Risk factors and management of pasireotide-associated hyperglycemia in acromegaly.

Pasireotide, a multireceptor-targeted somatostatin analog with highest affinity for somatostatin receptor subtype (SST) 5, has demonstrated superior efficacy over the SST2-preferential somatostatin analogs octreotide and lanreotide. The safety profile is similar to those of octreotide and lanreotide, except for a higher frequency and degree of hyperglycemia. This analysis investigated baseline characteristics and occurrence and management of hyperglycemia during pasireotide treatment in patients with acromegaly treated in two prospective clinical studies, SOM230C2305 (C2305) and SOM230C2402 (C2402; PAOLA). One hundred and seventy-eight patients naïve to medical therapy at baseline (C2305) and 125 uncontrolled on first-generation somatostatin analogs at baseline (C2402) received long-acting pasireotide in these studies. Of patients treated with pasireotide in studies C2305 and C2402, respectively, 75.3 (134/178) and 65.6% (82/125) developed hyperglycemia or experienced worsening of existing hyperglycemia. Occurrence of hyperglycemia during pasireotide treatment was less frequent in patients with lower age (<40 years, C2402; <30 years, C2305), normal glucose tolerance, and no history of hypertension or dyslipidemia at baseline. Thirteen (4%) patients discontinued pasireotide because of hyperglycemia-related adverse events. Metformin alone or in combination with other oral antidiabetic medications controlled elevations in glucose levels in most pasireotide-treated patients; 78% of C2305 patients and 73 (pasireotide 40 mg) and 60% (pasireotide 60 mg) of C2402 patients achieved the ADA/EASD goal of HbA1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) at the end of the core phase. Not all patients develop hyperglycemia, and it is reversible upon pasireotide withdrawal. Close monitoring, patient education and prompt action remain key elements in addressing hyperglycemia during pasireotide treatment.

Pasireotide treatment significantly reduces tumor volume in patients with Cushing's disease: results from a Phase 3 study.

PURPOSE: In the multinational, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 B2305 study of patients with Cushing's disease (CD; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00434148), pasireotide substantially decreased urinary-free cortisol (UFC) levels, decreased mean corticotroph tumor volume, and improved clinical signs of disease. The current post hoc analysis further assesses the effects of pasireotide on corticotroph pituitary tumor volume. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the B2305 study had persistent or recurrent CD or newly diagnosed CD but were not surgical candidates. Enrollees were randomized to receive subcutaneous pasireotide, either 600-µg or 900-µg twice daily. Tumor volume was assessed independently at months 6 and 12 by 2 blinded radiologists and compared with baseline value and UFC response. RESULTS: Of 162 patients enrolled in the trial, 53 had measurable tumor volume data and were included in the post hoc analysis. Reductions in tumor volume were both dose and time dependent. Tumor volume reduction was more frequently observed at month 6 in the 900-µg group (75%) than in the 600-µg group (44%). Similarly, at month 12 (n = 32), tumor volume reduction was observed more frequently in the 900-µg group (89%) than in the 600-µg group (50%). Control of UFC levels was not required for reduction of tumor volume. No relationship was noted between baseline tumor size and change in tumor size. CONCLUSIONS: Measurable decreases in pituitary tumor volume were observed in a large proportion of patients with CD and measurable tumor volume who were enrolled in the trial and treated with subcutaneous pasireotide; this decrease was not correlated with UFC control. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00434148.

Safety and efficacy findings from the open-label, multicenter, phase 3b, expanded treatment protocol study of ruxolitinib for treatment of patients with polycythemia vera who are resistant/intolerant to hydroxyurea and for whom no alternative treatments are available.

Ruxolitinib was recently approved for the treatment of patients with polycythemia vera who are resistant/intolerant to hydroxyurea based on data from the RESPONSE studies. This phase 3b, Expanded Treatment Protocol study (NCT02292446) of ruxolitinib for hydroxyurea-resistant/intolerant patients with polycythemia vera (N = 161: median exposure = 25.1 weeks) further evaluated the safety of ruxolitinib. Adverse events (AEs) led to dose adjustment/interruption in 37.9% of patients and study drug discontinuation in 8.7% of patients. The most common hematologic AEs included anemia and thrombocytosis; while headache and diarrhea were the most frequent nonhematologic AEs. At week 24, 45.3% of patients achieved hematocrit control; hematologic remission was seen in 18% of patients. At least, 50% of reduction in spleen length was achieved in 86.7% of patients from baseline at any time. The observed safety profile of ruxolitinib was consistent and the efficacy results were similar to the observed values in the RESPONSE studies.

Late-night salivary cortisol may be valuable for assessing treatment response in patients with Cushing's disease: 12-month, Phase III pasireotide study.

Measuring salivary cortisol is a simple, convenient and accurate technique with potential value in monitoring patients with hypercortisolism. This analysis reports changes in late-night salivary cortisol (LNSC) during a 12-month, multicentre, Phase III study of patients with Cushing's disease who were randomized to pasireotide 600 or 900 µg sc bid. LNSC assessment was an exploratory objective based on a single, optional measurement at midnight ± 1 h on the same day as one of the 24-h urinary free cortisol (UFC) measurements. Of 162 enrolled patients, baseline LNSC was measured in 93. Sixty-seven patients had levels above the upper limit of normal (ULN); median baseline levels were 19.7 and 20.7 nmol/L in the groups subsequently randomized to 600 µg (n = 40) and 900 µg (n = 27), respectively. Median LNSC levels decreased from baseline to month 12; median changes in patients who had baseline LNSC > ULN in the 600 and 900 µg groups were -13.4 nmol/L (-52.6 %; n = 19) and -11.8 nmol/L (-56.1 %; n = 14), respectively. LNSC normalized at months 6 and 12 in 25/67 (37.3 %) and 13/67 (19.4 %) patients, respectively; 10/25 and 8/13 patients also had normalized UFC, and 7/25 and 4/13 had partial UFC control (UFC > ULN and ≥50 % decrease from baseline). There was a moderate correlation (r = 0.55) on the log scale between individual patient LNSC and UFC values when all time points were pooled. Pasireotide decreased LNSC levels during 12 months of treatment. Salivary cortisol may be a simple, convenient biomarker for assessing treatment response in patients with Cushing's disease.

Clinical profile and prognostic significance of natriuretic peptide trajectory following hospitalization for worsening chronic heart failure: findings from the ASTRONAUT trial.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic significance and associated clinical profile of early post-discharge N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) trajectory among patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure (HHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of the Aliskiren Trial in Acute Heart Failure Outcomes (ASTRONAUT) included 1351 HHF patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤40%, elevated B-type natriuretic peptide ≥400 pg/mL or NT-proBNP ≥1600 pg/mL at admission, and available NT-proBNP measurements (from a central core laboratory) at baseline (median 5 days after admission) and 1-month follow-up. The co-primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality or HHF within 12 months. Median follow-up was 11.3 months. Patients with decreasing post-discharge NT-proBNP trajectory tended to be younger and have non-ischaemic HF aetiology. The presence of baseline atrial fibrillation was associated with high NT-proBNP at 1 month (i.e. above the median), regardless of the baseline value. After adjustment for patient characteristics and 1-month NT-proBNP level, every twofold increase in continuous NT-proBNP change from baseline to 1 month was predictive of increased cardiovascular mortality or HHF (hazard ratio 1.14; 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.26), but not all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.95; 95% confidence interval 0.81-1.11). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of HHF patients with reduced EF, early post-discharge NT-proBNP trajectory was associated with a distinct clinical profile and carried independent prognostic value after adjustment for patient characteristics and absolute NT-proBNP level. Future prospective study of serial NT-proBNP measurement during the hospital and early post-discharge periods is warranted to validate these findings and evaluate post-discharge NT-proBNP trajectory as a therapeutic target.

Time of administration important? Morning versus evening dosing of valsartan.

OBJECTIVE: Studies suggest that bedtime dosing of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker shows a more sustained and consistent 24-h antihypertensive profile, including greater night-time blood pressure (BP) reduction. We compared the antihypertensive effects of morning (a.m.) and evening (p.m.) dosing of valsartan on 24-h BP. METHODS: This 26-week, multicentre, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of valsartan 320 mg, dosed a.m. or p.m., versus lisinopril 40 mg (a.m.), a long-acting ACE-inhibitor, in patients with grade 1-2 hypertension and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Patients (n = 1093; BP = 156 ±â€Š11/91 ±â€Š8 mmHg; 62 years, 56% male, 99% white) received (1 : 1 : 1) valsartan 160 mg a.m. or p.m. or lisinopril 20 mg a.m. for 4 weeks, then force-titrated to double the initial dose for 8 weeks. At Week 12, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added for 14 weeks if office BP was more than 140/90 mmHg and/or ambulatory BP more than 130/80 mmHg. RESULTS: Mean 24-h ambulatory SBP change from baseline to Weeks 12 and 26 was comparable between valsartan a.m. (-10.6 and -13.3 mmHg) and p.m. (-9.8 and -12.3 mmHg) and lisinopril (-10.7 and -13.7 mmHg). There was no benefit of valsartan p.m. versus a.m. on night-time BP, early morning BP and morning BP surge. Evening dosing also did not improve BP lowering in patients requiring add-on HCTZ or in nondippers at baseline. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Once-daily dosing of valsartan 320 mg results in equally effective 24-h BP efficacy, regardless of dosing time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00241124.

Interaction between baseline and early worsening of renal function and efficacy of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in patients with heart failure: insights from the Val-HeFT study.

AIMS: We evaluated the effect of (dual) renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade with valsartan and an ACE inhibitor [92.7% of patients were treated with an ACE inhibitor in the Valsartan in Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT)] in patients with NYHA class II-IV heart failure (HF) and reduced EF on cardiovascular (CV) death and HF hospitalization by subgroups and by presence of early worsening of renal function (EWRF) and according to baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the data from 5010 patients enrolled in the Val-HeFT study. A total of 2346 (46.8%) patients had baseline renal impairment (i.e. baseline eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Further, 425 patients (8.6%) had EWRF (i.e. eGFR decrease >20% within 1 month after randomization), whereas 4503 patients (91.4%) had ≤20% decline in eGFR. Overall, the difference between valsartan and placebo on the composite endpoint of CV death and HF hospitalization was significant [P = 0.0005; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.92)]. In patients with baseline renal impairment, the difference between the treatment groups was also significant (P = 0.0002; HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.88). Patients with EWRF had higher risk of CV death and HF hospitalization vs. those without ERWF (P < 0.0001; HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.21-1.71), and within the EWRF group a significant difference was also observed between valsartan and placebo (P = 0.0086; HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45-0.89). However, the interaction between treatment and eGFR at Month 1 was not significant (P = 0.1160). CONCLUSION: Benefits were maintained in patients with renal dysfunction at baseline and those who experienced EWRF.

Changes in aortic pulse wave velocity in hypertensive postmenopausal women: comparison between a calcium channel blocker vs angiotensin receptor blocker regimen.

Postmenopausal women are at greater risk for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive therapy may help alleviate arterial stiffness that represents a potential modifiable risk factor of hypertension. This randomized controlled study investigated the difference between an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in reducing arterial stiffness. Overall, 125 postmenopausal hypertensive women (age, 61.4 ± 6 years; systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], 158 ± 11/92 ± 9 mm Hg) were randomized to valsartan 320 mg ± hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (n = 63) or amlodipine 10 mg ± HCTZ (n = 62). The primary outcome was carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Both treatments lowered peripheral blood pressure (BP) (-22.9/-10.9 mm Hg for valsartan and -25.2/-11.7 mm Hg for amlodipine, P = not significant) and central BP (-15.7/-7.6 mm Hg for valsartan and -19.2/-10.3 mm Hg for amlodipine, P<.05 for central DBP). Both treatments similarly reduced the carotid-femoral PWV (-1.9 vs -1.7 m/s; P = not significant). Amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral edema compared with the valsartan group (77% vs 14%, P<.001). BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness as assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV to a similar degree after 38 weeks of treatment despite differences in central BP lowering, suggesting that the effect of valsartan on PWV is mediated through nonhemodynamic effects.

Direct renin inhibition in addition to or as an alternative to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition in patients with chronic systolic heart failure: rationale and design of the Aliskiren Trial to Minimize OutcomeS in Patients with HEart failuRE (ATMOSPHERE) study.

AIMS: The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) represents a key therapeutic target in heart failure (HF) management. However, conventional agents that block this system induce a reflex increase in plasma renin activity (PRA), which may lead to RAAS 'escape'. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have been developed that decrease PRA and thus may provide a greater RAAS blockade. Aliskiren is the first orally active DRI. Plasma levels of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) have been observed to be reduced with aliskiren compared with placebo. The aim of the Aliskiren Trial of Minimizing OutcomeS for Patients with HEart failuRE (ATMOSPHERE) study is to evaluate the effect of both aliskiren and enalapril monotherapy and aliskiren/enalapril combination therapy on cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in patients with chronic systolic HF, NYHA functional class II-IV symptoms, and elevated plasma levels of BNP. Methods Patients tolerant to at least 10 mg or equivalent of enalapril will undergo an open-label run-in period where they receive enalapril then aliskiren. Approximately 7000 patients tolerating this run-in period will then be randomized 1:1:1 to aliskiren monotherapy, enalapril monotherapy, or the combination. The primary endpoints of ATMOSPHERE are (i) whether the aliskiren/enalapril combination is superior to enalapril monotherapy in delaying time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization and (ii) whether aliskiren monotherapy is superior or at least non-inferior to enalapril monotherapy on this endpoint. Perspective The ATMOSPHERE study will definitively determine the role of a DRI strategy additional to or as an alternative to conventional RAAS blockade in patients with chronic systolic HF.

Effectiveness and safety of high-dose valsartan monotherapy in hypertension treatment: the ValTop study.

Early combination therapy is increasingly recommended in hypertension management because of increased risk of adverse effects with high-dose monotherapy. However, this risk is not necessarily increased for high doses of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). ValTop study compared efficacy and safety of high vs. conventional dose of valsartan in hypertensive patients. ValTop was a controlled, randomized, double-blind trial. Of 6035 screened subjects, 4004 mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients (mean seated diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) 90-109 mm Hg) started 4-week open-label treatment with valsartan 160 mg. Of them, 3776 were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg (N=1900) or 320 mg (N=1876) o.d. for 4 weeks. In 28-week open-label extension study, all participating patients (N=642) received valsartan 320 mg. Valsartan 160 mg reduced MSDBP by 10.0 mm Hg in the initial open-label phase. Further BP reductions in the double-blind phase were significantly (P<0.0001) greater in the 320 mg group than in the 160 mg group for MSDBP (1.6 ± 0.18 mm Hg vs. 0.5 ± 0.18 mm Hg) and mean seated systolic BP (3.3 ± 0.31 mm Hg vs. 0.7 ± 0.31 mm Hg). The size of the additional effect of the 320 mg dose on BP was similar in subjects controlled or not by the initial 160 mg dose. Adverse event (AE) rates were similar in both treatment groups, drug-related AEs occurring in <5% of subjects in each phase. High-dose valsartan is safe and effective in uncomplicated mild-to-moderate hypertension independently of the initial response to a moderate dose. High-dose ARB monotherapy may thus be a viable option in hypertension management.

Use of automated blood pressure measurements in clinical trials and registration studies: data from the VALTOP Study.

BACKGROUND: Auscultatory measurement of office blood pressure (BP) by mercury sphygmomanometers (AuscBPM) is still the gold standard in clinical trials and registration studies for antihypertensive drugs. The increasing availability of accurate automated oscillometric BP measuring devices has offered new perspectives in this field, although their usefulness in drug studies has not been systematically tested yet. METHODS: During the course of Valsartan 320 mg EU Registration Study we used an electronic automated oscillometric BP measuring device (eBPM) as an alternative to conventional AuscBPM. Altogether 3776 patients were randomized into a double-blinded actively controlled parallel group study in 303 centers, and 54 422 BP readings were recorded by the validated, electronic, automated oscillometric device OMRON 705IT with digital printouts. Terminal digit preference and preference at therapeutic cutoff points were evaluated. The data were compared with the results of an earlier valsartan study similar in design but based on conventional AuscBPM. Furthermore, based on a simulation, four strategies for automated BP measurement with varying number of office readings (3-5) were analyzed to define an optimal method to collect BP at office visits. RESULTS: eBPM eliminated terminal digit preference and dramatically reduced preferences for therapeutic cutoff points as compared with earlier valsartan trials with conventional AuscBPM. However, even with eBPM a minor bias with the therapeutic cutoff value was observed probably because of an observer bias during data documentation. The within-patient variability of three measurements sequentially taken at each visit was similar to other strategies including more measurements. CONCLUSION: On the basis of our data, we suggest that eBPM is a suitable alternative to AuscBPM in clinical trials and registration studies, and may carry specific advantages. Automatic data transfer of recorded values to electronic patient files may further minimize observer bias. Manufacturers should consider such findings for the development of professional devices.

Coadministration of valsartan 160 and 320 mg and simvastatin 20 and 40 mg in patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia: a multicenter, 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group superiority study.

BACKGROUND: Together, high blood pressure (BP) and high cholesterol levels constitute a cumulative risk for coronary heart disease (CHD). Elevations in cholesterol increase BP through upregulation of angiotensin type 1 receptors, with a corresponding increase in cholesterol oxidation due to elevations in BP. Hence, control of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and BP through coadministration of an antihypertensive and a statin have potential benefit in the management of CHD. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the dose response to simvastatin 20 and 40 mg in reducing LDL-C and the efficacy and tolerability of a high dose of valsartan (320 mg) when administered with simvastatin. METHODS: In this multicenter, 12-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group superiority study, patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg along with simvastatin 20 or 40 mg. At week 6, valsartan was titrated upward to 320 mg in both groups. The primary efficacy variable was the change in LDL-C, calculated using the Friedewald formula or measured directly (depending on triglyceride levels) and analyzed for superiority. Secondary efficacy variables were the change in LDL-C and the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C and BP control. Safety assessments included the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, and changes in hematology and biochemistry variables, vital signs, and findings on physical examinations. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-two patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment, and the intent-to-treat population included 838 patients. The combination of valsartan 160 mg + simvastatin 40 mg was statistically superior to that of valsartan 160 mg + simvastatin 20 mg in reducing LDL-C at week 6 (least squares mean percent change from baseline: -38.5% vs -33.6%, respectively; P < 0.001); at week 12, the corresponding values were -36.8% in the valsartan 320 mg + simvastatin 40 mg group and -32.7% in the valsartan 320 mg + simvastatin 20 mg group (P = 0.002). Rates of combined LDL-C and BP control at week 6 were 35.1% (146/416) in the valsartan 160 mg + simvastatin 20 mg group and 37.4% (154/412) in the valsartan 160 mg + simvastatin 40 mg group; at week 12, rates of combined control were 50.7% (212/418) in the valsartan 320 mg + simvastatin 20 mg group and 50.0% (206/412) in the valsartan 320 mg + simvastatin 40 mg group. AEs occurred in 24.3% (102/420) of the valsartan 160/320 mg + simvastatin 20 mg group and 22.2% (93/419) of the valsartan 160/320 mg + simvastatin 40 mg group. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, coadministration of valsartan and simvastatin was well tolerated and was associated with significant reductions from baseline in BP and LDL-C. Coadministered with valsartan 160/320 mg in the evening, simvastatin 40 mg had superior LDL-C-lowering efficacy to simvastatin 20 mg.

Valsartan improves arterial stiffness in type 2 diabetes independently of blood pressure lowering.

Increased arterial stiffness, as estimated from aortic pulse wave velocity (Ao-PWV), and albuminuria are independent predictors for cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), drugs with cardio-renal protective effects, improve Ao-PWV to a greater extent than other equipotent antihypertensive medications remains unclear. After a 4-week washout phase, we compared the effects of valsartan (n=66), an ARB, with that of amlodipine (n=65), a calcium channel blocker on Ao-PWV in 131 T2DM patients with pulse pressure (PP) >or=60 mm Hg and raised albumin excretion rate (AER) in a 24-week randomized, double-blind, parallel group study. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg/d was added to valsartan 160 mg and amlodipine 5 mg/od uptitrated to 10 mg/od after 4 weeks to ensure equivalent BP control. After 24 weeks brachial and central aortic PP had fallen to a similar extent with attained mean (SD) brachial and central PP of 61.6 (13.6) and 47.3 (14.1) mm Hg in the valsartan/HCTZ group and 61.5 (12.2) and 47.3 (9.9) mm Hg in the amlodipine group, respectively. Ao-PWV showed a significantly greater reduction, mean (95% CI), -0.9 m/s (-1.4 to -0.3) for valsartan/HCTZ compared to amlodipine (P=0.002). AER fell significantly only with Val/HCTZ from 30.8(20.4, 46.5) to 18.2(12.5, 26.3) mcg/min, (P=0.01) with between treatment difference in favor of Val/HCTZ of -15.3mcg/min (P<0.001). Changes in AER and Ao-PWV were not correlated. Valsartan/HCTZ improves arterial stiffness and AER to a significantly greater extent than amlodipine despite similar central and brachial BP control. These 2 effects, which appear independent of each other, may explain the specific cardio-renal protective properties of ARBs.

Efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan compared with amlodipine monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study: the EX-EFFeCTS Study.

Achieving blood pressure (BP) targets in stage 2 hypertension usually requires two or more drugs, which should be selected from different classes. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week study, 646 patients with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] >/=160 mm Hg) received amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 2 weeks, prior to being force-titrated to amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg, respectively, for a further 6 weeks. Hydrochlorothiazide could be added at Week 4 if MSSBP was >/=130 mm Hg. At endpoint Week 4, reductions in MSSBP were significantly greater in patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan than in those receiving amlodipine (30.1 mm Hg vs. 23.5 mm Hg; P < .0001). Likewise, MSSBP reductions in patients with baseline MSSBP >/=180 mm Hg were also greater for amlodipine/valsartan at Week 4 (40.1 mm Hg vs. 31.7 mm Hg for amlodipine; P = .0018). Differences favoring amlodipine/valsartan were also seen for BP control. Amlodipine/valsartan was generally well tolerated. These findings support the rationale for combining agents with complementary mechanisms of action, such as amlodipine and valsartan, in the management of stage 2 hypertension.

Albuminuria response to very high-dose valsartan in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Renin-angiotensin system blockade is now standard in the management of the patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus. We aimed to investigate whether high doses of valsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, are superior to conventional doses to reduce urinary albumin excretion rates (UAER) in such patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-one hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and UAER 20-700 microg/min were randomized to 160, 320 or 640 mg valsartan. All received valsartan 160 mg for the first 4 weeks. Valsartan dose was then increased in two of three groups for 30 weeks. Overnight urine collections at baseline, 4, 16, and 30 weeks in triplicate were used to assess proteinuria. RESULTS: Comparable albuminuria reductions occurred in all groups at week 4 (P<0.001). Subsequently, a highly significant albuminuria fall occurred with valsartan 320 and 640 mg (P<0.001) versus a modest additional change with 160 mg (P=0.03). At week 30, twice as many patients returned to normal albuminuria with valsartan 640 mg versus 160 mg (24 versus 12%; P<0.01). High doses were well tolerated, with no dose-related increases in adverse events, including hypotension and hyperkalemia. CONCLUSION: High doses of valsartan reduced albuminuria more than the more commonly used 160 mg dose, apparently independent of blood pressure. Thus, at least in type 2 diabetes mellitus, higher doses of valsartan are required to optimize tissue protection than for blood pressure control.

Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide compared with amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with other cardiovascular risk factors: the VAST study.

BACKGROUND: Recent antihypertensive treatment guidelines recommend greater use of combination therapies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether combination therapy with valsartan 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg OD would be more effective than monotherapy with amlodipine 10 mg OD in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with moderate (stage II) hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of the study treatments on circulating markers of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week study. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 3 groups, 2 of them receiving valsartan 160 mg OD and 1 receiving amlodipine 5 mg OD. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg OD was added to valsartan in one of the treatment groups (V+HCTZ12.5), HCTZ 25 mg OD was added to the other (V+HCTZ25), and the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg OD (A10). The primary efficacy variable was change in mean sitting SBP at week 24. Other variables were changes in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean pulse pressure (PP) from baseline, and response rate (systolic response defined as mean sitting SBP <140 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting SBP of > or =20 mm Hg from baseline; diastolic response defined as mean sitting DBP <90 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting DBP of > or =10 mm Hg from baseline). Changes in the following markers of endothelial dysfunction were determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, and 24 in all randomized patients from the participating European and South African centers: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), vascular tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL). RESULTS: The study enrolled 1088 patients with moderate hypertension (mean age, 61 years; 82% white; 53% women). The intent-to-treat population consisted of 1079 patients: 357 in the V+HCTZ12.5 group, 363 in the V+HCTZ25 group, and 359 in the A10 group. At baseline, the groups were comparable in terms of blood pressure and most other characteristics; the only statistically significant difference between groups was in the proportion of patients aged > or =65 years, which was lower in the amlodipine group (P = 0.01). At the end of the study, the least squares mean (SD) changes from baseline in mean sitting SBP were 27.1 (13.7), 29.7 (13.7), and 27.6 (13.8) mm Hg in the V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10 groups, respectively, with corresponding percent changes of 16%, 18%, and 17% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). The changes in mean sitting DBP did not differ significantly between groups. The reductions in PP were 17.5 (11.3), 18.7 (11.3), and 16.9 (11.3) mm Hg, with percent changes of 24%, 26%, and 23% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). Significant reductions in t-PA antigen were observed in both combination-therapy groups compared with the amlodipine monotherapy group at week 12 (P < 0.05); the reductions remained significant through the end of the study in the V+HCTZ12.5 group. There was a significant reduction in IL-6 and hs-CRP at week 12 with V+HCTZ25 compared with A10 (P < 0.05). Oxidized LDL values were reduced by approximately 10% with all treatments. Rates of total adverse events were significantly lower with the valsartan-based treatments compared with amlodipine monotherapy (49.7%, 49.6%, and 67.5% with V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10, respectively; P < 0.05). Rates of total discontinuations were a respective 10.1%, 9.0%, and 24.5%, and discontinuation rates due to AEs were 4.2%, 3.5%, and 18.2%. Leg edema was more common with amlodipine monotherapy than with the valsartan-based combinations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with moderate hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition, similar and greater antihypertensive effects were seen with the fixed-dose combinations of valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 and 25 mg OD, respectively, compared with amlodipine 10 mg OD, with significantly lower rates of treatment-related adverse events and possible beneficial effects on vascular markers.

24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combinations compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients at increased cardiovascular risk: a VAST sub-study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the effects of angiotensin-receptor blocker and diuretic combinations on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, the effects on 24-h ABP of the combination valsartan 160 mg od and hydrochlorothiazide 25 or 12.5 mg during 24 weeks of therapy were compared with the effects of amlodipine 10 mg monotherapy (group A10) in 474 stage-II hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. After a two-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg od or amlodipine 5 mg od. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg (group V160/HCTZ12.5) and 25 mg (group V160/HCTZ25) were added to the valsartan groups and in the A10 patients the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg od. RESULTS: All three treatments reduced 24-h BP as well as night-time and daytime BP levels from baseline. Twenty-four hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 15.9+/-1.0 mmHg (least-squares mean change+/-SE), 19.3+/-1.0 mmHg and 16.1+/-1.1 mmHg in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/HCTZ25 and A10 groups, respectively and 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced by 9.3+/-0.6 mmHg, 11.4+/-0.6 mmHg and 9.6+/-0.7 mmHg in the three groups. The differences between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the A10 group were significant (p<0.05) for the changes in 24-h systolic BP as well as for changes in daytime systolic BP and night-time diastolic BP. Control rates defined as ABPM < or =130/80 mmHg were: 48.4%, 60.8% and 50.9% in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/25 and A10 groups, respectively. The differences in control rates between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the other two treatment groups were significant at p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed-dose combination of valsartan 160 mg+HCTZ 25 mg od is an attractive therapeutic option measured on the effects on 24-h ABPM, night-time and daytime BP reduction and control rates in hypertensive patients at additional cardiovascular risk.