Faculty Bibliography

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:206-215. (c)2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan/amlodipine (T/A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP] >/=180/95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T/A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP/DBP (-47.5 mm Hg/-18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P<.0001) or A (P=.0002) monotherapy; superior reductions were also evident at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Blood pressure (BP) goal and response rates were consistently higher with T/A vs T or A. T/A was well tolerated, with less frequent treatment-related adverse events vs A (12.6% vs 16.4%) and a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema and treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, treatment of patients with substantially elevated BP with T/A SPCs resulted in high and significantly greater BP reductions and higher BP goal and response rates than the respective monotherapies. T/A SPCs were well tolerated.

Background- Thiazide-type diuretics are associated with an increased incidence of diabetes compared with other antihypertensive medications. In this study, we determined the long-term cardiovascular disease (CVD) consequences of incident diuretic-associated diabetes compared with the effects of incident diabetes associated with calcium channel blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use. Methods and Results- A total of 22 418 participants from the ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial) with baseline diabetes, incident diabetes (7.5% with chlorthalidone, 5.6% with amlodipine, and 4.3% with lisinopril), or no diabetes at 2 years of in-trial follow-up were followed for a mean total of 6.9 years (2.9 years in-trial and 4 additional years posttrial) through the use of national databases. The primary outcome was CVD mortality (death from coronary heart disease [CHD], stroke, heart failure, or other CVD). Among other outcomes were all-cause mortality, non-CVD mortality, and CHD (nonfatal myocardial infarction or fatal CHD). Participants on chlorthalidone with incident diabetes versus no diabetes had consistently lower, nonsignificant risk for CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74-1.47), all-cause mortality (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30), and non-CVD mortality (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.77-1.42) than participants on amlodipine or lisinopril with incident diabetes (HR range, 1.22-1.53). Participants with incident diabetes had elevated CHD risk compared with those with no diabetes (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.09-1.96), but those on chlorthalidone had significantly lower risk than those on lisinopril (HR, 1.18 versus 2.57; P=0.04 for interaction). Conclusions- The findings suggest that thiazide-related incident diabetes has less adverse long-term CVD impact than incident diabetes that develops while on other antihypertensive medications. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00000542.

A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter trial assigned 32,804 participants aged 55 years and older with hypertension and >/= 1 other coronary heart disease risk factors to receive chlorthalidone (n=15,002), amlodipine (n=8898), or lisinopril (n=8904) for 4 to 8 years, when double-blinded therapy was discontinued. Passive surveillance continued for a total follow-up of 8 to 13 years using national administrative databases to ascertain deaths and hospitalizations. During the post-trial period, fatal outcomes and nonfatal outcomes were available for 98% and 65% of participants, respectively, due to lack of access to administrative databases for the remainder. This paper assesses whether mortality and morbidity differences persisted or new differences developed during the extended follow-up. Primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality and secondary outcomes were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease, heart failure, cardiovascular disease, and end-stage renal disease. For the post-trial period, data are not available on medications or blood pressure levels. No significant differences (P<.05) appeared in cardiovascular mortality for amlodipine (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-1.06) or lisinopril (HR, 0.97; CI, 0.90-1.03), each compared with chlorthalidone. The only significant differences in secondary outcomes were for heart failure, which was higher with amlodipine (HR, 1.12; CI, 1.02-1.22), and stroke mortality, which was higher with lisinopril (HR, 1.20; CI, 1.01-1.41), each compared with chlorthalidone. Similar to the previously reported in-trial result, there was a significant treatment-by-race interaction for cardiovascular disease for lisinopril vs chlorthalidone. Black participants had higher risk than non-black participants taking lisinopril compared with chlorthalidone. After accounting for multiple comparisons, none of these results were significant. These findings suggest that neither calcium channel blockers nor angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are superior to diuretics for the long-term prevention of major cardiovascular complications of hypertension.

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is a common link between hypertension and comorbidities of obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS). We evaluated the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the combination direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, with amlodipine versus amlodipine alone in self-identified African Americans with stage 2 hypertension in a subgroup of patients with obesity or MetS participating in the Aliskiren Amlodipine Combination in African AmEricans with Stage 2 HypertenSion (AACESS) trial. Subjects, newly diagnosed and treatment naive or taking three or fewer antihypertensive drugs with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) of 160-199 mm Hg were randomized to receive aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week; force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg, for an additional 7 weeks. Overall, 292 obese (body mass index >/=30 kg/m(2)) and 197 MetS subjects had baseline msSBP ranging from 167.0 to 167.5 mm Hg. Least-square mean reductions from baseline to 8 weeks in msSBP, the primary efficacy variable, were significantly higher with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine in both obese (-33.7 mm Hg vs. -27.9 mm Hg; P < .001) and MetS subjects (-36.4 mm Hg vs. -28.5 mm Hg; P < .001). Both treatments were well tolerated. Aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg is more effective than amlodipine 10 mg in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension and obesity or MetS

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P<.001). Ambulatory and central BP measures were consistent with clinic BP findings, although these were conducted in a small subset of patients (n = 94 in ambulatory BP monitoring substudy and n = 136 for central BP). More patients achieved goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine at week 8 (57.3% vs 48.0%; P = .051). Both treatment groups had similar adverse event rates (35.0% and 32.7%, respectively). The most common adverse events were peripheral edema (7.7% with aliskiren/amlodipine and 9.0% with amlodipine), headache, fatigue, and nausea. The combination of aliskiren/amlodipine reduced peripheral, ambulatory, and central BP more than amlodipine alone with similar tolerability in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension.

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but control of hypertension remains inadequate, often because of poor patient adherence to prescribed medical regimens that are viewed as poorly tolerated and expensive. Physicians have largely stopped using some older blood pressure medications in favor of newer agents, mostly because of a presumed more favorable side effect profile. The investigators reviewed the pharmacologic properties and the evidence supporting the effectiveness and tolerability of several older blood pressure drugs: sympatholytic agents such as reserpine, methyldopa, and clonidine; diuretics such as chlorthalidone, ethacrynic acid and spironolactone; the vasodilators hydralazine and minoxidil; and others. In conclusion, some of these drugs are well studied and represent alternatives for patients who cannot afford or tolerate newer medications

Nonadherence and poor or no persistence with taking antihypertensive medications results in uncontrolled high blood pressure, poor clinical outcomes and preventable health care costs. Factors associated with nonadherence are multilevel and relate not only to the patient, but also to the provider, health care system, health care organization, and community. National guideline committees have called for more aggressive approaches to implement strategies known to improve adherence and technologies known to enable changes at the systems level including improved communication among providers and patients. Improvements in adherence and persistence are likely to be achieved by supporting patient self-management, a team approach to patient care, technology-supported office practice systems, better methods to measure adherence, and less clinical inertia. Integrating high blood pressure control into health care policies that emphasize and improve prevention and management of chronic illness remains a challenge. Four strategies are proposed: focusing on clinical outcomes; empowering informed, activated patients; developing prepared proactive practice teams; and advocating for health care policy reform. With hypertension remaining the most common reason for office visits, the time is now.

Purpose: Investigate the efficacy and safety of the single pill combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 10mg (T80/A10) vs. its respective monotherapy components in patients with severe hypertension. Methods: An eight-week, double-blind, parallel-group study, in 858 patients aged >=18 years with severe hypertension (i.e. SBP >=180 and

Introduction: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of the single-pill combination of telmisartan 80 mg/amlodipine 10mg (T80/A10) vs. its respective monotherapy components in patients with severe hypertension. Methods: An eight-week, double-blind, parallel-group study, in 858 patients aged >18 years with severe hypertension (i.e., SBP >180 and