Search

Background: In China, the prevalence of hypertension is high and the use of combination antihypertensive therapy is low, which contributes to inadequate blood pressure (BP) control. The availability of simplified treatments combining complementary BP-lowering agents may help more patients achieve their goals., Methods: This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study included Chinese adults with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Following a 1-month run-in on perindopril/indapamide bi-therapy, patients with uncontrolled systolic/diastolic BP (≥140/90 mmHg) were randomized to perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind/Aml) single-pill combination (SPC) or perindopril 4 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind + Aml) for 6 months. Uptitration was permitted from month 2 onwards. The primary efficacy objective was the noninferiority of Per/Ind/Aml in lowering office systolic BP at 2 months. The secondary objectives included the effectiveness of SPC on diastolic BP, uptitration efficacy, and office BP control (systolic/diastolic <140/90 mmHg). A subgroup of patients participated in 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM)., Results: A total of 532 patients were randomized: Per/Ind/Aml ( n  = 262) and Per/Ind + Aml ( n  = 269). Overall, the mean (±SD) age was 55.7 ± 8.8 years, 60.7% were male, and the mean office systolic/diastolic BP at baseline on Per/Ind was 150.4/97.2 mmHg. Systolic BP decreased in both groups at 2 months from baseline: -14.99 ± 14.46 mmHg Per/Ind/Aml versus -14.49 ± 12.87 mmHg Per/Ind +Aml. A predefined noninferiority margin of 4 mmHg was observed ( P  < 0.001). The effectiveness of the Per/Ind/Aml SPC was also demonstrated for all secondary endpoints. ABPM demonstrated sustained BP control over 24 h. Both treatments were well tolerated., Conclusions: Per/Ind/Aml is an effective substitute for Per/Ind + Aml, providing at least equivalent BP control over 24 h in a single pill, with comparable safety., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: Gout is a common complication of blood pressure management and a frequently cited cause of medication nonadherence. Little trial evidence exists to inform antihypertensive selection with regard to gout risk., Methods: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) was a randomized clinical trial on the effects of first-step hypertension therapy with amlodipine, chlorthalidone, or lisinopril on fatal coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction (1994-2002). Trial participants were linked to CMS and VA gout claims (ICD9 274.XX). We determined the effect of drug assignment on gout with Cox regression models. We also determined the adjusted association of self-reported atenolol use (ascertained at the 1-month visit for indications other than hypertension) with gout., Results: Claims were linked to 23 964 participants (mean age 69.8 ± 6.8 years, 45% women, 31% black). Atenolol use was reported by 928 participants at the 1-month visit. Over a mean follow-up of 4.9 years, we documented 597 gout claims. Amlodipine reduced the risk of gout by 37% (hazard ratio 0.63; 95% CI 0.51--0.78) compared with chlorthalidone and by 26% (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% CI 0.58--0.94) compared with lisinopril. Lisinopril nonsignificantly lowered gout risk compared with chlorthalidone (hazard ratio 0.85; 95% CI 0.70--1.03). Atenolol use was not associated with gout risk (adjusted hazard ratio 1.18; 95% CI 0.78--1.80). Gout risk reduction was primarily observed after 1 year of follow-up., Conclusion: Amlodipine lowered long-term gout risk compared with lisinopril or chlorthalidone. This finding may be useful in cases where gout risk is a principal concern among patients being treated for hypertension.This trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, number: NCT00000542.

Background: β-blockers are no longer considered as first-line antihypertensive drugs due to their lower cardioprotection., Method: Considering the differences in the pharmacological properties of β-blockers, the present work compared the effects of third-generation β-blockers - carvedilol and nebivolol - with a first-line agent - amlodipine - on hemodynamic parameters, including short-term blood pressure variability (BPV), and their ability to prevent target organ damage in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). SHR rats were orally treated with carvedilol, nebivolol, atenolol, amlodipine or vehicle for 8 weeks. Wistar Kyoto rats treated with vehicle were used as normotensive group. Echocardiographic evaluation, BP, and short-term BPV measurements were performed. Left ventricle and thoracic aorta were removed for histological evaluations and to assess the expression of transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6)., Results: Carvedilol, nebivolol or amlodipine induced a greater reduction of carotid BP, short-term BPV and echocardiography parameters than atenolol in SHR rats. Carvedilol, nebivolol and amlodipine were more effective than atenolol in the prevention of cardiac hypertrophy, and cardiac and aortic collagen deposit. Carvedilol and nebivolol, but not atenolol, reduced the expressions of fibrotic and inflammatory biomarkers - TGF-β, TNF-α and IL-6 - in SHR rats to a similar extent to that of amlodipine., Conclusion: Chronic treatment with carvedilol or nebivolol attenuates carotid BP and short-term BPV, and reduces target organ damage in SHR to a greater extent than atenolol. Our findings suggest that the lower cardiovascular protection of nonvasodilating β-blockers, as atenolol, in hypertension must not be translated to third-generation β-blockers.

Objective: Use of amlodipine for treatment of arterial hypertension and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is sometimes limited by occurrence of peripheral edema and headache. We aimed to explore the true magnitude of this phenomenon by determining the rate and placebo-adjusted rate of these side effects., Methods: We performed a meta-analysis by including all randomized, placebo-controlled trials reporting edema and headache with amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension and CAD. Placebo-adjusted rate (%) was determined as follows: (SE amlodipine % - SE placebo %)/SE amlodipine %., Results: Data from 7226 patients of 22 trials were analyzed. Rate of edema was higher on amlodipine vs. placebo (16.6 vs. 6.2%, risk ratio: 2.9, 95% CI: 2.50-3.36, P < 0.0001). The placebo-adjusted rate was 63%, indicating that 37% of edema cases were unrelated to amlodipine. Treatment with low/medium doses (2.5-5 mg) resulted in lower rates of edema (risk ratio: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.41-2.88, P = 0.0001) vs. high dose (10 mg) (risk ratio: 3.08, 95% CI 2.62-3.60, P < 0.0001, Pforinteraction = 0.03). Incidence of headache was reduced using amlodipine vs. placebo (7.9 vs. 10.9%, risk ratio: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.90, P = 0.002) and was driven by use of low/medium doses (risk ratio: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69, P < 0.00001 vs. risk ratio: 0.92, 95%-CI: 0.74-1.15, P = 0.45, for high doses, Pforinteraction = 0.002)., Conclusion: Although risks of peripheral edema are three-fold higher on amlodipine, up to one-third of edema cases on amlodipine might not be induced by amlodipine. Headache is reduced on amlodipine treatment, mainly driven by use of this drug at low/medium doses.

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor and neprilysin inhibitor) add-on to amlodipine compared with amlodipine monotherapy in Asian patients with systolic hypertension uncontrolled with amlodipine., Methods: Patients with mean clinic SBP at least 145 mmHg and less than 180 mmHg after a 4-week treatment with amlodipine 5 mg/day were randomized to receive LCZ696/amlodipine (200/5 mg/day) or amlodipine 5 mg/day for 8 weeks. The primary assessment was the superiority of LCZ696/amlodipine versus amlodipine in lowering 24-h ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 8. Secondary assessments included 24-h ambulatory DBP and pulse pressure (PP), daytime and night-time BP, clinic BP and PP, BP control/responder rate (<140/90 mmHg or a reduction ≥20/10 mmHg from baseline), and safety., Results: Of the 371 patients screened, 266 (71.7%) patients (mean age 55.4 years; 24-h SBP/DBP 139.0/86.1 mmHg at baseline) who did not respond to 4-week treatment with amlodipine 5 mg/day were randomized. At week 8, LCZ696/amlodipine provided greater reductions in 24-h SBP compared with amlodipine monotherapy from baseline (-13.9 versus -0.8 mmHg, P < 0.001). All the secondary efficacy assessments were significantly (P < 0.001) in favour of LCZ696/amlodipine, for instance, 24-h PP (-5.8 versus -0.6 mmHg). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was 20.0% with LCZ696/amlodipine and 21.3% with amlodipine., Conclusion: LCZ696/amlodipine showed significantly greater 24-h ambulatory BP and PP reductions compared with amlodipine monotherapy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. Therefore, LCZ696/amlodipine combination could be an effective treatment for patients with systolic hypertension uncontrolled with amlodipine.

Introduction: Combination therapy is needed to control blood pressure (BP) in a large number of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Adherence to treatment is a major clinical problem; therefore, the time duration of the antihypertensive action of a drug determines BP control when a dose is skipped., Objectives: The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/amlodipine combination when a drug dose is missed., Methods: In this noninferiority trial with a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design, 260 patients received either olmesartan 20-40 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg or perindopril 4-8 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg for 24 weeks. The main outcome was the sitting office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 h from last administration., Results: The olmesartan/amlodipine combination reached noninferiority criteria in reduction of office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared with the perindopril/amlodipine combination (-11.7 and -10.5 mmHg, respectively). Office SBP and pulse pressure were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 h after the missed dose, observing a trend to greater SBP reduction in the olmesartan/amlodipine group., Conclusions: The combination olmesartan/amlodipine is safe, well tolerated, and as effective as the combination of perindopril/amlodipine in the control of essential hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. A missed dose does not leave the patients unprotected in both treatments; however, a faster control with less dose increment is observed with olmesartan/amlodipine.

Objectives: Cilnidipine is a calcium channel blocker that blocks both L and N-type calcium channels. L/N-type calcium channel blockers exhibit sympatholytic action and a renal protective effect via dilation of afferent and efferent arterioles of the renal glomerulus, and afford more potent protection against hypertension-related organ damage than L-type calcium channel blockers. Few studies, however, have directly compared the organ protective effects of L-type calcium channel blocker monotherapy and L/N-type calcium channel blocker monotherapy. This study compares the effects on renal and vascular endothelial functions and arterial stiffness of monotherapy regimens of amlodipine, an L-type calcium antagonist, and cilnidipine, in patients with essential hypertension., Methods: Fifty patients with untreated essential hypertension were randomized to receive 5 mg of amlodipine (n = 25) or 10 mg of cilnidipine (n = 25) once daily in the morning for 24 weeks. The patients were evaluated before and after the therapy to assess changes in renal function, flow-mediated vasodilation (a parameter of vascular endothelial function), and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (a parameter of arterial stiffness)., Results: Before treatment, the above parameters showed no significant differences between groups. After treatment, urinary albumin excretion was decreased significantly in the cilnidipine group compared with the amlodipine group, and the decrease of brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity was significantly larger in the cilnidipine group than in the amlodipine group., Conclusions: These results suggest that cilnidipine is more effective than amlodipine at improving renal function and arterial stiffness in patients with essential hypertension.

Objective: Of the study was to compare the leg oedema-forming potential of two different dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in postmenopausal women., Design: A total of 92 postmenopausal hypertensive patients [systolic blood pressure (SBP) 150-179 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-109 mmHg were randomized to receive a 4-week treatment with either 10 mg/day lercanidipine (n = 48) or 5 mg/day amlodipine (n = 44), with force-titration to 20 and 10 mg/day, respectively for an additional 4 weeks., Methods: Leg volume was measured by water displacement volumetry, patients were questioned for symptoms and a physical examination was performed to detect the presence of oedema., Results: A total of 77 patients completed the study, without a major protocol violation and were included in the primary analysis. Leg volume increase from baseline was significantly higher in the amlodipine than in the lercanidipine group (60.4 +/- 8.6 versus 5.3 +/- 8.1 ml; P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with evidence of oedema on physical examination (33.3 versus 9.8%, P = 0.011) and with symptoms of leg swelling (63.9 versus 22%, P < 0.001) and leg heaviness (47.2 versus 12.2%, P < 0.001) was also greater with amlodipine compared with lercanidipine. A positive correlation was found between leg volume and sign or symptoms of oedema (P < 0.001). Both drugs reduced SBP and DBP, with no significant differences between treatments. No correlation was found between leg volume changes from baseline and the antihypertensive effect of either drug., Conclusions: In postmenopausal females with mild to moderate hypertension the oedema formation of Lercanidipine was significantly less than that of Amlodipine, despite no significant differences in the antihypertensive effect.

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.

Objective: To analyse the efficacy of indapamide sustained-release (SR) 1.5 mg in reducing blood pressure versus amlodipine 5 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, in elderly hypertensive patients., Design: Double-blind, randomized, 12 week study using three parallel groups., Setting: European teaching hospitals and general practices., Patients: Randomized patients, (n = 524) including 128 patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH); mean age: 72.4 years; mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures (SBP/DBP): 174.5/97.9 mmHg., Main Outcome Measures: Clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure variations., Results: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg demonstrates a similar efficacy to that of amlodipine 5 mg, as well as to that of hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (equivalence P < 0.001); the mean decreases in SBP/DBP were -22.7/-11.8 mmHg, -22.2/-10.7 mmHg and -19.4/-10.8 mmHg, respectively. In the ISH subgroup, indapamide SR 1.5 mg tends to have greater efficacy than hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in reducing the SBP (-24.7 versus -18.5 mmHg, respectively; equivalence P = 0.117), while similar results are obtained with amlodipine 5 mg (-23 mmHg, equivalence P < 0.001). The normalization rate was relatively high for indapamide SR 1.5 mg (75.3%), when compared with amlodipine (66.9%) and hydrochlorothiazide (67.3%), especially in the subgroup of isolated systolic hypertensive patients: 84.2 versus 80.0% for amlodipine, and versus 71.4% for hydrochlorothiazide., Conclusions: Indapamide SR 1.5 mg shows similar antihypertensive efficacy to amlodipine 5 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in elderly hypertensive patients, while in patients with isolated systolic hypertension, indapamide SR 1.5 mg shows a similar efficacy to amlodipine 5 mg but a greater efficacy than hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg.

Objective: To compare the effects of a calcium antagonist (amlodipine) and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril) on left ventricular mass and diastolic function in elderly, previously untreated hypertensives., Design: A double-blind randomized parallel group trial. Effects of amlodipine and lisinopril on left ventricular mass and diastolic function (E/A Ratio) (The ELVERA trial)., Setting: Rural northern Netherlands: population screening new diagnosed hypertensive subjects., Patients: The study population comprised 166 newly diagnosed hypertensive (aged 60-75) with diastolic blood pressure between 95-115 mmHg and/or systolic blood pressure between 160-220 mmHg., Intervention: Patients were randomly allocated to receive 5-10 mg amlodipine or 10-20 mg lisinopril for 2 years., Main Outcome Measures: Prior and after 1 and 2 years of treatment left ventricular mass, indexed by body surface (LVMI) was estimated by 2-D mode echocardiography according to Devereux with use of Penn convention. Early to atrial filling ratio (E/A) was assessed by transmitral flow. Change from baseline of LVMI and E/A ratio was evaluated by repeated measurement analysis of the treatment effect in an intention-to-treat analysis., Results: Both amlodipine and lisinopril led to equivalent reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. At the end of the study the amlodipine group led to LVMI decrease by 21.8 g/m < or = [95% confidence interval (CI), 18.3-25.3] and E/A ratio increased by 0.08 (95% CI, 0.05-0.11). In the lisinopril group LVMI decreased by 22.4 g/m < or = (95%, CI, 19.0-25.8) and E/A ratio increased by 0.07 (95% CI, 0.04-0.10). No statistically significant differences were found in changes in LVMI and E/A ratio between amlodipine and lisinopril., Conclusion: A long-term study, the ELVERA trial proves that amlodipine and lisinopril reduce left ventricular mass and improve diastolic function to a similar extent in elderly newly diagnosed hypertensive patients.

Objective: To compare the effects of rilmenidine with those of amlodipine on blood pressure, glucose metabolism, plasma lipid concentration and fibrinolysis parameters., Design: A four-month randomized double-blind, parallel group study., Patients and Methods: Obese hypertensive patients with hypertriglyceridaemia (> or = 2.3 mmol/l) and impaired glucose tolerance (OMS-ADA) were included (n = 52). A placebo run-in period of 2 weeks was followed by 4 months of double-blind treatment with either rilmenidine or amlodipine. Blood pressure was recorded using a mercury sphygmomanometer. Glucose metabolism was evaluated by an oral glucose tolerance test, Results: Of the 52 patients recruited, 47 (21 rilmenidine and 26 amlodipine) completed the 4-month treatment period. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a comparable reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP) with the two anti-hypertensive treatments (rilmenidine -13.9/-13.5 mmHg; amlodipine - 17.6/-15.0 mmHg). Insulin concentrations under basal conditions and 2 h after a standard oral glucose load did not change significantly after treatment in both groups. Plasma glucose under basal conditions and 2 h after a standard oral glucose load as well as the area under the plasma glucose concentration curve tended to decrease in the rilmenidine group and to increase in the amlodipine group so that the changes in these parameters were significantly different between the two study groups (P= 0.041, P = 0.042 and P = 0.015, respectively). Plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) antigen and PAI-1 activity were only decreased in the rilmenidine group (not statistically significant)., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that rilmenidine and amlodipine have a comparable anti-hypertensive effect but only rilmenidine is able to improve glucose metabolism.

Objective: Compliance with hypertension treatment is affected by treatment-related factors (complexity, side effects), efficacy and compound-specific effects that impact on quality of life. This study examined the differences in quality of life produced by two once-daily calcium channel blockers using different delivery systems: nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) and amlodipine., Design: This was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial comparing nifedipine GITS (30 mg) and amlodipine (5 mg) for 24 weeks following a placebo run-in. Clinical, laboratory evaluations and quality-of-life data were assessed at screening, baseline randomization and three times during active therapy., Setting: The study was conducted in 13 medical clinics in Spain., Patients: The sample comprised 430 screened and 356 randomized patients with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95-114 mmHg)., Main Outcome Measures: Change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and in health-related quality of life were the main outcome measures., Results: There were no significant differences between active treatment groups in the blood pressure changes (systolic blood pressure: nifedipine GITS -15.5 mmHg; amlodipine -15.7 mmHg). Spontaneous adverse events consistent with calcium channel blockage were not different. The nifedipine GITS group improved in all quality-of-life measures except Sexual Symptom Distress and showed a significantly greater improvement than amlodipine in overall Quality of Life (P< 0.05), General Perceived Health (P < 0.026) and its subscale Vitality (P < 0.019). The amlodipine group declined in overall Quality of Life, General Perceived Health, Vitality and Sleep Disturbance, and significantly in Sexual Symptom Distress (P < 0.045). However, this group improved in self-reported Cognitive Functioning (P=0.036), Mental Acuity (P < 0.005) and Detachment/disorientation (P=0.01)., Conclusions: These results suggest compound-specific effects on quality of life that may be due to differences in the delivery system. Nifedipine GITS is short-acting (2 h half-life) and is delivered continuously over a 24 h period, while amlodipine has a half-life of 40 h, which may produce more sustained low-level effects. While a more beneficial profile was observed for nifedipine, amlodipine demonstrated potential positive effects on cognitive functioning.

Objective: To compare the effects of chronic administration of two dihydropyridines, nifedipine and amlodipine, and the non-dihydropyridine Ca2+ antagonist mibefradil on fluid filtration of large arteries and extravasation of albumin in spontaneously hypertensive rats., Methods: Spontaneously hypertensive rats aged 2 months were randomly allocated to oral treatment once a day with 30 mg/kg mibefradil (n=12), 100 mg/kg nifedipine (n=12), 20 mg/kg amlodipine (n=12) or placebo (n=12) for 1 month. Instantaneous blood pressure of rats under pentobarbital anaesthesia was recorded at the end of the treatment Fluid filtration across the carotid arterial wall was determined in situ in the isolated carotid artery. Extravasation of 25 mg/kg Evans Blue dye that had been injected intravenously was used to assess whole vascular permeability to albumin after chronic treatment with mibefradil., Results: Similar reductions in mean arterial pressure were obtained in all Ca2+ antagonist-treated rats. Heart rate was similar in rats in control, nifedipine and amlodipine groups but was significantly lower in mibefradil-treated rats (by 19%, P< 0.001). Fluid filtration across the carotid wall was greater in all Ca2+ antagonist-treated animals. However, fluid filtration was significantly less in mibefradil-treated rats than it was in nifedipine-treated, and amlodipine-treated rats. Furthermore, administration of mibefradil did not significantly modify extravasation of albumin in all tested tissues (pancreas, testis, spleen, lung, kidney, intestine, liver, skeletal muscle) except for cardiac and brain tissues, in which the permeability of albumin was increased by 24 and 33%, respectively, compared with values for the control group (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: These results indicate that Ca2+ antagonists increase fluid filtration through large arteries from spontaneously hypertensive rats. That the lower fluid filtration in mibefradil-treated rats was associated with no change in extravasation of albumin in most tissues and especially in skeletal muscle suggests that vascular permeability in hypertensive rats was impaired less by mibefradil treatment than it was by dihydropyridine Ca2+ antagonist treatments.

Objective: To compare two losartan regimens (with and without hydrochlorothiazide) and amlodipine in treating mild-to-moderate hypertension regarding their blood-pressure-lowering effect, drug tolerability and quality of life., Design: A 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multi-centre study. After 4 weeks of placebo, patients with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in the range 95-115 mmHg were allocated randomly to be administered 50 mg losartan (increased to 100 mg if the DBP was 90 mmHg or more after 6 weeks), 50 mg losartan (plus 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide under the above conditions), or 5 mg amlodipine (increased to 10 mg under the above condition). The tolerability of the treatment and the quality of life were evaluated by spontaneous reporting, active questioning and the Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) index., Study Population: In total 898 hypertensives, mainly referred from primary health care (mean age 57.8 years) of whom 52% were men., Results: Administration of 50 mg losartan (plus 12.5 hydrochlorothiazide if necessary) and of 5 mg amlodipine (or 10 mg if necessary) lowered the blood pressure as well as or better than did 50 mg losartan (or 100 mg if necessary). The incidence of 'any discomfort' and 'swollen ankles' increased with amlodipine but not with losartan treatment. The opposite was found for 'dizziness upon standing'. The incidence of drug-related adverse events and the number of patients withdrawn from therapy were higher with amlodipine than they were with losartan treatment. The PGWB index at week 12 indicated that improvements from baseline had occurred in some domains for the losartan groups whereas it remained unchanged for the amlodipine group., Conclusion: Both losartan and amlodipine were effective in lowering the blood pressure and were tolerated well. Administration of 50 mg losartan (plus 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide if necessary) and of 5 mg amlodipine (or 10 mg if necessary) lowered the blood pressure equally well or better than did 50 mg losartan (or 100 mg if necessary). Drug-related adverse effects and withdrawal from the study were more common for the amlodipine group. The clinical significance of the improvements in the PGWB index with losartan needs to be studied further.

Objective: To test whether the time of administration influences the therapeutic response to a calcium antagonist taken once a day. Also, the dynamics of drug compliance and its impact on blood pressure control were investigated., Design: Twenty outpatients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were included in a randomized, placebo-controlled open study. In a crossover design, all of the patients received 5 mg amlodipine, either in the morning or in the evening, during two consecutive 4-week treatment periods., Methods: Blood pressure was taken by casual measurement, ambulatory 24-h monitoring (SpaceLabs 90202) and self-measurement at home, performed with a semi-automatic oscillometric device during the whole study period. Compliance was assessed using the Medication-Event-Monitoring System (MEMS)., Results: Neither casual nor ambulatory day- or night-time readings detected a significant difference between morning and evening administration. However, self-measurement documented significantly greater blood pressure reductions for morning than for evening administration. The MEMS showed different compliance on the days of ambulatory monitoring (100% with both drug regimens) compared with the whole treatment period. The number of days with missed medication was thus significantly higher for the evening dosing regimen. The difference in self-measured blood pressure between the two regimens was lost if the days with missed medication were removed from the statistical analysis., Conclusions: Time of once-a-day amlodipine administration does not influence its efficacy for 24-h blood pressure control. Furthermore, the use of self-measurement and the MEMS may provide useful additional information on the pharmacodynamic impact of different dosing patterns in hypertensive patients.

Objective: To compare tolerance, antihypertensive efficacy and impact on quality of life of amlodipine and enalapril in patients with mild or moderate hypertension., Design: Multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, comparative trial in general practice. Three phases were conducted: 4 weeks on placebo, 12 weeks of dose adjustment (amlodipine or enalapril) and a 38-week maintenance period., Patients: Four hundred and sixty-one patients of both sexes were enrolled; 451 were available for efficacy evaluation at the end of the trial., Treatment: The patients were allocated to either amlodipine (231) or enalapril (230) treatment. If at the end of dose adjustment (amlodipine 5-10 mg/day, enalapril 10-40 mg/day) diastolic blood pressure was > or = 95 mmHg, hydrochlorothiazide (25-50 mg/day) was added (27 amlodipine patients and 45 enalapril patients)., Main Outcome Measures: Blood pressure changes after 1 year of treatment; between- and within-group changes in quality of life as assessed by psychological general well-being, social and sexual functioning, health-risk perception, alertness, behaviour, and impact of symptom and side effects., Results: Indices on quality of life were unchanged or increased (2-9%) in both groups. Blood pressure was normalized or reduced by > or = 10 mmHg in 204 (90%) and 190 (85%) patients on amlodipine and enalapril, respectively. Cough was the most frequently reported adverse event in the enalapril group (13%) and oedema in the amlodipine group (22%). Only eight (4%) patients on amlodipine and nine (4%) on enalapril were withdrawn because of drug-related adverse events., Conclusion: At similar blood pressure reduction in mild and moderate hypertension, quality of life is equally well maintained on amlodipine and enalapril therapy.