Efficacy, safety and tolerability of aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, in women with hypertension: a pooled analysis of eight studies.

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of mortality in women in developed countries. This pooled analysis assessed the antihypertensive efficacy, safety and tolerability of monotherapy with the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren (150 mg and 300 mg) over 8-12 weeks in women with mild-to-moderate hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ≥95 and <110 mm Hg) across eight randomized and double-blind trials. Safety and tolerability were assessed in the five placebo-controlled trials in the analysis. In the 1527 women enrolled in these studies, aliskiren 150 mg and 300 mg produced significantly greater blood pressure (BP) reductions (14.1/11.0 and 16.1/12.3 mm Hg, respectively) compared with placebo (7.2/7.6 mm Hg; P<0.0001). BP reductions with aliskiren monotherapy in women were similar to those observed in men, and consistent across subgroups of age, metabolic syndrome and obesity. The overall incidence of adverse events in women was similar with aliskiren treatment (150 mg, 42.3%; 300 mg, 46.0%) and placebo (39.0%); adverse events with aliskiren were more frequent in women than in men, consistent with previous studies of gender differences in drug tolerability. In conclusion, aliskiren monotherapy at 150 mg and 300 mg doses provided effective, dose-dependent BP-lowering in women with mild-to-moderate hypertension, and it was well tolerated.

Adding nebivolol to ongoing antihypertensive therapy improves blood pressure and response rates in patients with uncontrolled stage I-II hypertension.

This study assessed blood pressure (BP) reductions and response rates following addition of nebivolol to ongoing antihypertensive therapy in patients with uncontrolled stage I-II hypertension despite antihypertensive treatment. Patients with an average sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) > or =90 and < or =109 mm Hg while taking an antihypertensive regimen were included in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy end point was reduction from baseline to week 12 in mean trough SiDBP. In total, 669 patients were randomized to once-daily nebivolol 5, 10 or 20 mg or placebo. Addition of nebivolol 5, 10 and 20 mg significantly reduced BP; placebo-subtracted least squares mean reductions in trough SiDBP were -3.3, -3.5 and -4.6 mm Hg, respectively (P<0.001) and -5.7, -3.7 and -6.2 mm Hg in trough sitting systolic BP (SiSBP), respectively (P< or =0.015). Adding nebivolol 5-20 mg resulted in significantly more responders (SiDBP <90 or > or =10 mm Hg reduction; range: 53.0-65.1 vs 41.3% with placebo; P< or =0.028) and significantly better control rates (SiSBP/SiDBP <140/90 mm Hg; range: 41.3-52.7 vs 29.3% with placebo; P< or =0.029). Nebivolol was well tolerated; the incidence of adverse events with nebivolol was similar to that with placebo (40.2 vs 38.9%, respectively; P=0.763). Addition of once-daily nebivolol to ongoing antihypertensive therapy provided significant additional BP reductions and better response rates in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and was well tolerated.

Effect of nesiritide on renal function in patients admitted for decompensated heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Studies addressing the effect of nesiritide on renal function in patients hospitalized for decompensated heart failure (HF) are limited, with conflicting results. AIM: To study the effect of nesiritide on renal function in patients admitted for acute decompensated HF. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of patients admitted with decompensated HF, comparing those who received nesiritide along with conventional therapy vs. those who received conventional therapy alone. Serum creatinine levels and body weight were measured on admission, and were compared with levels at day 3 to estimate deterioration in renal function. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as a rise in serum creatinine of > or =0.3 mg/dl from baseline, with final creatinine level >1.5 mg/dl. RESULTS: We reviewed 206 charts (116 controls, 90 nesiritide group). WRF developed in 28/90 (31.1%) in the nesiritide group and 37/116 (31.9%) controls (p = 1.0). Mean change in creatinine in the nesiritide group was 0.15 +/- 0.37 mg/dl, compared to 0.17 +/- 0.25 mg/dl in controls (p = 0.75). Using an alternative cut-off increase in serum creatinine of > or =0.5 mg/dl, 16/90 (17.7%) patients in the nesiritide group developed WRF compared to 18/116 (15.5%) controls (p = 0.80). If WRF was defined as elevation in serum creatinine levels by > or =0.3 mg/dl anytime during hospitalization, the incidence of WRF in the nesiritide group remained similar to that of controls (42.2% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.90). On multivariate analysis, nesiritide therapy was not associated with WRF (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.4-1.6, p = 0.48). DISCUSSION: We failed to detect any significant risk of WRF in patients treated with nesiritide compared to conventional therapy in patients with decompensated HF during index hospitalization. Larger randomized, placebo-controlled trials are required to further elucidate the effect of nesiritide on renal function in these patients.

Plasma renin and the antihypertensive effect of the orally active renin inhibitor aliskiren in clinical hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Aliskiren is the first in a new class of orally effective renin inhibitors for the treatment of hypertension. METHODS: In 569 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, blood pressure (BP), plasma renin activity (PRA) and plasma renin concentration (PRC) were measured before and after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with once-daily oral doses of aliskiren (150, 300 or 600 mg), irbesartan 150 mg or placebo. RESULTS: Aliskiren 150, 300 and 600 mg and irbesartan 150 mg significantly reduced mean cuff sitting systolic BP (SBP) from baseline (p < 0.001 vs. placebo). Aliskiren 150, 300 and 600 mg significantly reduced geometric mean PRA by 69%, 71% and 75% from baseline respectively (p < 0.05 vs. placebo). Irbesartan 150 mg significantly increased PRA by 109% (p < 0.05 vs. placebo). Aliskiren dose-dependently increased PRC from baseline by 157%, 246% and 497%, at 150, 300 and 600 mg respectively, compared with a 9% decrease with placebo (p < 0.05). PRC increased significantly more with aliskiren 300 and 600 mg compared with irbesartan 150 mg (105%; p < 0.05). Regression analysis showed no significant correlations between baseline PRA and changes in SBP in any of the treatment groups, but interestingly, the slopes of the regression lines between changes in SBP and log-transformed baseline PRA were +2.0 for placebo and -1.5, -1.8 and -2.3 for aliskiren 150, 300 and 600 mg respectively. The slope for irbesartan 150 mg (-1.4) was similar to that for aliskiren 150 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Aliskiren reduces SBP and PRA and increases PRC dose-dependently. In contrast, irbesartan reduces SBP but increases both PRC and PRA. As PRA is a measurement of angiotensin I-generating capacity, PRA can be used for measuring the ability of an antihypertensive agent to prevent the generation or action of Ang II, either directly (renin inhibitors, beta-blockers, central alpha(2)-agonists) or indirectly (AT(1)-receptor blockers, ACE inhibitors).

AT(1)-receptor blockers: differences that matter.

The available angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1))-receptor blockers differ markedly in their pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy. Losartan shifts the dose-response curve for angiotensin II to the right without affecting the maximal response; this antagonism can be overcome by increasing concentrations of angiotensin II and thus losartan acts as a surmountable antagonist. By contrast, other agents suppress the maximal response to angiotensin II to varying extents; this can not be overcome by increasing angiotensin concentrations and hence these agents are insurmountable antagonists. Receptor binding studies have shown that candesartan has the highest affinity for the AT(1)-receptor, followed by irbesartan, valsartan and losartan, and that candesartan dissociates from the receptor more slowly than other antagonists. A meta-analysis using an E(Max) model has shown that differences in receptor binding activity are reflected in differences in maximal antihypertensive effect, and this finding is supported by the results of comparative clinical trials. Moreover, the prolonged binding of candesartan to the receptor is reflected in a longer duration of action, compared with losartan; the antihypertensive effect of candesartan persists for 48 h after dosing, compared with approximately 24 h with losartan. Candesartan thus offers extended therapeutic coverage, an important consideration since a majority of patients miss occasional doses of antihypertensive medication. There is currently no evidence that differences in receptor binding between AT(1)-receptor blockers translate into differences in tolerability. In summary, therefore, pharmacological differences between AT(1)-receptor blockers are reflected in clinically important differences in maximal antihypertensive effect, response rate, and duration of action.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in adult African Americans with mild to moderate hypertension.

BACKGROUND: African Americans with hypertension, particularly those with more severe blood pressure elevations, are generally less responsive to monotherapy from any antihypertensive class. These patients usually require treatment with drugs from > or = 2 antihypertensive classes to achieve adequate blood pressure control. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in African American adults with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: In this 12-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study, African American patients were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to I of 3 treatment groups: placebo, losartan monotherapy (50 to 150 mg), or losartan plus HCTZ (50/0 to 50/12.5 to 100/25 mg). Doses were titrated at weeks 4 and 8 if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) was > or = 90 mm Hg. Safety was assessed by determining the incidence of clinical and laboratory Adverse events and evaluating mean changes in pulse, body weight, electrocardiographic parameters, and laboratory test results. RESULTS: A total of 440 patients were randomized-188 to placebo, 193 to losartan monotherapy, and 59 to losartan/HCTZ; 391 completed the study. At week 12, the response rate with losartan monotherapy was 45.8%, with a significant (P < or = 0.01) lowering in mean SiDBP by 6.6 mm Hg compared with placebo; the response rate with placebo was 27.2%, with a mean SiDBP reduction of 3.9 mm Hg. Sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) was significantly lowered with losartan monotherapy, by 6.4 mm Hg, compared with placebo (reduction of 2.3 mm Hg). The response rate with losartan/ HCTZ was 62.7%, with reductions in SiSBP and SiDBP of 16.8 mm Hg and 10.8 mm Hg, respectively (P < or = 0.01 vs placebo and losartan monotherapy). The incidence of clinical adverse events was comparable in the 3 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that in African American patients, losartan monotherapy was significantly more effective than placebo in lowering SiSBP and SiDBP. Moreover, the losartan/ HCTZ combination regimen resulted in significant and clinically meaningful additional reductions in SiSBP and SiDBP compared with losartan monotherapy or placebo. Losartan monotherapy and the losartan/HCTZ regimens were generally as well tolerated as placebo.

Antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan in comparison to losartan: the CLAIM study.

An 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, forced-titration study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan vs. losartan in 654 hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg from 72 sites throughout the U.S. Eligible patients were randomized to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily, or losartan 50 mg once daily. Two weeks following randomization, patients doubled the respective doses of their angiotensin receptor blockers for an additional 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered trough systolic/diastolic blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (13.3/10.9 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 9.8/8.7 mm Hg with losartan; p less than 0.001). At the same period, candesartan cilexetil also lowered peak blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (15.2 to 11.6 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 12.6 to 10.1 mm Hg with losartan; p less than 0.05). There were statistically significantly (p less than 0.05) higher proportions of responders and controlled patients in the candesartan cilexetil group (62.4% and 56.0%, respectively) than in the losartan group (54.0% and 46.9%, respectively). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; 1.8% in the candesartan cilexetil group and 1.6% in the losartan group withdrew because of adverse events. In conclusion, this forced-titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure when both are administered once daily at maximum doses. Both drugs were well tolerated. (c)2001 by Le Jacq.

Underutilization and clinical benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction.

Despite evidence of therapeutic benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for congestive heart failure and asymptomatic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, recent studies suggest that in heart failure patients, rates of ACE inhibitor usage in clinical practice remain low. In this study, the medical records of 107 patients with documented LV dysfunction were investigated for patterns of ACE inhibitor usage; 6-month and 1-year outcomes and event rates were evaluated. At index admission, 48% patients did not receive ACE inhibitor treatment, 32% were initiated on treatment, 19% continued on a prior regimen, and 1% were discontinued. Patients seen by a cardiologist were more likely to receive ACE inhibitor treatment (53% vs 35%, p = 0. 172), as were patients with histories of hypertension (60% vs 40%, p = 0.044) or myocardial infarction (56% vs 44%, p = 0.221). Significantly shorter hospitalizations (5.9 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.001) were noted for patients with on-going ACE inhibitor treatment compared with those receiving newly initiated treatment or no treatment. At time of hospital discharge, 102 patients were alive. Of 54 patients who received ACE inhibitors, 67% received an insufficient dose. At a 6-month follow-up, of 51 patients on ACE inhibitors, 23% died or were readmitted to hospital compared with 55% of nonusers (p = 0.001). At 1 year, this event rate was 31% among ACE inhibitor users versus 71% among nonusers (p < 0.0001). Bivariate and multivariate analysis revealed absence of ACE inhibitor use as the only significant variable associated with the event rate (p < 0.0011). Thus, about half of patients with asymptomatic LV dysfunction received ACE inhibitors; 2/3 of these did not receive a sufficient dose. ACE inhibitor usage increased with involvement of a cardiologist, presence of coexistent hypertension, or prior myocardial infarction. Ongoing ACE inhibitor therapy was associated with shorter hospitalizations and fewer hospital readmissions or deaths.

Effects of losartan and captopril on left ventricular volumes in elderly patients with heart failure: results of the ELITE ventricular function substudy.

BACKGROUND: The mechanism by which angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce mortality rates and disease progression in patients with heart failure is likely mediated in part through prevention of adverse ventricular remodeling. This study examined the effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril and the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist losartan on ventricular volumes and function in elderly patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (< or =40%). METHODS: Patients underwent radionuclide ventriculograms (RVG) at baseline and were randomized to either captopril (n = 16) or losartan (n = 13). After 48 weeks, another RVG was obtained. Therapy was then withdrawn for at least 5 days, and the RVG was repeated while the patient was not receiving the drug. RESULTS: At 48 weeks both captopril and losartan significantly reduced left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic volume index (135 +/- 26 to 128 +/- 23 mL/m(2) for losartan, P <.05 vs baseline; 142 +/- 25 to 131 +/- 20 mL/m(2) for captopril, P <.01; mean (SD). Captopril also reduced LV end-systolic volume index (98 +/- 24 to 89 +/- 21 mL/m(2), P <.01 vs. baseline), whereas a nonsignificant trend was observed for the losartan group (97 +/- 23 to 90 +/- 16 mL/m(2), P = not significant). The between-group differences in the changes in LV volumes were not statistically significant. After drug withdrawal, LV end-diastolic volume index remained significantly lower than baseline in the captopril group (P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: Both captopril and losartan prevent LV dilation, representing adverse ventricular remodeling, previously seen with placebo treatment. Reverse remodeling was observed in the captopril group. On the basis of these results, the relative effects on LV remodeling do not provide a rationale for a survival benefit of losartan over captopril.

Long-term benefits of angiotensin II blockade: is the consensus changing?

The treatment of hypertension and heart failure has evolved in recent years. It may no longer be sufficient to lower blood pressure per se or correct hemodynamics alone in these conditions to achieve optimal long-term outcomes; rather, the effects of drugs on the cellular events and structural alterations that occur in the vasculature, heart, and kidney must be considered. Drugs that target angiotensin II, which include the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), may protect target organs from damage and thereby improve outcomes. Nevertheless, it remains to be demonstrated whether these agents are more effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients than conventional treatment with diuretics and beta blockers. In certain subgroups of hypertensive patients, including those with heart failure, type 1 diabetes with proteinuria, or after myocardial infarction with systolic dysfunction, there is compelling evidence for use of ACE inhibitors. The results from animal models and initial clinical studies suggest that ARBs are also highly effective in these patients. Several large-scale clinical studies, comparing the effect of ARBs and other drug classes on morbidity and mortality outcomes, have been initiated to better define the long-term benefit of ARBs in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure.

Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with severe systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.

The efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the potent angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil were evaluated in 217 adult patients (68% men, 41% black) with severe systemic hypertension on background therapy with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a 4-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =110 mm Hg during the placebo run-in received HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily for 1 week. Those with sitting diastolic BP >95 mm Hg after the HCTZ run-in were randomized (2:1) to receive candesartan cilexetil 8 mg once daily (n = 141) or placebo (n = 76), plus HCTZ 12.5 mg. After 1 week of double-blind treatment, patients with sitting diastolic BP > or =90 mm Hg were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or matching placebo, plus HCTZ 12.5 mg; 84% required uptitration. Primary efficacy measurement was a change in trough (24+/-3 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic BP from the end of the HCTZ run-in to double-blind week 4. Mean changes in systolic and diastolic BP were significantly greater with candesartan cilexetil than with placebo, -11.3/-9.1 mm Hg versus -4.1/-3.1 mm Hg, p <0.001/p <0.001, respectively. Patients with higher sitting diastolic BP at the end of the HCTZ run-in tended to have greater decreases in BP (p <0.05). Most patients (53%) receiving candesartan cilexetil were responders (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10 mm Hg decrease) and 32% were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). Tolerability and safety profiles were similar in the candesartan and placebo groups. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil 8 to 16 mg once daily was an effective and well-tolerated therapy for lowering BP when added to HCTZ 12.5 mg in a diverse population of patients with severe systemic hypertension in the United States.

Comparison of two strategies for intensifying antihypertensive treatment: low-dose combination (enalapril + felodipine ER) versus increased dose of monotherapy (enalapril). LEVEL (Lexxel vs Enalapril) Study Group.

To compare two popular strategies for intensifying treatment for hypertension, a double-blind, randomized, prospective, parallel-group, and partial crossover study was done. After 2 weeks of placebo run-in (baseline) and 3 weeks of 5 mg enalapril once daily, 217 patients were randomized to 6 weeks of treatment with either a low-dose combination therapy (5 mg enalapril + 5 mg felodipine ER once daily, Lexxel, Astra Merck, Inc.), or a higher dose of monotherapy (10 mg enalapril once daily, Vasotec, Merck & Co., Inc.). The group randomized to the combination had significantly greater reductions in sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BP)--14.2/10.6 mm Hg compared with baseline versus 9.6/7.4 mm Hg (P < .05/.01)--as well as a greater percentage of patients having achieved either diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg or a decline of at least 10 mm Hg (responders), 59% v 41% (P < .01). When patients originally taking 10 mg enalapril were crossed over to the combination therapy for a further 6 weeks, there was a further BP reduction and increase in response rate, with loss of significant differences compared with those treated continuously with the combination for the entire 12 weeks. The greater BP-lowering efficacy of the combination was independent of age, gender, and race. There were no significant differences in tolerability between the regimens. These data support the hypothesis that in patients who do not achieve goal BP reduction with a low dose of an antihypertensive agent, a combination of two drugs with complementary mechanisms of action is more effective than increasing the dose of the first agent.

Assessment of once-daily eprosartan, an angiotensin II antagonist, in patients with systemic hypertension. Eprosartan Study Group.

A multicenter, randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of once-daily eprosartan, a nonbiphenyl, nontetrazole angiotensin II-receptor antagonist, in 243 patients with mild-to-moderate systemic hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SitDBP], 95-114 mm Hg). After a 3-to 5-week single-masked placebo run-in period to obtain baseline values, patients were randomly allocated to receive 600 mg eprosartan once daily or placebo for 8 weeks. All clinic blood pressure measurements were made 24 hours +/-90 minutes after dosing. Eprosartan produced statistically and clinically significant reductions in SitDBP(-7.5+/-0.8 mm Hg) and sitting systolic blood pressure (SitSBP) (-6.0+/-1.3 mm Hg) compared with placebo (SitDBP -1.9+/-0.7 mm Hg; SitSBP 0.8+/-1.2 mm Hg). The 95% confidence intervals for the difference from placebo were -8.1 to 4.1 for SitDBP and -11.0 to -4.0 for SitSBP (both, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients responding (SitDBP was <90 mm Hg or had decreased by > or =10 mm Hg from baseline at study end point) to eprosartan was significantly higher than the proportion of those responding to placebo (42% vs. 21%, respectively; P = 0.0003). Similar results were obtained in a subgroup analysis comparing patients aged <65 years with those aged > or =65 years. The total number of adverse events was similar in the eprosartan and placebo groups. Eprosartan 600 mg once daily was both well tolerated and effective, providing significant blood pressure reduction 24 hours after dosing in patients with mild-to-moderate systemic hypertension, regardless of age.

Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and losartan in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Versus Losartan Efficacy Comparison (CANDLE) Study Group.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the novel angiotensin-II (A-II) receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil and the prototype A-II receptor blocker, losartan, were compared in an 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, titration-to-effect study of 332 adults (42% women, 12% black) with systemic hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-114 mmHg, inclusive). In patients with a mean trough (24 +/- 3 hours after dose) sitting DBP of 90 mmHg or higher after 4 weeks of once daily administration of candesartan 16 mg or losartan 50 mg, dose was titrated up to candesartan 32 mg or losartan 100 mg once daily. The candesartan regimen was significantly more effective than the losartan regimen in reducing trough sitting DBP at week 8 (11.0 mmHg versus 8.9 mmHg). Candesartan also produced numerically greater reductions in secondary blood pressure parameters, including sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP), trough standing DBP and SBP, and peak (6 +/- 2.5 hours after dose) sitting and standing DBP and SBP. Responder rates (sitting DBP < 90 mmHg or reduction in blood pressure of > or = 10 mmHg) and control rates (sitting DBP <90 mmHg) were higher with candesartan (64% versus 54% and 54% versus 43%, respectively). A total of 1.9% of the patients taking candesartan and 6.5% of those taking losartan discontinued prematurely because of adverse events or lack of efficacy.

Long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the combination of enalapril and felodipine ER in the treatment of hypertension. Enalapril-Felodipine ER Factorial Study Group.

A recent 8-week, double-masked, placebo-controlled, 3 x 4 factorial-design study demonstrated that enalapril-felodipine extended-release (ER) combinations had statistically significant additive effects for reducing both sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) and sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) and were generally well tolerated in hypertensive patients with SiDBPs ranging from 95 to 115 mm Hg. The present open-label study was undertaken to assess the long-term efficacy, tolerability, and safety of such combinations. Patients from the factorial study were eligible for the 1-year, open-label extension. Initially, all patients received enalapril 5 mg-felodipine ER 2.5 mg once daily; if SiDBP was not controlled (< 90 mm Hg) after 4 weeks of treatment, the dose was titrated upward at 2- to 4-week intervals to a maximum of enalapril 10 mg-felodipine ER 10 mg. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added to the regimen of patients whose hypertension was not controlled at the highest enalapril-felodipine ER dose. A total of 507 patients were enrolled, of whom 502 were assessable. At their last study visit, 391 (78%) of the assessable patients were receiving only an enalapril-felodipine ER combination. The enalapril-felodipine ER combinations resulted in mean trough SiDBPs of 85 to 89 mm Hg (decreases of 13 to 16 mm Hg from baseline) and SiSBPs of 137 to 140 mm Hg (decreases of 13 to 21 mm Hg). Overall, 407 (81%) of the 502 assessable patients achieved an SiDBP < 90 mm Hg or a reduction from baseline > or = 10 mm Hg (responders); such a response was recorded in 331 patients (66%) taking a combination of enalapril-felodipine ER alone and 76 patients (15%) taking the combination with the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg. Blood pressure reductions were maintained throughout the treatment period. Drug-related adverse events were relatively infrequent, often transient, usually mild, and apparently not dose related. The most frequently reported drug-related adverse events were edema/swelling, asthenia/fatigue, dizziness, cough, and headache. These results suggest that combination therapy with enalapril-felodipine ER is effective for long-term blood pressure reduction, has an excellent safety profile, and is generally well tolerated. Addition of low-dose HCTZ to the enalapril-felodipine ER combination appears to provide further blood pressure control without increasing drug-related adverse events.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter trial of four doses of tasosartan in patients with essential hypertension. Tasosartan Investigator's Group.

Tasosartan, a new, long-acting, nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial at 21 sites in the United States and Canada. After a 2-week, placebo washout qualification period, 278 patients (187 men/91 women) with a mean age of 53.4+/-9.5 years (range, 30 to 70 years) and a baseline sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n = 56), or 10 mg (n = 57), 30 mg (n = 55), 100 mg (n = 55), or 300 mg (n = 55) tasosartan for 4 weeks. The treatment period was followed by a 2-week washout period. Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring was performed at the end of the placebo washout period and after at least 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. Clinically significant placebo-adjusted differences in baseline sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were observed in the 10 mg (5/3 mm Hg), 30 mg (5/4 mm Hg), 100 mg (10/7 mm Hg) and 300 mg (10/7 mm Hg) dose groups (P < .05). A dose-response relationship (P < .001) was observed within 1 to 2 weeks of treatment initiation and was maintained throughout the double-blind period. Discontinuation of tasosartan therapy was not associated with rebound hypertension. Moreover, significant (P < .05) placebo-adjusted differences in ambulatory SBP/DBP and a significant dose-response relationship (P < .001) were observed with all tasosartan dosages during the 24-h, daytime, and nighttime periods. Placebo-adjusted trough-to-peak ratios ranged from 87% to 100% for ambulatory SBP and 64% to 81% for DBP. In general, no significant differences were observed between the tasosartan treatment groups and the placebo group in the incidence of adverse events. Headache incidence was significantly lower in the 300 mg dose group than the placebo group. In conclusion, tasosartan at dosages of 10, 30, 100, or 300 mg given once daily produced a significant and dose-related reduction in both clinic and ambulatory BP that was maintained over the 24-h period. Tasosartan was generally well tolerated.

Combined enalapril and felodipine extended release (ER) for systemic hypertension. Enalapril-Felodipine ER Factorial Study Group.

This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of factorial design evaluated the safety and efficacy of combination treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, enalapril, and the vascular selective calcium antagonist felodipine extended release (ER) in patients with essential hypertension. After a 4-week, single-blind placebo baseline period, 707 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressures (BPs) in the range of 95 to 115 mm Hg received placebo, enalapril (5 or 20 mg), felodipine ER (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), or their combinations for an 8-week double-blind treatment period. All doses of enalapril and felodipine ER had a statistically significant (p < 0.05) additive effect in reducing both systolic and diastolic BP. The trough to peak ratios for the combinations ranged from 0.63 (enalapril 5 mg-felodipine ER 2.5 mg) to 0.79 (enalapril 20 mg-felodipine ER 10 mg) and were consistent with effective BP control with 1 dose/day. Patients aged > or = 65 years demonstrated a greater reduction in diastolic BP. Combinations of enalapril-felodipine ER were associated with less drug-induced peripheral edema (4.1%) compared to felodipine ER monotherapy (10.8%). There were no serious drug-related adverse effects observed during the study. In this trial, the combination of enalapril and felodipine ER effectively lowered BP and was generally well tolerated with an excellent safety profile when used in the treatment of hypertension.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel study of various doses of losartan potassium compared with enalapril maleate in patients with essential hypertension.

The efficacy and safety of various doses of losartan potassium, a specific and selective angiotensin II receptor antagonist, were compared with those of placebo and enalapril maleate 20 mg in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, parallel study. We randomly allocated 576 patients at the end of a 4-week placebo baseline period to 8 weeks of once-daily double-blind treatment with losartan potassium 10, 25, 50, 100, or 150 mg, enalapril maleate 20 mg, or placebo. After 8 weeks of treatment, mean reductions from baseline in supine systolic/diastolic pressure 24 hours after dosing (trough) for losartan potassium 10, 25, 50, 100, and 150 mg, enalapril maleate 20 mg, and placebo were 7.6/7.9, 7.8/6.8, 13.0/10.1, 8.9/9.9, 10.5/9.7, 14.7/11.2, and 3.8/5.6 mm Hg, respectively. Compared with mean changes in supine diastolic pressure in the placebo group, losartan potassium 50 to 150 mg and enalapril maleate 20 mg produced clinically important and statistically significant reductions (P < or = .01) in blood pressure. At 24 hours after dosing, the blood pressure changes obtained with losartan potassium 50 mg were essentially identical to those obtained with enalapril maleate 20 mg. While there was a dose-related effect with losartan potassium from 10 to 50 mg at peak (6 hours after dosing), doses of 10 and 25 mg were not consistently different from placebo 24 hours after dosing. To assess the once-daily effect of losartan potassium, trough-to-peak ratios of the mean changes in supine diastolic pressure after 8 weeks of treatment were calculated.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The evolving role of calcium channel blockers in the treatment of angina pectoris: focus on felodipine.

Calcium channel blockers are used extensively in the treatment of the three major anginal syndromes. In the treatment of Prinzmetal's angina, their antivasospastic properties account for their therapeutic effectiveness. Calcium channel blockers are drugs of first choice in this syndrome. In chronic stable angina, calcium channel blockers may be used as monotherapy or in combination with beta-blockers and/or nitrates. In patients with unstable angina, reduction in the incidence of ischemic episodes produced by calcium channel blockers is well documented. Recent data suggest that calcium channel blockers should generally be used in combination with beta-blockers, nitrates and antithrombotic agents. Patients with ischemic heart disease often exhibit reduced ventricular function. All of the first generation calcium channel blockers exacerbate symptoms in patients with established heart failure and may precipitate heart failure, particularly when combined with beta-blockers. Second generation vascular-selective dihydropyridines have been introduced recently. Vascular selectivity determines the drug's degree of negative inotropic effect. Felodipine is one of the most vascular selective of the available dihydropyridines and has no negative inotropic effects at clinically administered doses. In a long term study, felodipine, 20 mg/day, abolished symptoms and chronic ischemic episodes in 81% of treated subjects with Prinzmetal's angina. In patients with stable angina, felodipine has been found to be effective either as monotherapy or in combination with beta-blockers. In patients with known or suspected ventricular dysfunction, vascular-selective dihydropyridines such as felodipine offer advantages over the nonselective calcium channel blockers, particularly in patients receiving beta-blockers.