Guidelines-based therapeutic strategies for controlling hypertension in non-controlled hypertensive patients followed by family physicians in primary health care in Portugal: the GPHT-PT study

PURPOSE

In a prospective open study, with intervention, conducted in Primary Health Care Units by General Practitioners (GPs) in Portugal, the effectiveness of a single pill of candesartan/amlodipine (ARB/amlodipine), as the only anti-hypertension (anti-HTN) medication, in adult patients with uncontrolled HTN (BP > 140/or > 90 mm Hg), either previously being treated with anti-HTN monotherapies (Group I), or combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (Group II), or not receiving medication at all (Group III), was evaluated across 12-weeks after implementation of the new therapeutic measure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 118 GPs recruited patients with uncontrolled HTN who met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Participants were assigned, according to severity, one of 3 (morning) fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage (8/5 or 16/5 or 16/10 mg/day) and longitudinally evaluated in 3 visits (v0, v6 and v12 weeks). Office blood pressure was measured in each visit, and control of HTN was defined per guidelines (BP< 140/90 mmHg).

RESULTS

Of the 1234 patients approached, 752 (age 61 ± 10 years, 52% women) participated in the study and were assigned to groups according to previous treatment conditions. The 3 groups exhibited a statistically significant increased control of blood pressure after receiving the fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage. The overall proportion of controlled HTN participants increased from 0,8% at v0 to 82% at v12. The mean arterial blood pressure values decreased from SBP= 159.0 (± 13.0) and DBP= 91.1 (± 9.6) at baseline to SBP= 132,1 (± 11.3) and DBP= 77,5 (± 8.8) at 12 weeks (p < 0.01). Results remained consistent when controlling for age and sex.

CONCLUSION

In patients with uncontrolled HTN, therapeutic measures in accordance with guidelines, with a fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine, allowed to overall achieve HTN control at 12 weeks in 82% of previously uncontrolled HTN patients, reinforcing the advantages of these strategies in primary clinical practice.

Seasonal variation in ambulatory blood pressure control in patients on clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment

BACKGROUND

We investigated seasonal variation in ambulatory blood pressure control in hypertensive patients on clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment.

METHODS

The study participants were hypertensive patients enrolled in an 8-week therapeutic study. Antihypertensive treatment was initiated with long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers amlodipine 5 mg/day or the gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation of nifedipine 30 mg/day, with the possible up-titration to amlodipine 10 mg/day or nifedipine-GITS 60 mg/day at 4 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

The proportion of up-titration to higher dosages of antihypertensive drugs at 4 weeks of follow-up was higher in patients who commenced treatment in autumn/winter ( n  = 302) than those who commenced treatment in spring/summer ( n  = 199, 24.5 vs. 12.0%, P  < 0.001). The control rate of clinic blood pressure, however, was lower in autumn/winter than in spring/summer at 4 (56.7 vs. 70.7%, P  = 0.003) and 8 weeks of follow-up (52.5 vs. 74.9%, P  < 0.001). At 8 weeks, patients who commenced treatment in autumn/winter, compared with those who commenced treatment in spring/summer, had a significantly ( P ≤0.03) smaller daytime (mean between-season difference -3.2/-2.8 mmHg) but greater nighttime SBP/DBP reduction (3.6/1.6 mmHg). Accordingly, at 8 weeks, the prevalence of nondippers was significantly ( P  < 0.001) higher in spring/summer than in autumn/winter for both SBP (54.8 vs. 30.0%) and DBP (53.4 vs. 28.8%).

CONCLUSION

Clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment requires a higher dosage of medication in cold than warm seasons, which may have led to over- and under-treatment of nighttime blood pressure, respectively.

Time to blood pressure control and predictors among patients receiving integrated treatment for hypertension and HIV based on an adapted WHO HEARTS implementation strategy at a large urban HIV clinic in Uganda

In this cohort study, we determined time to blood pressure (BP) control and its predictors among hypertensive PLHIV enrolled in integrated hypertension-HIV care based on the World Health Organization (WHO) HEARTS strategy at Mulago Immunosuppression Clinic in Uganda. From August 2019 to March 2020, we enrolled hypertensive PLHIV aged ≥ 18 years and initiated Amlodipine 5 mg mono-therapy for BP (140-159)/(90-99) mmHg or Amlodipine 5 mg/Valsartan 80 mg duo-therapy for BP ≥ 160/90 mmHg. Patients were followed with a treatment escalation plan until BP control, defined as BP < 140/90 mmHg. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify predictors of time to BP control. Of 877 PLHIV enrolled (mean age 50.4 years, 62.1% female), 30% received mono-therapy and 70% received duo-therapy. In the monotherapy group, 66%, 88% and 96% attained BP control in the first, second and third months, respectively. For patients on duo-therapy, 56%, 83%, 88% and 90% achieved BP control in the first, second, third, and fourth months, respectively. In adjusted Cox proportional hazard analysis, higher systolic BP (aHR 0.995, 95% CI 0.989-0.999) and baseline ART tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz (aHR 0.764, 95% CI 0.637-0.917) were associated with longer time to BP control, while being on ART for >10 years was associated with a shorter time to BP control (aHR 1.456, 95% CI 1.126-1.883). The WHO HEARTS strategy was effective at achieving timely BP control among PLHIV. Additionally, monotherapy anti-hypertensive treatment for stage I hypertension is a viable option to achieve BP control and limit pill burden in resource limited HIV care settings.

Extemporaneous combination therapy with nebivolol/amlodipine for the treatment of hypertension: a real-world evidence study in Europe

OBJECTIVE

The investigation of the real-world use of the extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine (NA-EXC) in adult patients diagnosed with hypertension in Europe.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of data extracted from seven databases of patient medical records and prescriptions from Italy, Germany, France, Hungary, and Poland, to determine the prevalence and incidence of NA-EXC use and to estimate the number of patients potentially eligible for a single-pill combination of the two antihypertensives. Secondary objectives included: the description of the population of NA-EXC users and the assessment of their adherence to treatment based on the proportion of days covered.

RESULTS

The use of NA-EXC was found to be common in Europe and ranged between 2.9% to 9.9% of all patients identified in the databases with a prescription of nebivolol and/or amlodipine. The estimated numbers of patients potentially eligible in 2019 for a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine in Italy and Germany were, respectively, 178,133 and 113,240. Users of NA-EXC were mostly aged 70-79 years, had metabolic disorders and other comorbidities; >70% of them had received ≥2 concomitant medications before starting NA-EXC. Adherence to NA-EXC was defined as high only in 15.6% to 35% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine is commonly prescribed in Europe, however adherence to the therapy is poor. The development of a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine may improve adherence by reducing the number of pills administered to patients and thus simplifying treatment regimens.

Amlodipine inhibits Synaptotagmin-4's oncogenic activity on gastric cancer proliferation by targeting calcium signaling

BACKGROUND

Gastric cancer (GC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Synaptotagmin-4 (SYT4), a calcium-sensing synaptic vesicle protein, has been implicated in the oncogenesis of diverse malignancies.

PURPOSE

This study delineates the role of SYT4 in modulating clinical outcomes and biological behaviors in GC.

METHODS

We evaluated SYT4 expression in GC specimens using bioinformatics analyses and immunohistochemistry. Functional assays included CCK8 proliferation tests, apoptosis assays via flow cytometry, confocal calcium imaging, and xenograft models. Western blotting elucidated MAPK pathway involvement. Additionally, we investigated the impact of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine on cellular dynamics and MAPK pathway activity.

RESULTS

SYT4 was higher in GC tissues, and the elevated SYT4 was significantly correlated with adverse prognosis. Both univariate and multivariate analyses confirmed SYT4 as an independent prognostic indicator for GC. Functionally, SYT4 promoted tumorigenesis by fostering cellular proliferation, inhibiting apoptosis, and enhancing intracellular Ca2+ influx, predominantly via MAPK pathway activation. Amlodipine pre-treatment attenuated SYT4-driven cell growth and potentiated apoptosis, corroborated by in vivo xenograft assessments. These effects were attributed to MAPK pathway suppression by amlodipine.

CONCLUSION

SYT4 emerges as a potential prognostic biomarker and a pro-oncogenic mediator in GC through a Ca2+-dependent MAPK mechanism. Amlodipine demonstrates significant antitumor effects against SYT4-driven GC, positing its therapeutic promise. This study underscores the imperative of targeting calcium signaling in GC treatment strategies.

Hemoadsorption Therapy for Calcium Channel Blocker Overdose: A Case Report

BACKGROUND

Modern resin hemoadsorption/hemoperfusion for calcium channel blocker overdose is yet to be reported. The characteristics of calcium channel blockers make them unamenable to removal by hemodiafiltration or charcoal hemoperfusion; however, elimination, using styrene bead adsorption in an ex vivo model, has been demonstrated. Its clinical use is described.

CASE REPORT

A man in his 20s was admitted with shock into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) after an overdose of amlodipine and risperidone. Resuscitation and supportive care were administered, but hypotension did not resolve despite the administration of intravenous fluids, infusions of calcium, adrenaline, and hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic therapy. Methylene blue was then administered to maintain the mean arterial pressures. However, the hemodynamic effect did not allow the weaning of the adrenaline. Drug clearance using hemoadsorption/hemoperfusion was attempted using a styrene resin filter (Jafron HA230; Jafron Biomedical Co., Ltd., Guangdong, China). During the two hemoperfusion sessions (6 h duration each, and 18 h apart) the patient had successfully weaned off all supportive measures, with lactate levels returning to normal and was later discharged home. At the end of each session, significant amlodipine concentrations were detected in blood aspirated from both filters, suggesting enhanced clearance. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Our case illustrates a temporal relationship between resin hemoperfusion therapy, resolution of hemodynamic instability, and shock without proving causation. Significant amlodipine elimination was suggested by high concentrations found in blood from the filter. At the same time, shock resolution after initiation of hemoperfusion occurred in less than one elimination half-life of amlodipine.

Legacy benefits of blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular events are primarily mediated by improved blood pressure variability: the ASCOT trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment.

METHODS

Eight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes.

RESULTS

Using BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Systolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine and Losartan Potassium in Essential Hypertension in a Tertiary Hospital of Bangladesh

Hypertension is a common disorder of major clinical, public health and economic importance. It affects men and women of all ages, and the prevalence is increasing in most countries. Maintenance of blood pressure below 140/90 mm of Hg is recommended by most of the guideline available around the world. Various classes of drugs are being used in the treatment of hypertension. Losartan potassium and amlodipine are two different antihypertensive agents belonging to two different groups used commonly around the world in treating essential hypertension. Losartan potassium is non-peptide Angiotensin-II receptor antagonist. Amlodipine which is the third generation dihydropyridine group of calcium channel blocker. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of amlodipine and losartan for the treatment of essential hypertensive patients (18-75 years). A non-randomized comparative observational study was conducted in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in collaboration with Department of Medicine, Sylhet, MAG Osmani Medical College, Sylhet, Bangladesh from July 2021 to June 2022. In this study non-randomization was in two groups. Group A received amlodipine 5mg daily at morning and Group B received losartan potassium 50mg daily at night. The study parameters were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), ankle oedema, serum K+ level. The result of treatment outcome was compared between two groups. After treatment the reduction of SBP was 5.19±2.93mm of Hg versus 3.27±1.34mm of Hg (p<0.001); reduction of DBP was 1.7±0.70 mm of Hg versus 0.68 mm of Hg (p<0.001) and serum K+ level 4.22±0.27mmol/L versus 4.21±0.16mmol/L (p<0.719) in amlodipine and losartan group respectively. Amlodipine is more effective than losartan potassium in respect to treatment of essential hypertension. Regarding adverse events losartan potassium causes angioedema, hyperkalemia, headache, dizziness etc. The study concluded that amlodipine is superior to losartan potassium in treating essential hypertension.

Personalized Antihypertensive Treatment Optimization With Smartphone-Enabled Remote Precision Dosing of Amlodipine During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PERSONAL-CovidBP Trial)

BACKGROUND

The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P<0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care.

REGISTRATION

URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

Amlodipine inhibits the proliferation and migration of esophageal carcinoma cells through the induction of endoplasmic reticulum stress

BACKGROUND

L-type calcium channels are the only protein channels sensitive to calcium channel blockers, and are expressed in various cancer types. The Cancer Genome Atlas database shows that the mRNA levels of multiple L-type calcium channel subunits in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma tumor tissue are significantly higher than those in normal esophageal epithelial tissue. Therefore, we hypothesized that amlodipine, a long-acting dihydropyridine L-type calcium channel blocker, may inhibit the occurrence and development of esophageal cancer (EC).

AIM

To investigate the inhibitory effects of amlodipine on EC through endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress.

METHODS

Cav1.3 protein expression levels in 50 pairs of EC tissues and corresponding paracancerous tissues were examined. Subsequently, the inhibitory effects of amlodipine on proliferation and migration of EC cells in vitro were detected using 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2-H-tetrazolium bromide and Transwell assays. In vivo experiments were performed using murine xenograft model. To elucidate the underlying mechanisms, in vitro cell studies were performed to confirm that ER stress plays a role in inhibition proliferation and migration of EC cells treated with amlodipine.

RESULTS

The expression level of Cav1.3 in esophageal carcinoma was 1.6 times higher than that in paracancerous tissues. Amlodipine treatment decreased the viability of esophageal carcinoma cells in a dose- and time-dependent manner. In vivo animal experiments also clearly indicated that amlodipine inhibited the growth of EC tumors in mice. Additionally, amlodipine reduces the migration of tumor cells by inhibiting epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Mechanistic studies have demonstrated that amlodipine induces ER stress-mediated apoptosis and suppresses EMT. Moreover, amlodipine-induced autophagy was characterized by an increase in autophagy lysosomes and the accumulation of light chain 3B protein. The combination of amlodipine with the ER stress inhibitor 4-phenylbutyric acid further confirmed the role of the ER stress response in amlodipine-induced apoptosis, EMT, and autophagy. Furthermore, blocking autophagy increases the ratio of apoptosis and migration.

CONCLUSION

Collectively, we demonstrate for the first time that amlodipine promotes apoptosis, induces autophagy, and inhibits migration through ER stress, thereby exerting anti-tumor effects in EC.

ChaMP-CMD: A Phenotype-Blinded, Randomized Controlled, Cross-Over Trial

BACKGROUND

Angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries is a common condition for which no effective treatment has been established. We hypothesized that the measurement of coronary flow reserve (CFR) allows identification of patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries who would benefit from anti-ischemic therapy.

METHODS

Patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries underwent blinded invasive CFR measurement and were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of amlodipine or ranolazine. After a 1-week washout, they crossed over to the other drug for 4 weeks; final assessment was after the cessation of study medication for another 4 weeks. The primary outcome was change in treadmill exercise time, and the secondary outcome was change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score in response to anti-ischemic therapy. Analysis was on a per protocol basis according to the following classification: coronary microvascular disease (CMD group) if CFR<2.5 and reference group if CFR≥2.5. The study protocol was registered before the first patient was enrolled (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN94728379).

RESULTS

Eighty-seven patients (61±8 years of age; 62% women) underwent random assignment (57 CMD group and 30 reference group). Baseline exercise time and Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary scores were similar between groups. The CMD group had a greater increment (delta) in exercise time than the reference group in response to both amlodipine (difference in delta, 82 s [95% CI, 37-126 s]; P<0.001) and ranolazine (difference in delta, 68 s [95% CI, 21-115 s]; P=0.005). The CMD group reported a greater increment (delta) in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score than the reference group in response to ranolazine (difference in delta, 7 points [95% CI, 0-15]; P=0.048), but not to amlodipine (difference in delta, 2 points [95% CI, -5 to 8]; P=0.549).

CONCLUSIONS

Among phenotypically similar patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries, only those with an impaired CFR derive benefit from anti-ischemic therapy. These findings support measurement of CFR to diagnose and guide management of this otherwise heterogeneous patient group.

A real-world analysis of outcomes and healthcare costs of patients on perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill vs. multiple-pill combination in Italy

OBJECTIVES

This analysis compared adherence, cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality incidence, and healthcare costs among hypertensive patients treated with perindopril (PER)/indapamide (IND)/amlodipine (AML) in single-pill combination (SPC) vs. multiple-pill combination, in a real-world setting in Italy.

METHODS

In this observational retrospective analysis of Italian administrative databases, adult patients treated with PER/IND/AML between 2010 and 2020 were divided into two cohorts: single-pill vs. multiple-pill. Patient data were available for at least one year before and after index date. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce selection bias. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered: non-adherence, <40%; partial adherence, 40-79%, and adherence ≥80%. Mortality incidence and CV events as single, or composite, endpoints were evaluated after first year of follow-up. Healthcare cost analyses were performed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.

RESULTS

Following PSM, the single-pill cohort included 12 150 patients, and the multiple-pill cohort, 6105. The SPC cohort had a significantly higher percentage of adherent patients vs. the multiple-pill cohort (59.9% vs. 26.9%, P  < 0.001). Following the first year of follow-up, incidence of all-cause mortality, and combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and CV events were lower in the SPC cohort compared with multiple-pill cohort. Average annual direct healthcare costs were lower in the single-pill cohort (€2970) vs. multiple-pill cohort (€3642); cost of all drugs and all-cause hospitalizations were major contributors.

CONCLUSION

The SPC of PER/IND/AML, compared with multiple-pill combination, is associated with higher adherence to medication, lower incidence of CV events and mortality, and reduced healthcare costs.

[Efficacy and Organoprotection of Triple Combinations in the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension]

The 2022 draft Russian guidelines on arterial hypertension recommend initiation of antihypertensive therapy with a combination of drugs in most patients with blood pressure above 150 / 90 mm Hg and / or in the presence of high-risk criteria. In 2021, the results of a 12-year analysis of the Brisighella Heart Study (BHS) were published. The aim of this study was to compare the use of different triple antihypertensive drug combinations in an Italian cohort of patients in real-life clinical practice. Combination antihypertensive therapy with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, amlodipine, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics provides a better blood pressure control compared to other antihypertensive drug combinations. The use of the triple combination of amlodipine/indapamide/perindopril is associated with a better metabolic profile than any other considered combination of antihypertensive drugs and a more pronounced organ-protective effect.

Telmisartan Plus Amlodipine as the Preferred Initial Combination in Newly Diagnosed Indian Patients with Hypertension: An Expert Consensus Statements

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension (HTN) remains one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) diseases and a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Despite improvement in detection and treatment, poor blood pressure (BP) control rates are observed globally. The situation in India is alarming with only 22.5% of patients maintaining their BP under control. Initiating early and effective treatment for HTN helps control BP within normal limits and reduces associated health risks. In India, currently, there are no guidelines on the choice of dual combination treatment that can be considered an initial treatment for newly diagnosed HTN patients to achieve effective BP control and reduce CV risks.

OBJECTIVE

To provide consensus recommendations for preferred initial combinations in newly diagnosed Indian patients with HTN.

METHODOLOGY

A core group of 100 experts with HTN expertise conceptualized and formulated the four key questions based on answerability, effectiveness, potential for translation to clinical practice, novelty, and potential impact on the healthcare burden. A mix of Delphi and Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methods was adopted for acceptance or refusal of recommendations. Likert scale 1-9 was used for scoring. A score of ≥7 was considered "statement accepted," >6.50 "near to acceptance" and <6.50 "not accepted." A vote of ≥7 by at least two-thirds of the experts (66.66%) was mandatory for acceptance of the recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy could be necessary for a majority of newly diagnosed Indian patients for effective BP control. It can manage HTN with better clinical outcomes. Based on mean rating scores from experts, telmisartan plus amlodipine can be considered the preferred initial combination in the management of newly diagnosed Indian patients with HTN to achieve better BP control and improve CV outcomes.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of stroke and myocardial infarction prevention in hypertensive patients: Markov model based on the ACCOMPLISH trial

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the pharmacoeconomics of amlodipine combined with benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril in the treatment of hypertension using a Markov model to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical drug use.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we constructed two types of Markov model using data from the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial to dynamically simulate the development of hypertension. The models were subjected to rollback analysis and cohort analysis to obtain the cost and effectiveness of the two drug regimens in preventing stroke and myocardial infarction in hypertensive patients. We conducted sensitivity analysis to determine the stability of the results.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness of amlodipine combined with benazepril was 66,196.97 RMB with 6.59 QALYs and that of hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril was 74,588.50 RMB with 6.46 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril was -64,550.23 compared with amlodipine + benazepril. The amlodipine + benazepril regimen was therefore more cost-effective than hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril. The sensitivity analysis results showed that the model was robust.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril treatment regimen, the amlodipine + benazepril regimen showed greater economic benefits.

Effect of blood pressure-lowering agents on microvascular function in people with small vessel diseases (TREAT-SVDs): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cerebral small vessel disease. We aimed to determine whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect microvascular function in people with small vessel disease.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised crossover trial with blinded endpoint assessment at five specialist centres in Europe. We included participants aged 18 years or older with symptomatic sporadic small vessel disease or cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) and an indication for antihypertensive treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three sequences of antihypertensive treatment using a computer-generated multiblock randomisation, stratified by study site and patient group. A 2-week washout period was followed by three 4-week periods of oral monotherapy with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol at approved doses. The primary endpoint was change in cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) determined by blood oxygen level-dependent MRI response to hypercapnic challenge in normal-appearing white matter from the end of washout to the end of each treatment period. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat principles in all randomly assigned participants who had at least one valid assessment for the primary endpoint, and analyses were done separately for participants with sporadic small vessel disease and CADASIL. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03082014, and EudraCT, 2016-002920-10, and is terminated.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 22, 2018, and April 28, 2022, 75 participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean age 64·9 years [SD 9·9]) and 26 with CADASIL (53·1 years [7·0]) were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment. 79 participants (62 with sporadic small vessel disease and 17 with CADASIL) entered the primary efficacy analysis. Change in CVR did not differ between study drugs in participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean change in CVR 1·8 × 10-4%/mm Hg [SE 20·1; 95% CI -37·6 to 41·2] for amlodipine; 16·7 × 10-4%/mm Hg [20·0; -22·3 to 55·8] for losartan; -7·1 × 10-4%/mm Hg [19·6; -45·5 to 31·1] for atenolol; poverall=0·39) but did differ in patients with CADASIL (15·7 × 10-4%/mm Hg [SE 27·5; 95% CI -38·3 to 69·7] for amlodipine; 19·4 × 10-4%/mm Hg [27·9; -35·3 to 74·2] for losartan; -23·9 × 10-4%/mm Hg [27·5; -77·7 to 30·0] for atenolol; poverall=0·019). In patients with CADASIL, pairwise comparisons showed that CVR improved with amlodipine compared with atenolol (-39·6 × 10-4%/mm Hg [95% CI -72·5 to -6·6; p=0·019) and with losartan compared with atenolol (-43·3 × 10-4%/mm Hg [-74·3 to -12·3]; p=0·0061). No deaths occurred. Two serious adverse events were recorded, one while taking amlodipine (diarrhoea with dehydration) and one while taking atenolol (fall with fracture), neither of which was related to study drug intake.

INTERPRETATION

4 weeks of treatment with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol did not differ in their effects on cerebrovascular reactivity in people with sporadic small vessel disease but did result in differential treatment effects in patients with CADASIL. Whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect clinical outcomes in people with small vessel diseases requires further research.

FUNDING

EU Horizon 2020 programme.

Effects of Aliskiren Monotherapy versus Amlodipine Monotherapy in Hypertensive Patients with Obesity or Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors have been reported to exert protective effects against organ damage and failure; however, the impact of the direct renin inhibitor as monotherapy has not been assessed. Here, we investigated the effects of 24-week monotherapy with aliskiren compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes or obesity.

METHODS

In this randomized intervention study, 62 adult hypertensive patients with visceral obesity (defined as a body mass index [BMI] greater than 25 kg/m2 and a visceral adipose tissue area [VFA] greater than 100 cm2) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (age 57 ± 13, 65% men, BMI 28.8 ± 4.8 kg/m2, VFA 134.8 ± 47.0 cm2, blood pressure 141 ± 16/86 ± 13 mm Hg) were randomized to receive 24-week treatment with aliskiren (max. 300 mg) or amlodipine (max. 10 mg). The primary outcome was the change in VFA at 24 weeks post-treatment.

RESULTS

Change in VFA did not differ significantly from baseline in either group. Systolic blood pressure significantly decreased at 12 weeks (-10 mm Hg, p = 0.001) and 24 weeks (-10 mm Hg, p = 0.001) in the amlodipine group and at 24 weeks (-11 mm Hg, p = 0.001) in the aliskiren group. Diastolic blood pressure significantly decreased at 24 weeks (-6 mm Hg, p = 0.009) only in the amlodipine group. Although the estimated glomerular filtration rates did not significantly change in either group, the logarithm of urinary albumin excretion significantly decreased at 24 weeks only in the aliskiren group (-0.60, p < 0.001). The 24-week changes in the urinary albumin excretion significantly correlated with the changes in the plasma renin activity in the aliskiren group (r = 0.51, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Aliskiren monotherapy did not show any superiority to amlodipine monotherapy on VFA, estimated glomerular filtration rates, or urinary albumin excretion in obese or type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients.

Initial treatment with a single capsule containing half-dose quadruple therapy vs standard-dose dual therapy in hypertensive patients (QUADUAL): Study protocol for a randomized, blinded, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Combined antihypertensive therapy has obvious advantages over single drug therapy. Hypertension guidelines fully affirm the efficacy of dual combination in initial antihypertensive therapy. Recent studies have also pointed out that the quadruple combination of very low-dose antihypertensive drugs is superior to single drugs. However, whether low-dose quadruple therapy is better than dual combination is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of half-dose quadruple therapy vs standard-dose dual therapy in the initial treatment of hypertensive patients with systolic/diastolic blood pressure 140-179/90-109 mm Hg.

METHODS

A randomized double-blind crossover clinical trial will be conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose quadruple antihypertensives (irbesartan 75 mg + metoprolol 23.75 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg) with standard-dose dual antihypertensives (irbesartan 150 mg + amlodipine 5 mg) in the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension (140-179/90-109 mm Hg). Ninety patients are required and will be recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 crossover groups. Two groups will receive a different combination therapy for 4 weeks, then switch to the other combination therapy for 4 weeks, with a 2-week wash-out. The patients will be followed up for 4 weeks to compare the antihypertensive effects and related adverse effects of the 2 antihypertensive combination treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the rationale for the design of the QUADUAL trial. The trial started in July 2022 and is expected to be completed by August 2023. The study aims to evaluate if an initial treatment regimen of quadruple combination of half-dose blood pressure medications will result in greater reduction in blood pressure and fewer side effects compared to standard dose dual therapy.

REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov (NCT05377203).

Adherence and related cardiovascular outcomes to single pill vs. separate pill administration of antihypertensive triple-combination therapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence to antihypertensive treatment between patients prescribed a three-drug single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide (P/A/I) vs. the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a calcium-channel blocker (CCB), and a diuretic (D) as a two-drug SPC plus a third drug given separately.

METHODS

Using the healthcare utilization database of the Lombardy Region (Italy), the 28 210 patients, aged at least 40 years, who were prescribed P/A/I SPC during 2015-2018 were identified and the date of the first prescription was defined as the index date. For each patient prescribed the SPC, a comparator who started ACEI/CCB/D treatment as a two-pill combination was considered. Adherence to the triple combination was assessed over the year after the index date as the proportion of the follow-up days covered by prescription (PDC). Patients who had a PDC >75% were defined as highly adherent to drug therapy. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to estimate the risk ratio of treatment adherence in relation to the drug treatment strategy.

RESULTS

About 59 and 25% of SPC and two-pill combination users showed high adherence, respectively. Compared with patients under a three-drug two-pill combination, those who were treated with the three-drug SPC had a higher propensity to be highly adherent to the triple combination (2.38, 95% confidence interval: 2.32-2.44). This was the case regardless of the sex, age, comorbidities, and number of co-treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life setting, patients under three-drug SPC exhibited more frequently a high adherence to antihypertensive treatment than those prescribed a three-drug two-pill combination.

Synergistic combination of carvedilol, amlodipine, amitriptyline, and antibiotics as an alternative treatment approach for the susceptible and multidrug-resistant A. baumannii infections via drug repurposing

We evaluated in vitro activity of 13 drugs used in the treatment of some non-communicable diseases via repurposing to determine their potential use in the treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii infections caused by susceptible and multidrug-resistant strains. A. baumannii is a multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria causing nosocomial infections, especially in intensive care units. It has been identified in the WHO critical pathogen list and this emphasises urgent need for new treatment options. As the development of new therapeutics is expensive and time consuming, finding new uses of existing drugs via drug repositioning has been favoured. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were conducted on all 13 drugs according to CLSI. Drugs with MIC values below 128 μg/mL and control antibiotics were further subjected to synergetic effect and bacterial time-kill analysis. Carvedilol-gentamicin (FICI 0.2813) and carvedilol-amlodipine (FICI 0.5625) were determined to have synergetic and additive effect, respectively, on the susceptible A. baumannii strain, and amlodipine-tetracycline (FICI 0.75) and amitriptyline-tetracycline (FICI 0.75) to have additive effect on the multidrug-resistant A. baumannii strain. Most remarkably, both amlodipine and amitriptyline reduced the MIC of multidrug-resistant, including some carbapenems, A. baumannii reference antibiotic tetracycline from 2 to 0.5 μg/mL, for 4-folds. All these results were further supported by bacterial time-kill assay and all combinations showed bactericidal activity, at certain hours, at 4XMIC. Combinations proposed in this study may provide treatment options for both susceptible and multidrug-resistant A. baumannii infections but requires further pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics analyses and in vivo re-evaluations using appropriate models.

Financial implications of protocol-based hypertension treatment: an insight into medication costs in public and private health sectors in India

Hypertension is a major public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and calls for large-scale effective hypertension control programs. Adoption of drug and dose-specific treatment protocols recommended by the World Health Organization-HEARTS Initiative is key for hypertension control programs in LMICs. We estimated the annual medication cost per patient using three such protocols (protocol-1 and protocol-2 with Amlodipine, Telmisartan, using add-on doses and different drug orders, adding Chlorthalidone; protocol-3 with a single-pill combination (SPC) of Amlodipine/Telmisartan with dose up-titration, and addition of Chlorthalidone, if required) in India. The medication cost was simulated with different hypertension control assumptions for each protocol and calculated based on prices in the public and private sectors in India. The estimated annual medication cost per patient for protocol-1 and protocol-2 was $33.88-58.44 and $51.57-68.83 for protocol-3 in the private sector. The medication cost was lower in the generic stores ($5.78-9.57 for protocol-1 and protocol-2, and $7.35-9.89 for protocol-3). The medication cost for patients was the lowest ($2.05-3.89 for protocol-1 and protocol-2, and $2.94-3.98 for protocol-3) in the public sector. At less than $4 per patient per annum, scaling up a hypertension control program with specific treatment protocols is a potentially cost-effective public health intervention. Expanding low-cost generic retail networks would extend affordability in the private sector. The cost of treatment with SPC is comparable with non-SPC protocols and can be adopted in a public health program considering the advantage of simplified logistics, reduced pill burden, improved treatment adherence, and blood pressure control.

Effects of olmesartan and amlodipine on blood pressure, endothelial function, and vascular inflammation

BACKGROUND

Anti-hypertensive drugs can improve vascular endothelial function. However, the mechanism remains to be elucidated.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to investigate mechanisms of anti-hypertensive drugs on improvement of vascular endothelial function in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

Forty-five patients (mean age 58.5 ± 11.2 years) with uncontrolled essential hypertension were randomly assigned to receive olmesartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) (N = 23), or amlodipine, a calcium channel blocker (CCB) (N = 22), for 6 months. Endothelial function was evaluated by flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery. Vascular inflammation was measured by blood-normalized standardized uptake value, known as a target-to-background ratio (TBR) within the carotid arteries using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences of baseline clinical data between the ARB and CCB groups. Both anti-hypertensive drugs comparably lowered blood pressure and increased %FMD. TBR values were reduced by olmesartan (P < .001), while blood pressure variability was decreased by amlodipine (P = .004). Changes in %FMD from baseline (Δ%FMD) were inversely associated with ΔTBR in the olmesartan group (r = - .606, P = .003) and with Δsystolic blood pressure variability in the amlodipine group (r = - .434, P = .039).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicated that olmesartan and amlodipine could improve endothelial function in patients with essential hypertension in different manners, suppression of vascular inflammation, and decrease in blood pressure variability, respectively.

Efficacy of single-pill combination in uncontrolled essential hypertension: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.

MANAGEMENT OF RISKS OF ADVERSE DRUG REACTIONS ACCORDING TO ADR REPORT FORM DATA FROM LVIV REGION HEALTHCARE FACILITIES IN 2022

The study aimed to analyse the adverse drug reactions report form data received by the State Expert Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine from healthcare professionals in the Lviv region in 2022. Regarding specific types of medicines, the ones with proven cause-and-effect relationships that caused the highest frequency of adverse drug reactions incidents were chemotherapeutic agents (35.5%), medicines affecting the cardiovascular system (20.3%), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (8%). Within the penicillin class, amoxicillin potentiated by clavulanate (67%) and amoxicillin (29%) were the dominant drugs showing the highest incidence rate of adverse reactions. Among cephalosporins, ceftriaxone (46%) and cefixime (15%) were found to take the lead in terms of adverse reaction frequency. The highest proportion among all adverse drug reactions caused by penicillins and cephalosporins was attributed to allergic reactions. To confirm or rule out immediate or delayed type allergies in patients, as well as in patients with a history of immediate-type allergic reactions to β-lactams and planned administration of another β-lactam, it is necessary to conduct skin testing (skin prick test, or, in the case of parenteral administration, intradermal test) with the planned β-lactam antibiotic. The second highest proportion of induced adverse drug reactions was attributed to drugs affecting the cardiovascular system (20.3%). The leading medications in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors category were enalapril (47%) and the combination of lisinopril with hydrochlorothiazide (24%). In the angiotensin II receptor blockers category of medications, valsartan (30%) and telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination (20%) ranked highest. In the category of CCB drugs, amlodipine (66%) and nifedipine (20%) held the leading positions. among angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, enalapril caused the most prevalent and predicted adverse reaction, that of cough, affecting 10.5% of patients, whereas, with the combination therapy of lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide, the cough was observed in only 5.2% of patients. Angiotensin II receptor blockers have a better safety profile, particularly concerning cough. Analysis of adverse drug reactions reports for angiotensin II receptor blockers showed no cases of cough with valsartan and telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination. Among calcium channel blocker medications, amlodipine emerged to rank highest, causing one of the predicted adverse drug reactions, that of lower extremity oedema in 64% of patients. The second position was taken by the combination of amlodipine with valsartan, which showed a statistically significant reduction of 14.3% (p≤0.05) in the incidence of oedema. Using amlodipine at a dose of 5 mg in combination with sartan medicines as angiotensin receptor blockers is an effective therapeutic alternative not only for enhancing blood pressure control in hypertensive patients but also for improving the safety profile of amlodipine. Among all the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs prescribed to patients in the Lviv region in 2022, the highest number of adverse reactions was associated with the administration of diclofenac, ibuprofen, paracetamol, and nimesulide, causing adverse drug reactions in 22%, 19%, 17%, and 10% of cases, respectively. The most common systemic manifestations of adverse reactions with these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were allergic reactions (63.4%) and gastrointestinal disorders (26.8%). From an evidence-based medicine perspective, the most justified approach for primary and secondary prevention of gastrointestinal complications is the use of proton pump inhibitors.

Concurrent disorders of cats with diabetes mellitus and arterial systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to report the concurrent disorders and treatment success of cats with diabetes mellitus (DM) and arterial systolic hypertension (SH).

METHODS

A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted of 17 cats with DM and SH that were examined at a university teaching hospital between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2021. The medical records of diabetic cats were searched for the keywords 'hypertension', 'blood pressure', 'amlodipine', 'benazepril' and 'telmisartan' to identify cats with SH, which was defined as systemic arterial blood pressure (SABP) ⩾160 mmHg, documented at least twice, over several days. Comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease and hyperthyroidism, were recorded. Medications used for the treatment of SH and the SABP response to treatment were also noted.

RESULTS

Most cats (13/17, 76%) with DM and SH had at least one other documented concurrent illness that could contribute to SH, including chronic kidney disease (12/17 cats, 71%), hyperthyroidism (4/17, 23%) and functional adrenocortical mass secreting either aldosterone alone (1/17, 6%) or glucocorticoids, and possibly also aldosterone (1/17, 6%). Out of 17 cats, 15 (88%) were treated with amlodipine, and none were treated with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker. Mean SABP at the time of diagnosis of SH was 210 ± 23 mmHg and was significantly higher than the mean SABP at the first and second follow-up examinations after the introduction of amlodipine treatment (175 ± 33 mmHg, P = 0.008 and 172 ± 26 mmHg, P = 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cats with DM and SH should be evaluated for the presence of chronic kidney disease, hyperthyroidism and functional adrenal masses. Treatment with amlodipine appears to be effective in lowering SABP in cats with DM and SH.

Amlodipine limits microglia activation and cognitive dysfunction in aged hypertensive mice

BACKGROUND

SBP and blood pressure variability are independent risk factors for cerebral small vessel disease, a leading cause for stroke and dementia. Calcium-channel blockers are known to reduce blood pressure variability and may thus offer benefit against dementia. Beyond this effect, the impact of calcium-channel blockers on hypertension-induced neuroinflammation, and especially, microglial phenotype remains unknown. We aimed to study the ability of amlopidine to alleviate microglia inflammation, and slow down cognitive dysfunction in aged hypertensive mice.

METHODS

Hypertensive BPH/2J and normotensive BPN/3J mice were studied until 12 months of age. Hypertensive mice were untreated or received amlodipine (10 mg/kg per day). Blood pressure parameters were measured by telemetry and tail cuff plethysmography. Mice underwent repeated series of cognitive tasks. Brain immunohistochemistry was performed to study blood-brain barrier dysfunction and microglial pro-inflammatory phenotype (CD68 + Iba1 + cells; morphological analysis).

RESULTS

Amlodipine normalized SBP over the entire life span and decreased blood pressure variability. BPH/2J mice exhibited impaired short-term memory that was prevented by amlodipine at 12 months (discrimination index 0.41 ± 0.25 in amlodipine-treated vs. 0.14 ± 0.15 in untreated BPH/2J mice, P  = 0.02). Amlopidine treatment of BPH/2J did not prevent blood-brain barrier leakage, a measure of cerebral small vessel disease, but limited its size. Microglia's inflammatory phenotype in BPH/2J, characterized by an increased number of Iba1 + CD68 + cells, increased soma size and shortened processes, was partly reduced by amlodipine.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine attenuated the short-term memory impairment in aged hypertensive mice. Beyond its blood pressure lowering capacity, amlodipine may be cerebroprotective by modulating neuroinflammation.

Efficacy of Antihypertensive Drugs of Different Classes After Renal Denervation in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats

BACKGROUND

Renal denervation (RDN) lowers blood pressure (BP) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Limited data exist on the effectiveness of different antihypertensive medications following RDN on BP and maladaptive cardiac phenotypes.

METHODS

Eighty-nine male spontaneously hypertensive rats with continuous BP recording underwent RDN or sham operation. Ten days postsurgery, spontaneously hypertensive rats were randomized to receive no antihypertensive medication, amlodipine, olmesartan, hydrochlorothiazide, bisoprolol, doxazosin, or moxonidine for 28 days. Cardiac remodeling was determined histologically, and activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system was explored.

RESULTS

Before initiation of antihypertensive drugs, RDN reduced mean arterial pressure (-12.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.4 to -10.8]; P<0.001). At study end, mean arterial pressure was lower in RDN compared with sham operation in drug-naïve controls (P=0.006), olmesartan (P=0.002), amlodipine (P=0.0004), hydrochlorothiazide (P=0.006), doxazosin (P=0.001), and bisoprolol (P=0.039) but not in animals receiving moxonidine (P=0.122). Compared with pooled BP change of all other drug classes, mean arterial pressure change was largest for olmesartan (-15.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.6 to -13.2]; P<0.001) and amlodipine (-12.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.7 to -9.3]; P<0.001). In drug-naïve controls, RDN reduced plasma renin activity (-5.6%¸ P=0.03) and aldosterone concentration (-53.0%; P=0.005). In the presence of antihypertensive medication, plasma renin activity and aldosterone remained unchanged after RDN. Cardiac remodeling was not affected by RDN alone. In animals receiving olmesartan after RDN, cardiac perivascular fibrosis was attenuated. Amlodipine and bisoprolol following RDN reduced cardiomyocyte diameter.

CONCLUSIONS

Following RDN, treatment with amlodipine and olmesartan resulted in the largest BP reduction. Antihypertensive medications mediated heterogeneous effects on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activity and cardiac remodeling.

Improved Persistence to Medication, Decreased Cardiovascular Events and Reduced All-Cause Mortality in Hypertensive Patients With Use of Single-Pill Combinations: Results From the START-Study

BACKGROUND

Single-pill combination improves adherence and persistence to medication in hypertension. It remains unclear whether this also reduces cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. We analyzed whether single-pill combinations are superior to identical multiple pills on persistence to medication, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims data (German AOK PLUS) analysis. Data from hypertensive patients ≥18 years treated with renin-angiotensin system combinations given as single pill or identical multipills covering the years 2012 to 2018 were analyzed and followed up to at least 1 year. After 1:1 propensity score matching, persistence to medication, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality were compared using non-parametric tests. Results were reported as incidence rate ratios and hazard ratios.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching data from 57 998 patients were analyzed: 10 801 patients received valsartan/amlodipine, 1026 candesartan/amlodipine, 15 349 ramipril/amlodipine, and 1823 amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide as single pill or identical multipill. No relevant differences in patient characteristics were observed within the 4 groups. In all groups, a significant lower all-cause mortality, a significant a higher persistence to medication, a significant lower event rate in 15 out of 20 comparisons, and a tendency in the remaining 5 comparisons was observed under single pills compared with multipill combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive combination therapy reduces all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events when provided as single pill compared to identical drugs as multipills. This strongly supports the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and International Society of Hypertension guidelines recommending the use of a single-pill combination and thus should be more rigorously implemented into daily clinical practice.

Adherence to Triple Single-Pill Combination of Perindopril/Indapamide/Amlodipine: Findings from Real-World Analysis in Italy

INTRODUCTION

Single-pill combination therapy for hypertension is recognized to improve adherence to treatment. However, less is known about the benefits of triple single-pill combinations. This retrospective observational analysis aimed to assess changes in adherence when treatment was switched from perindopril (PER)/indapamide (IND) + amlodipine (AML) to PER/IND/AML single-pill combination, in Italian clinical practice.

METHODS

This analysis used data extracted from administrative databases of Italian healthcare entities. Adult patients receiving PER/IND/AML were selected, and the prescription date was considered as the index date. Among them, those who had a prescription for PER/IND + AML during the 12 months before the index date and a prescription of PER/IND/AML during 6 months of follow-up were included. Adherence was calculated as the proportion of days covered (PDC: PDC < 40%, non-adherent; PDC = 40-79%, partially adherent; PDC ≥ 80%, adherent).

RESULTS

Among the identified patients, 158 were exposed users and were included in the analysis. When patients were compared before and after switch to triple single-pill combination, the proportion of adherent patients was significantly higher with PER/IND/AML single-pill combination (75.3%) than with PER/IND + AML combination (44.3%) (P < 0.05). Conversely, the proportion of non-adherent patients was lower with the PER/IND/AML single-pill combination (14.6%) vs PER/IND + AML (17.7%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This real-world analysis showed that switching to a triple single-pill combination could offer an opportunity to improve adherence to antihypertensive treatment in real-life clinical practice.

Synergism of amlodipine and telmisartan or candesartan on blood pressure reduction by using SynergyFinder 3.0 and probability sum test in vivo

This study was designed to evaluate the synergism of two couples of antihypertensive drugs (amlodipine + telmisartan and amlodipine + candesartan) on blood pressure reduction in vivo by both SynergyFinder 3.0 and probability sum test. Spontaneously hypertensive rats were treated with intragastric administration of amlodipine (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 mg/kg), telmisartan (4, 8, and 16 mg/kg), candesartan (1, 2, and 4 mg/kg), nine combinations for amlodipine and telmisartan, and nine combinations for amlodipine and candesartan. The control rats were treated by 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose sodium. Blood pressure was recorded continuously up to 6 h after administration. Both SynergyFinder 3.0 and the probability sum test were used to evaluate the synergistic action. The synergisms calculated by SynergyFinder 3.0 are consistent with the probability sum test both in two different combinations. There is an obviously synergistic interaction between amlodipine and telmisartan or candesartan. The combinations of amlodipine and telmisartan (2 + 4 and 1 + 4 mg/kg) and amlodipine and candesartan (0.5 + 4 and 2 + 1 mg/kg) might exert an optimum synergism against hypertension. Compared with the probability sum test, SynergyFinder 3.0 is more stable and reliable to analyze the synergism.

An Expert Opinion on the Role of the Rosuvastatin/Amlodipine Single Pill Fixed Dose Combination in Cardiovascular Prevention

Current cardiovascular disease prevention strategies are based on the management of cardiovascular risk as a continuum, redefining the therapeutic goals for each individual based on the estimated global risk profile. Given the frequent clustering of the principal cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia, in the same individual, patients are required to take multiple drugs to achieve therapeutic targets. The adoption of single pill fixed dose combinations may contribute to achieve better control of blood pressure and cholesterol compared to the separate administration of the individual drugs, mostly due to better adherence related to therapeutic simplicities. This paper reports the outcomes of an Expert multidisciplinary Roundtable. In particular, the rational and potential clinical use of the single pill fixed dose combination "Rosuvastatin-Amlodipine" for the management of concomitant hypertension/hypercholesterolemia in different clinical fields are discussed. This Expert Opinion also illustrates the importance of an early and effective management of total cardiovascular risk, highlights the substantial benefits of combining blood pressure and lipid-lowering treatments in a single-pill fixed dose combination and attempts to identify and overcome the barriers to the implementation in clinical practice of the fixed dose combinations with dual targets. This Expert Panel identifies and proposes the categories of patients who may benefit the most from this fixed dose combination.

Single-Pill Combination with Three Antihypertensive Agents to Improve Blood Pressure Control in Hypertension: Focus on Olmesartan-Based Combinations

Blood pressure control remains an unmet clinical need. Only about half of patients achieve their blood pressure (BP) targets and of these, the majority require combination and double or triple therapies. International guidelines recommend the association of drugs with complementary mechanisms of action and, in particular, the combination of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics. Among the various angiotensin receptor blockers, olmesartan (OM) is available as a monotherapy and in dual and triple single-pill combinations (SPCs) with amlodipine (AML) and/or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Several phase III and IV studies, together with real-world studies, have demonstrated the additional benefits of combining OM either with AML or with HCTZ in terms of BP control and target BP achievements both in the general population and in special subgroups of hypertensive patients, such as the elderly, diabetic, chronic kidney disease or obese patients. Ambulatory BP monitoring studies assessing 24h BP have also demonstrated that dual, as well as triple, OM-based SPCs induce a more sustained and smoother BP reduction than placebo and monotherapy. Furthermore, triple OM-based SPC has been shown to improve therapeutic adherence in hypertensive patients compared to free combinations. The availability of OM combined with HCTZ, AML or both at different dosages makes it a valuable option to customize therapy based on the levels of BP and the clinical characteristics of hypertensive patients.

Effects of amlodipine combined with atorvastatin on Th17/Treg imbalance and vascular microcirculation in hypertensive patients with atherosclerosis: A double-blind, single-center randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Helper T cells 17 (Th17) and regulatory T cells (Treg), as CD4+T lymphocyte subsets, play an important role in the process of atherosclerosis. However, there are few studies on the regulation and efficacy of atorvastatin combined with amlodipine on Th17/Treg balance in hypertension combined with carotid atherosclerosis. Therefore, this study aims to verify the efficacy and immunomodulatory effects of atorvastatin combined with amlodipine in the treatment of hypertension combined with carotid atherosclerosis.

METHODS

A total of 260 patients with hypertension and carotid atherosclerosis were randomly divided into atorvastatin or combined treatment group. Inflammatory factors and Th17 and Treg levels were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and flow cytometry. The messenger ribonucleic acid expression of retinoic acid receptor-related orphan receptor gamma and forkhead spiral transcription factor were detected by real-time quantitative polymerse chain reaction.

RESULTS

We found that the total effective rate in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group. The levels of whole blood high shear viscosity, whole blood low shear viscosity, plasma specific viscosity and fibrin content in the 2 groups were significantly decreased after treatment, and the combined group was significantly lower than the control group (all P < .05). The improvement of endothelial function in the treatment group was also significantly higher than that in the control group (all P < .05). In addition, we found that there were statistically significant differences in Th17 percentage, Treg percentage and Treg/Th17 between the treatment group and the control group (P < .05). The messenger ribonucleic acid levels of retinoic acid receptor-related orphan receptor gamma and forkhead spiral transcription factor showed the same trend. Further detection of Th17-related inflammatory factors showed that the expression of interleukin (IL)-17, IL-6, IL-23 and tumor necrosis factor-α in the treatment group was significantly decreased, which was better than that in the control group (all P < .05).

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that amlodipine combined with atorvastatin can improve Th17/Treg imbalance, vascular endothelial function and efficacy in patients with hypertension and atherosclerosis.

S-AMLODIPINE AS A MODERN EFFECTIVE ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AND AN ANTIANGINAL AGENT

OBJECTIVE

The aim: Study of the clinical and hemodynamic effects of S-amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease, in individuals with preserved LV systolic function.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The study includes 51 patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease, who were treated with S-amlodipine.

RESULTS

Results: This study shows the high clinical effectiveness of the use of S-amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease. We reveal that treatment of hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease with S-amlodipine leads to improvement of LV diastolic dysfunction, bringing it closer to normal values.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: Clinical effectiveness was associated with positive changes in hemodynamics, and was expressed in the normalization of the left ventricle diastolic function parameters, about which indirectly indicates decreasing of end-diastolic pressure.

The Influence of Atorvastatin, Amlodipine and Ethoxidol on Ubiquinol and Ubiquinone Endogenous Plasma Concentrations in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Coenzyme Q10 is a key component of the mitochondrial respiratory chain and a fat-soluble endogenous antioxidant performing many vital functions in the human body. Many researchers studied the plasma concentrations of ubiquinol, ubiquinone, total CoQ10 and the redox state (ubiquinol/ubiquinone ratio) of CoQ10 in healthy volunteers. However, these parameters in the plasma of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) remain almost uninvestigated.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this case-control study was to investigate the effect of atorvastatin, amlodipine and ethoxidol on endogenous plasma concentrations of ubiquinol, ubiquinone, total CoQ10 and its redox state in patients with CHF.

METHODS

The study included 62 patients with CHF divided into four groups depending on the prescribed therapy. For the quantitative determination of ubiquinol, ubiquinone, and total CoQ10 in the plasma of patients, HPLCMS/ MS was used.

RESULTS

It was established that the endogenous plasma concentration of total CoQ10 in patients with CHF is significantly lower than in healthy volunteers, and the ratio of reduced and oxidized forms of CoQ10 is shifted towards ubiquinone. It was a statistically significant effect of drugs with different physicochemical structures and pharmacological action on the plasma concentrations of ubiquinol, ubiquinone and total CoQ10: atorvastatin administration led to a decrease in the concentration of ubiquinol (-33.3Δ%), and total CoQ10 (-15Δ%), administration of amlodipine contributed to an increase in the levels of ubiquinol (+27.7Δ%) and total CoQ10 (+18.2Δ%), and the administration of ethoxidol caused an increase in the concentration of ubiquinol (+25Δ%), ubiquinone (+17.7Δ%) and total CoQ10 (+20.2Δ%).

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine is able to neutralize the negative effect of atorvastin on the redox balance of CoQ10 in patients with CHF. An additional prescription of the antioxidant ethoxidol to standard therapy for patients with CHF was substantiated. Determination of the redox state of CoQ10 in plasma can be used to diagnose and assess the degree of oxidative stress in patients with cardiovascular diseases, as well as to assess the efficacy and safety of ongoing pharmacotherapy.

Choice of antihypertensive agent in isolated systolic hypertension and isolated diastolic hypertension: A secondary analysis of the ALLHAT trial

Despite broad treatment recommendations, there are limited published reports comparing the efficacy of different antihypertensive agents in patients with isolated systolic hypertension or isolated diastolic hypertension. This study was a secondary analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. We compared the use of chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisinopril on the primary outcome of combined coronary heart disease, stroke, or all-cause mortality in patients with isolated systolic hypertension or isolated diastolic hypertension.

Eco-friendly spectrophotometric evaluation of triple-combination therapies in the treatment strategy of patients suffering from hypertension during coronavirus pandemic - Spectralprint recognition study

Recent studies have reported that using certain antihypertensive therapies such as angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and calcium channel blocker (CCBs) is associated with reduction of fatal outcomes and improving clinical characteristics of patients suffering from hypertension during coronavirus pandemic. Thus, in the current work an effective, innovative and eco-friendly spectrophotometric manner namely, parent spectrum extraction (PSE)was established for evaluation of recommended triple antihypertensive combination therapies incorporate valsartan (VAL) as ARBs, amlodipine besylate as CCBs (AML) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCT)as diuretic into single-pill in challengeable ratio. PSE manner composed of two complementary steps, auxiliary resolution coupled with data analysis resolution(DAR)and it is characterized by resolving the spectral bands of the drugs and extraction of their discrete parent spectra (D⁰); accordingly, enabling determination of each analyte at its λ_max. Auxiliary resolution of AML in triple mixture was applied to decrease complexity of overlapped spectra via constant multiplication (CM) followed by spectrum subtraction (SS) to obtain resolved mixture of VAL and HCT while data analysis resolution (DAR) of this binary mixture was applied via one of three novel methods namely, absorbance extraction (AE), peak-amplitude extraction (PE) and ratio extraction (RE) along with SS method. The proposed methods had analyzed VAL, AML and HCT in the range of 4.0-44.0 µg/mL, 4.0-40.0 µg/mL and 2.0-24.0 µg/mL, respectively with an excellent correlation coefficient (r ≥ 0.9999). Further, the proposed methods in PSR manner were validated as stated by ICH guidelines and it was found that accuracy and precision results are within the acceptable limit. The suggested procedures were effectively utilized for the concurrent quantification of VAL, AML and HCT in synthetic mixtures and tablets. The greenness of the proposed spectrophotometric methods was evaluated by National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI), the Analytical Eco-Scale, the Green Analytical Procedure Index (GAPI) and Analytical greenness metric (AGREE) where the four tools affirmed the eco-friendly nature of the proposed methods. A comparison between the outcomes of the studied methods with the official and reported ones was performed and no statistical difference was arisen between the methods regarding to accuracy and precision.The achieved results along with the simplicity, affordability and low-cost of the proposed methods recommended their appropriateness for the regular quality control examination and analysis of pure materials and pharmaceutical formulations as well as their applicability for the spectralprint recognition of the studied drugs.

Effects of high-intensity statin combined with telmisartan versus amlodipine on glucose metabolism in hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients with impaired fasting glucose: A randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

There is lacking evidence that telmisartan can improve insulin resistance in patients on high-intensity statins. This study compared the effects of telmisartan and amlodipine on glucose metabolism in hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) patients with impaired fasting glucose (IFG) requiring high-intensity rosuvastatin therapy.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups [telmisartan-statin group (n=48) and amlodipine-statin group (n=51)] as add-on therapy to high-intensity rosuvastatin therapy (20 mg). The primary endpoint was to assess insulin resistance using the homeostatic model assessment (HOMA-IR) value at week 24. The secondary endpoint was the change in glucose metabolism indices from baseline to week 24.

RESULTS

The HOMA-IR at week 24 (2.4 [interquartile range, 1.8-3.8] versus 2.7 [1.7-3.7]; P = .809) and changes in the HOMA-IR from baseline to week 24 (-7.0 [-29.0 to 21.0] versus -5.5 [-53.3 to 27.3]; P = .539) were not significantly different between 2 groups. However, the fasting glucose level at week 24 was significantly lower in the telmisartan-statin group than in the amlodipine-statin group (107.7 ± 13.4 mg/dL versus 113.3 ± 12.4 mg/dL; P = .039) and significantly decreased in the telmisartan-statin group (-3.2 ± 8.6% versus 3.8 ± 13.2%; P = .003). The proportion of patients with fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dL (71.1% versus 89.6%; P = .047) or new-onset diabetes mellitus (12.5% versus 31.4%, P = .044) at week 24 was also significantly lower in the telmisartan-statin group than in the amlodipine-statin group.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to amlodipine, telmisartan did not decrease the HOMA-IR. However, telmisartan preserved insulin secretion, led to a regression from IFG to euglycemia and prevented new-onset diabetes mellitus in ASCVD patients with IFG requiring high-intensity statins.

Amlodipine Improves Spinal Cord Injury Repair by Inhibiting Motoneuronal Apoptosis Through Autophagy Upregulation

STUDY DESIGN

The effect of amlodipine (AM) on spinal cord injury (SCI) and autophagy was researched by establishing ventral spinal cord cells (VSC4.1) oxygen and glucose deprivation model and SCI mice model.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the neuroprotective effects of AM by upregulating autophagy during SCI repair.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

AM, an antihypertensive medication, has been shown in several studies to inhibit neuronal apoptosis and exert neuroprotective effects in various central nervous system diseases. However, its effects on SCI are unexplored. Autophagy could inhibit cell apoptosis, which has been shown to promote SCI repair. However, the role of AM in autophagy remains unclear.

METHODS

We examined the relationship between AM, apoptosis, and autophagy in ventral spinal cord cells and the injured spinal cords of C57BL/6 female mice respectively, following histological, behavioral, microscopic, immunofluorescence, and western blotting analyses.

RESULTS

We found that AM could inhibit motor neuronal apoptosis in vitro. Furthermore, AM promoted locomotor recovery by upregulating autophagy and alleviating apoptosis, neuronal loss, and spinal cord damage after SCI.

CONCLUSION

AM inhibited motoneuronal apoptosis by upregulating autophagy to improve SCI recovery.

Brain-penetrant calcium channel blockers are associated with a reduced incidence of neuropsychiatric disorders

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) differ in their ability to penetrate into the brain. Pharmacoepidemiological studies suggest that CCBs as a class may have beneficial effects on the risks and outcomes of some psychiatric and neurological disorders. It is plausible but unknown whether this effect relates to their brain penetrance. To address this, we used the TriNetX electronic health records network to identify people prescribed a brain-penetrant CCB (BP-CCB), or those given amlodipine, a CCB with low brain penetrability. We created cohorts of patients who, prior to first CCB exposure, either had to have, or could not have had, a recorded ICD-10 diagnosis in any of the following categories: psychotic disorder; affective disorder (including bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder); anxiety disorder; substance use disorder; sleep disorder; delirium; dementia, or movement disorder. Cohort pairs were propensity score matched for age, sex, race, blood pressure, body mass index, and a range of other variables. The outcomes were the incidence of these disorders measured over a two-year exposure period. Matched cohort sizes ranged from 17,896 to 49,987. In people with no prior history of psychiatric or neurodegenerative disorder, there was a significantly lower incidence of most disorders with BP-CCBs compared to amlodipine, with risk ratios ranging from 0.64 to 0.88 and an overall risk ratio of 0.88, i.e. a risk reduction of 12%. In people who did have a prior psychiatric or neurodegenerative diagnosis, differences were much smaller, but again showed lower risks for several disorders with BP-CCBs compared to amlodipine. The differences were somewhat more marked in women and in people less than 60 years old. Results were similar when comparing BP-CCBs with verapamil and diltiazem. We also compared BP-CCBs with angiotensin receptor blockers, and found an overall risk ratio of 0.94 in favour of BP-CCBs, but with differential effects across disorders including a higher risk of psychotic disorder and dementia, but a lower risk for anxiety and sleep disorders. In some analyses, there was evidence of residual confounding even after the extensive matching, in that negative control outcomes showed a reduced incidence with BP-CCBs relative to the comparator cohort. In summary, CCBs that readily penetrate the brain are associated with a lower incidence of neuropsychiatric disorders, especially first diagnoses, compared to CCBs which do not. This may reflect their blockade of neuronal voltage-gated calcium channels. The findings encourage repurposing trials using existing BP-CCBs, and suggest that novel BP-CCBs with enhanced and more selective central actions might have greater therapeutic potential for psychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders.

Calcium channel blockers potentiate gemcitabine chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer

There is currently no effective treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While palliative chemotherapy offers a survival benefit to most patients, nearly all will eventually progress on treatment and long-term survivability remains poor. Given the lack of subsequent line treatment options, in this study, we sought to identify novel strategies to prevent, delay, or overcome resistance to gemcitabine, one of the most widely used medications in PDAC. Using a combination of single-cell RNA sequencing and high-throughput proteomic analysis, we identified a subset of gemcitabine-resistant tumor cells enriched for calcium/calmodulin signaling. Pharmacologic inhibition of calcium-dependent calmodulin activation led to the rapid loss of drug-resistant phenotypes in vitro, which additional single-cell RNA sequencing identified was due to impaired activation of the RAS/ERK signaling pathway. Consistent with these observations, calcium chelation or depletion of calcium in the culture media also impaired ERK activation in gemcitabine-resistant cells, and restored therapeutic responses to gemcitabine in vitro. We observed similar results using calcium channel blockers (CCBs) such as amlodipine, which inhibited prosurvival ERK signaling in vitro and markedly enhanced therapeutic responses to gemcitabine in both orthotopic xenografts and transgenic models of PDAC. Combined, these results offer insight into a potential means of gemcitabine resistance and suggest that select CCBs may provide a clinical benefit to PDAC patients receiving gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.

Clinical assessment of levamlodipine besylate combination therapy for essential hypertension: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Essential hypertension has been regarded a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease across the globe, and a significant escapable causation of early death as well as morbidity in the U.S. When angiotensin II receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers are used to treat essential hypertension, most patients will have inadequate blood pressure management. As a result, including a diuretic in the regimen is necessary. The current study's aim is to investigate the effectiveness as well as safety of levamlodipine besylate combination therapy in treating essential hypertension at varying degrees of severity.

METHODS

In establishing the effectiveness and safety of the mix of levamlodipine besylate and dihydropyridine for essential hypertension, the authors will conduct a systematic review and, where applicable, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. A total of 8 electronic databases will be used in the search, including 4 English databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) and 4 Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese BioMedical Literature database, Chinese Scientific Journal database, and WanFang database). All articles published in the databases will be considered between their inception and January 18, 2022. Only articles published in English or Mandarin Chinese will be picked. A group of writers will independently evaluate each reference to see if it is eligible and whether there are any duplicates. The same authors will do data extraction for all eligible studies and use the Cochrane risk of bias tool to evaluate the risk of bias in the trials chosen for inclusion.

RESULTS

The analysis will evaluate the efficiency and level of safeness of levamlodipine besylate combined treatment for essential hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review will offer evidence for judging whether levamlodipine besylate combination therapy can be considered an effective intercession for essential hypertension.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required as no original data will be collected as part of this review.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/H8ZR2.

Delayed Decline of Cognitive Function by Antihypertensive Agents: A Cohort Study Linked with Genotype Data

BACKGROUND

Arterial hypertension is among factors with the potential for increasing the risk of cognitive impairment in elderly subjects. However, studies investigating the effects of antihypertensives on cognitive function have reported mixed results.

METHODS

We have used the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Uniform Data Set (UDS) to investigate the effect of each class of antihypertensives, both as single and combined, in reducing the rate of conversion from normal to mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

RESULTS

The use of antihypertensive drugs was associated with 21% (Hazard ratio: 0.79, p<01001) delay in the rate of conversion to MCI. This effect was modulated by age, gender, and genotypic APOE4 allele. Among different antihypertensive subclasses, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (24%, HR: 0.76, P=0.004), diuretics (21%, HR: 0.79, P=0.006), and α1-adrenergic blockers (α1-ABs) (23%, HR: 0.77, P=0.034) significantly delayed the rate of MCI conversion. A significant effect was observed with the selective L-type voltage-gated CCBs, dihydropyridines, amlodipine (47%, HR=0.53, P<0.001) and nifedipine (49%, HR=0.51, P=0.012), whereas non-DHPs showed insignificant effect. Loop diuretics, potassium sparing diuretics, and thiazides all significantly reduced the rate of MCI conversion. Combination of α1-AB and diuretics led to synergistic effects; combination of vasodilators plus β-blockers (βBs), and α1-AB plus βBs led to additive effect in delaying the rate of MCI conversion, when compared to a single drug.

CONCLUSION

Our results could have implications for the more effective treatment of hypertensive elderly adults who are likely to be at high risk of cognitive decline and dementia. The choice of combination of antihypertensive therapy should also consider the combination which would lead to an optimum benefit on cognitive function.

Antihypertensive treatment improves glycemic control in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder involving progressive pancreatic dysfunction. A substantial proportion of patients with T2DM cannot achieve euglycemia despite pharmacologic therapy. Preceding clinical studies have shown that hypertension contributes to glucose dysregulation, and investigators in this study hypothesized that antihypertensive treatment may improve glycemic control in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study investigates the effect of adding the antihypertensive drug Amlodipine to standard diabetes therapy on serum glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and lipid profile in patients with newly diagnosed T2DM. The study enrolled a total of 168 participants with newly diagnosed T2DM.

RESULTS

Recipients of additional antihypertensive drug Amlodipine demonstrated significantly lower serum HbA1c (6.62% vs. 7.01%, P = 0.01), systolic blood pressure (132 mm Hg vs. 143 mm Hg, P < 0.001), and diastolic blood pressure (78.9 mm Hg vs. 86.0 mm Hg, P <0.001) compared to recipients of standard diabetes therapy after 24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Antihypertensive treatment with Amlodipine in addition to standard diabetes therapy improves glycemic control in patients with T2DM and may be an appropriate option in people with diabetes and concomitant hypertension to help maintain euglycemia.

EFFECTIVENESS OF LISINOPRIL AND AMLODIPINE COMBINATION AT HYPERTENSION WITH COMORBIDITY OF ARTERIOSCLEROSIS OBLITERANS IN GENERAL PRACTICE

OBJECTIVE

The aim: To analyze the dynamics of daily monitoring of blood pressure, intracardiac (according to echocardiography), peripheral hemodynamics (according to ultrasound of the vessels of the lower extremity), the thickness of the intima-media complex (according to carotid sonography) in patients with hypertension the effect of treatment with a combination of lisinopril and amlodipine.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: The study included 40 patients with hypertension with 2 (29 patients) and 3 (11 patients) degrees of hypertension in combination with AOLE with I-III stages of chronic insufficiency of the lower extremity, which revealed hyperkinetic, eukinetic, and hypokinetic types of hypertension with a predominance of the sympathetic nervous system. The groups are comparable in age, sex, duration of hypertension, and medications received in the previous stages. For antihypertensive therapy, the most common drugs for use were selected - lisinopril + amplodipine in fixed doses of 10 and 5 mg, respectively. If after 2 weeks we did not reduce the mean level of SBP and DBP by 10% or more from baseline, we doubled the dose of lisinopril without changing the dose of amlodipine.

RESULTS

Results: After 6 months of treatment, in particular, an increase in the pulse index - by 24.8%, a decrease in the resistance index - by 21.1%, an increase in linear and volumetric blood velocity - by 25.6% and 27.4%, respectively, while achieving the target blood pressure.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: It is proved that in the absence of individual contraindications the combination of lisinopril and amlodipine is optimal and universal for effective treatment of patients with hypertension in combination with AOLE in all types of central hemodynamics.

Effect of amlodipine versus bisoprolol in hypertensive patients on maintenance hemodialysis: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular hypertrophy and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) are surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the dialysis population. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a calcium channel blocker-based antihypertensive regimen compared to a beta-blocker-based antihypertensive regimen on left ventricular mass index (LVMI) and ADMA levels in hypertensive patients on hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

This was a parallel-design, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial on 46 hypertensive patients on maintenance HD, with no history of CVD. Patients were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine 10 mg/d (n = 23) or bisoprolol 10 mg/d (n = 23). Office-based blood pressure (BP) was targeted to ≤ 140/ 90 mm Hg. The outcome was the change in LVMI and ADMA from baseline to 6 months.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics did not vary between groups. After 6 months of treatment, amlodipine-based therapy induced a greater reduction in LVMI from baseline than bisoprolol-based treatment (35 ± 34.2 vs 9.8 ± 35.9 gm/m2; P = .017). A similar reduction in the mean BP occurred with treatment in both groups. ADMA concentration decreased significantly from baseline in the amlodipine group (0.75 ± 0.73 to 0.65 ± 0.67 nmol/mL; P = .001), but increased nonsignificantly in the bisoprolol group (0.64 ± 0.61 to 0.78 ± 0.64 nmol/mL; P = .052).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that compared to a bisoprolol-based regimen, an amlodipine-based antihypertensive regimen resulted in a significantly greater reduction in LVMI and ADMA levels from baseline in hypertensive patients on HD despite similar BP reduction in both groups. These findings support the re-evaluation of amlodipine as a potential first-line antihypertensive treatment in patients on HD without previous CVD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04085562, registered September 2019.