Increasing the doses of both diuretics and angiotensin receptor blockers is beneficial in subjects with uncontrolled systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND:

Blood pressure (BP) control is frequently difficult to achieve in patients with predominantly elevated systolic BP. Consequently, these patients frequently require combination therapy including a thiazide diuretic such as hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and an agent blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Current clinical practice usually limits the daily dose of HCTZ to 25 mg. This often leads to the necessity of using additional antihypertensive agents to control BP in a high proportion of patients.

OBJECTIVES:

To compare the efficacy of two doses of losartan (LOS)/HCTZ combinations in patients with uncontrolled ambulatory systolic hypertension after six weeks of treatment with LOS 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg (LOS100/HCTZ25).

METHODS:

Following a two- to four-week washout period, subjects with a mean clinic sitting systolic BP of 160 mmHg or higher and a mean ambulatory daytime systolic BP (MDSBP) of 135 mmHg or higher on LOS100/HCTZ25 (n=105; 33 women and 72 men) were randomly assigned to receive LOS 150 mg/HCTZ 25 mg (group 1; n=53) or LOS 150 mg/HCTZ 37.5 mg (LOS150/HCTZ37.5, group 2; n=52). The primary end point was the difference in MDSBP reductions.

RESULTS:

At the end of the six-week treatment period, the respective additional decreases in MDSBP were 1.2 mmHg (P=0.335) on LOS 150 mg/HCTZ 25 mg and 5.6 mmHg (P<0.0001) on LOS150/HCTZ37.5 (difference of 4.4 mmHg; P=0.011). Daytime systolic ambulatory BP goal (lower than 130 mmHg) achievement tended to be higher (25% versus 17%; P=0.313) with LOS150/HCTZ37.5, while it was significantly higher (65% versus 43%; P=0.024) for mean daytime diastolic BP (lower than 80 mmHg). No deleterious metabolic changes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS:

In patients with uncontrolled systolic ambulatory hypertension receiving LOS100/HCTZ25, increasing both HCTZ and LOS dosages simultaneously to LOS150/HCTZ37.5 may be an effective strategy that does not affect metabolic parameters.     

Antihypertensive effects of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in essential hypertension.

Fixed-dose combination therapy has received increased interest since publication of JNC-VI report and WHO/ISH guidelines 1999. We compared in a randomized, double-blind study the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan 80 mg combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to monotherapy with either HCTZ 12.5 mg or 25 mg in patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled by previous HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy. Two hundred and seventeen patients whose blood pressure (BP) control remained poor (95 mmHg < or = sitting diastolic BP < 115 mmHg) after a 4-week single-blind period with HCTZ 12.5 mg were randomized to receive either combination therapy with valsartan 80 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg (V/HCTZ) or monotherapy with HCTZ 12.5 mg or HCTZ 25 mg for 8 weeks. Reduction of sitting trough diastolic BP between baseline and week 8 as well as tolerability was evaluated. Reduction in trough diastolic BP was most pronounced in the V/HCTZ group (-11.3 mmHg) and significantly greater than in the HCTZ 12.5 mg group (-2.9 mmHg, p < 0.001) and the HCTZ 25 mg group (-5.7 mmHg, p < 0.001). Tolerability of study medication was comparable between all three groups. In conclusion, switching to V/HCTZ combination therapy provides an additional lowering of BP compared to dosage increase of the thiazide in patients with BP insufficiently controlled by HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy.     

Efficacy and safety of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with severe hypertension

This 12-week, open-label, multicenter study assessed the efficacy and safety of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents, in the treatment of patients with severe systemic hypertension. Treatment began with once-daily losartan/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg. The dose was increased to 100/25 mg, if required, to achieve blood pressure (BP) control (sitting diastolic BP <95 mm Hg); felodipine (extended release) and/or atenolol could be added if target sitting diastolic BP was not achieved with losartan/HCTZ alone. Mean sitting systolic BP of the 131 patients enrolled was 165.3 mm Hg at baseline and 139.8 mm Hg at final visit (reduction -25.4 mm Hg; p < or =0.01). Mean sitting diastolic BP was 111.9 mm Hg at baseline and 93.6 mm Hg at final visit (reduction -18.4 mm Hg; p < or =0.01). After 2 weeks of treatment, 63.8% of patients (83 of 130) were taking losartan/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg alone. By the final visit, one third of patients (35.1%; 46/131) were still only taking losartan/HCTZ. Most patients (48.1%; 63 of 131) were taking losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg plus felodipine (extended release) at the final visit. Losartan/HCTZ was well tolerated. Drug-related adverse experiences occurred in 30 patients (22.9%). Only 2 patients (1.5%) had a serious adverse experience; 6 patients (4.6%) discontinued the drug because of an adverse experience. In conclusion, losartan/ HCTZ, alone or as part of a regimen with other standard antihypertensive agents, is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with severe hypertension.     

Titration of HCTZ to 50 mg daily in individuals with stage 2 systolic hypertension pretreated with an angiotensin receptor blocker

The authors studied the combination of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 50 mg/d plus olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg/d in stage 2 systolic hypertension during an extension phase of an open-label 12-week dose titration study. Subjects whose blood pressure remained above 120/80 mm Hg (n=105) on OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg/d subsequently received OM 40/HCTZ 50 mg/d for 4 weeks. Increasing HCTZ from 25 mg/d to 50 mg/d decreased systolic blood pressure by 3.6 mm Hg, increased BP control rates (<140/90 mm Hg) from 70.4% to 77.5%, and increased BP normalization rates (<120/80 mm Hg) from 15.4% to 27.8%. The combination was well tolerated. Compared with OM 40 mg/d monotherapy, neither dose of HCTZ affected serum potassium, but both increased serum glucose by about 5%. There was a dose-dependent increase in uric acid but no acute gout attacks. OM 40/HCTZ 50 mg/d is an effective strategy for managing stage 2 systolic hypertension.     

Differential effects of strict blood pressure lowering by losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy and high-dose amlodipine monotherapy on microalbuminuria: the ALPHABET study

We investigated the effects of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combination therapy and high-dose amlodipine monotherapy on BP measurements and target organ protection. In this open-label multicenter trial, hypertensive patients were randomly allocated to receive losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 4 weeks, and the treatments were changed to combination of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for a further 4 weeks. A total of 91 hypertensive patients (age 63.6 years), 47 in the losartan/HCTZ group and 44 in amlodipine group, were enrolled. After 8 weeks, the clinic BP, home BP, and 24-hour ambulatory BP were successfully controlled to the same level in both treatment groups (P < .001). Furthermore, both groups showed the same degree of BP reduction in the 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime (P < .001). B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) also significantly decreased to the same level in both groups, whereas the reduction of urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was greater in the losartan/HCTZ group than in the high-dose amlodipine group (–47.6% vs 2.4%, P < .001). Losartan/HCTZ combination and high-dose amlodipine have similar effects on clinic, home, and ambulatory BP control and BNP reduction, whereas losartan/HCTZ has superior effect on UACR reduction when compared with high-dose amlodipine.     

Improving Blood Pressure Control: Increase the Dose of Diuretic or Switch to a Fixed‐Dose Angiotensin Receptor Blocker/Diuretic? The Valsartan Hydrochlorothiazide Diuretic for Initial Control and Titration to Achieve Optimal Therapeutic Effect (Val‐DICTATE) Trial

To assess the strategy of increasing the dose of a diuretic compared with using an angiotensin receptor blocker in combination with a diuretic, the authors performed a multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial in hypertensive patients (baseline blood pressure [BP], 153/97 mm Hg) whose BP remained uncontrolled on initial low-dose diuretic monotherapy (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg Hg). Patients with stage 1 and 2 hypertension were randomized to treatment with valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) or to doubling of the HCTZ dose (25 mg). The primary end point was the percentage of patients whose clinic BP values were <140/90 mm Hg following 4 weeks of double-blind therapy. A significantly higher proportion (P<.001) of hypertensive patients met BP control levels in the valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) group compared with the HCTZ 25 mg group (37% vs 16%). Changes from baseline in BP were significantly greater (P<.001) for both systolic BP and diastolic BP in the combination therapy arm compared with the diuretic monotherapy arm (-12. 4/-7.5 mm Hg in valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg group vs -5.6/-2.1 mm Hg in HCTZ 25 mg group). Tolerability and adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. This study suggests that in the management of hypertension, utilizing an angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination was more effective in lowering BP and achieving BP goals when compared with increasing the dose of the diuretic.     

Home and clinic blood pressure responses in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring may enhance assessment of BP control. In this 16-week study, men and women 70 years or older with systolic BP between 150 and 200 mm Hg were randomized to receive valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (V/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg (n = 128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 128), or V 160 mg (n = 128) for 4 weeks. Participants whose BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were uptitrated to a maximum of V/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Participants were evaluated by home BP monitoring using an automated device weekly before taking daily study medication (n = 301). Baseline BP ± SD for clinic (165.5 ± 11.8/85.1 ± 9.5 mm Hg) was approximately 3/1 mm Hg greater than home readings (162.5 ± 15.8/84.3 ± 10.2 mm Hg). Reductions in BP ± SEM at week 4 were similar for clinic (12.6 ± 1.0/4.7 ± 0.5 mm Hg) and home (10.9 ± 1.1/3.8 ± 0.5 mm Hg) readings (P = .25/P = .23; clinic versus home); differences between V/HCTZ and HCTZ or V were also similar for both home and clinic readings and results by either technique correlated significantly (P < .0001). Home BP measurements confirm that treatment initiated with V/HCTZ versus monotherapy resulted in greater antihypertensive efficacy. Home BP monitoring, if done with proper technique, provides a reliable indicator of BP control in elderly patients and may help guide drug dosing and titration.     

Long-term efficacy and safety of triple-combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate and hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:149–157. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Most patients with hypertension require combination therapy in order to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. This 40‐week open‐label extension of the 12‐week double‐blind Tri ple Therapy With Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hyperten si ve Patient s Study (TRINITY) evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple‐combination treatments with olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate, and hydrochlorothiazide (OM/AML/HCTZ) in 2112 participants with moderate to severe hypertension. Following 2 weeks of initial treatment with OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 12.5 mg, participants not achieving BP goal were titrated to OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 25 mg or OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 12.5 mg on a randomized basis. At week 16, participants who did not achieve BP goal were further titrated to OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg. At the end of the study, 44.5% to 79.8% of participants reached BP goal and the mean BP decreased from 168.6/100.7 mm Hg (baseline BP at randomization) to 125.0 to 136.8 mm Hg/77.8 to 82.5 mm Hg, depending on treatment. Long‐term treatment with OM/AML/HCTZ was well tolerated and effective with no new safety concerns.     

Comparison of the Combination of Enalapril and a Very Low Dose of Hydrochlorothiazide with Atenolol in Patients With Mild-to- Moderate Hypertension

The blood pressure lowering effect and tolerability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril combined with a very low dose of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were compared with the selective betareceptor blocker atenolol in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Three hundred seventy-four patients were randomized into a triple-blind, parallel, active-controlled 12-week study period comparing enalapril/HCTZ (20/6 mg) with atenolol (50 mg) after a 4-week placebo baseline period. Blood pressure (BP), clinical and laboratory safety, and metabolic laboratory variables were assessed. Enalapril/HCTZ as well as atenolol reduced both sitting and standing diastolic and systolic BP (P < .001), but enalapril/HCTZ had a more pronounced effect than atenolol on sitting systolic BP (P = .019); there was a trend toward more patients achieving target diastolic BP (<90 mm Hg, P = .053). No clinically important differences in safety and tolerability were observed.     

Adding Hydrochlorothiazide to Olmesartan/Amlodipine Increases Efficacy in Patients With Inadequate Blood Pressure Control on Dual‐Combination Therapy

This randomized, parallel‐group study in patients inadequately controlled on olmesartan medoxomil/amlodipine (OLM/AML) 40/10 mg assessed the effects of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg and 25 mg, using seated blood pressure (SeBP) measurements and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. Enrolled patients were screened and tapered off of therapy if required. All patients received OLM/AML 40/10 mg and those with mean seated BP (SeBP) ≥140/90 mm Hg after 8 weeks (n=808) were randomized (1:1:1) to continue with OLM/AML 40/10 mg or receive OLM/AML/HCTZ 40/10/12.5 or 40/10/25 mg for a further 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from the start to the end of the randomized treatment period. The addition of HCTZ 25 mg significantly reduced SeDBP (?2.8 mm Hg; P<.0001), lowered seated systolic BP (SeSBP) and ambulatory DBP and SBP, and improved BP goal rates. In patients uncontrolled on OLM/AML 40/10 mg, adding HCTZ led to further BP reductions, particularly in ambulatory BP.     

Expedited blood pressure control with initial angiotensin II antagonist/diuretic therapy compared with stepped-care therapy in patients with ambulatory systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVES: The present study investigated whether initiating therapy with a combination of losartan (L) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) allows for faster blood pressure (BP) control and fewer medications than the usual stepped-care approach in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension. METHODS: Patients with a mean daytime systolic ambulatory BP (ABP) of 135 mmHg or higher were randomly assigned to receive L 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg titrated to L 100 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg versus HCTZ 12.5 mg plus atenolol 50 mg. Amlodipine 5 mg was then added, if needed, to achieve a BP goal of less than 130 mmHg. Treatment titration was based on ABP. RESULTS: Significantly more patients randomly assigned to L/HCTZ (63.5%) than stepped-care (37.5%; P=0.008) achieved the primary end point (daytime systolic BP of less than 130 mmHg). Initial L/HCTZ induced significantly greater decreases in ABP during each 24 h period after six weeks of therapy. Although reductions in systolic and diastolic ABP were not statistically different at the end of the study, ABP reduction was significantly greater (P<0.001) with the L/HCTZ-based regimen. Twice as many patients in the L/HCTZ group achieved the goal ABP with no more than two drugs (30.0% versus 14.7%; P=0.03). Moreover, tolerability was significantly better (P=0.006) in the L/HCTZ group, with a 40.0% incidence of adverse events, versus 65.6% in the stepped-care group. CONCLUSION: Initiating antihypertensive therapy with the combination of L/HCTZ in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension reaches a target BP faster in a higher proportion of patients, with fewer adverse events and less need for a third drug regimen than the conventional stepped-care approach.     

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.     

The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension

The calcium channel blocker amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were compared for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Following a 2-week placebo run-in, 440 adults (45-80 years old) were randomized to receive either amlodipine 5 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. Patients who failed to meet the sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) reduction goal of 相似文献   

Time to achieve blood-pressure goal: influence of dose of valsartan monotherapy and valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess time to achieve blood-pressure (BP) goal with incremental doses of valsartan alone, and together with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), in patients with uncomplicated hypertension. METHODS: This analysis pooled patient-level data from nine randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose, placebo-controlled trials (N = 4278) of once-daily valsartan 80 mg, 160 mg, and 320 mg, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 80/12.5 mg, 160/12.5 mg, 160/25 mg, 320/12.5 mg, and 320/25 mg. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated the cumulative proportion of patients achieving BP <140/90 mm Hg over 8 weeks and the median time to BP goal. The HCTZ 12.5-mg and 25-mg doses were pooled for the time-to-goal analysis in patients receiving combinations with valsartan 160 mg or 320 mg. RESULTS: Overall, the median time-to-goal was 8.1 weeks with valsartan 160 mg, 6.1 weeks with valsartan 320 mg, 2.6 weeks with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ, and 2.1 weeks with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ. In patients with stage 2 hypertension, the median time-to-goal was 4.3 weeks with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ and 2.4 weeks with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ. Goal rates by Week 4 for valsartan/HCTZ exceeded rates by Week 8 with the same doses of valsartan alone. Overall, the proportion that achieved BP goal by Week 8 was 32.6% with valsartan 80 mg, 48.4% with valsartan 160 mg, 54.2% with valsartan 320 mg, 74.6% with valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ, and 84.8% with valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ, versus 24.2% with placebo. With valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ, 75.8% of stage 2 patients and 94% of stage 1 patients reached BP goal by Week 8. Discontinuation rates due to adverse events were generally low across doses. CONCLUSIONS: In both stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension, BP control is achieved more frequently and promptly when patients receive higher doses of valsartan monotherapy or valsartan combination therapy, with a favorable benefit-risk profile.     

Race-Specific Comparisons of Antihypertensive and Metabolic Effects of Hydrochlorothiazide and Chlorthalidone

BackgroundChlorthalidone is recommended over hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as the preferred thiazide, but the supporting evidence is not robust at routinely used doses, or in whites vs blacks, in whom differences in response to thiazides are well known. We compare the efficacy and safety of HCTZ and chlorthalidone as first-line therapies for white and black hypertensive patients.MethodsWe compared treatment-related outcomes between the HCTZ arm (12.5 mg for 2-3 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of the Pharmacogenomic Evaluation of Antihypertensive Responses (PEAR, n = 376) and chlorthalidone arm (15 mg for 2 weeks; 25 mg for additional 6 weeks) of PEAR-2 (n = 326) clinical trials, in 17–65-year-old mild-moderate uncomplicated hypertensive whites and blacks.ResultsMean systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) reduction with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone: 8 ± 8/4 ± 5 vs 12 ± 9/7 ± 5 mm Hg in whites (P < 10^?6 SBP and DBP); 12 ± 10/7 ± 6 vs 15 ± 10/9 ± 6 in blacks (P = .008 SBP, P = .054 DBP). Treatment with HCTZ vs chlorthalidone in whites resulted in significantly fewer patients achieving target BP (<140/90 mm Hg) (44% vs 57%, P = .018) and clinical response rate (≥10 mm Hg DBP reduction); and significantly higher nonresponse rate (<6 mm Hg DBP reduction); but no significant differences in rates among blacks (eg, target-BP rate: 56% vs 63%, P = .31). HCTZ treatment led to significantly lower rates of hypokalemia and hyperuricemia in whites and blacks, vs chlorthalidone, and significantly lower odds of requiring potassium supplementation among blacks (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.37; P = 3.4e^?7).ConclusionCompared with HCTZ, chlorthalidone showed greater blood pressure lowering and adverse metabolic effects in whites, but similar blood pressure lowering and greater adverse effects in blacks; suggesting that the recent guideline recommendations to choose chlorthalidone over HCTZ may not be warranted in blacks.     

Antihypertensive effects of two fixed-dose combinations of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide versus hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in subjects with ambulatory systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of losartan (L) in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has been demonstrated to reduce blood pressure. However, there are limited data on the effects of L/HCTZ combinations versus HCTZ monotherapies in reducing ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of these treatment approaches in patients with ambulatory systolic hypertension. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive L 50 mg (n = 60) or HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 60) for 6 weeks. Patients were then force-titrated to L 50/HCTZ 12.5 mg and to L 100/HCTZ 25 mg or were sham-titrated to HCTZ 12.5 mg and force-titrated to HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. Clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) were measured at baseline and after each 6-week treatment period. RESULTS: We found that L 50 and HCTZ 12.5 induced significant and similar decreases in clinic and ABP. The combinations of L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 provided significantly greater decreases in clinic and ABP than did HCTZ monotherapies. The L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 combinations provided significant additional decreases in systolic/diastolic ABP during daytime (-5.3/-2.0 mm Hg; P <.001 and -5.8/-3.4 mm Hg; P <.001) and the other periods of the 24-h interval compared with the levels achieved by the previous treatment, indicating a clear dose-response relationship. However, increasing the dose of HCTZ from 12.5 mg to 25 mg was not associated with additional ABP reductions. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 provided greater reductions in clinic and ABP than HCTZ monotherapies, with a clear dose-response relationship with regard to ABP. These results support the use of ABP monitoring when assessing the efficacy of antihypertensive therapies.     

Efficacy and safety of triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide combinations in mild systemic hypertension

After a 3-week placebo lead-in (Period 1), 78 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressures (BPs) of greater than or equal to 90 and less than or equal to 105 mm Hg entered a 4-week period (Period 2) during which they received triamterene (TMT) 37.5 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg/day. Four weeks of therapy with TMT 37.5 mg/HCTZ 25 mg resulted in a statistically significant decrease in mean BP of -15.0/-9.6 mm Hg. Mean BP changed from 145/95 to 130/85 mm Hg. Fifty-nine percent of patients were classified as responders as defined by study criteria. An additional 4 weeks of therapy (Period 3) for responders produced no further change in BP. Nonresponders as a group continued to have a further decrease in BP in Period 3. However, only patients in whom therapy was transferred to TMT 75 mg/HCTZ 50 mg had a statistically significant decrease. All patients who changed to the higher dose combination achieved goal BP by the end of the study. Of the nonresponders who continued to take TMT 37.5 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, 69% achieved goal diastolic BP by the end of Period 3. Three patients were withdrawn because of adverse experiences, 1 of which was considered treatment related. Of 58 reports of adverse experiences, 8 were considered possibly related and 2 probably related to therapy. There was a total of 8 clinically significant abnormal laboratory values, 1 of which was considered to have a possible relation to therapy.     

Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with severe systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the potent angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil were evaluated in 217 adult patients (68% men, 41% black) with severe systemic hypertension on background therapy with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =110 mm Hg during the placebo run-in received HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily for 1 week. Those with sitting diastolic BP >95 mm Hg after the HCTZ run-in were randomized (2:1) to receive candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily (n = 141) or placebo (n = 76), plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. After 1 week of double-blind treatment, patients with sitting diastolic BP > or =90 mm Hg were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or matching placebo, plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; 84% required uptitration. Primary efficacy measurement was a change in trough (24+/-3 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic BP from the end of the HCTZ run-in to double-blind week 4. Mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with candesartan cilexetil than with placebo, -11.3/-9.1 mm Hg versus -4.1/-3.1 mm Hg, p <0.001/p <0.001, respectively. Patients with higher sitting diastolic BP at the end of the HCTZ run-in tended to have greater decreases in BP (p <0.05). Most patients (53%) receiving candesartan cilexetil were responders (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10 mm Hg decrease) and 32% were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Tolerability and safety profiles were similar in the candesartan and placebo groups. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16 mg once daily was an effective and well-tolerated therapy for lowering BP when added to HCTZ 12.5 mg in a diverse population of patients with severe systemic hypertension in the United States.     

The long-term antihypertensive activity and tolerability of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide.

The long-term safety, tolerability, and antihypertensive effects of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) were assessed in hypertensive patients (seated diastolic blood pressure [SeDBP] 95-110 mm Hg). Patients (n = 1098) completing two randomised, double-blind trials of irbesartan alone, HCTZ alone, irbesartan/HCTZ combinations, or placebo, took 1 year of open-label therapy starting with irbesartan 75 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily. If target blood pressure (BP) (<140/<90 mm Hg) was not achieved, the dose was titrated sequentially at 2- to 4-week intervals to irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12. 5 mg, then to irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 mg. If necessary, adjunctive therapies were added. Mean changes in trough seated systolic BP/SeDBP at months 2, 6, and 12 were -19.1/-14.2 mm Hg (n = 941), -20.7/ -15.7 mm Hg (n = 948), and -20.6/-15.6 mm Hg (n = 898), respectively. From months 2 to 12, normalisation rates (trough SeDBP <90 mm Hg) ranged from 75-85% and total responder rates (normalised or >/=10 mm Hg trough SeDBP reduction) ranged from 81-91%, while target BP was achieved in 65-75% of patients. At all time-points, most patients (>/=87%) were receiving irbesartan/HCTZ alone. Eighty-two patients (7.5%) discontinued the study due to adverse events, with half of these events considered unrelated to study medication. There were no reports of serious adverse events related to study medication. Long-term therapy with irbesartan/HCTZ is safe, well tolerated, and maintains normalised BP in >80% of patients.