24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combinations compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients at increased cardiovascular risk: a VAST sub-study

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the effects of angiotensin-receptor blocker and diuretic combinations on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, the effects on 24-h ABP of the combination valsartan 160 mg od and hydrochlorothiazide 25 or 12.5 mg during 24 weeks of therapy were compared with the effects of amlodipine 10 mg monotherapy (group A10) in 474 stage-II hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. After a two-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg od or amlodipine 5 mg od. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg (group V160/HCTZ12.5) and 25 mg (group V160/HCTZ25) were added to the valsartan groups and in the A10 patients the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg od. RESULTS: All three treatments reduced 24-h BP as well as night-time and daytime BP levels from baseline. Twenty-four hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 15.9+/-1.0 mmHg (least-squares mean change+/-SE), 19.3+/-1.0 mmHg and 16.1+/-1.1 mmHg in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/HCTZ25 and A10 groups, respectively and 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced by 9.3+/-0.6 mmHg, 11.4+/-0.6 mmHg and 9.6+/-0.7 mmHg in the three groups. The differences between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the A10 group were significant (p<0.05) for the changes in 24-h systolic BP as well as for changes in daytime systolic BP and night-time diastolic BP. Control rates defined as ABPM < or =130/80 mmHg were: 48.4%, 60.8% and 50.9% in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/25 and A10 groups, respectively. The differences in control rates between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the other two treatment groups were significant at p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed-dose combination of valsartan 160 mg+HCTZ 25 mg od is an attractive therapeutic option measured on the effects on 24-h ABPM, night-time and daytime BP reduction and control rates in hypertensive patients at additional cardiovascular risk.     

Effects of telmisartan 80 mg and valsartan 160 mg on ambulatory blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension

OBJECTIVES: This trial investigated and compared the antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan and valsartan, two angiotensin II receptor blockers, used in monotherapy at their maximum recommended dose in hypertensive patients. METHODS: We studied 70 subjects (32 men and 38 women) aged 47.6 +/- 12.2 (mean +/- SD) years, with mild to moderate essential hypertension; they were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy with either telmisartan (80 mg) or valsartan (160 mg), in the form of a single daily tablet upon awakening. Blood pressure was measured by ambulatory monitoring every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to calculate accurately the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per subject basis. RESULTS: There was a highly significant blood pressure reduction during the 24 h with both drugs. The blood pressure reduction in the 24-h mean was significantly larger for valsartan 160 mg (18.6 and 12.1 mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively) than for telmisartan 80 mg (10.8 and 8.4 mmHg; P < 0.001 between treatment-groups). There was also a highly significant reduction (P < 0.001) of 6.5 mmHg in the 24-h mean of pulse pressure after valsartan administration only. The trough : peak ratio and the smoothness index were slightly higher in systolic, but similar in diastolic blood pressure, for telmisartan as compared to valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a shorter half-life, 160 mg/day valsartan was more effective in lowering blood pressure over 24 h than 80 mg/day telmisartan. Furthermore, valsartan was also more effective in lowering arterial pulse pressure, an observation that may have important therapeutic implications, given the mounting evidence that pulse pressure may be a risk factor for future cardiovascular events.     

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

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

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.     

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

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

Effect of antihypertensive combinations on arterial pressure,albuminuria, and glycemic control in patients with type II diabetic nephropathy: a randomized study

Type II diabetic patients with albuminuria are at high risk for cardiovascular complications; the intense antihypertensive treatment required often involves using drug combinations. The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of two different, renin-angiotensin blocking combinations, on blood pressure (BP), albuminuria and glycemic control. Its design was prospective, randomised, controlled, of parallel branches, and performed in one Endocrinology Department, in Spain. 77 type-II diabetic patients, with stable albuminuria (30-1,000 mg/day) were included. After a pre-inclusion time of 2 weeks, patients were randomised to verapamil SR/trandolapril 180/2 (VT) or losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (LH) 20/12.5 mg/day. Duration of treatment was 1 year. The evaluated parameters were changes in blood pressure, urinary albumin excretion for 24 hours, glycated hemoglobin and plasmatic urea. Overall BP significantly decreased from 161.6 +/- 18.7/83.6 +/- 10.2 mmHg to 137.2 +/- 15.7/70.9 +/- 8.3 mmHg (p < 0.0005). Values, by treatment, were: For VT, 164.3 +/- 18.5/87.2 +/- 10.7 mmHg at baseline and 135.0 +/- 15.1/71.3 +/- 8.4 mmHg at conclusion. For LH, 158.8 +/- 17.4/80.1 +/- 8.4 mmHg at baseline and 139.3 +/- 16.1/70.5 +/- 8.2 mmHg at conclusion. Albuminuria significantly decreased from 308.2 +/- 544.7 mg/day to 198.0 +/- 285.3 mg/day. Both parameters showed no significant difference between treatments. Glycated hemoglobin decreased from 7.59 +/- 1.3% to 7.14 +/- 1.2% in the VT group, and from 7.96 +/- 1.29% to 7.84 +/- 1.62% in the LH group (ANOVA, p = 0.022). Changes adjusted from baseline values showed a trend to the difference between both treatments (p = 0.092). Plasmatic urea increased from 39.8 +/- 12.7 to 40.5 +/- 11.1 mg/dL in the TV group and from 43.4 +/- 12.0 mg/dL to 52.4 +/- 19.4 mg/dL in the LH group (ANOVA, p = 0.028). In conclusion, both treatments reduce blood pressure and albuminuria in a similar way in type II diabetic patients. The verapamil/trandolapril combination contributes to a better carbohydrate metabolism than losartan/hydroclorothiazide.     

Antihypertensive effect of valsartan 80 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate by ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) the 24 hours antihypertensive efficacy of the fixed combination therapy, valsartan 80 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (V + H), once daily, after 6 weeks of treatment, in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. STUDY DESIGN: It was a French, multicenter, double blind, randomized trial in parallel groups comparing V + H and placebo. After an initial two weeks placebo period, patients were assigned to receive either V + H or placebo for six weeks. Were eligible those with clinical arterial blood pressure, measured by sphygmomanometer, between 160/95 and 209/114 mmHg after monotherapy. A 26 hours ABPM, with Spacelabs 90,207, was done at J0 and J42 (one measurement every 15 minutes, in day time and at night). Responders were defined as a fall in day diastolic blood pressure > or = 5 mmHg and/or day diastolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg with ABPM. RESULTS: 123 of the 138 randomized patients had two interpretative measurements. Their average age was 59 + 10 years. 57% (78) of them were males and their average ABPM before treatment was 143 +/- 15/88 +/- 11 mmHg. With V + H, the reduction of the systolic and the diastolic blood pressure measured by ABPM, was significantly more important than with placebo (SBP: -15.4 +/- 10.9 mmHg versus -0.6 +/- 7.7 mmHg, p < 0.001; DBP: -9.1 +/- 7 mmHg versus -0.4 +/- 5.4 mmHg, p < 0.001). Pulse pressure (PP) was also significantly reduced with the combination therapy V + H, but it was not modified with placebo (-6.3 + 5.5 mmHg versus -0.2 + 4.1 mmHg, p < 0.001). ABPM responder rate was 73% with V + H versus 24% with placebo (p < 0.001). Trough/peak ratio was 80.3% for systolic blood pressure and 57.3% for diastolic blood pressure. The combination V + H was as well tolerated as placebo. CONCLUSION: The fixed combination V + H used for treatment of hypertension, after failure of monotherapy, is very effective in reducing pulse pressure, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, over 24 hours, homogeneously, and is as well tolerated as placebo.     

Effect of combination therapy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor plus calcium channel blocker on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive microalbuminuric patients with type II diabetes.

It has been demonstrated that antihypertensive treatment of hypertensive diabetic patients is quite effective in preventing macrovascular and microvascular complications and improving prognosis. Nevertheless, the target blood pressure level of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria (i.e., with early diabetic nephropathy) remains to be established. In this study, we evaluated the effect of intensive blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg) on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive, type II diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. We examined the effects of a combination therapy using an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor plus a long-acting calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and compared them with the effect of an ACE inhibitor alone. Thirty hypertensive, type II diabetic patients with microalbuminuria were treated with either an ACE inhibitor alone (group I, n=17) or an ACE inhibitor plus amlodipine (group II, n=13) for 32 weeks. With treatment, blood pressures in both groups were significantly reduced, and diastolic blood pressure was lowered to a much greater extent in group II (76 +/- 2 mmHg) than in group I (83 +/- 2 mmHg, p < 0.05). Although the urinary albumin excretion rate was decreased in both groups, the decrease attained statistical significance only in group II (from 141 +/- 25 mg/day to 69 +/- 18 mg/day, p < 0.05); the extent of reduction in microalbuminuria during antihypertensive treatment was significantly greater in group II (50 +/- 10%) than in group I (14 +/- 13%, p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study showed that in hypertensive microalbuminuric type II diabetic patients, the combination of an ACE inhibitor plus amlodipine resulted in a more pronounced decreased in blood pressure (diastolic blood pressure <80 mmHg) and a greater reduction in urinary albumin excretion than did use of an ACE inhibitor alone. This combination strategy should thus be a more effective tool for obtaining optimal blood pressure control in patients with diabetic nephropathy.     

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

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events occur most frequently in the morning. We aimed to study the effects of monotherapy with the long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan compared with the long-acting calcium antagonist amlodipine on ambulatory and morning blood pressure (BP). METHODS: We performed ambulatory BP monitoring before and after once-daily dose of valsartan (valsartan group, n = 38) and amlodipine (amlodipine group, n = 38) therapy in 76 hypertensive patients. To achieve the target BP of < or =140/90 mm Hg, valsartan was titrated from 40 mg/day to 160 mg/day (mean dose 124 mg/day) and amlodipine was titrated from 2.5 mg/day to 10 mg/day (mean dose 6.4 mg/day). RESULTS: Both drugs significantly reduced clinic and 24-h systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (P <.002). However, the antihypertensive effect of amlodipine was superior to that of valsartan in clinical SBP (-26 mm Hg v -13 mm Hg, P =.001) and 24-h SBP (-14 mm Hg v -7 mm Hg, P =.008). In addition, morning SBP was significantly reduced by amlodipine from 156 to 142 mm Hg (P <.001) but not by valsartan. Both agents reduced lowest night SBP to a similar extent (amlodipine 121 to 112 mm Hg, P <.001; valsartan 123 to 114 mm Hg, P <.002). Reduction in morning SBP surge (morning SBP minus lowest night SBP) was significantly greater in patients treated with amlodipine compared with those treated with valsartan (-6.1 mm Hg v +4.5 mm Hg, P <.02). CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine monotherapy was more effective than valsartan monotherapy in controlling 24-h ambulatory BP and morning BP in hypertensive patients.     

Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibition on microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes: a post hoc analysis of the Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART)

The Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial (SMART) showed the advantage of ARB over CCB beyond the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect in reducing microalbuminuria. To further assess the impact of BP control or renin-angiotensin system inhibition on microalbuminuria, the SMART patients were re-analyzed. Hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were randomly assigned to valsartan or amlodipine treatment groups for 24 weeks. Target blood pressure was set at <130/80 mmHg. Changes in the urinary albumin creatinine ratio (ACR) from baseline were assessed in the valsartan monotherapy (VM) group (n=33), the amlodipine monotherapy (AM) group (n=36), the concomitant valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor group (VA) (n=33), and the concomitant amlodipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (AA) group (n=38). At the end of the study, mean BP was not different among the four treatment groups. The changes in ACR from baseline to the end of the treatment period in VM, AM, VA, and AA were -36%, +30%, -26%, and +8%, respectively. The dissociation between the anti-albuminuric and antihypertensive effects of valsartan or amlodipine was observed in the respective monotherapy groups. In the AA group, however, a significant positive relationship was found between the changes in ACR and those in systolic BP. In conclusion, RAS inhibitors may be necessary in order for calcium channel blockers to have an effect on microalbuminuria. Therefore, RAS inhibitors are first-line drugs for hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.     

Effect of two antihypertensive combinations on metabolic control in type-2 diabetic hypertensive patients with albuminuria: a randomised, double-blind study.

The objective of this study was to compare, at equal blood pressure (BP) reduction, the effect of two different combinations on metabolic control and albuminuria in type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients with albuminuria. This was a prospective, randomised, double-blind, parallel, controlled trial carried out in 11 Spanish hospitals. A total of 103 type 2 diabetic patients with stable albuminuria and BP not controlled on monotherapy were randomised of which 93 finished the study. After a 4-week single-blind placebo period, patients were randomised to verapamil SR/trandolapril 180/2 mg (VT) or to enalapril/hydroclorothiazide 20/12.5 mg (EH). Treatment duration was 6 months. The main outcome measures were changes in BP, 24-h albuminuria, blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin. Overall BP was significantly reduced from 157.3 +/- 12.0/98.3 +/- 6.4 mm Hg to 140.5 +/- 14.5/86.1 +/- 8.2 mm Hg (P < 0.001) and albuminuria significantly decreased from 508.6 +/- 693.8 mg/24 h to 253.4 +/- 517.2 mg/24 h (P < 0.001), both without significant differences between treatments. Glycated haemoglobin was not modified on VT: baseline, 5.91 +/- 1.43%; end of treatment, 5.94 +/- 1.62%, but increased on EH: baseline, 5.96 +/- 1.25%; final, 6.41 +/- 1.51%, (ANOVA interaction P = 0.040). At the end of the study, a blood glucose <126 mg/dL was attained in 72.7% of the VT group-improving in 29.5% and worsening in 6.8% of patients (P = 0.021)-and in 50% of the EH group, 13.6% of patients improved and 11.4% worsened (P = 1.000). There were no changes in body weight, serum creatinine, uric acid, potassium, cholesterol, tryglicerides and serum albumin. In hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients not controlled on monotherapy, both treatments similarly reduced albuminuria. The combination verapamil/ trandolapril seems to allow a better metabolic control than enalapril/hydroclorothiazide.     

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.     

Treatment of non-dipper hypertension with bedtime administration of valsartan

BACKGROUND: Previous results have indicated that valsartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, may improve the diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure without loss in 24-h coverage and efficacy. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the administration time-dependent antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan in non-dipper patients. METHODS: We studied 148 non-dipper patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension, aged 53.0+/-12.6 years, who were randomly assigned to receive valsartan (160 mg/day) as a monotherapy either on awakening or at bedtime. Blood pressure was measured every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to accurately calculate the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per subject basis. RESULTS: The significant blood pressure reduction after 3 months of valsartan (P<0.001) was similar for both treatment times (13.1 and 8.5 mmHg reduction in the 24-h mean of systolic and diastolic blood pressure with morning administration; 14.7 and 10.3 mmHg with bedtime administration; P>0.126 for treatment-time effect). The diurnal: nocturnal ratio of blood pressure was significantly increased only when valsartan was administered before bedtime, which resulted in 75% of the patients in this group reverting to dippers, a significant increase in the percentage of patients with controlled blood pressure over 24 h, and a reduction in urinary albumin excretion. CONCLUSIONS: In non-dipper hypertensive patients, dosing time with valsartan should be chosen at bedtime, for improved efficacy during the nocturnal resting hours, as well as the potential associated reduction in cardiovascular risk.     

Beneficial action of candesartan cilexetil plus amlodipine or ACE inhibitors in chronic nondiabetic renal disease

Although multiple antihypertensive agents are required to control blood pressure (BP) in chronic renal disease, it remains undetermined whether the combination therapy with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) plus calcium antagonists or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) confers more preferable action on renal disease than the ARB monotherapy. In the present study, we compared the effect of the combination therapy with ARB plus calcium antagonists/ACEI on proteinuria with that of the ARB monotherapy in chronic nondiabetic renal disease. At 1 month of the drug treatment, the candesartan monotherapy (n=19) reduced BP from 154+/-3/93+/-2 to 146+/-3/88+/-2 mmHg (P<0.05), and a similar magnitude of BP reductions was observed with the combination therapy with candesartan plus ACEI/amlodipine (from 153+/-2/95+/-2 to 144+/-2/88+/-2 mmHg, P<0.05, n=39). The depressor action of these therapies was sustained throughout the 12-month treatment. In contrast, the reduction in proteinuria was greater with the combination therapy (-52+/-3% at 12 months, n=39) than with the candesartan monotherapy (-25+/-3%, n=19), although the baseline values of proteinuria were nearly the same in the candesartan monotherapy group (1.74+/-0.22 g/day) and the combination therapy group (2.10+/-0.19 g/day, P>0.2). Of note, the proteinuria-sparing effect did not differ between the candesartan+ACEI group and the candesartan+amlodipine group. In conclusion, the present study suggests more beneficial action of the combination therapy with ARB plus ACEI/amlodipine than the ARB monotherapy in nondiabetic renal disease. Since the reduction in BP was achieved to the same level, the distinct proteinuria-sparing action of these therapies is attributed to BP-independent mechanisms, which should vary depending on the agents used.     

吲哒帕胺联合氯沙坦对老年高血压病人血尿酸及β2-微球蛋白的影响

目的 探讨氯沙坦联合吲哒帕胺对老年高血压患者的血压、血尿酸（UA）及血、尿β2-微球蛋白（β2-MG）的影响。方法 50例老年高血压患者随机分成两组，对照组（吲哒帕胺组）24例，观察组（氯沙坦加吲哒帕胺组）26例，观察12w，比较治疗前后患者血压、血钾、血UA及血、尿β2-MG等指标的变化。结果 治疗后两组收缩压及舒张压均较治疗前明显下降（P〈0．01），两组比较无差异（P〉0．05）；对照组治疗前后比较，血UA浓度明显升高（P〈0．01），血、尿β2-MG浓度无明显变化，血钾明显降低（P〈0．05），观察组治疗前后血UA及血、尿β2-MG均明显下降（P〈0．01）。结论 吲哒帕胺和氯沙坦联合治疗老年高血压病，较单独用药更有效地控制血压，降低血UA及减少低血钾的发生，保护靶器官，具有良好的安全性和耐受性。     

Long-term efficacy of combination therapy with losartan and low-dose hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled hypertension

We evaluated the long-term efficacy of losartan and low-dose hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension. We enrolled 15 Japanese hypertensive outpatients whose 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure was >or= 135/80 mmHg after candesartan 8 mg (CND group; n = 10) monotherapy or amlodipine 5 mg (AML group; n = 5) monotherapy for 2 months or more. The monotherapy was then switched to losartan 50 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combination therapy. Ambulatory blood pressure and indices of glucose and lipid metabolism were measured at the end of the monotherapy and after 3 and 12 months of the combination therapy. In the CND group, 24-hour blood pressure decreased significantly from 137 +/- 9/89 +/- 4 to 126 +/- 8/81 +/- 7 mmHg after 3 months (P < 0.05/ P < 0.001) and to 123 +/- 7/81 +/- 4 mmHg after 12 months (P < 0.01/P < 0.001). In the AML group, 24-hour blood pressure decreased significantly from 137 +/- 11/81 +/- 7 to 125 +/- 12/75 +/- 6 mmHg after 3 months (P < 0.05/P < 0.05) and to 124 +/- 9/77 +/- 7 mmHg after 12 months (P < 0.05/NS). There were significant decreases in systolic blood pressure during the daytime (6:00-21:30), nighttime (22:00-5:30) and early morning (6:00-8:00) after 12 months in both groups. No adverse changes in the indices of glucose or lipid metabolism were observed in either group. In conclusion, long-term combination therapy with losartan and low-dose hydrochlorothiazide was effective in the treatment of hypertensive patients whose blood pressure was not controlled by candesartan or amlodipine monotherapy alone.     

Effect of benazepril addition to amlodipine on ankle oedema and subcutaneous tissue pressure in hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of benazepril addition to amlodipine antihypertensive treatment on ankle-foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP), two objective measures of ankle oedema. A total of 32 mild to moderate essential hypertensives (DBP>90 and <110 mmHg), aged 30-70 years were studied. After a 4-week placebo period, they were randomized to amlodipine 5 mg o.d. or benazepril 10 mg o.d. or amlodipine 5 mg plus benazepril 10 mg o.d. for 4 weeks, according to a crossover design. At the end of the placebo period and of each active treatment period, blood pressure,AFV and PSTP were evaluated. AFV was measured using the principle of water displacement. PSTP was assessed using a system, the subcutaneous pretibial interstitial environment with a water manometer. Both amlodipine and benazepril monotherapy significantly reduced SBP (-18.2+/-4 and -17.8+/-4 mmHg, respectively, P<0.01 vs baseline) and DBP (-12.1+/-3 and -11.7+/-3 mmHg, respectively, P<0.01); the reduction was increased by the combination (-24.2+/-5 mmHg for SBP, P<0.001 and -16.8+/-4 mmHg for DBP, P<0.001). Amlodipine monotherapy significantly increased both AFV (+17.1%, P<0.001 vs baseline) and PSTP (+56.6%, P<0.001 vs baseline). As compared to amlodipine alone, the combination produced a less pronounced increase in AFV (+5.5%, P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs amlodipine) and PSTP (+20.5%, P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs amlodipine). Ankle oedema was clinically evident in 11 patients with amlodipine monotherapy and in three patients with the combination. These results suggest that ACE-inhibitors partially counteract the microcirculatory changes responsible for Ca-antagonists-induced oedema formation.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of valsartan on the progression of chronic renal insufficiency in patients with nondiabetic renal diseases.

The present study tested the effects of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, on the progression of renal insufficiency in patients with nondiabetic renal diseases. The study subjects were 22 patients with nondiabetic renal diseases whose serum creatinine (Cr) ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 mg/dl. Valsartan (40-80 mg) or placebo was given once daily for 1 year each in a random crossover manner. In both periods, antihypertensive medications were titrated when the blood pressure was not lower than 140/90 mmHg. Blood sampling and urinalysis were performed bimonthly throughout the study periods. The average blood pressure was comparable between the valsartan and the placebo periods (130 +/- 9/86 +/- 6 vs. 131 +/- 8/86 +/- 6 mmHg). Serum Cr significantly increased from 1.9 +/- 0.5 to 2.3 +/- 0.8 mg/dl (p < 0.001) during the placebo period, but the change was insignificant in the valsartan period (2.1 +/- 0.6 to 2.2 +/- 0.9 mg/dl). The slope of decrease in the reciprocal of serum Cr was steeper in the placebo period than in the valsartan period (-0.064 +/- 0.070/year vs. -0.005 +/- 0.050/year, p < 0.01). During the valsartan period, urinary protein excretion was less than that during the placebo period (0.75 +/- 0.73 vs. 1.24 +/- 0.92 g/g Cr, p < 0.001). Serum K was significantly higher in the valsartan period than in the placebo period (4.6 +/- 0.5 vs. 4.4 +/- 0.5 mEq/l, p < 0.05); however, no patients discontinued taking valsartan as a result of hyperkalemia. It is possible that long-term treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, is effective at retarding the deterioration of renal function in patients with nondiabetic renal disease by a mechanism independent of blood pressure reduction.