Search

Patients in complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) with detectable BCR-ABL1 after ≥2 years on imatinib were randomized to nilotinib (400 mg twice daily, n = 104) or continued imatinib (n = 103) in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in clinical Trials-Complete Molecular Response (ENESTcmr) trial. By 1 and 2 years, confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL1 was achieved by 12.5% vs 5.8% (P = .108) and 22.1% vs 8.7% of patients in the nilotinib and imatinib arms, respectively (P = .0087). Among patients without molecular response 4.5 (BCR-ABL1(IS) ≤0.0032%; MR(4.5)) and those without major molecular response at study start, MR(4.5) by 2 years was achieved by 42.9% vs 20.8% and 29.2% vs 3.6% of patients in the nilotinib and imatinib arms, respectively. No patient in the nilotinib arm lost CCyR, vs 3 in the imatinib arm. Adverse events were more common in the nilotinib arm, as expected with the introduction of a new drug vs remaining on a well-tolerated drug. The safety profile of nilotinib was consistent with other reported studies. In summary, switching to nilotinib enabled more patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) to sustain lower levels of disease burden vs remaining on imatinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00760877., (© 2014 by The American Society of Hematology.)

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.)

Previously, we reported the efficacy of aliskiren/amlodipine in US minority adults with stage 2 hypertension, with additional blood pressure (BP) lowering from the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). A subgroup analysis in patients with hypertension and comorbidities of diabetes, cardiometabolic syndrome, or obesity, and in black participants is reported. This 8-week, multicenter, double-blind study included 412 self-identified minority patients with mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) ≥160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg). Patients were randomized to receive either combination aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Doses were forced-titrated to a maximum of aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ 300/10/25 mg or aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg, respectively. There were 256 black (62%), 118 diabetic (29%), 284 cardiometabolic syndrome (69%), and 249 obese (60%) randomized patients. Baseline msSBP was ~167 mm Hg across all subgroups. Least-square mean reductions in msSBP, the primary efficacy outcome, from baseline to week 8 across all subgroups, ranged from 35 to 37 mm Hg with aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ and 28 to 30 mm Hg with aliskiren/amlodipine (P < .01 for all between-treatment comparisons). Both regimens were well tolerated. Among high-risk patients, such as diabetics or those with cardiometabolic syndrome, combination aliskiren/amlodipine is effective in lowering BP; the addition of HCTZ provided incremental BP-lowering efficacy while maintaining tolerability. However, because our subgroups were not mutually exclusive, the generalization of our findings to the population seen in clinical practice is limited., (Copyright © 2012 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

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.)

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is a common link between hypertension and comorbidities of obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS). We evaluated the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the combination direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, with amlodipine versus amlodipine alone in self-identified African Americans with stage 2 hypertension in a subgroup of patients with obesity or MetS participating in the Aliskiren Amlodipine Combination in African AmEricans with Stage 2 HypertenSion (AACESS) trial. Subjects, newly diagnosed and treatment naive or taking three or fewer antihypertensive drugs with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) of 160-199 mm Hg were randomized to receive aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week; force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg, for an additional 7 weeks. Overall, 292 obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m(2)) and 197 MetS subjects had baseline msSBP ranging from 167.0 to 167.5 mm Hg. Least-square mean reductions from baseline to 8 weeks in msSBP, the primary efficacy variable, were significantly higher with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine in both obese (-33.7 mm Hg vs. -27.9 mm Hg; P < .001) and MetS subjects (-36.4 mm Hg vs. -28.5 mm Hg; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated. Aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg is more effective than amlodipine 10 mg in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension and obesity or MetS., (Copyright © 2011 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

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.)

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.

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P<.001). Ambulatory and central BP measures were consistent with clinic BP findings, although these were conducted in a small subset of patients (n = 94 in ambulatory BP monitoring substudy and n = 136 for central BP). More patients achieved goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine at week 8 (57.3% vs 48.0%; P = .051). Both treatment groups had similar adverse event rates (35.0% and 32.7%, respectively). The most common adverse events were peripheral edema (7.7% with aliskiren/amlodipine and 9.0% with amlodipine), headache, fatigue, and nausea. The combination of aliskiren/amlodipine reduced peripheral, ambulatory, and central BP more than amlodipine alone with similar tolerability in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension., (© 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.)

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

Efficacy of antihypertensive agents on central blood pressure (BP) in African Americans is not well studied. The authors report on an 8-week double-blind, randomized study of African American patients with stage 2 hypertension that compared brachial and central BP responses (substudy of 53 patients) to combination aliskiren/hydrochlorthiazide (HCTZ) and amlodipine monotherapy. Following a 1- to 4-week washout, initial therapy was aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (n=166) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=166) for 1 week, forced-titrated to aliskiren/HCTZ 300/25 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. Mean seated systolic BP reductions from baseline was similar with both treatments (-28.6 mm Hg with aliskiren/HCTZ vs -28.2 mm Hg with amlodipine). In the substudy, significantly greater reductions in central systolic BP was observed with aliskiren/HCTZ vs amlodipine (-30.1 mm Hg vs -21.2; P=.031), although 24-hour mean ambulatory BP reductions between the two groups were similar. Central pressure is considered an important risk factor in African Americans, and these findings may suggest a new treatment option for these patients., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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

Objective: This study examined progression to type 2 diabetes and compared healthcare utilization and costs among patients with pre-diabetes, with or without comorbid hypertension., Research Design and Methods: This study drew from a large national claims database (2003-2008). Patients were ≥18 years of age with a medical claim or lab value indicating the presence of pre-diabetes. The index date was the first pre-diabetes diagnosis (ICD-9 codes 790.21, 790.22, 790.29) or qualifying lab value of fasting plasma glucose or impaired glucose intolerance. All patients had ≥12-month data pre- and post- index date. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors affecting progression to type 2 diabetes, and to estimate the impact of hypertension status and diabetes progression on healthcare utilization and cost., Results: 144,410 patients met study criteria, with an average follow-up of 802 (SD 344) days. Among participants, 30.7% progressed to diabetes, with a mean 288 (SD 340) days from pre-diabetes identification to diabetes diagnosis. Compared with patients who did not progress, the total adjusted medical costs for patients who developed diabetes increased by $1429 in 1 year, $2451 in 2 years, and $3621 in 3 years (p < 0.001). Patients with concomitant hypertension were significantly more likely to progress to type 2 diabetes, and had higher total medical costs compared to patients without hypertension ($476 higher in 1 year, $949 in 2 years, $1378 in 3 years)., Conclusions: Patients with pre-diabetes who progressed to type 2 diabetes had higher healthcare utilization and costs compared with patients who did not. The presence of hypertension substantially increased costs and was associated with higher likelihood of diabetes progression. Blood pressure, lifestyle intervention, body mass index, and other factors cannot be examined due to the limitations of the data. Results may not be generalizable to patients with insurance other than commercial or Medicare.

Minority patients with hypertension generally require combination therapy to reach blood pressure (BP) goals. We examined the BP-lowering efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine therapy in self-identified minority patients in the United States with stage 2 hypertension and the impact of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to this combination. In this 8-week double-blind study, 412 patients were randomized to receive aliskiren/amlodipine (150/5 mg) or amlodipine (5 mg) with forced titration up to aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ (300/10/25 mg) or aliskiren/amlodipine (300/10 mg), respectively. Overall, mean age was 55.2 years, mean body mass index was 32 kg/m(2), 62.3% were black, 28.2% were Hispanic/Latino, and 69.1% had metabolic syndrome. Mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), the primary efficacy outcome, was reduced from 167.1 mm Hg at baseline to 130.7 mm Hg at week 8 with aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ and from 167.4 mm Hg to 137.9 mm Hg with aliskiren/amlodipine (P < .0001 between groups). At week 8, BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) was achieved in 72.6% and 53.2% of patients in the two treatment groups, respectively (P < .0001). Adverse events were experienced by 34.2% and 40.2%, respectively. Combination aliskiren/amlodipine therapy was effective in treating these high-risk patients but inclusion of HCTZ provided greater antihypertensive efficacy. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated., (Copyright © 2011 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aims: In obese, hypertensive subjects, the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is enhanced and natriuresis impaired, suggesting a role for combination RAS blockade with diuretics. Data suggest that renin inhibition may attenuate diuretic-induced RAS activation and oxidative stress., Methods: In this 8-week, double-blind study of 386 obese individuals (mean body mass index: 35.3) with stage 2 hypertension (mean age: 54.9 years; mean sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP: ≧160 but <200 mm Hg), we compared the efficacy of aliskiren + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in reducing blood pressure (BP), plasma renin activity (PRA), and a urinary marker of oxidative stress to ramipril. Subjects were randomized to aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or ramipril 5 mg for 1 week, and after the 1st week force titrated to aliskiren/HCTZ 300/25 mg or ramipril 10 mg for 7 weeks., Results: After 8 weeks, aliskiren/HCTZ provided greater reductions in office BP than ramipril (-28.1/-10.1 vs. -16.6/-3.6 mm Hg, p < 0.0001) as well as 24-hour ambulatory and central pressure measures. Aliskiren/HCTZ also lowered PRA (-45 vs. +83%) and the urinary F2-isoprostane/creatinine ratio (-18 vs. +7%) to a greater extent than ramipril. Adverse events (AEs) were similar in the two groups (35.8% with aliskiren/HCTZ vs. 37.3% on ramipril reporting at least one AE)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the aliskiren/HCTZ combination reduced BP, PRA, and isoprostanes to a greater extent than did ramipril in obese patients with stage 2 hypertension., (© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Stage 2 hypertension often requires combination antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a useful tool for assessing antihypertensive drugs and their combinations., Objective: To compare the effect of a moderate dose of angiotensin receptor blocker/calcium channel blocker (ARB/CCB) combined with a diuretic versus a maximal dose of ARB with a diuretic on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and other derived ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) parameters., Methods: The EXforge As compared to Losartan Treatment ABPM substudy was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control, forced-titration study of patients with Stage 2 hypertension that compared the efficacy of initial treatment with valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 48) or losartan 100 mg (n = 36). At week 3, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg was added in both treatment groups. ABP was measured at baseline and at week 6. Additionaly, 24-hour ABP, nighttime (10 pm to 6 am) and daytime (6 am to 10 pm) ABP, and ABP load (percentage of readings above 140/90 mmHg) were determined., Results: Eighty-four patients (48 ARB/CCB/HCTZ, 36 ARB/HCTZ) had ABPM at baseline and at week 6. Reductions of systolic/diastolic ABP were greater in the ARB/CCB/ HCTZ group than in the ARB/HCTZ group for 24-hour mean ABP (-22.0/-13.3 versus -17.4/-8.1 mmHg), as well as nighttime ABP (-22.2/-13.3 versus -16.2/-7.4 mmHg), daytime ABP (-21.9/-13.0 versus -18.1/-8.6 mmHg), ABP in the last 4 hours of the dosing period (-21.5/-13.5 versus -17.0/-7.7 mmHg), and ABP load (21.7%/12.8% versus 30.8%/20.0%)., Conclusion: Initiating antihypertensive treatment with moderate doses of ARB/CCB with a diuretic is more effective in lowering nighttime and daytime ABP and reducing ABP load than a maximal dose of an ARB with a diuretic.

Dietary sodium reduction and, as necessary, pharmacologic treatment are recommended for hypertension management. This prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point, multicenter, crossover study investigated the effect of dietary sodium intake on mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (maSBP) in patients with hypertension receiving aliskiren 300 mg once daily. Following a 2- to 4-week washout period, patients were randomized to a high- (≥ 200 mmol/d) or low- (≤ 100 mmol/d) sodium diet and were started on aliskiren, 300 mg/d. After 4 weeks, patients were crossed over to the alternate diet for an additional 4 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change in maSBP between diets. During treatment with aliskiren, maSBP was significantly lower with the low-sodium diet compared with the high-sodium diet (least squares mean difference, 9.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, 7.5-11.4; P < .0001). The percentage of patients achieving a maSBP response to aliskiren (<130 mm Hg or a ≥ 20-mm Hg reduction from baseline) was greater with the low- (76.5%) versus the high-sodium diet (42.6%; P < .0001). Overall, 40.9% patients had ≥ 1 adverse event and the rates were similar between groups. In this study, aliskiren was well tolerated and a low-sodium diet accentuated its antihypertensive effect.

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.)

Left ventricular hypertrophy, a major cardiovascular risk factor for morbidity and mortality, is commonly caused by arterial hypertension. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may contribute to the pathogenesis of left ventricular hypertrophy. The Assessment of Lotrel in Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Hypertension Study compared a single-pill combination of amlodipine/benazepril at doses 5.0/20.0 mg, 5.0/40.0 mg, and 10.0/40.0 mg with hydrochlorothiazide/benazepril at doses 12.5/20.0 mg, 12.5/40.0 mg, and 25.0/40.0 mg on the reduction of left ventricular mass index measured by cardiac MRI in stage 2 hypertensive patients over 52 weeks of treatment in a randomized clinical trial. A total of 125 male and female patients, > or =55 years of age, with echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy and high-risk hypertension defined as blood pressure > or =160/100 mm Hg or current antihypertensive treatment were enrolled. After 52 weeks of treatment, left ventricular mass index was significantly reduced from baseline with amlodipine/benazepril (mean: 10.16 g/m(2)) or hydrochlorothiazide/benazepril (mean: 6.74 g/m(2); both P<0.0001), with a mean difference between treatment groups of 3.36 g/m(2) (P=0.16). No significant treatment differences were observed in subgroups defined by age, male gender, race, diabetes status, or dose level. However, in female patients, left ventricular mass index reduction was greater with amlodipine/benazepril (P=0.02). Both treatments were well tolerated.

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

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.

Evidence suggests that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition ameliorates endothelial dysfunction. The authors examined the effect of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl combination treatment compared with amlodipine besylate monotherapy in modulating endothelial dysfunction. This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 70 hypertensive subjects with at least one other endothelial dysfunction risk factor to amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d force-titrated to 5/40 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d force-titrated to 10 mg/d). Both the combination and monotherapy produced significant median increases from baseline in percentage flow-mediated vasodilation (2.0% and 1.2%, respectively) and percentage change in percent flow-mediated vasodilation (25% and 16%, respectively). These improvements were numerically larger with combination treatment, but between-group differences did not achieve statistical significance. Reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly greater (P=.0452/P=.0297) with combination treatment (-18.6/-12.3 mm Hg) than with monotherapy (-14.8/-9.1 mm Hg). A highly positive correlation between change in systolic blood pressure and change in percent of flow-mediated vasodilation was demonstrated only for combination treatment.

Background: Although 50% of hypertensive patients in the community are estimated to have diastolic dysfunction, there is no specific guideline for diastolic dysfunction therapy at present despite the condition's clear association with increased cardiovascular risk. Although the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy regression has been established, the effect of angiotensin II receptor blockade on intrinsic parameters of diastolic function has not been evaluated in large-scale studies., Methods: The VALIDD Trial is an investigator-initiated randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial on approximately 350 patients designed to explore whether antihypertensive therapy with the ARB valsartan, in addition to standard therapy, would improve intrinsic diastolic properties of the myocardium in patients with hypertension and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. The result of such therapy will be compared with placebo after 38 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy variable is change in early diastolic lateral mitral annular relaxation velocity measured by tissue Doppler imaging on week 38., Conclusions: We expect the VALIDD Trial to provide novel insights into the specific effects of ARBs on diastolic dysfunction, as assessed by tissue Doppler imaging, in hypertensive patients. The trial may provide clinically useful data on whether such therapy can directly improve diastolic function in patients with hypertension.

The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study compared daily treatment with combination amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride 5/20 mg, amlodipine besylate 5 mg, and benazepril hydrochloride 20 mg in 505 patients aged 55 years of age or older with stage 2 hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] > or =160 and < or =200 mm Hg and diastolic BP > or =60 and < or =100 mm Hg). BP and pulse pressure were assessed by conventional office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In this analysis, combination therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in mean 24-hour BP, pulse pressure, and mean ambulatory BP during various time intervals compared with either monotherapy in the intent-to-treat population, in those with isolated and predominantly systolic hypertension, and in dippers and nondippers. Adverse event rates were low and similar in all treatment groups. This study demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and is well tolerated.

Systolic hypertension is predominant among patients over 50 years of age, is a more important cardiovascular risk factor than diastolic blood pressure, and is more difficult to control than diastolic blood pressure. Consequently, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommends combination therapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage 2 hypertension. In the Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to identify patients with systolic hypertension and to determine the impact of 8 weeks of treatment with either amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl 5/20 mg combination therapy (n=149), amlodipine besylate 5 mg (n=146), or benazepril HCl 20 mg (n=148). Combination therapy was significantly more effective in reducing systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure than either monotherapy (p<0.0001). Significantly greater percentages of patients in the combination group compared with either monotherapy achieved blood pressure control (p<0.0001). Adverse events were low in all three treatment arms, with less peripheral edema in the combination group than in the amlodipine-treated group. The combination of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl given to patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension resulted in significantly greater reductions in blood pressure and pulse pressure than those seen with monotherapy and was at least as well tolerated as the separate components. This data supports the recommendation of the JNC 7 for the use of combination therapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Background: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends initial combination therapy for patients whose blood pressure (BP) is >20/10 mm Hg above goal. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy versus that of monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension, who by definition meet the JNC 7 recommendation for initial combination antihypertensive therapy., Methods: This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 364 patients with stage 2 hypertension to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d titrated to 10/20 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d titrated to 10 mg/d)., Results: Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy (74.2%) compared with those randomized to monotherapy (53.9%; P <.0001) achieved the primary end point (reductions in systolic BP > or =25 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was <180 mm Hg, or > or =32 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was > or =180 mm Hg). Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy compared with monotherapy attained BP goals of <140/90 mm Hg (61.0% v 43.3%; P =.0007) and < or =130/85 mm Hg (35.7% v 19.1%; P =.0004). Among patients with baseline systolic BP > or =180 mm Hg, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater reductions in systolic BP compared with monotherapy (-42.3 v -30.4 mm Hg; P =.001). More than 90% of patients in each group were titrated to the higher dose. Both treatments were well tolerated., Conclusions: Combination therapy was well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater BP reductions and attainment of BP goals compared with monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension. This evidence supports the recommendation of combination therapy as first-line treatment in stage 2 hypertension.

Scanning electron microscopy revealed that the cellular and morphological defects in the integument of Channa punctatus, associated with heavy metal and other environmental pollution was related to a significant extent to the hydrogen ion concentration of the water. At low pH, the epidermis showed severe lesions, and the scale lost its attachment with the skin, due to lepidontal alterations of the circuli. Atomic absorption spectroscopic analysis of the tissue indicated disturbances in the homeostasis of several elements, which probably played a major role in causing the cellular and morphological defects. Experimental monitoring of the pH of the polluted water to near-neutral, reduced significantly the extent of cellular and morphological defects and disturbances in elemental homeostasis.