Acute Declines in Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate in Patients Treated With Benazepril and Hydrochlorothiazide Versus Amlodipine and Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute declines in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) occur commonly after starting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Whether declines in eGFR that occur after simultaneously starting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with other antihypertensive agents modifies the benefits of these agents on cardiovascular outcomes is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified predictors of acute declines in eGFR (>15% over 3 months) during randomization to benazepril plus amlodipine versus benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial. We then determined the relation between declines in eGFR (treated as a binary variable, ≤15% versus >15% and separately, as a restricted spline variable) and the composite risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events using Cox proportional hazards models. We included 10 714 participants (median age 68 years [Q1 63, Q3 73]), of whom 1024 reached the trial end point over median follow-up of 2.8 years. Predictors of acute declines in eGFR>15% over 3 months included assignment to hydrochlorothiazide (versus amlodipine) and higher baseline albuminuria. Overall, declines in eGFR ≥15% (versus <15%) were associated with a 26% higher hazard of cardiovascular outcomes (95% CI, 1.07-1.48). In spline-based analysis, risk for cardiovascular outcomes was higher in the hydrochlorothiazide arm at every level of decline in eGFR compared with the same magnitude of eGFR decline in the amlodipine arm. CONCLUSION: Combined use of benazepril and amlodipine remains superior to benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide for cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of the magnitude of the decline in eGFR that occurred with initiation of therapy.

Gingival Hyperplasia Masquerading as Tumor Lesion, Possibly Linked to Amlodipine Use.

ABSTRACT: A 70-year-old woman under amlodipine treatment for hypertension presented with a hemorrhagic mass in the mandibular gingiva. Imaging studies revealed high signal intensity in T2-weighted MRI and moderate 18 F-FDG accumulation at the lesion's periphery. Although no malignancy was detected, the lesion continuously grew, prompting excision. Histopathological examination confirmed gingival hyperplasia attributed to amlodipine use. Drug-induced gingival hyperplasia typically presents as diffuse swelling; however, this lesion manifested as a polyp, posing diagnostic challenges. Reports on imaging findings for drug-induced gingival hyperplasia are limited. Understanding imaging patterns alongside clinical history aids in accurate diagnosis.

Clinical outcome in hypertensive patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol or plus valsartan.

OBJECTIVE: Several guidelines do not recommend beta-blocker as the first-line treatment for hypertension because of its inferior efficacy in stroke prevention. Combination therapy with beta-blocker is commonly used for blood pressure control. We compared the clinical outcomes in patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol (A + B), a ß1-selective beta-blocker and amlodipine plus valsartan (A + V). METHODS: A population-based cohort study was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 2012 to 2019, newly diagnosed adult hypertensive patients who received initial amlodipine monotherapy and then switched to A + V or A + B were included. The efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and coronary revascularization), hemorrhagic stroke, and heart failure. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between outcomes and different treatments. RESULTS: Overall, 4311 patients in A + B group and 10980 patients in A + V group were included. After a mean follow-up of 4.34 ± 1.79 years, the efficacy outcomes were similar between the A + V and A + B groups regarding all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.18), ASCVD event (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.12), and heart failure (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87-1.30). The risk of hemorrhagic stroke was lower in A + B group (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94). The result was similar when taking death into consideration in competing risk analysis. The safety outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference of all-cause death, ASCVD event, and heart failure in A + B vs. A + V users. But A + B users had a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Pharmacokinetics of a Fixed-Dose Combination Product of Amlodipine, Losartan, Ezetimibe, and Rosuvastatin and Its Comparison with Co-administration of Four Individual Components in Healthy Participants.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess and compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination product (FDCP) comprising four different drugs (two antihypertensive drugs, amlodipine and losartan, and two lipid-lowering agents, ezetimibe and rosuvastatin) with their separate tablets. METHODS: A total of 60 participants were enrolled in this open-label, randomized, single-dose crossover study. Each participant received a single dose of FDCP and individual tablets during each period, with a 14-day washout period between the periods. The pharmacokinetic parameters of amlodipine, losartan, EXP3174 (an active metabolite of losartan), rosuvastatin, free ezetimibe, and total ezetimibe were evaluated and compared. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic profiles of amlodipine, losartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe after administration of the individual products were similar to those of FDCP. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC) of FDCP to individual tablets were within 0.8-1.25 for all six analytes. No clinically relevant changes were observed in the vital signs or physical, biochemical, hematological, electrocardiographic, or urinalysis findings during the study, and no serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that a newly developed FDCP containing amlodipine, losartan, ezetimibe, and rosuvastatin exhibited pharmacokinetic equivalence with the individual products and met the regulatory criteria. Both formulations were well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial (NCT04322266) was retrospectively registered on 9 September 2019.

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).

Efficacy and safety of a single-pill versus free combination of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in Chinese patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: In China, the prevalence of hypertension is high and the use of combination antihypertensive therapy is low, which contributes to inadequate blood pressure (BP) control. The availability of simplified treatments combining complementary BP-lowering agents may help more patients achieve their goals. METHODS: This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study included Chinese adults with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Following a 1-month run-in on perindopril/indapamide bi-therapy, patients with uncontrolled systolic/diastolic BP (≥140/90 mmHg) were randomized to perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind/Aml) single-pill combination (SPC) or perindopril 4 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind + Aml) for 6 months. Uptitration was permitted from month 2 onwards. The primary efficacy objective was the noninferiority of Per/Ind/Aml in lowering office systolic BP at 2 months. The secondary objectives included the effectiveness of SPC on diastolic BP, uptitration efficacy, and office BP control (systolic/diastolic <140/90 mmHg). A subgroup of patients participated in 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: A total of 532 patients were randomized: Per/Ind/Aml ( n  = 262) and Per/Ind + Aml ( n  = 269). Overall, the mean (±SD) age was 55.7 ±â€Š8.8 years, 60.7% were male, and the mean office systolic/diastolic BP at baseline on Per/Ind was 150.4/97.2 mmHg. Systolic BP decreased in both groups at 2 months from baseline: -14.99 ±â€Š14.46 mmHg Per/Ind/Aml versus -14.49 ±â€Š12.87 mmHg Per/Ind +Aml. A predefined noninferiority margin of 4 mmHg was observed ( P  < 0.001). The effectiveness of the Per/Ind/Aml SPC was also demonstrated for all secondary endpoints. ABPM demonstrated sustained BP control over 24 h. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Per/Ind/Aml is an effective substitute for Per/Ind + Aml, providing at least equivalent BP control over 24 h in a single pill, with comparable safety.

Acute quadruple extremity compartment syndrome due to angio-oedema after polypharmacy overdose including olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin.

This case report describes a rare manifestation of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) involving all four extremities, precipitated by angio-oedema in a middle-aged woman who consumed an overdose of multiple medications: nifedipine, azelnidipine, amlodipine besylate, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, esaxerenone and vildagliptin. She presented with haemodynamic instability, necessitating intubation. Despite stabilising haemodynamic parameters within 24 hours, she manifested escalating extremity oedema. At 52 hours after ingestion, mottled skin was observed, along with necrotic alterations in the swollen hands and compartment pressures exceeding 30 mm Hg in all extremities. ACS was diagnosed, leading to fasciotomies. The aetiology is postulated to be drug-induced angio-oedema, possibly intensified by the concurrent overdose of olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan and vildagliptin, each of which has a risk of angio-oedema even at standard dosages. This scenario is a very rare case caused by drug-induced angio-oedema, which underscores the importance of vigilant monitoring to detect ACS in patients with progressing limb oedema.

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

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease, and treatment with fixed-dose combination (FDC) regimens is recommended by current guidelines. However, the clinical outcomes of different FDC dosages remain unknown. This study aimed to examine the clinical outcomes of FDC regimens and the free combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin at different dosages. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with concurrent hypertension and hypercholesterolemia treated daily with an FDC of 5 mg amlodipine and 10 mg atorvastatin (5/10 fixed group), and FDC of 5 mg amlodipine and 20 mg atorvastatin (5/20 fixed group), or free combination of 5 mg amlodipine and 20 mg atorvastatin (5/20 free group) were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. The primary outcome was the composite cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary intervention. A total of 9095 patients were eligible for inclusion. The incidence of primary outcome per 1000 person-years was 16.6 in the 5/10 fixed group, 12.6 in the 5/20 fixed group, and 16.5 in the 5/20 free group (5/20 fixed versus 5/20 free: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.64-0.91]; 5/20 fixed versus 5/10 fixed: HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.63-0.90]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with concomitant hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, treatment with an FDC of amlodipine and high-dose atorvastatin led to a lower risk of a composite of cardiovascular outcomes than treatment with the free combination or a similar FDC with a lower dose of atorvastatin.

Efficacy and safety of a four-drug, quarter-dose treatment for hypertension: the QUARTET USA randomized trial.

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 (n = 32 intervention, n = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (-4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: -10.8, 1.3, p = 0.123] and a -4.9 mmHg (95% CI: -8.6, -1.3, p = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312.

S-amlodipine induces liver inflammation and dysfunction through the alteration of intestinal microbiome in a rat model.

S-amlodipine, a commonly prescribed antihypertensive agent, is widely used in clinical settings to treat hypertension. However, the potential adverse effects of long-term S-amlodipine treatment on the liver remain uncertain, given the cautionary recommendations from clinicians regarding its administration in individuals with impaired liver function. To address this, we conducted a study using an eight-week-old male rat model and administered a daily dose of 0.6 ~ 5 mg/kg of S-amlodipine for 7 weeks. Our findings demonstrated that 1.2 ~ 5 mg/kg of S-amlodipine treatment induced liver inflammation and associated dysfunction in rats, further in vitro experiments revealed that the observed liver inflammation and dysfunction were not attributable to direct effects of S-amlodipine on the liver. Metagenome sequencing analysis revealed that S-amlodipine treatment led to alterations in the gut microbiome of rats, with the bloom of E. coli (4.5 ~ 6.6-fold increase) and a decrease in A. muciniphila (1,613.4 ~ 2,000-fold decrease) and B. uniformis (20.6 ~ 202.7-fold decrease), subsequently causing an increase in the gut bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) content (1.4 ~ 1.5-fold increase in feces). S-amlodipine treatment also induced damage to the intestinal barrier and increased intestinal permeability, as confirmed by elevated levels of fecal albumin; furthermore, the flux of gut bacterial LPS into the bloodstream through the portal vein resulted in an increase in serum LPS content (3.3 ~ 4-fold increase). LPS induces liver inflammation and subsequent dysfunction in rats by activating the TLR4 pathway. This study is the first to show that S-amlodipine induces liver inflammation and dysfunction by perturbing the rat gut microbiome. These results indicate the adverse effects of S-amlodipine on the liver and provide a rich understanding of the safety of long-term S-amlodipine administration.

Safety and efficacy of candesartan versus valsartan combined with amlodipine on peripheral and central blood pressure.

INTRODUCTION: "Amlodipine/valsartan" or "amlodipine/candesartan" combinations represent two effective antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action. Nevertheless, a study has yet to be done to evaluate the effect of amlodipine/candesartan on central blood pressure and compare it with amlodipine/valsartan combination. To see how "amlodipine plus candesartan combination" reduces peripheral and central blood pressure compared to the most studied combination, "amlodipine plus valsartan". MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-six patients were randomized in an open-label, prospective study by 1:1 ratio to two groups. Group I (n=42) received the amlodipine and valsartan combination, and group II (n=44) received the amlodipine and candesartan combination. Peripheral and central blood pressure (CBP) was measured at baseline, at 6 and 12 weeks of follow-up. DISCUSSION: Both treatment groups reduced peripheral systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure. There was no significant difference between and within both groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed more reduction in peripheral systolic blood pressure (PSBP) after 12 weeks of treatment (p=<0.001). Both groups decreased CBP without significant differences between groups. The amlodipine/candesartan combination showed additional efficacy in decreasing CSBP after 12 weeks (p=<0.001). The two treatment groups did not exert significant efficacy in lowering heart rate (HR) and augmentation index% (AIx%). CONCLUSION: To conclude, the amlodipine 10mg/candesartan 16mg combination was non-inferior to the amlodipine 10mg/valsartan 160mg combination in terms of reducing peripheral and CBP over time.

Initial treatment with a single capsule containing half-dose quadruple therapy versus standard-dose dual therapy in hypertensive patients (QUADUAL): statistical analysis plan 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. METHODS/DESIGN: 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 mmHg). Ninety patients are required and will be recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two 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. Antihypertensive effects and related adverse effects of the two antihypertensive combination treatments will be compared. The primary outcome, i.e., mean 24-h systolic blood pressure in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, will be assessed via linear mixed-effects model. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan will be confirmed prior to blind review and data lock before un-blinding and is sought to increase the validity of the QUADUAL trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05377203. Registered May 11, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05377203 .

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil-amlodipine besylate tablet in Chinese patients with essential hypertension: A prospective, single-arm, multi-center, real-world study.

There lacks real-world study with a large sample size assessing olmesartan medoxomil-amlodipine besylate (OM-AML) tablet. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OM-AML tablet in patients with essential hypertension. Totally, 1341 patients from 36 medical centers with essential hypertension who took OM-AML (20/5 mg) tablet were analyzed in the current prospective, single-arm, multi-center, real-world study (SVK study). Seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) and seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at baseline, week (W)4 and W8 were measured. The mean (±SE) change of SeSBP/SeDBP was -10.8 ± 0.4/-6.6 ± 0.3 mmHg at W4 and -12.7 ± 0.5/-7.6 ± 0.3 mmHg at W8, respectively. At W4, 78.8% and 29.0% patients achieved BP target by China and American Heart Association (AHA) criteria; at W8, 84.7% and 36.5% patients reached blood pressure (BP) target by China and AHA criteria, accordingly. Meanwhile, 80.2% and 86.4% patients achieved BP response at W4 and W8, respectively. Home-measured SeSBP and SeDBP decreased from W1 to W8 (both p < .001). Besides, patients' and physicians' satisfaction were elevated at W8 compared with W0 (both p < .001). The medication possession rate was 94.8% from baseline to W4 and 91.3% from baseline to W8. The most common drug-related adverse events were nervous system disorders (4.6%), vascular disorders (2.6%), and general disorders and administration site conditions (2.3%) by system organ class, which were generally mild and manageable. In conclusion, OM-AML tablet is one of the best antihypertensive agents in patients with essential hypertension.

Fall risk and cardiovascular outcomes of first-line antihypertensive medications in nursing home residents.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence exists about the comparative effects of first-line antihypertensive medications (i.e., renin-angiotensin-aldosterone converting enzyme inhibitors (RAASi), amlodipine, or thiazide diuretics) in older adults with limited life expectancy. We compared the rates of injurious falls and short-term cardiovascular events between different first-line antihypertensive medication classes in adults receiving care in nursing homes (NH). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries receiving care in NHs. Patients newly dispensed first-line antihypertensive medications were identified using Part D claims (2015-2018) and linked with clinical assessments (i.e., Minimum Data Set). Fall-related injuries (FRI), hip fractures, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) outcomes were identified using hospitalization claims. Patients were followed from the date of antihypertensive dispensing until the occurrence of outcomes, death, disenrollment, or 6-month follow-up. Inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted (IPTW) cause-specific hazards regression models were used to compare outcomes between patients who were new users of RAASi, amlodipine, or thiazides. RESULTS: Our cohort included 16,504 antihypertensive users (RAASi, n = 9574; amlodipine, n = 5049; thiazide, n = 1881). Mean age was 83.5 years (± 8.2), 70.6% were female, and 17.2% were non-white race. During a mean follow-up of 5.3 months, 326 patients (2.0%) experienced an injurious fall, 1590 (9.6%) experienced MACE, and 2123 patients (12.9%) died. The intention-to-treat IPTW hazard ratio (HR) for injurious falls for amlodipine (vs RAASi) use was 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-1.08) and for thiazides (vs RAASi) was 1.22 (95% CI 0.88-1.66). The rates of MACE were similar between those taking anti-hypertensive medications. Thiazides were discontinued more often than other classes; however, inferences were largely unchanged in as-treated analyses. Subgroup analyses were generally consistent. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with limited life expectancy experience similar rates of injurious falls and short-term cardiovascular events after initiating any of the first-line antihypertensive medications.

Calcium channel blockers for preventing cardiomyopathy due to iron overload in people with transfusion-dependent beta thalassaemia.

BACKGROUND: Beta-thalassaemia is an inherited blood disorder that reduces the production of haemoglobin. The most severe form requires recurrent blood transfusions, which can lead to iron overload. Cardiovascular dysfunction caused by iron overload is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in people with transfusion-dependent beta-thalassaemia. Iron chelation therapy has reduced the severity of systemic iron overload, but removal of iron from the myocardium requires a very proactive preventive strategy. There is evidence that calcium channel blockers may reduce myocardial iron deposition. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of calcium channel blockers plus standard iron chelation therapy, compared with standard iron chelation therapy (alone or with a placebo), on cardiomyopathy due to iron overload in people with transfusion-dependent beta thalassaemia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books, to 13 January 2022. We also searched ongoing trials databases and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of calcium channel blockers combined with standard chelation therapy versus standard chelation therapy alone or combined with placebo in people with transfusion-dependent beta thalassaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (five parallel-group trials and one cross-over trial) with 253 participants; there were 126 participants in the amlodipine arms and 127 in the control arms. The certainty of the evidence was low for most outcomes at 12 months; the evidence for liver iron concentration was of moderate certainty, and the evidence for adverse events was of very low certainty. Amlodipine plus standard iron chelation compared with standard iron chelation (alone or with placebo) may have little or no effect on cardiac T2* values at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 1.30 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.53 to 3.14; 4 trials, 191 participants; low-certainty evidence) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 12 months (MD 0.81%, 95% CI -0.92% to 2.54%; 3 trials, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence). Amlodipine plus standard iron chelation compared with standard iron chelation (alone or with placebo) may reduce myocardial iron concentration (MIC) after 12 months (MD -0.27 mg/g, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.08; 3 trials, 138 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results of our analysis suggest that amlodipine has little or no effect on heart T2*, MIC, or LVEF after six months, but the evidence is very uncertain. Amlodipine plus standard iron chelation compared with standard iron chelation (alone or with placebo) may increase liver T2* values after 12 months (MD 1.48 ms, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.69; 3 trials, 127 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may have little or no effect on serum ferritin at 12 months (MD 0.07 µg/mL, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.35; 4 trials, 187 participants; low-certainty evidence), and probably has little or no effect on liver iron concentration (LIC) after 12 months (MD -0.86 mg/g, 95% CI -4.39 to 2.66; 2 trials, 123 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The results of our analysis suggest that amlodipine has little or no effect on serum ferritin, liver T2* values, or LIC after six months, but the evidence is very uncertain. The included trials did not report any serious adverse events at six or 12 months of intervention. The studies did report mild adverse effects such as oedema, dizziness, mild cutaneous allergy, joint swelling, and mild gastrointestinal symptoms. Amlodipine may be associated with a higher risk of oedema (risk ratio (RR) 5.54, 95% CI 1.24 to 24.76; 4 trials, 167 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found no difference between the groups in the occurrence of other adverse events, but the evidence was very uncertain. No trials reported mortality, cardiac function assessments other than echocardiographic estimation of LVEF, electrocardiographic abnormalities, quality of life, compliance with treatment, or cost of interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that calcium channel blockers may reduce MIC and may increase liver T2* values in people with transfusion-dependent beta thalassaemia. Longer-term multicentre RCTs are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of calcium channel blockers for myocardial iron overload, especially in younger children. Future trials should also investigate the role of baseline MIC in the response to calcium channel blockers, and include a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Efficacy and Safety of Azelnidipine as an Antihypertensive Compared to Amlodipine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Azelnidipine is one of the newer Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) approved in China, Japan, and India. Some studies have found that the blood pressure-lowering effect of azelnidipine is more than amlodipine, and others found the effect similar. AIM: This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of azelnidipine in managing hypertensive patients by lowering Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), and Heart Rate (HR) as compared to amlodipine. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, PROQUEST, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for published articles to evaluate the clinical efficacy of azelnidipine in the management of hypertension patients. Data were extracted from the selected 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for the quality assessment of the included studies, and the random-effects model was used to estimate the effect size. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in the reduction of SBP (Mean Difference, MD: - 1.07; 95% CI: - 4.10, 1.95, p-value: 0.49) and DBP (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: - 2.66, 3.20, p-value: 0.86) between both the drugs. In terms of HR reduction, there was a statistically significant difference (MD: - 3.63; 95% CI: - 5.27, - 2.00, p-value: < 0.0001) between both drugs. Egger's test excluded any publication bias for the included studies (p = 0.21). Meta-regression excluded the effect of the duration of treatment on outcome parameters. CONCLUSION: Though no significant difference between azelnidipine and amlodipine was found, in terms of reduction in SBP and DBP, azelnidipine reduced heart rate significantly compared to amlodipine. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023390361.

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

INTRODUCTION: Patients with hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors pose a challenge by requiring more intensive blood pressure (BP) control. Single-pill combination (SPC) therapy can benefit these patients by improving medication adherence. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter observational study assessed the real-world safety and effectiveness of an SPC containing olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide (O/A/H) in South Korean patients with hypertension and cardiovascular risk factors. BP control rates, defined as the percentage of patients achieving systolic BP (SBP) < 130 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) < 80 mmHg for intensive BP control, and < 140 mmHg and < 90 mmHg, respectively, for standard BP control, were investigated across various cardiovascular risk groups, along with changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: The most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor was age (≥ 45 years in men, ≥ 55 years in women, 86.1%), followed by cardiovascular diseases (64.4%), dyslipidemia (53.7%), body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2 (53.5%), and diabetes mellitus (DM) (46.3%). Switching to O/A/H showed significant BP reduction, with a mean change of - 17.8 mmHg/- 9.3 mmHg in SBP/DBP within 4 weeks. The intensive BP control rate was 41.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 39.5, 43.4), and the standard BP control rate was 73.3% (95% CI 71.5, 75.1), with better control rates in the risk age group (43.1% and 74.1%, respectively) and cardiovascular disease group (42.0% and 73.8%, respectively). The DM group had relatively lower control rates (37.5% for intensive control and 69.4% for standard control). Common adverse drug reactions included dizziness (2.91%), hypotension (1.51%), and headaches (0.70%). CONCLUSION: The SPC therapy of O/A/H caused a rapid and sustained reduction in SBP/DBP in patients' hypertension and additional cardiovascular risk factors. The therapy was safe and well tolerated. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: KCT0003401 ( https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do/20795 ).

Improvement in hemodynamics of amlodipine besylate combined with metoprolol in patients with hypertension complicated by heart failure.

To observe the effect of amlodipine besylate combined with metoprolol in treating hypertension and heart failure. Total number of patients with hypertension combined with HF admitted to our hospital was One hundred and fifty from May 2017 to May 2022 selected for the study and they were distributed into single drug group and combination group by the method of random number table, with the total number of 75 cases in every group. Metoprolol treatment was given to the single drug group and metoprolol combined with amlodipine besylate treatment was given to the combination group. Both groups' scientific outcomes were compared, including their ventricular function, inflammatory factors, hemodynamics and liver and kidney function. Adverse treatment-related side events for patients were also tallied. Compared to the single drug group, the combination group's overall treatment effectiveness was higher (P<0.05). The combined group had better ventricular function, improved hemodynamics and lower levels of inflammatory factors (P<0.05). The liver, kidney function and adverse effects outcomes were the same in both groups (P>0.05). Amlodipine besylate combined with metoprolol has a better clinical effect in treating hypertension combined with heart failure, which can more effectively improve patients' cardiac function, inflammation and hemodynamics.

Efficacy and safety of standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg in primary hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter phase 3 trial.

The authors evaluated the efficacy, safety, and characteristics of patients who respond well to standard dose triple combination therapy including chlorthalidone 25 mg with telmisartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg in hypertensive patients. This is a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3, randomized trial. Patients are randomized to triple combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 12.5 mg, TEL/AML/CHTD group) or dual combination (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, TEL/AML group) treatment and then dose up titration to TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg and TEL80/AML5, respectively. The primary endpoint is the change of mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) at week 8. A Target BP achievement rate, a response rate, and the safety endpoints are also evaluated. Total 374 patients (mean age = 60.9 ± 10.7 years, male = 78.3%) were randomized to the study. The baseline MSSBPs/diastolic BPs were 149.9 ± 12.2/88.5 ± 10.4 mm Hg. After 8 weeks treatment, the change of MSSBPs at week 8 are -19.1 ± 14.9 mm Hg (TEL/AML/CHTD) and -11.4 ± 14.7 mm Hg (TEL/AML) (p < .0001). The achievement rates of target BP (53.8% vs. 37.8%, p = .0017) and responder rate (54.8% vs. 35.6%, p = .0001) at week 8 were significantly higher in TEL/AML/CHTD. There are no serious adverse event and no one discontinued medication due to adverse event. Among the TEL 80/AML5/CHTD25mg treatment group, patients of female or age ≥ 65 years old showed higher rate of target BP achievement than relatively young male. (61.4 vs. 46.8%, p = .042) Our study showed standard dose triple combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/chlorthalidone 25 mg is efficacious and safe in treatment of primary hypertension. Target BP achievement with triple therapy would be facilitated in female or old age.