Search

Abstract Objective: BP-CRUSH (Blood Pressure Control in All Subgroups With Hypertension) was a phase IV, prospective, open-label, multicenter, single-arm, dose-titration study (N = 999). The present subgroup analysis reports the efficacy/safety of up to 20 weeks of treatment with amlodipine (AML)/olmesartan medoxomil (OM) ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in obese and non-obese patients with hypertension uncontrolled on antihypertensive monotherapy. Research design and methods: Eligible obese (body mass index >=30 kg/m(2); n = 505) and non-obese (<30 kg/m(2); n = 494) patients were switched to AML/OM 5/20 mg and uptitrated at 4-week intervals to AML/OM 5/40 mg, AML/OM 10/40 mg, AML/OM 10/40 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg, and AML/OM 10/40 mg + HCTZ 25 mg. Uptitration to higher doses of AML/OM was permitted if mean seated systolic BP (SeSBP) was >=120 mmHg, or mean seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) was >=70 mmHg. HCTZ was added if mean SeSBP was >=125 mmHg, or mean SeDBP was >=75 mmHg. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00791258 Main outcome measures: The primary efficacy endpoint was the cumulative proportion of patients achieving SeSBP <140 mmHg (<130 mmHg for patients with diabetes mellitus) at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included seated cuff BP (SeBP) goal rates, ambulatory BP target rates, and mean change from baseline in SeBP and ambulatory BP at weeks 12 and 20. Results: At 12 weeks, 71.6% of obese patients (80.2% non-obese) achieved the primary endpoint of cumulative SeSBP <140 mmHg (<130 mmHg for patients with diabetes). The cumulative SeBP goal of <140/90 mmHg (<130/80 mmHg if diabetes) was achieved by 64.8% and 81.2% of obese patients by weeks 12 and 20, respectively (vs. 77.9% and 88.5% of non-obese patients, respectively). Treatment was well-tolerated, with 26.1% of obese patients (24.9% non-obese) experiencing drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). There were no serious drug-related TEAEs. Conclusion: An AML/OM ± HCTZ treatment regimen provided effective and safe BP control in obese patients with hypertension uncontrolled on monotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the prospective, open-label, titrate-to-goal Blood Pressure Control in All Subgroups With Hypertension (BP-CRUSH) study, 999 patients with hypertension uncontrolled on monotherapy (mean age, 55.6 ± 11.4 years; baseline blood pressure [BP], 153.7 ± 9.2/91.9 ± 8.6 mm Hg) were switched to fixed-dose amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (AML/OM) 5/20 mg. Patients were uptitrated every 4 weeks to AML/OM 5/40 mg and 10/40 mg to achieve BP < 120/70 mm Hg. Patients were subsequently uptitrated every 4 weeks to AML/OM+hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 10/40+12.5 mg and 10/40+25 mg to achieve BP <125/75 mm Hg. The primary end point, the cumulative percentage of patients achieving seated systolic BP < 140 mm Hg (< 130 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) by week 12, was 75.8%. The mean (± standard error) BP changes from baseline during the titration periods ranged from -14.2±0.4 mm Hg/-7.7 ± 0.3 mm Hg for AML/OM 5/20 mg to -25.1 ± 0.7 mm Hg/-13.7 ± 0.4 mm Hg for AML/OM+HCTZ 10/40+25 mg. By week 20, the cumulative BP threshold of <140/90 mm Hg was achieved by 90.3% of patients. An ambulatory BP monitoring substudy (n=243) showed that 24-hour efficacy was maintained. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), mostly mild to moderate in severity, occurred in 529 patients (53.0%). Drug-related TEAEs occurred in 255 patients (25.5%). This well-tolerated, treat-to-goal algorithm enabled a large proportion of patients with uncontrolled hypertension on monotherapy to safely achieve BP control on single-pill AML/OM combination therapy or triple therapy with the addition of HCTZ. . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertension is highly prevalent in older persons and most often presents as isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic blood pressure (BP) is a stronger predictor of risk than diastolic BP in persons older than 50 years. Most of these patients will require multiple drug therapies to achieve the substantial reductions in systolic BP needed to reach target levels. Clinical trials have demonstrated that antihypertensive therapy with beta-blockers and diuretics as well as with calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers reduces cardiovascular risk in older patients. Studies examining safety and BP-lowering efficacy have shown that a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blocker plus a calcium channel blocker as well as a combination of diuretics and beta-blockers or diuretics plus an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker achieves greater BP reductions than monotherapy. Such multiple drug regimens are well tolerated in older patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: High incidences of cardiovascular events coincide with a surge in blood pressure (BP) that occurs in the early morning hours at the time of arousal. Thus, control of BP at this time of day, using oral fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) as required, is important in reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy in the early morning hours and tolerability of oral FDCs of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (40/12.5 mg [T40/H12.5] and 80/12.5 mg [T80/H12.5]) versus a low-dose FDC of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (L50/H12.5). METHODS: Data from 2 similarly designed prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) studies were pooled and analyzed. The studies were conducted at 72 centers across the United States, and 70 centers in Canada, Europe (9 countries), and the Philippines. Adult male and female patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP [DBP], > or =85 mm Hg; seated cuff DBP, 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive T40/H12.5, L50/H12.5, or T80/H12.5, QD (morning) for 6 weeks. Antihypertensive efficacy was assessed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and cuff sphygmomanometry at trough, performed at baseline and on completion of active treatment. The primary end point was the reduction from baseline in mean ambulatory DBP over the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. Secondary end points included other ABPM- and clinic-derived changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP), and control and response rates (SBP response defined as 24-hour mean SBP <130 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP response defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP control defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg). Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, spontaneous reporting, and clinical evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 1402 patients were enrolled(876 men, 525 women; mean [SD] age, 53.1 [9.9] years) (T40/H12.5, n = 517; L50/H12.5, n = 518; and T80/H12.5, n = 367). With T40/H12.5, the mean reduction in last-6-hour mean ambulatory DBP was 1.8 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-11.3 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001), and with T80/H12.5, the mean reduction was 2.6 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-12.0 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). Analysis of secondary end points found that greater BP reduction occurred with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5. ABPM SBP control and response rates were similar between the 3 groups, but the ABPM DBP control and response rates were significantly higher with T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (46.6% vs 34.0% [P < 0.002] and 69.4% vs 55.0% [P < 0.001], respectively). Clinic SBP and DBP control and response rates were higher with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (SBP response, 80.4% and 80.8% vs 68.5% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP response, 66.1% and 67.4% vs 54.4% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP control, 56.5% and 56.4% vs 44.1% [both, P < 0.001] ). The 2 most commonly recorded adverse events (AEs) were headache (T40/H12.5, 2.9%; L50/H12.5, 3.3%; and T80/H12.5, 3.0%) and dizziness (1.2%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, respectively). Most AEs were mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pooled analysis of2 PROBE studies in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension suggest that T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 conferred greater DBP and SBP control compared with low-dose L50/H12.5, including during the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. All 3 treatments were well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pompe disease is a rare glycogen storage disease caused by mutations in the enzyme acid α-glucosidase (GAA) resulting in pathological accumulation of glycogen in muscle tissues leading to progressive weakness and respiratory dysfunction. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with GAA is currently the sole treatment option for patients with Pompe disease. ERT burdens patients with frequent intravenous infusions while insufficiently halting disease progression due to incomplete ERT skeletal muscle distribution. Glycogen synthase 1 (GYS1) has been proposed as a substrate reduction therapy (SRT) target for Pompe disease. Here, we report results from the first-in-human study of the orally available GYS1 inhibitor MZE001 in healthy subjects. In 88 participants, MZE001 was well-tolerated up to a single dose of 480 mg BID and multiple doses of 720 mg BID for 10 days. Noncompartmental analysis determined that the half-life and C trough concentrations of MZE001 could provide efficacious exposures with once or twice daily oral dosing. Change from baseline of peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) glycogen, which correlated with muscle glycogen levels in preclinical models, was significantly reduced dose-dependently following 10 days of MZE001 treatment in healthy subjects. A muscle biopsy sub-study demonstrated that 10 days of MZE001 (480 mg BID) dosing safely and substantially lowered muscle glycogen stores in healthy adults. This correlated with the PBMC exposure response and supports the use of PBMC glycogen reduction as a surrogate for muscle response, and MZE001 potential for development as the first oral substrate reduction therapy for patients with Pompe disease., (© 2024 Maze Therapeutics. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Nirmatrelvir, a novel, potent, orally bioavailable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease inhibitor, coadministered with ritonavir for pharmacokinetic (PK) enhancement is licensed for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in individuals at increased risk of progression to severe disease. Cytochrome P450 3A4 is the primary metabolic enzyme responsible for nirmatrelvir metabolism; however, when cytochrome P450 3A4 is inhibited by ritonavir, nirmatrelvir is primarily excreted, unchanged, in urine. Because of intended use of nirmatrelvir among individuals with hepatic impairment, this Phase 1 study (NCT05005312) evaluated the effects of hepatic impairment on nirmatrelvir PK parameters to assess the potential need for any dose adjustments in this population. Participants with normal hepatic function or moderate hepatic impairment (n = 8 each) were administered a single 100-mg nirmatrelvir dose, with 100 mg of ritonavir administered 12 hours before, together with, and 12 and 24 hours after nirmatrelvir. Nirmatrelvir median plasma concentrations and systemic exposure measured by area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinite time and maximum observed plasma concentration values were comparable in both groups. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had an acceptable safety profile in both groups, and no clinically significant changes in laboratory measurements, vital signs, or electrocardiogram assessments were observed. Based on these results, no dose adjustment is deemed necessary in patients with moderate hepatic impairment and, by extension, in patients with mild hepatic impairment., (© 2023 Pfizer Inc and The Authors. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Nirmatrelvir coadministered with ritonavir is highly efficacious in reducing the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) adverse outcomes among patients at increased risk of progression to severe disease, including patients with chronic kidney disease. Because nirmatrelvir is eliminated by the kidneys when given with ritonavir, this phase I study evaluated the effects of renal impairment on pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Participants with normal renal function (n = 10) or mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment (n = 8 each) were administered a single 100-mg nirmatrelvir dose with 100 mg ritonavir given 12 hours before, together with and 12 and 24 hours after the nirmatrelvir dose. Systemic nirmatrelvir exposure increased with increasing renal impairment, with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment groups having respective adjusted geometric mean ratio areas under the plasma concentration-time profile from time 0 extrapolated to infinite time of 124%, 187%, and 304% vs. the normal renal function group. Corresponding ratios for maximum plasma concentration were 130%, 138%, and 148%. Apparent clearance was positively correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate, and geometric mean renal clearance values were particularly lower for the moderate (47% decrease) and severe (80% decrease) renal impairment groups vs. the normal renal function group. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir exhibited an acceptable safety profile; treatment-related adverse events were mild in severity, and there were no significant findings regarding laboratory measurements, vital signs, or electrocardiogram assessments. These findings led to a dose reduction recommendation for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in patients with moderate renal impairment (150/100 mg nirmatrelvir/ritonavir instead of 300/100 mg twice daily for 5 days). NCT04909853., (© 2022 Pfizer Inc. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background and Objectives: Standard enteral nutrition (EN) formulas can  worsen hyperglycemia in diabetic patients. We hypothesized that altering the proportion of macronutrients in a formula; increasing protein while decreasing carbohydrate concentrations would improve glycemic response. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that an EN formula containing a very high concentration of protein (in the form of whey peptides) and low concentration of carbohydrate provide better control of postprandial blood glucose relative to a very high-protein/higher-carbohydrate formula., Subjects and Methods: This was a randomized crossover clinical trial of 12 ambulatory adult subjects with type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome was glycemic response following a bolus of isocaloric amounts of two EN formulas; the secondary outcome was insulin response. Subjects were randomized to the experimental or the control formula, on two separate days, 5-7 days apart., Results: Mean blood glucose concentrations at 10-180 min post-infusion and mean area under the curve for glucose over 240 min post-infusion were significantly lower with the experimental formula than with the control formula (71.99 ± 595.18 and 452.62 ± 351.38, respectively; p = 0.025). There were no significant differences in the mean insulin concentrations over time, insulinogenic indices, and first-phase insulin measurements., Conclusions: An EN formula containing high-protein and low-carbohydrate loads can significantly improve glucose control in subjects with type 2 diabetes in ambulatory settings as evidenced by observed improved glucose control without significant difference in insulin response.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a chorioamniotic allograft, used as a wound cover for chronic foot ulcers, in patients with diabetes., Methods: A multicentre, prospective, postmarket study where eligible patients received up to 11 weekly wound cover applications. Computerised planimetry was used to calculate the diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) area each week. The primary endpoint of the study was wound closure assessment. Secondary endpoints included DFU recurrence and morbidity., Results: A total of 63 patients with 64 ulcers were enrolled, after successful completion of a two-week run-in period. Patients were predominantly male and had risk factors for delayed healing. Mean baseline DFU area was 3.8cm 2 (standard deviation (SD): 4.8). After 12 weeks, a total of 19 (40%) DFUs had closed. Results varied by size category, 'small' (≤2.0cm 2 ), 'medium' (>2.0-4.0 cm 2 ), and 'large' (>4.0-25.0 cm 2 ), with higher percentage closure in the 'small' DFU group, compared with the 'medium' and 'large' DFUs (57%, 33%, and 10%, respectively). Of those DFUs that closed, the average closure time was 6.5 weeks. There were no unanticipated adverse events., Conclusion: Known risk factors for healing, including DFU size, location and duration, affected the outcomes. However, the results are in line with the literature and support the use of the chorioamniotic allograft in chronic and complex cases.

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy., (©2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Long-term safety of a free-tablet combination of nebivolol and valsartan was assessed in a Phase III, open-label trial (NCT01415505). Adults with hypertension entered a 4-week placebo run-in phase, followed by a 52-week treatment phase. Initial dosage (Neb/Val 5/160 mg/d) was titrated up to 20/320 mg/d to achieve blood pressure (BP) goal (JNC7 criteria), with the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (up to 25 mg/d) if needed. Safety and tolerability parameters included adverse events. Efficacy assessments included baseline-to-endpoint change in diastolic BP and systolic BP and the percentage of patients who achieved BP goal. All analyses were performed using descriptive statistics. Study completion rate was 60.4% (489/810). The most frequent reason for discontinuation was insufficient therapeutic response (8.4%). Adverse events were experienced by 59.2% of patients, with the most common being headache (5.7%), nasopharyngitis (5.0%), and upper respiratory tract infection (4.6%). Three (0.4%) deaths occurred during the study; none was considered related to study medication. Mean ± standard deviation changes from baseline at week 52 (observed cases) were -25.5 ± 15.9 mm Hg (systolic BP) and -19.0 ± 8.7 mm Hg (diastolic BP). A total of 75.7% nebivolol/valsartan-treated and 57.8% nebivolol/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide-treated completers achieved BP goal. Long-term treatment with nebivolol and valsartan in adults with hypertension was safe and well-tolerated., (Copyright © 2014 American Society of Hypertension. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of telmisartan 40 mg (T40) or 80 mg (T80) plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (H12.5) single-pill combinations (SPCs) with telmisartan monotherapies, in a pooled analysis of patients with mild to moderate hypertension., Methods: Six phase 3, double-blind studies of 8 weeks' duration that assessed the T/H12.5 SPC and T40 or T80 monotherapy, were included in the analysis. Data was pooled separately for the two T40 non-responder studies (T40 NR group, two T80 non-responder studies (T80 NR group), and the two factorial design dose-response studies (FD-DR group)., Results: After 8 weeks' treatment, the adjusted mean reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and the SBP, DBP, and blood pressure (BP) goal rates were significantly higher with the T40/H12.5 SPC than T40 in the T40 NR group and with the T80/H12.5 SPC than T80 in the T80 NR group. In the FD-DR group, the adjusted mean reduction in SBP and DBP, and DBP goal rates were significantly higher for T40/H12.5 versus T40. The percentage of patients with an adverse event was numerically higher with T40/H12.5 versus T40 in the T40 NR group, and was similar in telmisartan monotherapies and the T/H12.5 SPCs in the T80 NR group and FD-DR group. A limitation of this study is the retrospective and pooled nature of the analysis. Also, >75% of patients were <65 years of age, which limits the applicability of the results to older patients., Conclusions: In patients with mild to moderate hypertension, 8 weeks' treatment with the T/H12.5 SPC is significantly more efficacious than telmisartan monotherapies. The safety and tolerability of the T/H12.5 SPC are comparable to that of telmisartan monotherapy and consistent with that reported in previous studies.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare biweekly and monthly evolocumab with placebo and oral ezetimibe in patients with hypercholesterolemia in a phase III trial., Background: Evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), significantly reduced LDL-C in phase II trials., Methods: Patients 18 to 80 years of age with fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥100 and <190 mg/dl and Framingham risk scores ≤10% were randomized (1:1:1:1:2:2) to oral placebo and subcutaneous (SC) placebo biweekly; oral placebo and SC placebo monthly; ezetimibe and SC placebo biweekly; ezetimibe and SC placebo monthly; oral placebo and evolocumab 140 mg biweekly; or oral placebo and evolocumab 420 mg monthly., Results: A total of 614 patients were randomized and administered doses. Evolocumab treatment reduced LDL-C from baseline, on average, by 55% to 57% more than placebo and 38% to 40% more than ezetimibe (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Evolocumab treatment also favorably altered other lipoprotein levels. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), muscle-related AEs, and laboratory abnormalities were comparable across treatment groups., Conclusions: In the largest monotherapy trial using a PCSK9 inhibitor to date, evolocumab yielded significant LDL-C reductions compared with placebo or ezetimibe and was well tolerated in patients with hypercholesterolemia. (Monoclonal Antibody Against PCSK9 to Reduce Elevated LDL-C in Subjects Currently Not Receiving Drug Therapy for Easing Lipid Levels-2 [MENDEL-2]; NCT01763827)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In phase 2 studies, evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, reduced LDL-C levels in patients receiving statin therapy., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of evolocumab when used in combination with a moderate- vs high-intensity statin., Design, Setting, and Patients: Phase 3, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and ezetimibe-controlled study conducted between January and December of 2013 in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia at 198 sites in 17 countries., Interventions: Patients (n = 2067) were randomized to 1 of 24 treatment groups in 2 steps. Patients were initially randomized to a daily, moderate-intensity (atorvastatin [10 mg], simvastatin [40 mg], or rosuvastatin [5 mg]) or high-intensity (atorvastatin [80 mg], rosuvastatin [40 mg]) statin. After a 4-week lipid-stabilization period, patients (n = 1899) were randomized to compare evolocumab (140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) with placebo (every 2 weeks or monthly) or ezetimibe (10 mg or placebo daily; atorvastatin patients only) when added to statin therapies., Main Outcomes and Measures: Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 and at week 12., Results: Evolocumab reduced LDL-C levels by 66% (95% CI, 58% to 73%) to 75% (95% CI, 65% to 84%) (every 2 weeks) and by 63% (95% CI, 54% to 71%) to 75% (95% CI, 67% to 83%) (monthly) vs placebo at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in the moderate- and high-intensity statin-treated groups; the LDL-C reductions at week 12 were comparable. For moderate-intensity statin groups, evolocumab every 2 weeks reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 115 to 124 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 39 to 49 mg/dL; monthly evolocumab reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 123 to 126 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 43 to 48 mg/dL. For high-intensity statin groups, evolocumab every 2 weeks reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 89 to 94 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 35 to 38 mg/dL; monthly evolocumab reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 89 to 94 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 33 to 35 mg/dL. Adverse events were reported in 36%, 40%, and 39% of evolocumab-, ezetimibe-, and placebo-treated patients, respectively. The most common adverse events in evolocumab-treated patients were back pain, arthralgia, headache, muscle spasms, and pain in extremity (all <2%)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this 12-week trial conducted among patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia, evolocumab added to moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy resulted in additional LDL-C lowering. Further studies are needed to evaluate the longer-term clinical outcomes and safety of this approach for LDL-C lowering., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01763866.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are significantly associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, and studies using interventions that lower LDL-C levels have been shown to reduce the risk of ASCVD events and mortality. Statin treatment is the current first-line therapy for lowering LDL-C and reducing ASCVD risk. However, many patients are still unable to reach recommended LDL-C goals on maximally tolerated statin therapy. Monoclonal antibodies that inhibit proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, including evolocumab (previously AMG 145), dramatically lowered LDL-C in phase 2 clinical trials when administered alone or in combination with a statin. The aim of this phase 3 study is to evaluate the efficacy of 12 weeks of subcutaneous evolocumab (vs placebo) administered every 2 weeks or every month in combination with a statin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia. This study will also provide comparative efficacy, safety, and tolerability data between evolocumab and ezetimibe when added to background atorvastatin therapy., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Saxagliptin added to metformin extended release (XR) and uptitrated metformin XR were evaluated for their impact on daily glucose measurements and their tolerability in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy., Methods: Patients aged 18-78 years on metformin 850-1,500 mg with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5-11.5% at screening were eligible for this double-blind, active-controlled study. Patients were stabilized on metformin XR 1,500 mg before randomization. Patients with HbA1c 7-11% and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ≥126 mg/dL after a 4- 8-week lead-in period were randomly assigned to saxagliptin 5 mg + metformin XR 1,500 mg or metformin XR 500 mg + metformin XR 1,500 mg (uptitrated metformin XR). The primary end point was change from baseline to week 4 in 24-h mean weighted glucose (MWG). Secondary end points were changes from baseline to week 4 in 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG) and FPG., Results: At week 4, the adjusted mean ± SE change from baseline in 24-h MWG was -19.0 ± 5.7 mg/dL (95% CI -30.3 to -7.6) for saxagliptin + metformin XR and -8.2 ± 6.0 mg/dL (95% CI -20.0 to 3.7) for uptitrated metformin XR. Mean changes from baseline in 2-h PPG and FPG were numerically greater with saxagliptin + metformin XR versus uptitrated metformin XR. The incidence of adverse events was lower with saxagliptin + metformin XR (17.4%) versus uptitrated metformin XR (31.9%) mainly due to differences in gastrointestinal adverse event incidence (2.2% vs 10.6%, respectively). There were no reports of confirmed hypoglycemia in either group., Conclusion: In this 4-week study in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy, saxagliptin added to metformin XR demonstrated a trend for improvement in measures of daily glycemic control, with fewer gastrointestinal adverse events, compared with uptitrated metformin.

An estimated 25% of patients will require 3 antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) control; combination therapy is thus an important strategy in hypertension treatment. This review discusses the triple-therapy combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or direct renin antagonist (DRI) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and a diuretic, with a focus on mechanisms of action. Multiple physiologic pathways contribute to hypertension. Combining antihypertensive agents not only better targets the underlying pathways, but also helps blunt compensatory responses that may be triggered by single-agent therapy. DRIs and ARBs target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) at the initial and final steps, respectively, and both classes lower BP by reducing the effects of angiotensin-2; however, ARBs may trigger a compensatory increase in renin activity. Dihydropyridine CCBs target L-type calcium channels and lower BP through potent vasodilation, but can trigger compensatory activation of the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and RAAS. Thiazide diuretics lower BP initially through sodium depletion and plasma volume reduction, followed by total peripheral resistance reduction, but can also trigger compensatory activation of the SNS and RAAS. The combination of an agent targeting the RAAS with a CCB and diuretic is rational, and triple combinations of valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, and aliskiren/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide have demonstrated greater effectiveness compared with their respective dual-component combinations. In addition, single-pill, fixed-dose combinations can address barriers to BP control including clinical inertia and poor adherence. Fixed-dose antihypertensive combination products capitalize on complementary mechanisms of action and have been shown to result in improved BP control., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Hypertension affects approximately 26% of the world's adult population and is a recognized major risk factor for morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and renal diseases. However, despite the availability of a range of effective antihypertensive agents and a growing awareness of the consequences of high blood pressure (BP), the treatment and control of hypertension remains suboptimal. A number of patient subgroups are categorized as 'high risk' and may have hypertension that is more difficult to treat, including obese individuals, patients with stage 2 hypertension, those with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), patients with coronary artery disease or a history of stroke, and Black patients. As the benefits of lowering BP in patients with hypertension are unequivocal, particularly in high-risk patients, treating high-risk patients with hypertension to BP goals and maintaining 24-hour BP control is important to help reduce cardiovascular risk and improve outcomes. Although the BP goals recommended in current consensus guidelines for the management of patients with hypertension are based on cuff BP measurements, ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) provides a valuable diagnostic tool and allows a more accurate assessment of BP levels throughout the 24-hour dosing period. ABPM is a better predictor of prognosis than office BP measurement and is also useful for assessing whether antihypertensive therapy remains effective in the critical last few hours of the dosing period, which usually coincides with the morning BP surge associated with arousal and arising. ABPM has been adopted by new evidence-based guidelines in the United Kingdom to confirm a suspected diagnosis of hypertension, which is an indication of the growing importance of ABPM in the management of hypertension. This review provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of antihypertensive therapy based on olmesartan medoxomil ± hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil in high-risk patient populations enrolled in studies that reported ambulatory BP endpoints. The studies identified in this review showed that a titrate-to-BP goal strategy using olmesartan medoxomil- or amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil-based antihypertensive therapy was an effective and well-tolerated approach for maintaining BP control throughout the full 24-hour dosing period in high-risk patients with difficult-to-treat hypertension.

Background: The incidence of hypertension, particularly isolated systolic hypertension, increases with increasing age, as does the risk of fatal cardiovascular disease. A combination antihypertensive therapy regimen may be required to reach recommended BP goals in older patients., Objectives: This study set out to report blood pressure (BP) data in elderly patients across the subgroups of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension (prespecified subgroup) and isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) [post hoc]., Design and Setting: This was a subgroup analysis of a prospective, open-label study carried out in a multicenter, outpatient setting (e.g. the BeniSILVER [Benicar Efficacy: New Investigation Shows OM Treatment Increasingly Leads to Various Elderly Populations to Safe BP Reductions; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00412932] study). The study included 176 patients with a mean age of approximately 72 years; stage 1 hypertension, 60, stage 2 hypertension, 116, and ISH, 98., Intervention: After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, patients were uptitrated every 3 weeks from olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 20 mg daily to OM 40 mg, OM/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 40 mg/12.5 mg, and OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg, if seated cuff BP (SeBP) was ≥120/70 mmHg., Measurements: Measurements included change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP and SeBP after 12 weeks of treatment, percentage of patients achieving a cumulative SeBP goal of <140/90 mmHg (stage 1 and stage 2 cohorts) or seated cuff systolic BP (SeSBP) goal of <140 mmHg (ISH cohort), and the incidence of adverse events (AEs)., Results: Combination therapy was required by 159 patients. Changes from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP (± standard deviation [SD]) were -24.2 (± 11.8)/-11.8 (± 6.9) mmHg, -26.5 (± 11.8)/-12.6 (± 6.7) mmHg, and -24.7 (± 12.5)/-11.2 (± 6.4) mmHg in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively (all p < 0.001 vs baseline). Mean SeBP changes (± SD) from baseline in patients titrated to OM/HCTZ 40 mg/25 mg were -24.6 (± 11.4)/-10.5 (± 7.3) mmHg in the stage 1 cohort, -26.4 (± 17.2)/-11.3 (± 9.7) mmHg in the stage 2 cohort, and -21.5 (± 15.6)/-6.8 (± 7.8) mmHg in the ISH cohort (all p < 0.001). The cumulative proportions of patients achieving an SeBP goal of <140/90 mmHg by week 12 were 88.3%, 56.0%, and 72.4% in the stage 1, stage 2, and ISH cohorts, respectively, while 72.4% of patients achieved an SeSBP of <140 mmHg in the ISH cohort. Treatment-emergent AEs ranged from 32.3% to 32.8%, with <3% of patients reporting drug-related hypotension., Conclusion: An OM/HCTZ-based titration regimen enabled elderly patients with hypertension to safely reduce BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval and allowed the majority of these patients to achieve a BP target of <140/90 mmHg or <140 mmHg.

This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan/amlodipine (T/A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP] ≥180/95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T/A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP/DBP (-47.5 mm Hg/-18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P<.0001) or A (P=.0002) monotherapy; superior reductions were also evident at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Blood pressure (BP) goal and response rates were consistently higher with T/A vs T or A. T/A was well tolerated, with less frequent treatment-related adverse events vs A (12.6% vs 16.4%) and a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema and treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, treatment of patients with substantially elevated BP with T/A SPCs resulted in high and significantly greater BP reductions and higher BP goal and response rates than the respective monotherapies. T/A SPCs were well tolerated., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Hypertensive patients with diabetes often require combination therapy to achieve a blood pressure (BP) goal, and evidence suggests that time to BP goal is crucial to decrease cardiovascular risk., Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the single-pill combination of telmisartan and amlodipine was superior to amlodipine alone as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes and hypertension., Methods: An 8-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind international trial comparing the once-daily single-pill combination of telmisartan 80 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (T/A; n = 352) with once-daily amlodipine 10 mg (A; n = 354) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 1 or 2 hypertension (systolic BP [SBP] >150 mm Hg)., Results: Patient demographics were similar between treatment groups, with an mean (SD) age of 60.5 (10.1) years; 51.7% were male, the mean (SD) body mass index was 32.0 (6.1) and the mean (SD) duration of hypertension was 8.8 (7.9) years. After 8 weeks (primary end point) as well as after 1, 2, and 4 weeks (key secondary end points), significantly greater decreases in the in-clinic mean seated trough cuff SBP with T/A versus A were achieved (-29.0 mm Hg vs -22.9 mm Hg at 8 weeks; P < 0.0001). After 8 weeks, 71.4% versus 53.8% of patients achieved the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) with T/A versus A, with mean SBPs of 131.9 and 137.9 mm Hg, respectively. Similar results were observed in the obese (metabolic syndrome) subpopulation. The more stringent goal (<130/80 mm Hg) was achieved by 36.4% and 17.9% patients in the T/A and A groups, respectively. The most common adverse events were peripheral edema, headache, and dizziness., Conclusions: In this selected population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, T/A provided prompt and greater BP decreases compared with A monotherapy, with the majority of patients achieving the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg)., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hypertension is a common co-morbidity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and well tolerated, effective therapies are needed to achieve guideline-recommended blood pressure (BP) goals in these patients., Objective: The aim of this study was to present the results of a prespecified analysis of key secondary endpoints from a 12-week, open-label, single-arm study evaluating the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes., Study Design and Methods: After a placebo run-in period, 192 patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day for 3 weeks. If BP remained ≥ 120/70 mmHg, patients were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/12.5 mg/day, and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day., Main Outcome Measure: Endpoints evaluated in this analysis were the change from baseline in mean seated cuff BP (SeBP), proportions of patients achieving SeBP goals, and distribution of SeBP reductions., Results: Mean SeBP was 158.1/90.0 mmHg at baseline. The mean ± standard error of BP reductions at 12 weeks for systolic and diastolic BP were 21.3 ± 1.1 mmHg and 9.8 ± 0.6 mmHg, respectively (p < 0.0001 for each). At the end of the study, the proportion of patients with diabetes achieving the recommended SeBP goal of <130/80 mmHg was 41.1%., Conclusions: An olmesartan medoxomil ± HCTZ treatment regimen significantly reduced BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00403481.

Hypertension is difficult to treat in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or obesity. Combination therapies are often required to effectively lower blood pressure (BP) and attain BP goals. In this post-hoc analysis of 2 prospective, randomized, controlled studies in patients with uncontrolled or untreated moderate or severe hypertension, the efficacy and safety of treatment with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and irbesartan was assessed in 2 separate analyses: patients with diabetes (n=143) and by obesity status (n=1125). Patients received irbesartan/HCTZ (150 mg/12.5 mg titrated to 300 mg/25 mg) or irbesartan (150 mg titrated to 300 mg) for 7 (severe hypertension study) or 12 (moderate hypertension study) weeks. Efficacy comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher's exact tests. After 7 to 8 weeks of treatment, systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) decreased in patients with diabetes by 26.9/17.8 mm Hg and 21.8/15.8 mm Hg after irbesartan/HCTZ and irbesartan treatment, respectively (P [SBP]=0.09, P [DBP]=0.27). In obese patients (n=544), SBP/DBP decreased by 29.4/20.2 mm Hg and 20.1/15.9 mm Hg after irbesartan/HCTZ and irbesartan treatment, respectively (P<0.0001). More patients with T2DM reached the BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg at week 7 to 8 in the irbesartan/HCTZ group than in the irbesartan group (12% vs 5%), although not statistically significant (P=0.22). Significantly more obese patients reached their respective BP goals in the irbesartan/HCTZ group than in the irbesartan group (48% vs 23%; P<0.0001). Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were similar between treatment groups regardless of the presence of diabetes or body mass index (BMI) status. In patients with moderate or severe hypertension and with a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2), initial treatment with irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy was more effective than irbesartan monotherapy.

The safety and efficacy of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based titration regimen was assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, 207 patients received amlodipine 5 mg and were uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 5/20, 5/40, and 10/40 mg and then amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 and 25 mg in a step-wise manner at 3-week intervals if the seated blood pressure (BP) remained ≥120/70 mm Hg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP after 12 weeks of treatment. The baseline mean ± SD seated cuff systolic/diastolic BP was 158.8 ± 13.1/89.1 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the mean ± SD 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was 144.4 ± 11.7/81.6 ± 9.8 mm Hg. At week 12, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was -19.9 ± 0.8/-11.2 ± 0.5 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), and 70% of patients had achieved a 24-hour ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mm Hg. At the end of 18 weeks of active treatment in patients uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM seated BP was -28.0 ± 1.5/-13.7 ± 1.0 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), with 62% of patients reaching the guideline-recommended seated BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 19.3% of patients. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (6%), dizziness (3%), and hypotension (2%). In conclusion, this amlodipine/OM-based titration regimen was well tolerated and effectively lowered BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There are unique problems associated with the long-term control of blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension. Many of these problems warrant specific discussion for the primary care physician. Up to one-third of high-risk patients are estimated to have uncontrolled hypertension. Although long-term control is essential to avoid complications of cardiovascular disease, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and kidney disease, it can become troublesome because of challenges with patient compliance and adherence to medication regimens. This may be due to low tolerability profiles, complicated regimens, or prohibitive costs. Trials have shown that a combination approach may reduce side effects with complementary therapies such as a calcium channel blocker (CCB)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination. Combination therapy can be used in any patient group not responsive to monotherapy, or who remain 20 mm Hg higher than their BP goal. This method may achieve the goal of reaching target BP sooner as a first-line approach and, in a fixed-dose combination, may be a more economic choice as well as a simpler regimen for the patient. Together with supportive measures, CCB/ARB combinations are a compelling alternative for the long-term treatment of hypertension.

The aim of the present study was to use ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (ABPM) to determine the efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine (AML) and olmesartan medoxomil (OM) over the 24-hour dosing interval. This 12-week, titrate-to-goal study was conducted in 185 patients with hypertension. Patients were initially treated with AML 5 mg/ day and uptitrated to AML/OM 5/20, 5/40, and 10/40 mg/day every 3 weeks if mean seated BP (SeBP) was ≥ 120/80 mmHg. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in mean 24-hour systolic BP at week 12 as assessed by ABPM. At baseline, the mean 24-hour ambulatory BP (± standard deviation [SD]) was 144.8 ± 11.1/85.7 ± 7.9 mmHg. At week 12, the change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP (± standard error of the mean [SEM]) was -21.4 ± 0.8/-12.7 ± 0.5 mmHg (p < 0.0001 versus baseline). At baseline, the mean SeBP (± SD) was 158.2 ± 12.6/92.8 ± 8.6 mmHg and at week 12, the mean SeBP change (± SEM) from baseline (last observation carried forward) was -24.1 ± 1.1/-12.1 ± 0.7 mmHg (p < 0.0001 versus baseline). Proportions of patients achieving mean 24-hour ambulatory BP prespecified study targets were 70.9% (<130/80 mmHg), 48.3% (<125/75 mmHg), and 40.7% (<120/80 mmHg). Cumulatively, 76.8% of patients uptitrated to AML/OM 10/40 mg/day attained an SeBP goal of <140/90 mmHg. The study drug was well tolerated with few adverse events (peripheral edema, 2.2%; dizziness, 1.1%). An AML/OM-based titration regimen effectively reduces BP in patients with hypertension.

This post hoc analysis of a 7-week, randomized, double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide treatment in 468 patients with severe, uncontrolled, hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or =100 mm Hg) at high cardiovascular risk. Systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP reductions ranged from 28.0 to 42.9/22.9 to 27.2 mm Hg in patients with obesity, diabetes, baseline SBP > or =180 mm Hg, and in the elderly. Blood pressure control to <140/90 mm Hg in the age and obesity subgroups ranged from 32.1% to 39.2% while control to <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes was 11.5%. After 1 week of therapy, 72.5% of patients no longer had SBP > or =180 mm Hg; by 7 weeks, 51.3% had SBP 140 to 159 mm Hg and 26.5% had SBP <140 mm Hg. Treatment was well tolerated regardless of the subgroup. No excess of prespecified events was noted. Thus, initial treatment with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide was rapidly effective in high-risk, difficult-to-treat, severely hypertensive patients.

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are highly co-prevalent, but often poorly controlled, coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors. A retrospective cohort study was conducted between January 2004 and April 2008 to compare estimated 10-year CHD risk reduction and dual blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment (Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure and Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults [Adult Treatment Panel III]) in patients with a first prescription for amlodipine monotherapy, co-prescribed amlodipine + statin, or single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin. In total, 2739 patients were prescribed amlodipine monotherapy, 653 were co-prescribed amlodipine + statin, and 227 were prescribed single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin. Baseline CHD risk was similar in all 3 cohorts (11.0%-12.5%). Relative CHD risk reduction was greater in those prescribed single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (24.5%) compared with amlodipine monotherapy (14.4%, P<.01), and co-prescribed amlodipine + statin (18.4%, P=.01). The findings were driven by greater dual goal attainment for patients prescribed single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin (50.2%) compared with amlodipine monotherapy (31.7%, P<.05) and co-prescribed amlodipine + statin (37.5%, P<.05)., (Copyright 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: The BENIFICIARY (BENIcar safety and efFICacy evaluatIon: An open-label, single-ARm, titration study in patients with hypertension and tYpe 2 diabetes) study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes., Research Design and Methods: After a placebo run-in period, 192 patients received OM 20 mg/day for 3 weeks. If blood pressure (BP) remained > or =120/70 mm Hg, patients were up-titrated to OM 40 mg/day for 3 weeks and subsequently (in 3-week intervals) to OM/HCTZ 40/12.5 mg/day, then OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day as necessary. Blood pressure was evaluated by mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) from baseline to Week 12. Secondary endpoints included: change in ambulatory diastolic BP (DBP) from baseline to Week 12; changes in ambulatory SBP and DBP during daytime, nighttime, and the last 2, 4, and 6 hours of the dosing interval; and achievement of prespecified ambulatory BP targets. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: NCT00403481., Results: Mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP and DBP decreased by 20.4 mm Hg and 11.1 mm Hg, respectively (both P < 0.0001 to baseline), and 61.6%, 47.1%, and 39.0% of patients reached the ambulatory BP targets of <130/80 mm Hg, <125/75 mm Hg, and <120/80 mm Hg, respectively. The study medication was well tolerated with few adverse events: 67/192 patients (34.9%) experienced a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) while 15/192 (7.8%) experienced a drug-related TEAE., Conclusions: In this open-label ABPM study, an OM +/- HCTZ based treatment regimen safely and significantly reduced BP in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes when assessed by 24-hour ABPM.

Background: Hypertension is an important healthcare challenge, yet despite initiatives to improve detection and advances in therapy, the majority of patients do not achieve recommended blood pressure targets and remain at high cardiovascular risk. Physicians are confronted with an array of antihypertensive agents, accompanied by increasingly complex and often conflicting evidence regarding their efficacy and tolerability., Scope: An extensive PubMed and Cochrane database search was conducted to identify clinical literature (published 1990-2009) on the blood pressure lowering efficacy, tolerability and target organ protection of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). While not a systematic review, this article reviews the best available evidence in an attempt to clarify current uncertainty within medical practice regarding treatment options in patients with hypertension., Findings: ACEIs have been at the forefront of hypertension therapy for several years, especially in hypertensive at-risk patients. However, their use is restricted by burdensome side-effects and their limited ability to reach target blood pressure. Newer ARBs, such as telmisartan, have more sustained blood pressure control throughout the 24-h dosing period compared with ACEIs and other ARBs. For uncomplicated hypertension, ARBs are preferred to ACEIs because of their superior tolerability and adherence. In specific patient populations, namely heart failure patients, ARBs have previously shown equal cardiovascular protection to ACEIs. ONTARGET showed that an ARB, in this case telmisartan, was as effective as ramipril in reducing cardiovascular events in a wide cross-section of at-risk cardiovascular patients, but was better tolerated even though patients were screened for ACEI tolerance., Conclusion: Telmisartan is currently the only ARB to have demonstrated equivalence to ramipril in reducing cardiovascular events in a broad patient population. In practical terms, telmisartan is superior to the reference standard ramipril because of more powerful blood pressure lowering and superior tolerability. However, in many countries, guidance to physicians prioritizes ACEIs. In these countries, telmisartan should be the first choice ARB for hypertensive at-risk patients who do not achieve adequate blood pressure control with an ACEI, or for whom tolerability is a concern.

This study assessed blood pressure (BP) reductions and response rates following addition of nebivolol to ongoing antihypertensive therapy in patients with uncontrolled stage I-II hypertension despite antihypertensive treatment. Patients with an average sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) > or =90 and < or =109 mm Hg while taking an antihypertensive regimen were included in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy end point was reduction from baseline to week 12 in mean trough SiDBP. In total, 669 patients were randomized to once-daily nebivolol 5, 10 or 20 mg or placebo. Addition of nebivolol 5, 10 and 20 mg significantly reduced BP; placebo-subtracted least squares mean reductions in trough SiDBP were -3.3, -3.5 and -4.6 mm Hg, respectively (P<0.001) and -5.7, -3.7 and -6.2 mm Hg in trough sitting systolic BP (SiSBP), respectively (P< or =0.015). Adding nebivolol 5-20 mg resulted in significantly more responders (SiDBP <90 or > or =10 mm Hg reduction; range: 53.0-65.1 vs 41.3% with placebo; P< or =0.028) and significantly better control rates (SiSBP/SiDBP <140/90 mm Hg; range: 41.3-52.7 vs 29.3% with placebo; P< or =0.029). Nebivolol was well tolerated; the incidence of adverse events with nebivolol was similar to that with placebo (40.2 vs 38.9%, respectively; P=0.763). Addition of once-daily nebivolol to ongoing antihypertensive therapy provided significant additional BP reductions and better response rates in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and was well tolerated.

Background: Hypertension often occurs concomitantly with diabetes mellitus, such that >50% of adults with type 2 diabetes have hypertension. These individuals are at a greater risk of developing renal and cardiovascular disease. The currently recommended BP goal of <130/80 mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes is achieved in only 37.5% of treated patients with diabetes and hypertension., Methods: The antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was investigated in prespecified subgroups (age <65/≥65 years, Blacks/non-Blacks, males/females, or stage 1/stage 2 hypertension) of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes enrolled in an open-label, single-arm study (n = 192). Patients started treatment with OM 20 mg/day and were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to OM 40, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day if BP was ≥120/70 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 12, assessed by mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Secondary endpoints included changes in mean 24-hour ambulatory DBP, mean daytime ambulatory BP, mean nighttime ambulatory BP, and mean office seated BP, and the proportions of patients achieving prespecified ambulatory BP targets., Setting: This was a multicenter study (24 sites) that took place between November 2006 and November 2007 in the US., Results: BP reductions were significant (p < 0.0001) and similar among subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes. Following dose titration to OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day, similar proportions of patients in the age, race, and sex subgroups (approximately 60-64% across these subgroups) achieved an ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mmHg. A larger proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 hypertension achieved this same goal compared with patients with stage 2 hypertension (75% vs 46.3%). The combination of OM/HCTZ was well tolerated in all patient subgroups irrespective of age, race, sex, or hypertension severity., Conclusions: In this open-label study, OM/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in subgroups of patients with diabetes and hypertension. [Clinical Trials Registry Number: NCT00403481].

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

Cardiovascular risk is subject to circadian variation, with peak morning incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke correlating with the early morning blood pressure (BP) surge (EMBPS). Ideally, antihypertensive therapy should maintain control of BP throughout the 24-h dosing cycle. In two sister studies, Prospective, Randomized Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of Micardis vs Ramipril Using ABPM (ambulatory BP monitoring) (PRISMA) I and II, BP control was compared in patients with essential hypertension (24-h mean baseline ambulatory BP approximately 148/93 mm Hg) randomized to the angiotensin receptor blocker, telmisartan (80 mg; n=802), or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril (5 or 10 mg; n=811), both dosed in the morning. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the final 6 h of the 24-h dosing cycle. The adjusted mean treatment differences in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were -5.8/-4.2 mm Hg after 8 weeks and -4.1/-3.0 mm Hg after 14 weeks, in favour of telmisartan (P<0.0001 for all four comparisons). Secondary end point results, including the mean 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, day- and night-time BP and 24-h BP load, also significantly favoured telmisartan (P<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated; adverse events, including cough, were less common with telmisartan. These findings suggest that telmisartan is more effective than ramipril throughout the 24-h period and during the EMBPS; this may be attributable to telmisartan's long duration of effect, which is sustained throughout the 24-h dosing period.

Inhibition of phosphodiesterase 5 is an attractive candidate mechanism for blood pressure (BP) lowering. In this study, a novel long-acting phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitor, PF-00489791, was evaluated in 133 patients with mild to moderate hypertension, randomized into 1 of 4 groups: placebo, 4 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg titrated after 14 days of dosing to 40 mg. Study medication was administered once daily for 28 days. Ambulatory BP monitoring was used. There was a statistically significant decrease (compared with placebo) in mean daytime systolic BP on day 28 at the 10 and 20/40 mg doses (by approximately 5 and approximately 7 mm Hg, respectively). Changes in mean daytime diastolic BP corresponded with those in systolic BP. The magnitude of BP lowering was greater on day 1 than on days 14 and 28, but the response was sustained between days 14 and 28. PF-00489791 also exerted BP lowering effects on mean 24-hour ambulatory BP. There was a dose-related increase in plasma cGMP concentration (statistically significant at the 20/40 mg dose). There was an increased incidence of headaches at the 10 and 20/40 mg doses (22% and 21%, respectively, compared with 12% with placebo) and an increased incidence of dyspepsia/gastroesophageal reflux disease and musculoskeletal adverse events at the 20/40 mg dose. In conclusion, PF-00489791 causes a clinically meaningful and sustained BP lowering in patients with hypertension. It is generally safe and well tolerated at the clinically efficacious doses.

This post hoc analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Adults with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) (140-179 mm Hg; 130-179 mm Hg in type 2 diabetes) after 4 weeks or more of antihypertensive monotherapy once-daily treatment with placebo for 4-5 weeks, followed by HCTZ 12.5 mg for 2 weeks, irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg for 8 weeks, and then irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg for 8 weeks, in a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension (n = 443) and the total study population (n = 736), irbesartan/HCTZ treatment for 16 weeks provided comparable mean blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline (21.4/10.1 mm Hg vs 21.5/10.4 mm Hg; p < .001 vs baseline) and high SBP control rates (74% vs 77%). Patients with isolated systolic hypertension and concomitant type 2 diabetes experienced smaller BP reductions (17.9/8.7 mm Hg vs 22.9/10.7 mm Hg) and lower rates of SBP control (< 130 mm Hg, 47%) than those without diabetes (< 140 mm Hg, 87%). BP reductions from baseline and SBP control rates were similar across isolated systolic hypertension subgroups (> or = 65 vs < 65 years, sex, race, and metabolic syndrome status). Irbesartan/HCTZ was well tolerated, with drug-related adverse events (dizziness, < or = 3%; upper respiratory tract infection, < or = 2%) occurring with similar rates in the isolated systolic hypertension and total population. Fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ combination treatment provided effective and well-tolerated BP lowering in a diverse population of patients with isolated systolic hypertension.

Hypertension affects approximately 73 million individuals in the United States. Clinical studies have shown that antihypertensive therapy can reduce blood pressure (BP) and the risk of cardiovascular events. However, the majority of patients with hypertension do not achieve the recommended BP goal of < 140/90 mm Hg (or < 130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes) with antihypertensive monotherapy, and require therapy with 2 or more antihypertensive agents. Combination therapy utilizes antihypertensive agents from different drug classes, which act via distinct pharmacologic mechanisms to improve overall efficacy and tolerability. Although combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in achieving BP goals across the entire spectrum of hypertension, the proportion of patients achieving the recommended BP goal can be further improved by the use of new antihypertensive drug combinations. The beneficial antihypertensive characteristics of both angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers suggest that combining these classes may result in a highly efficacious antihypertensive therapy with regard to both activity and safety when used as a fixed-dose combination. In particular, a fixed-dose combination of olmesartan medoxomil plus amlodipine besylate has been demonstrated to be an efficacious antihypertensive combination due in part to the benefits associated with each of these agents within their respective drug classes.

Poor control of hypertension or dyslipidemia may at least in part be due to these risk factors being treated in isolation. The Caduet in Untreated Subjects Population (CUSP) trial was an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy/safety of the combination of a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate) and a statin (atorvastatin calcium) in a single-pill form (5/20 mg) plus therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) compared with placebo plus TLC in patients with comorbid hypertension and dyslipidemia without evidence of cardiovascular disease. At week 4, additional antihypertensive/lipid-lowering medication was permitted. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in whom the dual goal of blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control (<100 mg/dL) was met at week 4. This dual goal attainment was significantly greater with amlodipine/atorvastatin plus TLC compared with placebo plus TLC at week 4 (47.6% vs 1.7%; P<.001), with further improvements at week 8. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. Therapy with single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin plus TLC in these patients significantly increased dual blood pressure/low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment compared with placebo plus TLC.

Moderate (grade 2) and severe (grade 3) hypertension are important public health problems associated with high cardiovascular risk. Blood pressure (BP) control becomes more difficult to achieve as hypertension progresses. Therefore, early and effective treatment is essential to prevent hypertensive urgencies and emergencies and reduce cardiovascular risk. Currently, less than 50% of patients being treated for moderate or severe hypertension in the United States achieve their BP goal as recommended by treatment guidelines. This review examines the cardiovascular risk and physician inertia associated with moderate and severe hypertension, and concludes that increased use of initial combination therapy can overcome many of the barriers to effective BP control. Furthermore, initial combination therapy with a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor and diuretic has the potential to rapidly and effectively reduce BP across a range of baseline BPs, with a comparable adverse event profile to monotherapy.

Objectives: A post hoc analysis was performed to assess the magnitude of the early morning blood pressure surge (EMBPS), which is associated with peak cardiovascular risk, in untreated hypertensive patients enrolled in two sister studies (Prospective, Randomised Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of MICARDIS vs. ramipril using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring I and II) with identical design., Methods: In adults with a mild-to-moderate primary hypertension and no significant comorbidities, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted after a 2- to 4-week placebo run-in period and before treatment initiation. Individual blood pressure measurements at 20-min intervals were analysed., Results: In 1419 hypertensive patients with normal sleeping times, blood pressure displayed a typical circadian rhythm, with a mean EMBPS of 29/24 mmHg. An EMBPS of >or= 25 mmHg was observed in around 60% of patients. The surge was significantly increased with smoking, alcohol consumption, longer sleep, later waking times, and increased blood pressure variability during waking and sleeping. The magnitude of the EMBPS was significantly reduced in Black vs. White patients. The surge was not affected by gender, body mass index or duration of hypertension. Further analysis showed that ethnicity, alcohol consumption and smoking were all found to have a significant impact on surge around waking and age, sleep duration and sleep blood pressure variability were all found to have an effect on the prewake surge., Conclusions: In untreated hypertensive patients, the magnitude of the EMBPS is significant when compared with the 24-h mean and is affected by individual patient characteristics. In light of these findings, physicians should understand the importance of 24-h blood pressure control and the modification of certain lifestyle factors as ways of reducing the EMBPS.

Background: The attainment of clinical blood pressure (BP) goals can markedly reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, yet approximately two-thirds of treated hypertensive patients in the United States have uncontrolled BP. Consequently, more aggressive management of hypertension, frequently involving combination therapy (e.g., fixed-dose combination [FDC] therapy), is needed to achieve the recommended BP goals of <140/90 mmHg for most patients, and <130/80 mmHg for high-risk patients., Scope: This article, based on data from an extensive Medline search ('hypertension' AND 'prescribe', 'prescribing' OR 'prescription', date range: 1995-2007), focuses on prescribing patterns for antihypertensive medication, and on the emerging role of combination therapy, specifically FDC therapy, in treating hypertensive patients to target BP levels., Findings: Although the use of antihypertensive combination therapy has increased substantially in US adults over the last 20 years, such therapy remains considerably underutilized. Numerous studies have shown that combination therapies, including FDCs, can markedly reduce BP and adverse events relative to monotherapies, and this paper overviews data for various combination therapies: angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) + diuretic; angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor + diuretic; calcium-channel blocker (CCB) + ACE inhibitor; and CCB + ARB. Specifically, fixed-dose CCB/ARB combinations of amlodipine with losartan, valsartan, or olmesartan medoxomil have recently been developed, and combination therapy schedules of amlodipine plus one of these ARBs have shown greater BP-lowering efficacy compared with the constituent monotherapies. Furthermore, in two large studies in a total of >3000 patients, CCB + ARB combination therapy was associated with significantly lower incidences of headache and peripheral edema than CCB monotherapy., Conclusion: Guidelines for hypertension management clearly support the greater use of multidrug therapy, especially in high-risk patients. FDCs (e.g., various emerging CCB/ARB combinations) are a valuable option for such high-risk patients, as these combinations offer the potential to reduce adverse events, increase compliance, lower treatment costs, and improve BP goal-attainment rates.

Objective: This post hoc analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a diverse population of hypertensive women., Methods: INCLUSIVE was a multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-arm trial. Adult subjects had uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP 140-159 mm Hg; 130-159 mm Hg for those with type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM]) after > or =4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. Treatment was sequential: placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). Mean changes from baseline to treatment end in SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), BP goal attainment, and safety were assessed., Results: Treatment with irbesartan/HCTZ was associated with significant mean reductions in BP (intent-to-treat population, n = 370; SBP/DBP: -22.9/-10.3 +/- 14.7/8.8 mm Hg). Improvements in SBP were observed in all subgroups (p < 0.001): Caucasian (n = 207) -23.5 +/- 13.5 mm Hg; African American (n = 93) -21.0 +/- 17.2 mm Hg; Hispanics/Latino (n = 66) -23.6 +/- 14.3 mm Hg; age <65 years (n = 281) -22.5 +/- 14.7 mm Hg; age > or =65 years (n = 89) -24.3 +/- 14.5 mm Hg; T2DM (n = 97) -19.0 +/- 15.1 mm Hg; and metabolic syndrome (n = 187) -22.1 +/- 14.6 mm Hg. Overall, 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78%-86%) of women achieved their SBP goal, 86% (95% CI 83%-90%) achieved their DBP goal, and 76% (95% CI 71%-80%) achieved their dual SBP/DBP goal. Treatments were well tolerated in all groups., Conclusions: Irbesartan/HCTZ treatment was effective and well tolerated in a diverse population of women whose BP was previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.

This prospective, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized patients with moderate hypertension (seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) 160-179 mm Hg when seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) <110 mm Hg; or SeDBP 100-109 mm Hg when SeSBP <180 mm Hg) 3:1:1 to treatment with irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg combination therapy (n=328), irbesartan 300 mg monotherapy (n=106) or HCTZ monotherapy 25 mg (n=104). Treatment was initiated at half dose, with forced titration to full dose after two weeks followed by ten further weeks' treatment. The primary efficacy variable was the mean reduction in SeSBP from baseline to week 8. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with mean baseline blood pressure approximately 162/98 mm Hg; the mean age was 55 years. At week 8 there was a reduction in SeSBP of 27.1 mm Hg with irbesartan/HCTZ, compared with 22.1 mm Hg with irbesartan monotherapy (P=0.0016) and 15.7 mm Hg with HCTZ (P<0.0001). Both the rate of decline and the total degree of decline achieved were greatest with irbesartan/HCTZ and least with HCTZ. A significantly greater percentage of patients reached a treatment goal of SeSBP <140 mm Hg and SeDBP <90 mm Hg by week 8 with irbesartan/HCTZ (53.4%), compared with irbesartan (40.6%; P=0.0254) and HCTZ (20.2%; P<0.0001) alone. Treatment was well tolerated in all three-treatment groups with a slight increase in adverse events in the combination therapy group. In conclusion, irbesartan/HCTZ (300/25 mg) is well tolerated and achieves rapid and sustained reductions in both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in patients with moderate hypertension.

Subgroup analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combinations in patients aged 65 years or older with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) after >or= 4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. The INCLUSIVE trial was a prospective, open-label, single-arm trial carried out in 119 sites. Of 844 patients completing placebo treatment, 212 were aged 65 years or older. Participants received treatment with placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and then irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). From baseline to week 18 (n=184, intent-to-treat population), mean change in SBP was -23.0+/-13.3 mm Hg (P<.001) and diastolic BP (DBP) was -10.9+/-7.7 mm Hg (P<.001). Mean SBP/DBP at study end was 134.0+/-14.7/75.1+/-8.4 mm Hg, and SBP, DBP, and SBP/DBP goal was achieved in 73%, 96%, and 72% of patients, respectively. Irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy allowed SBP goal attainment in 73% of patients aged 65 years or older whose hypertension was previously uncontrolled with antihypertensive monotherapy.