A multicenter, randomized double-blind study of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination versus amlodipine in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE : To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily fixed valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination and amlodipine in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. SUBJECTS AND SETTING : In this multicentre, double-blind, randomized, comparative trial, 690 patients with sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) > or = 160 mmHg and sitting diastolic BP > or = 95 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo wash-out period were randomized to valsartan-based treatment (n = 342) or amlodipine (n = 348). METHODS : The patients received valsartan 80 mg o.d. or amlodipine 5 mg o.d for 4 weeks; in the case of an unsatisfactory blood pressure response, the treatments could be respectively changed to the fixed combination of valsartan 80 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. for a further 8 weeks. RESULTS : Both treatment approaches decreased systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure to the same extent. The rate of responders to treatment at the end of fourth week (before up-titration) was 57.4% among the valsartan-treated patients and 61.9% among the amlodipine-treated patients (ns). At the end of the study, the rate of responders was not significantly different between the two groups (74.9 versus 72.1%). Valsartan-based treatment had a slightly lower incidence of adverse events (1.5 versus 5.5%; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS : The results of this trial demonstrate that the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine are equally effective in lowering BP, and that the combination is better tolerated.     

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.     

Disparate effects of angiotensin II antagonists and calcium channel blockers on albuminuria in experimental diabetes and hypertension: potential role of nephrin

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: To explore the effects of various antihypertensive regimes which achieve similar blood pressure control using a range of agents including the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, valsartan, as monotherapy or in combination with two subclasses of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (the dihydropyridine, amlodipine and the phenylalkylamine, verapamil) on the progression of renal disease and the expression of the podocyte slit pore protein, nephrin in an accelerated model of diabetic nephropathy. RESULTS: Valsartan treatment reduced systolic blood pressure as assessed by radiotelemetry (135 +/- 3 versus diabetic 153 +/- 6 mmHg) as well as retarding the increase in albumin excretion rate by approximately 50%. Combination therapy of valsartan with either amlodipine or verapamil was equally effective in reducing blood pressure to valsartan monotherapy (valsartan + amlodipine 129 +/- 4 valsartan + verapamil 133 +/- 6 mmHg;) but was not as effective at reducing albuminuria. A reduction in glomerulosclerosis was observed with valsartan monotherapy with less reduction in injury with the valsartan + amlodipine combination, despite a similar reduction in blood pressure. The decrease in nephrin, in diabetic rats was attenuated by valsartan monotherapy, but not by other treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that despite a similar reduction in blood pressure, the addition of the CCB amlodipine to the AII antagonist failed to provide similar renoprotection to that observed with an equihypotensive regimen of valsartan as monotherapy. Furthermore, the depletion in glomerular nephrin expression in diabetic animals was only abrogated by valsartan treatment, the therapy which was most effective at retarding the development of albuminuria in this model.     

Hypertension Management: Rationale for Triple Therapy Based on Mechanisms of Action

An estimated 25% of patients will require 3 antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) control; combination therapy is thus an important strategy in hypertension treatment. This review discusses the triple‐therapy combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or direct renin antagonist (DRI) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and a diuretic, with a focus on mechanisms of action. Multiple physiologic pathways contribute to hypertension. Combining antihypertensive agents not only better targets the underlying pathways, but also helps blunt compensatory responses that may be triggered by single‐agent therapy. DRIs and ARBs target the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) at the initial and final steps, respectively, and both classes lower BP by reducing the effects of angiotensin‐2; however, ARBs may trigger a compensatory increase in renin activity. Dihydropyridine CCBs target L‐type calcium channels and lower BP through potent vasodilation, but can trigger compensatory activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and RAAS. Thiazide diuretics lower BP initially through sodium depletion and plasma volume reduction, followed by total peripheral resistance reduction, but can also trigger compensatory activation of the SNS and RAAS. The combination of an agent targeting the RAAS with a CCB and diuretic is rational, and triple combinations of valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, and aliskiren/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide have demonstrated greater effectiveness compared with their respective dual‐component combinations. In addition, single‐pill, fixed‐dose combinations can address barriers to BP control including clinical inertia and poor adherence. Fixed‐dose antihypertensive combination products capitalize on complementary mechanisms of action and have been shown to result in improved BP control.     

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.     

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.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure control with triple-therapy amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with moderate to severe hypertension

To determine the effectiveness and safety of once-daily combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, a multicenter, double-blind study was performed (N=2271) that included ABP monitoring in a 283-patient subset. After a single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg), valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (320/25?mg), amlodipine/valsartan (10/320?mg) or amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (10/25?mg) each morning for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in all these parameters occurred in all treatment groups (P<0.0001, all comparisons versus baseline). At week 8, least squares mean reductions from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were 30.3/19.7, 31.2/20.5 and 28.0/17.8?mm?Hg, respectively, with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide; corresponding reductions with dual therapies ranged from 18.8-24.1/11.7-15.5, 19.0-25.1/12.0-16.0 and 18.3-22.6/11.1-14.3?mm?Hg (P≤0.01, all comparisons of triple versus dual therapy). Treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide maintained full 24-h effectiveness, including during the morning hours; all hourly mean ambulatory SBP and mean ambulatory DBP measurements were ≤130/85?mm?Hg at end point. Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy was well tolerated. Once-daily treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg) reduces ABP to a significantly greater extent than component-based dual therapy and maintains its effectiveness over the entire 24-h dosing period.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of amlodipine and valsartan on vascular damage and ambulatory blood pressure in untreated hypertensive patients

The present study was performed to compare the long-term effects of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control with amlodipine versus valsartan on vascular damage in untreated hypertensive patients. Amlodipine and valsartan have benefits on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in hypertensive patients. Although ambulatory BP is associated with severity of target-organ damage in hypertensive patients, beneficial effects of ambulatory BP control with amlodipine versus valsartan on vascular damage have not been compared. Pulse wave velocity (PWV), intima-media thickness (IMT) of the carotid arteries, urinary albumin excretion (UAE) and 24-h ambulatory BP were determined in 100 untreated hypertensive patients before and 12 months after the start of antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine or valsartan. Amlodipine and valsartan decreased ambulatory BP similarly, but the variability of 24-h and daytime ambulatory systolic BP was significantly reduced by amlodipine but not by valsartan. The reduced variability of ambulatory systolic BP caused by amlodipine significantly contributed to the improvement of PWV, although both drugs decreased PWV similarly. Carotid IMT was unaffected by treatment with either drug. Valsartan significantly decreased UAE independently of its depressor effect, but amlodipine had no effect on UAE. These results suggest that the 24-h control of ambulatory BP with amlodipine had functionally improved the stiffened arteries of hypertensive patients by the end of 12 months of treatment, in part through reducing BP variability, whereas ambulatory BP control with valsartan decreased the arterial stiffness to the same degree as amlodipine without affecting BP variability maybe through some pleiotropic effects.     

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.     

The importance of early antihypertensive efficacy: the role of angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy

Desirable features of antihypertensive agents include efficacy, tolerability, prolonged duration of action and rapid achievement of target blood pressure (BP). Recent studies have examined the relationship between the onset of antihypertensive effect and cardiovascular events. Data from the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE), the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE), and the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) trials support the hypothesis that the time it takes to reach target BP influences cardiovascular outcomes. VALUE, which compared BP-lowering and clinical event rates between patients treated with the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) valsartan or the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine as well as between those who achieved immediate or delayed BP control, provides the strongest evidence of this to date. Additional data from SCOPE and Syst-Eur suggest that delays of 3 months to 2 years in starting antihypertensive therapy can increase the risk of certain cardiovascular end points, especially stroke. These data suggest that it may be beneficial to examine the efficacy of antihypertensive agents, not only long term, but also at earlier times to assess the onset and impact of early antihypertensive effect. The ARB olmesartan medoxomil (olmesartan) and the CCB amlodipine were compared in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, which demonstrated that the onset of antihypertensive effect of olmesartan is comparable with that of amlodipine. Another study demonstrated that more patients treated with olmesartan achieved target BPs within 2 weeks of treatment compared with the ARBs losartan, valsartan and irbesartan.     

缬沙坦联合氨氯地平对高血压患者肾功能保护作用的研究

目的评价缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合应用对高血压合并尿微量白蛋白患者肾功能的保护作用。方法回顾性分析高血压合并尿微量白蛋白的患者439例,分为氨氯地平组(A组)79例,缬沙坦组(B组)167例,缬沙坦和氨氯地平联合组(C组)193例。比较3组患者治疗1年后的血压、联合降压药物的数量、尿α1-微球蛋白、尿微量白蛋白、血清肌酐水平和肾小球滤过率等指标变化。结果与治疗前比较,A、B、C组患者治疗后收缩压和舒张压明显下降(P<0.05),B组和C组尿α1-微球蛋白和尿微量白蛋白明显下降(P<0.05)。B组联合用药最多。A组尿微量白蛋白变化差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。C组血肌酐较A、B组患者明显下降,肾小球滤过率明显升高(P<0.05)。结论对于中老年高血压合并尿微量白蛋白患者,缬沙坦加氨氯地平联合治疗,可以达到强效降压和减轻蛋白尿双重目的 ,有利于延缓肾功能损害。     

Fixed-dose combination vs monotherapy in hypertension: a meta-analysis evaluation.

Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapy has received interest since the publication of the JNC-VI report. Relatively few head-to-head comparative studies between fixed-dose combinations and first-line monotherapies for hypertension have been published. The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of various first-line monotherapies and the fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/benazepril. The results of the meta-analysis were used to compare the efficacy and safety of the first-line monotherapies with amlodipine/benazepril. The meta-analysis included 82 studies that included 110 treatment groups (cohorts). The study compared nine different monotherapies and one combination therapy (amlodipine/benazepril). Of the 82 studies, 22 were placebo-controlled and 60 were active treatment controlled. The mean absolute decrease in supine diastolic blood pressure (BP) ranged from 9.7 to 13.3 mm Hg with verapamil showing the greatest effect and captopril the least (13.3 +/- 3.0 mm Hg; 9.7 +/- 2.9 mm Hg, respectively). When studies were weighted by sample size, atenolol, verapamil, lisinopril and amlodipine/benazepril showed the greatest BP effect. When studies were weighted by variance, amlodipine/benazepril and atenolol showed the greatest BP effect. The percentage of patients controlled on therapy ranged from 54% to 79%. Lisinopril and amlodipine/benazepril showed the greatest percent controlled. The overall incidence of adverse effects ranged from 12.1% to 41.8% with lisinopril having the lowest and nifedipine having the highest incidence. The overall incidence of adverse effects resulting in drug discontinuance ranged from 1.3% to 10.7%, with amlodipine/benazepril having the lowest and nifedipine having the highest incidence. The results of the meta-analysis indicate that amlodipine/benazepril produces above average reductions in BP with a lower than average incidence of overall side effects and the lowest incidence of adverse effects resulting in drug discontinuance. The fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/benazepril achieves its goal of effective BP lowering with a minimum of significant side effects.     

Effects of valsartan or amlodipine alone or in combination on plasma catecholamine levels at rest and during standing in hypertensive patients

To compare the effects of valsartan and amlodipine alone or in combination on plasma norepinephrine (NE) at rest and standing for 10 minutes in patients with hypertension, 47 patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) (DBP)>95 mm Hg and<110 mm Hg were randomized in a double-blind fashion to either valsartan or amlodipine. During the first 4 weeks of treatment, patients received a low dose of either valsartan (80 mg) or amlodipine (5 mg). The patients were force-titrated to the high dose of either drug (160 or 10 mg) for 4 weeks. After 8 weeks of therapy, those who still had a DBP>90 mm Hg (nonresponders) received combination therapy with the other drug, whereas patients with a DBP<90 mm Hg (responders) continued on monotherapy. Decreases in ambulatory BP and clinic systolic BP and DBP were significant (P<.05) after 8 weeks' therapy with no difference between the 2 groups. Amlodipine but not valsartan as monotherapy consistently increased NE levels at rest and enhanced NE levels during standing. Valsartan decreased basal NE in responders. Combination therapy with valsartan and amlodipine did not attenuate the rise in NE levels induced by amlodipine. This study indicates that therapy with amlodipine increases peripheral sympathetic basal tone and reactivity to standing in patients with hypertension, whereas valsartan does not. Combined therapy with amlodipine/valsartan did not attenuate the sympathetic activation induced by amlodipine. The hypotensive action of valsartan may be mediated in part by an inhibition of the sympathetic baroreflex in patients with hypertension.     

Reaching recommended lipid and blood pressure targets with amlodipine/atorvastatin combination in patients with coronary heart disease

The effects of combined atorvastatin and amlodipine on blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels were investigated in 134 patients with documented coronary heart disease treated for 1 year. BP at baseline was 128 +/- 15/79 +/- 9 mm Hg and was controlled by the treating physician; no calcium channel blockers were allowed. Baseline means for plasma cholesterol were 6.4 +/- 1.1 mmol/L (147 +/- 39 mg/dl), triglycerides 2.0 +/- 0.9 mmol/L (177 +/- 88 mg/dl), LDL cholesterol 4.4 +/- 1.0 mmol/L (170 +/- 39 mg/dl), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1.2 +/- 0.3 mmol/L (46 +/- 12 mg/dl). Patients were all given atorvastatin 10 mg, then increased to 80 mg if the LDL cholesterol was <2.5 mmol/L (100 mg/dl). At 3 months, patients were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg or placebo. Plasma LDL cholesterol was decreased by 50%, and the LDL cholesterol target of <2.5 mmol/L was achieved in 81% of the patients. BP targets were achieved in 69% of the atorvastatin + placebo group, versus 96% in the atorvastatin + amlodipine group (p = 0.0002). With use of combination atorvastatin + amlodipine at doses ranging from 10 to 80 mg and 5 to 10 mg, respectively, recommended therapeutic goals were reached in most select subjects with coronary artery disease who were concomitantly receiving aspirin and antihypertensive therapy.     

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.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of two single-pill fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin II receptor blockers/calcium channel blockers in hypertensive patients (EXAMINER study)

Background: There is some controversy regarding which single-pill fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are effective at reducing blood pressure (BP). Methods: Sixty hypertensive patients who received a single-pill fixed-dose combination of valsartan 80?mg/day and amlodipine 5?mg/day were enrolled (UMIN Registration 000013460). They were randomly divided into two treatment groups [single-pill fixed-dose combination therapy with valsartan 80?mg/day and amlodipine 5?mg/day (Val/Am group), or irbesartan 100?mg/day and amlodipine 5?mg/day (Irb/Am group)] and treated for 16 weeks. If the patient did not reach the target office BP at 8 weeks, they received double doses of amlodipine (10?mg/day). Results: In the Irb/Am group, systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were significantly decreased at 16 weeks. There were no significant changes in SBP or DBP in the Val/Am group. In the Irb/Am group, serum uric acid (UA) was significantly decreased at 8 weeks and patients who had hyperuricemia showed significantly decreased serum UA at 16 weeks. In addition, the levels of triglycerides (TG) were significantly decreased at 16 weeks in the Irb/Am group. Conclusion: A single-pill fixed-dose combination therapy with irbesartan 100?mg/day and amlodipine 5?mg/day was superior to the combination of valsartan 80?mg/day and amlodipine 5?mg/day with respect to significant decreases in BP, serum UA and TG in patients with hypertension.     

Effects of valsartan or amlodipine on endothelial function and oxidative stress after one year follow-up in patients with essential hypertension

Endothelial function is impaired in hypertensive patients. Decreased nitric oxide production and increased oxidative stress are involved in this abnormality. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether endothelial function and oxidative stress differ following long-term antihypertensive treatment with an angiotensin type 1 receptor blocker, valsartan, or a calcium channel blocker, amlodipine, in patients with essential hypertension. Hypertensive patients were treated with valsartan (80-160 mg/day) or amlodipine (5-10 mg/day) for one year (n = 9 for each). The baseline blood pressure was similar between groups, and the magnitude of the decreases in blood pressure did not differ during treatment at three months, six months, or one year. Endothelial function and oxidative stress markers were examined before and after treatment. Endothelial function, assessed by flow-mediated vasodilation, was significantly improved in hypertensive patients treated with valsartan (5.8 +/- 1.2 to 10.7 +/- 1.4 %, p < 0.01) but not in those treated with amlodipine. The percent increase in vasodilation induced by sublingual nitroglycerin did not differ between the two groups. As markers of oxidative stress, urinary excretion of 8-isoprostane and 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine was significantly reduced in patients treated with valsartan, but not in those treated with amlodipine. These findings suggest that the treatment of hypertensive patients with valsartan for at least one year improves endothelial function in association with reduced oxidative stress. The improved endothelial function and reduced oxidative stress might be involved in the benefits of anti-hypertensive treatment beyond simply lowering blood pressure, although the effects of treatment with valsartan or amlodipine over a much longer period are unknown.