Randomised controlled decentralised feasibility trial of a fixed low-dose combination antihypertensive drug strategy to attenuate cognitive decline in high-risk adults.

OBJECTIVES: The Action To promote brain HEalth iN Adults study aimed to determine the feasibility and applicability of recruitment using home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, routine blood biochemistry and videoconference measures of cognition, in adults at high risk of dementia. DESIGN: A decentralised double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised feasibility trial with a four-stage screening process. SETTING: Conducted with participants online in the state of New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 50-70 years with moderately elevated BP (systolic >120 and <160 mm Hg or diastolic >80 and <95 mm Hg) and ≥1 additional enrichment risk factor of monotherapy treatment of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, obesity, current smoking or a first degree relative with dementia, which indicated an elevated risk for future cognitive decline. INTERVENTION: Triple Pill (active antihypertensive treatment of telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg and indapamide 1.25 mg) or placebo Triple Pill (blinded study capsules). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was feasibility of the study expressed as the percentage of participants randomised from those who were screened. Secondary outcomes were the applicability of videoconference measures of cognition and the overall trial, tolerability of the Triple Pill, safety outcomes and medication adherence. RESULTS: The proportion (95% CI) of patients randomised to those screened was 5% (2%-10%). The applicability of the trial expressed as percentage of those who completed all remote assessments over the number of randomised participants was 67% (95% CI 05 to 22%). There were no serious adverse events or withdrawals from treatment. All participants adhered to study medication, except for one person who had two capsules left at the end of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of this decentralised trial on BP lowering in patients at high risk for dementia is low. However, the applicability of remote assessments of cognitive function is acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000121864.

Topical amlodipine-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles for enhanced burn wound healing: A repurposed approach.

Burn wounds are a complicated process with ongoing psychological and physical issues for the affected individuals. Wound healing consists of multifactorial molecular mechanisms and interactions involving; inflammation, proliferation, angiogenesis, and matrix remodeling. Amlodipine (ADB), widely used in cardiovascular disorders, demonstrated antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects in some non-cardiovascular studies. It was reported that amlodipine is capable of promoting the healing process by regulation of collagen production, extracellular matrix, re-epithelialization and wound healing through its vasodilation and angiogenic activity. The objective of the current study is to appraise the wound healing capacity of amlodipine-loaded SLN (ADB-SLN) integrated into a hydrogel. The in-vitro characterization revealed that the optimized formulation was nanometric (190.4 ± 1.6 nm) with sufficiently high entrapment efficiency (88 % ± 1.4) and sustained ADB release (85.45 ± 4.45 % after 12 h). Furthermore, in-vivo evaluation was conducted on second-degree burns induced in male Sprague-Dawley rats. ADB-SLN gel revealed a high wound contraction rate and a significant improvement in skin regeneration and inflammatory biomarkers levels, confirming its efficiency in enhancing wound healing compared to other tested and commercial formulations. To conclude, the present findings proved that ADB-SLN integrated hydrogel offers a promising novel therapy for burn wound healing with a maximum therapeutic value.

Amlodipine Ocular Delivery Restores Ferning Patterns and Reduces Intensity of Glycosylated Peak of Carrageenan-Induced Tear Fluid: An In-Silico Flexible Docking with IL-ß1.

BACKGROUND: The tear ferning test can be an easy clinical procedure for the evaluation and characterization of the ocular tear film. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the restoration of tear ferning patterns and reduction of glycosylation peak after amlodipine application in carrageenan-induced conjunctivitis. METHODS: At the rabbit's upper palpebral region, carrageenan was injected for cytokine-mediated conjunctivitis. Ferning pattern and glycosylation of the tear fluid were characterized using various instrumental analyses. The effect of amlodipine was also examined after ocular instillation and flexible docking studies. RESULTS: Optical microscopy showed a disrupted ferning of the tear collected from the inflamed eye. FTIR of the induced tear fluid exhibited peaks within 1000-1200 cm-1, which might be due to the protein glycosylation absent in the normal tear spectrogram. The glycosylation peak reduced significantly in the tear sample collected from the amlodipine-treated group. Corresponding energy dispersive analysis showed the presence of sulphur, indicating protein leakage from the lacrimal gland in the induced group. The disappearance of sulphur from the treated group indicated its remedial effect. The flexible docking studies revealed a stronger binding mode of amlodipine with Interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß). The reduction in the intensity of the glycosylated peak and the restoration offering are probably due to suppression of IL-1ß. CONCLUSION: This study may be helpful in obtaining primary information for drug discovery to be effective against IL-1ß and proving tear fluid as a novel diagnostic biomarker.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between the Fixed-Dose Combination of Ezetimibe/Rosuvastatin 10/20 Mg and the Fixed-Dose Combination of Telmisartan/Amlodipine 80/5 Mg in Healthy Subjects.

Background: Management of hypertension and hyperlipidemia, which are common comorbid risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, require multiple medications. The development of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing ezetimibe, rosuvastatin, telmisartan, and amlodipine aims to enhance patient adherence and persistence, but the potential interactions among the four medications have not been studied. This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between the FDC of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg (ER) and the FDC of telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg (TA). Methods: An open-label, single-sequence, three-period, three-treatment crossover study was conducted in healthy male subjects. All subjects received ER for 7 days, TA for 9 days and ER combined with TA for 7 days during each treatment period. For PK analysis of total/free ezetimibe, rosuvastatin, telmisartan, and amlodipine, serial blood samples were collected for 24 hours at steady state. Safety profiles were assessed throughout the study. Results: Thirty-eight subjects were enrolled, and 34 subjects completed the study. The systemic exposure to each active ingredient after coadministration of the two FDCs was similar to that after each FDC alone. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for the maximum plasma concentration (µg/L) and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (h·µg/L) of the combination therapy to monotherapy, assessed at steady state, were as follows: total ezetimibe, 1.0264 (0.8765-1.2017) and 0.9359 (0.7847-1.1163); free ezetimibe, 1.5713 (1.2821-1.9257) and 0.9941 (0.8384-1.1788); rosuvastatin, 2.1673 (1.7807-2.6379) and 1.1714 (0.9992-1.3733); telmisartan, 1.0745 (0.8139-1.4186) and 1.1057 (0.8379-1.4591); and amlodipine, 0.9421 (0.8764-1.0126) and 0.9603 (0.8862-1.0405). Both combination therapy and monotherapy were well tolerated by the subjects. Conclusion: The coadministration of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg and ezetimibe/rosuvastatin 10/20 mg was well tolerated in healthy subjects, and the PK interaction between those two FDCs was not clinically significant.

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.

[Modern Fixed Combinations in the Correction of Arterial Hypertension and Dyslipidemia].

Based on a clinical case report, the article shows the individual selection of effective therapy for a patient with arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia. Taking into account the risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, Equamer® was selected as a fixed combination of amlodipine + lisinopril + rosuvastatin capsules 10 mg+20 mg+10 mg (Gedeon Richter Plc, Budapest, Hungary). In the patient with hypertension, ischemic heart disease was verified, and stenting of the anterior descending artery was performed. According to the clinical guidelines, when arterial hypertension is associated with ischemic heart disease, the drug therapy of choice should be a combination of dihydropyridine slow calcium channel blockers with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. The fixed triple combination of amlodipine, lisinopril, and rosuvastatin is one of the most appropriate in this clinical situation; this combination targets the two major risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, arterial hypertension and dyslipidemia.

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).

Pharmacokinetic Comparison of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Candesartan Cilexetil/Amlodipine/Atorvastatin Versus Co-administration of Individual Formulations in Healthy Participants.

INTRODUCTION: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of angiotensin II receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, and statins are conventional therapeutic interventions prescribed for cardiovascular diseases. This study aimed at drawing a comparison between the pharmacokinetics and safety of an FDC and the corresponding individual formulations in healthy subjects. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, three-sequence, three-period, partially repeated crossover study was conducted with a cohort of healthy volunteers. A 14-day washout period was maintained between each of the three periods. In this study, candesartan cilexetil, amlodipine, and atorvastatin was administered orally as FDCs of 16/10/40 mg in study 1 and 16/5/20 mg in study 2. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) of candesartan, amlodipine, and atorvastatin were estimated as the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the FDC to individual formulations. If the within-subject coefficient of variation (CVwr) of Cmax was greater than 0.3, the bioequivalence (BE) range calculated using the reference-scaled average bioequivalence was used to assess whether the 90% CI was within the BE range. RESULTS: The GMRs (90% CIs) for the AUClast for candesartan and amlodipine were 0.9612 (0.9158-1.0089)/0.9965 (0.9550-1.0397) and 1.0033 (0.9800-1.0271)/1.0067 (0.9798-1.0344), and the GMRs (90% CIs) for Cmax were 0.9600 (0.8953-1.0294)/0.9851 (0.9368-1.0359) and 1.0198 (0.9950-1.0453)/1.0003 (0.9694-1.0321) in studies 1 and 2, respectively. The extended BE ranges calculated from the CVwr of the Cmax of atorvastatin were 0.7814-1.2797 and 0.7415-1.3485, respectively. The GMRs (90% CIs) for the AUClast of atorvastatin were 1.0532 (1.0082-1.1003)/1.0252 (0.9841-1.0680), and the GMRs (90% CIs) for Cmax were 1.0630 (0.9418-1.1997)/0.9888 (0.8792-1.1120) in studies 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: The Cmax and AUClast values of candesartan cilexetil/amlodipine/atorvastatin 16/10/40 mg and 16/5/20 mg, respectively, were within the BE ranges. There were no clinically significant differences in safety between the two formulations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, study 1: NCT04478097; study 2: NCT04627207.

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 impact of sinkers on coning issues exhibited by tablets in USP2 dissolution apparatus.

The objective of this research is to explore the impact of sinkers on the dissolution rate of tablets exhibiting coning in paddle dissolution tests. The ICH M9 guideline refers to the use of sinkers to mitigate coning issues. However, the effectiveness of sinkers on coning phenomena has not been comprehensively investigated. Therefore, this study evaluated whether applying sinkers of different shapes could alleviate coning problems. The dissolution profiles of amlodipine tablet formulations which had been clinically demonstrated to be bioequivalent were assessed in a USP2 Apparatus with and without sinkers. Moreover, the effects of artificially induced coning formed by adding cellulose particles of various sizes on dissolution profiles, and the impacts of sinkers on the dissolution delay caused by the cellulose particles were investigated. Our study suggested that the CLIPS sinker was effective in obtaining in vivo relevant dissolution profiles by facilitating the dispersion of coning. The effect of sinkers varied depending on their shapes and the characteristics of the particles that constituted the coning. These findings enhance our understanding of the effectiveness of sinkers in addressing coning issues and aid in predicting the in vivo dissolution performance of tablet formulations that exhibit coning during dissolution testing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is the context?Arterial hypertension (HTN) represents the main risk factor for cause of death from cardiovascular disease (CV). Adequate control of hypertension reduces CV risk and significantly prevents CV events and associated morbidity and mortality. This requires patients' adherence and persistence in implemented treatment and the achievement of tension targets that are related to the reduction of CV risk. The latest international recommendations indicate that hypertension control is insufficient in most countries. In Portugal, hypertension control is <43% and a significant number of patients treated do not comply with the recommendations.What is new?In a prospective, interventional, and multicentre study, carried out by General Practitioners (GPs) in Primary Health Care Units across Portugal, the objective was to determine (i) whether the presence of uncontrolled hypertension results from non-compliance with the provisions of the recommendations and the Integrated Care Process (PAI) of the Direção Geral de Saúde (DGS), i.e. inappropriate use of monotherapies or inadequate low doses of combinations of antihypertensives, and (ii) whether the adjustment of hypertension therapies, favouring the schemes provided in the recommendations, allows adequate control of arterial hypertension, in previously uncontrolled patients, when these are closely monitored in a 12-week time period.What is the impact?When the guidelines' therapeutic protocol is followed, as established for each identified group of patients (monotherapy, hydrochlorothiazide, and no medication), results indicate a marked and statistically significant improvements in both SBP and DBP values and hypertension control across time.

Ambulatory blood pressure after 12 weeks of quadruple combination of quarter doses of blood pressure medication vs. standard medication.

BACKGROUND: A combination of four ultra-low-dose blood pressure (BP) medications lowered office BP more effectively than initial monotherapy in the QUARTET trial. The effects on average ambulatory BP changes at 12 weeks have not yet been reported in detail. METHODS: Adults with hypertension who were untreated or on monotherapy were eligible for participation. Overall, 591 participants were randomized to either the quadpill (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). The difference in 24-h, daytime, and night-time systolic and diastolic ambulatory BP at 12 weeks along further metrics were predefined secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 576 participants, 289 were randomized to the quadpill group and 287 to the monotherapy group. At 12 weeks, mean 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP were 7.7 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 9.6-5.8] and 5.3 (95% CI: 6.5-4.1) mmHg lower in the quadpill vs. monotherapy group ( P  < 0.001 for both). Similar reductions in the quadpill group were observed for daytime (8.1/5.7 mmHg lower) and night-time (6.3/4.0 mmHg lower) BP at 12 weeks (all P  < 0.001) compared to monotherapy. The rate of BP control (24-h average BP < 130/80 mmHg) at 12 weeks was higher in the quadpill group (77 vs. 50%; P  < 0.001). The reduction in BP load was also more pronounced with the quadpill. CONCLUSION: A quadruple quarter-dose combination compared with monotherapy resulted in greater ambulatory BP lowering across the entire 24-h period with higher ambulatory BP control rates and reduced BP variability at 12 weeks. These findings further substantiate the efficacy of an ultra-low-dose quadpill-based BP lowering strategy.

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.

The effects of Olmesartan/amlodipine administered in the Morning or At Night on nocturnal blood pressure reduction in Chinese patients with mild-moderate essential hypertension (OMAN Trial): study protocol for a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial {1}.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Uncontrolled nocturnal blood pressure is prevalent in patients taking antihypertensive medication, with an incidence rate of 30-60%. Although chronotherapy with antihypertensive agents may provide a new direction for effective control of nocturnal blood pressure, the clinical evidence base remains controversial. This research is presently underway to compare the effects of morning and bedtime administration of antihypertensive medication on nocturnal reduction and circadian rhythm of blood pressure in patients with hypertension. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is being performed as a randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, clinical trial in which 720 participants are to undergo 24-h ambulatory blood pressure measurement (ABPM) and office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) at baseline before being randomly assigned to a morning (6-10 am) or a bedtime (6-10 pm) administration group. Each participant receives one 20/5-mg tablet of olmesartan/amlodipine (OA) daily for 4 weeks and is then followed up at 4-week intervals for a total of 12 weeks. During follow-up, the OA dosage is adjusted according to the ABPM and OBPM results. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension at the first follow-up visit will receive an increase in OA dosage to 1.5 tablets/day. For patients with blood pressure that is still uncontrolled after a further 4 weeks, the dosage of OA can be increased to 2 tablets/day. The primary objective is the reduction in mean nocturnal systolic blood pressure between baseline and week 12. The secondary objectives are the reduction in ambulatory blood pressure at weeks 4 and 12 and the blood pressure control rate at weeks 4, 8, and 12. DISCUSSION: Antihypertensive chronotherapy remains controversial. A superiority test hypothesis design has been adopted for this trial, in which all participants will be taking the same antihypertensive medication. We anticipate that our findings will determine if nocturnal blood pressure control in Chinese patients with essential hypertension varies according to whether antihypertensive medication is taken in the morning or at bedtime. This study may provide scientific evidence for the application of chronotherapy in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2200059719. Registered on 10 May 2022 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=169782&htm=4 ) {2a,2b}.

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.

Molding as Innovative Technology for Personalized Tablet Production.

The future of dosage form design is expected to move towards the production of personalized dosage forms tailored to each patient. The 3D printer was introduced to solve that problem but is not easy to use in a pharmacy. Herein, a new 3D mold technology is adopted for tablet manufacturing. Preparation of amlodipine tablets was used as a Biopharmaceutics Classification System Class 1 drug model to study this technology. Different concentrations of either starch or Avicel-based formulations and different concentrations of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as a binder for mass formation were used. The mass formed for each formula was cast into the mold for tablet preparation. Different non-pharmacopeial and pharmacopeial quality-control tests of the prepared tablets by using the 3D mold were compared to a marketed tablet product of amlodipine. 3D-molded tablets showed compliance properties with the tablet pharmacopeial quality standard. Studying the equivalence of the 3D mold tablets to the brand marketed product under biowaiver conditions was carried out. The difference and similarity factors studies of molded tablets prepared using starch or Avicel as a filler and 2.5% of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose showed acceptable characters to the drug brand name. It is predicted that by using this simple technique, it would be possible to produce tablets with designed disintegration and release profiles, which could potentially allow the tailoring of the drug release and hence personalize the medicine for each patient.

Effects of individualized administration of folic acid on prothrombotic state and vascular endothelial function with H-type hypertension: A double-blinded, randomized clinical cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension and hyperhomocysteinemia (HHcy) have long been associated with adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular health outcomes. This study evaluated the effect of individualized administration of folic acid (FA) on homocysteine (Hcy) levels, prothrombotic state, and blood pressure (BP) in patients with H-type hypertension (combination of HHcy and hypertension). METHODS: In this double-blinded, randomized clinical cohort study, 126 patients with H-type hypertension who were treated at our hospital were randomly divided into treatment and control groups (n = 55 each). The control group was treated with oral levamlodipine besylate tablets 2.5 mg and placebo, once a day (in the morning). The treatment group was first treated with oral levamlodipine besylate 2.5 mg and FA tablets 0.8 mg, once a day (in the morning), for 12 weeks. Then, in a second 12-week phase, the FA dose was adjusted using the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase C677 polymorphism genotype. The levels of Hcy and coagulation factors, prothrombotic state parameters, BP, and adverse drug reactions were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Pretreatment general patient characteristics, including Hcy levels, were similar between the 2 groups (P > .05). BP and prothrombotic status did not differ before and after the first phase of treatment (P > .05). However, Hcy and endothelin-1 (ET-1) levels decreased, while nitric oxide levels increased significantly in the intervention group (P < .05). In the second phase, after 3 months' treatment with an FA dose adjusted according to methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase C677T genotype, the Hcy and ET-1/NO levels were significantly decreased in the intervention group and were lower than those after the first treatment phase and lower than in the control group (P < .01). BP, D-dimer levels, and fibrinogen scores were significantly lower after the second treatment phase (P < .01). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse drug reactions between the 2 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Individualized administration of FA tablets can effectively reduce BP, and Hcy and coagulation factor levels, and significantly improve prothrombotic status in patients with H-type hypertension.