Search

Key Points: Question: Does targeting hepatic angiotensinogen synthesis with the RNA interference therapeutic zilebesiran reduce blood pressure in adults with mild to moderate hypertension? Findings: In a phase 2 trial, subcutaneous zilebesiran doses of 150, 300, or 600 mg every 6 months or 300 mg every 3 months significantly decreased systolic blood pressure at 3 and 6 months vs placebo. Nonserious drug-related adverse events occurred in 16.9% of zilebesiran-treated patients, principally injection site reactions and mild hyperkalemia. Meaning: Single subcutaneous doses of zilebesiran significantly lower blood pressure for up to 6 months, suggesting potential for use as an effective antihypertensive with quarterly or biannual dosing. Importance: Angiotensinogen is the most upstream precursor of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system, a key pathway in blood pressure (BP) regulation. Zilebesiran, an investigational RNA interference therapeutic, targets hepatic angiotensinogen synthesis. Objective: To evaluate antihypertensive efficacy and safety of different zilebesiran dosing regimens. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging study of zilebesiran vs placebo was performed at 78 sites across 4 countries. Screening initiation occurred in July 2021 and the last patient visit of the 6-month study occurred in June 2023. Adults with mild to moderate hypertension, defined as daytime mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) of 135 to 160 mm Hg following antihypertensive washout, were randomized. Interventions: Randomization to 1 of 4 subcutaneous zilebesiran regimens (150, 300, or 600 mg once every 6 months or 300 mg once every 3 months) or placebo (once every 3 months) for 6 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was between-group difference in least-squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to month 3 in 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP. Results: Of 394 randomized patients, 377 (302 receiving zilebesiran and 75 receiving placebo) comprised the full analysis set (93 Black patients [24.7%]; 167 [44.3%] women; mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years). At 3 months, 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP changes from baseline were −7.3 mm Hg (95% CI, −10.3 to −4.4) with zilebesiran, 150 mg, once every 6 months; −10.0 mm Hg (95% CI, −12.0 to −7.9) with zilebesiran, 300 mg, once every 3 months or every 6 months; −8.9 mm Hg (95% CI, −11.9 to −6.0) with zilebesiran, 600 mg, once every 6 months; and 6.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 3.6-9.9) with placebo. LSM differences vs placebo in change from baseline to month 3 were −14.1 mm Hg (95% CI, −19.2 to −9.0; P <.001) with zilebesiran, 150 mg, once every 6 months; −16.7 mm Hg (95% CI, −21.2 to −12.3; P <.001) with zilebesiran, 300 mg, once every 3 months or every 6 months; and −15.7 mm Hg (95% CI, −20.8 to −10.6; P <.001) with zilebesiran, 600 mg, once every 6 months. Over 6 months, 60.9% of patients receiving zilebesiran had adverse events vs 50.7% patients receiving placebo and 3.6% had serious adverse events vs 6.7% receiving placebo. Nonserious drug-related adverse events occurred in 16.9% of zilebesiran-treated patients (principally injection site reactions and mild hyperkalemia) and 8.0% of placebo-treated patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with zilebesiran across a range of doses at 3-month or 6-month intervals significantly reduced 24-hour mean ambulatory SBP at month 3. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04936035 This phase 2 randomized trial examines the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of different zilebesiran dosing regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited data on the comparative economic and humanistic burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) in the United States. The objective was to examine the burden of disease comparing NASH to a representative sample of the general population and separately to a type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) cohort by assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, healthcare resource use (HRU) and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI). Methods: Data came from the 2016 National Health and Wellness Survey, a nationally representative patient-reported outcomes survey conducted in the United States. Respondents with physician-diagnosed NASH, physician-diagnosed T2DM, and respondents from the general population were compared. Humanistic burden was examined with mental (MCS) and physical (PCS) component summary scores from the Short-Form (SF)-36v2, concomitant diagnosis of anxiety, depression, and sleep difficulties. Economic burden was analysed based on healthcare professional (HCP) and emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations in the past six months; absenteeism, presenteeism, overall work impairment, and activity impairment scores on WPAI questionnaire. Bivariate and multivariable analysis were conducted for each outcome and matched comparative group. Results: After adjusting for baseline demographics and characteristics, NASH (N = 136) compared to the matched general population cohort (N = 544), reported significantly lower (worse) mental (MCS 43.19 vs. 46.22, p = 0.010) and physical (PCS 42.04 vs. 47.10, p < 0.001) status, higher % with anxiety (37.5% vs 25.5%, p = 0.006) and depression (43.4% vs 30.1%, p = 0.004), more HCP visits (8.43 vs. 5.17), ER visits (0.73 vs. 0.38), and hospitalizations (0.43 vs. 0.2) all p's < 0.05, and higher WPAI scores (e.g. overall work impairment 39.64% vs. 26.19%, p = 0.011). NASH cohort did not differ from matched T2DM cohort (N = 272) on mental or work-related WPAI scores, but had significantly worse physical status (PCS 40.52 vs. 44.58, p = 0.001), higher % with anxiety (39.9% vs 27.8%, p = 0.043), more HCP visits (8.63 vs. 5.68, p = 0.003) and greater activity impairment (47.14% vs. 36.07%, p = 0.010). Conclusion: This real-world study suggests that burden of disease is higher for all outcomes assessed among NASH compared to matched general controls. When comparing to T2DM, NASH cohort has comparable mental and work-related impairment but worse physical status, daily activities impairment and more HRU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Available data of event-based clinical outcomes trials show that little evidence supports the guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial. Patients (n = 5250) were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥ 75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. After adjustment for baseline demographic differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP achieved <140/90 mmHg accompanied a progressive increase in the risk of CV mortality and morbidity as well as of cause-specific events such as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure. A progressive reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced <130/80 mmHg did not have any effect on CV risks. In mostly elderly high-risk hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participating in the VALUE trial, achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg showed a marked protective effect on overall and all cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes. This was not the case for a more frequent achievement of the more intensive BP target, i.e. <130/80 mmHg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Event-based clinical outcome trials have shown limited evidence to support guidelines recommendations to lower blood pressure (BP) to <130/80 mmHg in middle-aged and elderly hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus or with general high cardiovascular (CV) risk. We addressed this issue by post-hoc analysing the risk of CV events in patients who participated in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and compared the hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with all high-risk hypertensive patients. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to the proportion of on-treatment visits before the occurrence of an event (<25% to ≥75%) in which BP was reduced to <140/90 or <130/80 mmHg. Patients with diabetes mellitus (n = 5250) were compared with the entire VALUE population with high CV risk (n = 15,245). After adjustments for baseline differences between groups, a reduction in the proportion of visits in which BP was reduced to <140/90 mmHg, but not to <130/80 mmHg, was accompanied by a progressive increase in the risk of CV morbidity and mortality as well as stroke, myocardial infarction and heart failure in both diabetes mellitus and in all high-risk patients. Target BP <130/80 mmHg reduced stroke risk in the main population but not in the diabetes mellitus patients. Patients with diabetes mellitus had higher event rates for the primary cardiac endpoint and all-cause mortality driven by a higher rate of heart failure. In the high-risk hypertensive patients of the VALUE trial achieving more frequently BP <140/90 mmHg, but not <130/80 mmHg, showed principally the same protective effect on overall and cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus and in the general high-risk hypertensive population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pressure measured with a cuff and sphygmomanometer in the brachial artery is accepted as an important predictor of future cardiovascular (CV) events. However, recent clinical evidence suggests that central aortic pressure (CAP) provides additional information for assessing CV risk than brachial blood pressure (BrBP). Central hemodynamics can now be non-invasively assessed with a number of devices, however, the methodology employed to measure CAP, in order to better identify the patients at higher CV risk in clinical practice, is still controversial. The purpose of this article is to review the technology behind the non-invasive measurement of CAP via the effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs on CAP and the data supporting the predictive value of assessing CAP on clinical outcomes, and to foster the transfer of methodological knowledge from clinical trials into routine clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of race and age on 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) responses to sequential 4-week periods of angiotensin receptor blocker therapy (valsartan [VAL] 160 mg/d then 320 mg/d and combination VAL/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 320/12.5 mg/d) were compared in 304 patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. There were lesser blood pressure (BP) responses from baseline with VAL monotherapy in black than Caucasian patients (-2.9 and -4.0 mm Hg vs -8.2 and -9.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<.001 each) but VAL/HCTZ BP responses were similar in both groups (-12 vs -15 mm Hg). Participants 65 years and older had lower BP responses with VAL 160 mg/d and 320 mg/d than those younger than 65 years (-2.8 and -4.5 mm Hg vs -6.5 and -7.5 mm Hg, respectively; P<.001) but similar responses to VAL/HCTZ (-14 vs -17 mm Hg). No BP response differences were found between those older than and those younger than 55 years. The authors conclude that: (1) adding low-dose HCTZ (12.5 mg daily) to VAL is more effective than VAL titration, irrespective of age or race, (2) VAL BP efficacy is lower in blacks than Caucasians, and (3) ARB responses are diminished in patients older than 65 years. Guidelines for stage 1 or 2 hypertension that suggest age 55 should determine initial monotherapy choice (eg, ARB vs thiazide diuretic) or that fail to recommend initial ARB-thiazide combination therapy should be reconsidered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have debated the notion that low blood pressure (BP) during treatment, particularly diastolic (DBP), is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the impact of low BP on cardiovascular outcomes in a high-risk population of 15,244 hypertensive patients, almost half of whom had a history of coronary artery disease (CAD). In the prospective Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine regimens and followed for 4.2 years (mean) with no difference in the primary cardiovascular endpoint. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between average on-treatment BP and clinical outcomes. The relationship between BP and cardiovascular events was adjusted for age, gender and body mass index, and baseline qualifying risk factors and diseases (smoking, high total cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, proteinuria, CAD, previous stroke and left ventricular hypertrophy). DBP ≥ 90 mmHg, compared with < 90 mmHg, was associated with increased incidence of the primary cardiovascular endpoint (all cardiac events); however, DBP < 70 mmHg, compared with ≥ 70 mmHg, was not associated with increased incidence after covariate adjustment (no J-shaped curve). Similar results were observed for death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure and stroke, considered separately. Nadir for MI was at DBP of 76 mmHg and for stroke 60 mmHg. The ratio of MI to stroke increased with lower DBP. In CAD patients the MI to stroke ratio was more pronounced than in patients without CAD but there was no significant J-curve in either group. Systolic BP ≥ 150 but not < 130 mmHg, compared with 130–149 mmHg, similarly was associated with increased risk for primary outcome. In conclusion, patients in BP strata ≥ 150/90 mmHg, but not patients in BP strata < 130/70 mmHg, were at increased risk for adverse outcomes in this hypertensive, high-risk population. Although benefit in preventing MI in relation to preventing stroke levels off for the lowest BPs, these data provide no support for a J-curve in the treatment of high-risk hypertensive patients . The increase in the ratio of MI to stroke with lower DBP indicates target organ heterogeneity in that the optimal on-treatment DBP for cerebroprotection is below that for cardioprotection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the effects of achieved systolic blood pressure (SBP) during treatment on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, the authors measured event rates of a composite primary endpoint (CV death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke) at on-treatment SBPs of ≥140 mm Hg and the 10 mm Hg intervals of <140 mm Hg, <130 mm Hg, and <120 mm Hg in 6459 patients with diabetes (mean age, 67) and 4246 patients without diabetes (mean age, 69) from the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. In the diabetic cohort, the primary endpoint was 49% lower (P<.001) at <140 mm Hg than at ≥140 mm Hg, and the separate components of this endpoint were also significantly reduced. Further SBP reductions did not improve outcomes, and at <120 mm Hg they were no longer different (except for stroke) from ≥140 mm Hg. In contrast, in the nondiabetic cohort, the primary endpoint event rate fell steadily (although not significantly) through the decreasing SBP categories until it was reduced by 45% (P=.0413) at <120 mm Hg. Total stroke rates for both the diabetic (-56%, P=.0120) and nondiabetic (-68%, P=.0067) cohorts were lowest at <120 mm Hg, and adverse renal events (serum creatinine increase ≥50%) were significantly lowest in the range of 130 mm Hg to 139 mm Hg for both cohorts. Diabetic patients (<140 mm Hg or <130 mm Hg) and nondiabetic patients (<120 mm Hg) may require different SBP targets for optimal CV protection, although stroke and renal considerations should also influence the selection of blood pressure targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Recent hypertension guidelines recommend that also in high cardiovascular (CV) risk, hypertensive patients blood pressure (BP) is lowered to < 140/90 mmHg as no evidence is available supporting the lower target of < 130/80 mmHg recommended in previous guidelines. Whether this represents the optimal treatment strategy is debated, however. Methods and results The high CV risk hypertensive patients of the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term use Evaluation (VALUE) trial were divided into subgroups according to (i) the percentage of on-treatment visits in which BP was reduced to < 140/90 or < 130/80 mmHg or (ii) the mean systolic or diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) values achieved during the entire treatment period or up to the occurrence of an event. A progressive increase from < 25 to ≥75% of the visits in which BP was < 140/90 mmHg was accompanied by a significant, progressive marked decrease in the covariate adjusted risk of CV morbidity and mortality, cause specific CV events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke), and all-cause mortality. Except for a persistent progressive decrease in stroke, no significant trend to a risk decrease occurred for a similar progressive increment of the proportion of visits with BP < 130/80 mmHg. Increasing the proportion of visits with a BP < 140/90 mmHg (but not < 130/80 mmHg) was accompanied by a decreased risk of events also when differences in baseline risk were adjusted using a propensity score. Finally, compared with patients remaining at a mean on-treatment SBP ≥ 140 or DBP ≥90 mmHg, the risk of all events was markedly reduced when on-treatment mean SBP was lowered to a mean SBP of 130-139 mmHg or a mean DBP of 80-89 mmHg, whereas at on-treatment mean SBP < 130 mmHg or DBP < 80 mmHg, an additional risk reduction was found for stroke but for any other type of event, the risk of which remained similar or only slightly greater than that seen at the higher BP target. Conclusions In the high CV risk, hypertensives of the VALUE trial reducing BP consistently to < 140/90 mmHg had marked beneficial effects both when data were calculated as proportion of visits at BP target or as on-treatment mean BP. Reducing BPto < 130/80 mmHg led only to some possible further benefit on stroke, whereas the risk of other outcomes remained substantially similar to or slightly greater than that seen at the higher target. Thus, aggressive BP reductions when CV risk is high may not offer substantial advantages, except perhaps in patients or conditions in which stroke risk is particularly common. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulse pressure (PP) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) disease and death but few studies have investigated the effect of antihypertensive treatments in relation to PP levels before treatment. The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that the combination of benazepril+amlodipine (B+A) is superior to benazepril+hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) in reducing CV events. We aimed to investigate whether the treatment effects in the ACCOMPLISH trial were dependent on baseline PP. High-risk hypertensive patients (n=11,499) were randomized to double-blinded treatment with single-pill combinations of either B+A or B+H and followed for 36 months. Patients were divided into tertiles according to their baseline PP and events (CV mortality/myocardial infarction or stroke) were compared. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the treatment effect (B+A over B+H) were calculated in a Cox regression model with age, coronary artery disease, and diabetes mellitus as covariates and were compared across the tertiles. The event rate was increased in the high tertile of PP compared with the low tertile (7.2% vs 4.4% P<.01). In the high and medium PP tertiles, HRs were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.95; P=.018) and 0.74 (CI, 0.56-0.98, P=.034), respectively, in favor of B+A. There was no significant difference between the treatments in the low tertile and no significant differences in treatment effect when comparing the HRs between tertiles of PP. B+A has superior CV protection over B+H in high-risk hypertensive patients independent of baseline PP although the absolute treatment effect is enhanced in the higher tertiles of PP where event rates are higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pulse pressure ( PP) is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular ( CV) disease and death but few studies have investigated the effect of antihypertensive treatments in relation to PP levels before treatment. The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that the combination of benazepril+amlodipine (B+A) is superior to benazepril+hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) in reducing CV events. We aimed to investigate whether the treatment effects in the ACCOMPLISH trial were dependent on baseline PP. High-risk hypertensive patients (n=11,499) were randomized to double-blinded treatment with single-pill combinations of either B+A or B+H and followed for 36 months. Patients were divided into tertiles according to their baseline PP and events ( CV mortality/myocardial infarction or stroke) were compared. Hazard ratios ( HRs) for the treatment effect (B+A over B+H) were calculated in a Cox regression model with age, coronary artery disease, and diabetes mellitus as covariates and were compared across the tertiles. The event rate was increased in the high tertile of PP compared with the low tertile (7.2% vs 4.4% P<.01). In the high and medium PP tertiles, HRs were 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.95; P=.018) and 0.74 (CI, 0.56-0.98, P=.034), respectively, in favor of B+A. There was no significant difference between the treatments in the low tertile and no significant differences in treatment effect when comparing the HRs between tertiles of PP. B+A has superior CV protection over B+H in high-risk hypertensive patients independent of baseline PP although the absolute treatment effect is enhanced in the higher tertiles of PP where event rates are higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Hypertension in elderly people is characterised by elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increased pulse pressure (PP), which indicate large artery ageing and stiffness. LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is being developed to treat hypertension and heart failure. The Prospective comparison of Angiotensin Receptor neprilysin inhibitor with Angiotensin receptor blocker MEasuring arterial sTiffness in the eldERly (PARAMETER) study will assess the efficacy of LCZ696 versus olmesartan on aortic stiffness and central aortic haemodynamics. Methods and analysis: In this 52-week multicentre study, patients with hypertension aged ≥60 years with a mean sitting (ms) SBP ≥150 to <180 and a PP>60 mm Hg will be randomised to once daily LCZ696 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg for 4 weeks, followed by a forced-titration to double the initial doses for the next 8 weeks. At 12-24 weeks, if the BP target has not been attained (msSBP <140 and ms diastolic BP <90 mm Hg), amlodipine (2.5-5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25-25 mg) can be added. The primary and secondary endpoints are changes from baseline in central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) and central aortic PP (CAPP) at week 12, respectively. Other secondary endpoints are the changes in CASP and CAPP at week 52. A sample size of 432 randomised patients is estimated to ensure a power of 90% to assess the superiority of LCZ696 over olmesartan at week 12 in the change from baseline of mean CASP, assuming an SD of 19 mm Hg, the difference of 6.5 mm Hg and a 15% dropout rate. The primary variable will be analysed using a two-way analysis of covariance. Ethics and dissemination: The study was initiated in December 2012 and final results are expected in 2015. The results of this study will impact the design of future phase III studies assessing cardiovascular protection. Clinical trials identifier: EUDract number 2012-002899-14 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01692301. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:773-778. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Postmenopausal women are at greater risk for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive therapy may help alleviate arterial stiffness that represents a potential modifiable risk factor of hypertension. This randomized controlled study investigated the difference between an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in reducing arterial stiffness. Overall, 125 postmenopausal hypertensive women (age, 61.4±6 years; systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], 158±11/92±9 mm Hg) were randomized to valsartan 320 mg±hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (n=63) or amlodipine 10 mg±HCTZ (n=62). The primary outcome was carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Both treatments lowered peripheral blood pressure (BP) (−22.9/−10.9 mm Hg for valsartan and −25.2/−11.7 mm Hg for amlodipine, P=not significant) and central BP (−15.7/−7.6 mm Hg for valsartan and −19.2/−10.3 mm Hg for amlodipine, P<.05 for central DBP). Both treatments similarly reduced the carotid-femoral PWV (−1.9 vs −1.7 m/s; P=not significant). Amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral edema compared with the valsartan group (77% vs 14%, P<.001). BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness as assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV to a similar degree after 38 weeks of treatment despite differences in central BP lowering, suggesting that the effect of valsartan on PWV is mediated through nonhemodynamic effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors previously reported that addition of valsartan ameliorated the negative metabolic effects of hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients through an enhanced postprandial insulin response. In this secondary analysis, the authors tested whether this enhanced insulin response to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was influenced by serum potassium levels, which were reduced to a lesser extent, when compared with amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide. Results showed that the early insulin response with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide occurred regardless of serum potassium levels. Heightened insulin response was, however, not significantly different when patients with normal potassium (>3.9 mEq/L) at baseline and low potassium (≤3.9 mEq/L) at the end of the study were compared with the amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide group. Despite the influence of serum potassium on insulin secretory response to a glucose challenge, the addition of valsartan maintained normoglycemia in patients given hydrochlorothiazide. Thus, the metabolic response to hydrochlorothiazide was improved with addition of valsartan through an enhanced insulin response that was not greatly affected by changes in potassium levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012; 14:415-421. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors previously reported that addition of valsartan ameliorated the negative metabolic effects of hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients through an enhanced postprandial insulin response. In this secondary analysis, the authors tested whether this enhanced insulin response to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was influenced by serum potassium levels, which were reduced to a lesser extent, when compared with amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide. Results showed that the early insulin response with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide occurred regardless of serum potassium levels. Heightened insulin response was, however, not significantly different when patients with normal potassium (>3.9 mEq/L) at baseline and low potassium (≤3.9 mEq/L) at the end of the study were compared with the amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide group. Despite the influence of serum potassium on insulin secretory response to a glucose challenge, the addition of valsartan maintained normoglycemia in patients given hydrochlorothiazide. Thus, the metabolic response to hydrochlorothiazide was improved with addition of valsartan through an enhanced insulin response that was not greatly affected by changes in potassium levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Renin profiling has been proposed as a method to guide antihypertensive drug selection. This prespecified post-hoc analysis examined the influence of baseline plasma renin activity (PRA) on blood pressure (BP) responses. Methods: A 16-week, randomized, double-blind, prompted-titration trial evaluated initial valsartan (V)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy versus initial HCTZ or V monotherapy in individuals aged ≥70 years with systolic hypertension. Sitting PRA was measured at baseline, Week 4, and Week 16. Subjects were stratified into 2 groups for analysis: low renin (baseline PRA <0.65 ng/mL/h) or normal-high renin (baseline PRA ≥0.65 ng/mL/h). Results: PRA data were available in 322/384 subjects: 178 had low PRA and 144 had normal-high PRA. At Week 4, V/HCTZ was more effective than HCTZ or V at reducing mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP), independent of baseline PRA, with reductions of −16.9, −12.6, and −9.5 mmHg, respectively, in low-renin subjects and −19.4, −11.5, and −8.6 mmHg in normal-high renin subjects. Baseline PRA was similar in responders (subjects not uptitrated at Week 4) and nonresponders (subjects uptitrated at Week 4). In responders, the reactive rise in PRA at Week 4 was related to change in MSSBP, with the greatest increases in PRA observed in the V/HCTZ group. Higher baseline PRA was associated with a greater reactive rise in PRA. Conclusions: Baseline PRA is not a useful guide to the BP responses of initial combination V/HCTZ in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. The ACCOMPLISH Trial investigated intensive antihypertensive combination treatment with benazepril + amlodipine (B+A) or benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide (B+H) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with systolic hypertension. We analyzed the baseline predictors of achieving a systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mmHg and achieved SBP level by the end of 12 months in both treatment groups. Methods. Baseline and 12-month SBP was available in 10,506 patients, of whom 6250 had diabetes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used for SBP control at 12 months and multivariable regression models were used for the prediction of SBP at 12 months. A stepwise procedure was used to select significant ( p < 0.001) predictors in multivariate analyses. Results. Mean (± SD) BP fell from 145.4/80.1 (± 18.3/10.7) mmHg at randomization to 132.8/74.7 (± 16.0/9.6) mmHg at 12 months. The main baseline predictors of SBP control <140 mmHg were region (USA >Nordic region) and Caucasian ethnicity in both randomization arms. A higher diastolic BP and the use of lipid lowering agents indicated favorable effects in the B+H arm only. The predictors of uncontrolled SBP were: (i) higher baseline SBP values, (ii) higher number of previous antihypertensive medications in both arms, (iii) the previous use of insulin in the B+A arm, and (iv) pre-trial calcium channel blocker (CCB) use in the B+H arm. Additionally, pre-trial use of thiazides and electrocardiogram (ECG)-left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) at baseline predicted higher, and smoking lower absolute SBP in the B+A arm and the use of thiazides and proteinuria a higher SBP in the B+H arm. Conclusion. Irrespective of treatment, patients in the USA and Caucasians achieved better SBP control, whereas higher baseline SBP and more previous antihypertensive medications indicated less control. Concomitant use of lipid lowering treatment indicated a better SBP control in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm. Lastly, insulin use and ECG-LVH in the benazepril + amlodipine arm and proteinuria in the benazepril + hydrochlorothiazide arm indicated poor control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:722-730. ©2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This 16-week trial investigated the efficacy and safety of single-pill valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs the individual components in patients 70 years and older with systolic hypertension. Patients were randomized to valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg (n=128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n=128), or valsartan 160 mg (n=128) for 4 weeks. Patients whose blood pressure (BP) was ≥140/90 mm Hg at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were up-titrated to a maximum of valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Week 4 systolic BP reduction (primary efficacy outcome) was greater with valsartan/HCTZ than valsartan (−17.3 mm Hg vs −8.6 mm Hg, P <.0001) but only marginally greater than HCTZ (−13.6 mm Hg, P =.096). Median time to BP control was shorter with valsartan/HCTZ (4 weeks) vs HCTZ (8 weeks, P<.05) or valsartan (12 weeks, P<.0001). Thiazide monotherapy was more effective than angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (by about 5 mm Hg), but greater antihypertensive efficacy was achieved by initiating treatment with combination valsartan/HCTZ in the elderly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:731-738. ©2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The authors evaluated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs amlodipine/HCTZ in a 16-week, double-blind, randomized, forced-titration study and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) substudy involving centrally obese hypertensive patients 40 years and older. Patients were started on valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy, force-titrated at week 4 to valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg and HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. The HCTZ group initiated amlodipine 5 mg at week 8 and 10 mg at week 12. A subset of patients had 24-hour ABPM at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. At week 16 in the intent-to-treat population (n=401), valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/HCTZ lowered office systolic BP (−30.6 vs −28.3 mm Hg; P=.14). In the ABPM subgroup (n=111), valsartan/HCTZ was more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in reducing 24-hour systolic BP (−20.6 vs −14.5 mm Hg; P=.011). In obese hypertensive patients, valsartan/HCTZ reduced office BP similar to amlodipine/HCTZ but lowered 24-hour systolic BP more. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). ****;**:**-**. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). Several studies reported racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive monotherapy. In a 10-week study of stage 2 hypertension, 320/25 mg valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) reduced ambulatory BP (ABP) significantly more effectively than 10/25 mg amlodipine/HCTZ. Results (post hoc analysis) are described in Caucasians (n=256), African Americans (n=79), and Hispanics (n=86). Compared with clinic-measured BP (no significant treatment-group differences in ethnic subgroups), least-squares mean reductions from baseline to week 10 in mean ambulatory systolic BP (MASBP) and mean ambulatory diastolic BP (MADBP) favored valsartan/HCTZ over amlodipine/HCTZ in Caucasians (−21.9/−12.7 mm Hg vs −17.6/−9.5 mm Hg; P=.0004/P<.0001). No treatment-group differences in MASBP/MADBP were observed in African Americans (−17.3/−10.6 vs −17.9/−9.5; P=.76 /P=.40) or Hispanics (−17.9/−9.7 vs −14.2/−7.2; P=.20 /P=.17). Based on ABP monitoring, valsartan/HCTZ is more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in lowering ABP in Caucasians. In African Americans and Hispanics, both regimens are similarly effective. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2010;12:833-840. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Valsartan is a nonpeptide angiotensin receptor antagonist that selectively blocks the binding of angiotensin II to the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. The efficacy, tolerability and safety of valsartan have been demonstrated in largescale studies in hypertension, heart failure (HF) and post-myocardial infarction (MI). This review focuses on what was learned from the valsartan clinical research programme and other comparative trials published from 1997 to the present. Many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of valsartan in lowering blood pressure (BP) in a variety of patient populations (including elderly, women, children, obese patients, patients with diabetes mellitus, patients with chronic kidney disease [CKD], patients at high risk of cardiovascular [CV] disease, African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Asians) and in improving outcomes in CV disease and CKD. In hypertension, valsartan exhibits dose-dependent efficacy in reducing both systolic and diastolic BP over the once-daily dose range of 80-320 mg; doses as high as 640mg/day have been studied and found to be efficacious and safe. BP control can be enhanced with a more consistent 24-hour BP-lowering profile by using singlepill, fixed-dose combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). The cardioprotective benefits of valsartan have been demonstrated in large-scale outcome trials and include significant reductions in CV morbidity and mortality in HF, following MI, and in patients with co-morbid hypertension and coronary artery disease and/or HF; reductions in HF hospitalizations; and reductions in the incidence of stroke. The magnitude of these effects is comparable with that demonstrated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors; however, valsartan has a more favourable tolerability profile, with a significantly lower incidence of cough and only rare reports of angio-oedema, both class effects of ACE inhibitor use. Consistent with its angiotensin receptor-blocking effects, valsartan also reduces circulating levels of biochemical markers that are associated with angiotensin II-mediated endothelial dysfunction and CV risk (e.g. high-sensitivity C-reactive protein or oxidized low-density lipoprotein). Improvements in CKD with valsartan include statistically and clinically meaningful reductions in urinary albumin and protein excretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic patients with CKD. In short-term studies, valsartan has improved or stabilized various indices of metabolic function in at-risk patients, including those with co-morbid hypertension, obesity and/or metabolic syndrome. Because of this, valsartan is being prospectively investigated for its ability to reduce the incidence of new-onset diabetes and provide cardioprotection in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Valsartan and valsartan/HCTZ are well tolerated. In clinical trials, adverse events during valsartan treatment were similar to those occurring with placebo. The combination of valsartan/HCTZ was better tolerated than HCTZ alone. Valsartan is administered once daily for hypertension; doses are usually taken upon awakening. In patients with HF or MI, valsartan is administered twice daily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertensive patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The authors examined effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combined and alone on insulin sensitivity (using homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), and inflammatory/metabolic biomarkers in prediabetic hypertensive persons with CMS. Eligible patients entered 16-week therapy with valsartan 320 mg/d (n=189), HCTZ 25 mg/d (n=190), or valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg/d (n=187). At the end point, there were no statistically significant differences in HOMA-IR among the 3 groups. HCTZ significantly increased hemoglobin A(1c) and triglyceride concentrations and lowered serum potassium levels vs valsartan. HCTZ also increased plasma aldosterone and C-reactive protein levels. Blood pressure reduction and blood pressure control rates were highest with valsartan/HCTZ. There were no differences between combination valsartan/HCTZ or monotherapies on a measure of insulin sensitivity; however, the negative metabolic effects of HCTZ (increase in triglyceride and hemoglobin A(1c) values) were absent with valsartan/HCTZ, indicating an ameliorating effect of valsartan on these measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertensive patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome (CMS) are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The authors examined effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combined and alone on insulin sensitivity (using homeostasis model assessment–insulin resistance [HOMA-IR]), and inflammatory/metabolic biomarkers in prediabetic hypertensive persons with CMS. Eligible patients entered 16-week therapy with valsartan 320 mg/d (n =189), HCTZ 25 mg/d (n =190), or valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg/d (n =187). At the end point, there were no statistically significant differences in HOMA-IR among the 3 groups. HCTZ significantly increased hemoglobin A1c and triglyceride concentrations and lowered serum potassium levels vs valsartan. HCTZ also increased plasma aldosterone and C-reactive protein levels. Blood pressure reduction and blood pressure control rates were highest with valsartan/HCTZ. There were no differences between combination valsartan/HCTZ or monotherapies on a measure of insulin sensitivity; however, the negative metabolic effects of HCTZ (increase in triglyceride and hemoglobin A1c values) were absent with valsartan/HCTZ, indicating an ameliorating effect of valsartan on these measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012; 14:299-306. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This pooled analysis of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring data from two 8-week randomized controlled trials compared the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/valsartan vs valsartan alone in hypertensive patients (nocturnal dippers or nondippers). At study end, patients were taking aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg or valsartan 320 mg. In dippers (n=138) and nondippers (n=132), aliskiren/valsartan provided significantly ( P<.05) greater reductions from baseline to week 8 than valsartan in 24-hour, daytime, and last-4-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP (maSBP). Treatment differences were more pronounced in nondippers. Nighttime maSBP reductions with aliskiren/valsartan were significantly greater vs valsartan in nondippers (−17.0 mm Hg vs −8.9 mm Hg; P<.05) but not dippers (−7.6 mm Hg vs −4.5 mm Hg; P=.16). In all time periods, combination therapy was generally associated with BP reductions that were greater in nondippers than dippers. Conversion from nondipper to dipper status was 32% vs 22% for aliskiren/valsartan vs valsartan ( P=.48). Both treatments were similarly well tolerated. Although the addition of aliskiren to valsartan did not significantly alter dipper status, our data suggest an increased contribution of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system to the nondipper status of hypertensive patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The optimal doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and/or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for maximal reduction in urinary protein excretion are not known. Moreover, beneficial effects from ARBs, such as tissue protection owing to a more complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), may be independent of blood pressure-lowering by ARBs. In this investigation, we evaluated whether increasing the dose of candesartan cilexetil, in subjects already on the maximally-recommended FDA doses of 32 mg, would induce a further reduction in 24-hour urinary protein excretion in patients with heavy proteinuria (urinary protein excretion >1.5 g/day; mean 4.4±2 g/day). Ten patients were started on 16 or 32 mg of candesartan cilexetil daily. After 1—2 months of therapy, the dose was titrated upwards to 96 mg. In all subjects, there were further reductions in 24-hour urinary protein excretion when the dose was increased beyond the recommended 32 mg maximal dose. Increasing the dose of candesartan cilexetil to 96 mg was safe, as most subjects showed no changes in serum potassium and, as expected, only a slight increase (0.5—0.7 mg/dl) in serum creatinine. These data warrant further investigation, since some subjects may require higher doses of candesartan to achieve optimal regression of proteinuria. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]