Safety and efficacy of alirocumab in a real-life setting: the ODYSSEY APPRISE study.

AIMS: To obtain safety and efficacy data of alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, in a real-life setting in high cardiovascular (CV) risk patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) or very-high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels despite maximally tolerated dose of statin ± other lipid-lowering therapies (MTD ± LLTs). ODYSSEY APPRISE was a prospective, single-arm, Phase 3b open-label (≥12 weeks to ≤ 30 months) European/Canadian study with alirocumab. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients received alirocumab 75 or 150 mg every 2 weeks, with dose adjustment based on physician's judgment. In total, 994 patients were enrolled and treated. The mean [standard deviation (SD)] duration of alirocumab exposure was 72.4 (42.5) weeks. Patients with HeFH were younger [mean (SD) age of 53.8 (11.6) vs. 61.6 (10.1) years], more likely to be female (41.7% vs. 29.1%) and had higher baseline LDL-C compared with non-familial hypercholesterolaemia (non-FH) patients [mean (SD) of 5.1 (1.7) vs. 4.1 (1.1) mmol/L]. The overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 71.6%; common TEAEs included nasopharyngitis (7.8%), myalgia (7.1%), and headache (6.2%). At Week 12, mean (SD) LDL-C was reduced by 54.8 (20.1)% from baseline [2.6 (1.2) mmol/L], maintained for the trial duration. LDL-C was reduced below 1.8 mmol/L and/or by ≥50% reduction from baseline in 69.1% of patients overall, and for 64.7 and 77.4% of the HeFH and non-FH subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSION: In a real-life setting in patients with hypercholesterolaemia and high CV risk, alirocumab was generally well tolerated and resulted in clinically significant LDL-C reductions.

LDL-C calculated by Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, or NIH equation 2 versus beta-quantification: pooled alirocumab trials.

Accurate assessment of LDL-C levels is important, as they are often used for treatment recommendations. For many years, plasma LDL-C levels were calculated using the Friedewald equation, but there are limitations to this method compared with direct measurement via beta-quantification (BQ). Here, we assessed differences between the Friedewald, Martin-Hopkins, and NIH equation 2 methods of calculating LDL-C and the "gold standard" BQ method using pooled phase 3 data with alirocumab. All randomized patients were included irrespective of the treatment arm (n = 6,122). We compared pairs of LDL-C values (n = 17,077) determined by each equation and BQ. We found that BQ-derived LDL-C values ranged from 1 to 397 mg/dl (mean 90.68 mg/dl). There were strong correlations between Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins-calculated, and NIH equation 2-calculated LDL-C with BQ-determined LDL-C values (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.985, 0.981, and 0.985, respectively). Importantly, for BQ-derived LDL-C values ≥70 mg/dl, only 3.2%, 1.4%, and 1.8% of Friedewald-calculated, Martin-Hopkins-calculated, and NIH equation 2-calculated values were <70 mg/dl, respectively. When triglyceride (TG) levels were <150 mg/dl, differences between calculated and BQ-derived LDL-C values were minimal, regardless of the LDL-C level (<40, <55, or <70 mg/dl). However, when TG levels were >150 mg/dl, NIH equation 2 provided greater accuracy than Friedewald or Martin-Hopkins. When TGs were >250 mg/dl, inaccuracies were seen with all three methods, although NIH equation 2 remained the most accurate. In conclusion, LDL-C calculated by any of the three methods can guide treatment decisions for most patients, including those treated with proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors.

Triglyceride concentrations and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in the ODYSSEY phase 3 trials with alirocumab.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend targeting non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to reduce cardiovascular risk. We assessed the impact of baseline triglycerides on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in 10 phase 3 trials with alirocumab versus control (n = 4983). METHODS: Trials were grouped into four pools based on alirocumab dose (75-150 mg every 2 weeks), control (placebo/ezetimibe) and statin use. Baseline triglyceride quintiles were built within each pool. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment (very high risk: <100 mg/dl; moderate/high risk: <130 mg/dl), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment (very high risk: <70 mg/dl; moderate/high risk: <100 mg/dl) and changes from baseline in lipid parameters were assessed at Week 24 among baseline triglyceride quintiles. RESULTS: Higher baseline triglycerides were associated with a worse cardiovascular risk profile. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased with higher triglycerides, but the magnitude in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was three- to four-fold higher compared with the increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol percentage reductions from baseline with alirocumab were similar regardless of baseline triglycerides. A greater proportion of alirocumab-treated patients attained non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals compared with placebo or ezetimibe. Unlike low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment significantly declined with increasing baseline triglycerides (p < 0.05 for trend tests). A single standard deviation increase in baseline log(triglycerides) was significantly associated with lower odds ratios of attaining non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in the different pools and treatment (alirocumab/placebo/ezetimibe) groups, unlike low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment. CONCLUSION: Individuals with increased triglycerides have higher non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and lower rates of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment (unlike low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment). Alirocumab improves non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in this population. These results highlight the impact of triglycerides on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and the need for novel therapies targeting triglyceride-related pathways.

Effect of alirocumab on individuals with type 2 diabetes, high triglycerides, and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

BACKGROUND: Mixed dyslipidemia [elevated non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and triglycerides (TGs), and decreased HDL-C] is common in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is associated with increased cardiovascular risk. Non-HDL-C and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) are the preferred therapeutic targets for mixed dyslipidemia. Alirocumab is a monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) that effectively reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-HDL-C, ApoB, and lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), and is well-tolerated in individuals with T2DM. METHODS: The previously reported open-label ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA trial data demonstrated the effects of alirocumab on individuals with non-HDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL and TGs ≥ 150 and < 500 mg/dL receiving stable maximally tolerated statin (n = 413). This post hoc subgroup analysis of the primary trial investigated the effects of alirocumab [75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) with possible increase to 150 mg Q2W at Week 12] versus usual care [ezetimibe, fenofibrate, or no additional lipid-lowering therapy (LLT)] on non-HDL-C and other lipids in individuals with T2DM and baseline TGs ≥ 200 mg/dL and HDL-C < 40 mg/dL (men) or < 50 mg/dL (women). RESULTS: Alirocumab significantly reduced non-HDL-C [LS mean difference (standard error (SE)), - 35.0% (3.9)], ApoB [LS mean difference (SE), - 34.7% (3.6)], LDL-C [LS mean difference (SE), - 47.3% (5.2)], LDL particle number [LS mean difference (SE), - 40.8% (4.1)], and Lp(a) [LS mean difference (SE), - 29.9% (5.4)] versus usual care from baseline to Week 24 (all P < 0.0001). Results were similar for alirocumab versus usual care. TG reductions were similar between alirocumab and usual care (no significant difference), but greater with fenofibrate versus alirocumab (P = 0.3371). Overall, alirocumab significantly increased HDL-C versus usual care [LS mean difference (SE), 7.9% (3.6); P < 0.05], although differences with alirocumab versus ezetimibe or fenofibrate were non-significant. Most individuals receiving alirocumab achieved ApoB < 80 mg/dL (67.9%) and non-HDL-C < 100 mg/dL (60.9%). Adverse event frequency was similar between alirocumab (67.2%) and usual care (70.7%). Additionally, no clinically relevant effect of alirocumab on change in glycemic parameters or use of antihyperglycemic agents was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Alirocumab is an effective therapeutic option for individuals with T2DM, TGs ≥ 200 mg/dL, and HDL-C < 40 mg/dL (men) or < 50 mg/dL (women). Atherogenic lipid (ApoB and non-HDL) reductions were greater with alirocumab than ezetimibe, fenofibrate, or no LLT. Consistent with previous studies, alirocumab was generally well tolerated. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02642159. Registered December 24, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02642159.

Alirocumab therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: analysis of the ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA and DM-INSULIN studies.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with diabetes often have high levels of atherogenic lipoproteins and cholesterol reflected by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein B (ApoB), and LDL particle number (LDL-PN). The presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) increases the risk of future cardiovascular events. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, alirocumab, among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM), high LDL-C or non-HDL-C, and established ASCVD receiving maximally tolerated statin in ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA (NCT02642159) and DM-INSULIN (NCT02585778). METHODS: In DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA, individuals with T2DM and mixed dyslipidemia (non-HDL-C ≥ 100 mg/dL; n = 413) were randomized to open-label alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) or usual care (UC) for 24 weeks, with UC options selected before stratified randomization. In DM-INSULIN, insulin-treated individuals with T2DM (LDL-C ≥ 70 mg/dL; n = 441) were randomized in a double-blind fashion to alirocumab 75 mg Q2W or placebo for 24 weeks. Study participants also had a glycated hemoglobin < 9% (DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA) or < 10% (DM-INSULIN). Alirocumab dose was increased to 150 mg Q2W at week 12 if week 8 LDL-C was ≥ 70 mg/dL (DM-INSULIN) or non-HDL-C was ≥ 100 mg/dL (DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA). Lipid reductions and safety were assessed in patients with ASCVD from these studies. RESULTS: This analysis included 142 DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA and 177 DM-INSULIN participants with ASCVD, including 95.1% and 86.4% with coronary heart disease, and 32.4% and 49.7% with microvascular diabetes complications, respectively. At week 24, alirocumab significantly reduced LDL-C, non-HDL-C, ApoB, and LDL-PN from baseline versus control. This translated into a greater proportion of individuals achieving non-HDL-C < 100 mg/dL (64.6% alirocumab/23.8% UC [DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA]; 65.4% alirocumab/14.9% placebo [DM-INSULIN]) and ApoB < 80 mg/dL (75.1% alirocumab/35.4% UC and 76.8% alirocumab/24.8% placebo, respectively) versus control at week 24 (all P < 0.0001). In pooling these studies, 66.4% (alirocumab) and 67.0% (control) of individuals reported treatment-emergent adverse events. The adverse event pattern was similar with alirocumab versus controls. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with T2DM and ASCVD who had high non-HDL-C/LDL-C levels despite maximally tolerated statin, alirocumab significantly reduced atherogenic cholesterol and LDL-PN versus control. Alirocumab was generally well tolerated. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT02642159. Registered 30 December 2015 and Clinicaltrials.gov. NCT02585778. Registered 23 October 2015.

Alirocumab vs usual lipid-lowering care as add-on to statin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes and mixed dyslipidaemia: The ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA randomized trial.

AIM: To compare alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitor, with usual care (UC) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and mixed dyslipidaemia not optimally managed by maximally tolerated statins in the ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA trial (NCT02642159). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The UC options (no additional lipid-lowering therapy; fenofibrate; ezetimibe; omega-3 fatty acid; nicotinic acid) were selected prior to stratified randomization to open-label alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (with increase to 150 mg every 2 weeks at week 12 if week 8 non-HDL cholesterol concentration was ≥2.59 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]) or UC for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change in non-HDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: The randomized population comprised 413 individuals (intention-to-treat population, n = 409; safety population, n = 412). At week 24, the mean non-HDL cholesterol reductions were superior with alirocumab (-32.5% difference vs UC, 97.5% confidence interval -38.1 to -27.0; P < .0001). Overall, 63.6% of alirocumab-treated individuals were maintained on 75 mg every 2 weeks. Alirocumab also reduced LDL cholesterol (-43.0%), apolipoprotein B (-32.3%), total cholesterol (-24.6%) and LDL particle number (-37.8%) at week 24 vs UC (all P < .0001). Consistent with the overall trial comparison, alirocumab reduced non-HDL cholesterol to a greater degree within each UC stratum at week 24. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 68.4% (alirocumab) and 66.4% (UC). No clinically meaningful effect on glycated haemoglobin, or change in number of glucose-lowering agents, was seen. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with T2DM and mixed dyslipidaemia on maximally tolerated statin, alirocumab showed superiority to UC in non-HDL cholesterol reduction and was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of alirocumab in insulin-treated individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular risk: The ODYSSEY DM-INSULIN randomized trial.

AIMS: To investigate the efficacy and safety of alirocumab in participants with type 2 (T2D) or type 1 diabetes (T1D) treated with insulin who have elevated LDL cholesterol levels despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. METHODS: Participants at high cardiovascular risk with T2D (n = 441) or T1D (n = 76) and LDL cholesterol levels ≥1.8 mmol/L (≥70 mg/dL) were randomized 2:1 to alirocumab:placebo administered subcutaneously every 2 weeks, for 24 weeks' double-blind treatment. Alirocumab-treated participants received 75 mg every 2 weeks, with blinded dose increase to 150 mg every 2 weeks at week 12 if week 8 LDL cholesterol levels were ≥1.8 mmol/L. Primary endpoints were percentage change in calculated LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24, and safety assessments. RESULTS: Alirocumab reduced LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24 by a mean ± standard error of 49.0% ± 2.7% and 47.8% ± 6.5% vs placebo (both P < .0001) in participants with T2D and T1D, respectively. Significant reductions were observed in non-HDL cholesterol (P < .0001), apolipoprotein B (P < .0001) and lipoprotein (a) (P ≤ .0039). At week 24, 76.4% and 70.2% of the alirocumab group achieved LDL cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L in the T2D and T1D populations (P < .0001), respectively. Glycated haemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose levels remained stable for the study duration. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 64.5% of alirocumab- vs 64.1% of placebo-treated individuals (overall population). CONCLUSIONS: Alirocumab produced significant LDL cholesterol reductions in participants with insulin-treated diabetes regardless of diabetes type, and was generally well tolerated. Concomitant administration of alirocumab and insulin did not raise any safety concerns (NCT02585778).

Lessons learned from a survey of the diagnosis and treatment journeys of postmenopausal women with hypertension.

In this qualitative, experiential study, 300 members of the database of WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women With Heart Disease completed an online survey about hypertension diagnosis and treatment, patient education, and perceptions of this and related conditions. Based on the findings from the survey, characteristics of the prototypical journey were identified. To the extent to which the surveyed WomenHeart members represent typical experiences, this survey provides insights into common hurdles women encounter in their journey throughout the hypertension diagnosis and treatment process. Results of this study suggest the need for a patient-centric approach to hypertension management and to implement programs with the intention of comprehensively assessing and meeting individual needs. Further studies would be of value to expand on patients' journeys in the management of hypertension and identify the types of products, services, and programming that most effectively support treatment adherence and achievement of optimal blood pressure control.

Antihypertensive and metabolic effects of Angiotensin receptor blocker/diuretic combination therapy in obese, hypertensive African American and white patients.

A clinical trial showed comparable blood pressure (BP) lowering by valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients. Relative to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide, valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced the hyperglycemic response to glucose challenge. An objective of this post hoc analysis was to determine whether this benefit extended to African Americans and whites. Treatments (160/12.5 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 320/25 mg of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 or 12.5 mg of hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide at week 4 with 5 and 10 mg of amlodipine added at weeks 8 and 12, respectively) were administered once daily. Both treatments reduced clinic BP from baseline to all visits (P < 0.0001), regardless of race/ethnicity (126 African Americans, 212 whites). In African Americans, there were no significant between-treatment differences in clinic or ambulatory BP lowering at weeks 8 or 16. Whites responded better to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan but not amlodipine mitigated the hyperglycemic response to hydrochlorothiazide through enhanced insulin secretion. Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was as effective as amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide was in reducing BP in obese, hypertensive African Americans and better than amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in whites. In both racial/ethnic subgroups, the addition of valsartan to hydrochlorothiazide reduced the negative metabolic effects associated with thiazide therapy.

Does response of RAS blockade on serum K+ levels influence its glycemic-mitigating response when combined with hydrochlorothiazide?

The authors previously reported that addition of valsartan ameliorated the negative metabolic effects of hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients through an enhanced postprandial insulin response. In this secondary analysis, the authors tested whether this enhanced insulin response to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide was influenced by serum potassium levels, which were reduced to a lesser extent, when compared with amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide. Results showed that the early insulin response with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide occurred regardless of serum potassium levels. Heightened insulin response was, however, not significantly different when patients with normal potassium (>3.9 mEq/L) at baseline and low potassium (≤3.9 mEq/L) at the end of the study were compared with the amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide group. Despite the influence of serum potassium on insulin secretory response to a glucose challenge, the addition of valsartan maintained normoglycemia in patients given hydrochlorothiazide. Thus, the metabolic response to hydrochlorothiazide was improved with addition of valsartan through an enhanced insulin response that was not greatly affected by changes in potassium levels.

Home and clinic blood pressure responses in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension.

Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring may enhance assessment of BP control. In this 16-week study, men and women 70 years or older with systolic BP between 150 and 200 mm Hg were randomized to receive valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (V/HCTZ) 160/12.5 mg (n = 128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 128), or V 160 mg (n = 128) for 4 weeks. Participants whose BP was 140/90 mm Hg or higher at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were uptitrated to a maximum of V/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Participants were evaluated by home BP monitoring using an automated device weekly before taking daily study medication (n = 301). Baseline BP ± SD for clinic (165.5 ± 11.8/85.1 ± 9.5 mm Hg) was approximately 3/1 mm Hg greater than home readings (162.5 ± 15.8/84.3 ± 10.2 mm Hg). Reductions in BP ± SEM at week 4 were similar for clinic (12.6 ± 1.0/4.7 ± 0.5 mm Hg) and home (10.9 ± 1.1/3.8 ± 0.5 mm Hg) readings (P = .25/P = .23; clinic versus home); differences between V/HCTZ and HCTZ or V were also similar for both home and clinic readings and results by either technique correlated significantly (P < .0001). Home BP measurements confirm that treatment initiated with V/HCTZ versus monotherapy resulted in greater antihypertensive efficacy. Home BP monitoring, if done with proper technique, provides a reliable indicator of BP control in elderly patients and may help guide drug dosing and titration.

Comparison of the effects of aliskiren/valsartan in combination versus valsartan alone in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

The extent to which the combination of a renin inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) lowers clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) versus an ARB alone in stage 2 hypertension is not well known. Hence, we performed an 8-week, randomized, double-blind study in 451 patients with stage 2 hypertension to compare the efficacy of the combination of aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg versus valsartan 320 mg. The primary endpoint was change in seated systolic BP from baseline to week 8 analyzed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach; patients completing the entire treatment period (per-protocol completers) were similarly analyzed. For the predefined primary analysis, systolic BP reductions for aliskiren/valsartan (n = 230) and valsartan (n = 217) were -22.1 and -20.5 mm Hg, respectively (P = .295). In per-protocol completers, aliskiren/valsartan (n = 201) lowered BP significantly greater than valsartan (n = 196); -23.7 mm Hg versus -20.3 mm Hg, respectively (P = .028). Although limited by a small sample size (n = 76) using ambulatory BP monitoring, aliskiren/valsartan lowered the 24-hour BP significantly more than valsartan alone (-14.6/-9.0 mm Hg versus -5.9/-4.2 mm Hg; P < .01). Safety and tolerability were similar for the two treatment groups. These data demonstrate the importance of multiple modalities to assess BP changes in clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies, particularly in stage 2 hypertension.

Antihypertensive response to thiazide diuretic or angiotensin receptor blocker in elderly hypertensives is not influenced by pretreatment plasma renin activity.

PURPOSE: Renin profiling has been proposed as a method to guide antihypertensive drug selection. This prespecified post-hoc analysis examined the influence of baseline plasma renin activity (PRA) on blood pressure (BP) responses. METHODS: A 16-week, randomized, double-blind, prompted-titration trial evaluated initial valsartan (V)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy versus initial HCTZ or V monotherapy in individuals aged ≥ 70 years with systolic hypertension. Sitting PRA was measured at baseline, Week 4, and Week 16. Subjects were stratified into 2 groups for analysis: low renin (baseline PRA < 0.65 ng/mL/h) or normal-high renin (baseline PRA ≥ 0.65 ng/mL/h). RESULTS: PRA data were available in 322/384 subjects: 178 had low PRA and 144 had normal-high PRA. At Week 4, V/HCTZ was more effective than HCTZ or V at reducing mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP), independent of baseline PRA, with reductions of -16.9, -12.6, and -9.5 mmHg, respectively, in low-renin subjects and -19.4, -11.5, and -8.6 mmHg in normal-high renin subjects. Baseline PRA was similar in responders (subjects not uptitrated at Week 4) and nonresponders (subjects uptitrated at Week 4). In responders, the reactive rise in PRA at Week 4 was related to change in MSSBP, with the greatest increases in PRA observed in the V/HCTZ group. Higher baseline PRA was associated with a greater reactive rise in PRA. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PRA is not a useful guide to the BP responses of initial combination V/HCTZ in elderly individuals with systolic hypertension.

Ambulatory blood pressure response to triple therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), calcium-channel blocker (CCB), and HCTZ versus dual therapy with an ARB and HCTZ.

BACKGROUND: Stage 2 hypertension often requires combination antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a useful tool for assessing antihypertensive drugs and their combinations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of a moderate dose of angiotensin receptor blocker/calcium channel blocker (ARB/CCB) combined with a diuretic versus a maximal dose of ARB with a diuretic on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and other derived ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) parameters. METHODS: The EXforge As compared to Losartan Treatment ABPM substudy was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-control, forced-titration study of patients with Stage 2 hypertension that compared the efficacy of initial treatment with valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 48) or losartan 100 mg (n = 36). At week 3, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg was added in both treatment groups. ABP was measured at baseline and at week 6. Additionaly, 24-hour ABP, nighttime (10 pm to 6 am) and daytime (6 am to 10 pm) ABP, and ABP load (percentage of readings above 140/90 mmHg) were determined. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients (48 ARB/CCB/HCTZ, 36 ARB/HCTZ) had ABPM at baseline and at week 6. Reductions of systolic/diastolic ABP were greater in the ARB/CCB/ HCTZ group than in the ARB/HCTZ group for 24-hour mean ABP (-22.0/-13.3 versus -17.4/-8.1 mmHg), as well as nighttime ABP (-22.2/-13.3 versus -16.2/-7.4 mmHg), daytime ABP (-21.9/-13.0 versus -18.1/-8.6 mmHg), ABP in the last 4 hours of the dosing period (-21.5/-13.5 versus -17.0/-7.7 mmHg), and ABP load (21.7%/12.8% versus 30.8%/20.0%). CONCLUSION: Initiating antihypertensive treatment with moderate doses of ARB/CCB with a diuretic is more effective in lowering nighttime and daytime ABP and reducing ABP load than a maximal dose of an ARB with a diuretic.

Treating systolic hypertension in the very elderly with valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide vs. either monotherapy: ValVET primary results.

This 16-week trial investigated the efficacy and safety of single-pill valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. the individual components in patients 70 years and older with systolic hypertension. Patients were randomized to valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg (n=128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n=128), or valsartan 160 mg (n=128) for 4 weeks. Patients whose blood pressure (BP) was ≥140/90 mm Hg at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were up-titrated to a maximum of valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Week 4 systolic BP reduction (primary efficacy outcome) was greater with valsartan/HCTZ than valsartan (-17.3 mm Hg vs. -8.6 mm Hg, P <.0001) but only marginally greater than HCTZ (-13.6 mm Hg, P =.096). Median time to BP control was shorter with valsartan/HCTZ (4 weeks) vs HCTZ (8 weeks, P<.05) or valsartan (12 weeks, P<.0001). Thiazide monotherapy was more effective than angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (by about 5 mm Hg), but greater antihypertensive efficacy was achieved by initiating treatment with combination valsartan/HCTZ in the elderly.

Office and ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs. hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy in obese, hypertensive patients.

The authors evaluated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. amlodipine/HCTZ in a 16-week, double-blind, randomized, forced-titration study and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) substudy involving centrally obese hypertensive patients 40 years and older. Patients were started on valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg monotherapy, force-titrated at week 4 to valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg and HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. The HCTZ group initiated amlodipine 5 mg at week 8 and 10 mg at week 12. A subset of patients had 24-hour ABPM at baseline and weeks 8 and 16. At week 16 in the intent-to-treat population (n=401), valsartan/HCTZ and amlodipine/HCTZ lowered office systolic BP (-30.6 vs. -28.3 mm Hg; P=.14). In the ABPM subgroup (n=111), valsartan/HCTZ was more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in reducing 24-hour systolic BP (-20.6 vs. -14.5 mm Hg; P=.011). In obese hypertensive patients, valsartan/HCTZ reduced office BP similar to amlodipine/HCTZ but lowered 24-hour systolic BP more.

Combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium channel blocker with HCTZ vs the maximal recommended dose of an ARB with HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension: the exforge as compared to losartan treatment in stage 2 systolic hypertension (EXALT) study.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium-channel blocker (CCB) with hydrochlorothiazide (valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ 160/5/2mg) vs maximal available combination doses of an ARB with HCTZ (losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg) in the management of stage 2 hypertension. After 1 to 2 weeks of antihypertensive drug washout, patients with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) of ≥ 160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg were randomized to valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 241) or losartan 100 mg (n = 247). At week 3, HCTZ 25 mg was added to both treatments. The primary end point, reduction in MSSBP from baseline to week 6, was significantly greater in the valsartan/amlodipine group than in the losartan group (least-squares [LS] mean change, -31.8 mm Hg vs -26.4 mm Hg; P<.001). Additional reductions occurred after titrating to 320/10/25 mg at week 6 in the valsartan/amlodipine group and switching from losartan/HCTZ to valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ (week 6, 160/5/25 mg; week 9, 320/10/25 mg) in the losartan group. Achievement of blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg also favored the valsartan/amlodipine group. Dizziness was the only adverse event reported in >5% of patients (5.4% valsartan/amlodipine group, 3.6% losartan group). Moderate doses of an ARB/CCB combination with HCTZ reduced blood pressure more effectively than the maximal dose of an ARB with HCTZ.

Effect of valsartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and their combination on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure response in elderly patients with systolic hypertension: a ValVET substudy.

BACKGROUND: Stage 2 hypertension often requires combination antihypertensive therapy. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a useful tool for studying antihypertensive drugs and their combinations. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, prompted-titration study of patients of at least 70 years of age with systolic hypertension compared the efficacy of valsartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and their combination on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) reduction. METHODS: After a 3-14-day washout, patients with systolic blood pressure of 150-200 mmHg were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to initially receive once-daily valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide 160/12.5 mg combination therapy, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg monotherapy, or valsartan 160 mg monotherapy. Prompted uptitration of patients in whom BP was more than or equal to 140/90 mmHg was performed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. ABPM was performed at baseline and weeks 4 and 16 (study end). RESULTS: In this ABPM substudy (n=108), initiation of treatment with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide lowered ABP more effectively than either monotherapy throughout the daytime, night-time, and 24-h monitoring periods, as well as during the last 4 and 6-h dosing periods. Twenty-four-hour ABP was reduced from 141.1/76.5 mmHg at baseline to 125.8/69.2 mmHg at week 4 (primary time point) with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with reductions from 142.2/78.7 to 139.1/77.5 mmHg with hydrochlorothiazide and 142.2/78.3 to 136.4/75.1 mmHg with valsartan (all P<0.01 in favor of combination therapy). In the overall study, tolerability was similar among the three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In elderly hypertensives, starting combination therapy with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide provides more effective 24-h blood pressure control than the monotherapy components, with few therapy-related side-effects.

Moderate versus intensive treatment of hypertension using amlodipine/valsartan and with the addition of hydrochlorothiazide for patients uncontrolled on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy: results in racial/ethnic subgroups.

Combination therapy may reduce racial/ethnic differences in response to antihypertensives. In this post-hoc analysis, we evaluated treatment response by race/ethnicity among hypertensive adults enrolled in a 12-week, double-blind study in which patients previously uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥150 and <200 mm Hg) on angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy (other than valsartan) for 28 days or more (n = 728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan 10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate). Treatment-naïve patients (in previous 28 days) or those who failed on a non-ARB first underwent a 28-day run-in period with olmesartan 20 mg or 40 mg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg was added to both arms at week 4; optional up-titration to 25 mg at week 8 (if MSSBP >140 mm Hg). Intensive treatment provided greater BP lowering versus moderate treatment throughout the study, regardless of race/ethnicity (474 white, 198 African American, 165 Hispanic individuals). Least-square mean reductions from baseline to week 4 in MSSBP (primary outcome) ranged from 20.4 to 23.5 mm Hg (intensive) versus 17.5 to 19.0 mm Hg (moderate), across racial/ethnic subgroups. Both regimens were well tolerated. Amlodipine/valsartan/HCTZ combination therapy was efficacious across racial/ethnic subgroups. Maximal efficacy was obtained with intensive treatment.

The role of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring compared with clinic and home blood pressure measures in evaluating moderate versus intensive treatment of hypertension with amlodipine/valsartan for patients uncontrolled on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has greater predictive value than office blood pressure (BP) with respect to hypertension-related target-organ damage and morbidity. ABPM in a subset of 80 patients from the Exforge Target Achievement trial (N=728) was used to compare the efficacy of intensive-treatment and moderate-treatment regimens of amlodipine/valsartan, and to determine whether treatment differences could be better assessed with ABPM than with office or home BP. Home BP was measured on the morning of clinic visits to minimize differences that timing might have on home versus office BP measures. METHODS: A 12-week randomized, double-blind study in which hypertensive patients earlier uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic BP≥150 and <200 mmHg) on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (other than valsartan) after 28 days or more (N=728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan treatment [10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate)]. Treatment-naive patients (in previous 28 days) or patients who failed on a nonangiotensin receptor blocker agent underwent a 28-day run-in period with a 20-mg or 40-mg dose of olmesartan, respectively. RESULTS: Significantly greater 24-h ABP reductions from baseline to week 4 (primary time point) were observed with intensive versus moderate treatment (least-square mean systolic/diastolic BP reduction of -16.2/-10.1 vs. -9.5/-6.5 mmHg; P=0.0024/P=0.010 for least-square mean difference). Similarly, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving an intensive treatment achieved ambulatory BP goal (<130/80 mmHg) at week 4 than did those receiving a moderate treatment (P=0.040). Treatment-group differences did not reach statistical significance for these end points when measured by office and home BP. CONCLUSION: In this first randomized trial evaluating the effects of intensive versus moderate dosing of the combination of amlodipine/valsartan, our data suggest that ABPM was a better method for assessing between-treatment differences than clinic or home BP recordings, although measurement of home BP as a single recording was a limitation of our trial.