Hydrochlorothiazide added to valsartan is more effective than when added to olmesartan in reducing blood pressure in moderately hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by monotherapy

A literature review to evaluate the clinical and economic value of olmesartan for the treatment of hypertensive patients

The objective of the present study was to systematically review the clinical and economic outcomes of olmesartan as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents in the treatment of hypertension. A literature search was performed using PubMed and the Cochrane library until December 2015, with no limit on publication date. Eligible studies were selected using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, limiting articles to those published in the English language. Background information of the study, participants' characteristics and study outcomes were collected. Meta-analysis of data was not performed. Fifty-five studies were included, of which fifty investigated the clinical efficacy of olmesartan and five the cost-effectiveness of olmesartan. In general results from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of olmesartan as monotherapy and as combination therapy demonstrated that olmesartan provided better antihypertensive blood pressure-lowering efficacy and was generally well tolerated compared with other antihypertensive agents. Results from economic evaluations indicated that olmesartan may be more cost-effective than other ARBs such as losartan, valsartan, irbesartan and candesartan, having the potential of decreasing the overall medical costs of care for patients with hypertension. Evidence from the present systematic review confirms the antihypertensive efficacy and good safety profile of olmesartan both as monotherapy and as combination therapy. Olmesartan was also found to be cost-effective compared with other ARBs, though this area has yet relatively poor evidence and needs to further be explored.

Effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide in combination with telmisartan and olmesartan in adults with moderate hypertension not controlled with monotherapy: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE), parallel-arm study

BACKGROUND

The potential combinations of antihypertensive agents are many, and making rational choices depends on the characteristics of each drug and on their complementary mechanisms of action.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to olmesartan 20 mg or telmisartan 80 mg on blood pressure (BP) in patients with moderate hypertension.

METHODS

Consecutive outpatients at the Centro per l'Ipertensione e la Fisiopatologia Cardiovascolare, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, of both sexes aged 39 to 75 years were considered eligible for enrollment if they had a sitting diastolic BP (DBP) ->99 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg at the end of an initial 2-week washout period. Patients were random- ized to olmesartan 20 mg QD or telmisartan 80 mg QD according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-arm design. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ->90 mm Hg) received HCTZ 12.5 mg QD for 8 additional weeks. Clinical and ambulatory BPs were measured at the end of the washout period and at the end of both treatment periods. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from spontaneous reports and direct inquiry from investigators.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five patients, all of whom were white, were recruited for the study. After the initial washout period, 13 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 refused to continue. A total of 126 white patients (69 men, 57 women; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.6] years) were randomized to receive monotherapy. Of these, 35 patients (56%) in the olmesartan group and 33 (52%) in the telmisartan group had previously received antihypertensive therapy. At the end of monotherapy, the 52 patients in the olmesartan group and the 49 patients in the telmisartan treatment group who were still in the study and had their BP inadequately controlled by treatment had HCTZ 12.5 mg QD added to their treatment regimen. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP) and DBP reduction than monothera- py (SBP: 145.3 [6.1] in the olmesartan group and 140.1 [6.4] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05; DBP: 88.1 [5.1] in the olmesartan group and 84.9 [4.9] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05). The mean (SD) reduction from baseline in the telmisartan/HCTZ-treated patients (21.5 [10.1]/14.6 [5.2] mm Hg for 24 hours, 21.8 [10.2]/14.9 [5.2] mm Hg for daytime, and 20.4 [10.3]/13.7 [5.9] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline) was significantly greater than that observed in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (18.8 [9.8]/12.3 [4.9] mm Hg for 24 hours, 19.3 [9.8]/12.8 [4.9] mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4 [10.2]/10.6 [5.5] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline), with a significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.01). Compared with mono- therapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg QD administration was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the olmesartan group (P < 0.05); the differ- ence being more evident for nighttime BP values (SBP, P 0.031; DBP, P 0.025). Reported AEs were similar in the olmesartan/HCTZ and the telmisartan/HCTZ groups (4 patients [7%] vs 3 patients [6%]).

CONCLUSION

The addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to telmisartan 80 mg monothera- py was associated with greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 nag monotherapy in these patients previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.

Different aspects of sartan + calcium antagonist association compared to the single therapy on inflammation and metabolic parameters in hypertensive patients

This study aims to evaluate the effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium channel blocker combination on blood pressure control, lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, and inflammation markers. We randomized 276 hypertensive patients to olmesartan 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or a single pill containing an olmesartan/amlodipine combination 20/5 mg for 12 months. We evaluated the following: body weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin (FPI), M value, lipid profile, adiponectin (ADN), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and macrophage migration inhibitory factor-1β (MIP-1β). Olmesartan/amlodipine combination better reduced blood pressure, FPI, homeostasis model assessment index, and increased M value and ADN compared to olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies. Olmesartan/amlodipine significantly decreased Hs-CRP, MCP-1, and MIP-1β. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical study, ARB/calcium antagonist combination resulted to be more effective than single monotherapies in reducing blood pressure, in improving insulin sensitivity, and in reducing inflammation parameters in patients with stage I essential hypertension.

Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers as monotherapy as evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are available in different dosages and it is common clinical practice to uptitrate if blood pressure goal is not achieved with the initial dose. Data on the incremental antihypertensive efficacy with uptitration are scarce. It is also unclear if antihypertensive efficacy of losartan is comparable with other ARBs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically reviewed PubMed/EMBASE/Cochrane databases for all randomized clinical trials until December 2012 reporting 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) for most commonly available ARBs in patients with hypertension. Reduction in ABP with ARBs was evaluated at 25% of the maximum (max) dose, 50% of the max dose, and at the max dose. Comparison was made between 24 h BP-lowering effect of losartan 50 and 100 mg and other ARBs at 50% max dose and the max dose, respectively. Sixty-two studies enrolling 15 289 patients (mean age 56 years; 60% men) with a mean duration of 10 weeks were included in the analysis. Overall, the dose-response curve with ARBs was shallow with decrease of 10.3/6.7 (systolic/diastolic), 11.7/7.6, and 13.0/8.3 mmHg with 25% max dose, 50% max dose, and with the max dose of ARBs, respectively. Losartan in the dose of 50 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at 50% max dose by 2.5 mmHg systolic (P < 0.0001) and 1.8 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.0003). Losartan 100 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at max dose by 3.9 mm Hg systolic (P = 0.0002) and 2.2 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive analysis of the antihypertensive efficacy of ARBs by 24 h ABP, we observed a shallow dose-response curve, and uptitration marginally enhanced the antihypertensive efficacy. Blood pressure reduction with losartan at starting dose and at max dose was consistently inferior to the other ARBs.

Antihypertensive effects of olmesartan compared with other angiotensin receptor blockers: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in hypertensive patients. Olmesartan is the seventh angiotensin receptor blocker licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan medoxomil in comparison with other ARBs.

DATA SOURCES

Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of olmesartan versus other ARBs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed (up to July 2010), EMBASE (1980 to July 2010), SinoMed (up to July 2010), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2010).

REVIEW METHODS

Pertinent studies were selected through extensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SinoMed. Two of the authors abstracted data from the identified studies independently. Criteria for inclusion in our meta-analyses were randomized clinical trials in which patients were receiving an ARB and outcome data for blood pressure reduction or the incidence of adverse events were available. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of data from all RCTs meeting the criteria were performed. Our meta-analysis was undertaken according to the Quality of Reporting Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with data from 4892 patients were considered for analyses. Olmesartan provided greater diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reductions compared with losartan (DBP: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59, 2.62; SBP: 95% CI 0.46, 5.92). Olmesartan provided greater SBP reductions compared with valsartan (95% CI 0.29, 3.16). Similar blood pressure response rates and incidence of adverse events were found with losartan, valsartan, candesartan, and irbesartan.

CONCLUSION

Olmesartan provides better antihypertensive efficacy than losartan and valsartan and has no association with an increased risk of adverse events in comparison with losartan, valsartan, candesartan, and irbesartan.

Office and ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs. hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy in obese, hypertensive patients

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.

Valsartan: more than a decade of experience

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

Effect of valsartan or olmesartan addition to amlodipine on ankle edema in hypertensive patients

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare the effect on ankle edema of adding valsartan (V) or olmesartan (O) to amlodipine (A) in the treatment of hypertension.

METHODS

After a 4-week placebo period, 74 adult outpatients with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >90 and <110 mmHg, and systolic blood pressure [SBP] >140 mmHg) were treated with A 10 mg once daily for 4 weeks. Thereafter, nonresponder patients (DBP >90 mmHg and/or SBP >140 mmHg; n=51) were randomized to receive additional V 160 mg once daily or O 20 mg once daily for 8 weeks in two crossover periods, each separated by a 4-week placebo period. Clinic blood pressure (BP), heart rate, and ankle/foot volume (AFV) were evaluated and blood samples were drawn to evaluate plasma norepinephrine (NE) levels.

RESULTS

Both V/A and O/A induced a greater SBP/DBP reduction than A monotherapy (-26.4/-20.8 mmHg and -24.4/-19.1 mmHg, respectively; all P<0.001 vs. baseline and P<0.01 vs. A). A monotherapy increased AFV by 24%, P<0.001 vs. baseline, while the addition of either V or A reduced such increases. However, with V/A the AFV increase (+9.7%, P<0.05 vs. baseline, P<0.01 vs. A) was lower than with O/A (+16.7%, P<0.01 vs. baseline, P<0.05 vs. A); the difference between the two combinations was significant. Plasma NE levels were significantly increased by A (+44.6%) and values did not change with the addition of V (+35.2%) or O (+33.7%). Plasma active renin (PAR) was unchanged by A but increased by V/A (+214.4%, P<0.05 vs. baseline) and further by O/A (+325.6%, P<0.01 vs. baseline; difference between the 2 combinations: P<0.05). An inverse correlation was found between the AFV decrease and PAR increase (r=-0.31, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Adding V or O to A reduced ankle edema, but this effect was more pronounced with V. The greater degree of renin-angiotensin system activation observed with Ocould be related to such a difference.

Valsartan combination therapy in the management of hypertension - patient perspectives and clinical utility

The morbidity and mortality benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive patients are well established, with most individuals requiring multiple agents to achieve BP control. Considering the important role of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in the pathophysiology of hypertension, a key component of combination therapy should include a RAAS inhibitor. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) lower BP, reduce cardiovascular risk, provide organ protection, and are among the best tolerated class of antihypertensive therapy. In this article, we discuss two ARB combinations (valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] and amlodipine/valsartan), both of which are indicated for the treatment of hypertension in patients not adequately controlled on monotherapy and as initial therapy in patients likely to need multiple drugs to achieve BP goals. Randomized, double-blind studies that have assessed the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of these combinations in the first-line treatment of hypertensive patients are reviewed. Both valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/valsartan effectively lower BP and are well tolerated in a broad range of patients with hypertension, including difficult-to-treat populations such as those with severe BP elevations, prediabetes and diabetes, patients with the cardiometabolic syndrome, and individuals who are obese, elderly, or black. Also discussed herein are patient-focused perspectives related to the use of valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/valsartan, and the rationale for use of single-pill combinations as one approach to enhance patient compliance with antihypertensive therapy.

Combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide: secondary analysis of the proportion of patients achieving recommended blood pressure goals from a randomized, double-blind, factorial study

BACKGROUND

The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ] has previously been shown to produce significantly greater SBP/DBP reductions than monotherapy with either agent alone in a randomized, double-blind, factorial study in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Compared with the evaluation of a single mean BP reduction in a patient population, determining the efficacy of an antihypertensive agent in achieving multiple BP targets provides additional information about the range of BP reductions attainable within this study population.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a secondary analysis of this study to evaluate the proportion of patients achieving combined SBP/DBP targets recommended in current hypertension treatment guidelines as well as individual SBP and DBP targets.

METHODS

A total of 502 patients with DBP >or=100 and <or=115 mmHg were randomized to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, HCTZ 12.5 or 25 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil 10, 20, or 40 mg/day, or olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 10/12.5, 10/25, 20/12.5, 20/25, 40/12.5, or 40/25 mg/day. Mean baseline SBP ranged from 151.9 to 156.6 mmHg and mean baseline DBP ranged from 102.6 to 104.4 mmHg across the twelve treatment arms. The chi-squared test was used to compare the proportion of patients achieving each BP goal in each of the 11 active treatment regimens with that in the placebo group.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients achieving an SBP <140 or <130 mmHg, DBP <90, <85, or <80 mmHg and combined SBP/DBP <140/90, <130/85, <130/80, or <120/80 mmHg typically increased with escalating dosages of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ when administered alone or in combination, but was always highest in those treated with the combination. As the BP goal became progressively more stringent, the proportion of patients achieving the BP goal decreased in each treatment group, although the trend toward greater reductions in patients treated with combination therapy remained intact. All combined SBP/DBP goals were achieved by a statistically significant proportion of patients (p < 0.05) in the olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/25, 40/12.5, and 40/25 treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of patients with uncomplicated stage 2 hypertension can achieve recommended BP goals when treated with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and HCTZ.

Efficacy in angiotensin receptor blockade: a comparative review of data with olmesartan

A range of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) is available, and analyses suggest there are differences between agents in terms of antihypertensive efficacy and 24-hour blood pressure control.This review assesses the data comparing olmesartan with other ARBs in terms of blood pressure reductions, goal achievement, 24-hour control and speed of onset. Olmesartan seems to have a more favourable efficacy profile relative to standard doses of the ARBs used in comparative studies; results consistent with the high degree of blockade of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor for olmesartan.Taken together, there might be differences between ARBs regarding their blood pressure lowering efficacy, and these results may provide further support of the benefits of olmesartan therapy since choice of an effective agent is crucial in antihypertensive therapy.

Maximising antihypertensive effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers with thiazide diuretic combination therapy: focus on irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of hypertension are now well established. Studies have shown that more than 60% of patients with hypertension will require two or more drugs to achieve current treatment targets.

DISCUSSION

Combination therapy is recommended as first-line treatment by the JNC-7 guidelines for patients with a blood pressure > 20 mmHg above the systolic goal or 10 mmHg above the diastolic goal, while the International Society of Hypertension in Blacks recommends combination therapy when BP exceeds targets by > 15/10 mmHg. Current European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines also recommend the use of low-dose combination therapy in the first-line setting. Furthermore, JNC-7 recommends that a thiazide-type diuretic should be part of initial first-line combination therapy. Thiazide/diuretic combinations are available for a variety of classes of antihypertensive, including ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), beta blockers and centrally acting agents. This article focuses on clinical data investigating the combination of an ARB, irbesartan, with the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that the ARB/HCTZ combination has greater potency and a similar side effect profile to ARB monotherapy and represents a highly effective approach for attaining goal BP levels using a therapeutic strategy that very effectively lowers BP, is well tolerated and minimises diuretic-induced metabolic effects.

Treatment of hypertension with olmesartan medoxomil, alone and in combination with a diuretic: an update

Olmesartan medoxomil is an angiotensin II (Ang II) receptor blocker (ARB) that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of hypertension. It is a prodrug that is hydrolysed in the gut into its active metabolite, olmesartan (RNH-6270). Olmesartan is highly selective for the Ang II type 1 receptor (AT1) to which it binds completely and insurmountably and has very little affinity for the other receptor subtypes AT2 and AT4. After oral administration, in animals and humans, it achieves a maximal blood drug concentration within a maximal time of approximately 2 h. It is then slowly eliminated in the urine and faeces. His half-life is approximately 13 h, which makes it suitable for once-daily administration. Olmesartan medoxomil given orally in single daily doses of 20-40 mg has demonstrated significant blood pressure (BP) lowering effects in hypertensive patients. A medline search for the preparation of this manuscript was conducted and revealed 128 references, from 2000 to 2007. Of these, only 16 well-designed prospective clinical trials were selected. The remaining were either animal studies, reviews or studies in progress. In well-designed clinical trials, olmesartan medoxomil has demonstrated similar antihypertensive actions to the other antihypertensive drugs, as well as other members of its class given the highest recommended doses. In addition, the BP lowering effect of olmesartan, like the other members of its class, is greatly enhanced in combination with a diuretic. Its safety profile is similar to the other ARBs and no different than placebo.