Comparative effect of canrenone or hydrochlorothiazide addition to valsartan/amlodipine combination on urinary albumin excretion in well-controlled type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of adding canrenone or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to valsartan/amlodipine combination on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) in microalbuminuric type 2 diabetic hypertensives. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After a 2-week placebo period and after 4 weeks of valsartan 160 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg combination, 120 patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled (> 130/80 mmHg) were randomized to canrenone 25 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg in addition to the previous therapy for 24 weeks. After the first 6 weeks of triple therapy, canrenone or HCTZ doses were doubled in the patients whose BP was yet uncontrolled. At the end of each period (placebo, dual combination and triple combination therapy), clinic and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded and 24 h UAE was evaluated. RESULTS: Both triple combinations produced greater clinical and ambulatory BP reduction than dual therapy, with no difference between the two groups. UAE was reduced by both regimens, but the decrease associated with canrenone add-on therapy was more pronounced. At week 24, UAE decreased by 45.3% in the canrenone group and by 20.3% in the HCTZ group (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that, despite similar BP-lowering effect, the addition of canrenone to valsartan/amlodipine combination was more effective in reducing UAE than HCTZ addition.

Effect of imidapril versus ramipril on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to compare the antiproteinuric effect of imidapril (I) and ramipril (R) in diabetic hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred and seventy-six patients were randomised to I 10 - 20 mg once daily (od) (n = 88) or R 5 - 10 mg od (n = 88) for 24 weeks. Clinic, ambulatory, central blood pressure (BP), urinary albumin excretion (UAE), plasma Angiotensin II (Ang II), bradykinin and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) were assessed at baseline and after 6, 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Both I and R produced a similar decrease in clinic, ambulatory and central BP (p < 0.001 vs baseline). Both treatments significantly reduced UAE throughout the study, but the decrease in UAE associated with I was more pronounced, being evident at week 6 (p = 0.05) and maximal at week 24 end-point (-42 vs -29%, p < 0.01). BNP and Ang II levels were similarly reduced by I and R, while bradykinin increased more with R (+132 vs +86%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings showed that in diabetic hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria, despite equivalent BP-lowering effect, I produced a greater antiproteinuric effect than R, which might be due to different intrinsic molecular properties of the two drugs.

Effects of losartan and amlodipine alone or combined with simvastatin in hypertensive patients with nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis.

OBJECTIVES: The inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system and of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase could improve hepatic steatosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of losartan or amlodipine alone or combined with simvastatin on hepatic steatosis degree, and on insulin sensitivity in normocholesterolemic, hypertensive patients with nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis. METHODS: Patients were treated with losartan, 100 mg/day, or amlodipine, 10 mg/day, for 6 months; subsequently simvastatin, 20 mg/day was added to both treatments for a further 6 months. The patients performed an ultrasound examination [steatosis degree, subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) diameter], an euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp [glucose infusion rate (GIR)], and a blood sample (fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin, triglycerides, and inflammatory parameters) at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, respectively. RESULTS: Both losartan and amlodipine induced a significant and similar systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure reduction (P<0.001 vs. baseline). Losartan significantly increased GIR (P<0.05 vs. baseline) compared with amlodipine therapy, and the addition of simvastatin to losartan further increased GIR compared with the simvastatin added to amlodipine therapy (P<0.01 and P<0.05 vs. baseline, respectively). Losartan significantly decreased the steatosis degree, SAT, and VAT diameter compared with amlodipine therapy (P<0.05 vs. baseline with losartan for all). The addition of simvastatin to losartan therapy further decreased the steatosis degree, SAT, and VAT diameter. CONCLUSION: Losartan and simvastatin combination significantly improved the hepatic steatosis indices compared with amlodipine and simvastatin combination.

Effect of telmisartan and ramipril on atrial fibrillation recurrence and severity in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome and recurrent symptomatic paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation.

This study evaluated the effect of telmisartan, ramipril, and amlodipine on atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence and severity in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome. A total of 391 hypertensive outpatients with metabolic syndrome, in sinus rhythm but with at least 2 episodes of AF in the previous 6 months were randomized to telmisartan, ramipril, or amlodipine for 1 year. At the first AF, ventricular rate (VR) and plasma cardiac troponin I (TnI) were evaluated. P-wave dispersion (PWD) and procollagen type I carboxy-terminal peptide (PIP) were evaluated before and after 12 months of treatment. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were similarly and significantly reduced by all treatments (P < .001). In all, 49% of patients treated with amlodipine had a recurrence of AF as did 25.5% of patients with ramipril and 12.9% of patients with telmisartan (P < .01 vs amlodipine and P < .05 vs ramipril). Ventricular rate and TnI at the first AF recurrence were significantly lower with telmisartan and ramipril than with amlodipine. P-wave dispersion was reduced by ramipril (-5.1 ms, P < .05) and even more by telmisartan (-11 ms, P < .01). Telmisartan and ramipril induced a similar PIP reduction (-52.8 and -49.8 µg/L, respectively, P < .01). These findings suggested that in these patients telmisartan was more effective than ramipril in reducing AF recurrence and severity as well as in improving PWD, despite a similar BP reduction and a similar improvement in cardiac fibrosis. This could be related to a specific effect of telmisartan on atrial electric remodeling.

Effect of telmisartan addition to amlodipine on ankle edema development in treating hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to evaluate the effect of telmisartan addition to amlodipine, on peripheral edema in hypertensive patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventy-five outpatients were randomized to amlodipine (A) 10 mg or telmisartan (T) 80 mg, or amlodipine 10 mg plus telmisartan 80 mg, for 6 weeks, in three crossover periods. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure, ankle foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP) were evaluated, as were plasma norepinephrine and plasma active renin (PAR). RESULTS: Amlodipine-telmisartan combination induced greater SBP/DBP reduction (-28.1/21.7 mmHg, p < 0.0001 vs baseline) compared with monotherapy with both amlodipine and telmisartan. Amlodipine monotherapy increased AFV by 26.7%, and PSTP by 83.2% (both p < 0.01). Adding telmisartan to amlodipine produced a significantly lesser increase in both AFV (+7.9%, p < 0.01 vs amlodipine) and PSTP (+23.8%, p < 0.01 vs amlodipine). Plasma norepinephrine levels were increased by amlodipine (+134.3 pg/ml, p < 0.01); such an increase was attenuated by the addition of telmisartan (+55 pg/ml, p < 0.05 vs amlodipine). PAR was slightly increased by amlodipine (+21.5 pg/ml, p < 0.05) and more by telmisartan alone (+62.5 pg/ml) and telmisartan-amlodipine combination (+71.3 pg/ml; both p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of telmisartan to amlodipine significantly attenuated amlodipine-induced edema formation. The reduction of amlodipine-induced reflex-sympathetic activation by telmisartan might have contributed to such an effect.

Role of angiotensin II in plasma PAI-1 changes induced by imidapril or candesartan in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.

To evaluate the relationship between plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and angiotensin II (Ang II) changes during treatment with imidapril and candesartan in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome. A total of 84 hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome were randomized to imidapril 10 mg or candesartan 16 mg for 16 weeks. At weeks 4 and 8, there was a dose titration to imidapril 20 mg and candesartan 32 mg in nonresponders (systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 mm Hg). We evaluated, at baseline and after 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks, clinic blood pressure, Ang II and PAI-1 antigen. Both imidapril and candesartan induced a similar SBP/DBP reduction (-19.4/16.8 and -19.5/16.3 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.001 vs. baseline). Both drugs decreased PAI-1 antigen after 4 weeks of treatment, but only the PAI-1 lowering effect of imidapril was sustained throughout the 16 weeks (-9.3 ng ml(-1), P<0.01 vs. baseline), whereas candesartan increased PAI-1 (+6.5 ng ml(-1), P<0.05 vs. baseline and P<0.01 vs. imidapril). Imidapril significantly decreased Ang II levels (-14.6 pg ml(-1) at week 16, P<0.05 vs. baseline), whereas candesartan increased them (+24.2 pg ml(-1), P<0.01 vs. baseline and vs. imidapril). In both groups there was a positive correlation between Ang II and PAI-1 changes (r=0.61, P<0.001 at week 16 for imidapril, and r=0.37, P<0.005 at week 16 for candesartan). Imidapril reduced plasma PAI-1 and Ang II levels, whereas candesartan increased them. This suggests that the different effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and Ang II blockers on Ang II production has a role in their different influence on fibrinolysis.

Effect of aliskiren addition to amlodipine on ankle edema in hypertensive patients: a three-way crossover study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of aliskiren and amlopidine on ankle-foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: After 4-week placebo, 120 outpatients with grade 1 - 2 hypertension were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg or aliskiren 300 mg or their combination for 8 weeks in three crossover periods. At the end of each treatment, blood pressure, AFV, PSTP, plasma renin activity (PRA) and norepinephrine were assessed. RESULTS: Both monotherapies similarly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; p < 0.001), but the reduction was greater with amlodipine/aliskiren combination (SBP: - 24.6 mmHg, p < 0.001 vs monotherapy; DBP: -20.9 mmHg, p < 0.01 vs monotherapy). Amlodipine increased both AFV (+ 28.4%, p < 0.01) and PSTP (+ 80.4%, p < 0.01), while the combination produced a less marked increase in AFV (+ 6.6%, p < 0.01 vs amlodipine) and PSTP (+ 20.1%, p < 0.01 vs amlodipine). Plasma norepinephrine increased with amlodipine (+ 53.5%, p < 0.01) and this increase was not reduced by aliskiren addition. PRA was unaffected by amlodipine, while it was reduced by both aliskiren monotherapy (- 77.7%, p < 0.01) and aliskiren/amlodipine combination (- 75.7%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Direct renin inhibition by aliskiren partially counteracts the microcirculatory changes responsible for calcium-channel-induced edema formation, possibly through preferential vasodilation of venous capacitance vessels.

Fibrinolysis and insulin sensitivity in imidapril and candesartan (FISIC study) recipients with hypertension.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of imidapril and candesartan on fibrinolysis and insulin sensitivity in normoweight hypertensive patients. After a 2-week wash-out period, 61 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to imidapril or candesartan for 12 weeks. Blood pressure (BP), plasma tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) antigen activities were evaluated at baseline and during treatment. The patients underwent a euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp (insulin sensitivity was evaluated as glucose infusion rate during the last 30 min) and a desmopressin test (with desmopressin infusion in the brachial artery) to evaluate endothelial ability to release t-PA. Imidapril and candesartan induced similar systolic/diastolic BP reductions (-16/12.6 and -16.1/12.2 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.001 vs. baseline). Imidapril increased glucose infusion rate (+1.1 mg min(-1) per kg, P<0.02), whereas candesartan did not change it. Both drugs decreased PAI-1 antigen activity after 4 weeks of treatment; subsequently, only the decreasing effect of imidapril was sustained throughout the 12 weeks, whereas candesartan increased PAI-1 activity at week 12 (P<0.05 vs. baseline, P<0.01 vs. imidapril). Activity of t-PA decreased with candesartan (from 0.48±0.16 to 0.43±0.14 IU ml(-1), P<0.05) but not with imidapril. Activity of t-PA in response to desmopressin was increased more by imidapril (+4.45 IU ml(-1)) than by candesartan (+2.73 IU ml(-1), P<0.01 vs. imidapril). These results indicate that in normoweight hypertensive patients, despite similar BP reduction, imidapril but not candesartan improved the fibrinolytic balance, suggesting that mechanisms other than Ang II inhibition, possibly including bradykinin-mediated effects on insulin sensitivity and endothelial function, may be responsible for these different effects.

Effect of body weight loss and normalization on blood pressure in overweight non-obese patients with stage 1 hypertension.

We evaluated the effects of body weight (BW) loss on blood pressure (BP) in overweight non-obese patients with stage 1 hypertension. We enrolled 376 overweight (body mass index (BMI) >or=25 and <30 kg m(-2)) stage 1 hypertensive patients in this prospective 12-month trial. Each patient received tailored, low caloric dietary advice. After 6 months, patients with a BW reduction <5% were excluded. Body weight, BMI, BP, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), leptin (pL), renin and aldosterone levels were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. In 222 patients who completed the study, a mean weight reduction of 8.1 kg reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 4.2 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 3.3 mm Hg (P<0.05), which was accompanied by a significant decrease in FPI, pL and aldosterone levels (P<0.05). Larger SBP/DBP reductions were observed in 106 patients with normalized BMI (-5/-4.5 mm Hg, P<0.01) compared with the 116 patients who did not become normalized (-3.3/-1.6 mm Hg). The former also presented with greater decreases in FPG, FPI, pL, renin and aldosterone levels. Of the 106 patients who had normalized BMI, 52 also had normalized BP. Clinical and metabolic characteristics of these patients were similar to those of the 56 patients who did not have normalized BP. In overweight, mild hypertensive patients, weight loss was effective in reducing BP and in reversing some endocrinologic alterations associated with being overweight. Half of the patients who had normalized BMI also had normalized BP, which could indicate that these patients essentially did not have a form of hypertension but that these effects were instead secondary to being overweight.

Efficacy and safety of two treatment combinations of hypertension in very elderly patients.

The study compared valsartan/amlodipine combination with irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination in very elderly hypertensives. After a 4-week placebo period, 94 hypertensives, aged 75-89 years were randomized to valsartan 160mg/amlodipine 5mg or irbesartan 300mg/HCTZ 12.5mg for 24 weeks according to a prospective, parallel group study. After 4 weeks amlodipine or HCTZ was doubled in non-responders. Patients were checked every 4 weeks. At each visit clinical sitting, lying and standing blood pressure (BP), systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were evaluated, and an electrocardiogram was performed. At the end of the placebo period and of the treatment period a non-invasive 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed and electrolytes and uric acid were evaluated. Both combinations significantly reduced ambulatory BP. In the valsartan/amlodipine group the mean reduction (-29.9/-15.6 for 24h, -28.6/-14.5mmHg for day-time and -26.2/-17.4mmHg for night-time SBP/DBP) was similar to that of the irbesartan/HCTZ group (-29.6/-15.4 for 24h, -29.3/-14.9mmHg for day-time and -25.4/-16.9mmHg for night-time SBP/DBP). Both combinations significantly reduced clinical sitting and lying BP values with no difference between treatments. BP changes from lying to standing position were significantly greater in the irbesartan/HCTZ group (-17.2/-9.1mmHg) than in the valsartan/amlodipine group (-10.1/-1.9mmHg, p<0.05 for SBP and p<0.01 for DBP vs. irbesartan/HCTZ). Potassium significantly decreased and uric acid significantly increased (-0.4mmol/l, p<0.05 and +0.5mg/dl, p<0.05 vs. baseline, respectively) only in the irbesartan/HCTZ group. In conclusion, both combinations were similarly effective in reducing ambulatory and clinical BP in very elderly hypertensives. However, valsartan/amlodipine offered some advantages in terms of less pronounced BP orthostatic changes and absence of metabolic adverse effects.

Effect of valsartan addition to amlodipine on insulin sensitivity in overweight-obese hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of valsartan/amlodipine combination on insulin sensitivity in overweight-obese hypertensive patients. METHODS: After a 4-week placebo period, 58 overweight-obese (BMI >or=25 kg/m(2)) patients, with mild to moderate essential hypertension (DBP >95 and <110 mmHg, SBP >140 mmHg) were treated with amlodipine 5 mg od or valsartan 160 mg od or amlodipine 5 mg plus valsartan 160 mg od for 8 weeks according to a randomized, open-label, blinded end-point, cross-over study. At the end of the placebo period and each treatment period, blood pressure (BP) and insulin sensitivity (IS) (by euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp technique) were evaluated. IS was expressed as the amount of glucose infused during the last 30 min (glucose infusion rate, GIR) in mg/kg/min. RESULTS: Valsartan/amlodipine combination produced a significantly greater decrease in SBP/DBP values (-22.3/16.7 mmHg, p<0.001 vs baseline) than valsartan (-15.2/11.7 mmHg, p<0.01 vs baseline) and amlodipine monotherapy (-16.1/12.6 mmHg, p<0.01 vs baseline). Both valsartan and amlodipine provided a significant increase in GIR (+1.24 mg/kg/min, p=0.036 vs baseline and +1.02 mg/kg/min, p=0.047, respectively), but such an increase was significantly greater with their combination (+1.82 mg/kg/min, p<0.01 vs baseline). These greater changes in IS were not related to BP changes. CONCLUSION: Valsartan/amlodipine combination improved IS more than respective monotherapy beyond affording greater BP reductions. This strengthens the rationale to use valsartan/amlodipine combination in the treatment of overweight-obese hypertensives.

Effect of valsartan and ramipril on atrial fibrillation recurrence and P-wave dispersion in hypertensive patients with recurrent symptomatic lone atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the effect of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan or ramipril on atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence, on P-wave dispersion, (PWD) and on serum procollagen type I carboxy terminal peptide (PIP). METHODS: A total of 369 mild hypertensive (systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 and/or 90 < diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 110 mm Hg) outpatients in sinus rhythm but with at least two episodes of AF in the previous 6 months were randomized to valsartan (n = 122), ramipril (n = 124), or amlodipine (n = 123) for 1 year. Clinic blood pressure (BP) and a 24-h electrocardiogram (ECG) were evaluated monthly. Patients were asked to report any episode of symptomatic AF and to perform an ECG as early as possible. PWD and serum PIP levels were evaluated before and after each treatment period. RESULTS: SBP and DBP were significantly reduced by the three treatments (P < 0.001). A total of 46 (47.4%) patients treated with amlodipine had a recurrence of AF as did 26 (27.9%) patients treated with ramipril (P < 0.01 vs. amlodipine) and 16 (16.1%) patients treated with valsartan (P < 0.01 vs. amlodipine and P < 0.05 vs. ramipril). The Kaplan-Meyer analysis showed a significant reduction of AF episodes in the valsartan group (P = 0.005 log-rank test) as well as in the ramipril group (P = 0.021), even if at a lesser degree. PWD values were significantly reduced by ramipril (-4.2 ms, P < 0.05) and even more by valsartan (-11.2 ms, P < 0.01), the difference being significant (P < 0.01). Serum PIP levels were reduced by ramipril (-49.7 microg, P < 0.001) and valsartan (-49.3 microg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar BP lowering, valsartan and ramipril were more effective than amlodipine in preventing new episodes of AF, but the effect of valsartan was greater than that of ramipril. This could be related to the greater PWD reduction observed with valsartan.

Comparative evaluation of effect of valsartan/amlodipine and atenolol/amlodipine combinations on atrial fibrillation recurrence in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of valsartan/amlodipine and atenolol/amlodipine combination in preventing the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertensive diabetic patients with a history of recent paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Two hundred ninety-six hypertensive patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes in sinus rhythm but with at least 2 ECG-documented episodes of AF in the previous 6 months were randomized to 160 mg of valsartan plus amlodipine (titrated from 2.5 to 10 mg) or to 100 mg of atenolol plus amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg) in addition to their previous antiarrhythmic treatment (if any) and were followed up for 1 year. Blood pressure (BP) and a 24-hour ECG were evaluated monthly. The patients were asked to report any episode of symptomatic AF and to perform an ECG as early as possible. SBP/DBP values were significantly reduced after 12 months with valsartan/amlodipine (from 150.4/93.5 to 126.37/7.4 mm Hg, P < 0.001) and atenolol/amlodipine (from 151.1/94.2 to 127.1/77.9 mm Hg, P < 0.001), with no difference between the 2 regimens. At least 1 ECG-documented episode of AF was reported in 20.3% of the patients treated with valsartan/amlodipine and in 34.1% of those treated with atenolol/amlodipine, with a significant difference between treatments (P < 0.01). The positive effect of valsartan/amlodipine combination on AF recurrence was more evident in patients treated with amiodarone or propafenone than in patients treated with other antiarrhythmic drugs or without antiarrhythmic treatment. Despite similar BP reduction, valsartan/amlodipine combination was more effective in patients treated with amiodarone or propafenone than atenolol/amlodipine in preventing new episodes of AF in hypertensive diabetic patients.

Effect of delapril/manidipine vs olmesartan/ hydrochlorothiazide combination on insulin sensitivity and fibrinogen in obese hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of delapril/manidipine vs olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination on insulin sensitivity and plasma fibrinogen in obese hypertensive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a 4-week placebo period, 88 obese, hypertensive (DBP >95 and <110 mmHg) outpatients were randomized to delapril 30 mg/manidipine 10 mg combination or to olmesartan 20 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg combination for 24 weeks according to a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel group design. At the end of the placebo period and treatment period, clinical BP, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), plasma insulin, insulin sensitivity (by euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp) and plasma fibrinogen were evaluated. Insulin sensitivity was expressed as the amount of glucose infused during the last 30 minutes (glucose infusion rate, GIR) in mg/Kg/min. The total glucose requirement (TGR) to maintain a steady-state blood glucose level in response to a defined increase in plasma insulin concentration was also evaluated. RESULTS: Both combinations significantly reduced SBP/DBP values (-22.3/16.4 mmHg and -22.6/17.2 mmHg, respectively, all p <0.001 vs placebo). GIR was significantly increased only by delapril/manidipine (+3.01 mg/min/Kg, p=0.038 vs placebo), the difference between treatments being significant (p <0.05). TGR was significantly increased by delapril/manidipine (+9.7 g, p=0.034), while it was unaffected by olmesartan/HCTZ. Plasma insulin as well as fibrinogen were significantly reduced by delapril/manidipine (-17.8 pmol/l, p=0.047 and -67.5 mg/dl, p=0.021, respectively), but not by olmesartan/HCTZ, the difference between the two treatments being statistically significant (p <0.05). CONCLUSION: In obese hypertensive patients the delapril/manidipine combination but not the olmesartan/HCTZ combination significantly decreased insulin resistance and plasma fibrinogen levels, despite the similar BP lowering efficacy.

Effects of manidipine/delapril versus olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in elderly hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The purpose of this study was to compare the combination treatments of manidipine/delapril and olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in elderly diabetic hypertensives. After a 4-week placebo period, 158 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes (age range: 66 to 74 years) were randomized to receive combination treatment of 10 mg manidipine plus 30 mg delapril or 20 mg olmesartan plus 12.5 mg HCTZ for 48 weeks in a prospective, parallel arm trial. After 12 weeks, manidipine or HCTZ was doubled in nonresponders (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > or =130 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or =80 mmHg). Patients were checked at the end of the placebo period and every 12 weeks thereafter. At each visit, lying, sitting and standing BP as well as fasting glycemia, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), electrolytes, uric acid, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) were evaluated. Both combinations reduced sitting SBP (-27.7 and -28.3 mmHg, respectively; both p<0.001) and DBP (-15.1 and -14.8 mmHg, respectively; both p<0.01) with no difference between the two treatments. Standing DBP was more markedly reduced by olmesartan/HCTZ (-19.5 mmHg; p<0.001) than by manidipine/delapril (-14.7 mmHg; p<0.05 vs. olmesartan/HCTZ). No changes in metabolic parameters were observed with manidipine/delapril, whereas an increase in HbA1c (+0.7%; p<0.05), uric acid (+0.4 mg/dL; p<0.05) and TG (+41.3 mg/dL; p<0.05), and a decrease in serum potassium (-0.3 mmol/L; p<0.05) and HDL-C (-3.4 mg/dL; p<0.05) were found in the olmesartan/HCTZ group. In conclusion, both combinations were similarly effective in reducing BP in elderly hypertensive diabetic patients. However, manidipine/delapril offered some advantages in terms of the less-pronounced BP orthostatic changes and absence of metabolic adverse effects.

Addition of manidipine improves the antiproteinuric effect of candesartan in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes and microalbuminuria.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the effect of manidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in addition to candesartan on the urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes and microalbuminuria. METHODS: After a 2-week washout and run-in period, and 8-week monotherapy with candesartan 16 mg every day, 174 microalbuminuric diabetic hypertensive patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) (>130/80 mm Hg) were randomized to addition of manidipine 10 mg every day (n = 87) or HCTZ 12.5 mg every day (n = 87) for 24 weeks, with a titration after 4 weeks (manidipine or HCTZ dose-doubling) in nonresponder patients. Blood pressure, UAER, creatinine clearance, serum electrolytes, fasting plasma glycemia, and glycosylated hemoglobin were evaluated at baseline (end of run-in period), after candesartan monotherapy, and at the end of the combination treatment period. RESULTS: Both combinations produced greater systolic BP/diastolic BP reduction than candesartan monotherapy (-28/21 mm Hg versus -16/11 mm Hg and -28/20 mm Hg versus -15/11 mm Hg, respectively; all P < .05 versus monotherapy), with no significant difference between the two combinations. The addition of manidipine produced a greater reduction in UAER than candesartan monotherapy (-55.4 mg/24 h v -36.1 mg/24 h, P < .05), whereas the addition of HCTZ did not significantly modify UAER; the difference between the two combinations was statistically significant (P < .05). Similarly, the percentage of patients moving to a normoalbuminuric state (UAER <30 mg/24 h) was increased by the addition of manidipine to candesartan (from 35% to 64%, P < .05), but not by the addition of HCTZ (from 34% to 39%, NS), with a statistical difference between the two combinations (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that, despite equivalent reduction in BP, the addition of manidipine to candesartan further reduced the UAER, whereas the addition of HCTZ did not modify the UAER. This suggests that the antiproteinuric effect of manidipine is partially independent of BP reduction, and is attributable to mechanisms different from those mediated by angiotensin receptor blockade.

Effect of telmisartan-amlodipine combination at different doses on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria.

BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the telmisartan-amlodipine combination at different doses on urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) in hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. METHODS: After a 2-week placebo period, 300 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were treated with the 40 mg of telmisartan and 2.5 mg of amlodipine combination. After 4 weeks 210 patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled (BP >130/80 mm Hg) were randomized to two-dose titration regimens, one based on increasing doses of telmisartan (up to 160 mg daily) and fixed 2.5-mg dose of amlodipine, the other based on increasing doses of amlodipine (up to 10 mg daily) and fixed 40-mg dose of telmisartan. After 12 weeks the nonresponder patients were given transdermic clonidine (0.1mg/d). After 16 weeks the patients yet not controlled were discontinued, the others were followed for 48 weeks. Office BP, UAER, creatinine clearance, plasma potassium, fasting glycemia, and glycosylated hemoglobin were assessed at the end of the telmisartan (40 mg)/amlodipine (2.5 mg) treatment period and after 48 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Similar decrease in systolic/diastolic BP values were obtained with both regimens (-24/-21, -23/-21, and -24/-21 mm Hg, all P < .001 v baseline, with increasing telmisartan; -25/-22, -25/-21, and -25/-22 mm Hg, all P < .001 v baseline with increasing amlodipine). Reductions of UAER were 47.5% (P < .01), 65.3% (P < .001), and 77% (P < .0001) for telmisartan 80, 120, and 160 mg/amlodipine 2.5 mg daily, respectively, whereas reductions of UAER were 34% (P < .03), 37% (P < .03), and 33% (P < .03) for amlodipine 5, 7.5, and 10 mg/telmisartan 40 mg daily, respectively, The difference between the two regimens was statistically significant (P < .05, P < .01, and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that, at comparable levels of BP reduction, UAE decreased more in subjects treated with escalating doses of telmisartan.

Effects of amlodipine-atorvastatin combination on inflammation markers and insulin sensitivity in normocholesterolemic obese hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of amlodipine-atorvastatin combination on plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) and insulin sensitivity in normocholesterolemic obese hypertensive patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, 50 normocholesterolemic [total cholesterol (TC) <5.2 mmol/L], obese (BMI >/=30 kg/m(2)) hypertensive patients (DBP >90 and <105 mm Hg and SBP >140 and <180 mm Hg) were randomly treated with amlodipine (10 mg) or with amlodipine (10 mg) plus atorvastatin (20 mg) according to a cross-over design; each treatment had a 12-week duration. At the end of the placebo and of each treatment period, blood pressure (BP), TNF-alpha, IL-6, insulin resistance (IR) by homeostasis model assessment of IR index (HOMA-IR) and TC were evaluated. RESULTS: Amlodipine monotherapy decreased both SBP (-17.1 mm Hg, p=0.008 vs. placebo) and DBP (-14.3 mm Hg, p=0.008) as well as TNF-alpha (from 3.66+/-1.6 to 3.09+/-1.1 pg/ml, p=0.045) and HOMA-IR (from 4.58+/-0.7 to 3.88+/-0.6, p=0.007). The amlodipine-atorvastatin combination produced a decrease in SBP (-22.5 mm Hg, p=0.0007 vs. placebo, p=0.039 vs. amlodipine), DBP (-17.7 mm Hg, p=0.0007 vs. placebo; p=0.04 vs. amlodipine), TNF-alpha (2.59+/-0.9 pg/mL, p=0.007 vs. placebo and p=0.038 vs. amlodipine) and HOMA-IR (2.86+/-0.4, p=0.0008 vs. placebo and p=0.007 vs. amlodipine). The combination reduced IL-6 (from 7.93+/-1.9 to 5.59+/-1.2 pg/mL, p=0.008 vs. placebo and p=0.007 vs. amlodipine) and TC (from 4.3+/-0.5 to 3.6+/-0.4 mmol/L, p=0.008 vs. placebo and vs. amlodipine). HOMA-IR changes significantly correlated with TNF-alpha changes (r=0.38, p<0.05) during combination but not during amlodipine monotherapy. In normocholesterolemic, obese hypertensive patients, the amlodipine-atorvastatin combination decreased inflammatory markers and IR more than amlodipine monotherapy and produced a greater SBP and DBP reduction.

Comparison of the effects of valsartan and felodipine on plasma leptin and insulin sensitivity in hypertensive obese patients.

Aim of this study was to compare the effect of valsartan and felodipine on blood pressure (BP), plasma leptin (L), insulin sensitivity and plasma norepinephrine (NE) in obese hypertensive patients. Ninty-six obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > or = 30 kg/m2) with mild to moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 and < 110 mmHg, as evaluated with an appropriately sized cuff) aged 31-60 years, were randomized to a valsartan (80 mg/day for 16 weeks; n = 48) or felodipine (5 mg/day for 16 weeks; n = 48) treatment group after a 2-week wash-out period. After the first 4 weeks of treatment there was a titration with dose-doubling in non responder patients (DBP > 90 mmHg). At the end of the placebo period and of active treatment period, BP and BMI were evaluated and a venous sample was drawn at the same hour in the morning to evaluate plasma L and NE. Insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) was calculated. No dietary advice was prescribed. Both valsartan and felodipine significantly decreased BP values (-19.3/15 mmHg and -18.9/13.6 mmHg, respectively p < 0.001 vs. placebo), with no difference between treatments. However, felodipine increased plasma NE (+124 pg/ml, +38.2%, p < 0.05 vs. placebo and < 0.01 vs. valsartan) and had no effect on L, body weight and HOMA-IR index, while valsartan did not modify NE and produced a significant reduction in L (-3.7 ng/ml, -10.1%, p < 0.05 vs. placebo), BMI (-1.7 kg/m2, -4.7%, p < 0.01 vs. placebo) and HOMA-IR index (-1.6, -20%, p < 0.05 vs. placebo). These results suggest that in hypertensive obese subjects, treatment with valsartan might offer an advantage over treatment with felodipine, since valsartan may help to improve obesity-related disorders in addition to lowering BP.

Effect of successful hypertension control by manidipine or lisinopril on albuminuria and left ventricular mass in diabetic hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this open-labelled, randomised, parallel-group study was to evaluate the effect of long-term monotherapy with manidipine or lisinopril on albumin excretion rate (AER) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in hypertensive patients with type-2 diabetes and microalbuminuria. METHODS: After a 4-week wash-out period, 174 patients with essential hypertension [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >80 mmHg and <100 mmHg], type-2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were randomised to manidipine 10 mg o.d. or lisinopril 10 mg o.d.; after 8 weeks, the dose was doubled in non-responders (DBP >80 mmHg); after 3 months, treatment was discontinued in the non-responder patients and in those complaining of side effects; the remaining 121 patients continued their therapy with manidipine or lisinopril, and 99 completed the 2-year study. At the end of the wash-out period, of the titration period and after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of treatment, BP was measured, AER, creatinine clearance, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated and an echocardiographic evaluation was performed. RESULTS: The 99 patients who completed the study were statistically analysed according to a per-protocol evaluation. Manidipine and lisinopril significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP levels (at 24 months, --22.3/15.5 mmHg, P<0.001 versus baseline and --21.4/15.7 mmHg, P<0.01 versus baseline, respectively). Both drugs provided a significant decrease in AER, but it was significantly more pronounced with lisinopril (at 24 weeks, --37.2 mg/24 h, P<0.001 versus baseline) than with manidipine (--29.9 mg/24 h, P<0.05 versus baseline) and became evident earlier in the lisinopril group (after 3 months versus 6 months of treatment). Manidipine produced a greater reduction of LVMI than lisinopril (--14.9 g/m(2) versus --10.8 g/m(2) at 24 months). The effect was more pronounced in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy at baseline (--19.8 g/m(2) versus --12.8 g/m(2), P<0.05). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that, despite similar BP lowering, non-haemodynamic factors play an important role in the pharmacological reduction of AER and LVMI in diabetic hypertensive patients.