Search

Background: The prevalence of hypertension is on the rise, with approximately 200 million individuals affected by this condition in India. Epidemiological studies suggest that one in every three adults in India has hypertension. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) present a potential strategy to address the challenge of effective blood pressure control. They are now recommended for the initiation in most hypertensive patients by the guidelines. However, studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FDCs in large Indian populations with hypertension are few. Aim: The aim of this real-world study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination of telmisartan and amlodipine in managing hypertension in Indian patients. Materials and methods: This prospective, multicenter, observational, real-world evidence study is designed to enroll 10,000 eligible participants from 1,000 study sites across India. Adult patients with newly diagnosed or uncontrolled hypertension on monotherapy would be eligible for enrollment in the study. The study participants would be administered the study treatment per the treating physician's routine clinical practice and followed up after 8 weeks. The primary endpoint is to measure the change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline to week 8, while secondary endpoints include determining the percentage of patients who reach their blood pressure targets., description of demographic characteristics of the Indian hypertensive population, and reporting of safety outcomes. Conclusion: The TACT India study will provide longitudinal, real-world data on the effectiveness and safety of telmisartan and amlodipine FDC among a large cohort of the Indian population with hypertension., (© Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2024.)

Background: Single-pill combinations (SPCs) of three low-dose antihypertensive drugs can improve hypertension control but are not widely available. A key issue for any combination product is the contribution of each component to efficacy and tolerability. This trial compared a new triple SPC called GMRx2, containing telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide, with dual combinations of components for efficacy and safety., Methods: In this international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial, we enrolled adults with hypertension receiving between zero and three antihypertensive drugs, with a screening systolic blood pressure (SBP) ranging from 140-179 mm Hg (on no drugs) to 110-150 mm Hg (on three drugs). Participants were recruited from Australia, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Poland, Sri Lanka, the UK, and the USA. In a 4-week active run-in, existing medications were switched to GMRx2 half dose (telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2·5 mg, and indapamide 1·25 mg). Participants were then randomly allocated (2:1:1:1) to continued GMRx2 half dose or to each possible dual combination of components at half doses (telmisartan 20 mg with amlodipine 2·5 mg, telmisartan 20 mg with indapamide 1·25 mg, or amlodipine 2·5 mg with indapamide 1·25 mg). At week 6, doses were doubled in all groups, unless there was a clinical contraindication. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in home SBP from baseline to week 12, and the primary safety outcome was withdrawal of treatment due to an adverse event from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy outcomes included differences in clinic and home blood pressure levels and control rates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04518293, and is completed., Findings: The trial was conducted between July 9, 2021 and Sept 1, 2023. We randomly allocated 1385 participants to four groups: 551 to GMRx2, 276 to telmisartan-indapamide, 282 to telmisartan-amlodipine, and 276 to amlodipine-indapamide groups. The mean age was 59 years (SD 11), 712 (51%) participants self-reported as female and 673 (48·6%) male, and the mean clinic blood pressure at the screening visit was 142/85 mm Hg when taking an average of 1·6 blood pressure medications. Following the run-in on GMRx2 half dose, the mean clinic blood pressure level at randomisation was 133/81 mm Hg and the mean home blood pressure level was 129/78 mm Hg. At week 12, the mean home SBP was 126 mm Hg in the GMRx2 group, which was lower than for each of the dual combinations: -2·5 (95% CI -3·7 to -1·3, p<0·0001) versus telmisartan-indapamide, -5·4 (-6·8 to -4·1, p<0·0001) versus telmisartan-amlodipine, and -4·4 (-5·8 to -3·1, p<0·0001) versus amlodipine-indapamide. For the same comparisons, differences in clinic blood pressure at week 12 were 4·3/3·5 mm Hg, 5·6/3·7 mm Hg, and 6·3/4·5 mm Hg (all p<0·001). Clinic blood pressure control rate below 140/90 mm Hg at week 12 was superior with GMRx2 (74%) to with each dual combination (range 53-61%). Withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events occurred in 11 (2%) participants in the GMRx2 group, four (1%) in telmisartan-indapamide, three (1%) in telmisartan-amlodipine, and four (1%) in amlodipine-indapamide, with none of the differences being statistically significant., Interpretation: A novel low-dose SPC product of telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide provided clinically meaningful improvements in blood pressure reduction compared with dual combinations and was well tolerated. This SPC provides a new therapeutic option for the management of hypertension and its use could result in a substantial improvement in blood pressure control in clinical practice., Funding: George Medicines., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AR, AS, AES, CG, MS, XL, and NW are employed at The George Institute for Global Health (TGI), which holds an interest in George Medicines via its social enterprise arm, George Institute Ventures. None of the TGI staff has a personal financial interest in George Medicines. AR is seconded part-time to George Medicines. TGI holds patents for ultra-low-dose, fixed-dose combination products for the treatment of hypertension and diabetes, and AR is listed as one of the inventors (granted: US 10 369 156, US 10 799 487, US 10 322 117, US 11 033 544, US 11 478 462; pending: US 17/932 982, US 18/446 268, US 17/598 122, US 17/317 614, US 17/527 084, US 17/527 085, US 17/527 087). AR does not have a financial interest in these patents. None of the other authors has a financial interest in George Medicines or has received funding for their independent contribution to the GMRx2 programme. AR reports consulting fees as a data and safety monitoring board member for Idorsia; and a fellowship grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (GNT 1160743). AES reports consulting fees or speaker honoraria from OMRON Healthcare, Aktiia, Medtronic, Servier, Abbott, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Skylabs; being co-chair of the National Hypertension Taskforce Australia; being a board member for Hypertension Australia and the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance; and an investigator grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (GNT 2017504). DBO reports speaker honoraria from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Servier, Swipha, and Boehringer Ingelheim for speaking at educational meetings. KN reports speaker and consulting honoraria from Bausch Health, Berlin-Chemie/Menarini, Egis, Idorsia, Janssen, Gedeon Richter, Gilead, Krka, Novo Nordisk, Polpharma, Recordati, Sandoz, and Servier; and honoraria from or participation on advisory boards for Polpharma and Zentiva. MPS reports consulting fees or travel and research support from Medtronic, Abbott, Recor, Novartis, Servier, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and being current President of Hypertension Australia and Treasurer of the World Hypertension League. WCC reports institutional grants from Recor and George Medicines; and consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals. NRP reports consultancy fees from Servier and Aktiia; support for research projects and staff from Servier and Pfizer; support for arranging and speaking at educational meetings from AstraZeneca, LRI-Therapharma, Napi, Servier, Sanofi, EVA Pharma, Pfizer, Emcure, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, and Zydus; and support by the National Institute for Health Research Senior Investigator Awards, Biomedical Research Centre funding, and the British Heart Foundation Research Centre Excellence Award. DEG reports funding to his department as part of the EU Horizon Hypermarker project. BW reports trial steering committee appointments for Novartis and AstraZeneca; lecture fees for Servier and Novartis; and an unremunerated role as President of the International Society of Hypertension. JTW reports institutional grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; travel support and participation on an advisory board for Medtronic; being chair of the data safety monitoring board for the IMPACTS MIND Trial at Tulane University; and being on the Northeast Ohio Neighbourhood Health Center Community Board of Directors. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Effective antihypertensive therapy is essential for achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control and reducing cardiovascular events. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial aimed to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of a combination of amlodipine (AML) and candesartan cilexetil (CC) versus AML monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension (HTN). After a 4-week run-in period with AML 5 mg, patients whose HTN remained uncontrolled (diastolic BP [DBP]) ≥ 90 mmHg and < 120 mmHg) were randomized to receive either AML + CC or AML alone for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by measuring changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP). The primary safety measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A total of 174 participants were included in the efficacy analysis. After 8 weeks, DBP decreased by -9.92 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML + CC arm and - 2.08 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML arm (p < 0.0001). SBP decreased by -14.27 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML + CC arm versus - 2.77 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML arm (p < 0.0001). AEs occurred in 11.24% of the AML + CC group and 5.62% of the AML group (p = 0.1773). AML + CC combination therapy demonstrated superior efficacy with good tolerance, making it a promising option for patients with inadequately controlled hypertension on amlodipine alone., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: With the high burden of hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa, there is a need for effective, safe and scalable treatment strategies., Objective: To compare, among Black African adults, the effectiveness and safety of a novel low-dose triple-pill protocol compared with a standard-care protocol for blood pressure lowering., Design and Setting: Randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter trial conducted in public hospital-based family medicine clinics in Nigeria., Participants: Black African adults with uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg) who were untreated or receiving a single blood pressure-lowering drug., Interventions: Participants were randomly allocated to low-dose triple-pill or standard-care protocols. The triple-pill protocol involved a novel combination of telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide in triple one-quarter, one-half, and standard doses (ie, 10/1.25/0.625 mg, 20/2.5/1.25 mg, and 40/5/2.5 mg), with accelerated up-titration. The standard-care protocol was the Nigeria hypertension treatment protocol starting with amlodipine (5 mg)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness outcome was the reduction in home mean systolic blood pressure, and the primary safety outcome was discontinuation of trial treatment due to adverse events, both from randomization to month 6., Results: The first participant was randomized on July 19, 2022, and the last follow-up visit was on July 18, 2024. Among 300 randomized participants (54% female; mean age, 52 years; baseline mean home blood pressure, 151/97 mm Hg; and clinic blood pressure, 156/97 mm Hg), 273 (91%) completed the trial. At month 6, mean home systolic blood pressure was on average 31 mm Hg (95% CI, 28 to 33 mm Hg) lower in the triple-pill protocol group and 26 mm Hg (95% CI, 22 to 28 mm Hg) lower in the standard-care protocol group (adjusted difference, -5.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -8.0 to -3.6]; P < .001]). At month 6, clinic blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg) was 82% vs 72% (risk difference, 10% [95% CI, -2% to 20%]) and home blood pressure control (<130/80 mm Hg) was 62% vs 28% (risk difference, 33% [95% CI, 22% to 44%]) in the triple-pill compared with the standard-care protocol group; these were 2 of 21 prespecified secondary effectiveness end points. No participants discontinued trial treatment due to adverse events., Conclusions and Relevance: Among Black African adults with uncontrolled hypertension, a low-dose triple-pill protocol achieved better blood pressure lowering and control with good tolerability compared with the standard-care protocol., Trial Registration: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: PACTR202107579572114.

Background: Acute declines in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) occur commonly after starting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Whether declines in eGFR that occur after simultaneously starting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with other antihypertensive agents modifies the benefits of these agents on cardiovascular outcomes is unclear., Methods and Results: We identified predictors of acute declines in eGFR (>15% over 3 months) during randomization to benazepril plus amlodipine versus benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial. We then determined the relation between declines in eGFR (treated as a binary variable, ≤15% versus >15% and separately, as a restricted spline variable) and the composite risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events using Cox proportional hazards models. We included 10 714 participants (median age 68 years [Q1 63, Q3 73]), of whom 1024 reached the trial end point over median follow-up of 2.8 years. Predictors of acute declines in eGFR>15% over 3 months included assignment to hydrochlorothiazide (versus amlodipine) and higher baseline albuminuria. Overall, declines in eGFR ≥15% (versus <15%) were associated with a 26% higher hazard of cardiovascular outcomes (95% CI, 1.07-1.48). In spline-based analysis, risk for cardiovascular outcomes was higher in the hydrochlorothiazide arm at every level of decline in eGFR compared with the same magnitude of eGFR decline in the amlodipine arm., Conclusion: Combined use of benazepril and amlodipine remains superior to benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide for cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of the magnitude of the decline in eGFR that occurred with initiation of therapy.

Objective: Several guidelines do not recommend beta-blocker as the first-line treatment for hypertension because of its inferior efficacy in stroke prevention. Combination therapy with beta-blocker is commonly used for blood pressure control. We compared the clinical outcomes in patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol (A + B), a ß1-selective beta-blocker and amlodipine plus valsartan (A + V)., Methods: A population-based cohort study was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 2012 to 2019, newly diagnosed adult hypertensive patients who received initial amlodipine monotherapy and then switched to A + V or A + B were included. The efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and coronary revascularization), hemorrhagic stroke, and heart failure. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between outcomes and different treatments., Results: Overall, 4311 patients in A + B group and 10980 patients in A + V group were included. After a mean follow-up of 4.34 ± 1.79 years, the efficacy outcomes were similar between the A + V and A + B groups regarding all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.18), ASCVD event (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.12), and heart failure (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87-1.30). The risk of hemorrhagic stroke was lower in A + B group (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94). The result was similar when taking death into consideration in competing risk analysis. The safety outcomes were similar between the 2 groups., Conclusions: There was no difference of all-cause death, ASCVD event, and heart failure in A + B vs. A + V users. But A + B users had a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

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.)

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 (n = 32 intervention, n = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (-4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: -10.8, 1.3, p = 0.123] and a -4.9 mmHg (95% CI: -8.6, -1.3, p = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and treatment with fixed-dose combination (FDC) regimens is recommended by current guidelines. However, the clinical outcomes of different FDC dosages remain unknown. This study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of FDC regimens and the free combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin at different dosages., Methods and Results: Patients with concurrent hypertension and hypercholesterolemia treated daily with an FDC of 5 mg amlodipine and 10 mg atorvastatin (5/10 fixed group), and FDC of 5 mg amlodipine and 20 mg atorvastatin (5/20 fixed group), or free combination of 5 mg amlodipine and 20 mg atorvastatin (5/20 free group) were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary intervention. A total of 9095 patients were eligible for inclusion. The incidence of primary outcome per 1000 person-years was 16.6 in the 5/10 fixed group, 12.6 in the 5/20 fixed group, and 16.5 in the 5/20 free group (5/20 fixed versus 5/20 free: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64-0.91]; 5/20 fixed versus 5/10 fixed: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90])., Conclusions: Among patients with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, treatment with an FDC of amlodipine and high-dose atorvastatin led to a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes than treatment with the free combination or a similar FDC with a lower dose of atorvastatin.

This case report describes a rare manifestation of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) involving all four extremities, precipitated by angio-oedema in a middle-aged woman who consumed an overdose of multiple medications: nifedipine, azelnidipine, amlodipine besylate, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, esaxerenone and vildagliptin. She presented with haemodynamic instability, necessitating intubation. Despite stabilising haemodynamic parameters within 24 hours, she manifested escalating extremity oedema. At 52 hours after ingestion, mottled skin was observed, along with necrotic alterations in the swollen hands and compartment pressures exceeding 30 mm Hg in all extremities. ACS was diagnosed, leading to fasciotomies. The aetiology is postulated to be drug-induced angio-oedema, possibly intensified by the concurrent overdose of olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin, each of which has a risk of angio-oedema even at standard dosages. This scenario is a very rare case caused by drug-induced angio-oedema, which underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring to detect ACS in patients with progressing limb oedema., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Little evidence exists about the comparative effects of first-line antihypertensive medications (i.e., renin-angiotensin-aldosterone converting enzyme inhibitors (RAASi), amlodipine, or thiazide diuretics) in older adults with limited life expectancy. We compared the rates of injurious falls and short-term cardiovascular events between different first-line antihypertensive medication classes in adults receiving care in nursing homes (NH)., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries receiving care in NHs. Patients newly dispensed first-line antihypertensive medications were identified using Part D claims (2015-2018) and linked with clinical assessments (i.e., Minimum Data Set). Fall-related injuries (FRI), hip fractures, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) outcomes were identified using hospitalization claims. Patients were followed from the date of antihypertensive dispensing until the occurrence of outcomes, death, disenrollment, or 6-month follow-up. Inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted (IPTW) cause-specific hazards regression models were used to compare outcomes between patients who were new users of RAASi, amlodipine, or thiazides., Results: Our cohort included 16,504 antihypertensive users (RAASi, n = 9574; amlodipine, n = 5049; thiazide, n = 1881). Mean age was 83.5 years (± 8.2), 70.6% were female, and 17.2% were non-white race. During a mean follow-up of 5.3 months, 326 patients (2.0%) experienced an injurious fall, 1590 (9.6%) experienced MACE, and 2123 patients (12.9%) died. The intention-to-treat IPTW hazard ratio (HR) for injurious falls for amlodipine (vs RAASi) use was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.08) and for thiazides (vs RAASi) was 1.22 (95% CI 0.88-1.66). The rates of MACE were similar between those taking anti-hypertensive medications. Thiazides were discontinued more often than other classes; however, inferences were largely unchanged in as-treated analyses. Subgroup analyses were generally consistent., Conclusions: Older adults with limited life expectancy experience similar rates of injurious falls and short-term cardiovascular events after initiating any of the first-line antihypertensive medications., (© 2023 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Combined antihypertensive therapy has obvious advantages over single drug therapy. Hypertension guidelines fully affirm the efficacy of dual combination in initial antihypertensive therapy. Recent studies have also pointed out that the quadruple combination of very low-dose antihypertensive drugs is superior to single drugs. However, whether low-dose quadruple therapy is better than dual combination is unknown., Methods/design: A randomized double-blind crossover clinical trial will be conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose quadruple antihypertensives (irbesartan 75 mg + metoprolol 23.75 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg) with standard-dose dual antihypertensives (irbesartan 150 mg + amlodipine 5 mg) in the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension (140-179/90-109 mmHg). Ninety patients are required and will be recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two crossover groups. Two groups will receive a different combination therapy for 4 weeks, then switch to the other combination therapy for 4 weeks, with a 2-week wash-out. Antihypertensive effects and related adverse effects of the two antihypertensive combination treatments will be compared. The primary outcome, i.e., mean 24-h systolic blood pressure in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, will be assessed via linear mixed-effects model., Discussion: This statistical analysis plan will be confirmed prior to blind review and data lock before un-blinding and is sought to increase the validity of the QUADUAL trial., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05377203. Registered May 11, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05377203 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: "Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan"., Material and Methods: Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up., Discussion: Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%)., Conclusion: To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time., (Copyright © 2024 SEH-LELHA. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

There lacks real-world study with a large sample size assessing olmesartan medoxomil-amlodipine besylate (OM-AML) tablet. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OM-AML tablet in patients with essential hypertension. Totally, 1341 patients from 36 medical centers with essential hypertension who took OM-AML (20/5 mg) tablet were analyzed in the current prospective, single-arm, multi-center, real-world study (SVK study). Seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) and seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at baseline, week (W)4 and W8 were measured. The mean (±SE) change of SeSBP/SeDBP was -10.8 ± 0.4/-6.6 ± 0.3 mmHg at W4 and -12.7 ± 0.5/-7.6 ± 0.3 mmHg at W8, respectively. At W4, 78.8% and 29.0% patients achieved BP target by China and American Heart Association (AHA) criteria; at W8, 84.7% and 36.5% patients reached blood pressure (BP) target by China and AHA criteria, accordingly. Meanwhile, 80.2% and 86.4% patients achieved BP response at W4 and W8, respectively. Home-measured SeSBP and SeDBP decreased from W1 to W8 (both p < .001). Besides, patients' and physicians' satisfaction were elevated at W8 compared with W0 (both p < .001). The medication possession rate was 94.8% from baseline to W4 and 91.3% from baseline to W8. The most common drug-related adverse events were nervous system disorders (4.6%), vascular disorders (2.6%), and general disorders and administration site conditions (2.3%) by system organ class, which were generally mild and manageable. In conclusion, OM-AML tablet is one of the best antihypertensive agents in patients with essential hypertension., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

De novo - or as a continuum of antenatal hypertension -postpartum hypertension complicates ~2% of pregnancies. Many maternal complications, such as eclampsia and cerebrovascular accidents, occur in the postpartum period. Despite widespread use of antihypertensives during pregnancy and childbirth, there is a paucity of data on preferred medications in the postpartum period. This randomized controlled study enrolled 130 women who were started on antihypertensives. They were randomized to receive oral Labetalol(LAB, maximum 900 mg per day in three doses) or oral Amlodipine(AML, maximum 10 mg per day given in two doses). In the immediate postpartum, all women were closely monitored for neurological symptoms, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, urine output, and deep tendon reflex. The primary outcome was the time to achieve sustained blood pressure control for 12 h from the initiation of medication; secondary outcomes included side effects of both medications. Mean time to achieve sustained blood pressure control was lower in women who received AML than in those who received LAB-(mean difference 7.2 h; 38 95% CI 1.4, 12.9, p = 0.011). There were fewer severe hypertensive episodes among those with AML than in those who received LAB. However, the proportion of women who continued to require antihypertensives at discharge was higher in the AML group than in the LAB group (55.4% versus 32.3%, p = 0.008). None of the participants developed drug-related side effects. Among women with postpartum persistence or new-onset hypertension, oral AML achieved sustained blood pressure control in a shorter duration, with fewer hypertensive emergencies than oral LAB. (CTRI/2020/02/023236).Trial Registration details: The study protocol was registered with Clinical Trial Registry of India with CTRI Number CTRI/2020/02/023236 dated 11.02.2020. Protocol can be accessed at https://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf&#95;generate.php?trialid=40435&EncHid=&modid=&compid=%27,%2740435det%27 ., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Introduction: Patients with hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors pose a challenge by requiring more intensive blood pressure (BP) control. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy can benefit these patients by improving medication adherence., Methods: This prospective, multicenter observational study assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of an SPC containing olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide (O/A/H) in South Korean patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. BP control rates, defined as the percentage of patients achieving systolic BP (SBP) < 130 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) < 80 mmHg for intensive BP control, and < 140 mmHg and < 90 mmHg, respectively, for standard BP control, were investigated across various cardiovascular risk groups, along with changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to week 24., Results: The most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor was age (≥ 45 years in men, ≥ 55 years in women, 86.1%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (64.4%), dyslipidemia (53.7%), body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m 2 (53.5%), and diabetes mellitus (DM) (46.3%). Switching to O/A/H showed significant BP reduction, with a mean change of - 17.8 mmHg/- 9.3 mmHg in SBP/DBP within 4 weeks. The intensive BP control rate was 41.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.5, 43.4), and the standard BP control rate was 73.3% (95% CI 71.5, 75.1), with better control rates in the risk age group (43.1% and 74.1%, respectively) and cardiovascular disease group (42.0% and 73.8%, respectively). The DM group had relatively lower control rates (37.5% for intensive control and 69.4% for standard control). Common adverse drug reactions included dizziness (2.91%), hypotension (1.51%), and headaches (0.70%)., Conclusion: The SPC therapy of O/A/H caused a rapid and sustained reduction in SBP/DBP in patients' hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors. The therapy was safe and well tolerated., Study Registration Number: KCT0003401 ( https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/20795 )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Allisartan isoproxil is a selective nonpeptide angiotensin II (AT1) receptor blocker developed by China, this study aimed to assess its clinical efficacy for essential hypertension (EH)., Methods: Patients with mild-to-moderate EH, selected at 44 sites in China from September 9, 2016, to December 7, 2018, were administered 240 mg allisartan isoproxil daily for 4 weeks. Patients with controlled blood pressure (BP) continued monotherapy for 8 weeks, others were randomly assigned (1:1) to A + D group (allisartan isoproxil 240 mg + indapamide 1.5 mg) or A + C group (allisartan isoproxil + amlodipine besylate 5 mg) for 8 weeks. BP were measured at week 4, 8 and 12., Results: 2,126 patients were included in the analysis. After 12 weeks of treatment, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased by 19.24 ± 12.02 and 10.63 ± 8.89 mm Hg, respectively, and the overall BP control rate was 78.56%. The sitting blood pressures (SBP/DBP) decreased by 19.12 ± 11.71/10.84 ± 8.73 mm Hg in patients with 12 weeks allisartan isoproxil monotherapy (both P < 0.0001). The BP reductions and control rates were comparable between A + D and A + C groups. 48 patients with monotherapy-controlled BP underwent ambulatory BP monitoring, with a mean decrease in ambulatory BP of 10.04 ± 10.87/5.50 ± 8.07 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment, and consistent reductions between day and night. SBP and DBP had trough-to-peak ratios of 64.64% and 62.63% and smoothness indices of 3.82 and 2.92, respectively., Conclusions: An allisartan isoproxil-based antihypertensive regimen can effectively control BP in patients with mild-to-moderate EH., Project Registration No: CTR20160138 (Registration and Information Disclosure Platform for China Drug Clinical Studies, http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html)., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Azelnidipine is one of the newer Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) approved in China, Japan, and India. Some studies have found that the blood pressure-lowering effect of azelnidipine is more than amlodipine, and others found the effect similar., Aim: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of azelnidipine in managing hypertensive patients by lowering Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), and Heart Rate (HR) as compared to amlodipine., Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, PROQUEST, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for published articles to evaluate the clinical efficacy of azelnidipine in the management of hypertension patients. Data were extracted from the selected 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for the quality assessment of the included studies, and the random-effects model was used to estimate the effect size., Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the reduction of SBP (Mean Difference, MD: - 1.07; 95% CI: - 4.10, 1.95, p-value: 0.49) and DBP (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: - 2.66, 3.20, p-value: 0.86) between both the drugs. In terms of HR reduction, there was a statistically significant difference (MD: - 3.63; 95% CI: - 5.27, - 2.00, p-value: < 0.0001) between both drugs. Egger's test excluded any publication bias for the included studies (p = 0.21). Meta-regression excluded the effect of the duration of treatment on outcome parameters., Conclusion: Though no significant difference between azelnidipine and amlodipine was found, in terms of reduction in SBP and DBP, azelnidipine reduced heart rate significantly compared to amlodipine., Prospero Registration: CRD42023390361., (© 2023. Italian Society of Hypertension.)

Hypertension is the leading cause of death worldwide, affecting 1.4 billion people. Treatment options include the widely used calcium channel blockers, among which amlodipine, a dihydropyridine, has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other drugs within this class. This review aims to provide an updated overview of the evidence supporting the use of amlodipine over the past 30 years and highlights its cardiovascular benefits in current hypertension management. Amlodipine has low renal clearance (7 mL/min/mg) and long half-life (35-50 h) and duration of action, which allows it to sustain its anti-hypertensive effect for more than 24 h following a single dose. Additionally, blood pressure (BP) control is maintained even when a dose has been missed, providing continuous protection in case of incidental noncompliance. It has proven to reduce BP variability and successfully lower BP. Amlodipine also controls BP in patients with a systolic/diastolic BP of 130/80 mm Hg or higher, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease without worsening glycemic or kidney function. Additionally, amlodipine is a wise choice for older adults due to its ability to control BP and protect against stroke and myocardial infarction. Side effects of amlodipine include edema, palpitations, dizziness, and flushing, which are more common with the higher dose of 10 mg. Amlodipine is cost effective and predicted to be cost saving when compared with usual care., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and characteristics of patients who respond well to standard dose triple combination therapy including chlorthalidone 25 mg with telmisartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg in hypertensive patients. This is a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, randomized trial. Patients are randomized to triple combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 12.5 mg, TEL/AML/CHTD group) or dual combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, TEL/AML group) treatment and then dose up titration to TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg and TEL80/AML5, respectively. The primary endpoint is the change of mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) at week 8. A Target BP achievement rate, a response rate, and the safety endpoints are also evaluated. Total 374 patients (mean age = 60.9 ± 10.7 years, male = 78.3%) were randomized to the study. The baseline MSSBPs/diastolic BPs were 149.9 ± 12.2/88.5 ± 10.4 mm Hg. After 8 weeks treatment, the change of MSSBPs at week 8 are -19.1 ± 14.9 mm Hg (TEL/AML/CHTD) and -11.4 ± 14.7 mm Hg (TEL/AML) (p < .0001). The achievement rates of target BP (53.8% vs. 37.8%, p = .0017) and responder rate (54.8% vs. 35.6%, p = .0001) at week 8 were significantly higher in TEL/AML/CHTD. There are no serious adverse event and no one discontinued medication due to adverse event. Among the TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg treatment group, patients of female or age ≥ 65 years old showed higher rate of target BP achievement than relatively young male. (61.4 vs. 46.8%, p = .042) Our study showed standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg is efficacious and safe in treatment of primary hypertension. Target BP achievement with triple therapy would be facilitated in female or old age., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207)., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Hyperhomocysteinemia with hypertension can synergistically increase the risk of stroke. The China stroke primary prevention trial showed that combining 0.8 mg folic acid (FA) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) can effectively lower plasma total homocysteine (tHcy) and blood pressure (BP); and reduce first stroke risk by additional 21% compared to ACEI alone. However, intolerance to ACEI is common in Asians and amlodipine can be alternative. This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial (RCT) which evaluated whether amlodipine combined with FA is more efficacious than amlodipine alone in lowering tHcy and BP among Chinese hypertensive with hyperhomocysteinemia and intolerance to ACEI. 351 Eligible patients were randomly assigned by 1:1:1 ratio to receive amlodipine-FA tablet daily (amlodipine 5 mg/FA 0.4 mg, A group); amlodipine 5 mg/FA 0.8 mg tablet daily (B group); amlodipine 5 mg daily (C group, control group). Follow-up was conducted at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was efficacy of lowering both tHcy and BP at the end of 8-week treatment. Compared with C group, A group had a significantly higher rate of lowering both tHcy and BP (23.3% vs. 6.0%; Odds Ratio [OR], 8.68; 95% CI, 3.04-24.78, P < .001); B group also had a higher rate of lowering both tHcy and BP (20.3% vs. 6.0%; OR: 5.90; 95% CI, 2.11-16.47, P < .001). This RCT showed amlodipine combined with FA compared with amlodipine alone, each had significantly higher efficacy of lowering both tHcy and BP. No difference was found in BP-lowering and occurrence of adverse events between the three groups., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: To evaluate the antihypertensive effect and safety of bisoprolol 5 mg (BISO5mg) and amlodipine 5 mg (AMLO5mg) combination in comparison to AMLO5mg in hypertensive subjects uncontrolled with AMLO5mg., Methods: Phase III, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial with parallel design (EudraCT Number: 2019-000751-13)., Results: 367 patients aged 57.58 ± 14.62 years were randomized to BISO5mg once daily on top of AMLO5mg ( n  = 181) or placebo on top of AMLO5mg ( n  = 186). Systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) in the bisoprolol-treated group was reduced by 7.2 ± 12.74/3.95 ± 8.85 mmHg at 4 weeks (both p  < .0001) and by 5.5 ± 12.44/3.84 ± 9.46 mmHg at 8 weeks ( p  < .0001/ p  < .0002) compared to placebo control. Bisoprolol-treated group had lower heart rate than placebo control (difference -7.23 ± 9.84/-6.25 ± 9.26 beats per minute at 4 and 8 weeks, respectively, both p  < .0001). Both target SBP and DBP was achieved at 4 weeks by 62 vs. 41% ( p  = .0002) and at 8 weeks by 65 vs. 46% ( p  = .0004) of bisoprolol-treated patients and placebo group patients, respectively. SBP <140 mmHg was achieved at 4 and 8 weeks in 68 and 69% of bisoprolol-treated patients and 45 and 50% of placebo group patients, respectively. No deaths and serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events occurred in 34 bisoprolol-treated patients vs. 22 patients in the placebo group ( p  = .064). Bisoprolol was withdrawn due to adverse events in 7 patients, mostly ( n  = 4) due to asymptomatic bradycardia., Conclusions: Addition of bisoprolol to patients uncontrolled with amlodipine monotherapy significantly improves blood pressure control. We can expect additional 7.2/3.95 mmHg SBP/DBP lowering effect by adding bisoprolol 5 mg to amlodipine 5 mg.

Background: Few data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination (SPC) consisting of four medications in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia., Objective: We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose SPC consisting of 5 mg amlodipine, 100 mg losartan, 20 mg rosuvastatin, and 10 mg ezetimibe (A/L/R/E) in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia., Methods: This was a 14-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial. In total, 145 patients were randomized to receive A/L/R/E, A/L, or L/R/E. The primary endpoints were the average change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level in the A/L/R/E and A/L groups and the sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) in the A/L/R/E and L/R/E groups. The numbers of patients with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were compared as safety variables., Results: The average percentage change in the LDL-C level as the least squares mean (LSM) from the baseline LDL-C level at the end of the 8-week treatment was - 59.0% in the A/L/R/E group and 0.2% in the A/L group (LSM difference - 59.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 68.1 to - 50.4; p < 0.0001). The average change in the sitSBP as the LSM was - 15.8 mmHg in the A/L/R/E group and -4.7 mmHg in the L/R/E group (LSM difference - 11.1, 95% CI - 16.8 to - 5.4; p = 0.0002). No ADRs occurred in the A/L/R/E group., Conclusions: A/L/R/E as an SPC could be an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia without significant safety issues., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04074551 (registered 30 August 2019)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The brain is among the target organs of hypertension. Patients with hypertension have a higher risk of developing stroke as well as experiencing a decline in cognitive functions and dementia. Changes in the white matter and atrophy of the grey matter of the brain induced by high blood pressure develop insidiously since the onset of hypertension, even in young individuals. The effect of high blood pressure on the vessel wall cumulates in time; therefore, hypertension in younger people implies an increased risk of dementia in older age. Hypertension in young age cannot be considered a benign condition. Hypertension in middle age increases the risk of dementia by 61 %. Consistent and early hypertension control can reverse the adverse development towards dementia and lack of self-sufficiency in the patient. Data comparing individual antihypertensive drugs in terms of preventing dementia are scarce. However, renin angiotensin system blockers have been found to protect against Alzheimer's disease more than other classes of antihypertensive drugs. To achieve rapid and effective hypertension control, a combination of antihypertensive drugs is usually required. Using a fixed-dose triple combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine, blood pressure targets of &lt; 130/80 mm Hg can be achieved within three months in 93 % of patients.

Purpose: Oral administration of 5-aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride (5-ALA-HCl) has been reported to enhance the hypotensive effects associated with anesthetics, especially in elderly hypertensive patients treated with antihypertensive agents. The present study aimed to clarify the effects of antihypertensive-agent- and anesthesia-induced hypotension by 5-ALA-HCl in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs)., Methods: We measured blood pressure (BP) of SHRs and normotensive Wistar Kyoto (WKY) rats treated with amlodipine or candesartan before and after administration of 5-ALA-HCl. We also investigated the change in BP following intravenous infusion of propofol and intrathecal injection of bupivacaine in relation to 5-ALA-HCl administration., Findings: Oral administration of 5-ALA-HCl significantly reduced BP in SHRs and WKY rats with amlodipine and candesartan. Infusion of propofol significantly reduced BP in SHRs treated with 5-ALA-HCl. Intrathecal injection of bupivacaine significantly declined SBP and DBP in both SHRs and WKY rats treated with 5-ALA-HCl. The bupivacaine-induced decline in SBP was significantly larger in SHRs compared with WKY rats., Conclusion: These findings suggest that 5-ALA-HCl does not affect the antihypertensive agents-induced hypotensive effect, but enhances the bupivacaine-induced hypotensive effect, especially in SHRs, indicating that 5-ALA may contribute to anesthesia-induced hypotension via suppression of sympathetic nerve activity in patients with hypertension., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest M.A., N.F., and M.K. signed a joint research agreement with SBI Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. relevant to this article. H.I., T.H., N.O., and M.I. are employees of SBI Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

To observe the effect of amlodipine besylate combined with metoprolol in treating hypertension and heart failure. Total number of patients with hypertension combined with HF admitted to our hospital was One hundred and fifty from May 2017 to May 2022 selected for the study and they were distributed into single drug group and combination group by the method of random number table, with the total number of 75 cases in every group. Metoprolol treatment was given to the single drug group and metoprolol combined with amlodipine besylate treatment was given to the combination group. Both groups' scientific outcomes were compared, including their ventricular function, inflammatory factors, hemodynamics and liver and kidney function. Adverse treatment-related side events for patients were also tallied. Compared to the single drug group, the combination group's overall treatment effectiveness was higher (P<0.05). The combined group had better ventricular function, improved hemodynamics and lower levels of inflammatory factors (P<0.05). The liver, kidney function and adverse effects outcomes were the same in both groups (P>0.05). Amlodipine besylate combined with metoprolol has a better clinical effect in treating hypertension combined with heart failure, which can more effectively improve patients' cardiac function, inflammation and hemodynamics.

Pedal oedema is a well-known adverse effect of amlodipine, but significantly less frequent if only half of the maximum recommended dosage is used. Diuretics are ineffective. To cause as few side effects as possible, options for managing are prioritised in this review: Reduce dosage, switch to lercanidipine/lacidipine, switch to another group, add/increase dosage of an ACE-inhibitor/angiotensin II-receptor blocker, administer at night, or switch to verapamil/diltiazem. Non-pharmacologic actions or observation may be considered when the oedemas are mild and not bothersome.

Background and Objectives : Blood pressure measurement is essential evidence to establish that the chosen medicine and dosage are appropriate, and also indirectly indicates whether the medicine is being used at all. Therefore, current research compares adherence to the target blood pressure at home and in the hospital between different age groups, using similar combinations of the drugs prescribed by the doctor within ongoing antihypertensive therapy. Moreover, it is very important to develop a method for the determination of amlodipine and its metabolite, which would suitable for clinical applications, when the result is needed as quick as possible. Materials and Methods : This prospective study included patients aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with hypertension. Subjects were divided into two age groups according to European Society of Cardiology (ESC) hypertension guidelines; older patients (≥65 years) and adult patients (<65 years). Assessment of adherence rate to antihypertensive medications was performed using a measurement of systolic blood pressure and comparing this to ESC hypertension guideline data. A simple liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS) method for determination of amlodipine and dehydroamlodipine was developed and validated according to the European Medicines Agency guideline on bioanalytical method validation at the Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis. Results : A total of 81 patients with arterial hypertension were enrolled in this study. A significant number of patients were overweight (N = 33, 40.7%) and obese (N = 36, 44.4%). To control arterial hypertension, 70 (86.4%) patients used fixed-dose combinations, where one of the components was amlodipine. Practically, 36 (44.4%) hypertensive subjects were not able to comply with target blood pressure. Nonetheless, 38 (46.9%) patients who received fixed-dose combinations were able to comply with target blood pressure. Conclusions : Adherence to ESC hypertension guideline proposed target blood pressure was relatively low among hypertensive subjects even though a significant number of patients were taking fixed-dose combinations. Therefore, optimizing prevention, recognition, and care of hypertensive young adults require intensive educational interventions. Moreover, survey data suggest that therapeutic drug monitoring using the validated simple, sensitive LC-MS/MS method is pivotal for further understanding factors influencing adherence.

Objective: A significant global health issue that affects 25.5% of Saudi people is hypertension (HTN). According to international recommendations, most HTN patients require more than one therapy to reach their blood pressure targets (BP). Therefore, it would be preferable to utilize two medications from distinct classes separately or in a predetermined combination. According to recent studies, a single-pill combination (SPC) may be more efficient. This study evaluated the safety and tolerability of Amlodipine/Valsartan (Aml/Val) SPC in Saudi hypertensive patients, as well as the effectiveness of the medication., Patients and Methods: Observational research was done prospectively at the King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The effectiveness of the treatment and the percentage of 159 hypertensive patients who achieved the target blood pressure values (140/90; 130/80 mmHg) among those with diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), other cardiovascular disorders, and responders were assessed from the beginning to the endpoint (week 23)., Results: According to the results, taking Aml/Val SPC significantly lowered all patients' baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings by -17.97 and 8.58 mmHg, respectively. 43.4% of patients successfully met their BP therapeutic objectives by bringing their blood pressure levels back to normal, including 51.4% of patients under 65, 39.3% of patients with chronic kidney disease, and 26.2% of diabetic patients. Aml/Val 10/160 mg significantly lowers SBP, more than Aml/Val 5/160 mg (-13.32% vs. -9.00%, p<0.050). Vertigo (6.30%), respiratory tract infections (4.0%), and ankle edema (2.50%) were the most frequent adverse events., Conclusions: Aml/Val SPC therapy effectively lowered BP and had few side effects while being well-tolerated in people with hypertension.

Background: There is a lack of sufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of amlodipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy., Objective: To compare antihypertensive efficacy, pregnancy outcome and safety of amlodipine with nifedipine on hypertension during pregnancy., Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and China Biology Medicine disc of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April l5, 2021 was conducted on RCTs comparing amlodipine to nifedipine for the treatment of hypertension during pregnancy. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two independent reviewers. To estimate relative effects from all available evidence, a meta-analysis was conducted., Results: Seventeen RCTs were included. Amlodipine was found the efficacy is slightly superior to nifedipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10) with a decreased risk for maternal side effects (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61). Subgroup analysis found amlodipine can get a better control on SBP (RR - 11.68, 95% CI - 17.98 to - 5.37) and DBP (RR - 7.44, 95% CI - 13.81 to - 1.06) compared with intermediate-/long-acting nifedipine. In addition, there was no difference between amlodipine and nifedipine on pregnancy outcomes including caesarean section, premature labour, placental abruption, FGR, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia., Conclusions: Given the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis, amlodipine can be effectively and safely used for hypertension during pregnancy., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Cilnidipine, an upcoming anti-hypertensive drug, is a combined L- and N-type calcium channel blocker. It is proposed to be more efficacious and safer due to its two-pronged approach in treating hypertension., Methods: The study was a randomized open-label parallel-group study, conducted in the Department of General Medicine, Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital, Chennai, during the period September 2014 to May 2015. 50 patients were randomized to the amlodipine group and 50 to the cilnidipine group. The blood pressure, pulse rate and adverse effects were monitored in each patient over 12 weeks. The difference in the Systolic Blood Pressure(SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure(DBP) and Heart Rate(HR) before and after treatment within each group, and between the two groups were analyzed using paired and unpaired t tests respectively. The adverse effects reported in each group were analyzed using Chi-square test., Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the reduction of SBP and DBP between the two groups (p&gt;0.05). The HR however, showed an increase of 1.07/min in the amlodipine group and decreased by 1.16/min in the cilnidipine group. The patients in the cilnidipine group experienced significantly less adverse effects such as pedal edema and palpitations when compared to those in the amlodipine group (p&lt;0.05)., Conclusions: Cilnidipine therapy is an effective and safe alternative in the treatment of essential hypertension. It can be used as a first line antihypertensive drug since its efficacy is comparable to that of amlodipine with a better safety profile than amlodipine., (© Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2011.)

Introduction: Hypertension represent the commonest cause of death in 2017. Hypertension is classified into two types which are primary or essential hypertension and secondary hypertension. The perindopril-amlodipine combination showed a significant effect in reduction of the elevated BP and the cardiovascular complications., Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose single-pill combination of perindopril-amlodipine in hypertensive patients., Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials. Quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE and we assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean blood pressure, heart rate, cough, dizziness, headache, and peripheral edema. We performed the analysis of homogeneous data under the fixed-effects model, while analysis of heterogeneous data was analyzed under the random-effects model. We conducted a meta-regression according to the dose., Results: We included ten clinical trials. The pooled analysis showed that there was a significant reduction of the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse plessure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate after the the perindopril-amlodipine combination (MD = 18.96 [14.32, 23.60], P < 0.0001), (MD = 11.90 [8.45, 15.35], P < 0.0001), (MD = 8.44 [6.91, 9.97], P = 0.0001), (MD = 13.07 [5.86, 20.29], P = 0.0004), and (MD = 2.93 [0.89, 4.96], P = 0.005), respectively. The results of the meta-regression revealed that the efficacy is increased by increasing the dose (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: The use of the perindopril-amlodipine combination had a significant effect on the reduction of SBP, DBP, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure, and HR., (© 2022. Italian Society of Hypertension.)

Introduction: Amlodipine belongs to a class of calcium channel blockers that relax blood vessels to allow easier flow of blood. Higher blood pressure (BP) is associated with cerebrovascular disease and is an important contributor to cognitive decline and dementia., Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of 24 weeks of S-amlodipine besylate therapy on cognitive function in patients with hypertension and cerebrovascular disease., Methods: The data were obtained from a study of post-market surveillance of S-amlodipine besylate., Results: A total of 545 subjects (mean age 67 ± 9.68 years) with hypertension and ischemic cerebrovascular disease were enrolled. Patients with a baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score above 26 were assigned to the cognitive normal (CN) (n = 294) group, and those with MMSE score less than 26 were in the cognitive decline (CD) (n = 251) group. After 24 weeks of treatment with S-amlodipine besylate 5 mg, MMSE and Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) were evaluated again. Changes in MMSE were compared in the target BP reached (TBPR) and non-reached (NTBPR) groups and for CN and CD groups. Treatment with 5 mg of S-amlodipine besylate for 24 weeks improved MMSE and GDS scores (p < 0.001). The CD group showed improvement in MMSE score regardless of whether target BP was obtained (TBPR: p < 0.001, NTBPR: p < 0.01). However, the CN classification was not significant for either TBPR or NTBPR groups., Conclusions: S-amlodipine besylate improved cognition of the CD group with hypertension and cerebrovascular disease regardless of obtaining target BP., (© 2022. Italian Society of Hypertension.)

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder involving progressive pancreatic dysfunction. A substantial proportion of patients with T2DM cannot achieve euglycemia despite pharmacologic therapy. Preceding clinical studies have shown that hypertension contributes to glucose dysregulation, and investigators in this study hypothesized that antihypertensive treatment may improve glycemic control in patients with T2DM., Methods: This prospective cohort study investigates the effect of adding the antihypertensive drug Amlodipine to standard diabetes therapy on serum glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and lipid profile in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM. The study enrolled a total of 168 participants with newly diagnosed T2DM., Results: Recipients of additional antihypertensive drug Amlodipine demonstrated significantly lower serum HbA1c (6.62% vs. 7.01%, P = 0.01), systolic blood pressure (132 mm Hg vs. 143 mm Hg, P < 0.001), and diastolic blood pressure (78.9 mm Hg vs. 86.0 mm Hg, P <0.001) compared to recipients of standard diabetes therapy after 24 weeks., Conclusion: Antihypertensive treatment with Amlodipine in addition to standard diabetes therapy improves glycemic control in patients with T2DM and may be an appropriate option in people with diabetes and concomitant hypertension to help maintain euglycemia., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Li, Cheng, Huang, Jian, Wu and Lin.)

The control rate of hypertension remains concerning, indicating the requirement for better management strategies. The calcium channel blockers brand-name amlodipine and nifedipine with extended-release formulations demonstrate similar clinical efficacy. However, the efficacy of generic nifedipine remains obscure. We compared the efficacy of generic nifedipine and brand-name amlodipine in terms of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Patients prescribed generic nifedipine (SRFC CYH) or brand-name amlodipine besylate (Norvasc, Pfizer) between August 1, 2017, and July 31, 2018, were enrolled; patients with CV events within 3 months were excluded. CV outcomes included CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and composite endpoints of 3P- and 4P-major adverse cardiac events (MACE). A total of 1625 patients treated with nifedipine (SRFC CYH) and 16 587 patients treated with Norvasc were included. After propensity score matching, there were 995 and 4975 patients in the nifedipine CYH and Norvasc groups, respectively. At a mean follow-up period of 30.3 ± 6.4 months, nifedipine CYH was comparable to Norvasc in terms of CV death (P = .107), nonfatal MI (P = .121), nonfatal ischemic stroke (P = .453), hospitalization for heart failure (P = .330), 3P-MACE (P = .584), and 4P-MACE (P = .274). Cox regression analysis revealed that nifedipine CYH and Norvasc had similar efficacy in terms of 3P-MACE (hazard ratio, 0.970; 95% confidence interval, 0.601-1.565, P = .900) and 4P-MACE (hazard ratio, 0.880; 95% confidence interval, 0.628-1.233, P = .459). In conclusion, Nifedipine SRFC CYH and Norvasc have comparable clinical efficacy for hypertension management., (© 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: Hypertension is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although current drug therapies can be effective, management of hypertension is closely linked to patient adherence to therapy. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of bisoprolol and amlodipine has shown to be effective and convenient, and to significantly improve patient adherence., Methods: This narrative review evaluates recent evidence from four studies which explore the efficacy, safety, and adherence of FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in patients with hypertension: one observational study; two randomized clinical trials (RCTs); and one indirect comparison analysis., Results: All four studies support the efficacy of FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in the management of hypertension, highlighting clinically meaningful reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), and high adherence. In a large cohort study exploring FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in daily practice, high adherence improved BP and heart rate control versus baseline. In a Phase 3 RCT, FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine demonstrated superiority over monotherapies in BP control and a positive tolerability profile, further supporting its use to manage hypertension in second line following monotherapy. In another Phase 3 RCT, the combination of bisoprolol and amlodipine led to significant BP reductions versus monotherapy with amlodipine with a comparable safety profile. Finally, in the indirect treatment comparison, a low dose combination of bisoprolol and amlodipine showed a similar decrease in systolic BP compared with a maximum dose of amlodipine., Conclusions: This review adds to growing evidence supporting the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of FDC bisoprolol and amlodipine in managing hypertension.

The use of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) is associated with gingival enlargement, which adversely affects oral function, hygiene and aesthetics. Although CCB-induced gingival enlargement is a known adverse effect, it is rarely or never caused by some CCBs. In this paper, we report the case of a late 80's female patient with hypertension who experienced amlodipine-induced gingival enlargement. The patient's antihypertensive medication was changed from amlodipine to another CCB of the same class, benidipine, which has not been reported to cause gingival enlargement. The patient also received periodontal therapy. A significant improvement in gingival enlargement was noted, and blood pressure control was maintained. This case indicates that it might be beneficial for patients with hypertension presenting CCB-induced gingival enlargement to switch from the CCB that caused gingival enlargement to another CCB with little to no risk., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Systemic arterial hypertension is the most common preventable risk factor for all causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a prevalence of 35-40% of the adults. Despite the wide variety of effective antihypertensive medications, most hypertensive patients remain uncontrolled. However, the combination of ACE inhibitor, diuretics, and calcium antagonist for the triple therapy in a single Pill Combination (SPC) is an efficient regimen in hypertension management. It is recommended by the ESH 2018 guideline, which offers better efficacy and compliance to treatment., Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination in patients with uncontrolled hypertension., Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant clinical trials. We conducted the risk of bias assessment using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We performed the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CI. We included the analysis of the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure (SBP), Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), Heart rate (HR), 24 h Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for SBP, and 24 h ABPM for DBP., Results: We included six clinical trials. We found that the triple therapy significantly reduces SBP by 24 mmHg (MD = - 24.65 [22.41, 26.89], (P < 0.01)), DBP by 12 mmHg (MD = 12.41 [11.53, 13.29], (P < 0.01)), 24-h ABPM for SBP by 14 mmHg (MD = 14.08 [9.10, 19.05], (P < 0.01)), and ABPM 24 h DBP by 7 mmHg (MD = 7.01 [5.37, 8.65], (P < 0.01)). We noted no significant difference of the single pill on heart rate (MD = 0.81 [- 0.04, 1.67], (P = 0.06)., Conclusion: perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine is effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 24 and 12 mmHg respectively. Over 24 h, the combination reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 14 and 7 mmHg respectively., (© 2022. Italian Society of Hypertension.)

Abstract: Nitrosamine contamination of generic valsartan was found in 2018. This study aimed to investigate whether long-term use of valsartan increases cancer risk. Patients prescribed valsartan or amlodipine (control group) from 1 January 1, 2003, to June 30, 2010, were identified using the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, a territory-wide database in Hong Kong. Patients previously diagnosed with cancer, prescribed both medications, taking the medication, or followed up for <1 year were excluded. Cancer incidence, adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, was the primary outcome and was estimated using Poisson regression in R version 3.6.1. Among 5023 valsartan users and 3692 amlodipine users, 887 and 740 were diagnosed with cancers during median follow-up periods of 10.97 and 12.12 years, respectively. The adjusted incidence of cancer in valsartan and amlodipine users was 165.29 (95% confidence interval 154.76-175.53) and 180.12 (167.35-193.67) per 10,000 person-years, respectively. The cancer incidence rate ratio of valsartan relative to amlodipine was 0.94 (0.88-1.01). Adjusted incidence rate ratios of valsartan relative to amlodipine were significant for breast cancer (0.63, 0.46-0.86) only. Our findings do not suggest an increase in incidence of cancer with long-term valsartan use. The duration of follow-up of more than 10 years of the study provides the reassurance that an increase in cancer risk is unlikely. Further studies are needed to elucidate the long-term effect of valsartan use on the risk of specific types of cancer., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Uncontrolled hypertension is an important cardiovascular risk factor and therefore requires effective approaches to patient management. This study assessed approaches to the management of patients with Stage 2 hypertension by cardiologists in India. This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational, case-based questionnaire study. Data on demographic characteristics, risk factors associated with Stage 2 hypertension, use of antihypertensive medications, side effects, and approaches to education for 2,540 patients were extracted from questionnaire responses provided by 508 cardiologists. The study population of patients with Stage 2 hypertension had a mean age of 55.0 years. Most of the patients (62.6%) were aged 30 to 60 years and diabetes mellitus was the most prevalent comorbidity (48.9%). Triple antihypertensive therapy was being used by 760 patients, and 634 and 1,146 patients were receiving 4 and 5 different antihypertensive medications, respectively. Telmisartan, amlodipine, chlorthalidone, hydrochlorothiazide, spironolactone, metoprolol, and prazosin were the commonly prescribed drugs. Ankle edema (27.7%) was the most frequent side effect of therapy. Pharmacotherapy was supported by patient education and lifestyle modifications for better blood pressure control. The standardized approach to the collection and assessment of these contemporary data provides useful insights into the characteristics and treatment of patients with Stage 2 hypertension in India., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr. Mahesh Abhyankar and Dr. Santosh Revankar are employees of USV Pvt Ltd. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study evaluated the effectiveness of treatment with an indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination (SPC) in outpatients with uncontrolled isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) aged over 55 years in real-life clinical practice., Methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of the subgroup of patients with ISH from ARBALET, a 3-month, multicenter, observational, open-label study conducted in Russia among patients with grade I or II hypertension who were either uncontrolled on previous antihypertensive treatment or treatment-naïve. The effectiveness of indapamide/amlodipine SPC was assessed by the change in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) and the rate of target SBP (< 140 mmHg) achievement at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months, in four age groups: 55-59 years, 60-69 years, 70-79 years, and 80 years or older., Results: The ARBALET study recruited 2217 patients, of whom 626 had ISH and were included in this post-hoc analysis (mean age 66.1 ± 7.8 years; 165 men [26.4%] and 461 women [73.6%]). Target SBP < 140 mmHg was achieved in 43%, 75% and 93% of patients at 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months, respectively. SBP decreased from baseline by 18.8 ± 10.5 mmHg, 27.2 ± 10.6 mmHg and 31.8 ± 9.9 mmHg at 2 weeks, 1 month and 3 months, respectively. In the groups of patients aged 55-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years, SBP reductions at 3 months compared with baseline were - 30.3 ± 9.4, - 32.4 ± 9.7, - 32.5 ± 10.7, and - 28.9 ± 9.6 mmHg, respectively., Conclusion: This post-hoc analysis of the observational ARBALET study showed that indapamide/amlodipine SPC was associated with significant reductions in BP and high rates of target BP achievement in a broad age range of patients with ISH treated in routine clinical practice., Study Registration Number: ISRCTN40812831., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Hypertension (HTN) is a complication of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We report a pediatric stem cell transplant patient who had HTN and adverse event because of amlodipine., Observation: Seven-year-old boy had haploidentical stem cell transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide. He had complete donor chimerism at the end of one month. Amlodipine was started on day +36 for HTN. On day +41, he had petechiae. Platelet function analyzer (PFA)-100 was abnormal. After amlodipine was stopped, petechiae disappeared and PFA-100 returned to normal., Conclusions: Abnormal PFA-100 and the patient complaints indicated the possibility of amlodipine-induced platelet dysfunction through inhibition of calcium-mediated platelet reactions., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril (PER)/indapamide (IND)/amlodipine (AML) is a valuable and convenient treatment option for patients with hypertension controlled with two-drug SPC of PER/IND + AML given as two separate pills at the same dose level. PER [an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor], IND (a thiazide-like diuretic) and AML (a calcium channel blocker) are well established antihypertensive agents, which have been available for a long time as monotherapies and dual SPCs and have complementary mechanisms of action. Once-daily PER/IND/AML provided effective BP control, with good tolerability, in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in clinical trials and in large observational prospective studies. The efficacy and tolerability of PER/IND/AML was similar to that of PER/IND + AML in a randomized clinical trial. The therapeutic effect of PER/IND/AML was associated with improved health-related quality of life. Thus, switching from the two-pill PER/IND + AML regimen to single-pill PER/IND/AML reduces pill burden and simplifies drug administration, which may improve adherence to treatment, leading to better BP control and clinical outcomes., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Although amlodipine is recommended as the first-line therapy for the treatment of hypertension, its use is limited by its potential side effects. S-amlodipine is expected to be able to minimize side effects of amlodipine with a similar antihypertensive effect by removing the malicious R-chiral form. However, sustainable blood pressure control with S-amlodipine has not been well established yet. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) profiles before and after a 12-week treatment of S-amlodipine. Patients received once-daily S-amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg. ABP during 24 hr and office blood pressure were measured at baseline and after the 12-week treatment. Primary endpoints were changes of systolic and diastolic 24 hr ABP. After 12-week S-amlodipine treatment, mean systolic ABP (-15.1 ± 16.2 mmHg, p < .001) and diastolic ABP (-8.9 ± 9.8 mmHg, p < .001) were decreased significantly. Both daytime and night-time mean systolic BP and diastolic BP were also significantly decreased after the 12-week treatment. Global trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index after 12-week S-amlodipine treatment were .75 and .79 for SBP and .65 and .61 for DBP, respectively. Age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67-14.3) and nonalcohol drinking (HR: 3.09; 95% CI: 1.34-7.17) were independent clinical factors for target ABP achievement. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) were developed in 16 (6.4%) patients, including two (.8%) cases of peripheral edema. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension., (© 2022 The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: The prevalence rate of hypertension in the Chinese population is on the rise, and the control rate of hypertension is low. International guidelines, including the 2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension, recommend optimized drug selection and combination therapy for patients with stage 2 hypertension and blood pressure ≥ 160/100 mmHg, including valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml). The traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) compound Tengfu Jiangya tablet (TJT; No. Z20110021, Shandong Provincial Food and Drug Administration) is prepared in the medical institution of Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. It is an effective compound preparation of TCM for the treatment of hypertension in the national clinical research base of TCM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TJT combined with Val/Aml in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension with hyperactivity of liver yang., Methods: This randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial will be conducted with a total of 288 participants with stage 2 hypertension at seven clinical trial centers. The stratified random method will be used, and the subcenter will be taken as the stratification factor. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) into groups receiving either TJT or placebo three times daily for 28 days, both combined with Val/Aml 80/5 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint is the reduction in the mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and the mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) from baseline to week 4. Adverse events and laboratory test results will be monitored throughout the trial., Discussion: This is the first placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Chinese herbal extract combined with Val/Aml in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Our study may help to provide evidence-based recommendations of a complementary preventive measure for stage 2 hypertension., Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000030611 . Registered on 8 March 2020., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To describe a case of angioedema associated with increasing the dose of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (atorvastatin) from 20 to 40 mg daily in a patient previously stable on angiotensin II receptor blocker (losartan) and calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) as antihypertensive agents., Summary: A 79-year-old woman with no known drug allergies and a history of multiple clinical conditions presented to the emergency department with facial and periorbital swelling, edema of the lower extremities, shortness of breath, and generalized itching and skin rash, that started 2 days after increasing her atorvastatin dose from 20 to 40 mg daily. She was concurrently on losartan 50 mg and amlodipine 5 mg daily for the management of hypertension. Atorvastatin was discontinued, and the symptoms resolved during hospitalization., Conclusion: While atorvastatin use is not commonly associated with angioedema, the prescriber should be mindful of this possible adverse effect, especially when increasing the dose, or when prescribing together with medications known to cause angioedema (e.g., angiotensin II receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers), which may increase the risk of this adverse event.