Blood pressure control in patients initiating antihypertensive therapy

Real-World Effectiveness and Safety of a Single-Pill Combination of Olmesartan/Amlodipine/Hydrochlorothiazide in Korean Patients with Hypertension and Cardiovascular Risk Factors

INTRODUCTION

Patients with hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors pose a challenge by requiring more intensive blood pressure (BP) control. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy can benefit these patients by improving medication adherence.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter observational study assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of an SPC containing olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide (O/A/H) in South Korean patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. BP control rates, defined as the percentage of patients achieving systolic BP (SBP) < 130 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) < 80 mmHg for intensive BP control, and < 140 mmHg and < 90 mmHg, respectively, for standard BP control, were investigated across various cardiovascular risk groups, along with changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

The most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor was age (≥ 45 years in men, ≥ 55 years in women, 86.1%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (64.4%), dyslipidemia (53.7%), body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 (53.5%), and diabetes mellitus (DM) (46.3%). Switching to O/A/H showed significant BP reduction, with a mean change of - 17.8 mmHg/- 9.3 mmHg in SBP/DBP within 4 weeks. The intensive BP control rate was 41.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.5, 43.4), and the standard BP control rate was 73.3% (95% CI 71.5, 75.1), with better control rates in the risk age group (43.1% and 74.1%, respectively) and cardiovascular disease group (42.0% and 73.8%, respectively). The DM group had relatively lower control rates (37.5% for intensive control and 69.4% for standard control). Common adverse drug reactions included dizziness (2.91%), hypotension (1.51%), and headaches (0.70%).

CONCLUSION

The SPC therapy of O/A/H caused a rapid and sustained reduction in SBP/DBP in patients' hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors. The therapy was safe and well tolerated.

STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0003401 ( https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/20795 ).

Prescribing Patterns of Antihypertensive Agents and Blood Pressure Control Among Patients With Incident Stage 2 Hypertension

Background: Initiation of appropriate antihypertensive therapy is crucial, particularly among patients with stage 2 hypertension, whom initiation of dual antihypertensive agents is suggested. Little is known regarding real-world prescribing of antihypertensive agents for patients with incident stage 2 hypertension. Objective: The primary objective was to describe prescribing patterns of antihypertensive therapy among patients with incident stage 2 hypertension. The secondary objectives included determining association of blood pressure (BP) control with initial multiple antihypertensive agents. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using electronic medical records from 6 primary care clinics between January 2014 and June 2019. Included patients were ≥18 years with an initial diagnosis of stage 2 hypertension, defined as BP ≥160/100 mm Hg Primary analysis was characterizing prescribing patterns of antihypertensive agents among patients with incident stage 2 hypertension. Investigation of BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) at 3 months of diagnosis was also performed. Results: We identified 261 patients with incident stage 2 hypertension (mean age, 52 years; 53.2% males; mean baseline BP, 162.1/100.1 mm Hg). Approximately 72% of patients were initiated on single antihypertensive agent, with the most common being angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs; 25.7%) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (24.6%). Commonly initiated multiple antihypertensive agents were ACE-inhibitor + thiazide-like diuretic (52.7%), followed by an ARB + thiazide-like diuretic (21.6%). Multiple antihypertensive therapy was associated with improved BP control at 3 months (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-8.06). Conclusion: Majority of patients with incident stage 2 hypertension were prescribed initial single antihypertensive therapy, though better BP control at 3 months was seen among those initiated on multi-antihypertensive therapy.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Triple‐Combination Therapy With Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide: A Subgroup Analysis of Patients Stratified by Hypertension Severity, Age, Sex, and Obesity

This prespecified subgroup analysis of a phase III study examined the effect of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to olmesartan (OLM)/amlodipine (AML) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension stratified by age, sex, body mass index, and hypertension severity. A total of 2690 patients, aged 18 years and older, with seated blood pressure (SeBP) ≥160/100 mm Hg received placebo or OLM/AML 20/5 mg, 40/5 mg, or 40/10 mg during a 2‐week, double‐blind, run‐in period, after which they were allocated to one of eight treatment groups with the same OLM/AML dose or with HCTZ 12.5 mg or 25 mg added for 8 weeks. By week 10, greater reductions in SeBP were observed in each OLM/AML/HCTZ group (P<.05, respectively) compared with the corresponding dual dose. Adding HCTZ increased blood pressure–lowering efficacy in all subgroups, with a higher proportion of blood pressure goal achievement vs dual therapy. OLM/AML/HCTZ reduced SeBP to a greater extent than OLM/AML in patients with moderate to severe hypertensive; this was unaffected by baseline hypertension severity, age, sex, and obesity.

Variations in blood pressure and lipid goal attainment in primary care

BACKGROUND

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factors. Blood pressure (BP) and lipid levels are modifiable and yet most patients fail to achieve their recommended target goals. The objective of this review was to examine the variations in achievement of optimal BP and lipid levels in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors or cardiovascular disease at a primary care level.

SCOPE

A comprehensive literature review and evaluation was conducted from January 2000 to June 2012 using electronic databases. The search was limited to studies reported in English language, published between January 2000 to June 2012 and those conducted in the US adult population (≥18 years). The inclusion of articles was limited to populations with cardiovascular risk factors or any cardiovascular disease.

FINDINGS

The review identified a total of 32 studies that assessed variations in attainment of BP or lipid goals. The demographic factors (age, sex, and race) and clinical factors (obesity, presence of diabetes, and history of cardiovascular conditions) were most commonly evaluated by the studies. However, modifiable factors such as diet, physical exercise, adherence to medication, or smoking habit were least commonly evaluated by the studies documented in this review.

CONCLUSION

The studies, conducted in a range of settings, reflect disparities in attainment of recommended BP or lipid goals. Given such disparities, future research is required to better understand the complexity of different factors underlying the failure of patients to achieve BP and lipid goals. This can help to identify appropriate treatment strategies or interventions that can address patient-specific needs at a primary care level.

Initial Combination Therapy Reduces the Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Hypertensive Patients

This study evaluated the effects of initial versus delayed treatment with a drug combination on blood pressure (BP) control and the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events in hypertensive patients. Clinical trials suggest that the time to BP control is an important determinant of long-term outcomes, but real-world evidence is scarce. Using electronic medical charts (2005–2009), we retrospectively analyzed 1762 adult patients with BP elevation initiating combination therapy matched 1:1 with similar patients initiating monotherapy and later switched to combination therapy. Incidence rate ratios of CV events (myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, or hospitalization for heart failure) or all-cause death and Kaplan-Meier analyses of time to BP control were compared between cohorts. Hazard ratios indicating the effects of initial treatment on CV events and BP control were estimated using time-varying Cox proportional hazard models. Initial combination therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of CV events or death (incidence rate ratio, 0.66 [95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.84]; P =0.0008). After 6 months of therapy, 40.3% and 32.6% of patients with initial versus delayed combination treatment reached BP control, respectively. Achieving target BP was associated with a statistically significant risk reduction of 23% for CV events or death (hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.96]; P =0.0223); the residual effect of initial combination therapy did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% confidence interval, 0.68–1.03]; P =0.0935). Initial combination therapy was associated with a significant risk reduction of cardiovascular events. More rapid achievement of target BP was found to be the main contributor to the estimated risk reduction.

The effects of telmisartan and amlodipine in treatment-naïve and previously treated hypertensive patients: a subanalysis from a 4 × 4 factorial design study

The subanalysis of a 4 × 4 factorial, 8-week study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan (T) 40-80 mg/amlodipine (A) 5-10 mg used in treatment-naïve patients (n = 231) and patients previously treated with antihypertensive agents (n = 880). Similar blood pressure (BP) reductions were achieved with T + A, regardless of their pretreatment status. Highest reductions were achieved with T80 + A10 (treatment-naïve -26.5/-18.2 mm Hg and previously treated -25.6/-19.9 mm Hg). Most patients (treatment-naïve 72.4% and previously treated 77.6%), including those with added risk, achieved BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) with T80 + A10. Tolerability was comparable in both groups.

Combination therapy as initial treatment for newly diagnosed hypertension

BACKGROUND

The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends that clinicians consider the use of multidrug therapy to increase likelihood of achieving blood pressure goal. Little is known about recent patterns of combination antihypertensive therapy use in patients being initiated on hypertension treatment.

METHODS

We investigated combination antihypertensive therapy use in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients from the Cardiovascular Research Network Hypertension Registry. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between combination antihypertensive therapy and 12-month blood pressure control.

RESULTS

Between 2002 and 2007, a total of 161,585 patients met criteria for incident hypertension and were initiated on treatment. During the study period, an increasing proportion of patients were treated initially with combination rather than with single-agent therapy (20.7% in 2002 compared with 35.8% in 2007, P < .001). This increase in combination therapy use was more pronounced in patients with stage 2 hypertension, whose combination therapy use increased from 21.6% in 2002 to 44.5% in 2007. Nearly 90% of initial combination therapy was accounted for by 2 combinations, a thiazide and a potassium-sparing diuretic (47.6%) and a thiazide and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (41.4%). After controlling for relevant clinical factors, including subsequent intensification of treatment and medication adherence, combination therapy was associated with increased odds of blood pressure control at 12 months (odds ratio compared with single-drug initial therapy 1.20; 95% CI 1.15-1.24, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial treatment of hypertension with combination therapy is increasingly common and is associated with better long-term blood pressure control.

Predictors of uncontrolled hypertension and antihypertensive medication nonadherence

Background:

Although hypertension is, in most cases, a controllable major risk factor in the development of cardiovascular disease, studies have demonstrated that hypertension remains poorly controlled in Portugal. Our aim was to evaluate the covariates associated with poor blood pressure (BP) control in a Portuguese hypertensive population.

Patients and Results:

We conducted a cross-sectional survey in a hospital hypertension outpatient clinic, located in the Eastern Central Region of Portugal. Patients attending the clinic from July to September 2009 were asked to participate in a structured interview including medication adherence and knowledge about hypertension. Eligible participants were all adults aged 18 or over with an established diagnosis of arterial hypertension and had been on antihypertensive drug treatment for at least 6 months. Exclusion criteria were dementia, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. Detailed clinical information was prospectively obtained from medical records. A total of 197 patients meeting the inclusion criteria and consenting to participate completed the interview. Of these, only 33.0% had their BP controlled according to the JNC 7 guidelines. Logistic regression analysis revealed three independent predictors of poor BP control: living alone (OR = 5.3, P = 0.004), medication nonadherence (OR = 4.8, P < 0.001), and diabetes (OR = 4.4, P = 0.011). Predictors of medication nonadherence were: unawareness of target BP values (OR = 3.7, P < 0.001), a report of drug side effects (OR = 3.7, P = 0.002), lack of BP monitoring (OR = 2.5, P = 0.015) and unawareness of medication indications (OR = 2.4, P = 0.021), and of hypertension risks (OR = 2.1, P = 0.026).

Conclusions:

Poor medication adherence, lack of information about hypertension, and side effects should be considered as possible underlying causes of uncontrolled BP and must be addressed in any intervention aimed to improve BP control.

Pharmacist interventions to enhance blood pressure control and adherence to antihypertensive therapy: Review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Pharmacist interventions to enhance blood pressure (BP) control and adherence to antihypertensive therapy in adults with essential hypertension were reviewed.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles describing pharmacist interventions intended to improve adherence to antihypertensive medications. Studies were included if they described a pharmacist intervention to improve medication adherence and analyzed adherence to therapy and BP control as outcomes. A fixed-effects model was used to combine data from randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies were identified, testing 16 different interventions and containing data on 3280 enrolled patients. Although 87.5% of the interventions resulted in significant improvements in treatment outcomes, only 43.8% of the interventions were associated with significant increases in medication adherence. All interventions that increased antihypertensive medication adherence also significantly reduced BP. Almost all the interventions that were effective in increasing adherence to medication were complex, including combinations of different strategies. Meta-analysis of 2619 patients in 8 studies found that pharmacist interventions significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (p = 0.002) and that the meta-analytic differences in SBP and DBP changes from baseline to endpoint in intervention and control groups were -4.9 ± 0.9 mm Hg (p < 0.001) and -2.6 ± 0.9 mm Hg (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A literature review and meta-analysis showed that pharmacist interventions can significantly improve medication adherence, SBP, DBP, and BP control in patients with essential hypertension. Interventions were complex and multifaceted and included medication management in all analyzed studies.

Blood pressure control and antihypertensive pharmacotherapy patterns in a hypertensive population of Eastern Central Region of Portugal

BACKGROUND

Interventions to improve blood pressure control in hypertension have had limited success in clinical practice despite evidence of cardiovascular disease prevention in randomised controlled trials.The objectives of this study were to evaluate blood pressure control and antihypertensive pharmacotherapy patterns in a population of Eastern Central Region of Portugal, attending a hospital outpatient clinic (ambulatory setting) for routine follow-up.

METHODS

Medical data of all patients that attended at least two medical appointments of hypertension/dyslipidemia in a university hospital over a one and a half year period (from January 2008 to June 2009) were retrospectively analysed. Demographic variables, clinical data and blood pressure values of hypertensive patients included in the study, as well as prescribing metrics were examined on a descriptive basis and expressed as the mean ± SD, frequency and percentages. Student's test and Mann-Whitney rank sum test were used to compare continuous variables and χ2 test and Fisher exact probability test were used to test for differences between categorical variables.

RESULTS

In all, 37% of hypertensive patients (n = 76) had their blood pressure controlled according to international guidelines. About 45.5% of patients with a target blood pressure <140/90 mmHg (n = 156) were controlled, whereas in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease (n = 49) the corresponding figure was only 10.2% (P < 0.001). Among patients initiating hypertension/dyslipidemia consultation within the study period 32.1% had stage 2 hypertension in the first appointment, but this figure decreased to 3.6% in the last consultation (P = 0.012). Thiazide-type diuretics were the most prescribed antihypertensive drugs (67%) followed by angiotensin receptor blockers (60%) and beta-blockers (43%). About 95.9% patients with comorbid diabetes were treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically important blood pressure decreases can be achieved soon after hypertension medical appointment initiation. However, many hypertensive patients prescribed with antihypertensive therapy fail to achieve blood pressure control in clinical practice, this control being worse among patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease. As pharmacotherapy patterns seem to coincide with international guidelines, further research is needed to identify the causes of poor blood pressure control.

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil plus amlodipine in age, gender and hypertension severity defined subgroups of hypertensive patients

Effective antihypertensive therapy is crucial for preventing cardiovascular events; however, blood pressure (BP) control rates remain poor. The objective of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine in age, severity and gender-based subgroups of patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension uncontrolled by amlodipine monotherapy. Patients with uncontrolled BP after 8 weeks' amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy (n=755) were randomized to continue amlodipine 5 mg or receive olmesartan (10-40 mg) plus amlodipine 5 mg for 8 weeks. Patients whose BP remained suboptimal were up-titrated to olmesartan/amlodipine 20/5, 40/5 or 40/10 mg. Changes in BP and numbers of controlled patients were calculated separately to assess efficacy in patients aged <65 or ≥65 years, in those with moderate or severe hypertension, and in males and females. The antihypertensive effects of olmesartan/amlodipine were similar in patients aged <65 and ≥65 years of age. Compared with patients with moderate hypertension at baseline, those with severe hypertension tended to show higher decreases in BP, but achieved lower goal rates despite this. Females showed larger mean reductions in diastolic (1.61 mm Hg; P=0.003) and systolic BP (1.72 mm Hg; P=0.053) than males, independent of age and dose. This gender difference appeared to be higher and more consistent across dose groups for patients <50 years of age, but the difference in the pattern between both age groups was not statistically significant (P=0.1526). These results suggest that olmesartan/amlodipine is effective and safe in a wide range of patients, regardless of age or hypertension severity. Small differences in responsiveness between females and males may exist, which require further investigation.

Assessment of time to follow-up visits in newly-treated hypertensive patients using an electronic medical record database

OBJECTIVE

Use of electronic medical record (EMR) data for evaluating healthcare processes and outcomes is relatively new. Using EMR data, this study evaluated the time from antihypertensive initiation to the first follow-up office visit controlling for adverse events (AEs) and other factors that could influence follow-up timing. Findings were compared to treatment guidelines which recommend monthly follow-up in treatment naive patients until blood pressure (BP) levels are controlled.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Treatment-naïve hypertensive adult patients in the General Electric Centricity EMR database (1996-2006) with a new antihypertensive prescription were evaluated. Time from treatment initiation to first office visit was identified and stratified by occurrence of AEs and therapy change. BP was assessed at 120 +/- 30 days.

RESULTS

The mean +/- SD time from first antihypertensive prescription (index date) to the first office visit was 96.2 +/- 160.6 days; 38% returned within a month of treatment initiation. Controlling for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, the adjusted time until first office visit was shorter for those with an AE and therapy change than for those with neither event (61 vs. 158 days). Of the patients with follow-up BP data for analysis (n = 27,875), more of those seen within a month of treatment initiation achieved BP goal at 120 days (<140/90 mmHg) than those who were not seen within a month (64.3 vs. 61.7% respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that EMR data can be used to assess quality measures which in turn can inform efforts to improve treatment outcomes. Specifically, this study evaluated mean time to first office visit after antihypertensive therapy initiation controlling for clinical factors that could influence office visit intervals based on data available in a national EMR dataset. A key limitation of this study is that the EMR may not represent patient care delivered by other providers, thus, use of antihypertensives, changes in therapy, and office visits may be underreported.

Choosing an angiotensin-receptor blocker: blood pressure lowering, cardiovascular protection or both?

Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) offer superior tolerability to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and are increasingly used in patient management. ARBs vary in their pharmacological profiles, which results in efficacy differences. Therefore, deciding between ARBs should be evidence-based and related to the specific requirements of the individual patient. For patients with hypertension but at low additional risk, an ARB that provides sustained, powerful 24-h reductions in blood pressure is suitable. For patients at very high additional risk (with heart failure), an ARB with demonstrated efficacy in this patient population is the preferred option. For patients at increased risk, telmisartan should be the ARB of choice based on the results from the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End Point Trial (ONTARGET), which demonstrated for the first time that an ARB has equivalent protection to the reference angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in a broad cross-section of at-risk patients but a better side-effect profile.

Choosing among renin-angiotensin system blockers for the management of hypertension: from pharmacology to clinical efficacy

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.

Prevention and management of stroke in very elderly patients

As the average human lifespan extends and medical care improves, there are more individuals above the age of 80 years who have a high quality of life. However, these very elderly individuals are particularly susceptible to stroke. Identifying ways to optimise the treatment and prevention of acute stroke in these much older people will increasingly be a priority for health-care providers, research funding agencies, and policy makers in years to come. Despite substantial advances in stroke research, with several therapeutic drugs being able to enhance clinical outcomes in people with stroke or who are at risk of stroke, the very elderly seem to receive fewer vascular protection interventions that have been shown to be effective in younger individuals. Although there has been an under-representation of the very elderly in studies of stroke therapy, these treatments might be of benefit to this group of patients. Indeed, emerging data indicate that the use of several of these therapies in routine clinical practice in the very elderly can be effective.

Long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of combination therapy with aliskiren and amlodipine in patients with hypertension

OBJECTIVE

Most patients with hypertension require antihypertensive combination therapy to achieve BP control. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren combined with the calcium channel blocker amlodipine.

METHODS

Overall, 556 patients with hypertension (msDBP > or =95-<110 mmHg) received open-label aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg for 2 weeks, followed by forced titration to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg for 52 weeks. Add-on hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) was permitted from week 10 to achieve BP control (<140/90 mmHg). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of aliskiren/amlodipine combination therapy; the BP-lowering efficacy of the combination was also assessed (week 54 endpoint; last observation carried forward).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00402103.

RESULTS

In total, 452 patients completed 54 weeks' treatment with aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg, with or without add-on HCT. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were peripheral edema, upper respiratory tract infection, headache and bronchitis. Peripheral edema (the most common AE), occurred in 22.7% of treated patients, and was generally mild or moderate in intensity and transient in nature. Few patients exhibited laboratory abnormalities. Aliskiren/amlodipine combination therapy provided a mean BP reduction from baseline to week 54 of 24.2/15.5 mmHg; 74.3% of patients achieved BP control. In the subgroup of patients with stage 2 hypertension (baseline msSBP > or =160 mmHg and/or msDBP > or =100 mmHg), the mean BP reduction at week 54 was 29.1/17.1 mmHg, and 67.0% of patients achieved BP control.

CONCLUSION

In this open-label study, aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg combination therapy, with or without add-on HCT, effectively reduced BP, particularly in patients with stage 2 hypertension. The most common AE was peripheral edema, consistent with the known AE profile of high-dose (10 mg) amlodipine. Further studies comparing the aliskiren/amlodipine combination with the component monotherapies and other antihypertensive combinations are warranted.

Aliskiren and valsartan in stage 2 hypertension: subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with stage 2 hypertension require large absolute reductions in blood pressure (BP) to achieve recommended BP goals. Combination therapy with the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, and the angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, has been shown to produce greater BP reductions than either agent alone in a double-blind study in 1797 hypertensive patients.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the BP-lowering efficacy of aliskiren in combination with valsartan in a subset of patients (n=581) with stage 2 hypertension (baseline mean sitting systolic BP [msSBP] > or =160 mmHg). Patients were randomized to receive aliskiren/valsartan 150/160 mg, aliskiren 150 mg, valsartan 160 mg, or placebo once daily for 4 weeks followed by 4 weeks at double the initial dose. Mean changes from baseline in msSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP were assessed at week-8 endpoint (intent-to-treat population).

RESULTS

Aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg reduced BP from baseline by 22.5/11.4 mmHg at week-8 endpoint. BP reductions with combination therapy were significantly greater than with aliskiren 300 mg (17.3/8.9 mmHg, P<0.05), valsartan 320 mg (15.5/8.3 mmHg, P<0.01), or with placebo (7.9/3.7 mmHg, P<0.0001). BP control rates (<140/90 mmHg) were also significantly higher (P<0.05) with aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg (29.8%) compared with either aliskiren 300 mg (19.0%) or valsartan 320 mg (13.8%) monotherapy, or placebo (8.9%). All treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with aliskiren and valsartan provided significantly greater BP reductions over aliskiren or valsartan monotherapy and is an appropriate option for management of BP in patients with stage 2 hypertension.