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.     

Bisoprolol/amlodipine combination therapy improves blood pressure control in patients with essential hypertension following monotherapy failure

Objective: The efficacy of a bisoprolol/amlodipine fixed-dose combination (FDC) in patients with essential hypertension who had not responded to bisoprolol or amlodipine monotherapy was investigated.

Research design and methods: In an 18 week, multicenter, randomized, comparative phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01977794), patients with blood pressure uncontrolled by bisoprolol or amlodipine monotherapy (5?mg OD) began treatment with bisoprolol/amlodipine FDC 5/5?mg OD. Patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) at week 6/12 continued at current FDC strength, and patients with uncontrolled BP received FDC dose uptitration (maximum dose: 10/10?mg). The primary efficacy endpoint was change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at week 18 versus baseline (corresponding to SBP under monotherapy), and secondary endpoints included change from baseline in SBP after week 6/12 and percentage of BP-controlled patients at week 6, 12 and 18. Safety was assessed by number/types of adverse events (AEs).

Results: Two hundred patients were randomized to treatment (100 with uncontrolled BP under bisoprolol and 100 under amlodipine monotherapy). Overall, 196 patients were eligible for analysis. The patient groups displayed similar mean SBP reductions from baseline by study end (bisoprolol monotherapy failure: 25.9?±?12.82?mmHg reduction; amlodipine monotherapy failure: 24.7?±?11.67?mmHg reduction; p?<?0.001 for both). Overall mean SBP decreased by 25.3?±?12.25?mmHg (p?<?0.001). Mean heart rate reductions were also observed (bisoprolol monotherapy failure: 6.6?±?9.67 bpm reduction; amlodipine monotherapy failure: 11.5?±?8.65 bpm reduction; p?<?0.001 for both). Most patients (83.2%) displayed BP control with bisoprolol/amlodipine 5/5?mg at 6 weeks. Treatment was well tolerated at all dose levels; treatment-related AEs (mostly of mild/moderate intensity) were reported by 52.5% of patients, with no severe or serious treatment-related AEs reported. As the study focused on hypertension, total cardiovascular risk was not assessed.

Conclusions: Bisoprolol/amlodipine FDC therapy is associated with significant BP improvements in patients with essential hypertension following monotherapy failure.     

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.     

Efficacy and tolerability of the perindopril/indapamide combination therapy for hypertension: the PRIMUS study*

ABSTRACT

Background: Tight blood pressure (BP) control is required to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the first line combination perindopril/indapamide in hypertension in daily practice.

Design and methods: In this prospective, open-label, observational trial, 1892 general practitioners in Germany recruited patients with hypertension (?n = 8023; mean age 59.6 years, 48.1% males, body mass index 27.6?kg/m², systolic BP ≥ 140?mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 90?mmHg) between October 2002 and December 2004. Patients received perindopril 2?mg/indapamide 0.625?mg for 12 weeks. BP measured in the general practice setting, safety, and tolerability were evaluated after 4 and 12 weeks.

Results: At baseline, most patients had moderate to severe hypertension (78%); initial BP was 164.6/95.8?mmHg. At inclusion, 38% of the patients were newly diagnosed hypertensives (mean BP 166.1/97.2?mmHg) and 58% of patients had uncontrolled BP despite preexisting antihypertensive treatment (163.5/94.9?mmHg). Previous treatment consisted of β‐blockers (49.5%), ACE inhibitors (36.4%), calcium-antagonists (29.3%), diuretics (28.8%), AT‐I receptor antagonists (7.1%), and other treatments (8.1%). In the entire study cohort, treatment with perindopril/indapamide significantly decreased systolic BP (27.9?mmHg), diastolic BP (13.7?mmHg), and pulse pressure (14.2?mmHg), compared with baseline (?p < 0.0001); 96% of patients responded to treatment and in 50% of patients BP was normalized (< 140/90?mmHg). Treatment dose was doubled in 9.5% of patients. Similar results were found in various subgroup analyses (newly diagnosed patients, the elderly, and patients with isolated systolic hypertension, additional cardiovascular risk factors, associated diseases, or target organ damage). The most frequent adverse events (< 1% of patients) were dry cough and nausea.

Conclusions: The open-label, observational study PRIMUS, extends the existing evidence that the first line combination treatment of hypertension with perindopril/indapamide is effective, safe, and well tolerated in a representative cross-section of patients with newly diagnosed or pretreated but uncontrolled hypertension in daily practice.     

Attaining United States and European Guideline LDL-C Levels with Simvastatin in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease (the GOALLS Study)

SUMMARY

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 BPfrom 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?2 at 2 years (p?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.     

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.     

Management of Hypertension with the Fixed Combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine in Daily Clinical Practice

Background

Current clinical guidelines recognize that the use of more than one agent is necessary to achieve target BP in the majority of patients. The ASCOT-BPLA trial demonstrated that the free combination of amlodipine and perindopril effectively controlled BP and was better than a β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blocker)/diuretic combination in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of perindopril and amlodipine in the clinical setting.

Study design

The STRONG (SafeTy & efficacy analysis of coveRsyl amlodipine in uncOntrolled and Newly diaGnosed hypertension) study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial.

Setting

This was a naturalistic, real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 336 general practitioners/ primary care physicians in 65 cities in India.

Patients

Adults aged 40–70 years with newly diagnosed/untreated stage 2 hypertension (BP ≥ 160/100 mmHg), hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy (BP > 140/90 mmHg), or hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy.

Intervention

Fixed combination perindopril 4 mg/amlodipine 5 mg once daily for 60 days.

Main outcomes measure

The primary outcomes were the mean change in BP from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving adequate BP control (≤ 140/90 mmHg, or ≤ 130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included incidence of adverse events (ITT) and treatment adherence rate (completers).

Results

In total, 1250 patients comprised the ITT population: 32.6% with newly diagnosed hypertension; 40.5% with hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy; and 26.9% with hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (167.4±15.2/101.4±9.1 mmHg) over 60 days (?41.9 ± 34.8/?23.2 ± 21.8 mmHg; p<0.0001). Target BP was achieved in 66.1% of patients in the total population, 68.3% of untreated patients, 68.4% of patients uncontrolled with monotherapy, and 59.9% of patients inadequately managed with combination therapy. In 161 patients with SBP >180 mmHg at baseline (newly diagnosed: n = 50; uncontrolled on monotherapy: n = 53; inadequately managed on combination therapy: n = 58), BP was reduced by 63.2 ± 32.5/29.0 ± 21.9 mmHg (p<0.0001) at day 60. The fixed combination was safe and well tolerated. All 1175 patients completing the 60-day study (94%) adhered to their treatment regimen.

Conclusion

Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine was found to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with an excellent rate of treatment adherence in the clinical setting. Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine is expected to be useful in the management of hypertension in primary healthcare, with a positive impact on treatment adherence.     

Position of indapamide, a diuretic with vasorelaxant activities, in antihypertensive therapy

INTRODUCTION: Diuretics play a pivotal role in the management of hypertension. A large experience has been accumulated with indapamide , a long-acting thiazide-like diuretic that lowers blood pressure (BP) primarily through its natriuretic diuretic effect. Some of its long-term antihypertensive efficacy may be due to calcium antagonist-like vasorelaxant activities. Indapamide has protecting effects in a variety of conditions associated with high cardiovascular risk, such as diabetes, left ventricular hypertrophy, nephropathy and stroke. It is highly effective in lowering BP, whether given alone or in combination. Indapamide is well tolerated and has the advantage of having no adverse impact on glucose and lipid metabolism. Today, thiazide-like diuretics are regarded more and more as preferred drugs, when diuretic therapy is required to lower BP. AREAS COVERED: The aim of this paper is to review the experience accumulated with indapamide. It is limited to clinical studies that are relevant for the everyday management of hypertensive patients, whether or not they exhibit cardiovascular or renal disease. EXPERT OPINION: Indapamide, because of its well-documented beneficial effects on cardiovascular and renal outcomes, represents a safe and valuable option for treating patients with high BP. There is, however, still room for new trials evaluating the combination of this diuretic with other types of antihypertensive drugs, in particular a calcium antagonist such as amlodipine. There is also the need to compare the indapamide-perindopril and indapamide-amlodipine combinations, in terms of antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability and effects on target organ damage and, ideally, on cardiovascular mortality.     

Efficacy and safety of the single pill combination of amlodipine 10 mg plus valsartan 160 mg in hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine 10 mg plus olmesartan 20 mg in free combination

ABSTRACT

Background and objective: For patients with moderate hypertension (grade 2, defined as systolic blood pressure [SBP] 160–179?mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 100–109?mmHg), current guidelines recommend initial combination therapy and rapid dose-adjustment to achieve blood pressure goal. In this study we investigated the efficacy and tolerability of the single pill combination of amlodipine 10?mg plus valsartan 160?mg (A?10?+?Val 160) in patients not controlled by the free combination of amlodipine 10?mg plus olmesartan 20?mg (A?10?+?O 20).

Methods: In this prospective, open-label, non-randomized trial, 257 patients with mean sitting DBP of 100–109?mmHg at trough entered a 4 week treatment phase with A?10?+?O 20 in free combination once daily. Patients in whom DBP remained uncontrolled were switched in a second 4 week treatment phase to A?10?+?Val 160. The primary efficacy variable was the reduction in DBP at week 8 compared to week 4 in the intent-to-treat population.

Results: In the total cohort, baseline SBP/DBP of 164.2?±?9.8/103.6?±?2.1?mmHg decreased by 19.2?±?12.4/14.1?±?7.4?mmHg at week 4. In patients who did not achieve BP control (n?=?175), subsequent treatment with A?10?+?Val 160 for 4 weeks reduced SBP from 149.6?±?11.1 at week 4 by 7.9?mmHg at week 8 (95% CI: 6.1–9.6, p?<?0.0001) and DBP from 93.4?±?3.9?mmHg by 9.1?mmHg (95% confidence interval: 8.1–10.2, p?<?0.0001). The combination of A?10?+?Val 160 was well tolerated, and the observed adverse events (15.3% of patients in phase 2) were consistent with the known drug profiles.

Conclusions: In a study designed to reflect typical clinical practice, in patients not controlled by the free combination of A?10?+?O 20, the single pill combination of A?10?+?Val 160 produced a statistically and clinically significant additional BP reduction and was well tolerated. Potential limitations of the design (open-label, non-controlled design, short term treatment) have to be taken into account.     

Efficacy and safety of losartan 100 mg or losartan 100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in the treatment of patients with essential arterial hypertension and CV risk factors: obser-vational,prospective study in primary care

ABSTRACT

Background: Patients with high cardiovascular risk are prevalent in ambulatory care. To achieve adequate blood pressure control, such patients require higher drug doses and/or combination therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of losartan 100?mg as monotherapy or in fixed-dose combination with hydrochlorothiazide 25?mg.

Design and methods: Multicentre, prospective, open observational study over 13 weeks in patients with essential hypertension, whose blood pressure was not adequately controlled despite pretreatment. Main outcome parameters were the systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure reduction, the rate of normalized patients at study end compared to baseline, and the number and type of adverse events (AEs).

Results: Of the 7702 documented patients, 53.1% (N?=?4088) were men, with a mean age of 63.5?±?10.7 years. Comorbidities were frequent (diabetes mellitus in 57.4% [N?=?4418], coronary heart disease in 30.3% [N?=?2330], left ventricular hypertrophy in 28.2% [N?=?2172], heart failure in 14.0% [N?=?1079], and peripheral arterial disease in 9.0% [N?=?690]). Patients received losartan 100?mg in 45.7% (N?=?3521), losartan/HCTZ in 53.8% (N?=?4143); additional antihypertensive drugs were given in 45.5% (N?=?3505). Physicians reported somewhat lower target values than those stipulated by the guidelines (irrespective of age, gender, and concomitant diseases except for diabetes). Mean SBP/DBP decreased from a baseline value of 158/93?mmHg by 24/12?mmHg at study end. The BP lowering effect was similar in subgroups by treatment or comorbidity, respectively, however target attainment rates were substantially higher in non-diabetic patients. Metabolic and renal parameters (fasting glucose, HbA_1c, serum creatinine and albumin in urine) showed trends for improvement. Tolerability was very good, as only 0.43% (N?=?33) experienced an AE (in 0.31% [N?=?24] serious AEs), and 0.08% (N?=?6) discontinued therapy due to reasons related to study drug.

Conclusion: In high-risk patients, treatment with losartan 100?mg or losartan/HCTZ 100/25?mg was effective and well tolerated, irrespective of comorbidity. These findings from a real-life setting are in line with those from randomized controlled trials.     

Efficacy and tolerability of the perindopril/indapamide combination therapy for hypertension: the PRIMUS study

BACKGROUND: Tight blood pressure (BP) control is required to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the first line combination perindopril/indapamide in hypertension in daily practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, observational trial, 1892 general practitioners in Germany recruited patients with hypertension (n = 8023; mean age 59.6 years, 48.1% males, body mass index 27.6 kg/m2, systolic BP >or= 140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP >or= 90 mmHg) between October 2002 and December 2004. Patients received perindopril 2 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg for 12 weeks. BP measured in the general practice setting, safety, and tolerability were evaluated after 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, most patients had moderate to severe hypertension (78%); initial BP was 164.6/95.8 mmHg. At inclusion, 38% of the patients were newly diagnosed hypertensives (mean BP 166.1/97.2 mmHg) and 58% of patients had uncontrolled BP despite preexisting antihypertensive treatment (163.5/94.9 mmHg). Previous treatment consisted of beta-blockers (49.5%), ACE inhibitors (36.4%), calcium-antagonists (29.3%), diuretics (28.8%), AT-I receptor antagonists (7.1%), and other treatments (8.1%). In the entire study cohort, treatment with perindopril/indapamide significantly decreased systolic BP (27.9 mmHg), diastolic BP (13.7 mmHg), and pulse pressure (14.2 mmHg), compared with baseline (p < 0.0001); 96% of patients responded to treatment and in 50% of patients BP was normalized (< 140/90 mmHg). Treatment dose was doubled in 9.5% of patients. Similar results were found in various subgroup analyses (newly diagnosed patients, the elderly, and patients with isolated systolic hypertension, additional cardiovascular risk factors, associated diseases, or target organ damage). The most frequent adverse events (< 1% of patients) were dry cough and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: The open-label, observational study PRIMUS, extends the existing evidence that the first line combination treatment of hypertension with perindopril/indapamide is effective, safe, and well tolerated in a representative cross-section of patients with newly diagnosed or pretreated but uncontrolled hypertension in daily practice.     

Evaluation of high dose of perindopril/indapamide fixed combination in reducing blood pressure and improving end-organ protection in hypertensive patients

ABSTRACT

Background: Despite the widespread notion that controlling hypertension is essential to improve cardiovascular outcome, uncontrolled hypertension rates remain high. Fixed-dose combinations are used routinely to reduce the impact of hypertension. Treatment with fixed-combination perindopril/indapamide, for example, at the currently approved doses (perindopril 2?mg/indapamide 0.625?mg [Per2/Ind0.625] and perindopril 4?mg/indapamide 1.25?mg [Per4/Ind1.25]), reduces blood pressure, end-organ damage, and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in a wide range of hypertensive patients.

Aim and scope: This article reviews three published randomised trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of the highest dose of perindopril/indapamide (perindopril 8?mg/indapamide 2.5?mg [Per8/Ind2.5]) in blood pressure lowering and end-organ protection studies.

Results: In the first (dose-finding) study, incremental reductions in SBP/DBP were observed with each dose doubling. After 8 weeks of treatment, decreases in supine SBP/DBP were statistically significant compared to placebo for all three doses, with incremental and progressive reductions with each dose doubling: ranging from SBP/DBP respectively ?14/?9?mmHg for Per2/Ind0.625 to ?23/?15?mmHg for Per8/Ind2.5 compared to ?5/?5?mmHg for placebo. In the PICXEL and PREMIER trials, SBP/DBP decreases of 16.3/8.1?mmHg (p?<?0.0001) and 2.5/2.6?mmHg, respectively, were noted when Per4/Ind1.25 was doubled to Per8/Ind2.5 (decreases from 167.7/101.7 to 151.4/93.6 in PICXEL and from 154.9/92.1 to 152.4/89.5 in PREMIER, respectively). As a consequence more patients had normalised blood pressure (22% and 17%), more patients responded to treatment (68% and 45%), and 29% and 10% of non-responders became responders, in PICXEL and PREMIER, respectively. Additional end-organ benefits were also noted with Per8/Ind2.5. In PICXEL, significant decreases from baseline in left ventricular mass were noted with all three doses, with a 17.5?g/m² decrease from baseline in patients whose maximum dose was Per8/Ind2.5 (from 148.5?g/m²?±?39.5 (mean?±?SD) to 131?g/m²; p?<?0.0001). In PREMIER, changes in albumin excretion rate were also noted with all three doses, with a 45% reduction from baseline in patients whose maximum dose was Per8/Ind2.5 (p?<?0.0001). When safety data, including potassium levels, were analysed, the increase in dose to Per8/Ind2.5 did not have a notable impact on the safety profile of perindopril/indapamide.

Conclusions: Based on data available from an evaluation of three randomised clinical trials, fixed-combination Per8/Ind2.5 provided a significant, incremental reduction in blood pressure as well as cardiac and renal end-organ protection while remaining safe and well-tolerated.     

Delapril plus indapamide: a review of the combination in the treatment of hypertension

Although many data indicate that the management of hypertension has improved over the last two decades, there is still a large proportion of hypertensive individuals who do not receive adequate management of their blood pressure (BP). Combination therapy with two or more antihypertensive agents from different drug classes is increasingly being recognised as the most effective means of achieving target BP values by pharmacological means, particularly in the large number of patients in whom monotherapy proves to be ineffective. Use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor combined with a diuretic is a well established antihypertensive combination that is very effective because of the different, yet synergistic, mechanisms of actions of agents from these two drug classes. Delapril is a potent antihypertensive ACE inhibitor, and indapamide is a thiazide-like diuretic with additional antihypertensive properties. The combination of delapril and indapamide provides renoprotective effects, and indapamide is also cardioprotective. Use of these two drugs together is therefore a rational selection for combination therapy, and one that has consistently demonstrated lowering of BP to target values with a level of efficacy that is at least as good as other combinations of ACE inhibitors and diuretics. This combination has also been found to provide favourable effects on haemodynamic parameters, including left ventricular mass index and ejection fraction. Furthermore, combining an ACE inhibitor and a thiazide-type diuretic has been associated with a decreased risk of stroke and is recommended for patients with cerebrovascular disease, a setting in which the combination of delapril and indapamide has therapeutic potential. Because of the additive mechanisms of delapril and indapamide, the dose required for an effective antihypertensive effect is relatively low, and the combination is well tolerated at such doses. In particular, metabolic effects normally associated with diuretics are rare at the therapeutic dose of indapamide used in combination with delapril, making the combination suitable for patients with metabolic disorders in whom diuretic therapy would otherwise not be recommended. Delapril 30 mg and indapamide 2.5mg have been combined in a fixed combination, offering the convenience of a one-tablet-per-day antihypertensive drug regimen for most patients, which, along with good tolerability, helps to address the issue of noncompliance.     

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

SUMMARY

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 dihydropyridine derivatives. However, the value of nifedipine GITS (Adalat-Crono), the long-acting dihydropyridine, 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 enrolment 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 (diastolicblood pressure 95-109?mmHg).

Interventions: Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 30mg nifedipine GITS (n?=?76; (Adalat-Crono tablets), or 5mg amlodipine (n?=?79; Norvasc* 5-mg tablets), either administered once daily, as a morning dose, or if 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 nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively) and the mean decrease in diastolic blood pressure (16.4?±?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 nifedipine 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 nifedipine 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 formulation and amlodipine are comparably safe and effective treatment options in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertensi on.     

Combination therapy for hypertension: focus on high-dose olmesartan medoxomil (40 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide

Importance of the field: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of premature death and disability worldwide, and effective blood pressure (BP) control is crucial for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension. Despite this, many will fail to attain recommended BP goals. A reappraisal of European guidelines led to revised recommendations for BP reduction to values within the SBP/DBP range of 130 – 139/80 – 85 mmHg in all patients with hypertension, including higher-risk groups such as those with diabetes.

Areas covered in this review: The majority of hypertensive patients will require the enhanced blood-pressure-lowering effects of at least two antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to achieve these goals.

What the reader will gain: The angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan medoxomil and the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) provide greater antihypertensive efficacy when used in combination than as monotherapy with either component, with a similar tolerability profile. In addition, there is evidence that higher doses of olmesartan may prolong the antihypertensive effect of this ARB, and a number of US ‘treat-to-target’ and European add-on clinical trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of high-dose olmesartan plus HCTZ in a wide range of patients with mild-to-severe hypertension.

Take home message: Combination therapy with olmesartan, including the high 40-mg dose, plus HCTZ is an effective and safe treatment option for controlling BP in patients with mild-to-severe hypertension, particularly those who fail to achieve recommended BP goals with monotherapy.     

Antihypertensive effect of indapamide given in conjunction with captopril in severe hypertension

Summary

The efficacy of captopril alone or in combination with indapamide was evaluated in 17 patients with severe hypertension (diastolic > 120 mmHg) previously treated with triple antihypertensive therapy, i.e. diuretic, beta-blocker and a vasodilator. After a wash-out period of 1 week, captopril was given initially as 75?mg/day for 2 weeks; at the end of this period, the dosage was doubled to 150?mg/day and continued at this level for a further 2 weeks. Indapamide (2.5?mg/day) was then added to the regimen and administered for 1 month. The results showed that captopril alone lowered, but did not normalize the blood pressure. The mean diastolic pressure was reduced to 117 and 103.8 mmHg after dosages of captopril of 75?mg and 150?mg, respectively. On the addition of indapamide, the blood pressure was normalized to 93.82 mmHg mean diastolic pressure. Systolic readings were similarly reduced. Two patients developed skin rashes while on captopril alone: no other treatment-related side-effects were reported once indapamide therapy had commenced.     

Indapamide sustained release: a review of its use in the treatment of hypertension

A low-dose sustained-release (SR) formulation of the thiazide-type diuretic indapamide, indapamide SR (Natrilix SR), retains the antihypertensive activity of the immediate-release (IR) formulation, with a smoother pharmacokinetic profile. In well controlled 12- to 52-week clinical trials, indapamide SR 1.5 mg/day was well tolerated and reduced blood pressure as effectively as therapeutic dosages of amlodipine, candesartan, enalapril, hydrochlorothiazide or indapamide IR. Indapamide SR was also more effective than enalapril in reducing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), and similar reductions in renal end-organ damage, assessed by microalbuminuria, were seen with indapamide SR- and enalapril-based antihypertensive strategies. Indapamide SR provides an effective option for initial antihypertensive monotherapy and a basis for multidrug antihypertensive strategies.     

Achieving BP goals with valsartan and HCTZ alone and in combination: pooled analysis of two randomized,double-blind,placebo-controlled studies

ABSTRACT

Background: Most patients with hypertension will require combination therapy to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, especially the elderly, obese, or those with stage?2 hypertension.

Objective: To assess BP response and time to achieve BP goals in a diverse population of hypertensive patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan, or a combination.

Methods: For this secondary post-hoc analysis, data were pooled from two similar randomized, double-blind, 8-week trials that evaluated hydrochlorothiazide (12.5–25?mg) and valsartan (160?mg) monotherapies, their combination (160/12.5?mg), and placebo. Subgroups were defined by age, hypertension severity, and obesity. Adults with diastolic BP ≥?95 and ≤?115?mmHg were included. Goal rates were estimated from a logistic model with treatment, study, age group, race, and baseline body mass index as factors and baseline diastolic BP as a covariate. Kaplan–Meier estimates were used to calculate the time to achieve BP goals.

Main outcome measures: Efficacy variables were reductions from baseline to study end in systolic BP and diastolic BP, rates of achieving BP goals (<?140/90?mmHg), and time to achieve BP goals. Adverse events were also reported for the pooled trials.

Results: BP reductions at study end and goal achievement rates were greater with combination therapy (–20/15?mmHg and 72%, respectively) than with either monotherapy (valsartan 160?mg: –14/11?mmHg, 61%; hydrochlorothiazide 25?mg: –14/10?mmHg, 50%) for the overall population (N?=?1313) and in patient subgroups. Patients treated with initial combination therapy reached goal in 27–56% of the time needed for those treated with monotherapy. Combination therapy was well tolerated and was associated with a decreased incidence of hypokalemia compared with hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy.

Conclusions: Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy resulted in greater reductions in BP and achievement of goal BP in a shorter period of time. Although interpretation of this study is subject to the limitations associated with any post-hoc analysis, the results suggest that initiating treatment with combination therapy may be considered for expedient and effective BP control.     

Effect of mydriasis induced by topical 0.5% tropicamide instillation on the corneal biomechanical properties in healthy individuals measured by ocular response analyzer

Purpose: This observational study aims to investigate the effects of tropicamide (0.5%) on corneal biomechanical properties, with the ocular response analyzer (ORA), in healthy individuals.

Methods: Corneal hysteresis (CH), corneal resistance factor (CRF), Goldmann-correlated intraocular pressure (IOPg), and corneal-compensated intraocular pressure (IOPcc) measurements of 38 (21 female and 17 male) healthy individuals, before and after 30?min of 0.5% tropicamide instillation, were performed by using the ORA.

Results: The mean CH, CRF, IOPg and IOPcc measurements of the eyes were 10.2?±?1.9?mmHg, 10.3?±?2.1?mmHg, 15.7?±?3.4?mmHg, 16.4?±?3.3?mmHg pre-tropicamide, and 10.4?±?1.7?mmHg, 10.3?±?2.1?mmHg, 15.3?±?3.4?mmHg, 15.8?±?2.7?mmHg post-tropicamide, respectively. The differences between the pre- and post-tropicamide measurements of the eyes were insignificant (p?=?0.184, p?=?0.659, p?=?0.294, p?=?0.150, respectively; paired t-test).

Conclusions: A tropicamide instillation does not lead to significant changes in the corneal biomechanical properties. Therefore, it can be used safely in disease, i.e. in the diagnosis and follow-up ORA as it does not cause any change.