Search

Objective(s): Evaluate efficacy/safety of olmesartan medoxomil (OM)/amlodipine (AML)/ hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in Hispanic/Latino adults with hypertension., Design: Randomized, double-blind, 12-week, parallel-group study followed by a 40-week open-label extension phase., Setting: Clinical sites (317) in the United States and Puerto Rico., Patients or Participants: Individuals > or =18 years of age with mean seated blood pressure (BP) > or =140/100 or > or =160/90 mm Hg divided into Hispanic/Latino (369) and non-Hispanic/Latino (2122) subgroups., Interventions: Participants were randomized to OM 40/AML 10 mg, OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg, or OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg during the double-blind phase. During the open-label extension, all participants received OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 12.5 mg; participants not reaching BP goal within 2 weeks were randomly titrated to OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 12.5 mg or OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 25 mg, then to OM 40/AML 10/ HCTZ 25 mg after another 2 weeks., Main Outcome Measure: Change in mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline (double-blind phase)., Results: Triple-drug therapy vs the dual therapies resulted in greater mean reduction in SeBP (Hispanic/Latino: 35.0/20.9 mm Hg vs 27.8-30.9/15.3-17.7 mm Hg; non-Hispanic/Latino: 39.0/21.7 mm Hg vs 28.9-31.5/14.6-17.8 mm Hg) and enabled more participants to reach BP goal (Hispanic/Latino: 56.8% vs 40.6%-51.2%; non-Hispanic/Latino: 65.7% vs 33.8%-46.6%) irrespective of ethnicity. The efficacy of triple-drug therapy in achieving BP goal was sustained long-term (40-week open-label extension period) in Hispanic/Latino (63.3%) and non-Hispanic/ Latino (64.2%) participants. Triple-drug therapy was well tolerated in Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic/Latino participants., Conclusions: In this study, OM/AML/HCTZ was an effective treatment option in Hispanic/ Latino patients with hypertension.

The objective of this prespecified TRINITY study subgroup analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of triple-combination treatment with olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg vs the component dual-combination treatments in obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m(2) ) and nonobese (BMI <30 kg/m(2) ) hypertensive participants. The double-blind treatment period primary end point was the least-squares (LS) mean reduction in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) at week 12 (end of the double-blind period). Of the 2492 randomized participants, 1555 (62.4%) had BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) . Irrespective of BMI, triple-combination treatment resulted in greater LS mean reductions in seated BP (SeBP) (≥30 kg/m(2) , 6.7-10.5/4.5-7.3 mm Hg; <30 kg/m(2) , 5.1-8.6/2.5-6.0 mm Hg [P<.005] vs dual-combination treatments for both subgroups) at week 12. Furthermore, triple-combination treatment enabled a greater proportion of participants to reach BP goal vs the dual-combination treatments (≥30 kg/m(2) , 62% vs 31%-46% [P<.0001]; <30 kg/m(2) , 69% vs 41%-55% [P<.005]) at week 12. SeBP reduction and goal attainment (≥30 kg/m(2) , 63%; <30 kg/m(2) , 67%) was maintained through week 52/early termination. Triple-combination treatment was well tolerated in both BMI subgroups., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

In this double-blind study, 1143 hypertensive participants with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 or 2 chronic kidney disease (CKD) were randomized to receive combination aliskiren/valsartan 150/160 mg or valsartan 160 mg monotherapy for 2 weeks, with force-titration to 300/320 mg and 320 mg, respectively, for another 6 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), the primary outcome, was available for 665 participants. Reductions from baseline to week 8 in 24-hour ABP were -14.1/-8.7 mm Hg with aliskiren/valsartan vs -10.2/-6.3 mm Hg with valsartan (P<.001). Adverse events were reported in 202 participants (35.2%) taking aliskiren/valsartan and 182 participants (32.2%) taking valsartan. No participant had blood urea nitrogen values>40 mg/dL or serum creatinine values>2.0 mg/dL. There were no confirmed cases of serum potassium values≥6.0 mEq/L. Combination aliskiren/valsartan has additive effects on blood pressure reduction and tolerability similar to valsartan in hypertensive/diabetic participants with early-stage (stages 1 and 2) CKD., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Although awareness of hypertension in Black patients has increased, blood pressure (BP) is frequently inadequately controlled., Objective: This prespecified subgroup analysis of the TRINITY study evaluated the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg triple-combination treatment compared with the component dual-combination treatments in Black and non-Black study participants., Study Design: TRINITY was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group evaluation. The first patient was enrolled in May 2008 and the last patient completed the study in February 2009. The study consisted of a 3-week washout period for participants receiving antihypertensive therapy and a 12-week double-blind treatment period. For the treatment phase, all study participants were stratified by age, race, and diabetes mellitus status and randomized to a treatment sequence that led to their final treatment assignment, which they received from weeks 4 to 12 (OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg). In the first 2 weeks of the double-blind treatment period, all participants received either dual-combination treatment or placebo. Participants assigned to dual-combination treatment continued treatment until week 4, and participants receiving placebo were switched at week 2 to receive one of the dual-combination treatments until week 4. At week 4, participants either continued dual-combination treatment or randomly received triple-combination treatment until week 12., Setting: 317 clinical sites in the USA and Puerto Rico were included in the study., Patients: Study participants eligible for randomization (N = 2492) were ≥18 years of age with mean seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥140/100 mmHg or ≥160/90 mmHg (off antihypertensive medication)., Intervention: The intervention was with dual- or triple-combination antihypertensive treatment: OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg., Main Outcome Measure: The primary efficacy variable was the change in least squares (LS) mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy variables included the LS mean change in seated systolic BP (SeSBP), percentage of study participants reaching BP goal, and safety parameters., Results: In both Black and non-Black participants, triple-combination treatment resulted in significant and similar mean reductions in SeDBP and SeSBP (p ≤ 0.0001 vs each dual-combination treatment) with a greater proportion of participants reaching BP goal compared with dual-combination treatments, regardless of race. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and no new safety concerns were identified., Conclusion: Triple-combination treatment provided greater BP reductions than dual-combination treatments regardless of race., Clinical Trial Registration: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT00649389.

Background: Most patients with hypertension and diabetes require two or more antihypertensive agents to achieve the recommended blood pressure (BP) goal of <130/80 mm Hg. This prespecified subgroup analysis from the TRIple Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in HyperteNsIve PatienTs StudY assessed the efficacy and safety of triple-combination treatment (olmesartan medoxomil 40/amlodipine besylate 10/hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg) versus the component dual-combination treatments according to diabetes status (diabetes; non-diabetes)., Methods: Participants received dual-combination treatment for 4 weeks or placebo for 2 weeks. Participants receiving placebo switched to dual-combination treatment from week 2 to week 4. At week 4, participants switched to triple-combination treatment or continued on dual-combination treatment until week 12., Results: The prespecified changes in BP from baseline for the diabetes subgroup receiving triple-combination treatment were greater than the respective dual-combination treatments (P ≤ .0013). Also, more participants with diabetes receiving triple-combination treatment reached BP goal (<130/80 mm Hg) versus those receiving dual-combination treatments (P ≤ .0092). In a post hoc analysis, significantly greater proportions of study participants with diabetes achieved BP targets with triple-combination treatment compared with each dual-combination treatment. Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity., Conclusions: In participants with hypertension and diabetes, triple-combination treatment led to greater BP reductions and enabled greater proportions of participants to reach BP goal versus the dual-combination treatments. Triple-combination treatment was well tolerated in both diabetes and non-diabetes subgroups., (Copyright © 2012 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:149-157. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Most patients with hypertension require combination therapy in order to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. This 40-week open-label extension of the 12-week double-blind Triple Therapy With Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertensive Patients Study (TRINITY) evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple-combination treatments with olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate, and hydrochlorothiazide (OM/AML/HCTZ) in 2112 participants with moderate to severe hypertension. Following 2 weeks of initial treatment with OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 12.5 mg, participants not achieving BP goal were titrated to OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 25 mg or OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 12.5 mg on a randomized basis. At week 16, participants who did not achieve BP goal were further titrated to OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg. At the end of the study, 44.5% to 79.8% of participants reached BP goal and the mean BP decreased from 168.6/100.7 mm Hg (baseline BP at randomization) to 125.0 to 136.8 mm Hg/77.8 to 82.5 mm Hg, depending on treatment. Long-term treatment with OM/AML/HCTZ was well tolerated and effective with no new safety concerns., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, 4-arm study in 440 patients with moderate to severe hypertension compared ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) responses with a triple-combination regimen (olmesartan medoxomil [OM] 40 mg, amlodipine besylate [AML] 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 25 mg) and its component dual-combination regimens at similar doses. At week 12, the triple combination resulted in a greater reduction in mean 24-hour systolic and diastolic blood pressure (-30.3/-18.0 mm Hg) compared with the 3 dual-combination regimens (OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg: -23.5/-13.9, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg: -23.9/-14.5, and AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg: -18.5 mm Hg/-10.7 mm Hg; P<.0001 each). Greater efficacy was also found during daytime and nighttime hours and during the last 6, 4, or 2 hours of the dosing interval. The authors conclude that the triple combination of OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg demonstrated superior efficacy and sustained reductions in ABP compared with its dual-combination components., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Combination therapy may reduce racial/ethnic differences in response to antihypertensives. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated treatment response by race/ethnicity among hypertensive adults enrolled in a 12-week, double-blind study in which patients previously uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥150 and <200 mm Hg) on angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy (other than valsartan) for 28 days or more (n = 728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate). Treatment-naïve patients (in previous 28 days) or those who failed on a non-ARB first underwent a 28-day run-in period with olmesartan 20 mg or 40 mg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4; optional up-titration to 25 mg at week 8 (if MSSBP >140 mm Hg). Intensive treatment provided greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment throughout the study, regardless of race/ethnicity (474 white, 198 African American, 165 Hispanic individuals). Least-square mean reductions from baseline to week 4 in MSSBP (primary outcome) ranged from 20.4 to 23.5 mm Hg (intensive) versus 17.5 to 19.0 mm Hg (moderate), across racial/ethnic subgroups. Both regimens were well tolerated. Amlodipine/valsartan/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious across racial/ethnic subgroups. Maximal efficacy was obtained with intensive treatment., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has greater predictive value than office blood pressure (BP) with respect to hypertension-related target-organ damage and morbidity. ABPM in a subset of 80 patients from the Exforge Target Achievement trial (N=728) was used to compare the efficacy of intensive-treatment and moderate-treatment regimens of amlodipine/valsartan, and to determine whether treatment differences could be better assessed with ABPM than with office or home BP. Home BP was measured on the morning of clinic visits to minimize differences that timing might have on home versus office BP measures., Methods: A 12-week randomized, double-blind study in which hypertensive patients earlier uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic BP≥150 and <200 mmHg) on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (other than valsartan) after 28 days or more (N=728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan treatment [10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate)]. Treatment-naive patients (in previous 28 days) or patients who failed on a nonangiotensin receptor blocker agent underwent a 28-day run-in period with a 20-mg or 40-mg dose of olmesartan, respectively., Results: Significantly greater 24-h ABP reductions from baseline to week 4 (primary time point) were observed with intensive versus moderate treatment (least-square mean systolic/diastolic BP reduction of -16.2/-10.1 vs. -9.5/-6.5 mmHg; P=0.0024/P=0.010 for least-square mean difference). Similarly, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving an intensive treatment achieved ambulatory BP goal (<130/80 mmHg) at week 4 than did those receiving a moderate treatment (P=0.040). Treatment-group differences did not reach statistical significance for these end points when measured by office and home BP., Conclusion: In this first randomized trial evaluating the effects of intensive versus moderate dosing of the combination of amlodipine/valsartan, our data suggest that ABPM was a better method for assessing between-treatment differences than clinic or home BP recordings, although measurement of home BP as a single recording was a limitation of our trial.

Objectives: Many angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy patients need at least two agents to control blood pressure (BP). We investigated whether initiating intensive treatment with combination amlodipine/valsartan was superior to moderate treatment with amlodipine/valsartan in patients previously uncontrolled on ARB monotherapy., Methods: In this 12-week study, patients aged at least 18 years on ARB (other than valsartan) for at least 28 days (with treatment-naïve patients or those not controlled on agents other than an ARB treated with open-label olmesartan 20 or 40 mg, respectively, for 28 days) and with uncontrolled mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP; ≥ 150-<200 mmHg) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 5/320 mg (n = 369) or 5/160 mg (n = 359). At week 2, the dose was increased to 10/320 mg in the intensive arm. Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4. Optional up-titration with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg at week 8 was allowed if MSSBP was more than 140 mmHg., Results: At baseline, mean office sitting BP was comparable in the intensive (163.9/95.5 mmHg) and moderate (163.3/95.0 mmHg) groups. Intensive treatment provided greater BP reductions versus moderate treatment (P < 0.05) from week 4 (-23.0/-10.4 versus -19.2/-8.7 mmHg; primary endpoint) to week 12 (-29.0/-14.8 versus -25.3/-12.3 mmHg). Adverse events were reported by a similar percentage of patients in both groups (36.3% intensive, 37.6% moderate); peripheral edema was more common with intensive versus moderate treatment (8.7 versus 4.5%; P = 0.025)., Conclusions: Initiating treatment with an intensive dose of amlodipine/valsartan provides significantly greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment in hypertensive patients unresponsive to ARB monotherapy. Both treatment regimens were generally well tolerated based on adverse event reports, but the lack of routine laboratory testing after screening limits conclusions on tolerability.

A prespecified subgroup analysis of a 44-week open-label extension study is presented. The efficacy and safety of the combination of amlodipine (AML) + olmesartan medoxomil (OM), with and without the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were investigated in patients aged ≥65 and <65 years, Blacks and non-Blacks and patients with and without type 2 diabetes. After an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the study, patients initiated therapy on AML 5 + OM 40 mg per day, were uptitrated stepwise to AML 10 + OM 40 mg per day, with the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg, and 25 mg if blood pressure (BP) goal was not achieved (<140/90 or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes). Endpoints included the change from baseline in mean seated systolic BP, mean seated diastolic BP and achievement of BP goal. BP decreased from baseline for all treatments in each prespecified subgroup. By the end of the study, BP goal was achieved in 61.0% of patients aged ≥65 years, 68.1% of patients aged <65 years, 63.3% of Blacks, 67.8% of non-Blacks, 26.9% of patients with diabetes and 72.9% of patients without diabetes. The combination of AML + OM ± HCTZ was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by these subgroups.

Background: Patients with hypertension may require a combination of > or =2 antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) control., Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether a triple combination of olmesartan medoxomil (OM), amlodipine besylate (AML), and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) had a clinically significant benefit compared with dual combinations of the individual components in patients with moderate to severe hypertension., Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, parallel-group study in which triple combination treatment with OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg was compared with dual combinations of the individual components-OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg in fixed-dose combination, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg in fixed-dose combination, and AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg-in patients aged > or =18 years who had a mean seated BP > or =140/100 mm Hg or > or =160/90 mm Hg. The study consisted of a 3-week washout period with no study medication and a 12-week double-blind treatment period. In the first 2 weeks of the double-blind treatment period, all patients were randomized to receive dual combination treatment or placebo. All patients assigned to a dual combination treatment group continued the assigned treatment until week 4, and all patients assigned to placebo were switched at week 2 to receive 1 of the dual combination treatments until week 4. At week 4, patients either continued dual combination treatment or switched to triple combination treatment until week 12. The primary end point was the change in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12; SeDBP reduction of > or =2 mm Hg was considered a clinically significant benefit. Secondary efficacy end points included the change in seated systolic BP (SeSBP) at week 12 and the percentages of patients achieving BP targets of <140/90 mm Hg, <120/80 mm Hg, SeSBP <140 mm Hg, and SeDBP <90 mm Hg at week 12. The tolerability of the treatments was also evaluated based on adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory evaluations (chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), physical examinations, and 12-lead ECGs., Results: The 2492 randomized patients (52.9% male, 66.8% white, 30.4% black) had a mean (SD) age of 55.1 (10.9) years and a mean weight of 96.0 (22.9) kg. Diabetes was present in 15.5% of the population, chronic cardiovascular disease in 9.1%, and chronic kidney disease in 4.1%. At baseline, the mean SeBP was 168.5/100.9 mm Hg. At week 12, triple combination treatment was associated with significantly greater least squares mean reductions in SeBP compared with the dual combinations (SeDBP: -21.8 vs -15.1 to -18.0 mm Hg, respectively [P < 0.001]; SeSBP: -37.1 vs -27.5 to -30.0 mm Hg [P < 0.001]). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving triple combination treatment reached BP targets compared with the dual combinations at week 12 (P < 0.001). The proportions of patients reaching the BP target of <140/90 mm Hg at week 12 was 69.9% in the triple combination treatment group and 52.9%, 53.4%, and 41.1% in the treatment groups receiving OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, and AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg, respectively (P < 0.001, triple combination vs each dual combination). The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was 58.4% for triple combination treatment and 51.7% to 58.9% for the dual combinations; most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs in the triple combination treatment group were dizziness (9.9%), peripheral edema (7.7%), and headache (6.4%). In total, 52 patients (2.3%) discontinued the study due to TEAEs-6 (1.0%) in the OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg group, 12 (2.1%) in the OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg group, 11 (2.0%) in the AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg group, and 23 (4.0%) in the OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg group. Thirty-two patients (1.4%)-4 (0.7%), 5 (0.9%), 5 (0.9%), and 18 (3.1%) in the respective treatment groups-discontinued the study due to drug-related TEAEs., Conclusions: In these adult patients with moderate to severe hypertension, triple combination treatment with OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg was associated with significant BP reductions compared with dual combinations of the individual components. All treatments were generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00649389., (2010 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.)

This analysis aimed to explore whether low-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has superior blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy over low-dose valsartan/HCTZ in the elderly and across both genders. This is a post-hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, parallel group, open-label, blinded-endpoint study in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with HCTZ monotherapy. The reduction in systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) and rate of BP control achieved following 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or valsartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg were analyzed for older (≥65 years) vs. younger (<65 years) patients and for men vs. women. Blood pressure measurements were by home BP monitoring (HBPM). In the age and gender subgroups, both treatments significantly decreased home SBP and DBP (p < 0.0001). The reduction in home SBP and DBP was numerically greater with irbesartan/HCTZ compared to valsartan/HCTZ for all subgroups: the difference in DBP was significant for all except the elderly (p < 0.05), and the difference in SBP was significant in the elderly and in men (p < 0.03). In all subgroups, more patients achieved BP control (HBPM ≤135/85 mmHg) in the irbesartan/HCTZ arm (range 45%-58%) than in the valsartan/HCTZ arm (range, 23%-39%; p < 0.02). Both combination therapies were well tolerated and safety parameters were similar in both age and gender subgroups. More patients with mild or moderate hypertension, uncontrolled in HCTZ monotherapy alone, had their BP controlled with irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg than with valsartan/HCTZ 80/12.5 mg, irrespective of age or gender.

Demographic factors are known to influence the prevalence of hypertension, and evidence suggests that they may also influence the response of patients with hypertension to blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapies. To determine the effect of demographic factors on the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based treatment regimen, we performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, titrate-to-goal study in patients with hypertension, stratifying patients into treatment groups according to age, sex, or race. After 12 weeks, OM-based therapy significantly reduced BP from baseline in blacks, non-blacks, men, women, and patients younger than 65 or 65 years and older compared with placebo, and enabled 51.9% to 79.5% of patients to achieve a BP goal of <140/90 mm Hg. The differences in BP-lowering efficacy of OM-based therapy between subgroups were not clinically significant, and treatment was generally well tolerated in all groups. This study demonstrates that an OM-based treatment algorithm is an effective and safe option for achieving recommended BP goal in patients with hypertension including blacks, non-blacks, men, women, and patients younger than 65 or 65 years and older.

This report includes a prespecified secondary analysis of the COACH study (Combination of Olmesartan medoxomil and Amlodipine besylate in Controlling High blood pressure) based on baseline hypertension severity and prior antihypertensive medication use and a post hoc efficacy analysis of the subset of patients with baseline mean seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) > or =180 mm Hg. The efficacy and safety of placebo, amlodipine (5 or 10 mg/d), olmesartan medoxomil (OM) (10, 20, or 40 mg/d), and all possible combinations of the drugs (12 treatment arms in total) were evaluated for 8 weeks. Primary end point was seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) decrease at study end. Secondary end points included decrease in SeSBP and proportion of patients achieving blood pressure (BP) goal and prespecified BP targets. In each subgroup, > or =1 dosage combination of amlodipine + OM significantly reduced SeDBP and SeSBP compared with constituent monotherapies. Combinations produced the greatest mean BP reductions in patients with baseline SeSBP > or =180 mm Hg. More patients with stage 1 than stage 2 hypertension achieved BP goal. Prior antihypertensive medication use did not seem to affect efficacy. Subgroup categorization did not affect safety. After 8 weeks of treatment, the combination of amlodipine + OM is safe and efficacious, irrespective of baseline hypertension stage or prior antihypertensive medication use.

This prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial compared the safety and tolerability of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed-dose combination therapy with irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension (seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) >or=110 mm Hg, mean BP 172/113 mm Hg at baseline). Patients were randomized 2:1 to 7 weeks' irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg to 300/25 mg (n = 468) or irbesartan 150 mg to 300 mg (n = 227). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was similar with combination and monotherapy (11.3% and 10.1%), and most AEs were mild-to-moderate. The combined incidence of prespecified AEs was lower with irbesartan/HCTZ than with irbesartan (8.8% vs. 11.5%). There were no treatment-related serious AEs or deaths. At week 5, more patients achieved SeDBP < 90 mm Hg compared to irbesartan (47% vs. 33%; P = 0.0005). Despite more rapid and aggressive BP lowering, initial fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ demonstrated a comparable AE profile to irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension.

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2009;11:475-482. (c) 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.The authors report on the 44-week open-label extension of the 8-week, double-blind Combination of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Amlodipine Besylate in Controlling High Blood Pressure (COACH) trial in 1684 patients. Initial therapy was amlodipine (AML) plus olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 5+40 mg/d, up-titrated to AML+OM 10+40 mg/d plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg then 25 mg if patients did not achieve blood pressure (BP) goal (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes). Baseline mean BP decreased from 164/102 mm Hg to 131/82 mm Hg at end of study, with an overall 66.7% of patients, including those with diabetes, achieving BP goal. The BP goal achievement was 80% for AML+OM 5+40 mg/d, 70.6% for AML+OM 10+40 mg/d, 66.6% for AML+OM+HCTZ 10+40+12.5 mg/d, and 46.3% for AML+OM+HCTZ 10+40+25 mg/d. Study medication was safe and well tolerated. Combination antihypertensive therapy with AML+OM+/-HTCZ, up-titrated as necessary, allowed a majority of patients to achieve BP goal.

The efficacy and safety of an olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based treatment algorithm was tested in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled titration study in 276 patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension. After placebo run-in, patients were randomized to placebo (12 weeks) or OM 20 mg/d (weeks 1-3). OM was up-titrated to 40 mg/d (weeks 4-6), then OM/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40/12.5 mg/d (weeks 7-9) and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/d (weeks 10-12) were started if blood pressure (BP) remained > or =120/80 mm Hg at each time interval. End points were change from baseline in mean systolic BP (primary) and mean diastolic BP (secondary). OM-based treatment was well tolerated and changed BP by -22.3/-12.1 mm Hg from baseline vs -0.1/+0.8 mm Hg for placebo (P<.0001). Cumulative goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) was achieved in 74.1% and 30.7% of OM- compared with placebo-treated patients, respectively (P<.0001). BP normalized (<120/80 mm Hg) in 44.8% of OM- vs 1.4% of placebo-treated patients with stage 1 hypertension (P<.0001).

Introduction: Patients with stage 2 hypertension require large absolute reductions in blood pressure (BP) to achieve recommended BP goals. Combination therapy with the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, and the angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, has been shown to produce greater BP reductions than either agent alone in a double-blind study in 1797 hypertensive patients., Methods: This post-hoc analysis evaluated the BP-lowering efficacy of aliskiren in combination with valsartan in a subset of patients (n=581) with stage 2 hypertension (baseline mean sitting systolic BP [msSBP] > or =160 mmHg). Patients were randomized to receive aliskiren/valsartan 150/160 mg, aliskiren 150 mg, valsartan 160 mg, or placebo once daily for 4 weeks followed by 4 weeks at double the initial dose. Mean changes from baseline in msSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP were assessed at week-8 endpoint (intent-to-treat population)., Results: Aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg reduced BP from baseline by 22.5/11.4 mmHg at week-8 endpoint. BP reductions with combination therapy were significantly greater than with aliskiren 300 mg (17.3/8.9 mmHg, P<0.05), valsartan 320 mg (15.5/8.3 mmHg, P<0.01), or with placebo (7.9/3.7 mmHg, P<0.0001). BP control rates (<140/90 mmHg) were also significantly higher (P<0.05) with aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg (29.8%) compared with either aliskiren 300 mg (19.0%) or valsartan 320 mg (13.8%) monotherapy, or placebo (8.9%). All treatments were generally well tolerated., Conclusion: Combination therapy with aliskiren and valsartan provided significantly greater BP reductions over aliskiren or valsartan monotherapy and is an appropriate option for management of BP in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Although the awareness and control of hypertension has increased, only 37% of hypertensive patients in the US achieve the conservative goal of <140/90 mmHg. Achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control is the most important single issue in the management of hypertension, and in most hypertensive patients, it is difficult or impossible to control BP with one drug. Blocking two or more BP regulatory systems provides a more effective and more physiologic reduction in BP, and current guidelines have recommended the use of combination therapy as first-line treatment, or early in the management of hypertension. Fixed combination therapy is an efficacious, relatively safe, and may be cost-effective method of decreasing BP in most patients with essential hypertension. Similar to other combinations, fixed-dose combination tablets containing the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine and the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan bring together two distinct and complementary mechanisms of action, resulting in improved BP control and potential for improved target organ protection relative to either class of agent alone.

Background: The aim of this study was to assess dual renin system intervention with the maximum recommended doses of aliskiren and valsartan, compared with each drug alone in patients with hypertension., Methods: In this double-blind study, 1797 patients with hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure 95-109 mm Hg and 8-h daytime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure > or =90 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to receive once-daily aliskiren 150 mg (n=437), valsartan 160 mg (455), a combination of aliskiren 150 mg and valsartan 160 mg (446), or placebo (459) for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to double the dose to the maximum recommended dose for another 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 8 endpoint. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00219180., Findings: 196 (11%) patients discontinued study treatment before the end of the trial (63 in the placebo group, 53 in the aliskiren group, 43 in the valsartan group, and 37 in the aliskiren/valsartan group), mainly due to lack of therapeutic effect. At week 8 endpoint, the combination of aliskiren 300 mg and valsartan 320 mg lowered mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline by 12.2 mm Hg, significantly more than either monotherapy (aliskiren 300 mg 9.0 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001; valsartan 320 mg, 9.7 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001), or with placebo (4.1 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001). Rates of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar in all groups., Interpretation: The combination of aliskiren and valsartan at maximum recommended doses provides significantly greater reductions in blood pressure than does monotherapy with either agent in patients with hypertension, with a tolerability profile similar to that with aliskiren and valsartan alone.

This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, forced-titration study compared the efficacy of 3 angiotensin receptor blockers. Patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg, losartan potassium 50 mg, valsartan 80 mg, or placebo once daily. At week 4, doses were titrated to 40, 100, and 160 mg once daily for olmesartan, losartan, and valsartan, respectively. At week 8, losartan was increased to 50 mg twice daily and valsartan increased to 320 mg once daily (olmesartan remained at 40 mg once daily). The primary end point was mean change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at week 8. All 3 medications significantly reduced mean SeDBP from baseline compared with placebo at weeks 4, 8, and 12 (P<.001). At week 8, olmesartan reduced mean SeDBP more than losartan (P<.001); more patients in the olmesartan medoxomil group achieved a blood pressure goal of <140/90 mm Hg (P<.001). Olmesartan did not reduce mean SeDBP significantly compared with valsartan, although more patients attained blood pressure goal with olmesartan (P=.031). At week 12, all agents lowered blood pressure equivalently.

Severe hypertension is difficult to control. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial compared efficacy and safety of once-daily irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy with irbesartan monotherapy in severe hypertension. Patients who were untreated or uncontrolled on monotherapy (seated diastolic blood pressure [BP] > or =110 mm Hg) received fixed-dose irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg combination therapy for 7 weeks, force-titrated to irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 mg at week 1 (n=468); or irbesartan 150 mg monotherapy, force-titrated to 300 mg at week 1 (n=269). Significantly more patients on combination therapy achieved seated diastolic BP <90 mm Hg at week 5 (primary end point) compared with monotherapy recipients (47.2% vs 33.2%; P=.0005). Likewise, significantly more patients attained goals per the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) (<140/90 mm Hg) at week 5 (34.6% vs 19.2%, respectively; P<.0001), while the mean difference between combination and monotherapy in seated diastolic BP and seated systolic BP was 4.7 mm Hg and 9.7 mm Hg (P<.0001). Greater and more rapid BP reduction with irbesartan/HCTZ was achieved without additional side effects.

Background: Prehypertension is considered a precursor of stage 1 hypertension and a predictor of excessive cardiovascular risk. We investigated whether pharmacologic treatment of prehypertension prevents or postpones stage 1 hypertension., Methods: Participants with repeated measurements of systolic pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic pressure of 89 mm Hg or lower, or systolic pressure of 139 mm Hg or lower and diastolic pressure of 85 to 89 mm Hg, were randomly assigned to receive two years of candesartan (Atacand, AstraZeneca) or placebo, followed by two years of placebo for all. When a participant reached the study end point of stage 1 hypertension, treatment with antihypertensive agents was initiated. Both the candesartan group and the placebo group were instructed to make changes in lifestyle to reduce blood pressure throughout the trial., Results: A total of 409 participants were randomly assigned to candesartan, and 400 to placebo. Data on 772 participants (391 in the candesartan group and 381 in the placebo group; mean age, 48.5 years; 59.6 percent men) were available for analysis. During the first two years, hypertension developed in 154 participants in the placebo group and 53 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 66.3 percent; P<0.001). After four years, hypertension had developed in 240 participants in the placebo group and 208 of those in the candesartan group (relative risk reduction, 15.6 percent; P<0.007). Serious adverse events occurred in 3.5 percent of the participants assigned to candesartan and 5.9 percent of those receiving placebo., Conclusions: Over a period of four years, stage 1 hypertension developed in nearly two thirds of patients with untreated prehypertension (the placebo group). Treatment of prehypertension with candesartan appeared to be well tolerated and reduced the risk of incident hypertension during the study period. Thus, treatment of prehypertension appears to be feasible. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00227318.)., (Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Effective control of elevated blood pressure (BP) has been shown to reduce this risk. Early studies of risk reduction assumed that the mechanism by which BP was lowered had little impact on the benefit obtained. Recent evidence, however, suggests that agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system may be particularly beneficial. The results of the recent Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial suggest that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have a greater impact on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than would be anticipated from their antihypertensive effects alone. Angiotensin receptor blockers, the other major class of antihypertensive drugs that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system, have not been widely tested in outcomes trials, but early results suggest that they are beneficial for controlling target organ damage that is related to hypertension. Furthermore, unlike ACE inhibitors, these agents have a side-effect profile that is similar to that of placebo. Based on their efficacy in controlling hypertension and their wider health benefits, together with minimal side effects, angiotensin II (A II) receptor blockers should be considered as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, particularly in patients with other cardiovascular risk factors. Preliminary evidence suggests that olmesartan, an A II receptor blocker currently being evaluated for approval for clinical use, may provide antihypertensive efficacy that is superior to other members of the class.

Several angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) are currently available for the treatment of hypertension. These drugs share a common mechanism of action-antagonism of angiotensin II AT1 receptors; however, their receptor binding kinetics differ. Candesartan has a higher affinity for the AT1 receptor than all the other ARB. In addition, candesartan and irbesartan block the AT1 receptor with insurmountable antagonism, whereas losartan, valsartan, and eprosartan are competitive antagonists. The pharmacokinetics of these ARB also differ in terms of oral bioavailability, rate of absorption, metabolism, and route and rate of elimination. Both losartan potassium and candesartan cilexetil are prodrugs; however, losartan is partially converted into EXP3174 in the liver, whereas candesartan cilexetil is converted completely into candesartan during gastrointestinal absorption. On the basis of elimination half-lives, losartan, valsartan, and eprosartan may be classified as shorter acting and candesartan cilexetil and irbesartan as longer acting. Each drug effectively lowers blood pressure during once daily administration to patients with mild to moderate hypertension, with candesartan cilexetil requiring the lowest dosage and providing dose-dependent efficacy. Initial comparative clinical trials suggest that both candesartan cilexetil and irbesartan in the doses used are significantly more effective than losartan in lowering trough sitting diastolic blood pressure. It remains to be determined, however, whether the observed pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic differences among the members of the ARB class will have a clinically significant impact on long-term cardiovascular outcomes and reductions of cardiovascular mortality.

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study was designed to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of candesartan cilexetil in a diverse population of patients with severe systemic hypertension (diastolic blood pressure > or =110 mm Hg). After a placebo run-in period, patients were given hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg once daily for 1 week. A total of 217 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure >95 mm Hg while receiving HCTZ were then randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive candesartan cilexetil or placebo once daily for 4 weeks. Candesartan cilexetil was started at 8 mg and titrated to 16 mg if needed for blood pressure control; background HCTZ was continued in both groups. Candesartan cilexetil was significantly more effective than placebo in lowering trough diastolic and systolic blood pressure. The mean change in trough sitting diastolic blood pressure from the end of the HCTZ run-in period to the week 4 endpoint (primary study endpoint) was -9.1 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil and -3.1 mm Hg with placebo (p = 0.0001). A higher percentage of patients treated with candesartan cilexetil than placebo responded to treatment (53% vs 29%) and achieved diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (32% vs 15%). Subgroup analyses indicated that candesartan cilexetil was especially effective in patients with higher trough diastolic blood pressure at randomization, and it was significantly more effective than placebo in both black and nonblack patients alike as well as in women and men. Candesartan cilexetil was safe and well tolerated, with an adverse-event profile comparable to placebo. These results demonstrate that candesartan cilexetil added to background HCTZ therapy is effective and well tolerated in lowering blood pressure in patients with severe systemic hypertension.

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the potent angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil were evaluated in 217 adult patients (68% men, 41% black) with severe systemic hypertension on background therapy with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =110 mm Hg during the placebo run-in received HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily for 1 week. Those with sitting diastolic BP >95 mm Hg after the HCTZ run-in were randomized (2:1) to receive candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily (n = 141) or placebo (n = 76), plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. After 1 week of double-blind treatment, patients with sitting diastolic BP > or =90 mm Hg were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or matching placebo, plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; 84% required uptitration. Primary efficacy measurement was a change in trough (24+/-3 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic BP from the end of the HCTZ run-in to double-blind week 4. Mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with candesartan cilexetil than with placebo, -11.3/-9.1 mm Hg versus -4.1/-3.1 mm Hg, p <0.001/p <0.001, respectively. Patients with higher sitting diastolic BP at the end of the HCTZ run-in tended to have greater decreases in BP (p <0.05). Most patients (53%) receiving candesartan cilexetil were responders (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10 mm Hg decrease) and 32% were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Tolerability and safety profiles were similar in the candesartan and placebo groups. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16 mg once daily was an effective and well-tolerated therapy for lowering BP when added to HCTZ 12.5 mg in a diverse population of patients with severe systemic hypertension in the United States.

We compared the angiotensin II receptor antagonist valsartan to losartan as an antihypertensive agent in an 8-week trial. Adults with uncomplicated essential hypertension (baseline seated diastolic blood pressure < 115 mm Hg and > or = 95 mm Hg) were randomized to receive 80 mg valsartan, 50 mg losartan, or placebo once daily. After 4 weeks doses of active medication and placebo were doubled. Seated systolic and diastolic blood pressures were measured and the response rate evaluated. Tolerability was assessed by the incidence of adverse events. Both angiotensin II receptor antagonists produced similar significant reductions in mean blood pressures at 4 and 8 weeks compared to placebo. Valsartan produced a significantly higher number of responders (62%) than losartan (55%, P = .02) at the 8 week treatment endpoint. The incidence of adverse experiences (AE) was similar in all three groups, with headache and dizziness reported most often. Valsartan (80/160 mg) monotherapy in this trial was as effective and well tolerated as 50/100 mg losartan in treating mild to moderate essential hypertension, and at 160 mg has a significantly higher responder rate than 100 mg losartan.

Predictable dose-related efficacy is considered to be an important attribute of any antihypertensive agent. To determine the magnitude of dose-responsive efficacy for valsartan, a highly selective angiotensin II-receptor blocker, we conducted an integrated analysis of efficacy data from nine double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel studies of similar design and of at least 4 weeks' duration. The intent-to-treat analysis included 4067 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension who had received valsartan (n = 2901) 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 mg once daily or placebo (n = 1166). Blood pressure was assessed at trough (24 hours after the last dose). In all nine studies, valsartan doses > or = 80 mg produced statistically significant reductions in supine or seated diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) and systolic blood pressure (SSBP) compared with placebo (P < 0.05). The integrated analysis demonstrated a clear increase in blood-pressure-lowering efficacy with increasing dose across the range 10 to 320 mg (placebo-subtracted mean changes from baseline to end point for valsartan 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, and 320 mg, respectively: SDBP, -0.8, -2.8, -2.6, -3.9, -5.1, and -6.4 mm Hg; SSBP, -1.3, -5.7, -5.3, -6.8, -8.6, and -9.0 mm Hg). The data demonstrate that valsartan provides dose-responsive antihypertensive efficacy across the therapeutic dose range, with clinically relevant blood-pressure lowering at doses > or = 80 mg once daily.

The objectives of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled study were to evaluate the dose-related efficacy, tolerability, and safety of candesartan cilexetil, a potent, AT1 selective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, in 365 adult patients with systemic hypertension and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg. Patients received either placebo or candesartan cilexetil 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg once daily for 8 weeks. All doses of candesartan cilexetil reduced trough (24 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic and systolic BP significantly compared with placebo (p < 0.005). A significant (p < or = 0.0001) dose response was evident, with greater decreases in BP at higher doses. Mean changes in BP were -10.7/-7.8 mm Hg and -12.6/-10.2 mm Hg in the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively, versus -0.3/-2.6 mm Hg in the placebo group. The 16- and 32-mg doses were consistently significantly superior to placebo in antihypertensive effect with regard to all BP measurements, including peak (6 hours after treatment), trough, sitting, and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP. Responder rates (trough sitting diastolic BP < 90 or > or = 10 mm Hg BP decrease) were 54% and 64% for the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively. Tolerability and safety profiles were similar to placebo at all doses. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil administered once daily effectively reduces BP in a dose-related manner while maintaining safety and tolerability; doses of 16 and 32 mg are most effective for treatment of hypertension.

This multicenter, randomized, double-masked, elective-titration study was designed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of irbesartan and losartan, two angiotensin II subtype AT1-receptor blockers, in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 3-week, single-masked, placebo lead-in period, 432 patients with a mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) of 95 to 115 mm Hg were randomly allocated to receive either irbesartan 150 mg once daily (n = 213) or losartan 50 mg once daily (n = 219). At week 4, if SeDBP at trough (i.e., 24 +/- 3 hours after the previous dose) was > or = 90 mm Hg, the daily dose was doubled (to irbesartan 300 mg or losartan 100 mg). At week 8, if trough SeDBP was > or = 90 mm Hg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily was added to the regimen; consistent with the prescribing information for losartan, the dose of losartan was reduced to 50 mg once daily on the addition of hydrochlorothiazide. A total of 370 patients (178 irbesartan and 192 losartan) were evaluable for efficacy. The mean change in trough SeDBP at week 8, the primary efficacy end point, was significantly greater in patients receiving irbesartan monotherapy than in those receiving losartan monotherapy (-10.2 mm Hg vs -7.9 mm Hg, respectively). At week 12, reductions in trough SeDBP and seated systolic blood pressure were greater with irbesartan treatment than with losartan treatment (-13.8 mm Hg vs -10.8 mm Hg and -18.0 mm Hg vs -13.9 mm Hg, respectively), and a greater proportion of irbesartan patients responded to therapy (i.e., trough SeDBP < 90 mm Hg or reduction in trough SeDBP > or = 10 mm Hg) compared with losartan patients (78% vs 64%, respectively). Both regimens were well tolerated.

The treatment of hypertension mainly with diuretics and beta blockers reduces cardiovascular mortality and morbidity, largely due to a decreased incidence of stroke, whereas the beneficial effects of antihypertensive therapy on the occurrence of coronary events have been less than expected from epidemiological studies. Furthermore, treated hypertensive patients still have a higher cardiovascular complication rate, compared with matched normotensives. This is particularly evident in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a major independent risk indicator for cardiovascular disease. In addition to elevating blood pressure, angiotensin II (A-II) exerts an important influence on cardiac structure and function, stimulating cell proliferation and growth. Thus, to further reduce morbidity and mortality when treating hypertensive patients, it may be important to effectively block the effects of A-II. This can be achieved directly at the A-II receptor level by losartan, the first of a new class of antihypertensive agents. It therefore seems pertinent to investigate whether selective A-II receptor blockade with losartan not only lowers blood pressure but also reduces LVH more effectively than current therapy, and thus improves prognosis. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) in Hypertension study is a double-blind, prospective, parallel group study designed to compare the effects of losartan with those of the beta-blocker atenolol on the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in approximately 8,300 hypertensive patients (initial sitting diastolic blood pressure 95 to 115 mm Hg or systolic blood pressure 160 to 200 mm Hg) with electrocardiographically documented LVH. The study, which will continue for at least 4 years and until 1,040 patients experience one primary endpoint, has been designed with a statistical power that will detect a difference of at least 15% between groups in the incidence of combined cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is also the first prospective study with adequate power to link reversal of LVH to reduction in major cardiovascular events. The rationale of the study, which will involve more than 800 clinical centers in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, is discussed, and the major features of its design and general organization are described. On April 30, 1997, when inclusion was stopped, 9,218 patients had been randomized.

A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked, parallel-group study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of valsartan 20, 80, 160, and 320 mg with placebo in the treatment of patients with essential hypertension. A total of 736 adults with uncomplicated essential hypertension stages 1 to 3 were randomized to receive placebo or valsartan 20, 80, 160, or 320 mg daily for 8 weeks. Assessments were made at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, and 2 to 3 days after stopping treatment. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP). Other variables included change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and responder rates (ie, MSDBP < 90 mm Hg or decrease of > or = 10 mm Hg from baseline). All doses of valsartan produced statistically significant reductions in both MSDBP and MSSBP at end point compared with placebo. A dose-response effect was seen, although the incremental reduction in blood pressure with doses of valsartan > 80 mg was relatively small. Statistically significant differences in responder rates at end point were seen for doses of valsartan of 80 mg and above compared with placebo, whereas the responder rates for valsartan 20 mg was not significantly different from that for placebo. Safety and tolerability variables included data on adverse experiences, rebound hypertension, and clinical laboratory evaluations. Tolerability was good, with headache being the most common complaint and occurring most frequently in placebo patients. The incidence of dizziness was similar among the placebo (5.4%) and valsartan 20-mg to 160-mg groups (2.1% to 3.4%); there was an increase in the incidence of dizziness in the 320-mg group (9.3%). No cases of symptomatic orthostatic hypotension occurred. Analysis of rebound showed that 11.6% of patients receiving placebo and 16.6% receiving valsartan had an increase in MSDBP to baseline levels or above 2 to 3 days after stopping treatment. No clinically significant adverse experiences were noted after stopping treatment. There were no clinically or statistically significant changes in laboratory values during treatment. Thus valsartan proved to be both effective and safe in reducing blood pressure in adults with essential hypertension. The optimal dose range is 80 to 160 mg, given once daily.

A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life associated with treatment regimens including the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan, with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) added as needed, with regimens including the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine with HCTZ added as needed. The trial included patients whose sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) measurements were between 95 and 114 mm Hg, inclusive, at placebo baseline. Patients were randomized to receive either losartan or amlodipine in a double-masked, double-dummy fashion. A 4-week placebo washout period was followed by a 12-week active treatment period. Patients in the losartan arm (n = 97) were initially given 50 mg of oral (PO) losartan once a day (QD); the medication could be titrated to 50-mg losartan/ 12.5-mg HCTZ PO QD after 4 weeks, followed by 50-mg losartan plus 25-mg HCTZ PO QD after 8 weeks as necessary. Patients in the amlodipine group (n = 93) received 5-mg amlodipine PO QD, which could be titrated to 10 mg PO QD after 4 weeks, followed by 10 mg plus 25-mg HCTZ PO QD after 8 weeks. Medication was titrated upward as necessary to achieve trough SiDBP < 90 mm Hg. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality-of-life scores were assessed after 12 weeks of therapy with each regimen. Trough SiDBP reductions after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of therapy were clinically comparable (losartan group: 7.3, 10.4, and 11.1 mm Hg, respectively; amlodipine group: 7.9, 11.2, and 11.8 mm Hg, respectively). Similar reductions in systolic blood pressure were also seen for both treatment groups. The percentage of patients reaching goal SiDBP (defined as trough SiDBP < 90 mm Hg or SiDBP > or = 90 mm Hg with a > or = 10 mm Hg drop from placebo baseline) was comparable for the two groups, with 68% of patients in the losartan group and 71% of patients in the amlodipine group reaching goal. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group had drug-related adverse experiences (27% vs 13%). In particular, drug-related edema was more common in patients receiving the amlodipine regimen than in those receiving the losartan regimen (11% vs 1%). Patients in the amlodipine arm reported significantly more bother due to edema, regardless of whether edema was present at baseline, than did patients in the losartan arm (12% vs 2%), although overall quality of life was not different in the two treatment groups. This study demonstrates that a regimen of losartan with HCTZ added as needed, when compared with a regimen of amlodipine with HCTZ added as needed, provides comparable efficacy and superior tolerability and less bother to patients with respect to edema.