Molecular response in newly diagnosed chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia: prediction modeling and pathway analysis.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy revolutionized chronic myeloid leukemia treatment and showed how targeted therapy and molecular monitoring could be used to substantially improve survival outcomes. We used chronic myeloid leukemia as a model to understand a critical question: why do some patients have an excellent response to therapy, while others have a poor response? We studied gene expression in whole blood samples from 112 patients from a large phase III randomized trial (clinicaltrials gov. Identifier: NCT00471497), dichotomizing cases into good responders (BCR::ABL1 ≤10% on the International Scale by 3 and 6 months and ≤0.1% by 12 months) and poor responders (failure to meet these criteria). Predictive models based on gene expression demonstrated the best performance (area under the curve =0.76, standard deviation =0.07). All of the top 20 pathways overexpressed in good responders involved immune regulation, a finding validated in an independent data set. This study emphasizes the importance of pretreatment adaptive immune response in treatment efficacy and suggests biological pathways that can be targeted to improve response.

Phase I/II Trial of Exemestane, Ribociclib, and Everolimus in Women with HR+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer after Progression on CDK4/6 Inhibitors (TRINITI-1).

PURPOSE: Standard-of-care treatment for metastatic hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer includes endocrine therapy (ET) combined with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i). Optimal treatment after progression on CDK4/6i is unknown. The TRINITI-1 trial investigated ribociclib, a CDK4/6i that has recently demonstrated significant overall survival benefit in two phase III trials, in combination with everolimus and exemestane in patients with HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC) after progression on a CDK4/6i. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase I/II study included patients with locally advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2- breast cancer. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at week 24 among patients with ET-refractory disease with progression on a CDK4/6i. Other endpoints included safety and biomarker analysis. RESULTS: Of 104 patients enrolled (phases I and II), 96 had prior CDK4/6i. Recommended phase II doses (all once daily days 1-28 of 28-day cycle) were ribociclib 300 mg, everolimus 2.5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 1) and ribociclib 200 mg, everolimus 5 mg, and exemestane 25 mg (group 2). CBR among 95 efficacy-evaluable patients (phases I and II) at week 24 was 41.1% (95% confidence interval, 31.1-51.6), which met the primary endpoint (predetermined threshold: 10%). Common adverse events included neutropenia (69.2%) and stomatitis (40.4%). No new safety signals were observed; no grade 3/4 QTc prolongation was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary TRINITI-1 safety and efficacy results support further investigation of CDK4/6 blockade and targeting of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway in patients with ET-refractory HR+/HER2- ABC after progression on a CDK4/6i.

Midostaurin after allogeneic stem cell transplant in patients with FLT3-internal tandem duplication-positive acute myeloid leukemia.

We evaluated standard-of-care (SOC) treatment with or without midostaurin to prevent relapse following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) harboring internal tandem duplication (ITD) in FLT3. Adults (aged 18-70 years) who received alloHSCT in first complete remission, had achieved hematologic recovery, and were transfusion independent were randomized to receive SOC with or without midostaurin (50 mg twice daily) continuously in twelve 4-week cycles. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS) 18 months post-alloHSCT. Sixty patients were randomized (30/arm); 30 completed all 12 cycles (midostaurin + SOC, n = 16; SOC, n = 14). The estimated 18-month RFS (95% CI) was 89% (69-96%) in the midostaurin arm and 76% (54-88%) in the SOC arm (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.12-1.86]; P = 0.27); estimated relapse rates were 11% and 24%, respectively. Inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation to <70% of baseline (achieved by 50% of midostaurin-treated patients) was associated with improved RFS. The most common serious adverse events were diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Rates of graft-vs-host disease were similar between both arms (midostaurin + SOC, 70%; SOC, 73%). The addition of midostaurin maintenance therapy following alloHSCT may provide clinical benefit in some patients with FLT3-ITD AML. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01883362).

Updated safety of midostaurin plus chemotherapy in newly diagnosed FLT3 mutation-positive acute myeloid leukemia: the RADIUS-X expanded access program.

Approval of midostaurin, a multikinase inhibitor, in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed FLT3 mutation-positive acute myeloid leukemia, was based on the phase 3 RATIFY trial results. RADIUS-X (NCT02624570) was an expanded access program providing access to midostaurin during regulatory review and extending the understanding of the safety and tolerability of midostaurin. Patients aged ≥18 years received midostaurin with 1-2 cycles of induction therapy (cytarabine plus daunorubicin or idarubicin) and ≤4 cycles of high-dose cytarabine consolidation chemotherapy or as single-agent maintenance therapy. The study enrolled 103 patients. No new safety events were observed; toxicities were not influenced by age, anthracycline choice, or coadministration of CYP3A4 inhibitors. The most common adverse events (AEs) were febrile neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea. During maintenance, 46% of patients reported AEs. Midostaurin demonstrated a manageable safety profile and was associated with high transplant and low on-treatment relapse rates.

Efficacy and safety of buparlisib, a PI3K inhibitor, in patients with malignancies harboring a PI3K pathway activation: a phase 2, open-label, single-arm study.

Background: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation plays a key role in tumorigenesis and has been associated with poor prognosis and resistance to multiple therapies in various cancers. Results: There were 146 patients enrolled; common tumor types were colorectal, sarcoma, and ovarian. Tumors had PI3K pathway alterations and a median of four mutations with tissue-specific patterns of mutation burden (lowest: sarcoma [2.5]; highest: esophagus, germ cell tumor, skin non-melanoma, vaginal [7]). The number of prior therapies did not correlate with the number of genetic alterations (Pearson r = -0.037). The clinical benefit rate was 15.1% (n = 22). An additional patient had an unconfirmed complete response. The most common adverse events were fatigue, nausea, hyperglycemia, decreased appetite, and diarrhea. Patient and Methods: In this phase 2, open-label, single-arm study, patients with solid or hematologic malignancies with PI3K pathway activation and progression on or after standard treatment received buparlisib (100 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate per local investigator assessment (response or stable disease at ≥16 weeks). Conclusions: Buparlisib was well tolerated, however efficacy was limited despite selection of PI3K pathway aberrations. Future studies may provide insight into buparlisib efficacy by refining the molecular selection of different tumor types.

Efficacy and Safety of Ribociclib With Letrozole in US Patients Enrolled in the MONALEESA-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Mammary Oncology Assessment of LEE011's (Ribociclib's) Efficacy and Safety (MONALEESA-2) study, combination treatment with the selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases 4/6 ribociclib with letrozole significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus letrozole alone in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (ABC). Herein we present results from the subset of US patients enrolled in MONALEESA-2. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- ABC without previous treatment for advanced disease were randomized (1:1) to ribociclib 600 mg/d (3 weeks on/1 week off) with letrozole 2.5 mg/d (continuous) or placebo with letrozole. The primary end point was locally assessed PFS. RESULTS: Overall, 213 US patients were enrolled in MONALEESA-2 (ribociclib, n = 100; placebo, n = 113). Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups and consistent with the global population. With a median follow-up of 27 months, 38 (38%) and 29 (26%) patients in the ribociclib and placebo groups, respectively, had continued to receive treatment. Median PFS was 27.6 months with ribociclib and 15.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53). The most common all-cause adverse events were neutropenia (ribociclib, 72.0% [n = 72]; placebo, 4.6% [n = 5]), nausea (ribociclib, 69.0% [n = 69]; placebo, 44.0% [n = 48]), and fatigue (ribociclib, 60.0% [n = 60]; placebo, 50.5% [n = 55]). Two patients (ribociclib, 2.0%; placebo, 0%) experienced febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: In the US subset of MONALEESA-2, ribociclib with letrozole showed superior efficacy versus letrozole alone. These findings are consistent with the global population and support first-line use of ribociclib with letrozole in patients with HR+/HER2- ABC.

Tissue/Site-Agnostic Study of Ribociclib for Tumors With Cyclin D-CDK4/6 Pathway Genomic Alterations: A Phase II, Open-Label, Single-Arm Basket Study.

PURPOSE: As part of the Novartis Signature Program, this study evaluated the efficacy of ribociclib (selective cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 [CDK4/6] inhibitor) in patients with cyclin D-CDK4/6 pathway-aberrant tumors. METHODS: This was a phase II, single-arm, signal-seeking study in patients with advanced malignancies that had progressed on or after standard treatment. Prior identification of tumor CDK4/6 mutation or amplification, CCND1/3 amplification, or CDKN2A mutation or loss was required. Clinical benefit (defined as the proportion of patients with response or stable disease at ≥ 16 weeks) was the primary end point. RESULTS: From 61 centers in the United States, 106 patients (median age, 62.5 years) were enrolled across multiple malignancies. The patient population was heavily pretreated (median number of prior therapies, three; range, 0 to 19). Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 1.9). In patients with solid tumors, the clinical benefit rate was 18.1% (n = 19 of 105) and the overall response rate was 2.9% (n = 3 of 105); three partial responses occurred in patients with adenocarcinoma (unknown primary), soft tissue sarcoma, and urothelial carcinoma. No tumor cohort met the prespecified criteria for success. The most common adverse events suspected to be related to treatment were neutropenia (30.2%; decreased neutrophils, 15.1%), fatigue (31.1%), and nausea (29.2%). Fatigue and nausea were typically mild. Only one incident of febrile neutropenia was experienced (grade 3). CONCLUSION: No new or unexpected safety signals were observed in this heavily pretreated patient population. Although responses were seen in tumors with CCND1-CDK4/6 amplifications, the primary end point was not met, suggesting additional evaluation of ribociclib, possibly as combination therapy, is needed.

The GOLD ReGISTry: a Global, Prospective, Observational Registry Collecting Longitudinal Data on Patients with Advanced and Localised Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common gastrointestinal sarcomas. This global, prospective registry followed patients with advanced or localised GIST (2007-2011). METHODS: Current and evolving diagnostics, treatments and outcome measures in patients with GIST were assessed. Eligible patients were diagnosed with advanced or localised GIST within 15months of registry entry. No treatment plan was prescribed, and no visit schedule was mandated. Treating physicians recorded patient information, including tumour response, diagnostic methods, medications, surgeries performed, mutation status and adverse events leading to dose/medication changes. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Other data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The registry included 1663 patients (advanced GIST, n=1095; localised GIST, n=537). Medications (e.g. tyrosine kinase inhibitor use and dosing), disease progression or recurrence and physician assessment of response to treatment in registry patients were consistent with controlled trials and prevailing clinical recommendations. In advanced GIST, estimated 30-month progression-free survival (PFS) (59.8%) and overall survival (OS) (82.7%) were higher than results from previously reported trials (≈40% and ≈70%, respectively). Consistent with treatment guidelines, the most common initial treatments were imatinib for advanced GIST, and complete surgical resection for localised GIST. Computed tomography scans were the most common imaging technique used at diagnosis and follow-up. Mutation analysis was performed at diagnosis in only 15.3% and 14.5% of patients with advanced and localised GIST, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world GIST registry, patients with advanced GIST were treated with imatinib and patients with localised GIST received surgical resection, in accordance with prevailing clinical recommendations.

Deep molecular responses achieved in patients with CML-CP who are switched to nilotinib after long-term imatinib.

Patients in complete cytogenetic response (CCyR) with detectable BCR-ABL1 after ≥2 years on imatinib were randomized to nilotinib (400 mg twice daily, n = 104) or continued imatinib (n = 103) in the Evaluating Nilotinib Efficacy and Safety in clinical Trials-Complete Molecular Response (ENESTcmr) trial. By 1 and 2 years, confirmed undetectable BCR-ABL1 was achieved by 12.5% vs 5.8% (P = .108) and 22.1% vs 8.7% of patients in the nilotinib and imatinib arms, respectively (P = .0087). Among patients without molecular response 4.5 (BCR-ABL1(IS) ≤0.0032%; MR(4.5)) and those without major molecular response at study start, MR(4.5) by 2 years was achieved by 42.9% vs 20.8% and 29.2% vs 3.6% of patients in the nilotinib and imatinib arms, respectively. No patient in the nilotinib arm lost CCyR, vs 3 in the imatinib arm. Adverse events were more common in the nilotinib arm, as expected with the introduction of a new drug vs remaining on a well-tolerated drug. The safety profile of nilotinib was consistent with other reported studies. In summary, switching to nilotinib enabled more patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in chronic phase (CML-CP) to sustain lower levels of disease burden vs remaining on imatinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00760877.

Randomized study of antihypertensive efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/valsartan vs valsartan monotherapy in hypertensive participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

In this double-blind study, 1143 hypertensive participants with type 2 diabetes and stage 1 or 2 chronic kidney disease (CKD) were randomized to receive combination aliskiren/valsartan 150/160 mg or valsartan 160 mg monotherapy for 2 weeks, with force-titration to 300/320 mg and 320 mg, respectively, for another 6 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), the primary outcome, was available for 665 participants. Reductions from baseline to week 8 in 24-hour ABP were -14.1/-8.7 mm Hg with aliskiren/valsartan vs -10.2/-6.3 mm Hg with valsartan (P<.001). Adverse events were reported in 202 participants (35.2%) taking aliskiren/valsartan and 182 participants (32.2%) taking valsartan. No participant had blood urea nitrogen values>40 mg/dL or serum creatinine values>2.0 mg/dL. There were no confirmed cases of serum potassium values≥6.0 mEq/L. Combination aliskiren/valsartan has additive effects on blood pressure reduction and tolerability similar to valsartan in hypertensive/diabetic participants with early-stage (stages 1 and 2) CKD.

Antihypertensive and metabolic effects of Angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination therapy in obese, hypertensive African American and white patients.

A clinical trial showed comparable blood pressure (BP) lowering by valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients. Relative to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced the hyperglycemic response to glucose challenge. An objective of this post hoc analysis was to determine whether this benefit extended to African Americans and whites. Treatments (160/12.5 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 320/25 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 or 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 with 5 and 10 mg of amlodipine added at weeks 8 and 12, respectively) were administered once daily. Both treatments reduced clinic BP from baseline to all visits (P < 0.0001), regardless of race/ethnicity (126 African Americans, 212 whites). In African Americans, there were no significant between-treatment differences in clinic or ambulatory BP lowering at weeks 8 or 16. Whites responded better to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan but not amlodipine mitigated the hyperglycemic response to hydrochlorothiazide through enhanced insulin secretion. Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was as effective as amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide was in reducing BP in obese, hypertensive African Americans and better than amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in whites. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan to hydrochlorothiazide reduced the negative metabolic effects associated with thiazide therapy.

Does response of RAS blockade on serum K+ levels influence its glycemic-mitigating response when combined with hydrochlorothiazide?

The authors previously reported that addition of valsartan ameliorated the negative metabolic effects of hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients through an enhanced postprandial insulin response. In this secondary analysis, the authors tested whether this enhanced insulin response to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was influenced by serum potassium levels, which were reduced to a lesser extent, when compared with amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide. Results showed that the early insulin response with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide occurred regardless of serum potassium levels. Heightened insulin response was, however, not significantly different when patients with normal potassium (>3.9 mEq/L) at baseline and low potassium (≤3.9 mEq/L) at the end of the study were compared with the amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide group. Despite the influence of serum potassium on insulin secretory response to a glucose challenge, the addition of valsartan maintained normoglycemia in patients given hydrochlorothiazide. Thus, the metabolic response to hydrochlorothiazide was improved with addition of valsartan through an enhanced insulin response that was not greatly affected by changes in potassium levels.

Home and clinic blood pressure responses in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension.

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring may enhance assessment of BP control. In this 16-week study, men and women 70 years or older with systolic BP between 150 and 200 mm Hg were randomized to receive valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (V/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg (n = 128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 128), or V 160 mg (n = 128) for 4 weeks. Participants whose BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were uptitrated to a maximum of V/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Participants were evaluated by home BP monitoring using an automated device weekly before taking daily study medication (n = 301). Baseline BP ± SD for clinic (165.5 ± 11.8/85.1 ± 9.5 mm Hg) was approximately 3/1 mm Hg greater than home readings (162.5 ± 15.8/84.3 ± 10.2 mm Hg). Reductions in BP ± SEM at week 4 were similar for clinic (12.6 ± 1.0/4.7 ± 0.5 mm Hg) and home (10.9 ± 1.1/3.8 ± 0.5 mm Hg) readings (P = .25/P = .23; clinic versus home); differences between V/HCTZ and HCTZ or V were also similar for both home and clinic readings and results by either technique correlated significantly (P < .0001). Home BP measurements confirm that treatment initiated with V/HCTZ versus monotherapy resulted in greater antihypertensive efficacy. Home BP monitoring, if done with proper technique, provides a reliable indicator of BP control in elderly patients and may help guide drug dosing and titration.

Comparative efficacy of aliskiren/valsartan vs valsartan in nocturnal dipper and nondipper hypertensive patients: a pooled analysis.

This pooled analysis of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring data from two 8-week randomized controlled trials compared the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/valsartan vs valsartan alone in hypertensive patients (nocturnal dippers or nondippers). At study end, patients were taking aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg or valsartan 320 mg. In dippers (n=138) and nondippers (n=132), aliskiren/valsartan provided significantly (P<.05) greater reductions from baseline to week 8 than valsartan in 24-hour, daytime, and last-4-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP (maSBP). Treatment differences were more pronounced in nondippers. Nighttime maSBP reductions with aliskiren/valsartan were significantly greater vs valsartan in nondippers (-17.0 mm Hg vs -8.9 mm Hg; P<.05) but not dippers (-7.6 mm Hg vs -4.5 mm Hg; P=.16). In all time periods, combination therapy was generally associated with BP reductions that were greater in nondippers than dippers. Conversion from nondipper to dipper status was 32% vs 22% for aliskiren/valsartan vs valsartan (P=.48). Both treatments were similarly well tolerated. Although the addition of aliskiren to valsartan did not significantly alter dipper status, our data suggest an increased contribution of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system to the nondipper status of hypertensive patients.

Aliskiren-based dual- and triple-combination therapies in high-risk US minority patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Previously, we reported the efficacy of aliskiren/amlodipine in US minority adults with stage 2 hypertension, with additional blood pressure (BP) lowering from the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). A subgroup analysis in patients with hypertension and comorbidities of diabetes, cardiometabolic syndrome, or obesity, and in black participants is reported. This 8-week, multicenter, double-blind study included 412 self-identified minority patients with mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) ≥160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg). Patients were randomized to receive either combination aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Doses were forced-titrated to a maximum of aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ 300/10/25 mg or aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg, respectively. There were 256 black (62%), 118 diabetic (29%), 284 cardiometabolic syndrome (69%), and 249 obese (60%) randomized patients. Baseline msSBP was ~167 mm Hg across all subgroups. Least-square mean reductions in msSBP, the primary efficacy outcome, from baseline to week 8 across all subgroups, ranged from 35 to 37 mm Hg with aliskiren/amlodipine/HCTZ and 28 to 30 mm Hg with aliskiren/amlodipine (P < .01 for all between-treatment comparisons). Both regimens were well tolerated. Among high-risk patients, such as diabetics or those with cardiometabolic syndrome, combination aliskiren/amlodipine is effective in lowering BP; the addition of HCTZ provided incremental BP-lowering efficacy while maintaining tolerability. However, because our subgroups were not mutually exclusive, the generalization of our findings to the population seen in clinical practice is limited.

Comparison of the effects of aliskiren/valsartan in combination versus valsartan alone in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

The extent to which the combination of a renin inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) lowers clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) versus an ARB alone in stage 2 hypertension is not well known. Hence, we performed an 8-week, randomized, double-blind study in 451 patients with stage 2 hypertension to compare the efficacy of the combination of aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg versus valsartan 320 mg. The primary endpoint was change in seated systolic BP from baseline to week 8 analyzed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach; patients completing the entire treatment period (per-protocol completers) were similarly analyzed. For the predefined primary analysis, systolic BP reductions for aliskiren/valsartan (n = 230) and valsartan (n = 217) were -22.1 and -20.5 mm Hg, respectively (P = .295). In per-protocol completers, aliskiren/valsartan (n = 201) lowered BP significantly greater than valsartan (n = 196); -23.7 mm Hg versus -20.3 mm Hg, respectively (P = .028). Although limited by a small sample size (n = 76) using ambulatory BP monitoring, aliskiren/valsartan lowered the 24-hour BP significantly more than valsartan alone (-14.6/-9.0 mm Hg versus -5.9/-4.2 mm Hg; P < .01). Safety and tolerability were similar for the two treatment groups. These data demonstrate the importance of multiple modalities to assess BP changes in clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies, particularly in stage 2 hypertension.

Antihypertensive response to thiazide diuretic or angiotensin receptor blocker in elderly hypertensives is not influenced by pretreatment plasma renin activity.

PURPOSE: Renin profiling has been proposed as a method to guide antihypertensive drug selection. This prespecified post-hoc analysis examined the influence of baseline plasma renin activity (PRA) on blood pressure (BP) responses. METHODS: A 16-week, randomized, double-blind, prompted-titration trial evaluated initial valsartan (V)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy versus initial HCTZ or V monotherapy in individuals aged ≥ 70 years with systolic hypertension. Sitting PRA was measured at baseline, Week 4, and Week 16. Subjects were stratified into 2 groups for analysis: low renin (baseline PRA < 0.65 ng/mL/h) or normal-high renin (baseline PRA ≥ 0.65 ng/mL/h). RESULTS: PRA data were available in 322/384 subjects: 178 had low PRA and 144 had normal-high PRA. At Week 4, V/HCTZ was more effective than HCTZ or V at reducing mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP), independent of baseline PRA, with reductions of -16.9, -12.6, and -9.5 mmHg, respectively, in low-renin subjects and -19.4, -11.5, and -8.6 mmHg in normal-high renin subjects. Baseline PRA was similar in responders (subjects not uptitrated at Week 4) and nonresponders (subjects uptitrated at Week 4). In responders, the reactive rise in PRA at Week 4 was related to change in MSSBP, with the greatest increases in PRA observed in the V/HCTZ group. Higher baseline PRA was associated with a greater reactive rise in PRA. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PRA is not a useful guide to the BP responses of initial combination V/HCTZ in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure response to triple therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), calcium-channel blocker (CCB), and HCTZ versus dual therapy with an ARB and HCTZ.

BACKGROUND: Stage 2 hypertension often requires combination antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a useful tool for assessing antihypertensive drugs and their combinations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of a moderate dose of angiotensin receptor blocker/calcium channel blocker (ARB/CCB) combined with a diuretic versus a maximal dose of ARB with a diuretic on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and other derived ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) parameters. METHODS: The EXforge As compared to Losartan Treatment ABPM substudy was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control, forced-titration study of patients with Stage 2 hypertension that compared the efficacy of initial treatment with valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 48) or losartan 100 mg (n = 36). At week 3, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg was added in both treatment groups. ABP was measured at baseline and at week 6. Additionaly, 24-hour ABP, nighttime (10 pm to 6 am) and daytime (6 am to 10 pm) ABP, and ABP load (percentage of readings above 140/90 mmHg) were determined. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (48 ARB/CCB/HCTZ, 36 ARB/HCTZ) had ABPM at baseline and at week 6. Reductions of systolic/diastolic ABP were greater in the ARB/CCB/ HCTZ group than in the ARB/HCTZ group for 24-hour mean ABP (-22.0/-13.3 versus -17.4/-8.1 mmHg), as well as nighttime ABP (-22.2/-13.3 versus -16.2/-7.4 mmHg), daytime ABP (-21.9/-13.0 versus -18.1/-8.6 mmHg), ABP in the last 4 hours of the dosing period (-21.5/-13.5 versus -17.0/-7.7 mmHg), and ABP load (21.7%/12.8% versus 30.8%/20.0%). CONCLUSION: Initiating antihypertensive treatment with moderate doses of ARB/CCB with a diuretic is more effective in lowering nighttime and daytime ABP and reducing ABP load than a maximal dose of an ARB with a diuretic.

Treating systolic hypertension in the very elderly with valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide vs. either monotherapy: ValVET primary results.

This 16-week trial investigated the efficacy and safety of single-pill valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. the individual components in patients 70 years and older with systolic hypertension. Patients were randomized to valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg (n=128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n=128), or valsartan 160 mg (n=128) for 4 weeks. Patients whose blood pressure (BP) was ≥140/90 mm Hg at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were up-titrated to a maximum of valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Week 4 systolic BP reduction (primary efficacy outcome) was greater with valsartan/HCTZ than valsartan (-17.3 mm Hg vs. -8.6 mm Hg, P <.0001) but only marginally greater than HCTZ (-13.6 mm Hg, P =.096). Median time to BP control was shorter with valsartan/HCTZ (4 weeks) vs HCTZ (8 weeks, P<.05) or valsartan (12 weeks, P<.0001). Thiazide monotherapy was more effective than angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (by about 5 mm Hg), but greater antihypertensive efficacy was achieved by initiating treatment with combination valsartan/HCTZ in the elderly.

Office and ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs. hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy in obese, hypertensive patients.

The authors evaluated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. amlodipine/HCTZ in a 16-week, double-blind, randomized, forced-titration study and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) substudy involving centrally obese hypertensive patients 40 years and older. Patients were started on valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy, force-titrated at week 4 to valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg and HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. The HCTZ group initiated amlodipine 5 mg at week 8 and 10 mg at week 12. A subset of patients had 24-hour ABPM at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. At week 16 in the intent-to-treat population (n=401), valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/HCTZ lowered office systolic BP (-30.6 vs. -28.3 mm Hg; P=.14). In the ABPM subgroup (n=111), valsartan/HCTZ was more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in reducing 24-hour systolic BP (-20.6 vs. -14.5 mm Hg; P=.011). In obese hypertensive patients, valsartan/HCTZ reduced office BP similar to amlodipine/HCTZ but lowered 24-hour systolic BP more.