Phase III randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety of amlodipine and candesartan cilexetil combination for hypertension treatment.

Effective antihypertensive therapy is essential for achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control and reducing cardiovascular events. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial aimed to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of a combination of amlodipine (AML) and candesartan cilexetil (CC) versus AML monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension (HTN). After a 4-week run-in period with AML 5 mg, patients whose HTN remained uncontrolled (diastolic BP [DBP]) ≥ 90 mmHg and < 120 mmHg) were randomized to receive either AML + CC or AML alone for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by measuring changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP). The primary safety measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A total of 174 participants were included in the efficacy analysis. After 8 weeks, DBP decreased by -9.92 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML + CC arm and - 2.08 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML arm (p < 0.0001). SBP decreased by -14.27 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML + CC arm versus - 2.77 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML arm (p < 0.0001). AEs occurred in 11.24% of the AML + CC group and 5.62% of the AML group (p = 0.1773). AML + CC combination therapy demonstrated superior efficacy with good tolerance, making it a promising option for patients with inadequately controlled hypertension on amlodipine alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randomized, multicenter, parallel, open, phase 4 study to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin/amlodipine polypill versus atorvastatin/amlodipine polypill in hypertension patient with dyslipidemia.

The authors performed this study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin (RSV)/amlodipine (AML) polypill compared with those of atorvastatin (ATV)/AML polypill. We included 259 patients from 21 institutions in Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, or ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of the RSV 10.20 mg/AML 5 mg via percentage changes in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment, compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg. There was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (full analysis set [FAS]: -7.08%, 95% CI: -11.79 to -2.38, p = .0034, per-protocol analysis set [PPS]: -6.97%, 95% CI: -11.76 to -2.19, p = .0046). Also, there was a significant difference in the mean percentage change of LDL-C at 8 weeks between the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg and the ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg (FAS: -10.13%, 95% CI: -15.41 to -4.84, p = .0002, PPS: -10.96%, 95% CI: -15.98 to -5.93, p < .0001). There was no significant difference in the adverse events rates between RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg, RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg, and ATV 20 mg/AML 5 mg. In conclusion, while maintaining safety, RSV 10 mg/AML 5 mg and the RSV 20 mg/AML 5 mg more effectively reduced LDL-C compared with the ATV 20 mg /AML 5 mg (Clinical trial: NCT03951207).

Amlodipine in the current management of hypertension.

Hypertension is the leading cause of death worldwide, affecting 1.4 billion people. Treatment options include the widely used calcium channel blockers, among which amlodipine, a dihydropyridine, has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other drugs within this class. This review aims to provide an updated overview of the evidence supporting the use of amlodipine over the past 30 years and highlights its cardiovascular benefits in current hypertension management. Amlodipine has low renal clearance (7 mL/min/mg) and long half-life (35-50 h) and duration of action, which allows it to sustain its anti-hypertensive effect for more than 24 h following a single dose. Additionally, blood pressure (BP) control is maintained even when a dose has been missed, providing continuous protection in case of incidental noncompliance. It has proven to reduce BP variability and successfully lower BP. Amlodipine also controls BP in patients with a systolic/diastolic BP of 130/80 mm Hg or higher, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease without worsening glycemic or kidney function. Additionally, amlodipine is a wise choice for older adults due to its ability to control BP and protect against stroke and myocardial infarction. Side effects of amlodipine include edema, palpitations, dizziness, and flushing, which are more common with the higher dose of 10 mg. Amlodipine is cost effective and predicted to be cost saving when compared with usual care.

Comparing the efficacy of oral labetalol with oral amlodipine in achieving blood pressure control in women with postpartum hypertension: randomized controlled trial (HIPPO study-Hypertension In Pregnancy & Postpartum Oral-antihypertensive therapy).

De novo - or as a continuum of antenatal hypertension -postpartum hypertension complicates ~2% of pregnancies. Many maternal complications, such as eclampsia and cerebrovascular accidents, occur in the postpartum period. Despite widespread use of antihypertensives during pregnancy and childbirth, there is a paucity of data on preferred medications in the postpartum period. This randomized controlled study enrolled 130 women who were started on antihypertensives. They were randomized to receive oral Labetalol(LAB, maximum 900 mg per day in three doses) or oral Amlodipine(AML, maximum 10 mg per day given in two doses). In the immediate postpartum, all women were closely monitored for neurological symptoms, blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, urine output, and deep tendon reflex. The primary outcome was the time to achieve sustained blood pressure control for 12 h from the initiation of medication; secondary outcomes included side effects of both medications. Mean time to achieve sustained blood pressure control was lower in women who received AML than in those who received LAB-(mean difference 7.2 h; 38 95% CI 1.4, 12.9, p = 0.011). There were fewer severe hypertensive episodes among those with AML than in those who received LAB. However, the proportion of women who continued to require antihypertensives at discharge was higher in the AML group than in the LAB group (55.4% versus 32.3%, p = 0.008). None of the participants developed drug-related side effects. Among women with postpartum persistence or new-onset hypertension, oral AML achieved sustained blood pressure control in a shorter duration, with fewer hypertensive emergencies than oral LAB. (CTRI/2020/02/023236).Trial Registration details: The study protocol was registered with Clinical Trial Registry of India with CTRI Number CTRI/2020/02/023236 dated 11.02.2020. Protocol can be accessed at https://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pdf_generate.php?trialid=40435&EncHid=&modid=&compid=%27,%2740435det%27 .

Efficacy and safety of single pill combination of amlodipine and valsartan in hypertensive Saudi patients.

OBJECTIVE: A significant global health issue that affects 25.5% of Saudi people is hypertension (HTN). According to international recommendations, most HTN patients require more than one therapy to reach their blood pressure targets (BP). Therefore, it would be preferable to utilize two medications from distinct classes separately or in a predetermined combination. According to recent studies, a single-pill combination (SPC) may be more efficient. This study evaluated the safety and tolerability of Amlodipine/Valsartan (Aml/Val) SPC in Saudi hypertensive patients, as well as the effectiveness of the medication. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational research was done prospectively at the King Fahad Armed Forces Hospital in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The effectiveness of the treatment and the percentage of 159 hypertensive patients who achieved the target blood pressure values (140/90; 130/80 mmHg) among those with diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), other cardiovascular disorders, and responders were assessed from the beginning to the endpoint (week 23). RESULTS: According to the results, taking Aml/Val SPC significantly lowered all patients' baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressure readings by -17.97 and 8.58 mmHg, respectively. 43.4% of patients successfully met their BP therapeutic objectives by bringing their blood pressure levels back to normal, including 51.4% of patients under 65, 39.3% of patients with chronic kidney disease, and 26.2% of diabetic patients. Aml/Val 10/160 mg significantly lowers SBP, more than Aml/Val 5/160 mg (-13.32% vs. -9.00%, p<0.050). Vertigo (6.30%), respiratory tract infections (4.0%), and ankle edema (2.50%) were the most frequent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Aml/Val SPC therapy effectively lowered BP and had few side effects while being well-tolerated in people with hypertension.

Amlodipine improves the outcomes of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor. It is used for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. It has a mild effect. Regorafenib outcomes, and side effects may vary across patients. This study was aimed to evaluate the factors that affect regorafenib outcomes in mCRC patients. We conducted a single-center and retrospective study. Fifty-six patients were included. All patients had received regorafenib for mCRC. Some clinical and pathological factors and the effects of these factors on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rates (DCR) were analyzed. Concomitant amlodipine intake with regorafenib improved OS [14.26 vs. 6.97 months; 95% confidence interval, 4.04-20.84; P = 0.031] and DCR at 12th week (90% vs. 46%; P = 0.012). Hepatic metastasis was found as the poorest prognostic factor in both univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients who received chemotherapy after regorafenib had better OS. Good performance status was the strongest indicator of better OS. Patients taking amlodipine for arterial hypertension at the same time with regorafenib had numerically better OS and PFS and statistically better DCR. Amlodipine itself already has anticancer effects, and it has additive anticancer effects with regorafenib. The presence of hepatic metastases was found to be the most important prognostic factor for OS. There were not any predictive factors of side effects to regorafenib.

Perindopril/Indapamide/Amlodipine in Hypertension: A Profile of Its Use.

The single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril (PER)/indapamide (IND)/amlodipine (AML) is a valuable and convenient treatment option for patients with hypertension controlled with two-drug SPC of PER/IND + AML given as two separate pills at the same dose level. PER [an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor], IND (a thiazide-like diuretic) and AML (a calcium channel blocker) are well established antihypertensive agents, which have been available for a long time as monotherapies and dual SPCs and have complementary mechanisms of action. Once-daily PER/IND/AML provided effective BP control, with good tolerability, in patients with uncontrolled hypertension in clinical trials and in large observational prospective studies. The efficacy and tolerability of PER/IND/AML was similar to that of PER/IND + AML in a randomized clinical trial. The therapeutic effect of PER/IND/AML was associated with improved health-related quality of life. Thus, switching from the two-pill PER/IND + AML regimen to single-pill PER/IND/AML reduces pill burden and simplifies drug administration, which may improve adherence to treatment, leading to better BP control and clinical outcomes.

Approximately one-quarter of patients with hypertension require three antihypertensive agents to achieve BP control. However, complex treatment regimens and high pill burden reduce treatment adherence, which in turn leads to poor BP control. Perindopril (PER), indapamide (IND), amlodipine (AML) belong to the core drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. These drugs have been available for a long time as monotherapies and two-drug single-pill combinations. Once-daily PER/IND/AML provides very good BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and is generally well tolerated. The single-pill PER/IND/AML has similar efficacy and tolerability to PER/IND + AML given as two separate pills. Therefore, switching from PER/IND + AML to PER/IND/AML reduces pill burden and simplifies the treatment regimen, which may improve adherence to treatment, leading to better BP control and clinical outcomes. Thus, PER/IND/AML is a valuable and convenient treatment option for patients with hypertension controlled with PER/IND + AML at the same dose level.

Efficacy and safety of Tengfu Jiangya tablet combined with valsartan/amlodipine in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence rate of hypertension in the Chinese population is on the rise, and the control rate of hypertension is low. International guidelines, including the 2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension, recommend optimized drug selection and combination therapy for patients with stage 2 hypertension and blood pressure ≥ 160/100 mmHg, including valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml). The traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) compound Tengfu Jiangya tablet (TJT; No. Z20110021, Shandong Provincial Food and Drug Administration) is prepared in the medical institution of Affiliated Hospital of Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. It is an effective compound preparation of TCM for the treatment of hypertension in the national clinical research base of TCM. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TJT combined with Val/Aml in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension with hyperactivity of liver yang. METHODS: This randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial will be conducted with a total of 288 participants with stage 2 hypertension at seven clinical trial centers. The stratified random method will be used, and the subcenter will be taken as the stratification factor. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) into groups receiving either TJT or placebo three times daily for 28 days, both combined with Val/Aml 80/5 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint is the reduction in the mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and the mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) from baseline to week 4. Adverse events and laboratory test results will be monitored throughout the trial. DISCUSSION: This is the first placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Chinese herbal extract combined with Val/Aml in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Our study may help to provide evidence-based recommendations of a complementary preventive measure for stage 2 hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2000030611 . Registered on 8 March 2020.

Cancer Risk of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker Valsartan: A Population-based Study.

ABSTRACT: Nitrosamine contamination of generic valsartan was found in 2018. This study aimed to investigate whether long-term use of valsartan increases cancer risk. Patients prescribed valsartan or amlodipine (control group) from 1 January 1, 2003, to June 30, 2010, were identified using the Clinical Data Analysis and Reporting System of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority, a territory-wide database in Hong Kong. Patients previously diagnosed with cancer, prescribed both medications, taking the medication, or followed up for <1 year were excluded. Cancer incidence, adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, was the primary outcome and was estimated using Poisson regression in R version 3.6.1. Among 5023 valsartan users and 3692 amlodipine users, 887 and 740 were diagnosed with cancers during median follow-up periods of 10.97 and 12.12 years, respectively. The adjusted incidence of cancer in valsartan and amlodipine users was 165.29 (95% confidence interval 154.76-175.53) and 180.12 (167.35-193.67) per 10,000 person-years, respectively. The cancer incidence rate ratio of valsartan relative to amlodipine was 0.94 (0.88-1.01). Adjusted incidence rate ratios of valsartan relative to amlodipine were significant for breast cancer (0.63, 0.46-0.86) only. Our findings do not suggest an increase in incidence of cancer with long-term valsartan use. The duration of follow-up of more than 10 years of the study provides the reassurance that an increase in cancer risk is unlikely. Further studies are needed to elucidate the long-term effect of valsartan use on the risk of specific types of cancer.

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

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

Platelet Dysfunction Because of Amlodipine in Bone Marrow Transplant Recipient.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HTN) is a complication of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We report a pediatric stem cell transplant patient who had HTN and adverse event because of amlodipine. OBSERVATION: Seven-year-old boy had haploidentical stem cell transplantation with post-transplant cyclophosphamide. He had complete donor chimerism at the end of one month. Amlodipine was started on day +36 for HTN. On day +41, he had petechiae. Platelet function analyzer (PFA)-100 was abnormal. After amlodipine was stopped, petechiae disappeared and PFA-100 returned to normal. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormal PFA-100 and the patient complaints indicated the possibility of amlodipine-induced platelet dysfunction through inhibition of calcium-mediated platelet reactions.

A case series of medication-related fibrovascular hyperplasia following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for Fanconi anemia.

Systemic medications categorized as diphenylhydantoin, calcineurin inhibitor and calcium channel blocker may have effects on the oral cavity by modifying the inflammatory and immune response and causing undesired tissue proliferative reactions. Calcineurin inhibitors are medications commonly used for long periods in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) and solid organ transplantation. Medication-related fibrovascular hyperplasia (MRFH) is an extra gingival hyperplastic nodular growth associated with medications use. This study reports five cases of pediatric patients (6 to 12-years-old) diagnosed with Fanconi anemia (FA) after HSCT who presented similar oral mucosal lesions associated with the use of cyclosporine, phenobarbital and amlodipine. After excision of the lesions, histopathological analysis described them as pyogenic granuloma (PG). As the aetiology of the lesions manifested by the patients was associated with the use of medications, the final diagnosis was MRFH. Despite the clinical and histopathological similarity between PG and MRFH, it is fundamental to know the aetiological agent for achieving definitive diagnosis and correct management. Considering the etiologic agent (medication) and histopathological findings, it is suggested that the most appropriate term for this manifestation should be "medication-related fibrovascular hyperplasia". The correct nomenclature related to extra gingival hyperplastic lesions identified in patients on medications with potential to induce hyperplastic reactions should be adopted to facilitate scientific communication and improve the treatment.