Search

We compared the systolic blood pressure (SBP)-lowering efficacy and safety of crystalline valsartan/sacubitril (LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor) 400 mg daily against valsartan (320 mg once daily) alone or coadministered with placebo or increasing doses of free sacubitril (50, 100, 200, or 400 mg once daily) to identify the optimal antihypertensive combination dose. This multicenter, double-blinded, 7-arm parallel-group study recruited patients with mild-to-moderate systolic hypertension (office SBP 150-179 mm Hg). Primary-dependent variable was change in office SBP from baseline to week 8. At entry (n = 907), mean age was 61.5 years, sitting office BP 160/90.2 mm Hg, and mean 24-hour ambulatory BP 142/82.1 mm Hg; 852 participants completed the study. At week 8, there were greater reductions in sitting office SBP and 24-hour ambulatory SBP with LCZ696 400 mg than with valsartan 320 mg (-5.7 and -3.4 mm Hg, respectively, P < 0.05 each). The SBP reduction with LCZ696 400 daily was similar to coadministered free valsartan 320 mg and sacubitril 200 mg. Effects were similar in those older and younger than 65 years, and active therapies had adverse event rates similar to placebo. We conclude that crystalline valsartan/sacubitril 400 mg daily (1) is superior to valsartan 320 mg daily for lowering SBP, (2) has similar efficacy to the combination of free valsartan 320 mg plus free sacubitril 200 mg, (3) represents the optimal dosage for systolic hypertension in patients of any age, and (4) is safe and well tolerated.

Effective treatment of systolic hypertension in elderly patients remains a major therapeutic challenge. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, was conducted to determine its effects versus olmesartan (angiotensin receptor blocker) on central aortic pressures, in elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) with systolic hypertension and pulse pressure >60 mm Hg, indicative of arterial stiffness. Patients (n=454; mean age, 67.7 years; mean seated systolic blood pressure, 158.6 mm Hg; mean seated pulse pressure, 69.7 mm Hg) were randomized to receive once-daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or olmesartan 20 mg, force titrated to double the initial doses after 4 weeks, before primary assessment at 12 weeks. The study extended double-blind treatment for 12 to 52 weeks, during which amlodipine (2.5-5 mg) and subsequently hydrochlorothiazide (6.25-25 mg) were added-on for patients not achieving blood pressure target (<140/90). At week 12, sacubitril/valsartan reduced central aortic systolic pressure (primary assessment) greater than olmesartan by -3.7 mm Hg ( P =0.010), further corroborated by secondary assessments at week 12 (central aortic pulse pressure, -2.4 mm Hg, P <0.012; mean 24-hour ambulatory brachial systolic blood pressure and central aortic systolic pressure, -4.1 mm Hg and -3.6 mm Hg, respectively, both P <0.001). Differences in 24-hour ambulatory pressures were pronounced during sleep. After 52 weeks, blood pressure parameters were similar between treatments ( P <0.002); however, more patients required add-on antihypertensive therapy with olmesartan (47%) versus sacubitril/valsartan (32%; P <0.002). Both treatments were equally well tolerated. The PARAMETER study (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Measuring Arterial Stiffness in the Elderly), for the first time, demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan in reducing clinic and ambulatory central aortic and brachial pressures in elderly patients with systolic hypertension and stiff arteries., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

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

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

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

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring may enhance assessment of BP control. In this 16-week study, men and women 70 years or older with systolic BP between 150 and 200 mm Hg were randomized to receive valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (V/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg (n = 128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 128), or V 160 mg (n = 128) for 4 weeks. Participants whose BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were uptitrated to a maximum of V/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Participants were evaluated by home BP monitoring using an automated device weekly before taking daily study medication (n = 301). Baseline BP ± SD for clinic (165.5 ± 11.8/85.1 ± 9.5 mm Hg) was approximately 3/1 mm Hg greater than home readings (162.5 ± 15.8/84.3 ± 10.2 mm Hg). Reductions in BP ± SEM at week 4 were similar for clinic (12.6 ± 1.0/4.7 ± 0.5 mm Hg) and home (10.9 ± 1.1/3.8 ± 0.5 mm Hg) readings (P = .25/P = .23; clinic versus home); differences between V/HCTZ and HCTZ or V were also similar for both home and clinic readings and results by either technique correlated significantly (P < .0001). Home BP measurements confirm that treatment initiated with V/HCTZ versus monotherapy resulted in greater antihypertensive efficacy. Home BP monitoring, if done with proper technique, provides a reliable indicator of BP control in elderly patients and may help guide drug dosing and titration., (Copyright © 2012 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

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

A high heart rate (HR) predicts future cardiovascular events. We explored the predictive value of HR in patients with high-risk hypertension and examined whether blood pressure reduction modifies this association. The participants were 15,193 patients with hypertension enrolled in the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial and followed up for 5 years. The HR was assessed from electrocardiographic recordings obtained annually throughout the study period. The primary end point was the interval to cardiac events. After adjustment for confounders, the hazard ratio of the composite cardiac primary end point for a 10-beats/min of the baseline HR increment was 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.20). Compared to the lowest HR quintile, the adjusted hazard ratio in the highest quintile was 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.46 to 2.04). Compared to the pooled lower quintiles of baseline HR, the annual incidence of primary end point in the top baseline quintile was greater in each of the 5 study years (all p <0.05). The adjusted hazard ratio for the primary end point in the highest in-trial HR heart rate quintile versus the lowest quintile was 1.53 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.85). The incidence of primary end points in the highest in-trial HR group compared to the pooled 4 lower quintiles was 53% greater in patients with well-controlled blood pressure (p <0.001) and 34% greater in those with uncontrolled blood pressure (p = 0.002). In conclusion, an increased HR is a long-term predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with high-risk hypertension. This effect was not modified by good blood pressure control. It is not yet known whether a therapeutic reduction of HR would improve cardiovascular prognosis., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

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

Background: Stage 2 hypertension often requires combination antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a useful tool for studying antihypertensive drugs and their combinations., Objective: This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, prompted-titration study of patients of at least 70 years of age with systolic hypertension compared the efficacy of valsartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and their combination on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) reduction., Methods: After a 3-14-day washout, patients with systolic blood pressure of 150-200 mmHg were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to initially receive once-daily valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide 160/12.5 mg combination therapy, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg monotherapy, or valsartan 160 mg monotherapy. Prompted uptitration of patients in whom BP was more than or equal to 140/90 mmHg was performed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. ABPM was performed at baseline and weeks 4 and 16 (study end)., Results: In this ABPM substudy (n=108), initiation of treatment with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide lowered ABP more effectively than either monotherapy throughout the daytime, night-time, and 24-h monitoring periods, as well as during the last 4 and 6-h dosing periods. Twenty-four-hour ABP was reduced from 141.1/76.5 mmHg at baseline to 125.8/69.2 mmHg at week 4 (primary time point) with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with reductions from 142.2/78.7 to 139.1/77.5 mmHg with hydrochlorothiazide and 142.2/78.3 to 136.4/75.1 mmHg with valsartan (all P<0.01 in favor of combination therapy). In the overall study, tolerability was similar among the three treatment groups., Conclusion: In elderly hypertensives, starting combination therapy with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide provides more effective 24-h blood pressure control than the monotherapy components, with few therapy-related side-effects.

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

Background: The safety of once-daily (qd) dosing of valsartan in heart failure (HF) patients is not known., Hypothesis: This 10-week, double-blind trial examined the relative safety and efficacy of valsartan administered qd versus twice-daily (bid)., Methods: HF patients (NYHA class II-III) receiving diuretics (87%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (98%), beta-blockers (92%), aldosterone antagonists (25%), or digoxin (32%) were randomized to valsartan 40 mg bid (n = 60) or 80 mg qd (n = 55) and titrated to a maximum dose of 320 mg/day; doubling the dose every 2 weeks. Clinical and biochemical parameters were measured at Weeks 2, 4, 6, and 10., Results: The average dose of valsartan at the end of study was 245 mg in the bid group vs 256 mg in the qd group (P = NS). Similar proportions of patients tolerated qd vs bid dosing (bid 67% vs qd 68%). Outcome measures including reduction in blood pressure, incidence of hypotension, renal impairment, orthostatic dizziness or fatigue, changes in serum K(+), creatinine, cystatin-C, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar between the 2 groups at all time-points. Brain natriuretic peptide levels decreased and plasma renin activity increased from baseline by the same amount in both groups at all time-points., Conclusion: Valsartan administered qd has a similar safety and tolerability profile with comparable 24-hour RAAS blockade, as assessed by increases in PRA, as bid dosing in patients with moderate to severe (NYHA class II-III) heart failure.

Background: Thiazide diuretics can impair glucose metabolism and increase new-onset diabetes. Adding an angiotensin receptor blocker to diuretics may protect against these metabolic effects; however, the mechanism of this protection is unclear., Method: To explore potential mechanisms, a 16-week multicenter trial was conducted to ascertain the relative glucose metabolism effects of combined hydrochlorothiazide and angiotensin receptor blocker (valsartan) therapy compared with hydrochlorothiazide and calcium channel blocker (amlodipine) treatment in 412 centrally obese hypertensive individuals (BMI = 35 +/- 7 kg/m, seated BP = 159 +/- 8/94 +/- 8 mmHg, and mean age 56 years). Individuals were randomized to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, with force-titration to 320/25 mg or hydrochlorothiazide, with titration to hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and amlodipine 10 mg, respectively. Changes from baseline to week 16 in fasting and 2-h postprandial glucose and insulin levels after an oral glucose load were measured., Results: At week 16, clinic blood pressure reductions were similar (P > 0.05) in both groups. Fasting and 2-h glucose levels increased (P < 0.05) with the amlodipine combination but not with the valsartan combination. In concert with these glucose responses, postprandial insulin increases from baseline were substantially greater with valsartan than with amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group (P = 0.001). The glucose responses were inversely related to insulin responses at the study conclusion., Conclusion: The novel observation of this investigation was that the combination of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide was associated with greater glucose-stimulated insulin secretory and lesser glycemic excursion responses than the amlodipine combination group. Thus, this data suggests that adding an angiotensin receptor blocker attenuates the negative effects of thiazides on pancreatic beta-cell glucose-induced insulin secretion.

Objective: The blood pressure (BP)-lowering response to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in hypertensive African-Americans is typically less than in whites. To determine whether higher than conventional doses of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade can improve BP reduction in African-American patients., Methods: Hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria were enrolled: 110 African-Americans (BP = 150/87 mmHg, aged 57.5 +/- 11 years) and 281 non-African-Americans (BP = 151/89 mmHg, aged 57.7 +/- 11 years). All patients received valsartan 160 mg once daily in the morning for 4 weeks, following which patients were randomized to receive one of three valsartan doses: 160, 320 or 640 mg/day (2x, maximal recommended dose) for 26 weeks. If at week 6, target BP (<130/80 mmHg) was not achieved, then other add-on antihypertensives were allowed., Results: The predominant BP (DeltaSBP/DeltaDBP) reduction was observed within 4 weeks and was lesser in African-Americans (7.8 +/- 15/4.5 +/- 9 mmHg) than non-African-Americans (8.9 +/- 14/6.6 +/- 1 mmHg, P < 0.05). Greater reduction in urinary albumin excretion was observed with higher doses (320 or 640 mg); however, the responses were similar between African-Americans and non-African-Americans. Use of add-on antihypertensives was higher in African-American (56%) vs. non-African-American patients (36%) with a similar rate across the three valsartan doses. From week 4-26, reduction in BP was lesser (P < 0.05) for African-American than non-African-American patients at the160-mg dose but not with 320 and 640-mg doses., Conclusion: In African-American patients, a lower BP reduction response was observed to conventional doses of valsartan than non-African-American patients, but at 640 mg, a higher response was observed in African-American patients than in non-African-American patients.

Background: Previous studies using the combination of angiotensin-receptor blockers and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) have shown superior ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) reduction in study participants with stage 2 hypertension compared with monotherapy., Objective: This multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, forced-titration study of individuals with stage 2 hypertension, compared the efficacy of valsartan and amlodipine in combination with HCTZ on ABP reduction., Methods: After a 2-week washout period, participants (n=482) with mean office sitting systolic BP >or=160 mmHg and

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

Objective: Delays in achieving blood pressure (BP) control may increase morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension. Thus, deciding which antihypertensive agent to use and at what dosage, in addition to determining when to initiate combination therapy and which agents to combine, is important for achieving BP control., Methods: This randomized, double-blind, 14-week study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of various doses of valsartan +/- hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) versus amlodipine +/- HCTZ for maximizing BP control in 1,285 patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Patients with stage 1 hypertension and naïve to antihypertensive therapy (33.9%) started valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Treatment-naïve patients with stage 2 hypertension (13.5%) or those uncontrolled on current antihypertensive monotherapy (52.6%) started valsartan 160 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or amlodipine 10 mg. At weeks 4, 8, and 11, patients not achieving BP control were up-titrated (maximum: valsartan 320 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, amlodipine 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg)., Results: At study end, 78.8% of patients on valsartan +/- HCTZ were controlled (BP <140/90 mmHg) and still on study medication versus 67.8% on amlodipine +/- HCTZ (P < 0.0001). Amlodipine-treated patients had a higher incidence of peripheral edema (22.4% vs 2.2%) and associated discontinuations (7.3% vs <1%). Initiating therapy earlier with valsartan/HCTZ, rather than titrating monotherapy to its maximum dose before adding a second agent, was superior to amlodipine monotherapy or amlodipine +/- HCTZ for achieving BP control, and avoided excessive treatment adjustments and maintained tolerability.

Background: Most patients with hypertension will require combination therapy to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, especially the elderly, obese, or those with stage 2 hypertension., Objective: To assess BP response and time to achieve BP goals in a diverse population of hypertensive patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan, or a combination., Methods: For this secondary post-hoc analysis, data were pooled from two similar randomized, double-blind, 8-week trials that evaluated hydrochlorothiazide (12.5-25 mg) and valsartan (160 mg) monotherapies, their combination (160/12.5 mg), and placebo. Subgroups were defined by age, hypertension severity, and obesity. Adults with diastolic BP > or =95 and < or =115 mmHg were included. Goal rates were estimated from a logistic model with treatment, study, age group, race, and baseline body mass index as factors and baseline diastolic BP as a covariate. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to calculate the time to achieve BP goals., Main Outcome Measures: Efficacy variables were reductions from baseline to study end in systolic BP and diastolic BP, rates of achieving BP goals (<140/90 mmHg), and time to achieve BP goals. Adverse events were also reported for the pooled trials., Results: BP reductions at study end and goal achievement rates were greater with combination therapy (-20/15 mmHg and 72%, respectively) than with either monotherapy (valsartan 160 mg: -14/11 mmHg, 61%; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg: -14/10 mmHg, 50%) for the overall population (N=1313) and in patient subgroups. Patients treated with initial combination therapy reached goal in 27-56% of the time needed for those treated with monotherapy. Combination therapy was well tolerated and was associated with a decreased incidence of hypokalemia compared with hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy., Conclusions: Compared with monotherapy, combination therapy resulted in greater reductions in BP and achievement of goal BP in a shorter period of time. Although interpretation of this study is subject to the limitations associated with any post-hoc analysis, the results suggest that initiating treatment with combination therapy may be considered for expedient and effective BP control.

To assess the strategy of increasing the dose of a diuretic compared with using an angiotensin receptor blocker in combination with a diuretic, the authors performed a multicenter, randomized, parallel group trial in hypertensive patients (baseline blood pressure [BP], 153/97 mm Hg) whose BP remained uncontrolled on initial low-dose diuretic monotherapy (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg Hg). Patients with stage 1 and 2 hypertension were randomized to treatment with valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) or to doubling of the HCTZ dose (25 mg). The primary end point was the percentage of patients whose clinic BP values were <140/90 mm Hg following 4 weeks of double-blind therapy. A significantly higher proportion (P<.001) of hypertensive patients met BP control levels in the valsartan/HCTZ (160/12.5 mg) group compared with the HCTZ 25 mg group (37% vs 16%). Changes from baseline in BP were significantly greater (P<.001) for both systolic BP and diastolic BP in the combination therapy arm compared with the diuretic monotherapy arm (-12. 4/-7.5 mm Hg in valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg group vs -5.6/-2.1 mm Hg in HCTZ 25 mg group). Tolerability and adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. This study suggests that in the management of hypertension, utilizing an angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination was more effective in lowering BP and achieving BP goals when compared with increasing the dose of the diuretic.

Background: The progression of renal disease is ameliorated by drugs that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). The doses used to slow the progression of renal disease may not completely suppress the RAS for 24 h and may explain why some patients do not obtain optimal renoprotective benefits from therapy. This pilot study was initiated to determine the safety and tolerability of using higher doses, than currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, for the angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan cilexetil in patients with chronic kidney disease. We hypothesized that higher doses will be safe and well tolerated. Consequently, this should be a viable strategy for larger clinical trials evaluating the preservation of renal function., Methods: Twelve patients (10 males; age = 57 +/- 14 years) with a history of diabetic or non-diabetic chronic kidney disease were enrolled in an 8-week open-label trial. Patients received candesartan titrated to a targeted dosage of 160 mg/day (5 times above the currently approved maximum dose) and remained at that dosage for the subsequent 4 weeks. The safety and tolerability of the higher doses were determined by measures of blood pressure, serum creatinine and potassium., Results: Candesartan was well tolerated with no serious drug-related adverse events reported. Serum creatinine concentrations throughout the study were not different (p > 0.05) from baseline levels (2.0 +/- 0.5 mg/dl). Plasma potassium concentrations at 160 mg/day candesartan (4.9 +/- 0.7 mEq/l) were similar (p > 0.05) to those at baseline (4.8 +/- 0.5 mEq/l)., Conclusions: The results of this pilot study suggest that supramaximal doses of ARBs are safe and well tolerated in patients with chronic kidney disease, while reducing both blood pressure and proteinuria. This study demonstrates the need to further investigate the optimal dosing strategy for ARBs in reducing the progression of renal disease., (Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel)