Efficacy and safety of a four-drug, quarter-dose treatment for hypertension: the QUARTET USA randomized trial.

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 (n = 32 intervention, n = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (-4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: -10.8, 1.3, p = 0.123] and a -4.9 mmHg (95% CI: -8.6, -1.3, p = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine and Losartan Potassium in Essential Hypertension in a Tertiary Hospital of Bangladesh.

Hypertension is a common disorder of major clinical, public health and economic importance. It affects men and women of all ages, and the prevalence is increasing in most countries. Maintenance of blood pressure below 140/90 mm of Hg is recommended by most of the guideline available around the world. Various classes of drugs are being used in the treatment of hypertension. Losartan potassium and amlodipine are two different antihypertensive agents belonging to two different groups used commonly around the world in treating essential hypertension. Losartan potassium is non-peptide Angiotensin-II receptor antagonist. Amlodipine which is the third generation dihydropyridine group of calcium channel blocker. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of amlodipine and losartan for the treatment of essential hypertensive patients (18-75 years). A non-randomized comparative observational study was conducted in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in collaboration with Department of Medicine, Sylhet, MAG Osmani Medical College, Sylhet, Bangladesh from July 2021 to June 2022. In this study non-randomization was in two groups. Group A received amlodipine 5mg daily at morning and Group B received losartan potassium 50mg daily at night. The study parameters were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), ankle oedema, serum K+ level. The result of treatment outcome was compared between two groups. After treatment the reduction of SBP was 5.19±2.93mm of Hg versus 3.27±1.34mm of Hg (p<0.001); reduction of DBP was 1.7±0.70 mm of Hg versus 0.68 mm of Hg (p<0.001) and serum K+ level 4.22±0.27mmol/L versus 4.21±0.16mmol/L (p<0.719) in amlodipine and losartan group respectively. Amlodipine is more effective than losartan potassium in respect to treatment of essential hypertension. Regarding adverse events losartan potassium causes angioedema, hyperkalemia, headache, dizziness etc. The study concluded that amlodipine is superior to losartan potassium in treating essential hypertension.

Guidelines-based therapeutic strategies for controlling hypertension in non-controlled hypertensive patients followed by family physicians in primary health care in Portugal: the GPHT-PT study.

PURPOSE: In a prospective open study, with intervention, conducted in Primary Health Care Units by General Practitioners (GPs) in Portugal, the effectiveness of a single pill of candesartan/amlodipine (ARB/amlodipine), as the only anti-hypertension (anti-HTN) medication, in adult patients with uncontrolled HTN (BP > 140/or > 90 mm Hg), either previously being treated with anti-HTN monotherapies (Group I), or combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (Group II), or not receiving medication at all (Group III), was evaluated across 12-weeks after implementation of the new therapeutic measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 118 GPs recruited patients with uncontrolled HTN who met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Participants were assigned, according to severity, one of 3 (morning) fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage (8/5 or 16/5 or 16/10 mg/day) and longitudinally evaluated in 3 visits (v0, v6 and v12 weeks). Office blood pressure was measured in each visit, and control of HTN was defined per guidelines (BP< 140/90 mmHg). RESULTS: Of the 1234 patients approached, 752 (age 61 ± 10 years, 52% women) participated in the study and were assigned to groups according to previous treatment conditions. The 3 groups exhibited a statistically significant increased control of blood pressure after receiving the fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage. The overall proportion of controlled HTN participants increased from 0,8% at v0 to 82% at v12. The mean arterial blood pressure values decreased from SBP= 159.0 (± 13.0) and DBP= 91.1 (± 9.6) at baseline to SBP= 132,1 (± 11.3) and DBP= 77,5 (± 8.8) at 12 weeks (p < 0.01). Results remained consistent when controlling for age and sex. CONCLUSION: In patients with uncontrolled HTN, therapeutic measures in accordance with guidelines, with a fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine, allowed to overall achieve HTN control at 12 weeks in 82% of previously uncontrolled HTN patients, reinforcing the advantages of these strategies in primary clinical practice.

What is the context?Arterial hypertension (HTN) represents the main risk factor for cause of death from cardiovascular disease (CV). Adequate control of hypertension reduces CV risk and significantly prevents CV events and associated morbidity and mortality. This requires patients' adherence and persistence in implemented treatment and the achievement of tension targets that are related to the reduction of CV risk. The latest international recommendations indicate that hypertension control is insufficient in most countries. In Portugal, hypertension control is <43% and a significant number of patients treated do not comply with the recommendations.What is new?In a prospective, interventional, and multicentre study, carried out by General Practitioners (GPs) in Primary Health Care Units across Portugal, the objective was to determine (i) whether the presence of uncontrolled hypertension results from non-compliance with the provisions of the recommendations and the Integrated Care Process (PAI) of the Direção Geral de Saúde (DGS), i.e. inappropriate use of monotherapies or inadequate low doses of combinations of antihypertensives, and (ii) whether the adjustment of hypertension therapies, favouring the schemes provided in the recommendations, allows adequate control of arterial hypertension, in previously uncontrolled patients, when these are closely monitored in a 12-week time period.What is the impact?When the guidelines' therapeutic protocol is followed, as established for each identified group of patients (monotherapy, hydrochlorothiazide, and no medication), results indicate a marked and statistically significant improvements in both SBP and DBP values and hypertension control across time.

Amlodipine inhibits Synaptotagmin-4's oncogenic activity on gastric cancer proliferation by targeting calcium signaling.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Synaptotagmin-4 (SYT4), a calcium-sensing synaptic vesicle protein, has been implicated in the oncogenesis of diverse malignancies. PURPOSE: This study delineates the role of SYT4 in modulating clinical outcomes and biological behaviors in GC. METHODS: We evaluated SYT4 expression in GC specimens using bioinformatics analyses and immunohistochemistry. Functional assays included CCK8 proliferation tests, apoptosis assays via flow cytometry, confocal calcium imaging, and xenograft models. Western blotting elucidated MAPK pathway involvement. Additionally, we investigated the impact of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine on cellular dynamics and MAPK pathway activity. RESULTS: SYT4 was higher in GC tissues, and the elevated SYT4 was significantly correlated with adverse prognosis. Both univariate and multivariate analyses confirmed SYT4 as an independent prognostic indicator for GC. Functionally, SYT4 promoted tumorigenesis by fostering cellular proliferation, inhibiting apoptosis, and enhancing intracellular Ca2+ influx, predominantly via MAPK pathway activation. Amlodipine pre-treatment attenuated SYT4-driven cell growth and potentiated apoptosis, corroborated by in vivo xenograft assessments. These effects were attributed to MAPK pathway suppression by amlodipine. CONCLUSION: SYT4 emerges as a potential prognostic biomarker and a pro-oncogenic mediator in GC through a Ca2+-dependent MAPK mechanism. Amlodipine demonstrates significant antitumor effects against SYT4-driven GC, positing its therapeutic promise. This study underscores the imperative of targeting calcium signaling in GC treatment strategies.

Use of amlodipine in the treatment of cats with systemic hypertension in Japan.

An increase in systemic blood pressure causes bleeding and ischemia owing to peripheral vascular breakdown, leading to various forms of organ damage. The brain, eyes, kidneys, and cardiovascular system are known target organs for hypertension. To our knowledge, no reports in Japan describe, in detail, the types of antihypertensive drugs used to treat hypertension in cats or its underlying causes. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the use of antihypertensive drugs in domestic cats with hypertension in Japan, the causes of hypertension, and the vital prognosis of these patients. In the present survey, we found that amlodipine was used alone (60/80 cats) or concomitantly (20/80 cats) in all cat patients with hypertension in Japan. We also determined that blood pressure measurements were not yet routinely performed on cats at veterinary clinics in Japan. Furthermore, we have new information suggesting that amlodipine administration in cats with hypertension, which lowers systolic arterial pressure levels to within the normal range (<140 mmHg), may have a negative impact on their survival. Routine blood pressure measurements for cats during their regular health checkups can help identify hypertension, and proper interpretation of blood pressure readings can facilitate suitable treatment measures.

Hemoadsorption Therapy for Calcium Channel Blocker Overdose: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: Modern resin hemoadsorption/hemoperfusion for calcium channel blocker overdose is yet to be reported. The characteristics of calcium channel blockers make them unamenable to removal by hemodiafiltration or charcoal hemoperfusion; however, elimination, using styrene bead adsorption in an ex vivo model, has been demonstrated. Its clinical use is described. CASE REPORT: A man in his 20s was admitted with shock into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) after an overdose of amlodipine and risperidone. Resuscitation and supportive care were administered, but hypotension did not resolve despite the administration of intravenous fluids, infusions of calcium, adrenaline, and hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic therapy. Methylene blue was then administered to maintain the mean arterial pressures. However, the hemodynamic effect did not allow the weaning of the adrenaline. Drug clearance using hemoadsorption/hemoperfusion was attempted using a styrene resin filter (Jafron HA230; Jafron Biomedical Co., Ltd., Guangdong, China). During the two hemoperfusion sessions (6 h duration each, and 18 h apart) the patient had successfully weaned off all supportive measures, with lactate levels returning to normal and was later discharged home. At the end of each session, significant amlodipine concentrations were detected in blood aspirated from both filters, suggesting enhanced clearance. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Our case illustrates a temporal relationship between resin hemoperfusion therapy, resolution of hemodynamic instability, and shock without proving causation. Significant amlodipine elimination was suggested by high concentrations found in blood from the filter. At the same time, shock resolution after initiation of hemoperfusion occurred in less than one elimination half-life of amlodipine.

Extemporaneous combination therapy with nebivolol/amlodipine for the treatment of hypertension: a real-world evidence study in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: The investigation of the real-world use of the extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine (NA-EXC) in adult patients diagnosed with hypertension in Europe. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data extracted from seven databases of patient medical records and prescriptions from Italy, Germany, France, Hungary, and Poland, to determine the prevalence and incidence of NA-EXC use and to estimate the number of patients potentially eligible for a single-pill combination of the two antihypertensives. Secondary objectives included: the description of the population of NA-EXC users and the assessment of their adherence to treatment based on the proportion of days covered. RESULTS: The use of NA-EXC was found to be common in Europe and ranged between 2.9% to 9.9% of all patients identified in the databases with a prescription of nebivolol and/or amlodipine. The estimated numbers of patients potentially eligible in 2019 for a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine in Italy and Germany were, respectively, 178,133 and 113,240. Users of NA-EXC were mostly aged 70-79 years, had metabolic disorders and other comorbidities; >70% of them had received ≥2 concomitant medications before starting NA-EXC. Adherence to NA-EXC was defined as high only in 15.6% to 35% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine is commonly prescribed in Europe, however adherence to the therapy is poor. The development of a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine may improve adherence by reducing the number of pills administered to patients and thus simplifying treatment regimens.

Personalized Antihypertensive Treatment Optimization With Smartphone-Enabled Remote Precision Dosing of Amlodipine During the COVID-19 Pandemic (PERSONAL-CovidBP Trial).

BACKGROUND: The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P<0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care. REGISTRATION: URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

Time to blood pressure control and predictors among patients receiving integrated treatment for hypertension and HIV based on an adapted WHO HEARTS implementation strategy at a large urban HIV clinic in Uganda.

In this cohort study, we determined time to blood pressure (BP) control and its predictors among hypertensive PLHIV enrolled in integrated hypertension-HIV care based on the World Health Organization (WHO) HEARTS strategy at Mulago Immunosuppression Clinic in Uganda. From August 2019 to March 2020, we enrolled hypertensive PLHIV aged ≥ 18 years and initiated Amlodipine 5 mg mono-therapy for BP (140-159)/(90-99) mmHg or Amlodipine 5 mg/Valsartan 80 mg duo-therapy for BP ≥ 160/90 mmHg. Patients were followed with a treatment escalation plan until BP control, defined as BP < 140/90 mmHg. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify predictors of time to BP control. Of 877 PLHIV enrolled (mean age 50.4 years, 62.1% female), 30% received mono-therapy and 70% received duo-therapy. In the monotherapy group, 66%, 88% and 96% attained BP control in the first, second and third months, respectively. For patients on duo-therapy, 56%, 83%, 88% and 90% achieved BP control in the first, second, third, and fourth months, respectively. In adjusted Cox proportional hazard analysis, higher systolic BP (aHR 0.995, 95% CI 0.989-0.999) and baseline ART tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz (aHR 0.764, 95% CI 0.637-0.917) were associated with longer time to BP control, while being on ART for >10 years was associated with a shorter time to BP control (aHR 1.456, 95% CI 1.126-1.883). The WHO HEARTS strategy was effective at achieving timely BP control among PLHIV. Additionally, monotherapy anti-hypertensive treatment for stage I hypertension is a viable option to achieve BP control and limit pill burden in resource limited HIV care settings.

Amlodipine inhibits the proliferation and migration of esophageal carcinoma cells through the induction of endoplasmic reticulum stress.

BACKGROUND: L-type calcium channels are the only protein channels sensitive to calcium channel blockers, and are expressed in various cancer types. The Cancer Genome Atlas database shows that the mRNA levels of multiple L-type calcium channel subunits in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma tumor tissue are significantly higher than those in normal esophageal epithelial tissue. Therefore, we hypothesized that amlodipine, a long-acting dihydropyridine L-type calcium channel blocker, may inhibit the occurrence and development of esophageal cancer (EC). AIM: To investigate the inhibitory effects of amlodipine on EC through endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress. METHODS: Cav1.3 protein expression levels in 50 pairs of EC tissues and corresponding paracancerous tissues were examined. Subsequently, the inhibitory effects of amlodipine on proliferation and migration of EC cells in vitro were detected using 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2-H-tetrazolium bromide and Transwell assays. In vivo experiments were performed using murine xenograft model. To elucidate the underlying mechanisms, in vitro cell studies were performed to confirm that ER stress plays a role in inhibition proliferation and migration of EC cells treated with amlodipine. RESULTS: The expression level of Cav1.3 in esophageal carcinoma was 1.6 times higher than that in paracancerous tissues. Amlodipine treatment decreased the viability of esophageal carcinoma cells in a dose- and time-dependent manner. In vivo animal experiments also clearly indicated that amlodipine inhibited the growth of EC tumors in mice. Additionally, amlodipine reduces the migration of tumor cells by inhibiting epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Mechanistic studies have demonstrated that amlodipine induces ER stress-mediated apoptosis and suppresses EMT. Moreover, amlodipine-induced autophagy was characterized by an increase in autophagy lysosomes and the accumulation of light chain 3B protein. The combination of amlodipine with the ER stress inhibitor 4-phenylbutyric acid further confirmed the role of the ER stress response in amlodipine-induced apoptosis, EMT, and autophagy. Furthermore, blocking autophagy increases the ratio of apoptosis and migration. CONCLUSION: Collectively, we demonstrate for the first time that amlodipine promotes apoptosis, induces autophagy, and inhibits migration through ER stress, thereby exerting anti-tumor effects in EC.

Seasonal variation in ambulatory blood pressure control in patients on clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment.

BACKGROUND: We investigated seasonal variation in ambulatory blood pressure control in hypertensive patients on clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment. METHODS: The study participants were hypertensive patients enrolled in an 8-week therapeutic study. Antihypertensive treatment was initiated with long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers amlodipine 5 mg/day or the gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation of nifedipine 30 mg/day, with the possible up-titration to amlodipine 10 mg/day or nifedipine-GITS 60 mg/day at 4 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: The proportion of up-titration to higher dosages of antihypertensive drugs at 4 weeks of follow-up was higher in patients who commenced treatment in autumn/winter ( n  = 302) than those who commenced treatment in spring/summer ( n  = 199, 24.5 vs. 12.0%, P  < 0.001). The control rate of clinic blood pressure, however, was lower in autumn/winter than in spring/summer at 4 (56.7 vs. 70.7%, P  = 0.003) and 8 weeks of follow-up (52.5 vs. 74.9%, P  < 0.001). At 8 weeks, patients who commenced treatment in autumn/winter, compared with those who commenced treatment in spring/summer, had a significantly ( P ≤0.03) smaller daytime (mean between-season difference -3.2/-2.8 mmHg) but greater nighttime SBP/DBP reduction (3.6/1.6 mmHg). Accordingly, at 8 weeks, the prevalence of nondippers was significantly ( P  < 0.001) higher in spring/summer than in autumn/winter for both SBP (54.8 vs. 30.0%) and DBP (53.4 vs. 28.8%). CONCLUSION: Clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment requires a higher dosage of medication in cold than warm seasons, which may have led to over- and under-treatment of nighttime blood pressure, respectively.

Legacy benefits of blood pressure treatment on cardiovascular events are primarily mediated by improved blood pressure variability: the ASCOT trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment. METHODS: Eight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes. RESULTS: Using BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Systolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period.

ChaMP-CMD: A Phenotype-Blinded, Randomized Controlled, Cross-Over Trial.

BACKGROUND: Angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries is a common condition for which no effective treatment has been established. We hypothesized that the measurement of coronary flow reserve (CFR) allows identification of patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries who would benefit from anti-ischemic therapy. METHODS: Patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries underwent blinded invasive CFR measurement and were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of amlodipine or ranolazine. After a 1-week washout, they crossed over to the other drug for 4 weeks; final assessment was after the cessation of study medication for another 4 weeks. The primary outcome was change in treadmill exercise time, and the secondary outcome was change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score in response to anti-ischemic therapy. Analysis was on a per protocol basis according to the following classification: coronary microvascular disease (CMD group) if CFR<2.5 and reference group if CFR≥2.5. The study protocol was registered before the first patient was enrolled (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN94728379). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients (61±8 years of age; 62% women) underwent random assignment (57 CMD group and 30 reference group). Baseline exercise time and Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary scores were similar between groups. The CMD group had a greater increment (delta) in exercise time than the reference group in response to both amlodipine (difference in delta, 82 s [95% CI, 37-126 s]; P<0.001) and ranolazine (difference in delta, 68 s [95% CI, 21-115 s]; P=0.005). The CMD group reported a greater increment (delta) in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score than the reference group in response to ranolazine (difference in delta, 7 points [95% CI, 0-15]; P=0.048), but not to amlodipine (difference in delta, 2 points [95% CI, -5 to 8]; P=0.549). CONCLUSIONS: Among phenotypically similar patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries, only those with an impaired CFR derive benefit from anti-ischemic therapy. These findings support measurement of CFR to diagnose and guide management of this otherwise heterogeneous patient group.

A real-world analysis of outcomes and healthcare costs of patients on perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill vs. multiple-pill combination in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: This analysis compared adherence, cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality incidence, and healthcare costs among hypertensive patients treated with perindopril (PER)/indapamide (IND)/amlodipine (AML) in single-pill combination (SPC) vs. multiple-pill combination, in a real-world setting in Italy. METHODS: In this observational retrospective analysis of Italian administrative databases, adult patients treated with PER/IND/AML between 2010 and 2020 were divided into two cohorts: single-pill vs. multiple-pill. Patient data were available for at least one year before and after index date. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce selection bias. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered: non-adherence, <40%; partial adherence, 40-79%, and adherence ≥80%. Mortality incidence and CV events as single, or composite, endpoints were evaluated after first year of follow-up. Healthcare cost analyses were performed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. RESULTS: Following PSM, the single-pill cohort included 12 150 patients, and the multiple-pill cohort, 6105. The SPC cohort had a significantly higher percentage of adherent patients vs. the multiple-pill cohort (59.9% vs. 26.9%, P  < 0.001). Following the first year of follow-up, incidence of all-cause mortality, and combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and CV events were lower in the SPC cohort compared with multiple-pill cohort. Average annual direct healthcare costs were lower in the single-pill cohort (€2970) vs. multiple-pill cohort (€3642); cost of all drugs and all-cause hospitalizations were major contributors. CONCLUSION: The SPC of PER/IND/AML, compared with multiple-pill combination, is associated with higher adherence to medication, lower incidence of CV events and mortality, and reduced healthcare costs.

[Efficacy and Organoprotection of Triple Combinations in the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension].

The 2022 draft Russian guidelines on arterial hypertension recommend initiation of antihypertensive therapy with a combination of drugs in most patients with blood pressure above 150 / 90 mm Hg and / or in the presence of high-risk criteria. In 2021, the results of a 12-year analysis of the Brisighella Heart Study (BHS) were published. The aim of this study was to compare the use of different triple antihypertensive drug combinations in an Italian cohort of patients in real-life clinical practice. Combination antihypertensive therapy with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, amlodipine, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics provides a better blood pressure control compared to other antihypertensive drug combinations. The use of the triple combination of amlodipine/indapamide/perindopril is associated with a better metabolic profile than any other considered combination of antihypertensive drugs and a more pronounced organ-protective effect.

S-AMLODIPINE AS A MODERN EFFECTIVE ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AND AN ANTIANGINAL AGENT.

OBJECTIVE: The aim: Study of the clinical and hemodynamic effects of S-amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease, in individuals with preserved LV systolic function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The study includes 51 patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease, who were treated with S-amlodipine. RESULTS: Results: This study shows the high clinical effectiveness of the use of S-amlodipine in patients with arterial hypertension associated with coronary artery disease. We reveal that treatment of hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease with S-amlodipine leads to improvement of LV diastolic dysfunction, bringing it closer to normal values. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: Clinical effectiveness was associated with positive changes in hemodynamics, and was expressed in the normalization of the left ventricle diastolic function parameters, about which indirectly indicates decreasing of end-diastolic pressure.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of stroke and myocardial infarction prevention in hypertensive patients: Markov model based on the ACCOMPLISH trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the pharmacoeconomics of amlodipine combined with benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril in the treatment of hypertension using a Markov model to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical drug use. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we constructed two types of Markov model using data from the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial to dynamically simulate the development of hypertension. The models were subjected to rollback analysis and cohort analysis to obtain the cost and effectiveness of the two drug regimens in preventing stroke and myocardial infarction in hypertensive patients. We conducted sensitivity analysis to determine the stability of the results. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of amlodipine combined with benazepril was 66,196.97 RMB with 6.59 QALYs and that of hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril was 74,588.50 RMB with 6.46 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril was -64,550.23 compared with amlodipine + benazepril. The amlodipine + benazepril regimen was therefore more cost-effective than hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril. The sensitivity analysis results showed that the model was robust. CONCLUSION: Compared with the hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril treatment regimen, the amlodipine + benazepril regimen showed greater economic benefits.

Effects of Aliskiren Monotherapy versus Amlodipine Monotherapy in Hypertensive Patients with Obesity or Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors have been reported to exert protective effects against organ damage and failure; however, the impact of the direct renin inhibitor as monotherapy has not been assessed. Here, we investigated the effects of 24-week monotherapy with aliskiren compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes or obesity. METHODS: In this randomized intervention study, 62 adult hypertensive patients with visceral obesity (defined as a body mass index [BMI] greater than 25 kg/m2 and a visceral adipose tissue area [VFA] greater than 100 cm2) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (age 57 ± 13, 65% men, BMI 28.8 ± 4.8 kg/m2, VFA 134.8 ± 47.0 cm2, blood pressure 141 ± 16/86 ± 13 mm Hg) were randomized to receive 24-week treatment with aliskiren (max. 300 mg) or amlodipine (max. 10 mg). The primary outcome was the change in VFA at 24 weeks post-treatment. RESULTS: Change in VFA did not differ significantly from baseline in either group. Systolic blood pressure significantly decreased at 12 weeks (-10 mm Hg, p = 0.001) and 24 weeks (-10 mm Hg, p = 0.001) in the amlodipine group and at 24 weeks (-11 mm Hg, p = 0.001) in the aliskiren group. Diastolic blood pressure significantly decreased at 24 weeks (-6 mm Hg, p = 0.009) only in the amlodipine group. Although the estimated glomerular filtration rates did not significantly change in either group, the logarithm of urinary albumin excretion significantly decreased at 24 weeks only in the aliskiren group (-0.60, p < 0.001). The 24-week changes in the urinary albumin excretion significantly correlated with the changes in the plasma renin activity in the aliskiren group (r = 0.51, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Aliskiren monotherapy did not show any superiority to amlodipine monotherapy on VFA, estimated glomerular filtration rates, or urinary albumin excretion in obese or type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients.