Efficacy and safety of carvedilol in comparison with atenolol in hypertensive patients pretreated with hydrochlorothiazide

Carvedilol [25 mg once daily] (o. d.) was compared to atenolol (50 mg o. d.) as an adjunct to pre-existing hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension [diastolic blood pressure (DBP),100–115 mm Hg]. After a placebo run-in phase of 2 weeks, 131 patients received 25 mg HCTZ o. d. for 4 weeks. In all, 122 patients were transferred to the double-blind phase, in which 25 mg carvedilol or 50 mg atenolol was randomly added to HCTZ. After an additional 6 weeks of treatment, 112 patients were evaluable for efficacy (C/HCTZ group,n = 54; A/HCTZ group,n = 58). Blood pressure was measured and the heart rate was counted before medication, at 2-week intervals throughout the trial, and 2 h after medication on the 1st and the last day of the combination treatment period. Serum lipids were measured in addition to routine laboratory variables. A therapeutic response was defined as a reduction in supine and standing diastolic blood pressure to values of < 90=" mmhg.=" in=" a=" relatively=" low=" number=" of=" patients=" (6=" of=" 131),=" a=" response=" as=" defined=" above=" was=" achieved=" with=" hctz=" alone.=" this=" may=" be=" accounted=" for=" by=" the=" fact=" that=" patients=" were=" required=" to=" have=" a=" diastolic=" blood=" pressure=" of=" at=" least=" 100=" mghg=" and=" by=" the=" relatively=" short=" period=" of=" monotherapy.=" the=" two=" groups=" of=" patients=" receiving=" different=" combination=" treatments=" were=" well=" matched=" for=" demographic=" data=" and=" blood=" pressure=" values=" before=" the=" adjunct=" was=" added.=" in=" both=" groups=" there=" was=" a=" marked=" additional=" blood=" pressure=" decrease=" on=" the=" initiation=" of=" combined=" treatment.=" at=" the=" end=" of=" the=" study=" the=" medians=" of=" all=" blood=" pressure=" values=" were=" well=" within=" normal=" ranges,=" which=" was=" not=" the=" case=" with=" hctz=" alone.=" on=" the=" last=" day=" of=" the=" trial,=" the=" responders=" comprised=" 67%=" of=" the=" c/hctz=" group=" and=" 71%=" of=" the=" a/hctz=" group.=" no=" relevant=" changes=" in=" lipid=" values=" were=" observed=" with=" combination=" treatment=" vs=" diuretic=" monotherapy.=" no=" serious=" adverse=" event=" attributable=" to=" one=" of=" the=" study=" drugs=" was=" reported.=" the=" results=" of=" the=" present=" trial=" suggest=" that=" the=" antihypertensive=" efficacy=" of=" both=" combinations=" is=" superior=" to=" that=" of=" hctz=" alone=" and=" that=" there=" is=" no=" difference=" in=" efficacy=" between=" the=" two=" combinations.=" adding=" carvedilol=" or=" atenolol=" to=" pre-existing=" hctz=" appears=" to=" be=" safe.=" the=" tolerability=" of=" the=" antihypertensive=" treatment=" does=" not=" seem=" to=" decline,=" despite=" considerable=" additional=" decreases=" in=" blood=">     

Efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine in patients with poorly controlled mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (CC/HCTZ), 12.5 mg was compared with that of amlodipine, in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy. After a two week run-in period on existing therapy, patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90-110 mmHg and a sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) 相似文献   

Combination Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

ABSTRACT

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

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

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

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

Evaluation of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of moexipril,a new ACE inhibitor,compared to hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients

Objective: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of moexipril, a new angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, to treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Patients: Two hundred and one non-hospitalized male and female patients between 65 and 80 years of age with essential hypertension. Methods: This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study with a parallel group design. Subjects with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 95 mmHg were randomized to monotherapy with placebo, moexipril 7.5 mg o.d., moexipril 15 mg o.d. or HCTZ 25 mg o.d. for 8 weeks. Results: Throughout the study period treatment with moexipril and HCTZ resulted in significant reductions of DBP compared with placebo, but there were no significant differences between the active treatment groups. At end point the adjusted mean reductions were 10.5, 8.7 and 10.1 mmHg in the HCTZ, moexipril 7.5 mg and moexipril 15 mg groups, respectively, compared to 3.9 mmHg in the placebo group. Treatment with moexipril was associated with two cases of first dose hypotension and two cases of moderate and reversible increases in serum creatinine levels. Otherwise, both dosages of moexipril were well tolerated and the overall percentages of patients who had adverse experiences were smaller than in the placebo group. Conclusion: Moexipril is well tolerated and is at least as effective as HCTZ in elderly patients with essential hypertension. Received: 26 January 1995/Accepted in revised form: 11 September 1995     

Influence of carvedilol and propranolol on coronary blood flow

A total of 17 patients with angiographically proven coronary artery disease and at least one stenosis blocking 70% of the left anterior descending or circumflex artery were included in a double-blind, randomized study. They received either 5 mg carvedilol or 6 mg propranolol intravenously. Heart rate, aortic pressure, mean coronary sinus pressure and coronary flow (thermodilution) were measured and coronary resistance and the rate-pressure product were calculated before and 25 min after injection. Carvedilol significantly (P < 0.05)=" lowered=" the=" heart=" rate=" (mean,=" 76=" to=" 69=" beats/min),=" aortic=" pressure=" (mean,=" 153/80–135/72=" mmhg),=" rate-pressure=" product=" (mean,=" 117–93=" mmhg/min),=" and=" coronary=" flow=" (mean,=" 114–94=" ml/min).=" coronary=" resistance=" (mean,=" 0.97–1.07=" mmhg=" ×=" min/ml)=" and=" coronary=" flow=" related=" to=" the=" rate-pressure=" product=" (mean,=" 1.0–1.02=" ml/mm=" hg)=" showed=" no=" significant=" change=" after=" carvedilol=" treatment.=" propranolol=" lowered=" the=" heart=" rate=" (mean,=">P < 0.05)=" and=" rate-pressure=" product=" (mean,=" 109–96=" mm.=" hg/min;=" not=" significant).=" aortic=" pressure=" (mean,=" 145/72–147/74=" mmhg),=" coronary=" flow=" (mean=" 109–101=" ml/min),=" coronary=" resistance=" (mean,=" 1.1–1.2=" mmhg=" ×=" min/ml),=" and=" coronary=" flow=" related=" to=" the=" rate-pressure=" product=" (mean,1.12–1.19=" ml/mmhg)=" showed=" no=" significant=" change=" after=" propranolol=" administration.=" following=" single=" application,=" carvedilol=" lowered=" the=" rate-pressure=" product=" more=" markedly=" than=" did=" propranolol=" on=" account=" of=" its=" acute=" blood-pressure-lowering=" effect.=" no=" differences=" in=" the=" hemodynamic=" effects=" of=" carvedilol=" and=" propranolol=" were=" found.=" neither=" drug=" seems=" to=" influence=" the=" adaption=" of=" coronary=" flow=" to=" myocardial=" oxygen=">     

Effect of three months’ treatment with irbesartan on blood and pulse pressure of hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients: open,observational study in 31 793 patients

ABSTRACT

Objectives: In hypertensive diabetics the cardiovascular risk is substantially increased. Therefore, an effective reduction of both blood pressure and pulse pressure is of particular importance for these patients. The aim of the prospective observational study in hypertensive type 2 diabetics was to assess the effect of a switch from the previous antihypertensive therapy to the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan (alone or in combination with HCTZ) on the reduction of blood pressure and pulse pressure, the reduction of diabetic nephropathy (microalbuminuria), and tolerability.

Methods: 8714 general practitioners included 31?793 type 2 diabetics aged at least 18 years in an open observational study. After inclusion in to the study the patients received irbesartan 300?mg as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg (HCTZ). Main outcome measures for efficacy were the reduction of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures, reduction of pulse pressure, and blood pressure responder (reduction in DBP ≥ 10 mmHg or diastolic < 90 mmHg), diastolic normalization (DBP < 90 mmHg) and overall normalization rates (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg) after 3 months. Further outcome measures included the reduction of microalbuminuria or proteinuria, and adverse events (AEs) as a measure of tolerability.

Results: Thirty-eight per cent of patients received irbesartan 300?mg and 61% irbesartan in combination with HCTZ. Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 22.5?mmHg, diastolic blood pressure by 10.7?mmHg (baseline values: 160.2 and 93.2?mmHg). Pulse pressure fell on average by 11.6?mmHg. 83.4% of the patients were responders, with an overall normalization rate of 42.7% (SBP < 140?mmHg and DBP < 90?mmHg), respectively 73.8% (DBP < 90?mmHg). The antihypertensive benefit was achieved irrespective of the previous medication. Mean albuminuria decreased by about 27.7?mg/L. Only 0.3% of patients experienced adverse events.

Conclusions: In type 2 diabetics with hypertension and either uncontrolled or no previous antihypertensive therapy a change to treatment with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ for 3 months resulted in a distinct reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures, with concomitant effective reductions of pulse pressure and microalbuminuria.     

Clinical effectiveness of low-dose chlorthalidone (6.25 mg) + atenolol combination in stage I hypertensive patients: a multicenter,randomized, controlled study

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose chlorthalidone + atenolol combination with atenolol and atenolol + amlodipine combination in stage I hypertensive patients uncontrolled on active run-in monotherapy.

Methods: Newly diagnosed stage I hypertensive patients were randomized to active run-in monotherapy either with atenolol 25?mg (98/300) or chlorthalidone 6.25?mg (100/300) or amlodipine 2.5?mg (102/300). A total of 282/300 patients (atenolol 92, chlorthalidone 91, amlodipine 99) completed the active run-in phase successfully. Patients uncontrolled on active run-in monotherapy (atenolol 33, chlorthalidone 45, amlodipine 47) received the study treatment, namely atenolol 50?mg alone, chlorthalidone 6.25?mg + atenolol 25?mg and atenolol 25?mg + amlodipine 2.5?mg, respectively. Efficacy of the therapy was evaluated by BP measurement at weeks 12 and 20 post-therapy.

Results: Post-active run-in monotherapies, the study treatment groups showed a significant fall in mean SBP and DBP from baseline (p?<?0.05). The mean fall in SBP and DBP was comparable for study treatments (atenolol 50?mg, atenolol 25?mg + chlorthalidone 6.25?mg and atenolol 25?mg + amlodipine 2.5?mg) (p = 0.337 for SBP and p = 0.054 for DBP) at week 12 and (p = 0.744 for SBP and p = 0.855 for DBP) at week 20; also, the percentage of responders was comparable for the three study treatment groups (p = 0.799) indicating that the low-dose chlorthalidone + atenolol combination is non-inferior to the high-dose atenolol alone and atenolol + amlodipine combination. No serious laboratory/clinical adverse events were reported in this study.

Conclusion: Chlorthalidone 6.25?mg in combination with atenolol 25?mg is effective and safe in stage I (JNC 7) essential hypertensive patients. This low dose of chlorthalidone could reduce dose-related concerns over metabolic adverse effects and may lead to wider usage of this proven antihypertensive agent in combination therapy.     

Effect of three months' treatment with irbesartan on blood and pulse pressure of hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients: open, observational study in 31,793 patients

OBJECTIVES: In hypertensive diabetics the cardiovascular risk is substantially increased. Therefore, an effective reduction of both blood pressure and pulse pressure is of particular importance for these patients. The aim of the prospective observational study in hypertensive type 2 diabetics was to assess the effect of a switch from the previous antihypertensive therapy to the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan (alone or in combination with HCTZ) on the reduction of blood pressure and pulse pressure, the reduction of diabetic nephropathy (microalbuminuria), and tolerability. METHODS: 8714 general practitioners included 31,793 type 2 diabetics aged at least 18 years in an open observational study. After inclusion in to the study the patients received irbesartan 300 mg as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (HCTZ). Main outcome measures for efficacy were the reduction of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures, reduction of pulse pressure, and blood pressure responder (reduction in DBP > or = 10 mmHg or diastolic < 90 mmHg), diastolic normalization (DBP < 90 mmHg) and overall normalization rates (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg) after 3 months. Further outcome measures included the reduction of microalbuminuria or proteinuria, and adverse events (AEs) as a measure of tolerability. RESULTS: Thirty-eight per cent of patients received irbesartan 300 mg and 61% irbesartan in combination with HCTZ. Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 22.5 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure by 10.7 mmHg (baseline values: 160.2 and 93.2 mmHg). Pulse pressure fell on average by 11.6 mmHg. 83.4% of the patients were responders, with an overall normalization rate of 42.7% (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg), respectively 73.8% (DBP < 90 mmHg). The antihypertensive benefit was achieved irrespective of the previous medication. Mean albuminuria decreased by about 27.7 mg/L. Only 0.3% of patients experienced adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In type 2 diabetics with hypertension and either uncontrolled or no previous antihypertensive therapy a change to treatment with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ for 3 months resulted in a distinct reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures, with concomitant effective reductions of pulse pressure and microalbuminuria.     

Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy and safety compared to hydrochlorothiazide

Objective: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of a new angiotensin II antagonist, valsartan, with a reference therapy, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Methods: In this double-blind study, 167 adult outpatients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension were randomly allocated in equal number to receive valsartan 80 mg or HCTZ 25 mg for 12 weeks. In patients whose blood pressure (BP) remained uncontrolled after 8 weeks of monotherapy, atenolol 50 mg was added to the initial treatment. Patients were assessed at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic BP (SDBP) at 8 weeks. Secondary variables included change in sitting systolic BP (SSBP) and responder rates (percentage of patients with SDBP <90 mmHg or drop ≥10 mmHg compared to baseline) at 8 weeks. Results: Valsartan and HCTZ were both effective at lowering diastolic and systolic blood pressure at all time points. Similar falls were seen in both groups with no significant differences between treatments. For the primary variable (decrease in SDBP) there was no significant difference between treatments. For SSBP there was also no significant difference observed. Responder rates at 8 weeks were 74% for valsartan and 62% for HCTZ (P = 0.10). Both treatments were well tolerated, both as monotherapy, and when combined with atenolol 50 mg per day. Conclusion: The data show valsartan 80 mg to be as effective as HCTZ in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. The results also show valsartan to be well tolerated when taken alone or in combination with atenolol. Received: 7 March 1996 / Accepted in revised form: 29 July 1996     

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.     

Blood pressure responses to whole-body cold exposure: effect of carvedilol

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the effects of carvedilol on blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) during whole-body cold exposure in hypertensive and normotensive subjects. METHODS: Ten hypertensive and twelve normotensive subjects were exposed to cold (-15 degrees C, wind 3.5 m/s) three times for 15 min with a 1-week interval between the exposures. The study design was made according to a randomised double-blind, crossover method. Before the cold exposures the subjects ingested carvedilol or placebo once a day (carvedilol 12.5 mg/day for 2 days and then 25 mg/day for 5 days) for 1 week. The systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure and HR were measured every 3 min during the test procedures using an indirect ambulatory blood pressure monitor device (ABPM-02, Meditech Co.). RESULTS: In the hypertensive group, the cold exposure increased SBP/DBP from 119/75 mmHg to 143/96 mmHg during carvedilol treatment (P<0.001) and from 132/85 mmHg to 159/106 mmHg during placebo (P<0.001). In the normotensive group the cold exposure increased SBP/DBP from 112/72 mmHg to 142/93 mmHg during carvedilol treatment (P<0.001) and from 121/75 mmHg to 147/98 mmHg during placebo (P<0.001). In the hypertensive group, the levels of SBP, DBP and MAP (mean arterial pressure) were significantly lower with carvedilol than with placebo during the cold exposure although carvedilol did not affect the cold-induced rise of the BP. The BPs were lower also with carvedilol in the normotensive group than the placebo during the cold exposure, but the differences were smaller than in the hypertensive group. Carvedilol decreased the BP more the higher the initial mean SBP/DBP was with placebo during the cold exposure. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol reduced the BP during the cold exposure, especially in the hypertensive subjects but also in normotensive ones, without effect on the cold-induced rise of the BP.     

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.     

Effects of valsartan compared with enalapril on blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly patients with essential hypertension

Objective This prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was to compare the effects of the angiotensin II (Ang II) AT1 receptor antagonist valsartan with those of the ACE inhibitor enalapril on blood pressure (BP) and cognitive functions in elderly hypertensive patients.Methods One hundred and forty-four patients aged 61–80 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (DBP 95 mmHg and 110 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo run-in period) were randomly assigned to once daily (o.d.) treatment with valsartan 160 mg (n=73) or enalapril 20 mg (n=71) for 16 weeks. The patients were examined every 4 weeks during the study, with pre-dose BP (standard mercury sphygmomanometer, Korotkoff I and V) and heart rate (pulse palpation) being recorded at each visit. Cognitive function was evaluated at the end of the wash-out period and after 16 weeks of active treatment by means of five tests (verbal fluency, the Boston naming test, word list memory, word list recall and word list recognition).Results Both valsartan and enalapril had a clear antihypertensive effect, but the former led to a slightly greater reduction in SBP/DBP at 16 weeks (18.6±4.6/13.7±4.0 mmHg vs 15.6±5.1/10.9±3.9 mmHg; P<0.01). Enalapril did not induce any significant changes in any of the cognitive function test scores; valsartan significantly increased the word list memory score (+11.8%; P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs enalapril) and the word list recall score (+18.7%; P<0.05 vs baseline and P<0.01 vs enalapril), but not those of the other tests.Conclusion These findings indicate that, in elderly hypertensive patients, 16 weeks of treatment with valsartan 160 mg o.d. is more effective than enalapril 20 mg o.d. in reducing BP, and (unlike enalapril) improves some of the components of cognitive function, particularly episodic memory.     

ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITION AS FIRST-LINE TREATMENT FOR HYPERTENSION

1. Perindopril (4 mg) was compared with atenolol (50 mg), captopril (25 mg b. d.) or a diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg and amiloride 5 mg) in three studies involving a total of 503 hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95–125 mmHg.
2. A 4 week single-blind placebo period preceded 12 weeks of active treatment. Dose titration was at weeks 4 and 8 if supine DBP >90 mmHg. The dose was doubled and if necessary a diuretic was added in the atenolol or captopril comparisons, and atenolol was added in the diuretic study.
3. The fall in supine blood pressure (BP) was 27/17 mmHg with perindopril and 21/16 mmHg for atenolol. Monotherapy controlled 55% of patients on perindopril and 48% on atenolol, increasing to 78% and 58% with the addition of hydrochlorothiazide, respectively. Captopril caused a BP fall of 19/12 mmHg compared with 27/18 mmHg for perindopril, with 49% of both groups being controlled on monotherapy.
4. Diuretic addition produced a greater antihypertensive effect with perindopril (75%) compared with 57% for captopril in achieving control. Perindopril caused a comparable fall in supine BP to the diuretic combination 27/19 mmHg and 31/18 mmHg, but the fall in erect systolic BP was significantly greater for the diuretic. At 3 months, 85% of the diuretic group and 78% of the perindopril group achieved the target BP.
5. A multicentre trial of 856 patients treated with perindopril (690 patients treated for 1 year or more) has shown that BP control is maintained in the long term with a low incidence of side-effects (7.9%) causing withdrawal from treatment. These studies demonstrate that perindopril compares favourably with standard first-line therapy for mild to moderate hypertension.     

Effect of benazepril amlodipine combination on fibrinolysis in hypertensive diabetic patients

Objective The aim of this study was to compare the effects of benazepril and amlodipine in monotherapy versus in combination with plasma t-PA and PAI-1 activity in hypertensive type-2 diabetic patients.Methods After an initial 6-week wash-out, single-blind placebo period, 38 patients, 17 men and 21 females, were randomly assigned to receive benazepril 10 mg o.d. or amlodipine 5 mg o.d. or their combination o.d. at the same dosage for 6 weeks in three crossover periods each separated by a 2-week placebo wash-out period (3×3 latin square). At the end of the placebo run-in period and of each treatment period, BP, plasma PAI-1 and tPA activity were evaluated.Results Both benazepril and amlodipine were similarly effective in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) (–17.6 mmHg with benazepril and –19.8 mmHg with amlodipine; P<0.001 versus placebo), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (–11.1 mmHg, –13.2 mmHg, respectively). Combination therapy produced greater reduction in SBP/DBP values (–28.3/–20.5 mmHg; P<0.001 versus placebo, P<0.01 versus benazepril and amlodipine). Benazepril monotherapy significantly decreased plasma PAI-1 activity (–8.4 IU/ml, P<0.05) while it did not influence t-PA activity (+0.02 IU/ml). Amlodipine monotherapy produced a significant increase in t-PA activity (+0.27 IU/ml, P<0.05) while it did not influence PAI-1 activity (+0.8 IU/ml). The amlodipine/benazepril combination produced both a significant decrease in plasma PAI-1 activity (–8.7 IU, P<0.05) and a significant increase in t-PA activity (+0.26 IU/ml, P<0.05).Conclusions These data suggest that in hypertensive type-2 diabetic patients, a population with an impaired fibrinolysis, the benazepril/amlodipine combination, may improve the fibrinolytic balance more than the single drugs.     

Antihypertensive effect of low-dose hydrochlorothiazide alone or in combination with quinapril in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension

In this study, using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring, the authors assessed the potential for BP control using hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ, 12.5 mg daily), given as a monotherapy over 12 months to 49 black South African patients with mild to moderate hypertension (mean day diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or = 90 and < 115 mmHg). Uncontrolled patients received fixed combination of quinapril/HCTZ 10/12.5, 20/12.5, and 20/25 mg, with dose titration at 3 monthly intervals if BP control was not achieved (day DBP < 90 mmHg). Overall, profound and sustained BP reduction was observed at the end of the study. The 24-hour BP decreased from 151 +/- 14/98 +/- 7 to 136 +/- 15/87 +/- 9 mmHg (p < 0.0001 at end of study vs. baseline); the mean day BP decreased from 155 +/- 14/104 +/- 7 to 140 +/- 15/91 +/- 10 mmHg (p < 0.0001 at end of study vs. baseline). The overall control (mean day DBP < 90 mmHg) and response (decrease in day DBP > or = 10 mmHg) rates were 49% and 61%, respectively. At the end of the study, only 2 patients (4%) remained on treatment with HCTZ. Out of the initial 12 patients controlled on HCTZ at 3 months (12/49, 24%), 5 patients remained controlled at 6 months and only 1 patient at 12 months. In contrast, quinapril/HCTZ combinations maintained their antihypertensive effect up to 9 months, with a significant number of patients (22/49, 45%) requiring the highest dose of the combination (20/25 mg daily). In conclusion, low-dose HCTZ should not be recommended as monotherapy in black patients with mild to moderate hypertension due to the fact that the BP-lowering effect is attenuated already at 6 months of treatment, with most patients requiring the addition of the ACE inhibitor.     

A comparison of felodipine and propranolol as additions to hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension

Summary Eighty one patients with uncomplicated hypertension who required additional antihypertensive medication (diastolic Phase V [dBP]95 mm Hg) after 4 weeks treatment with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg o.m. were randomized to receive felodipine 5 mg b.i.d. (n=40) or propranolol (n=41) 80 mg b.i.d. in addition to HCTZ 25 mg o.m. If the dBP measured about 12 h post-dose was not 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks, the dose of felodipine or propranolol was doubled. The double blind trial period was 8 weeks for all patients.Over the 8 week period, felodipine reduced the seated dBP from 100 to 83 mm Hg and propranolol from 101 to 86 mm Hg. The attained seated dBPs were significantly different in the two groups. About one third of patients in each group received the high dose of second-line therapy. After 8 weeks 91% of patients receiving HCTZ+felodipine and 84% receiving HCTZ+propranolol had a dBP 90 mm Hg. Both regimens were well-tolerated with an equal incidence but different pattern of adverse events (felodipine: flushing, headache and peripheral oedema; propranolol: dyspepsia, fatigue and vasospasm).In this 8-week study, felodipine and propranolol were safe and effective second-line antihypertensive drugs when added to hydrochlorothiazide. At the doses selected, felodipine was at least as effective as propranolol.     

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

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

Effect of an Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment Algorithm on Systolic Blood Pressure in Patients with Stage 1 or 2 Hypertension

Background and Objective

Elevated systolic BP (SBP) is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease. SBP control reduces the occurrence of stroke, heart failure, and cardiovascular and total mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze the magnitude of SBP reductions and the achievement of individual SBP targets in the original BENIFORCE study.

Methods

An olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm was evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled titration study in 276 patients with stage 1 (47.1%) or 2 (52.9%) hypertension. After placebo run-in, patients were randomized to placebo (12 weeks) or olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day (weeks 1–3). Olmesartan medoxomil was uptitrated to 40 mg/day (weeks 4–6), then olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40/12.5 mg per day (weeks 7–9), and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg per day (weeks 10–12) if BP remained ≥120/80 mmHg at any time interval.

Setting

The BENIFORCE study was a multicenter (29 sites) study conducted between January and October 2007 in the US.

Results

In patients receiving olmesartan medoxomil-based therapy, 81.0%, 67.2%, and 46.6% of patients with stage 1 hypertension and 70.4%, 49.4%, and 23.5% of patients with stage 2 hypertension achieved SBP targets of <140, <130, and <120 mmHg, respectively (all p<0.01 vs placebo). The proportions of patients achieving SBP targets increased with escalating doses of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ, administered alone or in combination, and was highest for combination therapy. Similarly, escalating doses of olmesartan medoxomil or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ increased the proportion of patients achieving SBP reductions of >15 but ≤30, >30 but ≤45, and >45 mmHg compared with placebo.

Conclusion

An olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm effectively reduced SBP and achieved SBP targets in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. This regimen resulted in >80% of patients achieving SBP reductions of ≥15 mmHg while 44% achieved SBP reductions of >30 mmHg.