Hypertension management guidelines recommend titrating antihypertensive drugs stepwise every 4-6 weeks.We compared efficacy and safety of early versus late titration after 10 weeks' treatment with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide. Hypertensive patients uncontrolled on monotherapy were randomized into two groups. In the early titration group (E), patients received irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 150/12.5 mg for 2 weeks; uncontrolled patients were up-titrated to 300/25 mg at weeks 2 and 6. In the late titration group (L), patients received 150/12.5 mg for 6 weeks; uncontrolled patients were up-titrated to 300/25 mg at week 6 (W6). The change of mean systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline to week 10 (W10) were studied using a covariance analysis model. The percentage of controlled patients at W10 was compared between groups using Fisher's exact test. Of 833 patients enrolled from 14 countries, the intent-to-treat (ITT) population included 795 (mean age 58 +/- 12 years, female 60%, obesity 38%, diabetes 22%). AtW6, mean SBP decrease was: E - 28.8 mmHg vs L - 26.3 mmHg (p = 0.02). At W10, there was similar mean SBP decrease: E - 29.5 mmHg vs L- 31.0 mmHg (p = 0.14). The control rate at W10 was 58% (E) and 64% (L), p = 0.06. Serious adverse events were more frequent in E (2.5% vs 0.7%, p= 0.044). Both early and late titration regimens provide similar BP decrease and control rate.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of valsartan in Taiwanese patients with essential hypertension.
Methods: This 12-week multi-center, open-label, observational, post-marketing surveillance study enrolled 2046 hypertensive patients who were prescribed valsartan 80 or 160 mg as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensives based on clinical judgment. The primary endpoint was the incidence rate of dizziness with valsartan 160 mg monotherapy or combination therapy at Week 4. Secondary endpoints included the blood-pressure-lowering efficacy and the overall safety and tolerability of valsartan at Weeks 4 and 12.
Results: The monotherapy and combination groups had comparable baseline characteristics. At Week 4, monotherapy was found non-inferior to combination for incidence rate of dizziness (monotherapy, 9.25%; combination, 10%; difference in incidence of dizziness, 0.75%; 95% CI - 0.61% to 2.12%; non-inferiority margin, -1.33%;WaldTest approach). Greater blood pressure (BP) reduction was noted atWeek 12 than atWeek 4.The antihypertensive effect was greater with combination therapy and the 160-mg dose. BP control (systolic <140 mmHg or diastolic <90 mmHg) was achieved in 80-90% patients.Valsartan was well tolerated; most commonly reported adverse events included dizziness, headache, constipation and cough.
Conclusion: Valsartan is an effective treatment option for essential hypertension in Taiwanese patients.
Aim: To compare two strengths of a fixed drug combination (FDC) containing metoprolol XL and amlodipine (metoprolol/amlodipine 50/5; and metoprolol/amlodipine 25/2.5) with its components in hypertension.
Methods: We conducted this multicentre, randomized, open-label, trial in Indian patients with hypertension (140-180 mmHg/90-114 mmHg) in 11 centres from nine cities. Eligible patients (n = 402) were randomized into one of five treatment groups (metoprolol XL 50 mg + amlodipine 5 mg, metoprolol XL 25 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg, metoprolol XL 50 mg, metoprolol XL 25 mg or amlodipine 5 mg) and treated for 8 weeks with five follow-up visits to record blood pressure (BP) and clinical status.
Results: At baseline, treatment groups were well balanced; mean +/- SD BP was 154.87 +/- 11.91/96.63 +/- 6.97 mmHg. The greatest reduction in BP from baseline to 8 weeks was seen in the high-dose FDC group (23.61/14.91 mmHg; p<0.001). The remaining 4 groups too demonstrated a significant reduction (p< 0.001): low-dose FDC - 22.29/ - 14.66; metoprolol 50, - 23.17/ - 13.37; metoprolol 25,- 18.41/ 12.50 and amlodipine 5, - 23.01/- 13.08. BP reductions by FDCs, however, were not statistically superior to monotherapies. Responder rates (sitting diastolic BP< 90 mmHg or reduction > or =10 mmHg) were 93% in the high-dose FDC group and 97% in the low-dose FDC group, and control rates (sitting BP < 140/90 mmHg) were 66% and 58%, respectively. These rates were higher than that seen in individual components. There were no reports of serious adverse events related to study medications. One each from the low-dose FDC and metoprolol 25 mg group discontinued because of adverse events.
Conclusions: FDCs of metoprolol and amlodipine are effective and safe in mild to moderate hypertension.
Introduction: Acute and severe hypertension is common, especially in patients with renal dysfunction (RD). Clevidipine is a rapidly acting (t½∼1 min) intravenous (IV) dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker metabolized by blood and tissue esterases and may be useful in patients with RD. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of clevidipine in patients with RD.
Methods: VELOCITY, a multicenter open-label study of severe hypertension, enrolled 126 patients with persistent systolic blood pressure (SBP) >180 mmHg. Investigators pre-specified a SBP initial target range (ITR) for each patient to be achieved within 30 min. Blood pressure monitoring was by cuff. Clevidipine was infused via peripheral IV at 2 mg/h for at least 3 min, then doubled every 3 min as needed to a maximum of 32 mg/h (non-weight-based treat-to-target protocol). Per protocol, clevidipine was continued for at least 18 h (96 h maximum). RD was diagnosed and reported as an end-organ injury by the investigator and was defined as requiring dialysis or an initial creatinine >2.0 mg/dl. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients within the ITR by 30 min and the percentage below the ITR after 3 min of clevidipine infusion.
Results: Of the 24 patients with moderate to severe RD, most (13/24) were dialysis dependent. Forty-six percent were male, with mean age 51 ± 14 years; 63% were black and 96% had a hypertension history. Median time to achieve the ITR was 8.5 min. Almost 90% of patients reached the ITR in 30 min without evidence of overshoot and were maintained on clevidipine through 18 h. Most patients (88%) transitioned to oral antihypertensive therapy within 6 h of clevidipine termination.
Conclusions: This report is the first demonstrating that clevidipine is safe and effective in RD complicated by severe hypertension. Prolonged infusion maintained blood pressure within a target range and allowed successful transition to oral therapy.
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (O) and ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.
Methods: After a 2-week placebo washout, 351 elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks, doses could be doubled in non-normalized (blood pressure <140/90 mmHg for non-diabetic and <130/80 mmHg for diabetic) subjects, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office blood pressures were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment; 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks.
Results: At week 12, in the intention-to-treat population (170 patients O and 175 R) the rate of normalized subjects was significantly larger in the O group (38.8% vs 26.3% R; p = 0.013). Baseline-adjusted mean sitting office blood pressure reduction at final visit was not significantly greater under O [SBP: 16.6 (95% confidence interval 14.0/19.2) mmHg vs 13.0 (10.4/15.6) mmHg R, p = 0.206; DBP: 11.8 (10.3/13.3) mmHg vs 10.5 (9.0/12.0) mmHg, p = 0.351]. In the subgroup of patients with valid ABP recordings (38 O and 47 R), the reduction in 24-h average blood pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) larger with O [SBP: 8.9 (9.8/8.1) and DBP: 5.7 (6.3/5.1) mmHg] than with R [6.7 (7.9/5.6) and 4.4 (5.1/3.7) mmHg]. The superiority of O was particularly evident in the last 4 h from the dosing interval. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (4.0% O vs 4.5% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side-effect (8 O vs 7 R).
Conclusions: In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension, O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated blood pressure control, with significantly better blood pressure normalization than R and represents a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.
The GIFU substudy of the Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial was conducted to compare the long-term effects of candesartan and amlodipine on office- and home-measured blood pressure (BP), QTc dispersion and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in high-risk Japanese patients with hypertension. We used a prospective, randomized, open-label design with blinded assessment of endpoints. Patients were assigned to candesartan-based therapy up to 12 mg/day (n = 100) or amlodipine-based therapy up to 10 mg/day (n = 101) and followed for 3 years. LVMI was assessed by echocardiography and QTc dispersion was obtained from electrocardiograms. Both candesartan and amlodipine lowered and controlled office- and home-measured BP levels with no significant between-treatment differences. In patients diagnosed with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) at baseline, both candesartan and amlodipine significantly regressed LVMI after 3 years. However, candesartan (41.7 ± 15.1 ms at baseline vs 32.9 ± 16.6 ms after 3 years, p < 0.01), but not amlodipine (41.4 ± 13.5 ms at baseline vs 41.5 ± 16.1 ms after 3 years), produced a significant reduction in QTc dispersion. Larger studies in patients treated for longer periods are needed to determine whether this candesartan effect will translate into improved prognosis in terms of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.
Objectives: This study aimed to demonstrate that irbesartan is successful in reducing diastolic blood pressure (BP) even following a missed dose after 6-8-weeks' treatment as measured by 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).
Methods: Eighty-eight patients (64 females, mean age: 53.4 +/- 10.6 years) with primary hypertension were included in this national, single-center, single-arm, open-label, prospective clinical study. Irbesartan (150 or 300 mg/day) was administered for 8 weeks. All patients were asked to cease treatment for 1 day during weeks 6-8. Changes in diastolic and mean 24-hour BP on the day of cessation and diastolic BP values during visits were efficacy parameters. Adverse events were also recorded.
Results: Systolic, diastolic, and mean BP values measured via ABPM before and on the day of a missed dose did not differ significantly. Irbesartan effectively controlled BP of the patients. BP normalization rates were 54% for 150 mg/day irbesartan only and 77% for both doses (150 or 300 mg/day) of irbesartan. None of the patients experienced serious adverse events throughout the study period.
Conclusions: Irbesartan is successful and safe in the control of BP levels even following a missed dose at the end of a 6-8-week treatment period.
Aims: An international randomized controlled trial has shown that anti-hypertensive therapy using perindopril and indapamide significantly reduces the recurrence of stroke. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of diuretics given as add-on therapy to stroke patients, as needed, to perindopril, we conducted a prospective multicenter observational study.
Methods: A total of 3825 hypertensive patients with a history of stroke were enrolled. The patients received a two-step therapy, starting with perindopril alone, and those who failed to achieve the blood pressure target were subsequently given a diuretic. Each group was followed for 6 months.
Results: 62.8% of the patients achieved the blood pressure goal. The incidence of adverse events was significantly higher in the perindopril plus diuretic combination therapy group than in the perindopril monotherapy group. Although these results may reflect that severely hypertensive patients were selectively assigned to combination therapy, the observed differences were essentially elevated serum creatinine, triglycerides, blood urea nitrogen and uric acid, whereas no significant inter-group difference was noted in total cholesterol and blood glucose.
Conclusions: If adequate care of compromised renal function is taken, perindopril plus diuretic combination therapy exerts potent hypotensive effects without posing significant safety problems in patients with a history of stroke.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：