Single-pill combination of telmisartan/amlodipine versus amlodipine monotherapy in diabetic hypertensive patients: an 8-week randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive patients with diabetes often require combination therapy to achieve a blood pressure (BP) goal, and evidence suggests that time to BP goal is crucial to decrease cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the single-pill combination of telmisartan and amlodipine was superior to amlodipine alone as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: An 8-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind international trial comparing the once-daily single-pill combination of telmisartan 80 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (T/A; n = 352) with once-daily amlodipine 10 mg (A; n = 354) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 1 or 2 hypertension (systolic BP [SBP] >150 mm Hg). RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar between treatment groups, with an mean (SD) age of 60.5 (10.1) years; 51.7% were male, the mean (SD) body mass index was 32.0 (6.1) and the mean (SD) duration of hypertension was 8.8 (7.9) years. After 8 weeks (primary end point) as well as after 1, 2, and 4 weeks (key secondary end points), significantly greater decreases in the in-clinic mean seated trough cuff SBP with T/A versus A were achieved (-29.0 mm Hg vs -22.9 mm Hg at 8 weeks; P < 0.0001). After 8 weeks, 71.4% versus 53.8% of patients achieved the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) with T/A versus A, with mean SBPs of 131.9 and 137.9 mm Hg, respectively. Similar results were observed in the obese (metabolic syndrome) subpopulation. The more stringent goal (<130/80 mm Hg) was achieved by 36.4% and 17.9% patients in the T/A and A groups, respectively. The most common adverse events were peripheral edema, headache, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, T/A provided prompt and greater BP decreases compared with A monotherapy, with the majority of patients achieving the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg).

Efficacy and safety after cessation of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib (MK-0859) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia.

This report describes the lipid and safety data collected during an off-drug period that followed 8 weeks of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, anacetrapib (ANA). A total of 589 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia were randomized to placebo, atorvastatin (ATV) 20 mg, and varying doses of ANA, provided as monotherapy or coadministered with ATV 20 mg daily. Patients were treated for 8 weeks, followed by an 8-week follow-up period, during which ANA was switched to placebo. At week 16 (8 weeks after ANA was stopped), persistent reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were evident for the monotherapy groups receiving ANA 150 and 300 mg (-9.3% and -15.3%, respectively), and residual increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were observed for the monotherapy groups receiving ANA 40 mg (18.6%), 150 mg (40.5%), and 300 mg (43.4%). The effects on apolipoprotein B and apolipoprotein A-I were consistent with the changes observed for LDL-C and HDL-C, respectively. Corresponding residual changes in LDL-C and HDL-C were also noted in the ATV coadministration groups at the similar doses of ANA compared with ATV 20 mg alone. Residual plasma drug levels accompanied by reductions in cholesteryl ester transfer protein activity were observed at week 16 and may account for the alterations in plasma lipids 8 weeks after cessation of ANA.

Effects of telmisartan and amlodipine in combination on ambulatory blood pressure in stages 1-2 hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of combination therapy with antihypertensive agents by clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements may yield results that differ from out-of-office BP readings. This is of clinical relevance because out-of-office BP values are of prognostic importance. We studied the effects of combining telmisartan and amlodipine on ambulatory BP in patients with stages 1-2 hypertension. METHODS: We conducted an 8-week, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 4x4 factorial design trial in which 562 patients with clinic diastolic BP at least 95 and 119 mmHg or less were randomized to receive telmisartan (0, 20, 40, or 80 mg) and/or amlodipine (0, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg). Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment; the end points of interest were the changes from baseline in 24-h systolic and diastolic BP. Secondary end points included the proportion of responders (> or =10 mmHg BP reduction from baseline and/or <130/80 mean 24-h BP) and controlled patients (<130/80 mmHg mean 24-h BP). RESULTS: Combination therapies of telmisartan and amlodipine lowered 24-h BP to a larger extent than the corresponding monotherapies at all doses. Mean reductions from baseline in 24-h BP for the combination of the highest doses of telmisartan (80 mg) and amlodipine (10 mg) were -22.4/-14.6 versus -11.9/-6.9 mmHg for amlodipine (10 mg) and -11.0/-6.9 mmHg for telmisartan (80 mg) (P<0.0001 for each comparison). In addition, BP response and control rates (24-h BP <130/80 mmHg) were significantly higher with the combination therapy versus the monotherapy groups. CONCLUSION: These findings show that telmisartan and amlodipine in combination provide substantial 24-h BP efficacy that is superior to either monotherapy in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension.

Results of treatment with telmisartan-amlodipine in hypertensive patients.

This randomized 4 x 4 factorial study determined the efficacy and safety of telmisartan (T) plus amlodipine (A) in hypertensive patients. Adults (N=1461) with stage 1 or 2 hypertension (baseline blood pressure [BP]: 153.2[12.1]/101.7[4.3] mm Hg) were randomized to 1 of 16 treatment groups with T 0, 20, 40, 80 mg and A 0, 2.5, 5, 10 mg for 8 weeks. In-clinic BP reductions were greater with combination therapy than respective monotherapies. The greatest least-square mean systolic/diastolic BP reductions were observed with T80 mg plus A10 mg (-26.4/-20.1 mm Hg; P<.05 compared with both monotherapies). BP control was also greatest in the T80-mg plus A10-mg group (76.5% [overall control] and 85.3% [diastolic BP control]), and BP response rates >90% with this combination. Peripheral edema was most common in the A10-mg group (17.8%); however, this rate was notably lower when A was used in combination with T: 11.4% (T20/A10), 6.2% (T40/A10), and 11.3% (T80/A10).

Telmisartan plus amlodipine in patients with moderate or severe hypertension: results from a subgroup analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 4 x 4 factorial study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension frequently require > or = 2 antihypertensives to achieve blood pressure (BP) control. An angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) plus a calcium channel blocker (CCB) seems particularly attractive for these difficult-to-control patients. METHODS: Patients with Stage 1 or 2 hypertension were randomized to telmisartan 0, 20, 40, or 80 mg plus amlodipine 0, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg for 8 weeks. Only those with a diastolic BP (DBP) > or = 100 mm Hg at baseline were included in this subgroup analysis. The primary endpoint was the change in the in-clinic seated trough cuff DBP from baseline to study end for combination versus respective monotherapies. Secondary endpoints included the change in the in-clinic seated trough systolic BP (SBP), BP response, and control rates. RESULTS: A total of 1078 patients (mean [standard deviation] baseline in-clinic BP: 154.7 +/- 11.7/103.5 +/- 3.5 mm Hg) were analyzed. In-clinic DBP and SBP reductions were significantly greater with combination therapies than respective monotherapies. The greatest least-square mean (standard error) SBP/DBP reductions (-26.5 +/- 1.2/-21 +/- 0.8 mm Hg) were observed with telmisartan 80 mg plus amlodipine 10 mg; 77% and 85% of patients in this treatment group achieved BP control (< 140/90 mm Hg) and DBP control (< 90 mm Hg), respectively. Peripheral edema was reported in 17.2% of patients in the amlodipine 10 mg group; however, this was substantially lower when telmisartan was used in combination: 7% (telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 10 mg) and 9.5% (telmisartan 80 mg/ amlodipine 10 mg). CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan plus amlodipine provides effective BP lowering at all clinically relevant doses (up to -26.5 mm Hg SBP), and almost 9 out of 10 patients may achieve DBP control. Peripheral edema is up to 59% less when telmisartan 40 mg is used in combination with amlodipine 10 mg compared with amlodipine 10 mg monotherapy alone.

Long-term safety, tolerability and efficacy of combination therapy with aliskiren and amlodipine in patients with hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: Most patients with hypertension require antihypertensive combination therapy to achieve BP control. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren combined with the calcium channel blocker amlodipine. METHODS: Overall, 556 patients with hypertension (msDBP > or =95-<110 mmHg) received open-label aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg for 2 weeks, followed by forced titration to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg for 52 weeks. Add-on hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) was permitted from week 10 to achieve BP control (<140/90 mmHg). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the long-term safety and tolerability of aliskiren/amlodipine combination therapy; the BP-lowering efficacy of the combination was also assessed (week 54 endpoint; last observation carried forward). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00402103. RESULTS: In total, 452 patients completed 54 weeks' treatment with aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg, with or without add-on HCT. The most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were peripheral edema, upper respiratory tract infection, headache and bronchitis. Peripheral edema (the most common AE), occurred in 22.7% of treated patients, and was generally mild or moderate in intensity and transient in nature. Few patients exhibited laboratory abnormalities. Aliskiren/amlodipine combination therapy provided a mean BP reduction from baseline to week 54 of 24.2/15.5 mmHg; 74.3% of patients achieved BP control. In the subgroup of patients with stage 2 hypertension (baseline msSBP > or =160 mmHg and/or msDBP > or =100 mmHg), the mean BP reduction at week 54 was 29.1/17.1 mmHg, and 67.0% of patients achieved BP control. CONCLUSION: In this open-label study, aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg combination therapy, with or without add-on HCT, effectively reduced BP, particularly in patients with stage 2 hypertension. The most common AE was peripheral edema, consistent with the known AE profile of high-dose (10 mg) amlodipine. Further studies comparing the aliskiren/amlodipine combination with the component monotherapies and other antihypertensive combinations are warranted.

Efficacy and safety of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib as monotherapy and coadministered with atorvastatin in dyslipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition is one strategy for increasing HDL-C. This study evaluated the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib as monotherapy or coadministered with atorvastatin in patients with dyslipidemia. METHODS: A total of 589 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia (53.8% of the study population had low HDL-C) were randomized equally to one of 10 groups: 5 groups received background statin therapy of atorvastatin 20 mg and 5 did not, and each of these was randomized to placebo, anacetrapib 10, 40, 150, and 300 mg once daily for 8 weeks. An equal proportion of patients had triglycerides >150 mg/dL in each group. RESULTS: For placebo and anacetrapib monotherapy (10, 40, 150, and 300 mg), least squares mean percent changes from baseline to week 8 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were 2%, -16%, -27%, -40%, and -39%, respectively, and for HDL-C were 4%, 44%, 86%, 139%, and 133%, respectively (P < .001 vs placebo for all doses). Coadministration of anacetrapib with atorvastatin produced significant incremental LDL-C reductions and similar HDL-C increases versus atorvastatin monotherapy. For both anacetrapib monotherapy and coadministration with atorvastatin, the LDL-C reductions were similar in patients with baseline triglyceride levels greater than and less than or equal to the median. Anacetrapib was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events was similar for placebo and all active treatment groups. There were no increases in systolic or diastolic blood pressure in any treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Anacetrapib, as monotherapy or coadministered with atorvastatin, produced significant reductions in LDL-C and increases in HDL-C; the net result of treatment with anacetrapib + atorvastatin was approximately 70% lowering of LDL-C and more than doubling of HDL-C. Anacetrapib was generally well tolerated with no discernable effect on blood pressure.

Effect on blood pressure of lumiracoxib versus ibuprofen in patients with osteoarthritis and controlled hypertension: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs vary in their impact on blood pressure and the effect of lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily has not been studied previously. To examine whether lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily would result in lower 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure than ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily in osteoarthritis patients with controlled hypertension, a 4-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in 79 centres in nine countries. METHODS: Hypertensive osteoarthritis patients of 50 years at least whose office blood pressure was less than 140/90 mmHg on stable antihypertensive treatment were randomized to lumiracoxib (n = 394) 100 mg once daily or ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily (n = 393) and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at baseline and end of study. The primary outcome measure was a comparison of the change in 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure from baseline to week 4. Secondary analyses included other blood pressure-related endpoints and efficacy (pain) measurements. RESULTS: Compared with baseline, the 24-h mean systolic ambulatory blood pressure (least square mean) decreased in lumiracoxib-treated patients (-2.7 mmHg) and increased in ibuprofen-treated patients (+2.2 mmHg) at 4 weeks, estimated difference -5.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval -6.1 to -3.8) in favour of lumiracoxib. The 24-h mean diastolic ambulatory blood pressure changes were -1.5 mmHg (lumiracoxib), +0.5 mmHg (ibuprofen), difference -2.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval -2.7 to -1.3). Efficacy results were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with lumiracoxib 100 mg once daily resulted in clinically significant lower blood pressure compared with ibuprofen 600 mg three times daily in osteoarthritis patients with well controlled hypertension.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a combination of once-daily losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg compared with losartan 100-mg monotherapy in the treatment of mild to severe essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with hypertension may require >1 antihypertensive agent to control blood pressure (BP), physicians often prescribe a fixed combination of antihypertensive medications. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of adding low-dose hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (HCTZ12.5) to high-dose losartan 100 mg (L100) in patients with hypertension whose BP was inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy. METHODS: Enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, filter study were patients aged > or =18 years with a mean trough sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg. Patients were treated with L100 QD for 4 weeks. Patients who did not achieve adequate BP control were randomly assigned to receive L100/HCTZ12.5 or L100 QD for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in trough SiDBP from baseline in the 2 groups. Responders were defined as patients with a mean trough SiDBP of <90 mm Hg or patients who had a > or =10-mm Hg decrease in mean trough SiDBP. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between treatment groups. The patients randomized to the double-blind treatment period were mostly white (65.1%) and male (57.5%), with a mean age of 53.8 years. The mean (SD) duration of hypertension at baseline was 9.7 (8.5) years. The proportion of patients previously treated with antihypertensive therapy was 76.7%. Of the 367 patients enrolled in the L100 filter period, 292 patients had BP inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy and were randomized to receive L100 (n = 145) or L100/HCTZ12.5 (n = 147). At week 6 after randomization, mean trough SiDBP was significantly lower in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (-8.3 vs -5.2, respectively; P < 0.001). The between-group difference was -3.0 mm Hg (95 % CI, -4.6 to -1.40; P < 0.001), and the proportion of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (63.0% vs 44.4%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) occurring in >2% of patients during the double-blind period was similar for both groups. AEs occurring in the L100 group and the L100/HCTZ12.5 group included respiratory tract infection (6.2% vs 3.4%, respectively), dizziness (2.1% vs 0.7%), and headache (0.7% vs 3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 weeks of therapy, L100/HCTZ12.5 was associated with greater antihypertensive efficacy than L100, as measured by the change in mean trough SiDBP The percentage of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group.

Telmisartan/Hydrochlorothiazide in comparison with losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in managing patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Hypertension is risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and stroke. A critical surge in blood pressure occurs during the early morning hours coincident with increased incidences of myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke and sudden cardiac death. This suggests that, in patients with hypertension, it may be important to maintain the efficacy of antihypertensive medication over the 24-h dosing interval, especially in the risky early morning hours. In order to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacies of fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin II receptor blockers with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, a multicenter, randomized, prospective, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was performed in 805 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension randomized to once-daily treatment with telmisartan 40 mg plus HCTZ (T40/H12.5), losartan 50 mg plus HCTZ (L50/H12.5), or telmisartan 80 mg plus HCTZ (T80/H12.5), with the primary objective of comparing T40/H12.5 with L50/H12.5 and evaluating the additional response of T80/H12.5. Efficacy was assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), clinic seated cuff sphygmomanometry and calculated responder rates after 6 weeks' active treatment. The primary endpoint was reduction from baseline in the last 6-h mean (relative to dosing) diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measured using 24-h ABPM. Compared with the L50/H12.5 group, the mean reductions in the last 6-h mean DBP for the T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 groups were significantly greater: -2.0 mmHg (p=0.0031) and -2.8 mmHg (p=0.0003), respectively. We conclude that T40/H12.5 provided clinically and statistically significantly superior blood pressure reductions compared with L50/H12.5 during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval, which corresponds to the high-risk early-morning hours, and that T80/H12.5 provided additional blood pressure reductions.

Lipid-modifying effects of rosuvastatin in postmenopausal women with hypercholesterolemia who are receiving hormone replacement therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin in postmenopausal women with hypercholesterolemia who are receiving hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: After a 6-week dietary lead-in period, 135 postmenopausal women who had been taking a stable HRT regimen for at least 3 months were randomized to receive rosuvastatin 5 mg, 10 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. Fasting levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TG) were assessed at weeks 0, 2, 6, 10, and 12; apolipoprotein (Apo) B and Apo A-I were measured at weeks 0 and 12. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin 5 mg and 10 mg significantly reduced LDL-C by 38% (SE = 2.1) and 49% (SE = 2.1), respectively, compared with placebo (1% [SE = 2.1]; p < 0.001). TC, TG, Apo B, and all lipid ratios examined (LDL-C/HDL-C, TC/HDL-C, non-HDL-C/HDL-C, and Apo B/Apo A-I) were also reduced significantly by both rosuvastatin doses (p < 0.001). HDL-C levels increased significantly in the rosuvastatin groups (11% and 8% for 5 mg and 10 mg, respectively, vs. -0.5% for placebo; p < 0.001), as did Apo A-I levels (p < 0.05). The combination of rosuvastatin plus HRT was well tolerated with no apparent differences among treatments in the numbers or types of adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg once daily is a well-tolerated and highly efficacious lipid-lowering therapy in postmenopausal women receiving HRT.

Recombinant variant of ciliary neurotrophic factor for weight loss in obese adults: a randomized, dose-ranging study.

CONTEXT: Obese individuals tend to resist the weight-regulating effects of exogenously administered leptin. A genetically engineered recombinant human variant ciliary neurotrophic factor (rhvCNTF) that signals through leptinlike pathways in the hypothalamus has been shown to bypass leptin resistance in animal models of obesity. OBJECTIVE: To identify a safe and well-tolerated dose of rhvCNTF that causes weight loss in obese adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Twelve-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, dose-ranging, multicenter clinical trial conducted at 2 university obesity clinics and at 5 independent clinical research clinics from March 2000 to August 2001, and including 173 nondiabetic obese adults, 82.6% of whom were women, with a mean (SD) body mass index of 41.1 (4.1). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive daily for 12 weeks subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 32) or 0.3 microg/kg (n = 32), 1.0 microg/kg (n = 38), or 2.0 microg/kg (n = 33) of rhvCNTF. Another group received 1.0 microg/kg for 8 weeks and placebo for 4 weeks (n = 38), but they were not included in the primary analysis. All participants received instructions for a reduced-calorie diet (World Health Organization formula minus 500 kcal/d). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in weight during the 12-week double-blind treatment period and proportion of patients who achieved a weight loss of at least 5%. RESULTS: Of the 173 randomized patients, 123 (71%) completed the double-blind dosing period. Mean (SEM) changes in kilograms from baseline body weights were 0.1 (0.6) for placebo and -1.5 (0.6) for the 0.3, -4.1 (0.6) for the 1.0, and -3.4 (0.7) for the 2.0 microg/kg of rhvCNTF dosage groups (P<.001, test for trend). Two patients (8.7%) in the placebo and 2 (8.3%) in the 0.3- microg/kg, 8 (29.6%) in the 1.0- microg/kg, and 5 (26%) in the 2.0- microg/kg treatment groups achieved a weight loss of at least 5%. Recombinant human variant CNTF was generally well tolerated although adverse events occurred in 75% of patients receiving placebo and 78% to 93% of patients receiving rhvCNTF, in a dose-related fashion, with mild injection site reactions as the most frequently reported adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: In this initial, dose-ranging, 12-week study, treatment with rhvCNTF resulted in more weight loss than placebo. These preliminary findings require confirmation in large prospective clinical trials.