Explore the vast range of titles available.

The apparent shortfall in prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) noted in early hypertension trials has been attributed to disadvantages of the diuretics and β blockers used. For a given reduction in blood pressure, some suggested that newer agents would confer advantages over diuretics and β blockers. Our aim, therefore, was to compare the effect on non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD of combinations of atenolol with a thiazide versus amlodipine with perindopril. We did a multicentre, prospective, randomised controlled trial in 19 257 patients with hypertension who were aged 40–79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were assigned either amlodipine 5–10 mg adding perindopril 4–8 mg as required (amlodipine-based regimen; n=9639) or atenolol 50–100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1·25–2·5 mg and potassium as required (atenolol-based regimen; n=9618). Our primary endpoint was non-fatal myocardial infarction (including silent myocardial infaction) and fatal CHD. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely after 5·5 years' median follow-up and accumulated in total 106 153 patient-years of observation. Though not significant, compared with the atenolol-based regimen, fewer individuals on the amlodipine-based regimen had a primary endpoint (429 vs 474; unadjusted HR 0·90, 95% CI 0·79–1·02, p=0·1052), fatal and non-fatal stroke (327 vs 422; 0·77, 0·66–0·89, p=0·0003), total cardiovascular events and procedures (1362 vs 1602; 0·84, 0·78–0·90, p<0·0001), and all-cause mortality (738 vs 820; 0·89, 0·81–0·99, p=0·025). The incidence of developing diabetes was less on the amlodipine-based regimen (567 vs 799; 0·70, 0·63–0·78, p<0·0001). The amlodipine-based regimen prevented more major cardiovascular events and induced less diabetes than the atenolol-based regimen. On the basis of previous trial evidence, these effects might not be entirely explained by better control of blood pressure, and this issue is addressed in the accompanying article. Nevertheless, the results have implications with respect to optimum combinations of antihypertensive agents.

Sacubitril/valsartan, an angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor, has demonstrated a superior blood pressure‐lowering effect compared with renin‐angiotensin system inhibitors in several clinical trials. However, there has been no available evidence on the comparison between sacubitril/valsartan and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a well‐established class of antihypertensive drugs. In this open‐label, multicenter study, we aimed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus amlodipine, one of the most widely used CCBs, after 8 weeks of treatment. A total of 359 Japanese patients with essential hypertension (office systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥ 150 to < 180 mmHg), aged 18–79, were randomly assigned to receive either once‐daily sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or once‐daily amlodipine 5 mg in a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint was the noninferiority of sacubitril/valsartan compared with amlodipine in mean change in 24‐h SBP from baseline to Week 8, followed by a significance test as a secondary endpoint analysis. The mean change in 24‐h SBP in sacubitril/valsartan was noninferior to that in amlodipine (between‐treatment difference −0.62 mmHg [95% confidential interval: −3.23 to 1.98; p = 0.003 for noninferiority; independent t‐test with noninferiority margin 3.0 mmHg]), with no significant difference observed (p = 0.637). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events (AEs). These results suggested that the blood pressure‐lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan is comparable to that of amlodipine, with no marked differences in tolerability between the two groups. Sacubitril/valsartan, a potent antihypertensive drug comparable to amlodipine, is expected to improve blood pressure control in clinical practice.

The relative effectiveness of two-drug combinations for blood-pressure control in black African patients is unknown. In this three-group randomized trial, amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril was more effective than perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in lowering blood pressure.

Globally, most patients with hypertension are treated with monotherapy, and control rates are poor because monotherapy only reduces blood pressure by around 9/5 mm Hg on average. There is a pressing need for blood pressure-control strategies with improved efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to assess whether ultra-low-dose combination therapy could meet these needs. We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial of a quadpill—a single capsule containing four blood pressure-lowering drugs each at quarter-dose (irbesartan 37·5 mg, amlodipine 1·25 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 6·25 mg, and atenolol 12·5 mg). Participants with untreated hypertension were enrolled from four centres in the community of western Sydney, NSW, Australia, mainly by general practitioners. Participants were randomly allocated by computer to either the quadpill or matching placebo for 4 weeks; this treatment was followed by a 2-week washout, then the other study treatment was administered for 4 weeks. Study staff and participants were unaware of treatment allocations, and masking was achieved by use of identical opaque capsules. The primary outcome was placebo-corrected 24-h systolic ambulatory blood pressure reduction after 4 weeks and analysis was by intention to treat. We also did a systematic review of trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of quarter-standard-dose blood pressure-lowering therapy against placebo. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614001057673. The trial ended after 1 year and this report presents the final analysis. Between November, 2014, and December, 2015, 55 patients were screened for our randomised trial, of whom 21 underwent randomisation. Mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 11) and mean baseline office and 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were 154 (14)/90 (11) mm Hg and 140 (9)/87 (8) mm Hg, respectively. One individual declined participation after randomisation and two patients dropped out for administrative reasons. The placebo-corrected reduction in systolic 24-h blood pressure with the quadpill was 19 mm Hg (95% CI 14–23), and office blood pressure was reduced by 22/13 mm Hg (p<0·0001). During quadpill treatment, 18 (100%) of 18 participants achieved office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, compared with six (33%) of 18 during placebo treatment (p=0·0013). There were no serious adverse events and all patients reported that the quadpill was easy to swallow. Our systematic review identified 36 trials (n=4721 participants) of one drug at quarter-dose and six trials (n=312) of two drugs at quarter-dose, against placebo. The pooled placebo-corrected blood pressure-lowering effects were 5/2 mm Hg and 7/5 mm Hg, respectively (both p<0·0001), and there were no side-effects from either regimen. The findings of our small trial in the context of previous randomised evidence suggest that the benefits of quarter-dose therapy could be additive across classes and might confer a clinically important reduction in blood pressure. Further examination of the quadpill concept is needed to investigate effectiveness against usual treatment options and longer term tolerability. National Heart Foundation, Australia; University of Sydney; and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Single-pill combinations (SPCs) of three low-dose antihypertensive drugs can improve hypertension control but are not widely available. A key issue for any combination product is the contribution of each component to efficacy and tolerability. This trial compared a new triple SPC called GMRx2, containing telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide, with dual combinations of components for efficacy and safety. In this international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial, we enrolled adults with hypertension receiving between zero and three antihypertensive drugs, with a screening systolic blood pressure (SBP) ranging from 140–179 mm Hg (on no drugs) to 110–150 mm Hg (on three drugs). Participants were recruited from Australia, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Poland, Sri Lanka, the UK, and the USA. In a 4-week active run-in, existing medications were switched to GMRx2 half dose (telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2·5 mg, and indapamide 1·25 mg). Participants were then randomly allocated (2:1:1:1) to continued GMRx2 half dose or to each possible dual combination of components at half doses (telmisartan 20 mg with amlodipine 2·5 mg, telmisartan 20 mg with indapamide 1·25 mg, or amlodipine 2·5 mg with indapamide 1·25 mg). At week 6, doses were doubled in all groups, unless there was a clinical contraindication. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in home SBP from baseline to week 12, and the primary safety outcome was withdrawal of treatment due to an adverse event from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy outcomes included differences in clinic and home blood pressure levels and control rates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04518293, and is completed. The trial was conducted between July 9, 2021 and Sept 1, 2023. We randomly allocated 1385 participants to four groups: 551 to GMRx2, 276 to telmisartan–indapamide, 282 to telmisartan–amlodipine, and 276 to amlodipine–indapamide groups. The mean age was 59 years (SD 11), 712 (51%) participants self-reported as female and 673 (48·6%) male, and the mean clinic blood pressure at the screening visit was 142/85 mm Hg when taking an average of 1·6 blood pressure medications. Following the run-in on GMRx2 half dose, the mean clinic blood pressure level at randomisation was 133/81 mm Hg and the mean home blood pressure level was 129/78 mm Hg. At week 12, the mean home SBP was 126 mm Hg in the GMRx2 group, which was lower than for each of the dual combinations: –2·5 (95% CI –3·7 to –1·3, p<0·0001) versus telmisartan–indapamide, –5·4 (–6·8 to –4·1, p<0·0001) versus telmisartan–amlodipine, and –4·4 (–5·8 to –3·1, p<0·0001) versus amlodipine–indapamide. For the same comparisons, differences in clinic blood pressure at week 12 were 4·3/3·5 mm Hg, 5·6/3·7 mm Hg, and 6·3/4·5 mm Hg (all p<0·001). Clinic blood pressure control rate below 140/90 mm Hg at week 12 was superior with GMRx2 (74%) to with each dual combination (range 53–61%). Withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events occurred in 11 (2%) participants in the GMRx2 group, four (1%) in telmisartan–indapamide, three (1%) in telmisartan–amlodipine, and four (1%) in amlodipine–indapamide, with none of the differences being statistically significant. A novel low-dose SPC product of telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide provided clinically meaningful improvements in blood pressure reduction compared with dual combinations and was well tolerated. This SPC provides a new therapeutic option for the management of hypertension and its use could result in a substantial improvement in blood pressure control in clinical practice. George Medicines.

Hypertension is the leading cause of death worldwide, affecting 1.4 billion people. Treatment options include the widely used calcium channel blockers, among which amlodipine, a dihydropyridine, has unique characteristics that distinguish it from other drugs within this class. This review aims to provide an updated overview of the evidence supporting the use of amlodipine over the past 30 years and highlights its cardiovascular benefits in current hypertension management. Amlodipine has low renal clearance (7 mL/min/mg) and long half‐life (35–50 h) and duration of action, which allows it to sustain its anti‐hypertensive effect for more than 24 h following a single dose. Additionally, blood pressure (BP) control is maintained even when a dose has been missed, providing continuous protection in case of incidental noncompliance. It has proven to reduce BP variability and successfully lower BP. Amlodipine also controls BP in patients with a systolic/diastolic BP of 130/80 mm Hg or higher, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease without worsening glycemic or kidney function. Additionally, amlodipine is a wise choice for older adults due to its ability to control BP and protect against stroke and myocardial infarction. Side effects of amlodipine include edema, palpitations, dizziness, and flushing, which are more common with the higher dose of 10 mg. Amlodipine is cost effective and predicted to be cost saving when compared with usual care.

•Ezetimibe (Eze)/atorvastatin (Ato) + amlodipine (Aml) is effective in lowering blood pressure and cholesterol over individual therapies.•Ezetimibe/Ato + Aml combination has a comparable safety profile to the Eze/Ato and Aml therapies.•The future development of Eze/Ato + Aml fixed-dose combination could enhance treatment adherence by lowering pill burden. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple combination of ezetimibe (Eze)/atorvastatin (Ato) 10/40 mg + amlodipine (Aml) 10 mg therapy for lowering the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and blood pressure compared with either Eze/Ato 10/40 mg or Aml 10 mg therapies in patients with comorbid primary hypercholesterolemia and essential hypertension. This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, Phase III clinical trial. Participants underwent a wash-out period (2 weeks for nonfibrate medications, 6 weeks for fibrates) followed by 4 weeks of therapeutic lifestyle changes. Subsequently, 109 participants were randomly assigned to 3 groups: (1) Eze/Ato 10/40 mg + Aml 10 mg, (2) Eze/Ato 10/40 mg, and (3) Aml 10 mg. The coprimary end points were percentage change in LDL-C and change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with baseline at week 8. A total of 109 participants were enrolled in the study, and there were no statistically significant differences in the baseline characteristics of participants across the 3 groups. After 8 weeks of treatment, the least-square (LS) mean (SE) of percent change from baseline in LDL-C was −57.95% (3.52%) for the Eze/Ato 10/40 mg + Aml 10 mg group and 8.93% (3.54%) for the Aml 10 mg group. The LS mean difference (SE) between these 2 groups was statistically significant at −66.88 (4.95) (95% CI, −76.77% to −56.99%) (P < 0.0001). Furthermore, at week 8, the LS mean (SE) change in mean sitting SBP between the Eze/Ato 10/40 mg + Aml 10 mg group and the Eze/Ato 10/40 mg group was −19.24 (2.42) mm Hg and −4.43 (2.56) mm Hg, respectively. The LS mean difference (SE) between the 2 groups was statistically significant −14.81 (3.53) (95% CI, −21.87 to −7.74) mm Hg (P < 0.0001). No serious adverse drug reactions occurred in any of the study groups. Triple combination therapy with Eze/Ato + Aml has effectively reduced the LDL-C and SBP independently, compared with either Eze/Ato or Aml therapies over 8 weeks of treatment period. In terms of safety, there were no significant differences among the 3 treatment groups. This research lays the groundwork for the development of a triple fixed-dose combination in the future, which could improve patient convenience and adherence by reducing pill burden. Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea: KCT0006283.

The optimal combination drug therapy for treatment of hypertension is not established, although current U.S. guidelines recommend inclusion of a diuretic. This double-blind trial, in which high-risk patients with hypertension were randomly assigned to treatment with benazepril plus either amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, showed that benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular events in this population. This double-blind trial showed that benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with hypertension. There is incomplete evidence that the cardiovascular benefits of specific classes of antihypertensive drugs extend beyond lowering blood pressure. 1 A review of clinical trials involving patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events showed that treatment with multiple antihypertensive medications was often necessary to attain blood-pressure goals recommended by guidelines. 2 , 3 In previous trials designed to test single agents, other drugs were often added for blood-pressure control, thus confounding the interpretation of the effects of the initial drug on the study end points. Initial therapy for hypertension with a combination of drugs is recommended by both the . . .

Effective antihypertensive therapy is essential for achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control and reducing cardiovascular events. This double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial aimed to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of a combination of amlodipine (AML) and candesartan cilexetil (CC) versus AML monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension (HTN). After a 4-week run-in period with AML 5 mg, patients whose HTN remained uncontrolled (diastolic BP [DBP]) ≥ 90 mmHg and < 120 mmHg) were randomized to receive either AML + CC or AML alone for 8 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by measuring changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP). The primary safety measure was the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A total of 174 participants were included in the efficacy analysis. After 8 weeks, DBP decreased by -9.92 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML + CC arm and - 2.08 ± 0.86 mmHg in the AML arm ( p  < 0.0001). SBP decreased by -14.27 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML + CC arm versus - 2.77 ± 1.39 mmHg in the AML arm ( p  < 0.0001). AEs occurred in 11.24% of the AML + CC group and 5.62% of the AML group ( p  = 0.1773). AML + CC combination therapy demonstrated superior efficacy with good tolerance, making it a promising option for patients with inadequately controlled hypertension on amlodipine alone.

The Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed that initial antihypertensive therapy with benazepril plus amlodipine was superior to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We assessed the effects of these drug combinations on progression of chronic kidney disease. ACCOMPLISH was a double-blind, randomised trial undertaken in five countries (USA, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland). 11 506 patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events were randomly assigned via a central, telephone-based interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive benazepril (20 mg) plus amlodipine (5 mg; n=5744) or benazepril (20 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12·5 mg; n=5762), orally once daily. Drug doses were force-titrated for patients to attain recommended blood pressure goals. Progression of chronic kidney disease, a prespecified endpoint, was defined as doubling of serum creatinine concentration or end-stage renal disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1·73 m 2 or need for dialysis). Analysis was by intention to treat (ITT). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. The trial was terminated early (mean follow-up 2·9 years [SD 0·4]) because of superior efficacy of benazepril plus amlodipine compared with benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide. At trial completion, vital status was not known for 143 (1%) patients who were lost to follow-up (benazepril plus amlodipine, n=70; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, n=73). All randomised patients were included in the ITT analysis. There were 113 (2·0%) events of chronic kidney disease progression in the benazepril plus amlodipine group compared with 215 (3·7%) in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (HR 0·52, 0·41–0·65, p<0·0001). The most frequent adverse event in patients with chronic kidney disease was peripheral oedema (benazepril plus amlodipine, 189 of 561, 33·7%; benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide, 85 of 532, 16·0%). In patients with chronic kidney disease, angio-oedema was more frequent in the benazepril plus amlodipine group than in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group. In patients without chronic kidney disease, dizziness, hypokalaemia, and hypotension were more frequent in the benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide group than in the benazepril plus amlodipine group. Initial antihypertensive treatment with benazepril plus amlodipine should be considered in preference to benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide since it slows progression of nephropathy to a greater extent. Novartis.