the end of the study, the proportion of patients with diabetes achieving the recommended SeBP goal of <130/80 mmHg was 41.1%.Conclusions: An olmesartan medoxomil±HCTZ treatment regimen significantly reduced BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00403481","term_id":"NCT00403481"}}NCT00403481     

Efficacy and safety of triple antihypertensive therapy with the olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination

Background: European hypertension guidelines estimate that up to 15-20% of hypertensive patients are not controlled on a dual antihypertensive combination and require three or more different antihypertensive drug classes to achieve blood pressure (BP) control. Objective: This study in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension assessed the efficacy and safety of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5?mg and 25?mg to a range of olmesartan medoxomil (OLM)/amlodipine (AML) doses. Study Design: This phase III, multicentre study had a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design that included a double-blind safety run-in and a double-blind treatment period. Intervention: Enrolled patients were screened and previous therapy was discontinued if required. During a 2-week, double-blind, safety run-in period (Weeks 0-2), patients were randomized to receive placebo, OLM/AML 20?mg/5?mg, OLM/AML 40?mg/5?mg or OLM/AML 40?mg/10?mg. During an 8-week, double-blind treatment period (Weeks 3-10), patients were allocated to eight groups depending on their initial treatment. They were either randomized to continue with the same dose of OLM/AML, or have HCTZ 12.5?mg or 25?mg added to treatment. Main Outcome Measure: The primary endpoint was formulated before data collection began. It was the change in mean diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline to Week 10 in groups with HCTZ added to OLM/AML, compared with the corresponding dual OLM/AML therapy. Results: Of 3195 patients who were screened, 2690 were randomized. Patients in every triple OLM/AML/HCTZ group had significantly greater mean reductions in DBP (p?≤?0.032 for each comparison) and systolic BP (SBP) by Week 10 (p?≤?0.0034 for each comparison), compared with patients on the corresponding OLM/AML therapy dose. The significant improvements in DBP and SBP reduction with triple OLM/AML/HCTZ therapy, compared with dual OLM/AML therapy, were observed after 4 and 6 weeks of therapy. Patients in each triple therapy group also had a significantly higher rate of BP <140/90?mmHg threshold achievement (p?≤?0.05 for each treatment comparison), compared with the dual OLM/AML groups. In three of the OLM/AML/HCTZ groups (40?mg/5?mg/25?mg, 40?mg/10?mg/12.5?mg and 40?mg/10?mg/25?mg), BP <140/90?mmHg threshold achievement by Week 10 was over 70%. Across the triple and dual combination therapy groups, treatment was well tolerated and no safety concerns for either treatment were identified. Conclusion: Adding HCTZ to a range of OLM/AML dose combinations is well tolerated and improved BP control by significantly lowering DBP and SBP and significantly increasing BP threshold achievement in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension. Clinical Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov identifier as NCT00923091.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of indapamide SR in hypertensive patients uncontrolled with a background therapy: the NATIVE study*

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Antihypertensive monotherapy rarely achieves blood pressure (BP) control. NATIVE (NATrilix SR use in combInation antihypertensiVe thErapy) evaluated indapamide sustained release (SR) in hypertensive patients receiving background therapy.

Research design and methods: Patients remaining hypertensive (systolic BP [SBP], 145–180?mmHg; diastolic BP [DBP], 95–105?mmHg) while receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (n = 709), β-blocker (n = 629), calcium-channel blocker (CCB; n = 493), angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB; n = 75), α-blocker (n = 29) or other therapy (n = 6) were enrolled, recruited by physicians from 228 centres in Pakistan. Indapamide SR 1.5?mg was administered daily for 3 months with background therapy. BP was assessed every 2 weeks, and blood glucose and total cholesterol were evaluated at baseline and study end in a patient subgroup. Adverse events were also recorded.

Main outcome measures and results: Of 2073 enrolled patients (49% males; mean age 51 years), 1941 received indapamide SR and background therapy. SBP and DBP decreased significantly (SBP, 166 ± 16?mmHg at baseline vs. 132 ± 12?mmHg at 3 months; DBP, 102 ± 8?mmHg vs. 83 ± 6?mmHg; both p < 0.0001 vs. baseline). Patients uncontrolled with an ACE inhibitor, β-blocker, CCB or ARB achieved an SBP/DBP decrease of 34 ± 15/19 ± 9, 33 ± 17/19 ± 10, 33 ± 15/18 ± 8 or 35 ± 16/20 ± 12?mmHg, respectively (all p < 0.0001). In all, 84% of patients achieved target SBP (≤?140?mmHg) and 61% achieved BP normalisation (SBP <?140, DBP <?90?mmHg). The absence of placebo control may lead to an overestimation of the extent of the BP reduction achieved. Glucose and cholesterol levels were unaffected by indapamide SR. Four percent of patients experienced side-effects, which were mild-to-moderate in severity.

Conclusions: In patients with hypertension despite antihypertensive therapy, indapamide SR significantly reduced BP with a good acceptability profile. Indapamide SR may represent an effective additional therapy for patients who do not achieve BP goals with other antihypertensive agents.     

Efficacy and Safety Study of Olmesartan Medoxomil,Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide Combination Therapy in Patients with Hypertension Not Controlled with Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide Combination Therapy: Results of a Randomized,Double-Blind,Multicenter Trial

Background

This study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 20  mg, amlodipine (AML) 5 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg (OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5) in Korean patients with moderate hypertension not controlled with dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5).

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, Korean patients aged 20 to 75 years with stage 2 hypertension who had a mean seated diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ≥100 mmHg were enrolled when their BP was uncontrolled [mean seated systolic BP (msSBP)/msDBP >140/90 mmHg or msSBP/msDBP >130/80 mmHg with diabetes or chronic kidney disease] with 4-week dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5). The patients were randomized to receive either OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 or OM/HCTZ 20/12.5 once daily for 8 weeks. At the end of 8 weeks, patients with uncontrolled BP were assigned to receive either OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 or OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 in an additional 8-week open-label extension period.

Results

A total of 623 patients received a 4-week run-in treatment with OM/HCTZ, 341 patients were randomized, and finally, 167 patients in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and 171 patients in the OM/HCTZ group were analyzed for the full analysis set. Non-responders after the 8 weeks of double-blind treatment continued the 8-week open-label treatment with OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 mg (n = 32) or OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg (n = 71). After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the changes in msDBP were ?9.50 (8.46) mmHg in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and ?4.23 (7.41) mmHg in the OM/HCTZ group (both p < 0.0001 vs. baseline; p < 0.0001 between groups). The response rates for both msSBP and msDBP at week 8 were 65.27 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and 37.43 % in the OM/HCTZ group (p < 0.0001 between groups). The response rates for both msSBP and msDBP at week 16 after open-label treatment were 18.75 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 group and 46.48 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 group (p = 0.0073 between groups). All medications were well tolerated.

Conclusion

In Korean patients with moderate hypertension not controlled with dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5) as first-line therapy, switching to triple FDC therapy (OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5) was associated with significant BP reductions and greater achievement of BP goals, and was well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01838850).

     

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.     

The response to the first dose of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor in uncomplicated hypertension--a placebo controlled study utilising ambulatory blood pressure recording.

1. The importance of total dose to the initial hypotensive response with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (quinapril) was assessed using a suggested 'maintenance' dose (20 mg) or matched placebo in a randomised double-blind study in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. 2. Thirty-two patients were recruited who were not on therapy or had not received diuretic therapy in their existing drug treatment in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary causes of hypertension had previously been excluded and sustained clinic blood pressures of SBP greater than 160 mmHg and/or DBP greater than 90 mmHg were taken as indications for a trial of adjuvant or monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor. 3. After uneventful supervised therapy with quinapril in an open pilot study (n = 5) 27 patients entered a double-blind, randomised, crossover study of quinapril or placebo using ambulatory monitoring to assess BP response. 4. All patients remained asymptomatic and both therapy and monitoring were well tolerated. A smooth onset of antihypertensive effect was noted with an overall 24 h placebo corrected fall in systolic BP of 9.9 mmHg (7.2-12.6 95% CI) and diastolic BP of 6.4 mmHg (4.2-8.8) with no significant effect on heart rate. Individual placebo corrected maximal responses during the first 8 h following quinapril showed a wide range for both systolic (+1.56 to 44.0 mmHg) and diastolic (+2.3 to -35.6 mmHg) pressure. Larger falls tended to be associated with higher baseline pretreatment pressures but in no case did absolute systolic pressure fall below 100 mmHg during the first 8 h following administration of placebo or quinapril.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Effects of valsartan versus olmesartan addition to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination in treating stage 2 hypertensive patients

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the effects of valsartan or olmesartan addition to dual therapy with amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension.

Research design and methods: 180 patients with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 99 and < 110 mm Hg were treated with amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg combination. After 4 weeks, 149 patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled, were randomized to the combination of valsartan 160 mg + amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg or olmesartan 20 mg + amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg for 4 weeks.

Main outcome measures: At the end of each period, clinical and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded.

Results: Both triple combinations produced greater ambulatory and clinical SBP/DBP reduction than dual therapy. However, mean reduction from baseline in the valsartan + amlodipine + HCTZ-treated patients was significantly greater than in the olmesartan + amlodipine + HCTZ-treated patients. Compared with dual therapy, the add-on effect of valsartan was significantly greater than that of olmesartan, the difference being more evident for nighttime SBP/DBP values (-3.3 (95% CI 0.44 – 3.51)/3.0 (95% CI 0.59 – 3.34) mm Hg, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: The addition of valsartan to amlodipine + HCTZ produced greater BP reduction than the addition of olmesartan.