Human placental membrane as a wound cover for chronic diabetic foot ulcers: a prospective, postmarket, CLOSURE study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a chorioamniotic allograft, used as a wound cover for chronic foot ulcers, in patients with diabetes. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective, postmarket study where eligible patients received up to 11 weekly wound cover applications. Computerised planimetry was used to calculate the diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) area each week. The primary endpoint of the study was wound closure assessment. Secondary endpoints included DFU recurrence and morbidity. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients with 64 ulcers were enrolled, after successful completion of a two-week run-in period. Patients were predominantly male and had risk factors for delayed healing. Mean baseline DFU area was 3.8cm2 (standard deviation (SD): 4.8). After 12 weeks, a total of 19 (40%) DFUs had closed. Results varied by size category, 'small' (≤2.0cm2), 'medium' (>2.0-4.0 cm2), and 'large' (>4.0-25.0 cm2), with higher percentage closure in the 'small' DFU group, compared with the 'medium' and 'large' DFUs (57%, 33%, and 10%, respectively). Of those DFUs that closed, the average closure time was 6.5 weeks. There were no unanticipated adverse events. CONCLUSION: Known risk factors for healing, including DFU size, location and duration, affected the outcomes. However, the results are in line with the literature and support the use of the chorioamniotic allograft in chronic and complex cases.

Effect of evolocumab or ezetimibe added to moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy on LDL-C lowering in patients with hypercholesterolemia: the LAPLACE-2 randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: In phase 2 studies, evolocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, reduced LDL-C levels in patients receiving statin therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of evolocumab when used in combination with a moderate- vs high-intensity statin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Phase 3, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and ezetimibe-controlled study conducted between January and December of 2013 in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia at 198 sites in 17 countries. INTERVENTIONS: Patients (n = 2067) were randomized to 1 of 24 treatment groups in 2 steps. Patients were initially randomized to a daily, moderate-intensity (atorvastatin [10 mg], simvastatin [40 mg], or rosuvastatin [5 mg]) or high-intensity (atorvastatin [80 mg], rosuvastatin [40 mg]) statin. After a 4-week lipid-stabilization period, patients (n = 1899) were randomized to compare evolocumab (140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly) with placebo (every 2 weeks or monthly) or ezetimibe (10 mg or placebo daily; atorvastatin patients only) when added to statin therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 and at week 12. RESULTS: Evolocumab reduced LDL-C levels by 66% (95% CI, 58% to 73%) to 75% (95% CI, 65% to 84%) (every 2 weeks) and by 63% (95% CI, 54% to 71%) to 75% (95% CI, 67% to 83%) (monthly) vs placebo at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 in the moderate- and high-intensity statin-treated groups; the LDL-C reductions at week 12 were comparable. For moderate-intensity statin groups, evolocumab every 2 weeks reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 115 to 124 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 39 to 49 mg/dL; monthly evolocumab reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 123 to 126 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 43 to 48 mg/dL. For high-intensity statin groups, evolocumab every 2 weeks reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 89 to 94 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 35 to 38 mg/dL; monthly evolocumab reduced LDL-C from a baseline mean of 89 to 94 mg/dL to an on-treatment mean of 33 to 35 mg/dL. Adverse events were reported in 36%, 40%, and 39% of evolocumab-, ezetimibe-, and placebo-treated patients, respectively. The most common adverse events in evolocumab-treated patients were back pain, arthralgia, headache, muscle spasms, and pain in extremity (all <2%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this 12-week trial conducted among patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and mixed dyslipidemia, evolocumab added to moderate- or high-intensity statin therapy resulted in additional LDL-C lowering. Further studies are needed to evaluate the longer-term clinical outcomes and safety of this approach for LDL-C lowering. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01763866.

Effect of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, the First Oral Protease Inhibitor for the Treatment of COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir, a novel, potent, orally bioavailable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease inhibitor, coadministered with ritonavir for pharmacokinetic (PK) enhancement is licensed for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in individuals at increased risk of progression to severe disease. Cytochrome P450 3A4 is the primary metabolic enzyme responsible for nirmatrelvir metabolism; however, when cytochrome P450 3A4 is inhibited by ritonavir, nirmatrelvir is primarily excreted, unchanged, in urine. Because of intended use of nirmatrelvir among individuals with hepatic impairment, this Phase 1 study (NCT05005312) evaluated the effects of hepatic impairment on nirmatrelvir PK parameters to assess the potential need for any dose adjustments in this population. Participants with normal hepatic function or moderate hepatic impairment (n = 8 each) were administered a single 100-mg nirmatrelvir dose, with 100 mg of ritonavir administered 12 hours before, together with, and 12 and 24 hours after nirmatrelvir. Nirmatrelvir median plasma concentrations and systemic exposure measured by area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinite time and maximum observed plasma concentration values were comparable in both groups. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir had an acceptable safety profile in both groups, and no clinically significant changes in laboratory measurements, vital signs, or electrocardiogram assessments were observed. Based on these results, no dose adjustment is deemed necessary in patients with moderate hepatic impairment and, by extension, in patients with mild hepatic impairment.

An olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm is effective in achieving 24-hour BP control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, regardless of age, race, sex, or severity of hypertension: subgroup analysis of the BENIFICIARY study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension often occurs concomitantly with diabetes mellitus, such that >50% of adults with type 2 diabetes have hypertension. These individuals are at a greater risk of developing renal and cardiovascular disease. The currently recommended BP goal of <130/80 mmHg for patients with type 2 diabetes is achieved in only 37.5% of treated patients with diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: The antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was investigated in prespecified subgroups (age <65/≥65 years, Blacks/non-Blacks, males/females, or stage 1/stage 2 hypertension) of patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes enrolled in an open-label, single-arm study (n = 192). Patients started treatment with OM 20 mg/day and were uptitrated at 3-week intervals to OM 40, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day if BP was ≥120/70 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory SBP from baseline to week 12, assessed by mean 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Secondary endpoints included changes in mean 24-hour ambulatory DBP, mean daytime ambulatory BP, mean nighttime ambulatory BP, and mean office seated BP, and the proportions of patients achieving prespecified ambulatory BP targets. SETTING: This was a multicenter study (24 sites) that took place between November 2006 and November 2007 in the US. RESULTS: BP reductions were significant (p < 0.0001) and similar among subgroups of patients with type 2 diabetes. Following dose titration to OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/day, similar proportions of patients in the age, race, and sex subgroups (approximately 60-64% across these subgroups) achieved an ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mmHg. A larger proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 hypertension achieved this same goal compared with patients with stage 2 hypertension (75% vs 46.3%). The combination of OM/HCTZ was well tolerated in all patient subgroups irrespective of age, race, sex, or hypertension severity. CONCLUSIONS: In this open-label study, OM/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious and well tolerated in subgroups of patients with diabetes and hypertension. [Clinical Trials Registry Number: NCT00403481].

The use of a single-pill calcium channel blocker/statin combination in the management of hypertension and dyslipidemia: a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study.

Poor control of hypertension or dyslipidemia may at least in part be due to these risk factors being treated in isolation. The Caduet in Untreated Subjects Population (CUSP) trial was an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy/safety of the combination of a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate) and a statin (atorvastatin calcium) in a single-pill form (5/20 mg) plus therapeutic lifestyle changes (TLC) compared with placebo plus TLC in patients with comorbid hypertension and dyslipidemia without evidence of cardiovascular disease. At week 4, additional antihypertensive/lipid-lowering medication was permitted. The primary end point was the proportion of patients in whom the dual goal of blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control (<100 mg/dL) was met at week 4. This dual goal attainment was significantly greater with amlodipine/atorvastatin plus TLC compared with placebo plus TLC at week 4 (47.6% vs 1.7%; P<.001), with further improvements at week 8. Most adverse events were mild to moderate. Therapy with single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin plus TLC in these patients significantly increased dual blood pressure/low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment compared with placebo plus TLC.

Safety and tolerability of fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide for rapid control of severe hypertension.

This prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial compared the safety and tolerability of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed-dose combination therapy with irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension (seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) >or=110 mm Hg, mean BP 172/113 mm Hg at baseline). Patients were randomized 2:1 to 7 weeks' irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg to 300/25 mg (n = 468) or irbesartan 150 mg to 300 mg (n = 227). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was similar with combination and monotherapy (11.3% and 10.1%), and most AEs were mild-to-moderate. The combined incidence of prespecified AEs was lower with irbesartan/HCTZ than with irbesartan (8.8% vs. 11.5%). There were no treatment-related serious AEs or deaths. At week 5, more patients achieved SeDBP < 90 mm Hg compared to irbesartan (47% vs. 33%; P = 0.0005). Despite more rapid and aggressive BP lowering, initial fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ demonstrated a comparable AE profile to irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension.

Irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension: a subgroup analysis of the INCLUSIVE trial.

This post hoc analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Adults with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) (140-179 mm Hg; 130-179 mm Hg in type 2 diabetes) after 4 weeks or more of antihypertensive monotherapy once-daily treatment with placebo for 4-5 weeks, followed by HCTZ 12.5 mg for 2 weeks, irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg for 8 weeks, and then irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg for 8 weeks, in a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study. In patients with isolated systolic hypertension (n = 443) and the total study population (n = 736), irbesartan/HCTZ treatment for 16 weeks provided comparable mean blood pressure (BP) reductions from baseline (21.4/10.1 mm Hg vs 21.5/10.4 mm Hg; p < .001 vs baseline) and high SBP control rates (74% vs 77%). Patients with isolated systolic hypertension and concomitant type 2 diabetes experienced smaller BP reductions (17.9/8.7 mm Hg vs 22.9/10.7 mm Hg) and lower rates of SBP control (< 130 mm Hg, 47%) than those without diabetes (< 140 mm Hg, 87%). BP reductions from baseline and SBP control rates were similar across isolated systolic hypertension subgroups (> or = 65 vs < 65 years, sex, race, and metabolic syndrome status). Irbesartan/HCTZ was well tolerated, with drug-related adverse events (dizziness, < or = 3%; upper respiratory tract infection, < or = 2%) occurring with similar rates in the isolated systolic hypertension and total population. Fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ combination treatment provided effective and well-tolerated BP lowering in a diverse population of patients with isolated systolic hypertension.

Hypertension control in the elderly.

Hypertension is highly prevalent in older persons and most often presents as isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic blood pressure (BP) is a stronger predictor of risk than diastolic BP in persons older than 50 years. Most of these patients will require multiple drug therapies to achieve the substantial reductions in systolic BP needed to reach target levels. Clinical trials have demonstrated that antihypertensive therapy with beta-blockers and diuretics as well as with calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers reduces cardiovascular risk in older patients. Studies examining safety and BP-lowering efficacy have shown that a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blocker plus a calcium channel blocker as well as a combination of diuretics and beta-blockers or diuretics plus an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker achieves greater BP reductions than monotherapy. Such multiple drug regimens are well tolerated in older patients.

Efficacy and safety of fixed combinations of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in older vs younger patients with hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy.

Subgroup analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combinations in patients aged 65 years or older with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) after >or= 4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. The INCLUSIVE trial was a prospective, open-label, single-arm trial carried out in 119 sites. Of 844 patients completing placebo treatment, 212 were aged 65 years or older. Participants received treatment with placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and then irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). From baseline to week 18 (n=184, intent-to-treat population), mean change in SBP was -23.0+/-13.3 mm Hg (P<.001) and diastolic BP (DBP) was -10.9+/-7.7 mm Hg (P<.001). Mean SBP/DBP at study end was 134.0+/-14.7/75.1+/-8.4 mm Hg, and SBP, DBP, and SBP/DBP goal was achieved in 73%, 96%, and 72% of patients, respectively. Irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy allowed SBP goal attainment in 73% of patients aged 65 years or older whose hypertension was previously uncontrolled with antihypertensive monotherapy.

Very high-protein and low-carbohydrate enteral nutrition formula and plasma glucose control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized crossover trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Standard enteral nutrition (EN) formulas can  worsen hyperglycemia in diabetic patients. We hypothesized that altering the proportion of macronutrients in a formula; increasing protein while decreasing carbohydrate concentrations would improve glycemic response. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that an EN formula containing a very high concentration of protein (in the form of whey peptides) and low concentration of carbohydrate provide better control of postprandial blood glucose relative to a very high-protein/higher-carbohydrate formula. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized crossover clinical trial of 12 ambulatory adult subjects with type 2 diabetes. The primary outcome was glycemic response following a bolus of isocaloric amounts of two EN formulas; the secondary outcome was insulin response. Subjects were randomized to the experimental or the control formula, on two separate days, 5-7 days apart. RESULTS: Mean blood glucose concentrations at 10-180 min post-infusion and mean area under the curve for glucose over 240 min post-infusion were significantly lower with the experimental formula than with the control formula (71.99 ± 595.18 and 452.62 ± 351.38, respectively; p = 0.025). There were no significant differences in the mean insulin concentrations over time, insulinogenic indices, and first-phase insulin measurements. CONCLUSIONS: An EN formula containing high-protein and low-carbohydrate loads can significantly improve glucose control in subjects with type 2 diabetes in ambulatory settings as evidenced by observed improved glucose control without significant difference in insulin response.

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide compared with benazepril and amlodipine besylate.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with stage 2 hypertension require two or more antihypertensive agents in order to achieve the BP goals recommended in current treatment guidelines. Accordingly, combinations of two drugs with different mechanisms of antihypertensive action are widely used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, multicenter 12-week study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a combination of olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with that of benazepril plus amlodipine besylate in patients with stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: Patients were eligible for randomization following a 3- to 4-week placebo run-in period if they had either (i) mean seated DBP>or=90 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg and mean seated SBP>or=160 mm Hg but <200 mm Hg, or (ii) mean seated DBP>or=100 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg. The difference in mean seated SBP measured on two separate visits during the run-in period was required to beor=95 mm Hg and<115 mm Hg or SBP>145 mm Hg and

The effect of telmisartan and ramipril on early morning blood pressure surge: a pooled analysis of two randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: The period of early morning blood pressure surge is associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular events than at other times of the day. Antihypertensive medication given once daily in the morning may not protect against this surge if its duration of action is too short. We compared telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker with a trough-to-peak ratio >90%, with ramipril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor with a trough-to-peak ratio of around 50%. METHODS: Data from two prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint studies comparing telmisartan force titrated to 80 mg once daily and ramipril 10 mg once daily were pooled. Patients had mild-to-moderate hypertension and were assessed using 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at baseline and endpoint. Early morning blood pressure surge was defined as the difference between mean blood pressure within 2 h after arising and night-time low. Patients were grouped into quartiles according to their baseline systolic surge. RESULTS: Data from 1279 patients were analyzed. Telmisartan changed the overall mean (SE) systolic surge by -1.5 (0.47) mmHg, and ramipril by +0.3 (0.47) mmHg (P=0.0049). The magnitude of surge reduction was greatest in the quartile with highest baseline systolic surge: telmisartan -12.7 (0.91), ramipril -7.8 (1.02) mmHg (P=0.0004). Telmisartan also reduced the surge compared with ramipril in dippers, but there were no differences between the two groups in nondippers. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan significantly reduced the early morning systolic blood pressure surge compared with ramipril. A reduction in this surge may help to reduce cardiovascular events in the morning period.

Emerging insights in the first-step use of antihypertensive combination therapy.

The blood pressure (BP) goals set by hypertension management guidelines (<140/90 mm Hg in uncomplicated hypertension; <130/80 mm Hg in type 2 diabetes or kidney disease) are not being achieved in a high proportion of patients, partly because monotherapy is insufficient in many patients. In particular, patients with uncontrolled moderate or severe hypertension and/or associated cardiovascular risk factors remain at high risk for cardiovascular events and hypertensive emergency. In recognition of the urgency of treating moderate and severe hypertension, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) advocates the initial use of 2-drug therapies in patients with systolic BP levels >20 mm Hg above goal or diastolic BP level >10 mm Hg above goal. Regimens should usually include a thiazide diuretic and, for patients with diabetes or kidney disease, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker. Recently, clinical trial data have shown that first-step antihypertensive treatment of moderate and severe hypertension with carefully chosen fixed-dose combinations provides a high rate of BP goal achievement, a simplified dosing regimen, and superior tolerability compared with monotherapy.

Hypertension control: still not there-how to select the right add-on therapy to reach goal blood pressures.

This expert panel discussion was held on August 17, 2007. The panel was moderated by Joel M. Neutel, MD, Orange County Research Center, Tustin, California. Participants included Domenic A. Sica, MD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, and Stanley S. Franklin, MD, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California. The discussion was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim, and each author received an honorarium from Boehringer Ingelheim for time and effort spent participating in the discussion and reviewing the transcript for intellectual content before publication. The authors maintained full control of the discussion and the resulting content of this article.

Titration of HCTZ to 50 mg daily in individuals with stage 2 systolic hypertension pretreated with an angiotensin receptor blocker.

The authors studied the combination of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 50 mg/d plus olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg/d in stage 2 systolic hypertension during an extension phase of an open-label 12-week dose titration study. Subjects whose blood pressure remained above 120/80 mm Hg (n=105) on OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg/d subsequently received OM 40/HCTZ 50 mg/d for 4 weeks. Increasing HCTZ from 25 mg/d to 50 mg/d decreased systolic blood pressure by 3.6 mm Hg, increased BP control rates (<140/90 mm Hg) from 70.4% to 77.5%, and increased BP normalization rates (<120/80 mm Hg) from 15.4% to 27.8%. The combination was well tolerated. Compared with OM 40 mg/d monotherapy, neither dose of HCTZ affected serum potassium, but both increased serum glucose by about 5%. There was a dose-dependent increase in uric acid but no acute gout attacks. OM 40/HCTZ 50 mg/d is an effective strategy for managing stage 2 systolic hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of treating stage 2 systolic hypertension with olmesartan and olmesartan/HCTZ: results of an open-label titration study.

This study investigated an aggressive treatment program for stage 2 systolic hypertension (pretreatment systolic blood pressure [SBP] > or = 160 mm Hg) using the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). In this open-label, 16-week trial, 170 subjects received OM 20 mg/d for 3 weeks. If seated SBP/diastolic BP remained > or = 120/80 mm Hg, subjects were advanced to successive 3-week courses of OM 40 mg/d, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5 mg/d, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/d. OM 20 mg/d reduced mean SBP by 16.9 mm Hg (P<.001), and there were further dose-dependent decreases in mean SBP to a maximum of 34.5 mm Hg with OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/d. At study end, 75.1% of subjects achieved SBP goal (<140 mm Hg) and 16.0% achieved SBP normalization (<120 mm Hg). Treatment was well tolerated at all doses. The addition of HCTZ did not change serum potassium levels but resulted in a dose-independent but not symptomatic increase in serum glucose and uric acid. The authors conclude that an OM-based regimen, with or without HCTZ in conventional doses, is effective in controlling and normalizing BP in stage 2 systolic hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of initial use of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide fixed-dose combination in hypertensive patients with and without high cardiovascular risk.

A post hoc pooled analysis of 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled force-titration studies assessed the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of 7 to 8 weeks' once-daily fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 300/25 mg in 796 stage 1 or 2 hypertensive patients according to age (65 years or older or younger than 65) (n=121 or 675) and presence or absence of obesity (n=378 or 414), type 2 diabetes (n=99 or 697), and high World Health Organization-defined cardiovascular risk (n=593 or 202). Systolic/diastolic blood pressure reductions (27-31/16-22 mm Hg) were similar regardless of age, obesity, and type 2 diabetes status and were greater in high- vs low-risk patients. Dizziness (2.0%-3.7%), hypotension (0%-0.7%), and syncope (0%) were rare and not centered in any subgroup. There was no hypotension in the elderly or in type 2 diabetics. Irbesartan/HCTZ provided consistent blood pressure lowering and tolerability regardless of age, obesity, and type 2 diabetes and greater efficacy in patients with high cardiovascular risk.

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide.

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

Measuring the efficacy of antihypertensive therapy by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Traditional clinical trials in hypertension measure the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs but may not fully assess their effectiveness in clinical practice. Community-based trials can provide this information but are limited because usually they are of open-label design and potentially subject to observer bias. Therefore, we used ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), an automated and objective measure of blood pressure (BP) to overcome these shortcomings in a large community-based trial. METHODS: Patients with hypertension, either untreated or currently on treatment, were started on, or switched to, the angiotensin receptor blocker telmisartan 40 mg daily; after 2 weeks, if office BP remained > or = 140/85 mm Hg, the dose was increased to 80 mg, and if necessary, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg was added after a further 4 weeks and continued for the final 4-week period. Baseline and treatment ABPM measurements were completed in 940 previously untreated patients and 675 previously treated patients. RESULTS: The average reduction of the entire cohort was -10.7/-6.5 mm Hg (P < .0001; mean 24-hour BPs were reduced by 12/8 and 8/5 mm Hg in the untreated and previously treated patients, respectively). In contrast, the office BPs fell by an average of 23/12 and 17/10 mm Hg in previously untreated and treated patients. In 401 patients whose baseline 24-hour BP was > or = 130/85 mm Hg, the mean decrease in 24-hour BP was 16.8/11.4 mm Hg. Based on ABPM criteria, the BP was fully controlled (< 130/85 mm Hg) in 70% of patients, and based on office measurement criteria (< 140/90 mm Hg), in 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory BP monitoring demonstrated excellent control rates by telmisartan monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. Observer and measurement bias was substantial based on the changes from baseline by clinical measurements in contrast to ambulatory BP recordings. The successful use of this procedure in primary care research will create further opportunities to define the effectiveness of treatment in the environment in which it is customarily prescribed.

A multicenter, 14-week study of telmisartan and ramipril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) has a circadian pattern with a morning surge that is associated with an increased risk of acute coronary and cerebrovascular events. In a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group, multicenter, forced-titration study of telmisartan and ramipril, the efficacy of both drugs on mean ambulatory diastolic BP (DBP) and systolic BP (SBP) during the last 6 h of a 24-h dosing interval was evaluated. METHODS: After screening and a single-blind run-in phase, 812 adults with mild-to-moderate hypertension (defined as a mean seated DBP > or =95 mm Hg and < or =109 mm Hg and a 24-h ABPM mean DBP 7 > or = 85 mm Hg) were randomized to the open-label, 14-week, forced-titration, active-treatment phase as follows: telmisartan 40 mg/80 mg/80 mg (n = 405) or ramipril 2.5 mg/5 mg/10 mg (n = 407), once daily in the morning. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in the last 6-h mean DBP and SBP at 8 and 14 weeks as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Secondary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in BP control during each of the 24-h periods and in-clinic trough cuff BP. RESULTS: Telmisartan 80 mg was superior to ramipril 5 mg and 10 mg in change from baseline in the last 6-h ABPM mean DBP and SBP at both 8 and 14 weeks (both P < .0001), respectively. At 14 weeks, the adjusted mean change from baseline in DBP for telmisartan 80 mg was -8.8 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -5.4 mm Hg (P < .0001). For SBP, the adjusted mean change from baseline for telmisartan 80 mg was -12.7 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -7.9 mm Hg (P < .0001). At 14 weeks, telmisartan 80 mg also yielded superior reductions from baseline in trough cuff BP compared with ramipril 10 mg (DBP: -11.0 mm Hg v -7.8 mm Hg, respectively; SBP: -14.3 mm Hg v -9.1 mm Hg, respectively; both P < .0001). Measures of 24-h BP control favored telmisartan 80 mg versus ramipril 10 mg (P < .0001), as did other secondary ABPM endpoints during the daytime, night-time, and morning periods. Treatment-related adverse events were uncommon; patients treated with ramipril had a higher incidence of cough than those treated with telmisartan (10.1% v 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 80 mg was consistently more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing both DBP and SBP during the last 6 h of the dosing interval, a measure of the early morning period when patients are at greatest risk of life-threatening cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Telmisartan 80 mg was also more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing BP throughout the entire 24-h dosing interval. Both drugs were well tolerated.