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.

Comparison of multi-institutional pre-treatment verification for VMAT of nasopharynx with delivery errors.

PURPOSE: Measurement-based pre-treatment verification with phantoms frequently uses gamma analysis to assess acceptable delivery accuracy. This study evaluates the sensitivity of a commercial system to simulated machine errors for three different institutions' Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) planning approaches. METHODS: VMAT plans were generated for ten patients at three institutions using each institution's own protocol (manually-planned at institution 1; auto-planned at institutions 2 and 3). Errors in Multi-Leaf Collimator (MLC) field size (FS), MLC shift (S), and collimator angle (C) of -5, -2, -1, 1, 2 and 5 mm or degrees were introduced. Dose metric constraints discriminated which error magnitudes were considered unacceptable. The smallest magnitude error treatment plans deemed clinically unacceptable (typically for a 5% dose change) were delivered to the ArcCHECK for all institutions, and with a high-dose point ion chamber measurement in 2 institutions. Error detection for different gamma analysis criteria was compared. RESULTS: Not all deliberately introduced VMAT plan errors were detected using a typical 3D 3%/3 mm global gamma pass rate of 95%. Considering all institutions, gamma analysis was least sensitive to negative FS errors. The most sensitive was a 2%/2 mm global analysis for institution 1, whilst for institution 2 it was 3%/3 mm global analysis. The majority of errors (58/59 for institution 1, 54/60 for institution 3) were detected using ArcCHECK and ion chamber measurements combined. CONCLUSIONS: Not all clinically unacceptable errors are detected. Combining ion chamber measurements with gamma analysis improved sensitivity and is recommended. Optimum gamma settings varied across institutions.