Ettore Malacco

Treatment of Isolated Systolic Hypertension: The SHELL Study Results

Objective: Our aim was to compare the effect of lacidipine and chlorthalidone on cardiovascular outcome as a primary parameter and blood pressure as a secondary in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension in a prospective study with an open design. Methods: 1882 males and females outpatients ≥60 years were randomly assigned to the administration of chlorthalidone 12.5 mg o.d. or lacidipine 4 mg o.d. Patients were recruited if sitting systolic blood pressure was ≥160 mmHg with a diastolic blood pressure equal or lower than 95 mmHg. Primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Results: At randomization mean systolic blood pressure was 178.1 mmHg in the lacidipine and 178.2 mmHg in the chlorthalidone group, the corresponding mean diastolic values being 86.9 and 86.8 mmHg. In both lacidipine and chlorthalidone groups treatment caused a significant (p < 0.001) and marked systolic blood pressure reduction which was maintained throughout the treatment period with a significant (p < 0.001) and steady although less marked reduction in diastolic blood pressure as well. At the end of treatment period (median 32 months), the reduction was 36.8/8.1 mmHg (systolic/diastolic) in the chlorthalidone and 38.4/7.9 mmHg in the lacidipine group, the final on treatment blood pressures being 142.0/79.2 and 143.2/79.5 mmHg, respectively. Treatments were similarly effective in males and females and in age groups between 60 and 69 years (n = 763), 70 and 79 years (n = 744) and ≥80 years (n = 375). Similar reductions were obtained in a subgroup of patients (n = 209) followed in double-blind fashion for 1 year. The overall incidence of the primary endpoints was 9.3% with no significant between-group difference. Total mortality was also similar between groups. Conclusions: In elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, administration of lacidipine or chlorthalidone markedly reduced systolic blood pressure with no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events and total mortality.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group comparison of valsartan and amlodipine in the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in elderly patients: The Val-Syst study

BACKGROUND Some antihypertensive therapies are limited by dose-dependent adverse effects (AEs). The angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan has been shown to reduce blood pressure (BP) in a dose-related manner with minimal dose-limiting AEs. Amlodipine besylate is a potent dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker also with dose-related antihypertensive efficacy, but with possible dose-limiting AEs, particularly peripheral edema. OBJECTIVES This study compared the risk/benefit profiles of valsartan and amlodipine in elderly patients who have isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). METHODS This 24-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, titration-to-effect, parallel-group study was conducted at 35 outpatient centers in Italy. Elderly (aged 60-80 years) patients with ISH received oral treatment with valsartan 80-mg capsules or amlodipine 5-mg capsules once daily. After 8 weeks of treatment, the dose of the patients with poorly controlled systolic BP (SBP) was titrated to 160 mg (valsartan) or 10 mg (amlodipine) once daily. At week 16, if trough SBP was still not adequately controlled, a low-dose diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg) was added to the treatment regimen for an additional 8 weeks. Tolerability was assessed at all study visits using physical examination and patient interview. RESULTS Of 421 randomized patients (231 women, 190 men; mean [SD] age, 69 [6] years), 208 were included in the valsartan group, and 213 in the amlodipine group. The efficacy of valsartan-based treatment. in reducing SBP was similar to that of amlodipine-based treatment. With doubled doses, efficacy (change in SBP) increased significantly from baseline (both P < 0.01). The frequency of AEs doubled with amlodipine 10 mg but was not clinically relevant with valsartan 160 mg. Overall, AEs were observed in 31.9% of those receiving amlodipine versus 20.2% of the patients receiving valsartan (P < 0.003), with peripheral edema rates of 26.8% and 4.8%, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this study population of elderly patients with ISH, valsartan-given alone or in combination with HCTZ 12.5 mg-showed similar efficacy but better tolerability than amlodipine-based treatment.

Comparison of valsartan 160 mg with lisinopril 20 mg, given as monotherapy or in combination with a diuretic, for the treatment of hypertension: The blood pressure reduction and tolerability of valsartan in comparison with lisinopril (PREVAIL) study

BACKGROUND The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to provide good blood pressure (BP) control without eliciting adverse effects. OBJECTIVE This study compared the risk-benefit profile of the angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan with that of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with mild to severe hypertension. The primary objective was to show that the equipotent BP-lowering effect of the valsartan-based treatment is accompanied by a better tolerability profile. METHODS This 16-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted at 88 outpatient centers across Italy. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients aged > or = 18 years with mild to severe hypertension (systolic BP [SBP], 160-220 mm Hg; diastolic BP [DBP], 95-110 mm Hg) were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily, oral, self-administered treatment with valsartan 160-mg capsules or lisinopril 20-mg capsules under double-blind conditions for 4 weeks. Responders continued monotherapy, whereas nonresponders had hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg added for the final 12 weeks of the study. The 2 primary variables used to assess the equivalence of therapeutic efficacy of the 2 regimens were sitting SBP and sitting DBP, which were measured at weeks 0 (baseline), 4, 8, and 16. The rate of drug-related adverse events (AEs) was used to assess whether 1 treatment had a better tolerability profile than the other. Tolerability was assessed by collecting information about AEs by means of questioning the patient or physical examination at each visit. RESULTS A total of 1213 patients were enrolled (635 men, 578 women; mean [SD] age, 54.5 [10.1] years [range, 28-78 years]). The study was completed by 1100 patients (553 receiving valsartan and 547 receiving lisinopril). Fifty-one patients (8.4%) treated with valsartan and 62 (10.2%) [corrected] treated with lisinopril withdrew, mainly because of AEs (9 [1.5%] and 23 patients [3.8%], respectively). The valsartan- and lisinopril-based treatments were similarly effective in reducing sitting BP, with mean SBP/DBP reductions of 31.2/15.9 mm Hg and 31.4/15.9 mm Hg, respectively. At the end of the study, BP was controlled in 82.6% [corrected] of the patients receiving valsartan and 81.6% of those receiving lisinopril. AEs were experienced by 5.1% of the patients treated with valsartan and 10.7% of those treated with lisinopril (P=.0001), with dry cough observed in 1.0% and 7.2% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Valsartan and lisinopril were both highly effective in controlling BP in these patients with mild to severe hypertension, but valsartan was associated with a significantly reduced risk for AEs, especially cough.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: the ESPORT study

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil (O) and the ACE inhibitor ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension. Methods After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1102 treated or untreated elderly hypertensive patients aged 65–89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90–109 mmHg and/or office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140–179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once-daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks doses could be doubled in non-normalized [blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg for nondiabetic and < 130/80 mmHg for diabetic) individuals, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office BPs were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment, whereas 24-h ambulatory BP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. Results In the intention-to-treat population (542 patients O and 539 R) after 12 weeks of treatment baseline-adjusted office SBP and DBP reductions were greater (P < 0.01) with O [17.8 (95% confidence interval: 16.8/18.9) and 9.2 (8.6/9.8) mmHg] than with R [15.7 (14.7/16.8) and 7.7 (7.1/8.3) mmHg]. BP normalization rate was also greater under O (52.6 vs. 46.0% R, P < 0.05). In the subgroup of patients with valid ambulatory BP recording (318 O and 312 R) the reduction in 24-h average BP was larger (P < 0.05) with O [SBP: 11.0 (12.2/9.9) and DBP: 6.5 (7.2/5.8) mmHg] than with R [9.0 (10.2/7.9) and 5.4 (6.1/4.7) mmHg]. The larger blood pressure reduction obtained with O was particularly evident in the last 6 h from the dosing interval; a better homogeneity of the 24-h BP control with O was confirmed by higher smoothness indices. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (3.6 O vs. 3.6% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side effect (14 O vs. 19 R). Conclusion In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated BP control, representing a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.

Comparison of the effects on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure of valsartan and amlodipine, alone or in combination with a low-dose diuretic, in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (Val-syst Study).

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the time-effect profiles of a once-daily administration of valsartan and amlodipine, each given alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, in terms of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. MethodsOne hundred and sixty-four elderly outpatients with systolic hypertension received valsartan 80 mg (n=79) or amlodipine 5 mg (n=85) once daily for eight weeks, after which the patients with poorly controlled office BP were up-titrated to valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily. If their office systolic BP was still >140 mmHg after eight weeks at these doses, 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide was added for a further eight weeks. The hourly BP decreases in all of the patients were calculated on the basis of 24-h ambulatory recordings made after the placebo period and at the end of active treatment. The trough/peak ratio and smoothness index were calculated in the responders. ResultsBoth the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments effectively lowered mean 24-h, daytime and night-time systolic ambulatory BP (all p<0.001) without any significant differences between the two regimens. Ambulatory heart rate decreased in the subjects on valsartan and slightly increased in those on amlodipine (the differences in 24-h and daytime heart rate were significant (p=0.008 and 0.002 respectively). Among the 138 responders, the valsartan-based treatment had a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime hours (p=0.02), a difference that was also significant for average 24-h BP (p=0.02). The mean systolic BP trough/peak ratio was 0.56 in the patients on valsartan, and 0.77 in those on amlodipine (NS). The smoothness index was respectively 1.70 and 1.58 (NS). ConclusionsThe present results show that both the valsartan- and amlodipine-based treatments lead to a similar long-term reduction in 24-h systolic BP. However, in treatment responders, valsartan has a greater anti-hypertensive effect during the daytime.

A multicenter, randomized double-blind study of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination versus amlodipine in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Objective To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily fixed valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination and amlodipine in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Subjects and setting In this multicentre, double-blind, randomized, comparative trial, 690 patients with sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) ⩾ 160 mmHg and sitting diastolic BP ⩾ 95 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo wash-out period were randomized to valsartan-based treatment (n = 342) or amlodipine (n = 348). Methods The patients received valsartan 80 mg o.d. or amlodipine 5 mg o.d for 4 weeks; in the case of an unsatisfactory blood pressure response, the treatments could be respectively changed to the fixed combination of valsartan 80 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. for a further 8 weeks. Results Both treatment approaches decreased systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure to the same extent. The rate of responders to treatment at the end of fourth week (before up-titration) was 57.4% among the valsartan-treated patients and 61.9% among the amlodipine-treated patients (ns). At the end of the study, the rate of responders was not significantly different between the two groups (74.9 versus 72.1%). Valsartan-based treatment had a slightly lower incidence of adverse events (1.5 versus 5.5%;P = 0.006). Conclusions The results of this trial demonstrate that the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine are equally effective in lowering BP, and that the combination is better tolerated.

Zofenopril plus Hydrochlorothiazide : Combination Therapy for the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Hypertension

Achieving target blood pressure (BP) levels in clinical practice is one of the main challenges for physicians in the management of patients with hypertension. It is now recognised that the majority of patients will require at least two antihypertensive drugs to achieve optimal BP control; the use of combination therapy as first-line treatment is also increasing as BP goals of antihypertensive therapy become more ambitious.The fixed combination of zofenopril/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 30/12.5 mg/day is approved in Italy, France, Switzerland and Greece for the management of mild to moderate hypertension. In clinical trials comparing zofenopril/HCTZ with each agent administered as monotherapy, combination therapy was more effective in normalising BP. This effect was particularly evident in one trial in which patients who were nonresponsive to zofenopril monotherapy were studied. In addition, in clinical trials to date, combination therapy provided sustained and consistent BP control over the entire 24-hour dose interval.Despite the greater efficacy of zofenopril/HCTZ 30/12.5 mg/day, when directly compared with each agent administered as monotherapy, there were no significant differences in the nature, severity or incidence of treatment-related adverse events; headache, dizziness, cough and polyuria were most frequently reported. Notably, in one study, fewer patients discontinued treatment with combination therapy than with zofenopril monotherapy due to adverse events.In conclusion, zofenopril/HCTZ 30/12.5 mg/day provides more optimal BP control in a larger proportion of patients than would be achievable with monotherapy, while maintaining the tolerability profile observed with each individual agent, and thereby potentially enhancing patient compliance. The efficacy and safety profiles of this combination shown in clinical trials to date indicate that it will be a useful addition to currently available therapy for patients who have mild to moderate hypertension that is not adequately controlled by monotherapy, as well as for patients who require more rapid, intensive BP control.

Antihypertensive efficacy of zofenopril and hydrochlorothiazide combination on ambulatory blood pressure

Objective. The effects of a 12‐week double‐blind randomized treatment with zofenopril (Z) 15, 30 or 60 mg or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 or 25 mg, on trough office (n = 353) and 24‐h blood pressure (BP, n = 245) were compared with that of their combinations in essential hypertensive patients (95⩽diastolic or DBP⩽110 mmHg, 18–75 years). Design and methods. Rate of normalized (office DBP<90 mmHg) or responder (reduction⩾10 mmHg if office DBP⩾90 mmHg) patients, 24‐h BP changes vs baseline and the smoothness index were calculated at the end of treatment. Results. Efficacy of Z+HCTZ was greater than that of individual treatments, with best results achieved under Z30+HCTZ12.5 mg (normalized: 57%; normalized+responder: 80%; 24‐h BP changes: 9±1/11±2 mmHg; smoothness index: 1.6±0.3/1.8±0.4) or Z60+HCTZ12.5 mg (normalized: 79%; normalized+responder: 93%; 24‐h BP changes: 9±2/13±2 mmHg; smoothness index: 1.9±0.4/2.5±0.7). Conclusions. Z+HCTZ combination is more effective than monotherapy in yielding a homogeneous BP control over the 24 h.

Zofenopril versus Lisinopril in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in Elderly Patients : A Randomised, Double-Blind, Multicentre Study.

AbstractBackground: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been proposed as first-choice drugs for antihypertensive therapy in elderly subjects because of their demonstrated efficacy and safety. However, no information is currently available on the use of zofenopril in elderly hypertensive patients. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of zofenopril (30 or 60mg once daily) compared with lisinopril (10 or 20mg once daily). Patients and methods: Patients aged ≥65 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ≥90mm Hg and ≤110mm Hg) were included in the study. They were randomised to receive either zofenopril 30mg or lisinopril 10mg. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. Patients underwent electrocardiography and evaluation of laboratory parameters at baseline and after 12 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was also performed at baseline and after 12 weeks. After 4 weeks drug doses were doubled in patients whose sitting DBP was ≥90mm Hg. The primary endpoint was to achieve sitting DBP values <90mm Hg or a reduction of sitting DBP >10mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment. Results: 181 patients were randomised to treatment and 164 patients completed the study. Thirty-three patients were included in the analysis of 24-hour blood pressure monitoring. The percentage of patients with normalised sitting DBP (<90mm Hg) and the rate of treatment responders (reduction of sitting DBP ≥10mm Hg) were not significantly different between the two treatment groups (normalised: zofenopril 81.3% vs lisinopril 76.7%; responders: zofenopril 74.7% vs lisinopril 77.8%). At the end of the treatment sitting DBP was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (zofenopril 82.2 ± 6.6mm Hg vs lisinopril 82.0 ± 7.8mm Hg). Eight percent of patients experienced adverse events in the zofenopril group and 9% in the lisinopril group. A small percentage of adverse events (4%) was related to treatment and reported in the zofenopril group. Conclusions: In elderly hypertensive patients, treatment with zofenopril was effective and well tolerated. Efficacy and safety were comparable with those of lisinopril.

Effects of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine on ambulatory blood pressure and plasma norepinephrine levels in high-risk hypertensive patients.

The efficacy and tolerability of the combination of valsartan and hydrochlorothi-azide (HCTZ) were compared with that of amlodipine in reducing ambulatory blood pressure and plasma norepinephrine levels in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor. At the end of a 2-week washout period, 92 outpatients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure ≥95 and <110 mm Hg, associated with at least 1 additional risk factor, were randomly assigned to receive either valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily (n=46) or amlodipine 10 mg alone once daily (n=46) for 12 weeks, according to a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-group design. At the end of the washout period and after 6 and 12 weeks of active treatment, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed, and clinical blood pressure and heart rate and plasma norepinephrine levels were assessed (by high-performance liquid chromatography). Both the valsartan/HCTZ combination and amlodipine had a demonstrable antihypertensive effect, but the combination showed an antihypertensive effect significantly greater than that of amlodipine, as demonstrated by the 24-hour (P < .001), daytime (P < .001), and nighttime ambulatory blood pressure values (P < .01) and by the clinical blood pressure values at trough, which were all significantly lower. Although the trough-to-peak ratios were similar in both groups, the smoothness indexes pertaining to both systolic and diastolic pressures were significantly higher (P < .05 andP < .001, respectively) in patients receiving valsartan/HCTZ, suggesting the combination produces a more homogeneous antihypertensive effect. A significant increase in plasma norepinephrine levels was associated with amlodipine (+9% at 6 weeks, +15% at 12 weeks) but not with the valsartan/HCTZ combination. The valsartan/HCTZ combination was better tolerated than amlodipine, which was associated with a higher frequency of ankle edema. These results indicate that the combination of valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg provides more sustained and homogeneous control of blood pressure than does amlodipine 10 mg in high-risk hypertensive patients, without producing reflex sympathetic activation.