S-AMLODIPINE AS A MODERN EFFECTIVE ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AND AN ANTIANGINAL AGENT.

OBJECTIVE: The aim: Study of the clinical and hemodynamic effects of S-amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease, in individuals with preserved LV systolic function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The study includes 51 patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease, who were treated with S-amlodipine. RESULTS: Results: This study shows the high clinical effectiveness of the use of S-amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease. We reveal that treatment of hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease with S-amlodipine leads to improvement of LV diastolic dysfunction, bringing it closer to normal values. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Clinical effectiveness was associated with positive changes in hemodynamics, and was expressed in the normalization of the left ventricle diastolic function parameters, about which indirectly indicates decreasing of end-diastolic pressure.

A star-shaped molecularly imprinted polymer derived from polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes with improved site accessibility and capacity for enantiomeric separation via capillary electrochromatography.

A star-shaped molecularly imprinted coating was prepared starting from octavinyl-modified polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (Ov-POSS). It possesses a relatively open structure and has good site accessibility and a larger capacity even at lower cross-linking. The imprinted coating was prepared from S-amlodipine (S-AML) as the template and analyte, Ov-POSS as the cross-linker, and methacrylic acid as the functional monomer. The preparation and chromatographic parameters were optimized, including ratio of template to functional monomer, apparent cross-linking degree, pH value, ACN content and salt concentration in the mobile phase. The best resolution in enantiomer separation by means of capillary electrochromatography reaches a value of 33. A good recognition ability (α = 2.60) was obtained and the column efficiency for S-AML was 54,000 plates m-1. The use of Ov-POSS as a cross-linker significantly improves the column capacity and thus the detection sensitivity. The results show that Ov-POSS is an effective cross-linker for the preparation of imprinted polymers with good accessibility and large capacity. Graphical abstract Schematic presentation of the preparation of star-shaped imprinted polymer using octavinyl-modified polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxanes (Ov-POSS) and by using methacrylic acid (MAA) as functional monomer. The best enantiometric resolution (33) for amlodipine (AML) can be achieved in capillary chromatography (CEC).

Leg edema with (S)-amlodipine vs conventional amlodipine given in triple therapy for hypertension: a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Leg edema is a common adverse effect of dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) that may need dose reduction or drug withdrawal, adversely affecting the antihypertensive efficacy. Leg edema is reported to occur less often with (S)-amlodipine compared to conventional racemic amlodipine. We aimed to find the incidence of leg edema as a primary outcome and antihypertensive efficacy with (S)-amlodipine compared to conventional amlodipine. METHODS: This prospective, double-blind, controlled clinical trial randomized 172 hypertensive patients, not controlled on beta-blockers (BB) and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), to either conventional amlodipine (5-10 mg; n = 86) or (S)-amlodipine (2.5-5 mg; n = 86), while continuing their previous anti-hypertensive medications. Sample was sufficient to find a difference in edema between the interventions with 80 % power at 5 % significance level. Intension to treat analysis (ITT) for safety data and per protocol analysis for efficacy data was performed. Fischer's exact test was applied to observe difference between responder rates and proportions of subjects having peripheral edema in the two groups. Pitting edema test scores were compared using Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Altogether 146 patients (amlodipine, n = 76 and (S)-amlodipine, n = 70) completed 120 days treatment. Demographic variables and treatment adherence were comparable in the two groups. Incidence of new edema after randomization was 31.40 % in test group and 46.51 % in control group [p = 0.03; absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 15.1 %; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 7, ITT analysis]. Pitting edema score and patient rated edema score increased significantly in the control compared to test group (p = 0.038 and 0.036 respectively) after treatment period. Edema scores increased significantly in the control group from baseline (p < 0.0001). Responders in blood pressure were 98.57 % in test and 98.68 % in control group. Most common adverse events (AE) were pitting edema and increased urinary frequency. Incidence of all AEs other than edema was similar in both groups. Two serious AEs occurred unrelated to therapy. Biochemical and ECG parameters in the two groups were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients not controlled on prior BB and ACEI/ARB therapy, addition of (S)-amlodipine besylate at half the dose of conventional amlodipine provides better tolerability with reduced incidence of peripheral edema, and equal antihypertensive efficacy compared to amlodipine given at usual doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Sri Lanka Clinical Trials registry: www.slctr.lk, SLCTR/2013/006.

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.

Ambulatory blood pressure response to S-amlodipine in Korean adult patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension: A prospective, observational study.

Although amlodipine is recommended as the first-line therapy for the treatment of hypertension, its use is limited by its potential side effects. S-amlodipine is expected to be able to minimize side effects of amlodipine with a similar antihypertensive effect by removing the malicious R-chiral form. However, sustainable blood pressure control with S-amlodipine has not been well established yet. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) profiles before and after a 12-week treatment of S-amlodipine. Patients received once-daily S-amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg. ABP during 24 hr and office blood pressure were measured at baseline and after the 12-week treatment. Primary endpoints were changes of systolic and diastolic 24 hr ABP. After 12-week S-amlodipine treatment, mean systolic ABP (-15.1 ± 16.2 mmHg, p < .001) and diastolic ABP (-8.9 ± 9.8 mmHg, p < .001) were decreased significantly. Both daytime and night-time mean systolic BP and diastolic BP were also significantly decreased after the 12-week treatment. Global trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index after 12-week S-amlodipine treatment were .75 and .79 for SBP and .65 and .61 for DBP, respectively. Age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67-14.3) and nonalcohol drinking (HR: 3.09; 95% CI: 1.34-7.17) were independent clinical factors for target ABP achievement. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) were developed in 16 (6.4%) patients, including two (.8%) cases of peripheral edema. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension.

Determination of enantiomeric purity of S-amlodipine by chiral LC with emphasis on reversal of enantiomer elution order.

An LC method was developed and prevalidated for the enantiomeric purity determination of S-amlodipine in polar organic solvent chromatography using a chlorine-containing cellulose-based chiral stationary phase (CSP). The concentration of formic acid (FA) (0.01-0.2%) in the mobile phase containing acetonitrile as the main solvent was found to influence the elution order of amlodipine enantiomers as well as the enantioresolution. A reversal of the enantiomer elution order of amlodipine was only observed with chiral stationary phases with both electron-withdrawing (chloro) and electron-donating groups (methyl) on the phenyl moieties of the chiral selector, namely cellulose tris(3-chloro-4-methylphenylcarbamate) and cellulose tris(4-chloro-3-methylphenylcarbamate). The highest enantioresolution (Rs : 4.1) value was obtained at the lowest FA concentration (0.01%) using cellulose tris(4-chloro-3-methylphenylcarbamate) as the chiral selector and the enantiomeric impurity, R-amlodipine, eluted first under these conditions. Therefore, the mobile phase selected for the prevalidation of the method consisted of ACN/0.1% DEA/0.01% FA and the temperature was set at 25°C. The method was prevalidated by means of the strategy based on the total measurement error and the accuracy profile. The method was found to be selective and the limit of quantification was found to be about 0.05% for R-amlodipine, while the limit of detection was close to 0.02%.

Effects of different enantiomers of amlodipine on lipid profiles and vasomotor factors in atherosclerotic rabbits.

This research aimed to describe the functions of vascular endothelial cells (VECs) in protecting target organs and the anti-atherosclerotic effects of different enantiomers of amlodipine on a rabbit model of atherosclerosis. Thirty male New Zealand white rabbits were randomly allocated to four groups (nA = 9, nB = 7, nC = 7, and nD = 7 rabbits): rabbits in group-A (control group) were fed a high-fat diet, group-B rabbits were fed a high-fat diet plus 2.5 mg/kg/day S-amlodipine, group-C rabbits were fed a high-fat diet plus 2.5 mg/kg/day R-amlodipine, and group-D rabbits were fed a high-fat diet plus 5 mg/kg/day racemic amlodipine. Different enantiomers of amlodipine did not influence lipid profiles and serum level of eNOS in the rabbit atherosclerosis model but decreased ET-1 expression to some extent. The serum NO and iNOS levels in the drug intervention groups were significantly reduced. No significant differences in the rabbits' body weights were observed. At the 4th and 8th weeks, the serum lipid profiles significantly increased in high cholesterol diet groups. The serum ET-1 level was significantly increased in each group of rabbits at the 8th week. Both S-amlodipine and R-amlodipine may protect the endothelium by reducing the serum ET-1 level, downregulating iNOS expression.

Telmisartan Plus S-Amlodipine Single-Pill Combination Therapy is Safe and Effective in Patients with Hypertension from Large-Scale Nationwide Surveillance Data in Korea (NOVEL) Study.

INTRODUCTION: We investigate the safety and efficacy of telmisartan plus S-amlodipine single-pill combination in a real-world population. METHODS: A total of 44,715 patients who had hypertension and received a telmisartan/S-amlodipine single-pill combination at least once were included for safety and efficacy evaluation from 2852 primary to tertiary hospitals in Korea from August 2013 to December 2019. They were followed up for 3-6 months in terms of safety and efficacy of blood pressure (BP) lowering. RESULTS: A total of 44,715 patients were included for safety analysis and 41,579 for efficacy analysis. Mean duration of taking the drug was 175.86 ± 48.45 days. A total of 28,096 (62.8%) patients were on telmisartan 40 mg plus S-amlodipine 2.5 mg combination followed by 80/2.5 mg (8664, 19.4%) and 40/5 mg of the drug (7136, 16.0%). Adverse events, total adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse drug reactions were found in 808 patients (1.81%), 352 (0.79%), and 1 (0.002%), respectively. Dizziness and headache were most common (134 [0.30%] and 81 [0.18%]) among all adverse events. Total edema and leg edema were rarely reported, 38 (0.08%) and 25 (0.06%), respectively. Systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) was lowered from 143.1 ± 16.1/88.1 ± 11.8 mmHg to 129.6 ± 11.4/80.1 ± 9.0 mmHg (difference - 13.5/- 7.9 mmHg, P < 0.0001 for both). Target BP goal attainment rate defined as SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg was 74.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.2-75.0) and BP response rate (defined as SBP < 140 mmHg or ≥ 20 mmHg reduction; DBP < 90 mmHg or ≥ 10 mmHg reduction) was 94.5% (95% CI 94.3-94.7). CONCLUSION: Telmisartan plus S-amlodipine single-pill combination was safe and effective in patients with hypertension in a large real-world population.

Tolerability and effectiveness of (S)-amlodipine compared with racemic amlodipine in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Amlodipine is a calcium channel blocker prescribed for the management of angina and hypertension. As a racemic mixture, amlodipine contains (R)- and (S)-amlodipine isomers, but only (S)-amlodipine as the active moiety possesses therapeutic activity. Based on pharmacologic research, it remains uncertain if (S)-amlodipine alone has similar efficacy and fewer associated adverse events (AEs) compared with the racemic mixtures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of (S)-amlodipine compared with that of racemic amlodipine. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE (1966-2009), EMBASE (1966-2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (issue 3, 2009), the Chinese Biomedical Database (1978-2009), and the China National Knowledge Internet (1980-2009). All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing (S)-amlodipine 2.5 mg and racemic amlodipine 5.0 mg in the treatment of hypertension were included in the review. The outcome measures to be collected were cardiovascular events, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), and AEs. Quality assessments of clinical trials were conducted using a modified Jadad Scale, with trials being rated as low quality (score 0-3) or high quality (score 4-7). Meta-analysis of the included studies was performed using RevMan software. RESULTS: Of the 229 references identified, 214 were excluded after screening the titles, abstracts, or full texts. Fifteen RCTs were included, of which 13 were in Chinese and 2 in English. Based on the Jadad Scale score, 3 of the RCTs were classified as high quality (score 5 or 6) and the remaining 12 as low quality (score 1-3). None of the trials evaluated cardiovascular events beyond 40 weeks. Meta-analysis of the 15 trials indicated that (S)-amlodipine was not significantly different from racemic amlodipine in the effect on BP. When only high-quality studies were included, after 4 weeks' treatment, the weighted mean difference (WMD) of SBP and DBP decrease (1 study) was -2.84 (95% CI, -6.42 to 0.74) with (S)-amlodipine and -1.71 (95% CI, -3.48 to 0.06) with racemic amlodipine. After 8 weeks' treatment, the WMD of SBP and DBP decrease (2 studies) was -1.13 (95% CI, -5.29 to 3.03) and -1.34 (95% CI, -2.67 to -0.01), respectively. The risk difference (RD) for the number of patients who experienced AEs with (S)-amlodipine and racemic amlodipine was found to be -0.04 (95% CI, -0.06 to -0.02). When all the trials were included, (S)-amlodipine treatment was associated with significantly less edema than racemic amlodipine (RD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.00); however, when only high-quality studies (2 studies) were included, no difference was found between the 2 groups (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.03). One high-quality study found significant differences in increases in aspartate and alanine aminotransferase activities in the 2 groups (RD, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.05). No significant differences between the 2 groups were found in the incidence of headache (RD, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.01) or flushing (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the clinical trials comparing (S)-amlodipine and racemic amlodipine treatment were low quality (12/15 [80%]). According to the limited evidence, there were no significant differences between (S)-amlodipine 2.5 mg and racemic amlodipine 5.0 mg in controlling BP. When all the trials were considered, (S)-amlodipine treatment was associated with significantly less edema than racemic amlodipine; however, when only high-quality trials were included, no significant difference was found. More long-term, high-quality RCTs with cardiovascular events as the primary outcome are needed to compare the safety and efficacy of (S)-amlodipine and racemic amlodipine.

Efficacy and Safety of S-Amlodipine 2.5 and 5 mg/d in Hypertensive Patients Who Were Treatment-Naive or Previously Received Antihypertensive Monotherapy.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine 2.5 and 5 mg/d in patients with hypertension who were treatment-naive or previously received antihypertensive monotherapy. During the 8-week treatment period, all patients received S-amlodipine 2.5 mg/d for the first 4 weeks, followed by S-amlodipine 5 mg/d for the second 4 weeks. For efficacy assessments, ambulatory and office blood pressure (BP) measurements were performed during the baseline, fourth-week, and eighth-week visits. For safety assessments, all adverse events and abnormal laboratory findings were recorded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03038451). Of 43 patients evaluated at the screening visit, 33 were enrolled. In the treatment-naive arm, significant reductions in both office and ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were observed with S-amlodipine 2.5 mg/d and additional significant reductions were achieved with dose titration (S-amlodipine 5 mg/d). At the end of the study, the rate of the treatment-naive patients with BP under control (SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg) was 53% with S-amlodipine 2.5 mg and increased to 78% with S-amlodipine 5 mg. For the noninferiority evaluation, S-amlodipine 2.5 and 5 mg/d treatments were generally noninferior to both office and ambulatory BP levels achieved with the medications that the patients received before participating in the study. Five nonserious adverse events likely to be associated with the study drug were observed. No serious adverse event was encountered. Consequently, S-amlodipine can be suggested as an effective and safe treatment option for patients with hypertension.

Pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence study of a telmisartan/S-amlodipine fixed-dose combination (CKD-828) formulation and coadministered telmisartan and S-amlodipine in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: A new fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of telmisartan 80 mg and S-amlodipine 5 mg (CKD-828) has been developed to increase convenience (as only one tablet is required per day) and improve treatment compliance. METHODS: The pharmacokinetic characteristics and tolerability of an FDC of telmisartan and S-amlodipine were compared to those after coadministration of the individual agents in this randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-way, four-period, crossover study. To analyze the telmisartan and S-amlodipine plasma concentrations using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method, serial blood samples were collected up to 48 hours post-dose for telmisartan and 144 hours post-dose for S-amlodipine, in each period. RESULTS: Forty-eight healthy subjects were enrolled, and 43 completed the study. The mean peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last measurement (AUC0-t) values of telmisartan were 522.29 ng/mL and 2,475.16 ng·h/mL for the FDC, and 540.45 ng/mL and 2,559.57 ng·h/mL for the individual agents concomitantly administered, respectively. The mean Cmax and AUC0-t values of S-amlodipine were 2.71 ng/mL and 130.69 ng·h/mL for the FDC, and 2.74 ng/mL and 129.81 ng·h/mL for the individual agents concomitantly administered, respectively. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) for the telmisartan Cmax and AUC0-t (FDC of telmisartan and S-amlodipine/concomitant administration) were 0.8509 (0.7353-0.9846) and 0.9431 (0.8698-1.0226), respectively. The GMR and 90% CI for the S-amlodipine Cmax and AUC0-t (FDC/concomitant administration) were 0.9829 (0.9143-1.0567) and 0.9632 (0.8798-1.0546), respectively. As the intrasubject variability of the Cmax for telmisartan administered individually was 42.94%, all 90% CIs of the GMRs fell within the predetermined acceptance range. Both treatments were well tolerated in this study. CONCLUSION: CKD-828 FDC tablets were shown to be bioequivalent to coadministration of the individual agents with the respective strength, in healthy subjects under fasting conditions. There was no significant difference in safety profile between the two treatments.

Bioequivalence Study of a New Fixed-dose Combination Tablet Containing S-Amlodipine Nicotinate and Olmesartan Medoxomil in Healthy Korean Male Subjects.

PURPOSE: A fixed-dose combination (FDC) pill of amlodipine (relatively old calcium channel blocker as dihydropyridine) and olmesartan (relatively new angiotensin II receptor blocker) is used for hypertension that is not adequately controlled with a single-formulation drug. Because the FDC is a one-pill formulation, and amlodipine and olmesartan have different mechanisms of action, it is expected to improve patients' medication compliance and have an increased blood pressure-lowering efficacy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety profile and the bioequivalence of two different FDC formulations [amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg (reference product) and S-amlodipine nicotinate/olmesartan medoxomil 5/40 mg (test product)]. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-treatment, 2-way, and 2-period crossover study, including a 3-week washout period, was performed in 32 healthy Korean male volunteers. To analyze the concentration of S-amlodipine or olmesartan, plasma samples were collected up to 144 hours after the dose for S-amlodipine and 48 hours after the dose for olmesartan. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including the Cmax and the area under the curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-last) for the time versus concentration plot, were calculated. Analysis of variance for bioequivalence was conducted using Cmax and AUC0-last converted to log scale, and the mean ratios and 90% CIs were determined. Safety data included analysis of adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical examinations, clinical laboratory test, and 12-lead ECGs. FINDINGS: Of the 32 enrolled participants, 29 healthy volunteers completed the study. For both S-amlodipine and olmesartan, the main pharmacokinetic parameters were all within the acceptable range for regulatory bioequivalence. The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of Cmax and AUC0-last were 0.8766 to 0.9760 and 0.8288 to 0.9224, respectively, for S-amlodipine and 0.9097 to 1.1229 and 0.8904 to 1.0407, respectively, for olmesartan. Hypotension was the most frequent AE, and it was observed in 4 volunteers with the test product and 7 volunteers with the reference product. Both the test and reference formulations were well tolerated. IMPLICATIONS: The present study demonstrates that the newly developed FDC product (test drug) and the conventional FDC product (reference drug) have comparable pharmacokinetic characteristics in healthy adult male volunteers. Both the test and reference products indicated good tolerance in this population, and no serious AEs were observed.

Comparative pharmacokinetics of a fixed-dose combination vs concomitant administration of telmisartan and S-amlodipine in healthy adult volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of telmisartan and S-amlodipine with those of concomitant administration of the two drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, crossover study in healthy male Koreans. All subjects were administered an FDC tablet containing 40 mg telmisartan and 5 mg S-amlodipine and were also coadministered the same dose of both drugs given separately. The crossover study design included a 14-day washout period between the two treatments. Blood samples were collected up to 168 h following drug administration. The plasma concentrations of telmisartan and S-amlodipine were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. PK parameters and plasma concentration-time curves were compared. Safety was assessed by measuring vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, physical examinations, and patient interviews. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios and 90% CIs for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve from time zero to the last sampling time (AUCt) were 0.8782 (0.8167-0.9444) and 0.9662 (0.9210-1.0136) for telmisartan and 1.0069 (0.9723-1.0427) and 1.0324 (0.9969-1.0690) for S-amlodipine, respectively. A total of 36 adverse events (AEs) were reported by 23 subjects, but no statistical differences were observed between the two treatments. The most frequently reported AE was a mild-to-moderate headache that was generally self-limiting. CONCLUSION: For both telmisartan and S-amlodipine, the Cmax and AUCt 90% CIs were between ln (0.8) and ln (1.25). These results suggest that the FDC formulation is pharmacokinetically bioequivalent and has a similar safety profile to the coadministration of these drugs.

Efficacy and tolerability of initial high vs low doses of S-(-)-amlodipine in hypertension.

In an 8-week randomized trial of patients with mild or moderate hypertension, the authors investigated the efficacy and tolerability of initial high (5.0 mg/d) vs low (2.5 mg/d) doses of S-(-)-amlodipine (equivalent to 5 and 10 mg of racemic amlodipine, respectively). In the S-(-)-amlodipine 2.5-mg group (n=263), 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic blood pressure (±standard deviation) decreased from 131.5±15.0/82.1±10.7 mm Hg at baseline to 126.0±13.5/78.5±9.5 mm Hg at 8 weeks of follow-up by a least square mean (±standard error) change of 6.0±0.6/3.8±0.4 mm Hg. In the S-(-)-amlodipine 5-mg group (n=260), the corresponding changes were from 133.6±13.7/83.1±9.9 mm Hg to 125.0±12.0/78.2±8.9 mm Hg by 8.1±0.6/4.7±0.4 mm Hg, respectively. The between-group differences in changes in 24-hour systolic/diastolic blood pressure were 2.1/0.9 (P=.02/.17) mm Hg. Similar trends were observed for daytime and nighttime ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. The incidence rate was similar for all adverse events. An initial high dose of S-(-)-amlodipine improved ambulatory blood pressure control with similar tolerability as an initial low dose in hypertension.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Fixed-dose S-Amlodipine/Telmisartan and Telmisartan in Hypertensive Patients Inadequately Controlled with Telmisartan: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the fixed-dose combination S-amlodipine plus telmisartan (S-AM/TEL) compared with TEL monotherapy in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by TEL monotherapy. METHODS: this study was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, Phase III, 8-week clinical trial to compare the superiority of the S-AM/TEL 2.5/40-mg and S-AM/TEL 5/40-mg combinations with TEL 80-mg mono-therapy. The primary end point was the change in the mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline (week 0) after 8 weeks of therapy between treatment groups. FINDINGS: Of 325 patients screened, 183 were randomly assigned to 3 groups (61 in the S-AM/TEL 2.5/40-mg group, 60 in the S-AM/TEL 5/40-mg group, and 62 in the TEL 80-mg group). Mean (SD) age was 53.9 (7.5) years, and male patients comprised 87%. No significant differences were found among the 3 groups in baseline characteristics. The primary end points, the changes of mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure at week 8 from the baseline were -10.56 (7.23) mm Hg in the S-AM/TEL 2.5/40-mg group, -12.32 (9.23) mm Hg in the S-AM/TEL 5/40-mg group, and -2.44 (7.92) mm Hg in the TEL 80-mg group. Both the S-AM/TEL 2.5/40-mg group and the S-AM/TEL 5/40-mg group had a statistically superior hypotensive effect compared with the TEL 80-mg group (P < 0.0001 for both). For evaluation of the safety profile, the frequencies of adverse events (AEs) among the groups were also not significantly different (S-AM/TEL 2.5/40-mg group, 18.6%; S-AM/TEL 5/40-mg group, 20%; and TEL 80-mg group, 22.6%), and the incidences of AEs were not different among the groups. The most common AEs were respiratory disorders, followed by headache, dizziness, and peripheral edema. IMPLICATIONS: Treatment with S-AM/TEL 2.5/40 mg and S-AM/TEL 5/40 mg was superior to increasing the TEL dose in terms of hypotensive effect in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by TEL monotherapy. S-AM/TEL fixed-dose combinations are an effective and tolerable option for patients inadequately responding to TEL monotherapy and also a good option for improving patients' medication adherence. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT011426100.

The effects of amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine on vascular endothelial function in patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Amlodipine has been shown to improve vascular endothelial function in hypertensive patients, but whether S(-)-amlodipine has a similar effect remains controversial. This study compared the effects of amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine on vascular endothelial function in hypertensive patients and investigated relevant mechanisms of action in cell culture. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with essential hypertension received amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine for 6 weeks in a randomized, crossover study. Associated flow-mediated dilation (FMD), nitric oxide (NO), and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) levels were determined. NO levels were measured after exposure of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) to amlodipine, S(-)-amlodipine, the eNOS inhibitor N w-nitro-L-arginine (L-NA), and the Protein Kinase C (PKC) inhibitor Ro 31-8220. Phosphorylation levels of Ser(1177) and Thr(495) in eNOS were determined after exposure to amlodipine, S(-)-amlodipine, and Ro 31-8220. RESULTS: FMD, NO, and eNOS levels significantly improved after treatment with amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine. The levels were all higher with amlodipine, although the between-treatment difference was not statistically significant. Amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine significantly increased NO levels in cultured HUVECs, but increases in NO levels were more marked with amlodipine. Western blot assay showed that both amlodipine and Ro31-8220 induced Ser(1177) phosphorylation and weakened Thr(495) phosphorylation in eNOS. S(-)-amlodipine had no similar effects. Amlodipine, but not S(-)-amlodipine, decreased the PKC phosphorylation in a time-dependent manner. CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine can both improve endothelial function in hypertensive patients. Amlodipine has greater potential for vascular endothelial protection than S(-)-amlodipine. It affects eNOS phosphorylation at Ser(1177) and Thr(495) by the PKC pathway, further enhancing eNOS activation.