-
1.
Treatment effect of lacidipine and amlodipine on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure and arteria stiffness in a randomised double-blind trial.
Wang, Y, Li, Y, Huo, Y, Wang, JG
Blood pressure. 2021;(2):108-117
Abstract
PURPOSE In a randomised, double-blind trial, we investigated effects of lacidipine on clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, as compared with amlodipine. MATERIALS AND METHODS Previously untreated and treated patients (n = 269, 50-80 years of age) with clinic hypertension (a clinic systolic/diastolic BP 140-180/<110 mmHg and <160/100 mmHg, respectively) were randomly assigned to double-dummy treatment with lacidipine (4-6 mg/day) or amlodipine (5-7.5 mg/day) for 20 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in 24-h ambulatory systolic BP at 20 weeks of treatment. Arterial stiffness was measured as brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (PWV). RESULTS After 20 weeks of treatment, 24-h systolic BP decreased from 141.3 ± 14.0 and 138.3 ± 12.8 mmHg at baseline, respectively, in the lacidipine (n = 134) and amlodipine groups (n = 135), by a least square mean (±SE) change of 15.2 ± 1.3 and 15.5 ± 1.3 mmHg, respectively, with a between-group difference (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 0.3 mmHg (-3.4 to 4.1, p = 0.86). Similar results were observed for other ambulatory BP components and clinic BP. Clinic and ambulatory pulse rate did not significantly change in either group (p ≥ 0.21). PWV decreased significantly (p < 0.001) from baseline in both groups, with a non-significant between-group difference of 0.24 m/s (p = 0.45). The incidence rate of adverse events was 30.3% (n = 40) and 27.5% (n = 36) in the lacidipine and amlodipine groups, respectively (p = 0.61). No serious adverse event occurred in the trial. CONCLUSIONS Lacidipine effectively lowers clinic and ambulatory BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and significantly improves arterial stiffness, similarly as amlodipine.
-
2.
Achieving Optimal Medical Therapy: Insights From the ORBITA Trial.
Foley, M, Rajkumar, CA, Shun-Shin, M, Ganesananthan, S, Seligman, H, Howard, J, Nowbar, AN, Keeble, TR, Davies, JR, Tang, KH, et al
Journal of the American Heart Association. 2021;(3):e017381
Abstract
Background In stable coronary artery disease, medications are used for 2 purposes: cardiovascular risk reduction and symptom improvement. In clinical trials and clinical practice, medication use is often not optimal. The ORBITA (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina) trial was the first placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention. A key component of the ORBITA trial design was the inclusion of a medical optimization phase, aimed at ensuring that all patients were treated with guideline-directed truly optimal medical therapy. In this study, we report the medical therapy that was achieved. Methods and Results After enrollment into the ORBITA trial, all 200 patients entered a 6-week period of intensive medical therapy optimization, with initiation and uptitration of risk reduction and antianginal therapy. At the prerandomization stage, the median number of antianginals established was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4). A total of 195 patients (97.5%) reached the prespecified target of ≥2 antianginals; 136 (68.0%) did not stop any antianginals because of adverse effects, and the median number of antianginals stopped for adverse effects per patient was 0 (interquartile range, 0-1). Amlodipine and bisoprolol were well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 4/175 [2.3%] and 9/167 [5.4%], respectively). Ranolazine and ivabradine were also well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 1/20 [5.0%] and 1/18 [5.6%], respectively). Isosorbide mononitrate and nicorandil were stopped for adverse effects in 36 of 172 (20.9%) and 32 of 141 (22.7%) of patients, respectively. Statins were well tolerated and taken by 191 of 200 (95.5%) patients. Conclusions In the 12-week ORBITA trial period, medical therapy was successfully optimized and well tolerated, with few drug adverse effects leading to therapy cessation. Truly optimal medical therapy can be achieved in clinical trials, and translating this into longer-term clinical practice should be a focus of future study. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02062593.
-
3.
Evaluation of Danzhi Xiaoyao powder and amlodipine sustained-release tablets in follow-up treatment of the hypertensive crisis and the interleukin-6 gene expression.
Wei, Q, Jing, Z, Zhi-Ye, H
Cellular and molecular biology (Noisy-le-Grand, France). 2021;(2):166-170
Abstract
Danzhi Xiaoyao powder (DXP) is an herbal formula with eight different herbs. This herbal medicine can play multiple roles in various disease treatments through its several components. In this study, the effect of DXP was evaluated on the treatment of hypertensive patients with and without amlodipine. For this purpose, 252 patients were studied with high blood pressure. The 126 patients received DXP, and the others received DXP + amlodipine for four weeks. Besides demographic and biochemical assessments (gender, BMI, age, SBP, DBP, etc.), the expression of the interleukin-6 gene was evaluated in these two groups. The results showed that the blood pressure decreased by DPX, and there was no significant difference in control of blood pressure by DPX and DXP + amlodipine. But it did not affect interleukin-6 gene expression. Therefore, it can be concluded that this drug probably uses a different mechanism than amlodipine to control blood pressure.
-
4.
A randomized, double-blind clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/rosuvastatin in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension.
Kim, W, Chang, K, Cho, EJ, Ahn, JC, Yu, CW, Cho, KI, Kim, YJ, Kang, DH, Kim, SY, Lee, SH, et al
Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.). 2020;(2):261-269
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group phase III clinical trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a rosuvastatin + amlodipine combination compared with that of rosuvastatin or amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia. A total of 106 patients of 15 institutions in Korea were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: rosuvastatin 20 mg + amlodipine 10 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 20 mg. After 8 weeks of treatment, the mean ± SD of change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) was -22.82 ± 12.99 mm Hg in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group, the most decreased among the treatment groups. The percentage of patients whose msSBP decreased ≥20 mm Hg or msDBP decreased ≥10 mm Hg was also highest in this group (74.29%). The mean ± SD percentage change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline after 8 weeks was -52.53% ± 11.21% in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group, the most decreased among the treatment groups. More patients in the rosuvastatin + amlodipine group achieved their target LDL-C goal at 8 weeks, compared with the other treatment groups (97.14%). No serious adverse events or adverse drug reactions were observed in all groups. In hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia, combination treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg + amlodipine 10 mg effectively reduced blood pressure and LDL-C levels while maintaining safety.
-
5.
Comparison of Blood Pressure Variability Between Losartan and Amlodipine in Essential Hypertension (COMPAS-BPV).
Lee, JW, Choi, E, Son, JW, Youn, YJ, Ahn, SG, Ahn, MS, Kim, JY, Lee, SH, Yoon, J, Ryu, DR, et al
American journal of hypertension. 2020;(8):748-755
Abstract
BACKGROUND Antihypertensive therapy using renin-angiotensin system blockers and calcium channel blockers to target blood pressure variability (BPV) has not yet been established. We aimed to compare the ability of losartan and amlodipine to lower BPV and systolic blood pressure (SBP) in essential hypertensive patients. METHODS Patients were randomly assigned either losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg. Medications were uptitrated and hydrochlorothiazide was added according to protocol for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP. The secondary endpoints included average real variability (ARV), office SBP, and home SBP. RESULTS The losartan group (n = 71) and amlodipine group (n = 73) finished the scheduled visits between April 2013 and May 2017. The office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was comparable between the losartan and amlodipine groups (11.0 ± 4.2 vs. 10.5 ± 3.8, P = 0.468). The office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP was significantly elevated in the losartan group (10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 9.1 ± 3.4, P = 0.02). The absolute SBP decrement from baseline to 6 months was similar between groups, although the office mean SBP at 6 months was higher in the losartan group (132.3 ± 12.9 vs. 127.5 ± 9.0 mm Hg, P = 0.011). In home blood pressure analysis, evening day-to-day BPV indexes (SD and ARV) were significantly higher in the losartan group at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS The lowering effect of the office visit-to-visit SD of SBP was similar between losartan and amlodipine. However, the losartan group showed a higher office visit-to-visit ARV of SBP and evening day-to-day home BPV indexes. Therefore, amlodipine may be better to lower BPV in essential hypertensive patients.
-
6.
Comparative effects of 2.5mg levamlodipine and 5mg amlodipine on vascular endothelial function and atherosclerosis.
Lu, Y, Yin, J, Wu, X, Fan, Y, Liu, F
Pakistan journal of pharmaceutical sciences. 2019;(5(Special)):2433-2436
Abstract
This study was designed to compare the efficacy of two different racemic antihypertensive drugs on elderly patients with hypertension and their effects on vascular endothelial function and atherosclerosis. A total of 84 elderly hypertensive patients were randomly divided into control and treatment group with 42 patients in each group. The control group was treated with 2.5mg levamlodipine while the treatment group was given 5mg amlodipine. Total effective rate of the treatment group was 90.5%, higher than the control group, that was 71.4% (P<0.05). The time for recovery of related indicators like blood pressure, the total duration of medication were significantly (P<0.05) shorter in the treatment group. Only 1 case of adverse drug reaction was found in the treatment group while 6 cases in control group. Compared to the control group, the treatment group had massive improvement in fingertip pulse volume, flow-mediated dilation of the brachial arteries and endothelin-1 level, carotid intima-media thickness, plaque length & thickness, and blood pressure after the administration. The rate of satisfaction with the in treatment group was 95.3%, higher than that the control group, which was 78.6%. The study concluded that in elderly patients with hypertension, the treatment with 5mg amlodipine enhanced curative effect, fully improved endothelial function & arteriosclerosis and reduced adverse reactions thereby shortening treatment time.
-
7.
Amlodipine alters hemorheological parameters: Increased efficacy at the cost of edema?
Ravindra, RP, Arunkumar, S, Puniyani, RR, Padgaonkar, K, Vadivelu, R, Sharma, R, Panicker, G, Lokhandwala, Y
Indian heart journal. 2019;(1):32-38
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite several decades of use of calcium channel blockers, the side effect of edema persists as a class effect, and its mechanism is unresolved. Amlodipine has effects on hemorheology (HR), and its hemodilutory property may partly contribute to its antihypertensive action. This aspect is not well studied, and the literature is sparse in this regard. OBJECTIVE This experiment was planned to determine effect of a single-dose administration of amlodipine on HR parameters in normal human volunteers. METHODS AND RESULTS Amlodipine (5 mg) or S (-) amlodipine (2.5 mg) was administered to 27 normal human volunteers. Whole-blood viscosity (WBV) at different shear rates, plasma viscosity (PV), red cell rigidity (RCR), red cell aggregation (RCA), hematocrit (Hct), plasma hemoglobin, along with plasma drug concentration were determined at time intervals, t = 0, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h. Statistically significant reductions were observed at tmax = 4 h in WBV at shear rates of 0.512 s-1 (p < 0.005), WBV at shear rates of 5.26 s-1 (p < 0.01), PV (p < 0.05), and Hct (p < 0.01). At t = 8 h, as drug concentration reduced, some of the changes persisted and later slowly decreased with the decreasing drug concentration till t = 24 h. Red blood cell-related parameters such as RCA and RCR remained unaltered. WBV values at all shear rates, when corrected for Hct = 0.45, did not show deviation from their original values at any time. CONCLUSIONS Amlodipine causes a reduction in Hct and blood viscosity, along with hemodilution. These effects persist as long as the drug remains in plasma. Edema resulting from chronic dosing may be explained by the aforementioned effects. It is possible that antihypertensive action of the drug may be due to a combination of vasodilatation and an improvement in the HR properties.
-
8.
Pharmacokinetic Interaction Among Telmisartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide After a Single Oral Administration in Healthy Male Subjects.
Moon, SJ, Jeon, JY, Yu, KS, Kim, MG
Clinical therapeutics. 2019;(11):2273-2282
Abstract
PURPOSE Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, necessitating hypertension control. Antihypertensive drugs are more potent when administered in combinations of 2 or 3 different classes of drugs. One such therapy includes a combination of an angiotensin receptor blocker, a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction among telmisartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide. METHODS A randomized, open-label, 3-period, 6-sequence, 3-treatment, single-dose crossover study was conducted in healthy male subjects. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 sequences and one of the following treatments was administered in each period: treatment A, co-administration of one tablet of telmisartan 80 mg and one tablet of amlodipine 10 mg; treatment B, one tablet of hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg alone; and treatment C, co-administration of all 3 investigational products. Serial blood samples were collected up to 144 hours postdose. Plasma drug concentrations were measured by using LC/MS-MS. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including Cmax and AUC0-last, were determined by using noncompartmental analysis. The geometric least squares mean ratios and associated 90% CIs of log-transformed Cmax and AUC0-last for separate administration or co-administration were calculated to evaluate pharmacokinetic interactions. FINDINGS Twenty-seven subjects completed the study. The geometric least squares mean ratios and 90% CIs of Cmax and AUC0-last were 1.02 (0.85-1.21) and 1.04 (0.97-1.13) for telmisartan; 1.00 (0.95-1.04) and 0.95 (0.91-0.99) for amlodipine; and 0.88 (0.82-0.96) and 0.86 (0.82-0.90) for hydrochlorothiazide, respectively. No serious adverse events were recorded, and all reported adverse events were of mild intensity. IMPLICATIONS The pharmacokinetic parameters of telmisartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide when administered separately or co-administered were compared, and all the parameters met the criteria for pharmacokinetic equivalence. Combination therapy of these 3 drugs had no significant impact on the pharmacokinetic parameters of each drug. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03889145).
-
9.
The Interaction of a Diabetes Gene Risk Score With 3 Different Antihypertensive Medications for Incident Glucose-level Elevation.
Barzilay, JI, Lai, D, Davis, BR, Pressel, S, Previn, HE, Arnett, DK
American journal of hypertension. 2019;(4):343-349
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Elevations of fasting glucose (FG) levels are frequently encountered in people treated with thiazide diuretics. The risk is lower in people treated with ACE inhibitors (ACEi). To determine if genetic factors play a role in FG elevation, we examined the interaction of a diabetes gene risk score (GRS) with the use of 3 different antihypertensive medications. METHODS We examined 376 nondiabetic hypertensive individuals with baseline FG <100 mg/dl who were genotyped for 24 genes associated with risk of elevated glucose levels. All participants had ≥1 follow-up FG level over 6 years of follow-up. Participants were randomized to treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (chlorthalidone), a calcium channel blocker (CCB; amlodipine), or an ACEi (lisinopril). Outcomes were an FG increase of ≥13 or ≥27 mg/dl, the upper 75% and 90% FG increase in the parent cohort from which the present cohort was obtained. Odds ratios were adjusted for factors that increase FG levels. RESULTS For every 1 allele increase in GRS, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99, 1.14; P = 0.06) and 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.20; P = 0.08). When results were examined by randomized medications, participants randomized to amlodipine had statistically significant odds for either outcome (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.48; P = 0.01 and OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.62; P = 0.01). No such risk increase was found in participants randomized to the other 2 medications. CONCLUSIONS A diabetes GRS predicts FG elevation in people treated with a CCB, but not with an ACEi or diuretic. These findings require confirmation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION Trial number NCT00000542.
-
10.
Efficacy of a new single-pill combination of a thiazide-like diuretic and a calcium channel blocker (indapamide sustained release/amlodipine) in essential hypertension.
Dominiczak, AF, de Champvallins, M, Brzozowska-Villatte, R, Asmar, R, ,
Journal of hypertension. 2019;(11):2280-2289
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The current international, 12-week, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial assessed the efficacy and safety of indapamide sustained release/amlodipine single-pill combination (SPC) in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. METHODS Following a 4-week run-in period on amlodipine 5 mg, patients (SBP 150-180 mmHg and/or DBP < 110 mmHg) were randomized to indapamide 1.5 mg sustained release/amlodipine 5 mg SPC or amlodipine 5 mg/valsartan 80 mg SPC with conditional uptitration at week 6. Office blood pressure (BP) was assessed at baseline, weeks 6 and 12; ambulatory and home blood pressure monitoring (ABPM/HBPM) at baseline and week 12. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups (57 years, 51% men, BP 160/92 mmHg). 233 patients were randomized to IndSR/Aml and 232 to amlodipine/valsartan, of whom 48 and 57% were uptitrated, respectively. After 12 weeks, office SBP/DBP decreased similarly with both treatments (-21/-8 vs. -20/-8 mmHg) leading to BP control in 50% and BP response in 70% of patients. Uptitration was effective (P < 0.001) with both regimens, in favour of IndSR/Aml (SBP/DBP -12/-6 vs. -7/-3 mmHg, respectively). ABPM (n = 273) and HBPM (n = 194) confirmed 24-h efficacy of both regimens. In the subgroup of patients with sustained uncontrolled hypertension assessed by ABPM (n = 216), office SBP/DBP decreased by -23/-13 vs. -18/-10 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.016/P = 0.135, post-hoc analysis). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION Both regimens produced effective BP reductions confirmed by ABPM/HBPM. Both treatments were well tolerated, in accordance with the individual agents' safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER EUDRA CT no. 2012-001690-84.