Fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improves clinical outcomes in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia

2024 consensus document of the Italian Society of Arterial Hypertension (SIIA) and the Italian Society of Cardiovascular Prevention (SIPREC): update on LDL cholesterol lowering in patients with arterial hypertension

Hypertension and hypercholesterolemia often occur in the same individuals, increasing the risk of major cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, including myocardial infarction, stroke, CV death, as well as other CV complications. Concomitant management of these condition now represent a crucial step to reduce individual global CV risk and improve CV disease prevention in daily clinical practice. Given the high prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in general population and their impact on health status, several pharmacological options are currently available to achieve the recommended therapeutic targets. These drugs, mostly including statins, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK-9) inhibitors and inclisiran, can be used either in monotherapies or in combination therapies, with different clinical indications, therapeutic efficacy and tolerability profile. Decision among different drug classes and dosages, as well as choice between monotherapy or combination therapy (fixed or free), largely depend on individual global CV risk profile and therapeutic targets of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels to be achieved under pharmacological therapy. The present consensus document represents an update of the previous document published on 2022 and endorsed by the Italian Society of Hypertension (SIIA) and the Italian Society of Cardiovascular Prevention (SIPREC). Here we propose a novel paradigm for the treatment of the patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia at high or very high cardiovascular risk. In addition, the pharmacological properties, and the clinical efficacy of novel agents recently approved for a tailored therapy of hypercholesterolemia in patients with atherosclerotic CV disease, including PCSK9 inhibitors and bempedoic acid, will be summarized.

Clinical Benefit of Fixed-Dose Combination of Amlodipine and Potent Atorvastatin in Patients With Concomitant Hypertension and Hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND

Hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and treatment with fixed-dose combination (FDC) regimens is recommended by current guidelines. However, the clinical outcomes of different FDC dosages remain unknown. This study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of FDC regimens and the free combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin at different dosages.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with concurrent hypertension and hypercholesterolemia treated daily with an FDC of 5 mg amlodipine and 10 mg atorvastatin (5/10 fixed group), and FDC of 5 mg amlodipine and 20 mg atorvastatin (5/20 fixed group), or free combination of 5 mg amlodipine and 20 mg atorvastatin (5/20 free group) were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary intervention. A total of 9095 patients were eligible for inclusion. The incidence of primary outcome per 1000 person-years was 16.6 in the 5/10 fixed group, 12.6 in the 5/20 fixed group, and 16.5 in the 5/20 free group (5/20 fixed versus 5/20 free: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64-0.91]; 5/20 fixed versus 5/10 fixed: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90]).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, treatment with an FDC of amlodipine and high-dose atorvastatin led to a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes than treatment with the free combination or a similar FDC with a lower dose of atorvastatin.

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).

Beneficial Effects of Fixed-Dose Combination of Amlodipine and Atorvastatin in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Hypercholesterolemia: A Multi-Institutional Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are important risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) diseases. Although treating these factors simultaneously is recommended by current guidelines, only short-term clinical results are available.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the longer-term efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin in patients with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

Patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were stratified into three groups [FDC of amlodipine 5 mg/atorvastatin 10 mg (Fixed 5/10), FDC of amlodipine 5 mg/atorvastatin 20 mg (Fixed 5/20), and free combination of amlodipine 5 mg/atorvastatin 10 mg (Free 5/10)]. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, the composite CV outcome, liver function, BP, LDL-C and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) changes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1,788 patients were eligible for analysis, and the mean follow-up period was 1.7 year. There was no significant difference in the composite CV outcome among the three groups (Fixed 5/10 6.1%, Fixed 5/20 6.3% and Free 5/10 6.0%). The LDL-C level was significantly reduced in the Fixed 5/20 group (-35.7 mg/dL) compared to the Fixed 5/10 (-23.6 mg/dL) and Free 5/10 (-10.3 mg/dL) groups (p = 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively). The changes in HbA1c were similar among the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

FDC of amlodipine and atorvastatin, especially the regimen with a higher dosage of statins, significantly reduced the mid-term LDL-C level compared to a free combination in patients with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. Blood sugar level was not significantly changed by this aggressive treatment strategy.

The Efficacy of Rosuvastatin, Amlodipine, and Aspirin in the Treatment of Hypertension with Coronary Heart Disease and Its Effect on Platelet Aggregation

Objective

This study was to study the efficacy of rosuvastatin, amlodipine, and aspirin in the treatment of hypertension with coronary heart disease and its effect on platelet aggregation.

Methods

The participants included 60 patients with hypertension and coronary heart disease who were treated at our hospital between January 2020 and May 2021 and were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin, amlodipine, and Ziyin Huoxue Recipe (observation group) or rosuvastatin, amlodipine, Ziyin Huoxue Recipe, and aspirin (experimental group), with 30 patients in each. Outcome measures included clinical effectiveness, blood pressure indicators, blood lipid indices, plasma viscosity, platelet aggregation, cardiac function, and adverse responses.

Results

The clinical efficacy in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the observation group (P < 0.05). The differences were found in blood pressure indices and blood lipid indices between the two groups before treatment (P > 0.05). However, after treatment, the blood pressure indices in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the observation group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the blood lipid indices, plasma viscosity, and platelet aggregation in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the observation group (P < 0.05). The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of patients in the experimental group after treatment was significantly higher than that of patients in the observation group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among patients in the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The clinical efficacy of rosuvastatin, amlodipine, and aspirin markedly reduces the blood pressure indices, blood lipid indices, plasma viscosity, and platelet aggregation of patients with hypertension and coronary heart disease, improves LVEF, and has a good safety profile.

Major adverse cardiovascular event definitions used in observational analysis of administrative databases: a systematic review

Background

Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) are increasingly used as composite outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. However, it is unclear how observational studies most commonly define MACE in the literature when using administrative data.

Methods

We identified peer-reviewed articles published in MEDLINE and EMBASE between January 1, 2010 to October 9, 2020. Studies utilizing administrative data to assess the MACE composite outcome using International Classification of Diseases 9th or 10th Revision diagnosis codes were included. Reviews, abstracts, and studies not providing outcome code definitions were excluded. Data extracted included data source, timeframe, MACE components, code definitions, code positions, and outcome validation.

Results

A total of 920 articles were screened, 412 were retained for full-text review, and 58 were included. Only 8.6% (n = 5/58) matched the traditional three-point MACE RCT definition of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, or cardiovascular death. None matched four-point (+unstable angina) or five-point MACE (+unstable angina and heart failure). The most common MACE components were: AMI and stroke, 15.5% (n = 9/58); AMI, stroke, and all-cause death, 13.8% (n = 8/58); and AMI, stroke and cardiovascular death 8.6% (n = 5/58). Further, 67% (n = 39/58) did not validate outcomes or cite validation studies. Additionally, 70.7% (n = 41/58) did not report code positions of endpoints, 20.7% (n = 12/58) used the primary position, and 8.6% (n = 5/58) used any position.

Conclusions

Components of MACE endpoints and diagnostic codes used varied widely across observational studies. Variability in the MACE definitions used and information reported across observational studies prohibit the comparison, replication, and aggregation of findings. Studies should transparently report the administrative codes used and code positions, as well as utilize validated outcome definitions when possible.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01440-5.

An experience on the model-based evaluation of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction for a long half-life drug

Fixed-dose combinations development requires pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies between active ingredients. For some drugs, pharmacokinetic properties such as long half-life or delayed distribution, make it difficult to conduct such clinical trials and to estimate the exact magnitude of DDI. In this study, the conventional (non-compartmental analysis and bioequivalence [BE]) and model-based analyses were compared for their performance to evaluate DDI using amlodipine as an example. Raw data without DDI or simulated data using pharmacokinetic models were compared to the data obtained after concomitant administration. Regardless of the methodology, all the results fell within the classical BE limit. It was shown that the model-based approach may be valid as the conventional approach and reduce the possibility of DDI overestimation. Several advantages (i.e., quantitative changes in parameters and precision of confidence interval) of the model-based approach were demonstrated, and possible application methods were proposed. Therefore, it is expected that the model-based analysis is appropriately utilized according to the situation and purpose.