Federico Bertocchi

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.

Autonomic effects of nicotine patch administration in habitual cigarette smokers: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study using spectral analysis of RR interval and systolic arterial pressure variabilities.

Nicotine patch administration is often used to sustain tobacco abstinence in smoking-cessation programs. There is some concern regarding safety issues, as a consequence of the sympathomimetic action of nicotine. We used spectral analysis of RR interval and (noninvasive) systolic arterial pressure (SAP) beat-by-beat variabilities in a crossover double-blind design to assess the autonomic effects of cigarette smoking, of transdermal nicotine, and of placebo. The study group consisted of 27 heavy smokers (age 43 +/- 2 years). The RR interval and its variability were significantly reduced in the smoking group, as compared with nicotine or placebo groups. The LF component of RR interval variability (in normalized units, nu), and the LF/HF ratio showed greatest values during smoking, as compared with placebo. Values of LF(RR) and LF/HF during nicotine patch treatment were slightly, but not significantly, greater than observed with placebo. No differences were observed in SAP and its variability components. The index alpha (a frequency domain measure of baroreflex gain) was minimal in the smoking period. Habitual cigarette smoking is associated with signs of sympathetic predominance in the autonomic control of the sinoatrial (SA) node. Nicotine patches produce only minor disturbances of autonomic regulation. This corroborates their safe use in smoking-cessation strategies.

Comparison of the effect of valsartan and lisinopril on autonomic nervous system activity in chronic heart failure.

BACKGROUND In chronic heart failure (CHF), the derangement of autonomic nervous system activity has a deep impact on the progression of the disease. It has been demonstrated that modulation of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) increases autonomic control of heart rate and reduces adrenergic activity. We sought to evaluate, in CHF, the different effects of an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) and of an AT1 receptor antagonist (valsartan) on heart rate variability, baroreflex sensitivity and norepinephrine plasma levels. METHODS Ninety patients (61 +/- 10 years, 2.3 +/- 0.5, New York Heart Association class) with CHF and left ventricular ejection fraction <40% were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to receive lisinopril (uptitrated to 20 mg/d) or valsartan (uptitrated to 160 mg/d) therapy for 16 weeks. Heart rate variability (evaluated by measuring standard deviation of normal R-R intervals on 24-hour ECG recordings), spontaneous baroreflex sensitivity and aldosterone and norepinephrine plasma levels were assessed before and after drug therapy. RESULTS There were no significant differences between valsartan and lisinopril in their effects on left ventricular function, arterial pressure, aldosterone plasma levels and autonomic control of heart rate. Both lisinopril and valsartan significantly reduced plasma norepinephrine levels, but the reduction induced by valsartan was significantly greater than that observed for lisinopril (27% vs 6%, P <.05). CONCLUSIONS This study shows a comparable effect of ACE inhibition (lisinopril) and of AT1 receptor antagonism (valsartan) on cardiac vagal control of heart rate, whereas valsartan has shown a more effective modulation of sympathetic activity measured by plasma norepinephrine levels.

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.

Combined Therapy with Benazepril and Amlodipine in the Treatment of Hypertension Inadequately Controlled by an ACE Inhibitor Alone

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of benazepril, 10 mg, and amlodipine, 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor monotherapy. After a 2-week placebo and 4-week single-blind benazepril, 10 mg once daily, run-in period, 448 patients, 213 men and 235 women, aged 24-73 years (mean, 55 years), with mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or =95 and < or =120 mm Hg at the end of the benazepril run-in period, were randomized to receive one of the following treatments once daily for 8 weeks: (a) benazepril, 10 mg, plus placebo (BZ10); (b) benazepril, 10 mg, plus amlodipine, 2.5 mg (BZ10/AML2.5); or (c) benazepril, 10 mg, plus amlodipine, 5 mg (BZ10/AML5). Before the patients were admitted to the trial, at the end of the placebo run-in and the benazepril run-in period and at the end of weeks 4 and 8 of the treatment period, sitting and standing blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and body weight were measured 22-26 h after the intake of the trial medication. Both BZ10/AML2.5 and BZ10/AML5 combinations showed better antihypertensive activity than did BZ10 monotherapy at the terminal visit as demonstrated by (a) the 24-h postdosing sitting and standing systolic BP (SBP) and DBP values, which were statistically lower with combination therapy than with BZ10; (b) the success rate, which was statistically higher with both the combinations (69.2% in the BZ10/AML2.5 and 65.8% in the BZ10/AML5 group) compared with the BZ10 group (40.5%). The tolerability was good in the three treatment groups. No significant abnormal laboratory data were detected. There was no difference in efficacy and safety/tolerability between the BZ10/AML2.5 and BZ10/AML5 groups.

Left atrial remodeling and response to valsartan in the prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation the GISSI-AF echocardiographic substudy

Background— Left atrial (LA) dilation precedes or appears early after the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) and factors in perpetuating the arrhythmia. Angiotensin receptor blockers were proposed for reversing LA remodeling. We evaluated the effect of valsartan on LA remodeling in patients with a recent episode of AF and the effect of LA size on AF recurrence (AFr). Methods and Results— LA and left ventricular (LV) echocardiographic variables were measured at baseline and 6 and 12 months in 340 patients from GISSI-AF, a trial testing valsartan prevention of AFr. Reversal of remodeling was considered as a decrease in LA size over 12 months. Changes in patients with and without recurrence and the relationship to duration of AFr were analyzed. Patients were 68.4±8.8 years old, with history of hypertension (85.3%) and cardioversion in the previous 2 weeks (87.4%) or ≥2 AFr in the previous 6 months (40.4%). Baseline LA maximal volume (LAVmax) was severely increased (>40 mL/m2); LV dimensions and function were relatively normal. Over 12 months, 54.4% of patients had AFr. LAVmax was unchanged by rhythm, time, or randomized treatment. Higher baseline LAVmax and lower LA emptying fraction were linearly related to increasing AFr duration during follow-up. Conclusions— GISSI-AF patients in sinus rhythm and history of AF showed severely increased LAVmax with mostly normal LV volume, mass, and systolic and diastolic function. Valsartan for 1 year did not reverse LA remodeling or prevent AFr. Half of the patients without AFr had severe LA dilation; therefore, mechanisms other than structural remodeling triggered recurrence. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00376272.

Effects of benazepril and nicardipine on microalbuminuria in normotensive and hypertensive patients with diabetes.

Diabetic nephropathy is the most frequent cause of chronic renal failure. The onset of microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes mellitus, which seems to be related to blood pressure and the control of glycemia, is predictive of the development of true proteinuria. This multicenter, single‐blind, randomized study examined the effects of benazepril and nicardipine on overnight microalbuminuria in 57 normotensive and 46 hypertensive diabetic patients. At the end of a 3‐month placebo run‐in period, the patients were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of arterial hypertension and, within each stratum, randomized to receive one daily tablet of 10 mg benazepril or one tablet of 20 mg nicardipine twice daily for 6 months. Renal hemodynamics was investigated in 25 patients. Both drugs decreased overnight microalbuminuria throughout the study period, but benazepril was more effective than nicardipine (p = 0.025); in the patients with hypertension, both drugs led to a similar marked reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. This study shows that benazepril was more effective than nicardipine in reducing overnight microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes mellitus, independently of their antihypertensive properties.

Effects of benazepril alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in comparison with felodipine extended release in elderly patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of two antihypertensive regimens—one using benazepril, eventually combined with hydrochlorothiazide in nonresponders, and the other using titration of felodipine extended release (ER)—in elderly patients with hypertension. After a 2-week washout period, 236 patients (127 men and 109 women aged 65 to 80 years) with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] ⩾160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure [DBP] ⩾95 mm Hg), were given benazepril 10 mg once daily (n = 118) or felodipine ER 5 mg once daily (n = 118) for 4 weeks, according to a multicenter, randomized, double-masked design. At the end of this treatment period, patients responding to treatment were kept at the same dose of their respective randomized drug for an additional 8 weeks. The nonresponders were given the fixed combination benazepril 10 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or felodipine ER 10 mg. Patients were examined at the end of the washout period and every 4 weeks thereafter. At each visit, sitting SBP and DBP were measured with a mercury sphygmomanometer and heart rate by radial pulse palpation. Adverse events were recorded. Both benazepril and felodipine ER were similarly effective in reducing SBP and DBP. No significant differences between the two treatment groups were observed in the mean decreases in blood pressure or in the number of percentage of patients with successful responses to treatment. Both treatments were well tolerated; the incidence of drug-related side effects, however, was slightly but significantly higher in the felodipine ER-treated group than in the benazepril group (14.4% vs 8.5%). In conclusion, benazepril 10 mg given as monotherapy, or as a fixed combination with hydrochlorothiazide in nonresponders, and felodipine ER 5 mg, titrated to 10 mg in nonresponders, were both effective and well tolerated in elderly patients with hypertension.

Left Atrial Remodeling and Response to Valsartan in the Prevention of Recurrent Atrial FibrillationClinical Perspective

Background— Left atrial (LA) dilation precedes or appears early after the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) and factors in perpetuating the arrhythmia. Angiotensin receptor blockers were proposed for reversing LA remodeling. We evaluated the effect of valsartan on LA remodeling in patients with a recent episode of AF and the effect of LA size on AF recurrence (AFr). Methods and Results— LA and left ventricular (LV) echocardiographic variables were measured at baseline and 6 and 12 months in 340 patients from GISSI-AF, a trial testing valsartan prevention of AFr. Reversal of remodeling was considered as a decrease in LA size over 12 months. Changes in patients with and without recurrence and the relationship to duration of AFr were analyzed. Patients were 68.4±8.8 years old, with history of hypertension (85.3%) and cardioversion in the previous 2 weeks (87.4%) or ≥2 AFr in the previous 6 months (40.4%). Baseline LA maximal volume (LAVmax) was severely increased (>40 mL/m2); LV dimensions and function were relatively normal. Over 12 months, 54.4% of patients had AFr. LAVmax was unchanged by rhythm, time, or randomized treatment. Higher baseline LAVmax and lower LA emptying fraction were linearly related to increasing AFr duration during follow-up. Conclusions— GISSI-AF patients in sinus rhythm and history of AF showed severely increased LAVmax with mostly normal LV volume, mass, and systolic and diastolic function. Valsartan for 1 year did not reverse LA remodeling or prevent AFr. Half of the patients without AFr had severe LA dilation; therefore, mechanisms other than structural remodeling triggered recurrence. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00376272.

Left Atrial Remodeling and Response to Valsartan in the Prevention of Recurrent Atrial FibrillationClinical Perspective: The GISSI-AF Echocardiographic Substudy

Background— Left atrial (LA) dilation precedes or appears early after the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF) and factors in perpetuating the arrhythmia. Angiotensin receptor blockers were proposed for reversing LA remodeling. We evaluated the effect of valsartan on LA remodeling in patients with a recent episode of AF and the effect of LA size on AF recurrence (AFr). Methods and Results— LA and left ventricular (LV) echocardiographic variables were measured at baseline and 6 and 12 months in 340 patients from GISSI-AF, a trial testing valsartan prevention of AFr. Reversal of remodeling was considered as a decrease in LA size over 12 months. Changes in patients with and without recurrence and the relationship to duration of AFr were analyzed. Patients were 68.4±8.8 years old, with history of hypertension (85.3%) and cardioversion in the previous 2 weeks (87.4%) or ≥2 AFr in the previous 6 months (40.4%). Baseline LA maximal volume (LAVmax) was severely increased (>40 mL/m2); LV dimensions and function were relatively normal. Over 12 months, 54.4% of patients had AFr. LAVmax was unchanged by rhythm, time, or randomized treatment. Higher baseline LAVmax and lower LA emptying fraction were linearly related to increasing AFr duration during follow-up. Conclusions— GISSI-AF patients in sinus rhythm and history of AF showed severely increased LAVmax with mostly normal LV volume, mass, and systolic and diastolic function. Valsartan for 1 year did not reverse LA remodeling or prevent AFr. Half of the patients without AFr had severe LA dilation; therefore, mechanisms other than structural remodeling triggered recurrence. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00376272.