Search

Aim: The current standard treatment for IgA nephropathy relies on steroid and/or immunosuppressive therapy and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). This study examines the benefits and safety of combining valsartan with clopidogrel and leflunomide as a treatment for progressive IgA nephropathy., Methods: Patients with primary IgA nephropathy, confirmed by renal biopsy, were recruited for this study. Patients were separated into four groups (n = 42 each) after 2 months of run-in period of valsartan treatment. All patients were treated with valsartan alone (Group 1) or valsartan and either clopidogrel (Group 2) or leflunomide (Group 3) or both clopidogrel and leflunomide (Group 4). Each group was followed up for their next 24 months for 24 h urinary protein excretion, serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) to assess the effect of the treatment. Adverse effects were recorded concurrently to evaluate the safety of the treatment., Results: Of all 168 patients, 107 were males and 61 were females, with an average age of 33.8 ± 8.79 years. Baseline characteristics were comparable among the four groups (P > 0.05) prior to the experimental treatment. There was a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in 24 h urinary protein excretion after 4 months of experimental treatment. At the end of the 24 months, groups 3 and 4 showed a respective 62.35% and 69.47% reduction in proteinuria. The serum creatinine was significantly higher (P < 0.05) in group 1 and 2 at the end of the follow-up, and their respective eGFR was significantly lower. The incidence of cardiovascular complication was 11.9% and 9.5% for group 1 and 3, respectively., Conclusions: The treatment with Valsartan combined with Clopidogrel and Leflunomide can reduce the urinary proteins loss and renal function deterioration for IgA nephropathy patients and cause minimal adverse reactions. Our study suggests a new clinical treatment option for IgA nephropathy., (© 2014 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology.)

Background: The clinical EXCITE (EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study reported clinically relevant blood pressure (BP) reductions across all doses of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and Aml/Val/hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) single-pill combinations. The study prospectively observed a multiethnic population of hypertensive patients for 26 weeks who were treated according to routine clinical practice. Here, we present the results in high-risk subgroups including the elderly, obese patients, and patients with diabetes or isolated systolic hypertension. In addition, we present a post hoc analysis as per prior antihypertensive monotherapy and dual therapy., Methods: Patients prescribed Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT were assessed in this 26±8 week, noninterventional, multicenter study across 13 countries in the Middle East and Asia. Changes in mean sitting systolic BP, mean sitting diastolic BP, and overall safety were assessed., Results: Of a total of 9,794 patients analyzed, 8,603 and 1,191 patients were prescribed Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT, respectively. Among these, 15.5% were elderly, 32.5% were obese, 31.3% had diabetes, and 9.8% had isolated systolic hypertension. Both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations, respectively, were associated with clinically relevant and significant mean sitting systolic/diastolic BP reductions across all subgroups: elderly patients (-32.2/-14.3 mmHg and -38.5/-16.5 mmHg), obese patients (-32.2/-17.9 mmHg and -38.5/-18.4 mmHg), diabetic patients (-30.3/-16.1 mmHg and -34.4/-16.6 mmHg), and patients with isolated systolic hypertension (-25.5/-4.1 mmHg and -30.2/-5.9 mmHg). Incremental BP reductions with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT single-pill combinations were also observed in patients receiving prior monotherapy or dual therapy for hypertension. Overall, both Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT were generally well tolerated., Conclusion: This large, multiethnic study supports the evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/ HCT single-pill combinations are effective in diverse and clinically important subgroups of patients with hypertension.

One of the important problems of the patients undergoing acute myocardial infarction (MI) is early development of heart failure. It has been revealed in various studies that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has a significant role in this process. The studies conducted with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have resulted in decreased mortality rate. Another RAAS blocker which was discovered about ten years later than other ACE inhibitors in historical process is angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) inhibiting the efficiency of angiotensin 2 by binding to angiotensin 1 receptor. Valsartan is one of the molecules of this group, which has higher number of large-scale randomized clinical studies. In this review, following presentation of a general overview on heart failure after acute MI, the efficiency of ARBs in this patient group will be discussed. This discussion will mostly emphasize the construction, outcomes and clinical importance of VALIANT (VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion), which is the study on valsartan after acute MI heart failure.

Heart failure which occurs due to various causes including primarily coronary artery diseases and hypertension is a syndrome with complex physiopathology and clinic that can impair patients' quality of life or lead to death. However, it is well known that the activation of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has an important role in the physiopathology of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Therefore, suppression of this system for achieving a gain in the treatment of the disease has been among prominent concerns. In this review, the place of RAS suppressive drugs and valsartan, which is an angiotensin receptor blocker, in heart failure will be examined.

Objectives: Lithium is often the mood stabilizer of choice for the treatment of type I bipolar disorder. However, side effects as well as the narrow therapeutic dosing range often complicate its use. Lithium toxicity can be fatal and its serum level needs to be closely monitored, especially at the time of introduction and titration, or whenever combined with potentially interacting drugs, such as inhibitors of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE-I) or angiotensin receptor 1 (AT1 ) blockers. ACE-I and AT1 blockers can increase serum lithium levels, leading to acute lithium toxicity upon their introduction or titration., Methods: Here, we report a case of lithium toxicity during concomitant treatment with valsartan, an AT1 blocker, in a patient who previously displayed a stable serum lithium level. The patient was observed for a few weeks and the serum lithium concentration was measured regularly., Results: In contrast to previous reports, the toxicity in our patient occurred not upon introduction or titration of lithium or valsartan but after subtle modifications in daily dosing schedule for lithium. Just before the onset of toxicity, lithium had been split into two doses, whereby half of the lithium daily dose was administrated concomitantly with valsartan. We presumed that this combination had led to simultaneous concentration peaks of valsartan and lithium, promoting lithium retention within a sharp time window., Conclusions: Our observation points to the need for caution not only during the introduction and titration of ACE-I/AT1 blockers in lithium-treated patients, but also whenever the temporal pattern of drug administration is modified., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The fixed-dose combination of any two antihypertensive drugs from different drug classes is typically more effective in reducing blood pressure than a dose increase of component monotherapy. We assessed the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of a vasodilating β blocker (nebivolol) and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (valsartan) in adults with hypertension., Methods: We did an 8-week, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial at 401 US sites. Participants (age ≥18 years) with hypertension but with blood pressure less than 180/110 mm Hg were randomly assigned (2:2:2:2:2:2:2:1) by a 24-h interactive web response system in blocks of 15 to 4 weeks of double-blind treatment with nebivolol and valsartan fixed-dose combination (5 and 80 mg/day, 5 and 160 mg/day, or 10 and 160 mg/day), nebivolol (5 mg/day or 20 mg/day), valsartan (80 mg/day or 160 mg/day), or placebo. Doses were doubled in weeks 5-8; results are reported according to the final dose. Participants and research staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary and key secondary endpoints were changes from baseline to week 8 in diastolic and systolic blood pressure, respectively. The primary statistical comparison was between the highest fixed-dose combination dose and the highest monotherapy doses; lower doses were then compared if this comparison was positive (Hochberg method for multiple testing). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. Safety assessments included monitoring of adverse events. Continuous efficacy parameters were analysed using an ANCOVA model; binary outcomes were analysed using a logistic regression model. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01508026., Findings: Between Jan 6, 2012, and March 15, 2013, 4161 patients were randomly assigned (277 to placebo and 554-555 to each active comparator group), 4118 of whom were included in the primary analysis. At week 8, the fixed-dose combination 20 and 320 mg/day group had significantly greater reductions in diastolic blood pressure from baseline than both nebivolol 40 mg/day (least-squares mean difference -1·2 mm Hg, 95% CI -2·3 to -0·1; p=0·030) and valsartan 320 mg/day (-4·4 mm Hg, -5·4 to -3·3; p<0·0001); all other comparisons were also significant, favouring the fixed-dose combinations (all p<0·0001). All systolic blood pressure comparisons were also significant (all p<0·01). At least one treatment-emergent adverse event was experienced by 30-36% of participants in each group., Interpretation: Nebivolol and valsartan fixed-dose combination is an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with hypertension., Funding: Forest Research Institute., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A 69-year-old man with a past history of hypertension on angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) for three months presented for radical prostatectomy. Immediately after induction of anesthesia with fentanyl and propofol, mask ventilation became difficult, although no significant hemodynamic changes occurred. Fiberoptic examination revealed severe oropharyngeal edema, but, the trachea was successfully intubated. Afterward, the operation proceeded without complications. He stayed in the ICU for 4 days until the trachea was extubated successfully. He was diagnosed with DIAE because of his history of dyspnea with exclusion of other possible pathophysiological conditions.

Background: The solubility of valsartan is dependent on pH and thus may cause patient variability in drug absorption and failure in bioequivalence studies; thus, increasing the solubility and release of valsartan at low pH has been suggested for a more favorable pharmacokinetic profile. However, due to this pH dependence, the change in the formulation process could alter the disintegration and/or dissolution profile of the drug, possibly making the results of bioequivalence studies misleading., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the bioavailability and tolerability of a newly developed oral formulation of valsartan 160 mg (wet-granulation tablet) in healthy Korean male volunteers., Method: This study was performed with the subjects under fasted conditions, using a randomized, single-dose, 2-period crossover design. Subjects were assigned to receive, in randomized order, a single dose of the test formulation and a reference formulation (valsartan 160-mg dry-granulation tablet), with a washout period of 7 days between the administrations. Blood samples were collected up to 24 hours after dosing, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined after the plasma valsartan concentration was analyzed using UPLC-MS/MS. The dissolution studies of both formulations were conducted using USP apparatus 2 at 50 rpm with 1000 mL of phosphate buffer solution (pH, 6.8) at 37°C ± 0.5°C. Bioequivalence was defined per Korean Food and Drug Administration's regulatory criteria as 90% CIs of the geometric mean test/reference ratios of AUC0-t and Cmax within the range of 0.8 to 1.25. Tolerability was assessed using physical examination and subject interviews., Results: Sixty subjects were enrolled (mean [SD] age [range], 23.6 [2.4] years [21-31]; height, 173.7 [6.6] cm [161-190]; and weight, 68.0 [8.7] kg [54-85]). The mean AUC0-∞ values with the test and reference tablets were 31,784 (13,844) and 32,714 (14,512) ng · h/mL, respectively; Cmax, 5094 (2061) and 5064 (1864) ng/mL; Tmax, 2.92 (1.04) and 3.08 (1.01) hours. The 90% CIs for the geometric mean test/reference ratios of AUC0-t and Cmax were 0.9295 to 1.0546 and 0.9190 to 1.0848, respectively, which met the criteria for bioequivalence. The most frequently reported adverse event was dizziness after blank blood sampling, recorded in 4 subjects, 2 cases each with the test and reference formulations., Conclusions: In this study in healthy Korean male volunteers, the test and reference formulations of 160-mg valsartan met the Korean Food and Drug Administration's regulatory criteria for bioequivalence despite the difference in formulation (wet granulation vs dry granulation). Both formulations were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Gastrointestinal toxicity is uncommon among patients treated with angiotensin II receptor antagonists. A 58-year-old man presented with nausea, vomiting and constant pain in the epigastrium that radiated to the flanks. He received treatment with valsartan (160 mg daily) for hypertension. The clinical, biochemical and radiological findings were compatible with a diagnosis of acute pancreatitis. After the patient achieved a clinical and biochemical recovery, the valsartan therapy was started again. Six weeks later, he returned to the hospital with an attack of pancreatitis. Subsequently, he returned with repeated attacks of pancreatitis twice, and the valsartan was discontinued. Ten months after the treatment, the patient had no complaints. When severe abdominal symptoms occur for no apparent reason during treatment with valsartan, a diagnosis of pancreatitis should be considered.

Aim: Angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARBs) and anti-oxidants reduce urinary protein excretion and delay progression of immunoglobulin A (IgA) nephropathy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of probucol (an anti-oxidant) combined with valsartan (an ARB) on the progression of IgA nephropathy., Methods: Patients with IgA nephropathy (n = 69) were recruited from five centres and randomly assigned to a treatment group (750 mg/day probucol plus 160 mg/day valsartan) or a control group (160 mg/day valsartan) and were followed for 3 years., Results: At baseline, the two groups in any measured clinical information were comparable. The primary endpoint (doubling serum creatinine) showed no significant difference between the two groups during 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoint (50% reduction in 24-h urinary protein) occurred in 23 patients in the treatment group and 20 patients in the control group. The time to the secondary end-point was shorter in the treatment group than the control group (8.13 months vs 19.63 months, P = 0.019). However, at the 3-year follow-up, the 24-h urinary protein levels were not significantly different from the baseline levels (P = 0.99 and P = 0.66, respectively). At the 1-year follow-up, plasma cholesterol in the treatment group was markedly lower than in the control group (4.12 ± 1.28 vs 5.03 ± 1.01, P = 0.02)., Conclusion: Kidney function remained stable and there was no significant difference in two group patients. Probucol combined with valsartan led to a more rapid decrease of 24-h urinary protein excretion than valsartan alone. However, the long-term effect needs further investigation., (© 2013 Asian Pacific Society of Nephrology.)

We reviewed the Chinese and English literature for the efficacy and safety data of valsartan monotherapy or combination therapy in Chinese hypertensive patients. According to the data of ten randomized controlled trials, valsartan monotherapy was as efficacious as another angiotensin receptor blocker or other classes of antihypertensive drugs, excepting the slightly inferior diastolic blood pressure-lowering effect in comparison with calcium channel blockers. According to the data of six randomized controlled trials, valsartan combination, with hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, or nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system, was more efficacious than monotherapy of valsartan, amlodipine, or nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system. According to these trials, valsartan had an acceptable tolerability, regardless of whether it was used as monotherapy or in combination therapy. Nonetheless, several rare side effects have been reported, indicating that it should still be used with caution. This is of particular importance given that there are millions of hypertensive patients, worldwide, currently exposed to the drug.

Introduction: Heart failure remains a syndrome with a very high mortality rate and a poor quality of life. For patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), no drugs have shown to improve mortality and morbidity, and therefore novel drugs are highly needed. LCZ696 , a first in class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi), might be an interesting novel drug for the treatment of heart failure., Areas Covered: Previous studies have shown promising effects of a combination drug with a neutral endopeptidase and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (omapatrilat) for the treatment of patients with heart failure. However, the occurrence of angioedema prevented the drug from further development. The majority of this paper will discuss the metabolism, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, clinical effects, and safety of LCZ696, with a particular focus on heart failure., Expert Opinion: LCZ696 is superior to valsartan alone in reducing blood pressure. Preliminary results from a Phase II trial showed that LCZ696 reduced NT-proBNP to a greater extent than valsartan alone, and in addition LCZ696 had beneficial effects on symptoms. With these promising first results, the results of ongoing further studies in heart failure are eagerly awaited.

Coronary plaques can be reduced by some medications. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 2 angiotensin II receptor blockers (olmesartan at 20 mg/day or valsartan at 80 mg/day) on coronary plaque by coronary intravascular ultrasound. One hundred hypertensive patients with stable angina pectoris who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention were randomly selected to receive 1 of the 2 angiotensin II receptor blockers after coronary intervention. Nontarget coronary lesions with mild to moderate stenosis were measured by volumetric intravascular ultrasound at baseline and after 6 months. After 6 months, both the olmesartan and the valsartan groups showed significant reduction of the examined coronary plaque volume (46.2 ± 24.1 mm³ at baseline vs 41.6 ± 21.1 mm³ at 6 months: 4.7% decrease, p = 0.0002; and 47.2 ± 32.7 mm³ at baseline vs 42.5 ± 30.2 mm³ at 6 months: 4.8% decrease, p = 0.002, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference of plaque regression between the 2 groups (p = 0.96). In conclusion, there was a significant decrease from baseline in the coronary plaque volume in patients with stable angina pectoris who received olmesartan or valsartan for 6 months. In addition, there was no significant difference in the reduction of plaque volume achieved by these 2 medications., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of once-daily triple therapy with amlodipine (Aml) 10 mg, valsartan (Val) 320 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus dual-therapy combinations of these components in patients with moderate to severe hypertension., Research Design: Subgroup analysis of a multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled trial., Methods: After antihypertensive washout and a placebo run-in of up to 4 weeks, 2271 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive Aml/Val/HCTZ triple therapy or dual therapy with Val/HCTZ, Aml/Val, or Aml/HCTZ for 8 weeks. Forced titration to the full dose was done over the first 2 weeks of treatment. Efficacy and safety parameters were determined by age group (<65 vs. ≥65 years), gender, race (White vs. Black), ethnicity (Hispanic/Latino vs. non-Hispanic/Latino), and body mass index (BMI, <30 vs. ≥30 kg/m²)., Main Outcome Measures: Change from baseline to endpoint in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP); blood pressure (BP) control rate <140/90 mmHg., Results: Triple therapy was numerically superior and, for the majority of comparisons, statistically superior to each dual therapy in reducing MSSBP and MSDBP and in improving BP control rates in all subgroups. Across subgroups, triple therapy reduced MSSBP by 5.7-10.7 mmHg more than Val/HCTZ, 3.4-8.3 mmHg more than Aml/Val, and 4.4-9.4 mmHg more than Aml/HCTZ. Triple therapy was well tolerated across all subgroups. Limitations of our analysis included the lack of stratification of patients by subgroup at randomization and the small sample size of some subgroups (e.g., Blacks, elderly)., Conclusions: Triple therapy with Aml/Val/HCTZ is effective and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe hypertension regardless of age, gender, race, ethnicity, or BMI., Trial Registration Number: NCT00327587.

Background: Amlodipine and valsartan have different mechanisms of action, and it is known that the combination therapy with the 2 drugs increases treatment effects compared with the monotherapy with each drug. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) drug is a formulation including fixed amounts of active drug ingredients combined in a single dosage form that is expected to improve medication compliance., Objective: The goal of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of single administration of a newly developed FDC tablet containing amlodipine orotate 10 mg and valsartan 160 mg (test formulation) with the conventional FDC tablet of amlodipine besylate 10 mg and valsartan 160 mg (reference formulation) in healthy male Korean volunteers., Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-way crossover study. Eligible subjects were between the ages of 20 and 50 years and within 20% of their ideal weight. Each subject received a single dose of the reference and the test formulations, with a 14-day washout period between formulations. Blood samples were collected up to 144 hours after the dose, and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for amlodipine and valsartan. Adverse events were evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations., Results: Forty-eight of the 50 enrolled subjects completed the study. For both amlodipine and valsartan, the primary pharmacokinetic parameters were included in the range for assumed bioequivalence, yielding 90% CI ratios of 0.9277 to 0.9903 for AUC(0-last) and 0.9357 to 1.0068 for C(max) in amlodipine, and 0.9784 to 1.1817 for AUC(0-last) and 0.9738 to 1.2145 for C(max) in valsartan. Dizziness was the most frequently noted adverse event, occurring in 4 subjects with the test formulation, followed by oropharyngeal pain occurring in 1 subject with the test formulation and 3 subjects with the reference formulation. All other adverse events occurred in <3 subjects., Conclusions: These findings suggest that the pharmacokinetics of the newly developed FDC tablet of amlodipine and valsartan did not differ significantly from the conventional FDC tablet in these healthy Korean male subjects. Both formulations were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01823913., (Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by EM Inc USA.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study was designed to assess the safety, compliance and efficacy of amlodipine (Aml) and valsartan (Val) single-pill combination (SPC) in a large hypertensive patient population., Study Design: This is a non-interventional, observational, open label study conducted in 166 centers in Turkey with a 24-week follow-up period., Results: Of the 1184 enrolled patients, two-thirds were female (62.2%). The mean age was 57.7±11.3 years, and 26.1% of the patients were older than 65 years. The majority of patients (82.3%) were overweight or obese. During the course of the study, 150 (12.7%) patients experienced a total of 174 adverse events (AEs). The overall mean (SD) compliance rate was determined to be 96.9 (0.2)%. The most commonly reported AE was edema, with a new-onset edema incidence of 6.7%. In the entire group, Aml/Val SPC significantly reduced both systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP), with a reduction of 29.6±0.9 / 14.7±0.6 mmHg (for each, p<0.001)., Conclusion: As a result of the low incidences of AEs and new-onset edema, the safety profile of Aml/Val SPC proved to be optimal. Aml/Val SPC reduced BP efficiently and met the needs of most patients to achieve the targets. Aml/Val SPC seems to be a beneficial option for effective BP control, which is a key factor influencing cardiovascular outcome.

Background: Co-administration of valsartan (VAL) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) has been used to regulate blood pressure. Compliance with a multiple medication regimen can be difficult for some patients; therefore, a combination of VAL + HCT tablets may be a suitable alternative., Objective: This study was conducted to compare the rate and extent of absorption of VAL and HCT after oral administration as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet and concomitant administration of the individual drugs under fasting conditions in healthy Egyptian subjects. The study was extended to investigate any potential interaction between VAL and HCT., Methods: This study was conducted as an open-label, randomized study with 2 parts (parts I and II), with each part consisting of 4 single-dose treatment periods with a crossover design and 2-week washout periods. Blood samples were collected up to 48 hours postdose, and plasma was analyzed for VAL and HCT concentrations by using HPLC. The pharmacokinetic properties of each drug after co-administration of VAL and HCT were compared with those of each drug administered alone. Tolerability was assessed by physical examination and verbally questioning subjects regarding their well-being and any feelings of discomfort. All events reported by the subjects were recorded in adverse-event forms., Results: Forty-eight healthy subjects were enrolled (24 in each part), and all subjects completed the study. None of the participants showed any sign of adverse drug reactions during or after the completion of the study. Statistical analysis confirmed that the 90% CIs for AUC and Cmax of VAL/HCT FDC and VAL + HCT were within the commonly accepted bioequivalence range of 0.8 to 1.25. As a result, from an in vivo pharmacokinetic perspective, 1 FDC tablet could be considered interchangeable in medical practice with the 2 individual reference tablets. However, the 90% CIs between VAL alone and when administered with HCT, either as FDC or concomitantly, indicated the presence of an interaction between VAL and HCT, which would significantly decrease the systemic exposure and intensity of VAL absorption. The co-administration of HCT with VAL decreased the AUC and Cmax of HCT nonsignificantly compared with administration of HCT alone., Conclusions: Both VAL/HCT FDC and VAL + HCT were well tolerated. The safety/efficacy profile of VAL + HCT co-administration therapy could be extended to the VAL/HCT FDC tablet. The interaction of HCT with other angiotensin-receptor blockers should be investigated to determine whether this interaction is limited to VAL or if other angiotensin-receptor blockers have the same pharmacokinetic interactions. Further studies are necessary to determine the role of efflux and influx transporters on VAL and HCT disposition and pharmacokinetics., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate a dose-dependent reduction in blood pressure (BP) and overall safety of valsartan in hypertensive children., Method: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, 75 patients with a documented history of hypertension were randomized (2 : 1 : 2) to receive valsartan (0.25, 1 or 4  mg/kg per day) for 6 weeks, then rerandomized (1 : 1) to receive placebo or valsartan for 2 weeks. This followed the 18-week extension study in which all patients received open-label valsartan (1  mg/kg initial dose, titratable up to 4  mg/kg). The primary endpoint was the slope analysis of the dose-response curve for mean sitting SBP (MSSBP) derived through MSSBP reduction over the first 6 weeks. Safety was assessed in terms of adverse events and serious adverse events (SAEs)., Results: At Week 6, significant reductions in MSSBP (P < 0.05) from baseline were observed for all three valsartan doses. Greater reductions were observed with the medium and high doses, although the dose-response trend was not statistically significant (P = 0.099). At Week 8, a greater increase in BP was observed in patients who switched from valsartan to placebo; the difference was not significant. At the extension endpoint, MSSBP was comparable to that observed at Week 6 of the core study. Overall, valsartan was well tolerated with no dose-dependent increase in adverse events during the dose-ranging period (Week 0-6) and a comparable incidence of adverse events to placebo during the placebo withdrawal period (Week 7-8)., Conclusion: Although a dose-response trend was observed, statistical significance was not achieved during the dose ranging (primary endpoint) or the placebo-withdrawal periods of the study. However, valsartan demonstrated significant reductions in BP compared with baseline and provided consistent reductions over 26 weeks.

It is well known that blood pressure (BP) management reduces the incidence of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events. However, it is unclear how many of these events occur in hypertensive patients who receive pharmacological treatment. The aim of this survey was to evaluate the occurrence rate of both types of events in patients receiving valsartan-based treatment. Of 30 366 patients treated with valsartan, 28 356 patients were observed for 2.93 years. Antihypertensive drugs other than valsartan were used in 56.8% of patients. After the administration of valsartan, the systolic and diastolic BP significantly decreased from 161.1±19.1/90.4±13.1 to 139.9±18.1/79.6±11.9 mm Hg. Cerebrovascular events were observed in 550 patients (1.94%, 9.29/1000 patient-years), and cardiac events were observed in 576 patients (2.03%, 9.73/1000 patient-years). A comparative analysis of the hazard ratios for cerebrovascular and cardiac events according to the BP level at the endpoint showed a BP-dependent reduction of risk for cerebrovascular events, and the change in risk exhibited a J-curve phenomenon in the relationship between cardiac events and systolic BP. The J-curve phenomenon was not observed in patients aged <75 years, but it was observed for the systolic BP in patients aged 75 years. Adverse drug reactions were observed in 1925 of 28 420 patients (6.77%). This post-marketing surveillance data for valsartan showed the outcomes for treated hypertensive patients in a large population in Japan who were followed for up to 3 years. These data will add important knowledge regarding the treatment of hypertension in Japan.

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: The role of angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with a systemic right ventricle has not been elucidated., Methods and Results: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial of angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan 160 mg twice daily compared with placebo in patients with a systemic right ventricle caused by congenitally or surgically corrected transposition of the great arteries. The primary end point was change in right ventricular ejection fraction during 3-year follow-up, determined by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging or, in patients with contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging, multirow detector computed tomography. Secondary end points were change in right ventricular volumes and mass, Vo(2)peak, and quality of life. Primary analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. A total of 88 patients (valsartan, n=44; placebo, n=44) were enrolled in the trial. No serious adverse effects occurred in either group. There was no significant effect of 3-year valsartan therapy on systemic right ventricular ejection fraction (treatment effect, 1.3%; 95% confidence interval, -1.3% to 3.9%; P=0.34), maximum exercise capacity, or quality of life. There was a larger increase in right ventricular end-diastolic volume (15 mL; 95% confidence interval, 3-28 mL; P<0.01) and mass (8 g; 95% confidence interval, 2-14 g; P=0.01) in the placebo group than in the valsartan group., Conclusions: There was no significant treatment effect of valsartan on right ventricular ejection fraction, exercise capacity, or quality of life. Valsartan was associated with a similar frequency of significant clinical events as placebo. Small but significant differences between valsartan and placebo were present for change in right ventricular volumes and mass., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN52352170.

The effect of antihypertensive drugs on lipoprotein subfraction profile is still under investigation. In this study the effects of fixed combination of valsartan with either amlodipine (V-A) or hydrochlorothiazide (V-H) on low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) and high-density-lipoprotein (HDL) subfraction profile of patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension were assessed. A total of 60 drug-naive patients were randomized to either V-A (160/5 mg, n=30) or V-H (160/12.5 mg, n=30). At baseline as well as 16 weeks post-treatment analysis of the LDL and HDL subfraction profile was conducted by using LDL Lipoprint System. Both V-A and V-H effectively reduced blood pressure (BP) to similar levels. An increase in the cholesterol concentration of small-dense LDL subfractions (by 18.2%, P<0.05) was observed in the V-H group, whereas this parameter remained unchanged in the V-A group. Therefore, mean LDL particle size was decreased in the V-H group (from 267 ± 5 to 266 ± 5Å, P<0.05). HDL-Cholesterol (HDL-C) levels were reduced by 4.7% (P<0.05) in the V-H group, mirrored by a reduction in the cholesterol mass of small and intermediate HDL particles. In conclusion, despite similar reductions in BP, V-H combination may adversely affect serum lipids as well as LDL and HDL subfraction profile as compared with V-A.

Objective: Valsartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) used for treatment of hypertension. The well-known adverse effects of valsartan are dizziness, headache and cough. Valsartan-related cutaneous side effects have been reported previously in a limited number of case reports., Materials and Methods: A 47-year-old man admitted with diffuse, itchy erythematous maculopapular eruption all over the body. He has been taking 160 mg valsartan daily for 10 days before onset of the eruption. On the third day of valsartan therapy, erythema had appeared over the face and spread throughout the whole body within a week. Histopathologic examination of the lesions showed lymphocyte exocytosis, spongiosis, necrotic keratinocytes in the epidermis, and mixed inflammatory cell infiltrates including perivascular eosinophils in the dermis. The patient was diagnosed as drug reaction due to valsartan with historical, clinical and histopathologic features., Discussion and Conclusion: Most common antihypertensive agents including diuretics, beta blockers, calcium-channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have many cutaneous side effects. However, there are a few reports about the cutaneous side effects of ARBs. Physicians should be aware of the cutaneous side effects of this commonly used agent and valsartan should be considered as a triggering factor of an exanthematous drug reactions.

Aims: ADVISE was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, prospective, open-label, parallel-group study comparing combination therapy of nifedipine GITS 30 mg plus valsartan 80 mg (N + V) with high-dose valsartan (160 mg) monotherapy (V160) in Asian patients with hypertension., Methods: Patients with hypertension inadequately controlled with valsartan 80 mg for at least 4 weeks were randomized. The coprimary endpoints were the mean changes in clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively) at Week 12. Other endpoints included blood pressure (BP) control rate, response rate, and adverse events., Results: The full analysis set (FAS) comprised 359 patients. Least squares (LS) mean changes in SBP were -18.3 mmHg (N + V; n = 177) and -16.5 mmHg (V160; n = 182) (difference: -1.9 mmHg; P = 0.0998). DBP LS mean changes were -9.8 mmHg (N + V) and -7.4 mmHg (V160) (difference: -2.4 mmHg; P = 0.0011). BP control rates were significantly higher in the N + V group (Week 4: 51.2% vs. 38.4%, P = 0.0138; Week 8: 68.3% vs. 50.3%, P = 0.0004; and Week 12: 71.2% vs. 55.5%, P = 0.0024). Similar findings were observed when patients were stratified according to smoking status, SBP baseline quartiles, and ESC/ESH guideline-defined added-risk category. The BP response rate was also higher in the N + V group compared with the V160 group. Rates of adverse drug reactions (all mild-to-moderate) were similar: 4.5% (N + V) and 4.4% (V160)., Conclusions: Although one of the coprimary endpoints did not reach statistical significance, combination treatment with N + V provided a greater early and more consistent BP-lowering effect than monotherapy with V160, including superior reduction in DBP and BP control rates., (© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Angioedema is a rare but life-threatening adverse effect of administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) administration. It has been classically associated with ACEIs, although angioedema has also been reported with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Angioedema is a deep swelling of tissues just below the skin and mucous membranes, characterized by non-pitting asymmetric swelling that is usually non-pruritic. ARBs may cause an increase in plasma angiotensin II levels, which may lead to a negative feedback inhibition of ACE activity, predisposing to angioedema development. We report a case of valsartan-induced angioedema that occurred in a patient who was on ACEIs for years, with no incidence of angioedema.

Aldosterone levels increase in 30%-40% of patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers over the long term. This "aldosterone breakthrough" may carry important clinical consequences given aldosterone's nonepithelial, pro-fibrotic actions. The renin inhibitor, aliskiren, by suppressing the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) proximally, may limit breakthrough compared to conventional RAAS blockade. This open-label study (NCT01129557) randomized subjects to aliskiren 300 mg daily (A), valsartan 320 mg daily (V), or aliskiren 150 mg + valsartan 160 mg daily (A+V) for 9 months. Eligible subjects had proteinuria >300 mg/day, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >45 mL/min/1.73 m(2), and systolic blood pressure (BP) >130 or diastolic BP >80 mm Hg. Serum and 24-hour urine aldosterone (indexed to 24-hour urine Na) were checked before initiation of therapy and at 3, 6, and 9 months. Aldosterone breakthrough was defined as a sustained increase from baseline aldosterone by study end. The study was intended to enroll 120 subjects but was terminated early by the sponsor. We present here the results of 33 subjects who completed the protocol, of which 12 were randomized to A, 11 were randomized to V, and 10 were randomized to A+V. Mean baseline eGFR was 75.5 (±23.3) mL/min/1.73 m(2); baseline proteinuria was 3104 (±2943) mg/day; and baseline BP was 134.7 (±10.5)/84.8 (±8.4) mm Hg. Three (27%) subjects on V, three (25%) subjects on A, and three (30%) subjects on A+V had aldosterone breakthrough. Mean proteinuria reduction was 31% from baseline in all subjects: 30% in subjects with breakthrough vs. 32% in subjects without breakthrough. Mean BP reduction was 11.0/8.8 mm Hg in all subjects: 8.4/6.1 mm Hg in subjects with breakthrough vs. 12.0/9.8 mm Hg in subjects without breakthrough. Aliskiren, alone or in combination with valsartan, did not reduce the incidence of aldosterone breakthrough in subjects with hypertension and proteinuria compared with conventional RAAS blockade., (Copyright © 2012 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) inhibit the renin-angiotensin system. As a result, these agents provide beneficial effects in terms of cardiovascular (CV) and renal protection, independent of their blood pressure-lowering effects. Telmisartan and valsartan are the most intensively studied ARBs for the effects on CV outcomes. Randomized clinical trials assessing morbidity and mortality end points have included a range of patient types, including those with hypertension, hypertension with Type 2 diabetes, high CV risk without hypertension, ischemic heart disease, stroke and heart failure. Few head-to-head comparisons between telmisartan and valsartan have been performed. However, some blood pressure-independent properties of these two ARBs can be scrutinized from separate studies in the available literature.

Background: Hypertension is a prevalent condition that is closely associated with chronic complications in patients with diabetes. Fixed-dose combination therapy is currently recommended for the treatment of hypertension due to the advantage of reducing the pill burden. However, the effects of combination therapy may be diverse because of the different components., Objectives: We examined blood pressure reduction and metabolic alterations after amlodipine/benazepril and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria., Methods: This randomized, double-blind, parallel comparison, noninferiority clinical trial included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria detected within the past year. After a 2-week, placebo run-in period, patients were assigned to treatment with amlodipine/benazepril or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide for 16 weeks. The primary end point was mean change in diastolic blood pressure. The prespecified boundary for noninferiority was 3.5 mm Hg of the mean change in diastolic blood pressure between treatments (amlodipine/benazepril minus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide). If the upper limit of the 95% CI fell within 3.5 mm Hg, amlodipine/benazepril would be considered noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide., Results: Of the 226 patients assessed for eligibility, 169 satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were assigned to a treatment group; 83 patients (54.2% male, mean age of 60.5 [10.0] years) in the amlodipine/benazepril group and 84 patients (64.3% male, mean age of 59.0 [10.6] years) in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group received at least 1 dose of study medication and were included in the intention-to-treat population. In the per-protocol population, amlodipine/benazepril (n = 74) was noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (n = 78) with regard to the mean change in diastolic blood pressure (difference, -0.9 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.5 to 1.6). The mean change in systolic blood pressure was not significantly different (2.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, -1.2 to 6.0) between study groups (P = 0.195) in the per-protocol population. However, data from the intention-to-treat population suggest that patients in the amlodipine/benazepril group may have better metabolic outcomes than those in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group; specifically, a preservation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (5.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [95% CI, 1.9 to 9.6]; P = 0.004) and improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (-0.5% [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.2]; P < 0.001), fasting triglycerides (-0.4 mmol/L [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.2]; P = 0.002), HDL-C (0.07 mmol/L [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]; P = 0.022), and uric acid (-57.5 μmol/L [95% CI, -74.8 to -40.3]; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse effects between groups, with the exception of more respiratory disorders in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group (17 vs 5; P = 0 .006)., Conclusions: The study results suggest that amlodipine/benazepril is noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide with regard to blood pressure reduction and that this combination exerts beneficial effects on renal function, glucose control, HDL-C, and triglyceride levels compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. However, respiratory adverse events (particularly coughing) were more frequently reported in the amlodipine/benazepril group. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375322., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess safety and efficacy of valsartan/amlodipine combination in hypertensive Taiwanese patients., Methods: This 12-week, multi-center, prospective, observational, post-marketing study enrolled 1029 patients to receive valsartan/amlodipine combination alone or as add-on to other antihypertensives. Efficacy was evaluated by blood pressure (BP) control rate (in mmHg; non-diabetics, < 140/90; diabetics, < 130/80) at Week 12 and BP-lowering ability at Weeks 4 and 12. Additionally, responder rate (sitting-SBP < 140 for baseline SBP ≥ 140 or sitting-DBP < 90 for baseline DBP ≥ 90, or SBP reduction > 20 or DBP reduction > 10 from baseline) was determined., Major Findings: Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 12.15% patients; dizziness, cough, and peripheral edema were the most commonly reported AEs. Overall BP control rate was 48.27%. Greater BP reduction was noted at Week 12 than at Week 4 between all groups and subgroups. Greater SBP/DBP reduction was observed in patients with stage 2 hypertension than stage 1 hypertension at baseline. The overall responder rate was 78.52%. Subgroup analysis showed greater BP reduction in non-diabetics than diabetics; only SBP reduction reached statistical significance (- 13.7 [18.3] vs. - 10.7 [17.4] mmHg; p < 0.0093)., Principal Conclusion: Valsartan/amlodipine combination was well tolerated, with no safety concerns identified and an effective treatment option for hypertensive Taiwanese patients.

Valsartan is an oral angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor antagonist with well established antihypertensive efficacy in adults. It is now approved in the EU and the US for the treatment of hypertension in children and adolescents. In two, randomized, double-blind trials, a once-daily regimen of valsartan reduced the blood pressure (BP) of children and adolescents with hypertension. In one trial in hypertensive children and adolescents aged 6-16 years, significant dose-dependent reductions from baseline in mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) were observed for recipients of valsartan following 2 weeks' treatment (primary endpoint). There were corresponding dose-dependent and significant reductions in mean sitting diastolic BP. Following 2 further weeks of treatment, the reduction in msSBP was maintained in patients who were re-randomized to continue receiving the same dosage of valsartan but not in those re-randomized to placebo. In the other trial in hypertensive children and adolescents aged 6-17 years, valsartan was no less effective than enalapril in reducing BP. Following 12 weeks' treatment, the least square mean reduction from baseline in msSBP (primary endpoint) in recipients of valsartan was noninferior to that in recipients of enalapril. In addition, the proportion of patients achieving an msSBP <95th percentile for age, sex, and height at week 12 was not significantly different between recipients of valsartan and enalapril (67% vs 70%). Treatment with valsartan for up to 52 weeks was well tolerated in children and adolescents with hypertension.

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.)

The extent to which the combination of a renin inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) lowers clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) versus an ARB alone in stage 2 hypertension is not well known. Hence, we performed an 8-week, randomized, double-blind study in 451 patients with stage 2 hypertension to compare the efficacy of the combination of aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg versus valsartan 320 mg. The primary endpoint was change in seated systolic BP from baseline to week 8 analyzed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach; patients completing the entire treatment period (per-protocol completers) were similarly analyzed. For the predefined primary analysis, systolic BP reductions for aliskiren/valsartan (n = 230) and valsartan (n = 217) were -22.1 and -20.5 mm Hg, respectively (P = .295). In per-protocol completers, aliskiren/valsartan (n = 201) lowered BP significantly greater than valsartan (n = 196); -23.7 mm Hg versus -20.3 mm Hg, respectively (P = .028). Although limited by a small sample size (n = 76) using ambulatory BP monitoring, aliskiren/valsartan lowered the 24-hour BP significantly more than valsartan alone (-14.6/-9.0 mm Hg versus -5.9/-4.2 mm Hg; P < .01). Safety and tolerability were similar for the two treatment groups. These data demonstrate the importance of multiple modalities to assess BP changes in clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies, particularly in stage 2 hypertension., (Copyright © 2012 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) on coronary plaque progression in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who received an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)., Methods and Results: After local ethics committee approval and obtaining of informed consent, 116 patients with AMI were randomly assigned to receive a combination of valsartan and captopril or captopril alone. Non-culprit intermediate coronary atherosclerosis was assessed on intravascular ultrasound. The primary and secondary endpoints were the nominal change in percent atheroma volume (PAV) and percent change in lumen volume (%ΔLV), respectively. The combination group had a significantly lower systolic blood pressure (117 vs. 125 mmHg; P=0.02) and a lower plasma aldosterone level (56 vs. 75 pg/ml; P=0.02) at follow-up. The nominal change in PAV was slightly lower in the combination group than in the ACEI group (-1.9 vs. -0.68%, P=0.06). %ΔLV was -0.3% in the ACEI group and was 4.3% in the combination group (P=0.03). Logistic regression analysis showed that additional ARB therapy was independently associated with LV enlargement (odds ratio, 2.144; 95% confidence interval: 1.818-5.618; P=0.03)., Conclusions: In this study of patients with AMI, additional ARB therapy had minimal impact on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis as compared with an ACEI alone. The combination of these 2 drugs, however, induces coronary artery enlargement.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of valsartan in Taiwanese patients with essential hypertension., Methods: This 12-week multi-center, open-label, observational, post-marketing surveillance study enrolled 2046 hypertensive patients who were prescribed valsartan 80 or 160 mg as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensives based on clinical judgment. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of dizziness with valsartan 160 mg monotherapy or combination therapy at Week 4. Secondary endpoints included the blood-pressure-lowering efficacy and the overall safety and tolerability of valsartan at Weeks 4 and 12., Results: The monotherapy and combination groups had comparable baseline characteristics. At Week 4, monotherapy was found non-inferior to combination for incidence rate of dizziness (monotherapy, 9.25%; combination, 10%; difference in incidence of dizziness, 0.75%; 95% CI - 0.61% to 2.12%; non-inferiority margin, -1.33%;WaldTest approach). Greater blood pressure (BP) reduction was noted atWeek 12 than atWeek 4.The antihypertensive effect was greater with combination therapy and the 160-mg dose. BP control (systolic <140 mmHg or diastolic <90 mmHg) was achieved in 80-90% patients.Valsartan was well tolerated; most commonly reported adverse events included dizziness, headache, constipation and cough., Conclusion: Valsartan is an effective treatment option for essential hypertension in Taiwanese patients.

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan ameliorate ventricular remodeling after myocardial infarction (MI). Based on previous clinical trials, a maximum clinical dose is recommended in practical guidelines. Yet, has not been clearly demonstrated whether the recommended dose is more efficacious compared to the lower dose that is commonly used in clinical practice., Method/design: Valsartan in post-MI remodeling (VALID) is a randomized, open-label, single-blinded multicenter study designed to compare the efficacy of different clinical dose of valsartan on the post-MI ventricular remodeling. This study also aims to assess neurohormone change and clinical parameters of patients during the post-infarct period. A total of 1116 patients with left ventricular dysfunction following the first episode of acute ST-elevation MI are to be enrolled and randomized to a maximal tolerable dose (up to 320 mg/day) or usual dose (80 mg/day) of valsartan for 12 months in 2:1 ratio. Echocardiographic analysis for quantifying post-MI ventricular remodeling is to be conducted in central core laboratory. Clinical assessment and laboratory test are performed at fixed times., Discussion: VALID is a multicenter collaborative study to evaluate the impact of dose of valsartan on the post-MI ventricular remodeling. The results of the study provide information about optimal dosing of the drug in the management of patients after MI. The results will be available by 2012., Trial Registration: NCT01340326.

We report the rare case of angioedema (also known as Quincke edema), which was induced by valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). ARBs are a new class of antihypertensive agent that is developed to exclude the adverse effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. In theory, ARBs do not contribute to the occurrence of angioedema because they do not increase the serum level of bradykinin, the responsible substance for angioedema. However, some reports of ARB-induced angioedema have recently been published. In this study, we present the forth case and the first Asian case of angioedema due to valsartan, which is one of the ARBs. Otolaryngologist should be wary of the prescribing ARB and discontinue ARBs treatment soon, if angioedema is recognized., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare effects of valsartan and benazepril on erythropoietin (EPO) levels in essential hypertensive patients with normal renal function., Methods: Sixty essential hypertensive patients were randomly divided into valsartan group (n=30, valsartan 80 mg/day) and benazepril group (n=30, benazepril 10 mg/day). Plasma EPO and hemoglobin (Hb) levels were measured at the start of and at 4 and 8 weeks during the treatments., Results: EPO and Hb levels were all in normal range in the two groups. Valsartan decreased EPO levels from 14.179∓3.214 U/L (baseline) to 12.138∓2.926 U/L (P<0.05) and Hb levels from 144.32∓13.84 g/L (baseline) to 135.16∓14.78 U/L (P<0.05). Benazepril treatment did not resulted in any obvious changes in EPO or Hb levels (P>0.05)., Conclusion: Valsartan may lower EPO and Hb levels in patients with essential hypertension, while benazepril does not have such effects. The safety of valsartan in anemic hypertensive patients should be further investigated.

This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan for the treatment of hypertension in obese vs non-obese children and adolescents. After a 1-week antihypertensive washout period, 142 obese and 119 non-obese hypertensive children and adolescents aged 6 to 16 years were randomized to 2 weeks of once-daily treatment with valsartan 10 to 20 mg, 40 to 80 mg, or 80 to 160 mg, followed by re-randomization to either valsartan or placebo for an additional 2 weeks. Patients could continue to receive valsartan during an optional 52-week, open-label extension. Valsartan resulted in statistically significant (P<.05) and clinically relevant reductions in mean sitting blood pressure (BP), ranging from approximately 7/4 mm Hg (valsartan 10-20 mg) to 13/9 mm Hg (valsartan 80-160 mg) in both obese and non-obese patients. BP control was achieved in 44% of obese and 56% of non-obese patients. Following re-randomization, non-obese patients experienced an increase in BP during placebo treatment, albeit levels remained below baseline, whereas BP reductions were maintained in valsartan recipients (P<.05). The most frequent adverse events during the open-label phase were headache and fever. Valsartan provides similar antihypertensive efficacy in obese and non-obese hypertensive children and adolescents, with good tolerability in both patient populations., (© 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.)

This study compared the efficacy and safety of combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium-channel blocker (CCB) with hydrochlorothiazide (valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ 160/5/2mg) vs maximal available combination doses of an ARB with HCTZ (losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg) in the management of stage 2 hypertension. After 1 to 2 weeks of antihypertensive drug washout, patients with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) of ≥ 160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg were randomized to valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 241) or losartan 100 mg (n = 247). At week 3, HCTZ 25 mg was added to both treatments. The primary end point, reduction in MSSBP from baseline to week 6, was significantly greater in the valsartan/amlodipine group than in the losartan group (least-squares [LS] mean change, -31.8 mm Hg vs -26.4 mm Hg; P<.001). Additional reductions occurred after titrating to 320/10/25 mg at week 6 in the valsartan/amlodipine group and switching from losartan/HCTZ to valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ (week 6, 160/5/25 mg; week 9, 320/10/25 mg) in the losartan group. Achievement of blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg also favored the valsartan/amlodipine group. Dizziness was the only adverse event reported in >5% of patients (5.4% valsartan/amlodipine group, 3.6% losartan group). Moderate doses of an ARB/CCB combination with HCTZ reduced blood pressure more effectively than the maximal dose of an ARB with HCTZ., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: This review focuses on the role of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) drug valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the treatment of hypertension. Effective blood pressure control often is not achieved with monotherapy and, instead, requires combinations of drugs with different mechanisms of action to produce additive or synergistic effects., Areas Covered: FDC valsartan/HCTZ enhances not only efficacy for blood pressure control but also provides beneficial effects on target organs beyond that expected from arterial pressure reduction alone. Data describe key clinical trial experiences with the FDC, with particular attention to efficacy and tolerability. Literature searches of these various topics were conducted in January 2011. There is evidence of potential benefits with this combination associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular dysfunction and renal disease. The FDC is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and is superior to monotherapy than either drug alone., Expert Opinion: In addition to the benefits of each drug, valsartan/HCTZ's metabolic interactions reduce some of the negative effects of both compounds. With its increased simplicity, minimal side-effect profile and efficacy without a significant cost penalty, valsartan/HCTZ represents an excellent choice for antihypertensive therapy.

A 64-year-old man, who had been treated with valsartan for hypertension since about 2 months previously, was admitted with exertional dyspnea. A chest X-ray film on admission showed infiltrative shadows in bilateral lower lung fields. Chest computed tomographic images showed diffuse ground-glass opacities, consolidation and traction bronchiectasis. His serum KL-6 level was markedly elevated, to 7,360 U/ml. Despite the withdrawal of valsartan, his symptoms deteriorated, and a drug lymphocyte stimulation test was positive for valsartan. Based on these findings, we diagnosed valsartan-induced pneumonitis. Glucocorticoids were administered, and his symptoms, chest radiograph findings and serum KL-6 level all improved. Currently, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), including valsartan, are often used as the first drug of choice to treat hypertension, but they can cause drug-induced pneumonitis. It has been previously reported that serum KL-6 levels may reflect the clinical activity of drug-induced pneumonitis. In cases of drug-induced pneumonitis with a high level of serum KL-6, glucocorticolds should be started at an early stage.

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a unique angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) under development for the treatment of hypertension. To compare this ARB with another in the class, the authors studied the effects of AZL-M and valsartan (VAL) in 984 patients with primary hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study using ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements. The primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP following 24 weeks of treatment. Hierarchical analysis testing for noninferiority was followed by superiority testing of AZL-M (80 mg then 40 mg) vs VAL. The mean age of participants was 58 years, 52% were men, and 15% were black. Baseline 24-hour mean systolic BP was similar (approximately 145.6 mm Hg) in each group. AZL-M 40 mg and 80 mg lowered 24-hour mean systolic BP (-14.9 mm Hg and -15.3 mm Hg, respectively) more than VAL 320 mg (-11.3 mm Hg; P<.001 for 40-mg and 80-mg comparisons vs VAL). Clinic systolic BP reductions were consistent with the ambulatory results (-14.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 40 mg and -16.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 80 mg vs -11.6 mm Hg for VAL; P=.015 and P<.001, respectively). The reductions in 24-hour mean and clinic diastolic BPs were also greater with both doses of AZL-M than with VAL (P≤.001 for all comparisons). Small, reversible changes in serum creatinine occurred more often with AZL-M than with VAL; otherwise, safety and tolerability parameters were similar among the three groups. These data demonstrate that AZL-M across the effective dose range had superior efficacy to VAL at its maximal recommended dose without any meaningful increase in adverse events. These findings suggest that AZL-M could provide higher rates of hypertension control compared with other ARBs in the class., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The steady-state pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction potential between amlodipine (10 mg), valsartan (320 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ; 25 mg) was evaluated in patients with hypertension in a multicenter, multiple-dose, open-label, 4-cohort, parallel-group study. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to the dual combination of valsartan + HCTZ, amlodipine + valsartan, or amlodipine + HCTZ and nonrandomly allotted to amlodipine + valsartan + HCTZ triple combination treatment. After 6 days of treatment with a half-maximal dose of different combinations, patients were up-titrated to the maximal drug doses from day 7 through day 17. PK parameters of corresponding analytes from the triple- and dual-treatment groups were estimated on day 17 and compared. Safety and tolerability of all treatments was assessed. The C ( ssmax ) and AUC(0-τ) values of amlodipine or HCTZ remained unaffected when administered with valsartan + HCTZ or valsartan + amlodipine, respectively. On the other hand, valsartan exposure increased by 10% to 25% when coadministered with HCTZ and amlodipine, which is not considered clinically relevant. In conclusion, there were no clinically relevant PK interactions with amlodipine, valsartan, and HCTZ triple combination compared with the corresponding dual combinations. All treatments were safe and well tolerated.