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).

A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Quadruple Combination of Amlodipine, Losartan, Rosuvastatin, and Ezetimibe in Patients with Concomitant Essential Hypertension and Dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination (SPC) consisting of four medications in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose SPC consisting of 5 mg amlodipine, 100 mg losartan, 20 mg rosuvastatin, and 10 mg ezetimibe (A/L/R/E) in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. METHODS: This was a 14-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial. In total, 145 patients were randomized to receive A/L/R/E, A/L, or L/R/E. The primary endpoints were the average change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level in the A/L/R/E and A/L groups and the sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) in the A/L/R/E and L/R/E groups. The numbers of patients with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were compared as safety variables. RESULTS: The average percentage change in the LDL-C level as the least squares mean (LSM) from the baseline LDL-C level at the end of the 8-week treatment was - 59.0% in the A/L/R/E group and 0.2% in the A/L group (LSM difference - 59.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 68.1 to - 50.4; p < 0.0001). The average change in the sitSBP as the LSM was - 15.8 mmHg in the A/L/R/E group and -4.7 mmHg in the L/R/E group (LSM difference - 11.1, 95% CI - 16.8 to - 5.4; p = 0.0002). No ADRs occurred in the A/L/R/E group. CONCLUSIONS: A/L/R/E as an SPC could be an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia without significant safety issues. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04074551 (registered 30 August 2019).

Comparison of efficacy and safety between third-dose triple and third-dose dual antihypertensive combination therapies in patients with hypertension.

We compared the efficacy and safety of third-standard-dose triple and third-standard-dose dual antihypertensive combination therapies in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This was a phase II multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 245 participants were randomized to the third-dose triple combination (ALC group; amlodipine 1.67 mg + losartan potassium 16.67 mg + chlorthalidone 4.17 mg) or third-dose dual combination (AL group; amlodipine 1.67 mg + losartan potassium 16.67 mg, LC group; losartan potassium 16.67 mg + chlorthalidone 4.17 mg, AC group; amlodipine 1.67 mg + chlorthalidone 4.17 mg) therapy groups and followed up for 8 weeks. The mean systolic blood pressure (BP) reduction was -18.3 ± 13.2, -13.0 ± 13.3, -16.3 ± 12.4, and -13.8 ± 13.2 mmHg in the ALC, AL, LC, and AC groups, respectively. The ALC group showed significant systolic BP reduction compared to the AL and AC groups at weeks 4 (P = .010 and P = .018, respectively) and 8 (P = .017 and P = .036, respectively). At week 4, the proportion of systolic BP responders was significantly higher in the ALC group (42.6%) than in the AL (22.0%), LC (23.3%), and AC (27.1%) groups (P = .013, P = .021, and P = .045, respectively). At week 8, the proportion of systolic and diastolic BP responders was significantly higher in the ALC group (59.7%) than in the AL (39.3%) and AC (42.4%) groups (P = .022 and P = .049, respectively) at week 8. Third-standard-dose triple antihypertensive combination therapy demonstrated early effective BP control compared to third-standard-dose dual combination therapies, without increasing adverse drug reactions in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Comparison of 3- to 6-Month Versus 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Intervention Using the Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents With Ultrathin Struts: The HOST-IDEA Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention using third-generation drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology. We investigated whether 3- to 6-month DAPT was noninferior to 12-month DAPT after implantation of drug-eluting stents with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized trial at 37 centers in South Korea. We enrolled patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention using the Orsiro biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents. Patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 3- to 6-month or 12-month DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention. The choice of antiplatelet medications was at the physician's discretion. The primary outcome was a net adverse clinical event, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, stent thrombosis, or major bleeding, defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 at 12 months. The major secondary outcomes were target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 2013 patients (mean age, 65.7±10.5 years; 1487 males [73.9%]; 1110 [55.1%] presented with acute coronary syndrome) were randomly assigned to 3- to 6-month DAPT (n=1002) or 12-month DAPT (n=1011). The primary outcome occurred in 37 (3.7%) patients in the 3- to 6-month DAPT group and 41 (4.1%) in the 12-month DAPT group. The noninferiority of the 3- to 6-month DAPT group to the 12-month DAPT group was met (absolute risk difference, -0.4% [1-sided 95% CI, -∞% to 1.1%]; P<0.001 for noninferiority). There were no significant differences in target lesion failure (hazard ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.56-1.71], P=0.94) or major bleeding (hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.41-1.61], P=0.56) between the 2 groups. Across various subgroups, the treatment effect of 3- to 6-month DAPT was consistent for net adverse clinical event. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention using third-generation drug-eluting stents, 3- to 6-month DAPT was noninferior to 12-month DAPT for net adverse clinical event. Further research is needed to generalize this finding to other populations and to determine the ideal regimen for 3- to 6-month DAPT. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02601157.

Effect of rosuvastatin 20 mg versus rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe on statin side-effects in elderly patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Rationale and design of a randomized, controlled SaveSAMS trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) use high-intensity statin therapy to lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels by at least 50%, irrespective of age. However, in real-world practice, there is reluctance to maintain statin use in response to side-effects, particularly statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Moreover, no randomized trial has been conducted on the safety of statin therapy in elderly patients. TRIAL DESIGN: This investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized clinical trial aimed to investigate the incidence of SAMS and its effect on LDL-cholesterol levels in elderly patients with established ASCVD. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older with established ASCVD. Consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either intensive statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg) or combination therapy (rosuvastatin/ezetimibe, 5/10 mg). The primary endpoint of the study is SAMS at 6 months with regard to treatment strategy. Positive SAMS results are defined as patients with a proposed statin myalgia index score of 7 or higher. The key secondary end-points are target LDL-cholesterol achievement (LDL < 70 mg/dL), incidence of myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, frequency of drug discontinuation, and creatinine kinase, aspartate transaminase, alanine transaminase, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglyceride, and highly sensitive C-reactive protein levels at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The SaveSAMS study is a multicenter, randomized trial that will compare the incidence of SAMS in patients with established ASCVD who are 70 years or older on intensive statin monotherapy to that combination therapy.

Prasugrel dose de-escalation in diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases-Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) randomized trial. The efficacy and safety of prasugrel dose de-escalation therapy (prasugrel 5 mg daily) were compared with conventional therapy (prasugrel 10 mg daily) in patients with DM. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) class ≥2 bleeding events. The secondary ischaemic outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, defined as the composite of cardiac death, non-fatal MI, ST, or ischaemic stroke. Of 2338 patients randomized, 990 had DM. The primary endpoint of NACE occurred in 38 patients (7.6%) receiving prasugrel dose de-escalation and in 53 patients (11.3%) receiving conventional therapy among patients with DM [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-0.99; P = 0.049]. Prasugrel dose de-escalation as compared with conventional therapy did not increase the risk of ischaemic events (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.56-1.88; P = 0.927) but decreased BARC class ≥2 bleeding in patients with DM (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.84; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Prasugrel dose de-escalation compared with conventional therapy may reduce the risk of net clinical outcomes, mostly driven by a reduction in bleeding without an increase in ischaemic events in patients with DM. Trial Registration: HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS, NCT02193971, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02193971.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Immediate-Release Versus SLOW-Release Carvedilol in Heart Failure Patient (SLOW-HF): a Prospective Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: Carvedilol demonstrated therapeutic benefits in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, it had a short half-life time mandating twice a day administration. We investigated whether slow-release carvedilol (carvedilol-SR) is non-inferior to standard immediate-release carvedilol (carvedilol-IR) in terms of clinical efficacy in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with HFrEF to receive carvedilol-SR once a day or carvedilol-IR twice a day. The primary endpoint was the change in N-terminal pro B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level from baseline to 6 months after randomization. The secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with NT-proBNP increment > 10% from baseline, mortality rate, readmission rate, changes in blood pressure, quality of life, and drug compliance. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were randomized and treated (median follow-up time, 173 days). In each group of patients taking carvedilol-SR and those taking carvedilol-IR, clinical characteristics were well balanced. No patient died during follow-up, and there was no significant difference in the change of NT-proBNP level between two groups (-107.4 [-440.2-70.3] pg/mL vs. -91.2 [-504.1-37.4] pg/mL, p = 0.101). Change of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, control rate and response rate of blood pressure, readmission rate, and drug compliance rate were also similar. For safety outcomes, the occurrence of adverse reactions did not differ between carvedilol-SR group and carvedilol-IR group. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol-SR once a day was non-inferior to carvedilol-IR twice a day in patients with HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03209180 (registration date: July 6, 2017).

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study on the efficacy and safety of a combination treatment involving fimasartan, amlodipine, rosuvastatin in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy involving fimasartan, amlodipine, and rosuvastatin in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond to fimasartan monotherapy. METHODS: This phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted in adults aged 19-70 years. Patients who voluntarily consented were screened for eligibility to enroll in the study. Patients who failed to respond to 4 weeks of fimasartan monotherapy were randomized with a 1:1:1 ratio to the fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS/ALD + RSV) as study group, fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg (FMS/ALD) as control 1 group, and fimasartan 60 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS + RSV) as control 2 group. The primary efficacy endpoints were the change in the sitting systolic blood pressure and the rate of change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 8 weeks. The adverse events, adverse drug reactions, physical examination findings, laboratory test results, electrocardiograms, and vital signs were evaluated to assess safety in the study. RESULTS: Of 138 randomized patients, 131 were conducted efficacy analysis, and 125 completed the study. For the change in LDL-C and sitting SBP (SiSBP) as primary efficacy assessments, the change in LDL-C at week 8 was significantly reduce in the FMS/ALD + RSV group than in the control 1 group (P < 0.001). The change in SiSBP at week 8 were greater reduce in the FMS/ALD + RSV group than in the FMS + RSV group (both P < 0.001). For the safety evaluation, there were no differences among the treatment groups in the incidence of adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The fimasartan/amlodipine + rosuvastatin combination therapy can effectively and safely lower blood pressure and improve lipid levels in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03156842, Registered 17 May 2017.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose antihypertensive combination of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone: A randomized, double-blind, parallel, phase II trial.

The aim of this clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose triple combinations of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone in patients with essential hypertension. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, 176 patients were randomized to seven treatment groups (placebo, quarter-dose combination, third-dose combination, half-dose combination, amlodipine 5 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, and telmisartan 80 mg) and administered the assigned study drug orally for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the mean sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) (MSSBP) at Week 8. The MSSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP in the quarter-dose and half-dose groups were significantly lower compared to the placebo and amlodipine 5 mg groups, with similar BP-lowering effects observed compared to the amlodipine 10 mg and telmisartan 80 mg groups. However, the third-dose group showed significant BP improvement only compared to the placebo group. A similar pattern was observed for the control rate of hypertension and response rates. Additional analysis was conducted after correcting for gender and age effects, and, as a result, the third-dose group showed similar results with regard to the BP-lowering effect as the quarter-dose and half-dose groups. In terms of safety, no special adverse events and clinically significant results were noted, and all dose groups of the triple combination are considered safe for use in essential hypertension patients. The current findings indicated that low-dose triple combination of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone over 8 weeks effectively improved the BP-lowering effect in patients with essential hypertension without any safety concerns.

Efficacy and Safety of SID142 in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Phase III Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Renexin® is a combination pill of cilostazol and Ginkgo biloba leaf extract that is used for the improvement of ischemic symptoms associated with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). SID142 is a controlled-release tablet of cilostazol (200 mg) and G biloba leaf extract (160 mg) that was developed to address the limitation of BID administration with Renexin. This study aimed to verify that SID142 was not inferior to Renexin in the treatment of patients with PAD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, Phase III clinical trial. Study subjects were randomized to receive SID142 once daily or Renexin twice a day for 12 weeks. The primary end point was a change in the patient assessment of lower leg pain intensity with the use of a visual analog scale (VAS) after 12 weeks of treatment. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10, the study drug was declared noninferior to the reference drug. Secondary efficacy end points included cold sensation, ankle-brachial index, ankle systolic pressure, maximum walking distance, pain-free walking distance, and investigator's global assessment. Study group results were compared 4, 8, and 12 weeks after treatment. Adverse events were assessed as a safety end point. FINDINGS: In total, 344 subjects from 19 medical centers were screened, and a total of 170 subjects were randomly assigned to either the SID142 (n = 86) or the Renexin (n = 84) group. Analysis of the change in lower extremity pain at 12 weeks compared with baseline revealed that SID142 was not inferior to Renexin (21.44 [19.23] vs 22.30 [17.75]; 95% CI, -7.70 to 5.97; P = 0.5942). No significant differences were found between groups in any secondary efficacy end point. However, the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly lower in the SID142 group (22.35% vs 39.29%; P = 0.0171). IMPLICATIONS: SID142 once daily was not inferior to Renexin twice a day for efficacy in patients with PAD. SID142 had a favorable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT03318276.

A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Multi-Center, Phase III Clinical Trial Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Olmesartan/Amlodipine plus Rosuvastatin Combination Treatment in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Dyslipidemia: A LEISURE Study.

BACKGROUND: This study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. METHODS: Patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia aged 20-80 were enrolled from 36 tertiary hospitals in Korea from January 2017 to April 2018. Patients were randomized to three groups in a 1:1:0.5 ratio, olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin (olme/amlo/rosu) or olmesartan plus rosuvastatin (olme/rosu) or olmesartan/amlodipine single pill (olme/amlo) combination. The primary endpoints were change of sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/rosu groups and the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline in the olme/amlo/rosu vs. olme/amlo groups after 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients were randomized, 106 to olme/amlo/rosu, 106 to olme/rosu and 53 to olme/amlo groups. Baseline characteristics among the three groups did not differ. The mean sitSBP change was significantly larger in the olme/amlo/rosu group with -24.30 ± 12.62 mmHg (from 153.58 ± 10.90 to 129.28 ± 13.58) as compared to the olme/rosu group, -9.72 ± 16.27 mmHg (from 153.71 ± 11.10 to 144.00 ± 18.44 mmHg). The difference in change of sitSBP between the two groups was -14.62± 1.98 mmHg with significance (95% CI -18.51 to -10.73, p < 0.0001). The mean LDL-C reduced significantly in the olme/amlo/rosu group, -52.31 ± 16.63% (from 154.52 ± 30.84 to 72.72 ± 26.08 mg/dL) as compared to the olme/amlo group with no change, -2.98 ± 16.16% (from 160.42 ± 32.05 to 153.81 ± 31.57 mg/dL). Significant difference in change was found in LDL-C between the two groups with -50.10 ± 2.73% (95% CI -55.49 to -44.71, p < 0.0001). Total adverse drug reaction rates were 10.48%, 5.66% and 3.7% in the olme/amlo/rosu, olme/rosu and olme/amlo groups, respectively with no statistical significance among the three groups. Serious adverse drug reactions did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan/amlodipine single pill plus rosuvastatin combination treatment for patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia is effective and safe as compared to either olmesartan plus rosuvastatin or olmesartan plus amlodipine treatment.

Algorithm for diagnosing hypertension using out-of-office blood pressure measurements.

The authors developed and validated a diagnostic algorithm using the optimal upper and lower cut-off values of office and home BP at which ambulatory BP measurements need to be applied. Patients presenting with high BP (≥140/90 mm Hg) at the outpatient clinic were referred to measure office, home, and ambulatory BP. Office and home BP were divided into hypertension, intermediate (requiring diagnosis using ambulatory BP), and normotension zones. The upper and lower BP cut-off levels of intermediate zone were determined corresponding to a level of 95% specificity and 95% sensitivity for detecting daytime ambulatory hypertension by using the receiver operator characteristic curve. A diagnostic algorithm using three methods, OBP-ABP: office BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if office BP is intermediate zone; OBP-HBP-ABP: office BP, subsequent home BP measurement if office BP is within intermediate zone and subsequent ambulatory BP measurement if home BP is within intermediate zone; and HBP-ABP: home BP measurement and subsequent ambulatory BP measurements if home BP is within intermediate zone, were developed and validated. In the development population (n = 256), the developed algorithm yielded better diagnostic accuracies than 75.8% (95%CI 70.1-80.9) for office BP alone and 76.2% (95%CI 70.5-81.3) for home BP alone as follows: 96.5% (95%CI: 93.4-98.4) for OBP-ABP, 93.4% (95%CI: 89.6-96.1) for OBP-HBP-ABP, and 94.9% (95%CI: 91.5-97.3%) for HBP-ABP.  In the validation population (n = 399), the developed algorithm showed similarly improved diagnostic accuracy. The developed algorithm applying ambulatory BP measurement to the intermediate zone of office and home BP improves the diagnostic accuracy for hypertension.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Two Parallel-Group, Optional Titration, Multicenter, Phase IIIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan Versus Perindopril Monotherapy With and Without a Diuretic Combination in Elderly Patients With Essential Hypertension.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan in elderly patients have not been fully evaluated. This study was therefore conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan compared with perindopril in elderly Korean patients aged >70 years with essential hypertension (defined by a mean sitting systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 2 parallel-group, optional titration, multicenter, Phase IIIb trial (FITNESS [Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects]) enrolled 241 patients from 23 cardiac centers in the Republic of Korea between August 2017 and December 2019. After the placebo run-in period, treatment started with fimasartan 30 mg or perindopril arginine 2.5 mg once daily at a 1:1 ratio; if BP was not controlled at week 4, the dose was doubled. If BP was not controlled at week 8, a diuretic combination (fimasartan 60 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or perindopril arginine 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg) was administered. After 16 weeks of the double-blind treatment, the patients with controlled BP participated in an 8-week open-label extension study, with the 2 groups unified by fimasartan 60 mg with or without hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in SBP for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes included a change in sitting diastolic BP (DBP) for 8 weeks and changes in SBP and DBP for 4, 16, and 24 weeks. FINDINGS: At week 8, mean SBP significantly decreased from baseline in both groups: -14.2 (14.4) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and -9.0 (16.1) mm Hg in the perindopril group. The difference between the 2 groups was 5.4 (2.1) mm Hg, indicating the noninferiority of fimasartan to perindopril. Moreover, fimasartan exhibited a higher BP-lowering effect than perindopril (P = 0.0108). In addition, reductions in SBP and DBP from baseline to weeks 4, 8, and 16 were significantly greater in the fimasartan group than in the perindopril group, although the SBP reduction was comparable at week 16. Both groups reported an excellent mean compliance rate of 97.4% (4.7%) through week 16. During the study period, 82 adverse events were reported in 52 patients, 40 in the fimasartan group and 42 in the perindopril group (P = 0.4647). Dizziness was the most commonly reported adverse event (7 cases). Remarkably, only 1 case of orthostatic hypotension was reported during the study period. IMPLICATIONS: In elderly patients with essential hypertension, fimasartan 30 to 60 mg with a possible hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-mg combination was noninferior to perindopril 2.5 to 5 mg with a possible indapamide 1.25-mg combination. Furthermore, fimasartan exhibited higher BP-lowering efficacy than perindopril. There was no difference in tolerability between the 2 groups. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555.

Effects of Fixed-dose Combination of Low-intensity Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe Versus Moderate-intensity Rosuvastatin Monotherapy on Lipid Profiles in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients requiring cholesterol-lowering therapy. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind study to investigate the safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin 2.5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (R2.5+E10) compared to those of ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy (E10), rosuvastatin 2.5 mg (R2.5), and rosuvastatin 5 mg monotherapy (R5) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. A total of 348 patients at 15 centers in Korea were screened, and 279 patients were randomized to different groups in the study. Clinical and laboratory examinations were performed at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks after intervention. The primary endpoint was the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels at the 8-week follow-up. FINDINGS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the four groups. There were significant changes in lipid profiles at the 8-week follow-up. A greater decrease in the LDL cholesterol levels (primary endpoint) were found in the R2.5+E10 group (-45.7±18.6%) than in the E10 group (-16.7±14.7%, p<0.0001), R2.5 group (-32.6±15.1%, p<0.0001), and R5 group (-38.9±13.9%, p=0.0003). Similar outcomes were observed regarding the decrease in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B protein. In addition, changes in the triglyceride and HDL levels in the R2.5+E10 group were significantly different compared with those in the E10 group; however, the changes were similar to those in the other treatment groups. In patients with low and moderate risk, all patients achieved the target LDL cholesterol levels in the R2.5+E10 group (100%) compared to 13.0% in the E10 group, 47.6% in the R2.5 group, and 65.2% in the R5 group. Adverse effects were rare and similar in the four groups. IMPLICATIONS: Fixed-dose combination of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was more effective in lowering LDL cholesterol and achieving LDL cholesterol goals than moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy. These findings suggest that the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy for cholesterol management, particularly in patients with low and moderate risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04652349.

Durable Polymer Versus Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: The HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale randomized comparison of drug-eluting stents (DES) based on durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer technology is currently insufficient in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The present study aimed to prove the noninferiority of the durable polymer DES (DP-DES) compared with the biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) in such patients. METHODS: The HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases-Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES in patients with ACS. The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) at 12 months. The key secondary end point was device-oriented composite outcome (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 3413 patients were randomized to receive the DP-DES (1713 patients) and BP-DES (1700 patients). At 12 months, patient-oriented composite outcome occurred in 5.2% in the DP-DES group and 6.4% in the BP-DES group (absolute risk difference, -1.2%; Pnoninferiority<0.001). The key secondary end point, device-oriented composite outcome, occurred less frequently in the DP-DES group (DP-DES vs BP-DES, 2.6% vs 3.9%; hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46-0.98]; P=0.038), mostly because of a reduction in target lesion revascularization. The rate of spontaneous nonfatal myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were extremely low, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (0.6% versus 0.8%; P=0.513 and 0.1% versus 0.4%; P=0.174, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention, DP-DES was noninferior to BP-DES with regard to patient-oriented composite outcomes at 12 months after index percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://wwwclinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02193971.

A randomized, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/rosuvastatin in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension.

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase III clinical trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin + amlodipine combination compared with that of rosuvastatin or amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia. A total of 106 patients of 15 institutions in Korea were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: rosuvastatin 20 mg + amlodipine 10 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 20 mg. After 8 weeks of treatment, the mean ± SD of change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) was -22.82 ± 12.99 mm Hg in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group, the most decreased among the treatment groups. The percentage of patients whose msSBP decreased ≥20 mm Hg or msDBP decreased ≥10 mm Hg was also highest in this group (74.29%). The mean ± SD percentage change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline after 8 weeks was -52.53% ± 11.21% in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group, the most decreased among the treatment groups. More patients in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group achieved their target LDL-C goal at 8 weeks, compared with the other treatment groups (97.14%). No serious adverse events or adverse drug reactions were observed in all groups. In hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia, combination treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg + amlodipine 10 mg effectively reduced blood pressure and LDL-C levels while maintaining safety.

Efficacy and Safety of Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Patients Treated with Statins for Residual Hypertriglyceridemia: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk remains increased despite optimal low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level induced by intensive statin therapy. Therefore, recent guidelines recommend non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as a secondary target for preventing cardiovascular events. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of omega-3 fatty acids (OM3-FAs) in combination with atorvastatin compared to atorvastatin alone in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, and phase III multicenter study included adults with fasting triglyceride (TG) levels ≥200 and <500 mg/dL and LDL-C levels <110 mg/dL. Eligible subjects were randomized to ATOMEGA (OM3-FAs 4,000 mg plus atorvastatin calcium 20 mg) or atorvastatin 20 mg plus placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in TG and non-HDL-C levels from baseline at the end of treatment. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, the percent changes from baseline in TG (-29.8% vs. 3.6%, P<0.001) and non-HDL-C (-10.1% vs. 4.9%, P<0.001) levels were significantly greater in the ATOMEGA group (n=97) than in the atorvastatin group (n=103). Moreover, the proportion of total subjects reaching TG target of <200 mg/dL in the ATOMEGA group was significantly higher than that in the atorvastatin group (62.9% vs. 22.3%, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of OM3-FAs to atorvastatin improved TG and non-HDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to atorvastatin alone in subjects with residual hypertriglyceridemia.

Low-Dose Triple Antihypertensive Combination Therapy in Patients with Hypertension: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the dose-responsiveness, efficacy, and safety of low-dose triple antihypertensive combination therapies in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a 1 to 2-week placebo run-in period, 248 patients were randomized to the half-dose triple combination (amlodipine 2.5 mg + losartan 25 mg + chlorthalidone 6.25 mg), third-dose triple combination (amlodipine 1.67 mg + losartan 16.67 mg + chlorthalidone 4.17 mg), quarter-dose triple combination (amlodipine 1.25 mg + losartan 12.5 mg + chlorthalidone 3.13mg), amlodipine 10mg, amlodipine 5mg, losartan 100mg, and placebo groups for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was the mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline to week 8. RESULTS: The placebo-corrected SBP reductions of the half-dose, third-dose, quarter-dose combination, amlodipine 10 mg, amlodipine 5 mg and losartan 100 mg treatments were -17.2, -19.5, -14.9, -18.5, -11.3 and -9.9 mmHg, respectively. The BP control and response rates were significantly higher in the half-dose, third-dose, and quarter-dose combination groups than in the placebo group (all p < 0.01). Despite no intergroup differences in study drug-related adverse events, ankle circumference increased significantly in the amlodipine group compared to those in the combination treatment groups. The quarter-dose combination, amlodipine 5 mg, and losartan 100 mg groups showed similar SBP reduction and BP response rates. The SBP reduction and BP response rate in the third-dose and half-dose combination groups were not significantly different from those in the amlodipine 10 mg group but superior to those in the losartan 100 mg group. CONCLUSION: Low-dose triple combination therapies could be effective as antihypertensive therapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03897868.

Fimasartan versus perindopril with and without diuretics in the treatment of elderly patients with essential hypertension (Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects (FITNESS)): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, even in the elderly. Fimasartan is a new non-peptide angiotensin II receptor blocker with a selective type I receptor blocking effect. The objective of this study is to confirm the safety and the non-inferiority of the blood pressure-lowering effect of fimasartan compared with those of perindopril, which has been proven safe and effective in elderly patients with hypertension. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two-parallel group, optional-titration, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of fimasartan and perindopril arginine. The study population consists of individuals 70 years old or older with essential hypertension. The primary outcome will be a change in sitting systolic blood pressure from baseline after the administration of the investigational product for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes will be a change in sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline and changes in sitting systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure from baseline after the administration of the investigational product for 4, 16, and 24 weeks. The sample size will be 119 subjects for each group to confer enough power to test for the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: Research to confirm the efficacy and safety of a new medicine compared with those of previously proven anti-hypertensive drugs is beneficial to guide physicians in the selection of therapeutic agents. If it is confirmed that the new drug is not inferior to the existing drug, the drug will be considered as an option in the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555 , registered on July 25, 2017.