Dataset Information

Treating systolic hypertension in the very elderly with valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide vs. either monotherapy: ValVET primary results.

ABSTRACT: This 16-week trial investigated the efficacy and safety of single-pill valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. the individual components in patients 70 years and older with systolic hypertension. Patients were randomized to valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg (n=128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n=128), or valsartan 160 mg (n=128) for 4 weeks. Patients whose blood pressure (BP) was ≥140/90 mm Hg at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were up-titrated to a maximum of valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Week 4 systolic BP reduction (primary efficacy outcome) was greater with valsartan/HCTZ than valsartan (-17.3 mm Hg vs. -8.6 mm Hg, P <.0001) but only marginally greater than HCTZ (-13.6 mm Hg, P =.096). Median time to BP control was shorter with valsartan/HCTZ (4 weeks) vs HCTZ (8 weeks, P<.05) or valsartan (12 weeks, P<.0001). Thiazide monotherapy was more effective than angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (by about 5 mm Hg), but greater antihypertensive efficacy was achieved by initiating treatment with combination valsartan/HCTZ in the elderly.

SUBMITTER: Izzo JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8108961 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treating systolic hypertension in the very elderly with valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide vs. either monotherapy: ValVET primary results.

Izzo Joseph L JL Weintraub Howard S HS Duprez Daniel A DA Purkayastha Das D Zappe Dion D Samuel Rita R Cushman William C WC

Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) 20110714 10

This 16-week trial investigated the efficacy and safety of single-pill valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs. the individual components in patients 70 years and older with systolic hypertension. Patients were randomized to valsartan/HCTZ 160/12.5 mg (n=128), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n=128), or valsartan 160 mg (n=128) for 4 weeks. Patients whose blood pressure (BP) was ≥140/90 mm Hg at weeks 4, 8, or 12 were up-titrated to a maximum of valsartan/HCTZ 320/25 mg. Week 4 systolic BP reduction (primary effic ...[more]

PMID: 21974759

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:ImportanceChlorthalidone is currently recommended as the preferred thiazide diuretic to treat hypertension, but no trials have directly compared risks and benefits.ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide as first-line therapies for hypertension in real-world practice.Design, setting, and participantsThis is a Large-Scale Evidence Generation and Evaluation in a Network of Databases (LEGEND) observational comparative cohort study with large-scale propensity score stratification and negative-control and synthetic positive-control calibration on databases spanning January 2001 through December 2018. Outpatient and inpatient care episodes of first-time users of antihypertensive monotherapy in the United States based on 2 administrative claims databases and 1 collection of electronic health records were analyzed. Analysis began June 2018.ExposuresChlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were acute myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, and a composite cardiovascular disease outcome including the first 3 outcomes and sudden cardiac death. Fifty-one safety outcomes were measured.ResultsOf 730 225 individuals (mean [SD] age, 51.5 [13.3] years; 450 100 women [61.6%]), 36 918 were dispensed or prescribed chlorthalidone and had 149 composite outcome events, and 693 337 were dispensed or prescribed hydrochlorothiazide and had 3089 composite outcome events. No significant difference was found in the associated risk of myocardial infarction, hospitalized heart failure, or stroke, with a calibrated hazard ratio for the composite cardiovascular outcome of 1.00 for chlorthalidone compared with hydrochlorothiazide (95% CI, 0.85-1.17). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly higher risk of hypokalemia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% CI, 2.38-3.12), hyponatremia (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47), acute renal failure (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.63), chronic kidney disease (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.12-1.30). Chlorthalidone was associated with a significantly lower risk of diagnosed abnormal weight gain (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.86).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that chlorthalidone use was not associated with significant cardiovascular benefits when compared with hydrochlorothiazide, while its use was associated with greater risk of renal and electrolyte abnormalities. These findings do not support current recommendations to prefer chlorthalidone vs hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension treatment in first-time users was found. We used advanced methods, sensitivity analyses, and diagnostics, but given the possibility of residual confounding and the limited length of observation periods, further study is warranted.

Dataset Information

Treating systolic hypertension in the very elderly with valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide vs. either monotherapy: ValVET primary results.

Publications

Treating systolic hypertension in the very elderly with valsartan-hydrochlorothiazide vs. either monotherapy: ValVET primary results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets