Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal combination drug therapy for hypertension is not established, although current U.S. guidelines recommend inclusion of a diuretic. We hypothesized that treatment with the combination of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker would be more effective in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events than treatment with an ACE inhibitor plus a thiazide diuretic. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned 11,506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events to receive treatment with either benazepril plus amlodipine or benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. The primary end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation after sudden cardiac arrest, and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The trial was terminated early after a mean follow-up of 36 months, when the boundary of the prespecified stopping rule was exceeded. Mean blood pressures after dose adjustment were 131.6/73.3 mm Hg in the benazepril-amlodipine group and 132.5/74.4 mm Hg in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group. There were 552 primary-outcome events in the benazepril-amlodipine group (9.6%) and 679 in the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide group (11.8%), representing an absolute risk reduction with benazepril-amlodipine therapy of 2.2% and a relative risk reduction of 19.6% (hazard ratio, 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.90; P<0.001). For the secondary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke, the hazard ratio was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67 to 0.92; P=0.002). Rates of adverse events were consistent with those observed from clinical experience with the study drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The benazepril-amlodipine combination was superior to the benazepril-hydrochlorothiazide combination in reducing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension who were at high risk for such events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00170950.)

Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Aldosterone blockade reduces mortality and morbidity among patients with severe heart failure. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating the effect of eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, on morbidity and mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to eplerenone (25 mg per day initially, titrated to a maximum of 50 mg per day; 3319 patients) or placebo (3313 patients) [correction] in addition to optimal medical therapy. The study continued until 1012 deaths occurred. The primary end points were death from any cause and death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 16 months, there were 478 deaths in the eplerenone group and 554 deaths in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.85; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.75 to 0.96; P=0.008). Of these deaths, 407 in the eplerenone group and 483 in the placebo group were attributed to cardiovascular causes (relative risk, 0.83; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.72 to 0.94; P=0.005). The rate of the other primary end point, death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for cardiovascular events, was reduced by eplerenone (relative risk, 0.87; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 0.95; P=0.002), as was the secondary end point of death from any cause or any hospitalization (relative risk, 0.92; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.98; P=0.02). There was also a reduction in the rate of sudden death from cardiac causes (relative risk, 0.79; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.97; P=0.03). The rate of serious hyperkalemia was 5.5 percent in the eplerenone group and 3.9 percent in the placebo group (P=0.002), whereas the rate of hypokalemia was 8.4 percent in the eplerenone group and 13.1 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of eplerenone to optimal medical therapy reduces morbidity and mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure.

A randomized, double-blind trial comparing the effects of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl vs amlodipine on endothelial function and blood pressure.

Evidence suggests that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition ameliorates endothelial dysfunction. The authors examined the effect of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl combination treatment compared with amlodipine besylate monotherapy in modulating endothelial dysfunction. This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 70 hypertensive subjects with at least one other endothelial dysfunction risk factor to amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d force-titrated to 5/40 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d force-titrated to 10 mg/d). Both the combination and monotherapy produced significant median increases from baseline in percentage flow-mediated vasodilation (2.0% and 1.2%, respectively) and percentage change in percent flow-mediated vasodilation (25% and 16%, respectively). These improvements were numerically larger with combination treatment, but between-group differences did not achieve statistical significance. Reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were significantly greater (P=.0452/P=.0297) with combination treatment (-18.6/-12.3 mm Hg) than with monotherapy (-14.8/-9.1 mm Hg). A highly positive correlation between change in systolic blood pressure and change in percent of flow-mediated vasodilation was demonstrated only for combination treatment.

Efficacy of combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride for lowering systolic blood pressure in stage 2 hypertension.

The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study compared daily treatment with combination amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride 5/20 mg, amlodipine besylate 5 mg, and benazepril hydrochloride 20 mg in 505 patients aged 55 years of age or older with stage 2 hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] > or =160 and < or =200 mm Hg and diastolic BP > or =60 and < or =100 mm Hg). BP and pulse pressure were assessed by conventional office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In this analysis, combination therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in mean 24-hour BP, pulse pressure, and mean ambulatory BP during various time intervals compared with either monotherapy in the intent-to-treat population, in those with isolated and predominantly systolic hypertension, and in dippers and nondippers. Adverse event rates were low and similar in all treatment groups. This study demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and is well tolerated.

Efficacy of combination therapy for systolic blood pressure in patients with severe systolic hypertension: the Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study.

Systolic hypertension is predominant among patients over 50 years of age, is a more important cardiovascular risk factor than diastolic blood pressure, and is more difficult to control than diastolic blood pressure. Consequently, the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) recommends combination therapy as first-line treatment for patients with stage 2 hypertension. In the Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to identify patients with systolic hypertension and to determine the impact of 8 weeks of treatment with either amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl 5/20 mg combination therapy (n=149), amlodipine besylate 5 mg (n=146), or benazepril HCl 20 mg (n=148). Combination therapy was significantly more effective in reducing systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure than either monotherapy (p<0.0001). Significantly greater percentages of patients in the combination group compared with either monotherapy achieved blood pressure control (p<0.0001). Adverse events were low in all three treatment arms, with less peripheral edema in the combination group than in the amlodipine-treated group. The combination of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl given to patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension resulted in significantly greater reductions in blood pressure and pulse pressure than those seen with monotherapy and was at least as well tolerated as the separate components. This data supports the recommendation of the JNC 7 for the use of combination therapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

Combination therapy with nateglinide and a thiazolidinedione improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of monotherapy using nateglinide and the thiazolidinedione troglitazone with initial combination of the two agents on glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by diet alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This study consisted of a 28-week, double-blind, randomized, multicenter study that included a 4-week, single-blind, placebo, run-in period and a 24-week (shortened to 16 weeks), double-blind, active treatment period. RESULTS: At the 16-week end point, nateglinide 120 mg, troglitazone 600 mg, and the combination of the agents achieved statistically significant decreases in HbA(1c) in comparison with placebo and a baseline HbA(1c) of 8.1-8.4% (P < 0.001). The reductions in HbA(1c) were similar in the nateglinide (0.6%) and troglitazone (0.8%) monotherapy groups. The reduction in HbA(1c) (1.7%) was greatest in the combination group; 79% of patients in the combination group achieved HbA(1c) levels of <7%. The combination group had a higher number of adverse events, primarily due to an increased incidence of mild hypoglycemia in this treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Nateglinide and troglitazone are equally effective in decreasing HbA(1c) levels. However, these reductions from baseline HbA(1c) values of >8% are not adequate to achieve HbA(1c) levels of <7%. In contrast, the combination of nateglinide and of a thiazolidinedione shows an additive effect that is highly effective in reducing HbA(1c) levels to the target of <7% in 66% of patients, from a baseline HbA(1c) that is just above 8%.

Efficacy and safety of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone in Japanese patients with hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study.

Approximately 40% of Japanese patients with essential hypertension, including low-renin hypertension, are inadequately managed. Low-renin hypertension generally responds poorly to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers, but may respond more optimally to diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and aldosterone blockers. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging study evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone in 193 Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Although not a study inclusion criterion, baseline active plasma renin levels were consistently low (5.7-10.1 mU/L); most patients met the criteria for low-renin hypertension (< or =42.5 mU/L; normal range, 7-76 mU/L). Patients received placebo or eplerenone 50, 100, or 200 mg once daily for 8 weeks. Systolic blood pressure decreased significantly (-6.8 to -10.6 mm Hg vs. -2.1 mm Hg; p< or =0.0022 vs. placebo). Eplerenone offers significant blood pressure reduction with good tolerability in Japanese patients with hypertension, including those with low-renin hypertension.

Efficacy and tolerability of a switch to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride after monotherapy with amlodipine besylate: Data from the African-American subpopulation of a practice-based, open-label study (the LOGIC study).

BACKGROUND: The LOGIC (LOtrel: Gauging Improved Control) study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of switching from amlodipine besylate monotherapy to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride (HCI) in patients who were experiencing uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) or edema with monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This article reports the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCI combination therapy in the predefined African-American population of the LOGIC study. METHODS: This multicenter (1518 centers across the United States), practice-based, open-label, clinical trial enrolled patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Patients in group 1 had uncontrolled BP (sitting diastolic BP [DBP] ≥90 mm Hg and ≤110 mm Hg) during treatment with amlodipine besylate monotherapy 5 or 10 mg/d, and those in group 2 had controlled BP (sitting DBP ⩽90 mm Hg), but also had experienced edema during amlodipine besylate monotherapy. Participants were instructed to discontinue amlodipine besylate and were given amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl 5/10 mg/d or 5/20 mg/d for 4 weeks. For group 1, the primary efficacy outcome was the change in mean sitting DBP (MSDBP) from baseline to week 4; a secondary efficacy outcome was the change in mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) from baseline to week 4. The primary efficacy outcome for group 2 was the percentage of patients whose edema improved with the switch to combination therapy. The secondary efficacy variables in group 2 were the changes in MSDBP and MSSBP from baseline to week 4. Patients in groups 1 and 2 were questioned about any adverse events that may have occurred since the previous visit. At both study visits, medications were reviewed, and the level of edema was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2055 African-American patients were enrolled in the study. At study end, African-American patients in group 1 (n = 1422 assessable patients) experienced significant reductions in MSSBP (13.9 mm Hg) and MSDBP (10.4 mm Hg) from those achieved during amlodipine besylate monotherapy (both P < 0.001). In group 2 (n = 266 assessable patients), 81% of African-American patients reported improvement in edema, and BP remained well controlled. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of an African-American subpopulation of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension who had uncontrolled BP while receiving amlodipine besylate monotherapy, switching from amlodipine besylate monotherapy to fixed-dose amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl combination therapy reduced BP to a greater extent than with amlodipine besylate alone, and reduced the incidence of edema in patients who were edematous but who had controlled BP. Fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCI has the potential to improve BP control, leading to improved clinical outcomes and enhanced treatment compliance.