Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study.

ABSTRACT: A majority of patients with hypertension fail to achieve blood pressure (BP) control despite treatment with commonly prescribed drugs. This randomized, double-blind phase III trial assessed the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (97/103 mg) to continued olmesartan 20 mg in reducing ambulatory systolic BP after 8-week treatment in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg alone. A total of 376 patients were randomized to receive either sacubitril/valsartan (n = 188) or olmesartan (n = 188). Superior reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP were observed in the sacubitril/valsartan group vs the olmesartan group (-4.3 mm Hg vs -1.1 mm Hg, P < .001). Reductions in 24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP and pulse pressure and office systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly greater with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan (P < .014). A greater proportion of patients achieved BP control with sacubitril/valsartan vs olmesartan. The overall incidence of adverse events was comparable between the groups. Compared with continued olmesartan, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective and generally safe in patients with hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg.

SUBMITTER: Cheung DG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8031201 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study.

Cheung Deanna G DG Aizenberg Diego D Gorbunov Vladimir V Hafeez Kudsia K Chen Chien-Wei CW Zhang Jack J

Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) 20180116 1

A majority of patients with hypertension fail to achieve blood pressure (BP) control despite treatment with commonly prescribed drugs. This randomized, double-blind phase III trial assessed the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg (97/103 mg) to continued olmesartan 20 mg in reducing ambulatory systolic BP after 8-week treatment in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension uncontrolled with olmesartan 20 mg alone. A total of 376 patients were randomized to receive either sacubi ...[more]

PMID: 29338113

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To determine whether the effectiveness and safety of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of amlodipine orotate/valsartan (AML/VAL) 5/160?mg are noninferior to those of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (VAL/HCTZ) 160/12.5?mg in hypertensive patients with inadequate response to valsartan 160?mg monotherapy. METHODS:This 8-week, active-controlled, parallel-group, fixed-dose, multicenter, double-blind randomized controlled, and noninferiority trial was conducted at 17 cardiovascular centers in the Republic of Korea. Eligible patients had mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ?90?mm?Hg despite monotherapy with valsartan 160?mg for 4 weeks. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with AML/VAL 5/160?mg FDC (AML/VAL) group or VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5?mg FDC (VAL/HCTZ) group once daily for 8 weeks. A total of 238 patients were enrolled (AML/VAL group, n?=?121; VAL/HCTZ group, n?=?117), of whom 228 completed the study. RESULTS:At 8 weeks after randomization, msDBP was significantly decreased in both groups (-9.44?±?0.69?mm?Hg in the AML/VAL group and -7.47?±?0.71?mm?Hg in the VAL/HCTZ group, both P?<?.001 vs baseline). Between group difference was -1.96?±?1.00?mm?Hg, indicating that AML/VAL 5/160?mg FDC was not inferior to VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5?mg FDC at primary efficacy endpoint. Control rate of BP defined as the percentage of patients achieving mean sitting SBP (msSBP) <140?mm?Hg or msDBP <90?mm?Hg (target BP) from baseline to week 8 was significantly higher in the AML/VAL group than that in the VAL/HCTZ group (84.3% [n?=?102] in the AML/VAL group vs 71.3% [n?=?82] in the VAL/HCTZ group, P?=?.016). At 8 weeks after randomization, mean uric acid level was significantly increased in the VAL/HCTZ group compared to that at baseline (0.64?±?0.08?mg/dL; P?<?.001). However, it was slightly decreased from baseline in the AML/VAL group (-0.12?±?0.08?mg/dL; P?=?.085). The intergroup difference was significant (P?<?.001). CONCLUSION:The effectiveness and safety AML/VAL 5/160?mg FDC are noninferior to those of VAL/HCTZ 160/12.5?mg FDC in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by valsartan 160?mg monotherapy.

Project description:This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy of Allisartan Isoproxil 240 mg and Amlodipine 5 mg (ALI/AML) compared to AML 5 mg monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. In this phase III, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, patients aged 18-70 years with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) between 140 and <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) between 90 and <110 mmHg, following a 4-week treatment with AML 5 mg, were randomized 1:1 to receive either ALI/AML or AML once daily for 12 weeks. This 12-week double-blind period was followed by an open-label extension of ALI/AML treatment through week 52. A total of 300 patients were enrolled, with 149 and 151 patients randomly assigned to ALI/AML and AML groups, respectively. Of these, 257 patients completed the study. Baseline demographics and characteristics were comparable between groups. After 12 weeks, the reduction in msSBP (the primary endpoint) was significantly greater in the ALI/AML group compared to the AML group (-15.7 vs. -10.2 mmHg, p = 0.0019). Similarly, reductions in msDBP (-5.7 vs. -2.4 mmHg, p < 0.001) and 24-h mean ambulatory SBP and DBP (-10.4 and -7.7 mmHg vs. -5.6 and -3.8 mmHg) were more pronounced in the ALI/AML group. Additionally, a higher proportion of patients achieved both a BP response and target office BP in the ALI/AML group compared to the AML group (51.4% vs. 37.4%, 42.5% vs. 30.6%, both p < 0.05). The ALI/AML combination was generally well tolerated, and the antihypertensive effect was maintained for up to 52 weeks. In patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled by AML, the ALI/AML combination provided superior reductions in msSBP and was significantly more effective than AML monotherapy. This once-daily single-pill combination demonstrated promising efficacy and tolerability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06465264.

Project description:The pill burden of patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia can result in poor medication compliance. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with olmesartan medoxomil (40 mg) and rosuvastatin (20 mg) in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension and dyslipidemia. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design study included patients aged ≥20 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension and dyslipidemia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FDC therapy (40 mg olmesartan medoxomil, 20 mg rosuvastatin), 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil, 20 mg rosuvastatin, or a placebo. The percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was compared between FDC therapy and olmesartan medoxomil, and the change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure was compared between FDC therapy and rosuvastatin 8 weeks after treatment. A total of 162 patients were included. The least square mean percentage change (standard error) from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 8 weeks after treatment was significantly greater in the FDC than in the olmesartan medoxomil group (-52.3% [2.8%] vs -0.6% [3.5%], P<0.0001), and the difference was -51.7% (4.1%) (95% confidence interval: -59.8% to -43.6%). The least square mean change (standard error) from baseline in diastolic blood pressure 8 weeks after treatment was significantly greater in the FDC group than in the rosuvastatin group (-10.4 [1.2] mmHg vs 0.1 [1.6] mmHg, P<0.0001), and the difference was -10.5 (1.8) mmHg (95% confidence interval: -14.1 to -6.9 mmHg). There were 50 adverse events in 41 patients (22.7%) and eight adverse drug reactions in five patients (2.8%). The study found that FDC therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and rosuvastatin is an effective, safe treatment for patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. This combination may improve medication compliance in patients with a large pill burden.

Project description:BackgroundAzilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has a well-characterized efficacy and safety profile in patients with hypertension. AZL-M is approved for use in over 40 countries globally; however, it is not yet approved in China. Therefore, a phase 3 registration study to assess the efficacy (antihypertensive effect), safety, and tolerability of AZL-M compared with valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension was undertaken.MethodsThis multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 8-week phase 3 study compared AZL-M with valsartan in Chinese patients aged ≥18 years with essential hypertension. Endpoints included change from baseline to week 8 in trough sitting clinic systolic blood pressure (scSBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring parameters.ResultsOverall, 612 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; 57.5% male) were randomized to AZL-M 80 mg (n = 209), AZL-M 40 mg (n = 199), or valsartan 160 mg (n = 204). Baseline mean scSBP was similar in all groups (157.9-158.5 mm Hg). The mean reduction in trough scSBP from baseline to week 8 was significantly greater with AZL-M 80 mg than with valsartan (-24.2 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .010), and noninferior with AZL-M 40 mg versus valsartan (-22.5 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .184). Mean reduction in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (n = 257) was significantly greater with both AZL-M 80 mg (-17.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and AZL-M 40 mg (-14.7 mm Hg; P = .014) than with valsartan (-9.4 mm Hg). Treatment-emergent adverse events had similar incidence (52.8%-56.5%) across the treatment groups and were generally mild or moderate. Dizziness was the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (AZL-M 80 mg, 1.9%; AZL-M 40 mg, 1.5%; valsartan, 1.0%). The safety and tolerability of AZL-M were comparable with valsartan.ConclusionsAZL-M was noninferior to valsartan at the 40-mg dose and superior to valsartan at the 80-mg dose in reducing trough scSBP, and showed acceptable safety-consistent with the AZL-M safety profile in other populations-in Chinese adults with hypertension.Trial registration numberNCT02480764.

Project description:AimsTo assess the tolerability of initiating/uptitrating sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) from 50 to 200 mg twice daily (target dose) over 3 and 6 weeks in heart failure (HF) patients (ejection fraction ≤35%).Methods and resultsA 5-day open-label run-in (sacubitril/valsartan 50 mg twice daily) preceded an 11-week, double-blind, randomization period [100 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by 200 mg twice daily ('condensed' regimen) vs. 50 mg twice daily for 2 weeks, 100 mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 200 mg twice daily ('conservative' regimen)]. Patients were stratified by pre-study dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; low-dose stratum included ACEI/ARB-naïve patients). Of 540 patients entering run-in, 498 (92%) were randomized and 429 (86.1% of randomized) completed the study. Pre-defined tolerability criteria were hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalaemia; and adjudicated angioedema, which occurred in ('condensed' vs. 'conservative') 9.7% vs. 8.4% (P = 0.570), 7.3% vs. 7.6% (P = 0.990), 7.7% vs. 4.4% (P = 0.114), and 0.0% vs. 0.8% of patients, respectively. Corresponding proportions for pre-defined systolic blood pressure <95 mmHg, serum potassium >5.5 mmol/L, and serum creatinine >3.0 mg/dL were 8.9% vs. 5.2% (P = 0.102), 7.3% vs. 4.0% (P = 0.097), and 0.4% vs. 0%, respectively. In total, 378 (76%) patients achieved and maintained sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice daily without dose interruption/down-titration over 12 weeks (77.8% vs. 84.3% for 'condensed' vs. 'conservative'; P = 0.078). Rates by ACEI/ARB pre-study dose stratification were 82.6% vs. 83.8% (P = 0.783) for high-dose/'condensed' vs. high-dose/'conservative' and 84.9% vs. 73.6% (P = 0.030) for low-dose/'conservative' vs. low-dose/'condensed'.ConclusionsInitiation/uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan from 50 to 200 mg twice daily over 3 or 6 weeks had a tolerability profile in line with other HF treatments. More gradual initiation/uptitration maximized attainment of target dose in the low-dose ACEI/ARB group.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled by olmesartan: A randomized, double-blind, 8-week study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets