Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a trial involving patients with recurrent kidney stones who received once-daily 12.5-mg, 25-mg, or 50-mg doses of hydrochlorothiazide or placebo, the incidence of stone recurrence was similar in all groups.

Patients 65 or older with hypertension who switched from hydrochlorothiazide to chlorthalidone did not have fewer major cardiovascular events or non–cancer-related deaths than those who continued receiving hydrochlorothiazide.

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.

In previous clinical trials in high-risk hypertensive patients, paradoxically higher cardiovascular event rates have been reported in patients of normal weight compared with obese individuals. As a prespecified analysis of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial, we aimed to investigate whether the type of hypertension treatment affects patients' cardiovascular outcomes according to their body size. On the basis of body-mass index (BMI), we divided the full ACCOMPLISH cohort into obese (BMI ≥30, n=5709), overweight (≥25 to <30, n=4157), or normal weight (<25, n=1616) categories. The ACCOMPLISH cohort had already been randomised to treatment with single-pill combinations of either benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril and amlodipine. We compared event rates (adjusted for age, sex, diabetes, previous cardiovascular events, stroke, or chronic kidney disease) for the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00170950. In patients allocated benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide, the primary endpoint (per 1000 patient-years) was 30·7 in normal weight, 21·9 in overweight, and 18·2 in obese patients (overall p=0·0034). However, in those allocated benazepril and amlodipine, the primary endpoint did not differ between the three BMI groups (18·2, 16·9, and 16·5, respectively; overall p=0·9721). In obese individuals, primary event rates were similar with both benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide and benazepril and amlodipine, but rates were significantly lower with benazepril and amlodipine in overweight patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·59–0·94; p=0·0369) and those of normal weight (0·57, 0·39–0·84; p=0·0037). Hypertension in normal weight and obese patients might be mediated by different mechanisms. Thiazide-based treatment gives less cardiovascular protection in normal weight than obese patients, but amlodipine-based therapy is equally effective across BMI subgroups and thus offers superior cardiovascular protection in non-obese hypertension. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

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.

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 . . .

This study assessed the bioequivalence and food effect of two fixed‐dose combination (FDC) formulations of telmisartan‐hydrochlorothiazide tablets (telmisartan 40 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg) in healthy Chinese subjects. Seventy‐two subjects were enrolled and divided into fasted and fed cohorts in a single‐center, randomized, open‐label, single‐dose, three‐period, three‐sequence, and crossover study. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide, including Cmax and AUC, were compared after subjects received single oral doses of telmisartan‐hydrochlorothiazide tablets using a validated LC–MS/MS method. Safety and tolerability of treatments were monitored. Pharmacokinetic profiles of two FDC telmisartan‐hydrochlorothiazide tablets were comparable after single‐dose administration. 90% CI of geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of AUC0‐t, AUC0‐∞, and Cmax of telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide of two FDC formulations fell within the predefined bioequivalence range of 80.0%–125.0% under both fasted and fed conditions. Administration with food had significant effects on telmisartan pharmacokinetic parameters but a slight impact on hydrochlorothiazide. Notably, Cmax and AUC of telmisartan were significantly decreased by 39.6%–43.7% in the fed versus fasted conditions. Safety assessments revealed all treatments were safe and well tolerated. Two telmisartan‐hydrochlorothiazide FDC formulations were bioequivalent in healthy Chinese subjects in both fasted and fed states. All treatments were well tolerated.

Background: Patients with hypertension may require a combination of ≥2 antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) control. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether a triple combination of olmesartan medoxomil (OM), amlodipine besylate (AML), and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) had a clinically significant benefit compared with dual combinations of the individual components in patients with moderate to severe hypertension. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, parallel-group study in which triple combination treatment with OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg was compared with dual combinations of the individual components—OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg in fixed-dose combination, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg in fixed-dose combination, and AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg—in patients aged ≥18 years who had a mean seated BP ≥140/100 mm Hg or ≥160/90 mm Hg. The study consisted of a 3-week washout period with no study medication and a 12-week double-blind treatment period. In the first 2 weeks of the double-blind treatment period, all patients were randomized to receive dual combination treatment or placebo. All patients assigned to a dual combination treatment group continued the assigned treatment until week 4, and all patients assigned to placebo were switched at week 2 to receive 1 of the dual combination treatments until week 4. At week 4, patients either continued dual combination treatment or switched to triple combination treatment until week 12. The primary end point was the change in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) from baseline to week 12; SeDBP reduction of ≥2 mm Hg was considered a clinically significant benefit. Secondary efficacy end points included the change in seated systolic BP (SeSBP) at week 12 and the percentages of patients achieving BP targets of <140/90 mm Hg, <120/80 mm Hg, SeSBP <140 mm Hg, and SeDBP <90 mm Hg at week 12. The tolerability of the treatments was also evaluated based on adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory evaluations (chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), physical examinations, and 12-lead ECGs. Results: The 2492 randomized patients (52.9% male, 66.8% white, 30.4% black) had a mean (SD) age of 55.1 (10.9) years and a mean weight of 96.0 (22.9) kg. Diabetes was present in 15.5% of the population, chronic cardiovascular disease in 9.1%, and chronic kidney disease in 4.1%. At baseline, the mean SeBP was 168.5/100.9 mm Hg. At week 12, triple combination treatment was associated with significantly greater least squares mean reductions in SeBP compared with the dual combinations (SeDBP: −21.8 vs −15.1 to −18.0 mm Hg, respectively [ P < 0.001]; SeSBP: −37.1 vs −27.5 to −30.0 mm Hg [ P < 0.001]). A significantly higher proportion of patients receiving triple combination treatment reached BP targets compared with the dual combinations at week 12 ( P < 0.001). The proportions of patients reaching the BP target of <140/90 mm Hg at week 12 was 69.9% in the triple combination treatment group and 52.9%, 53.4%, and 41.1% in the treatment groups receiving OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, and AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg, respectively ( P < 0.001, triple combination vs each dual combination). The incidence of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) was 58.4% for triple combination treatment and 51.7% to 58.9% for the dual combinations; most TEAEs were mild or moderate in severity. The most common TEAEs in the triple combination treatment group were dizziness (9.9%), peripheral edema (7.7%), and headache (6.4%). In total, 52 patients (2.3%) discontinued the study due to TEAEs—6 (1.0%) in the OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg group, 12 (2.1%) in the OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg group, 11 (2.0%) in the AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg group, and 23 (4.0%) in the OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg group. Thirty-two patients (1.4%)–4 (0.7%), 5 (0.9%), 5 (0.9%), and 18 (3.1%) in the respective treatment groups—discontinued the study due to drug-related TEAEs. Conclusions: In these adult patients with moderate to severe hypertension, triple combination treatment with OM 40 mg + AML 10 mg + HCTZ 25 mg was associated with significant BP reductions compared with dual combinations of the individual components. All treatments were generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00649389.

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.