Effect of Amlodipine/Nebivolol combination therapy on central BP and PWV compared to Amlodipine/Valsartan combination therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pulse wave velocity (PWV) and central blood pressure (CBP) have been intoduced into managment of hypertensive patients. PWV is positively correlated with arterial wall stiffness while central aortic pressure becomes better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than peripheral pressure. Reduction in CBP provides protective properties against subclinical organ damage. This work aims to investigate the effect of a new combination therapy of Amlodipine/Nebivolol (A/N) on central BP, peripheral BP and PWV. The results of using this combination will be compared to the well-established fixed-dose combination of Amlodipine/Valsartan (A/V). The study conducted between October 2018 and August 2020. One hundred and two hypertensive patients were assigned for Amlodipine 10 mg/Valsartan 160 mg combination therapy (A/V, n = 52) or Amlodipine 10 mg/Nebivolol 5 mg combination therapy (A/N, n = 50) by simple 1:1 randomization. Office, central blood pressure and PWV were measured on first (0 week), second (4-8 weeks) and third visit (10-12). Difference in BP (in each arm and between arms) was calculated along all visits. RESULTS: No statistical significant difference was found between A/V and A/N regarding age, gender, BMI and CV history. OBP, CBP and PWV were significantly reduced in each arm, but no differences were found when comparing both arm results to each other. Recorded side effects were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: The new combination therapy Amlodipine/Nebivolol (A/N) affords a significant reduction in CBP, PBP and PWV with minor and tolerable side effects. It has provided comparable results to Amlodipine/Valsartan (A/V) combination therapy.

Valsartan 160 mg/Amlodipine 5 mg Combination Therapy versus Amlodipine 10 mg in Hypertensive Patients with Inadequate Response to Amlodipine 5 mg Monotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: When monotherapy is inadequate for blood pressure control, the next step is either to continue monotherapy in increased doses or to add another antihypertensive agent. However, direct comparison of double-dose monotherapy versus combination therapy has rarely been done. The objective of this study is to compare 10 mg of amlodipine with an amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination in patients whose blood pressure control is inadequate with amlodipine 5 mg. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted as a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Men and women aged 20-80 who were diagnosed as having hypertension, who had been on amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy for at least 4 weeks, and whose daytime mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥135 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥85 mmHg on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were randomized to amlodipine (A) 10 mg or amlodipine/valsartan (AV) 5/160 mg group. Follow-up 24-hour ABPM was done at 8 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Ambulatory blood pressure reduction was significantly greater in the AV group compared with the A group (daytime mean SBP change: -14±11 vs. -9±9 mmHg, p<0.001, 24-hour mean SBP change: -13±10 vs. -8±8 mmHg, p<0.0001). Drug-related adverse events also did not differ significantly (A:AV, 6.5 vs. 4.5 %, p=0.56). CONCLUSION: Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination was more efficacious than amlodipine 10 mg in hypertensive patients in whom monotherapy of amlodipine 5 mg had failed.

Valsartan 160 mg/Amlodipine 5 mg Combination Therapy versus Amlodipine 10 mg in Hypertensive Patients with Inadequate Response to Amlodipine 5 mg Monotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: When monotherapy is inadequate for blood pressure control, the next step is either to continue monotherapy in increased doses or to add another antihypertensive agent. However, direct comparison of double-dose monotherapy versus combination therapy has rarely been done. The objective of this study is to compare 10 mg of amlodipine with an amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination in patients whose blood pressure control is inadequate with amlodipine 5 mg. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study was conducted as a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Men and women aged 20-80 who were diagnosed as having hypertension, who had been on amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy for at least 4 weeks, and whose daytime mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥135 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥85 mmHg on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) were randomized to amlodipine (A) 10 mg or amlodipine/valsartan (AV) 5/160 mg group. Follow-up 24-hour ABPM was done at 8 weeks after randomization. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. Ambulatory blood pressure reduction was significantly greater in the AV group compared with the A group (daytime mean SBP change: -14±11 vs. -9±9 mmHg, p<0.001, 24-hour mean SBP change: -13±10 vs. -8±8 mmHg, p<0.0001). Drug-related adverse events also did not differ significantly (A:AV, 6.5 vs. 4.5%, p=0.56). CONCLUSION: Amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg combination was more efficacious than amlodipine 10 mg in hypertensive patients in whom monotherapy of amlodipine 5 mg had failed.

Real-world clinical experience of amlodipine/valsartan and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: the EXCITE study.

OBJECTIVE: The EXCITE (clinical EXperienCe of amlodIpine and valsarTan in hypErtension) study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness, tolerability and adherence of amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) and amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val/HCT) single-pill combination therapies in patients with hypertension from the Middle East and Asia studied in routine clinical practice. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, multinational, non-interventional real-world study in which adult patients with hypertension receiving treatment with Aml/Val or Aml/Val/HCT as part of routine clinical practice were observed for a period of 26 ± 8 weeks. Dosages in milligrams (prescribed in accordance with local prescribing information) were Aml/Val: 5/80, 5/160, 10/160, 5/320 or 10/320; Aml/Val/HCT: 5/160/12.5, 10/160/12.5, 5/160/25, 10/160/25 or 10/320/25. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment effectiveness was assessed by change from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (BP)/diastolic BP (msSBP/msDBP), and the proportion of patients achieving therapeutic goal and BP response. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 9794 patients analyzed (mean age 53.2 years), 8603 received Aml/Val and 1191 Aml/Val/HCT. At study end (26 ± 8 weeks), overall msSBP (95% confidence interval [CI]) reductions from baseline were -31.0 (-31.42, -30.67) mmHg for Aml/Val and -36.6 (-37.61, -35.50) mmHg for Aml/Val/HCT; msDBP reductions from baseline were -16.6 (-16.79, -16.34) mmHg for Aml/Val and -17.8 (-18.41, -17.22) mmHg for Aml/Val/HCT. Meaningful reductions in BP from baseline were also consistently observed across all Aml/Val dosages and severities of hypertension. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 11.2% and 6.1% of patients in the Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT groups, respectively. Most frequently reported AEs in the Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT groups were edema and peripheral edema. While the observational design of the study has inherent limitations, it enables collection of real-world data from a more naturalistic clinical setting, and the large size of the study increases the robustness of the study, as indicated by the narrow confidence intervals for the main study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The EXCITE study provides evidence that Aml/Val and Aml/Val/HCT provide clinically meaningful BP reductions and are well tolerated in a large multi-ethnic hypertensive population studied in routine clinical practice.

Análise de eficácia, eventos adversos e desfechos cardiovasculares em estudos relacionados às combinações de nifedipino GITS ou anlodipino com medicamentos que atuam no sistema renina angiotensina aldosterona / Efficacy analysis, adverse events and cardiovascular outcomes in studies related to combinations of nifedipine GITS or amlodipine with drugs acting on the renin angiotensin aldosterone system

Revisamos 17 estudos com o objetivo de avaliar a eficácia anti-hipertensiva da combinação de antagonistas de cálcio com bloqueadores dos receptores de angiotensina na redução da pressão arterial, de desfechos cardiovasculares e na incidência de efeitos adversos. A terapia combinada de bloqueador de canais de cálcio anlodipino ou nifedipino GITS, mais o bloqueador de receptor de angiotensina II valsartana, mostrou-se, na maioria dos estudos, mais eficaz que a monoterapia para redução de pressão arterial, além de mais benéfica quanto à diminuição de eventos cardiovasculares. O perfil de segurança e tolerabilidade das combinações também se revelou bastante aceitável, com o manejo de efeitos adversos favorecido pela maior possibilidade de ajustes de doses de substâncias com diferentes mecanismos de ação, sem comprometimento da eficácia anti-hipertensiva.

We reviewed 17 studies in order to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy on the combination of calcium antagonists and angiotensin receptor blockers in lowering the blood pressure, cardiovascular outcomes and incidence of side effects. The combination therapy of amlodipine or nifedipine GITS calcium channel blockers, and angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan showed, in most studies, more effective than monotherapy to lower blood pressure, as well as more beneficial to decrease cardiovascular events. The safety profile and tolerability of the combinations also proved quite acceptable, with side effects management benefited by higher possibility of adjustments on doses of substances with different mechanisms of actions, without affecting the antihypertensive efficacy.