Search

Background Fixed-dose combinations of antihypertensive agents demonstrate advantages in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and treatment adherence. Objective This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 ramipril and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed-dose combinations in patients with hypertension stage 1 or 2. Patients' blood pressure (BP) profiles were evaluated by using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Methods This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority trial of adult patients (age ≥18 years) with hypertension stage 1 or 2 and systolic blood pressure (SBP) within 140 to 179 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90 to 109 mm Hg. After a 2-week washout period, eligible patients were randomized to receive 1 of 2 ramipril/HCTZ fixed-dose combination formulations (5/25 mg/d) for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the difference in 24-hour ABPM SBP/DBP mean reductions between groups after 8 weeks of treatment. The secondary end points were the changes in daytime and nighttime ABPM and in office BP. Safety profile and tolerability assessments included monitoring of adverse events. Results A total of 102 patients with hypertension (54 in group A [test formulation] and 48 in group B [reference formulation]), aged 27 to 85 years, completed the 8-week treatment period. The decreases in SBP and DBP according to 24-hour ABPM from baseline to week 8 were significant and similar in both groups. SBP decreased from 149.1 to 133.0 mm Hg (−16.1 mm Hg) in group A and from 146.2 to 130.6 mm Hg in group B (−15.6 mm Hg) ( P = 0.8537); DBP was reduced by 8.8 mm Hg in group A and by 8.5 mm Hg in group B ( P = 0.8748). Because the lower 95% CI limit for the difference between groups A and B of 3.96 mm Hg in SBP and 3.54 mm Hg in DBP was lower than that preestablished by the trial protocol (4 mm Hg), noninferiority of the test formulation was demonstrated compared with the reference formulation. For the secondary end points, there was no significant difference between groups in SBP and DBP during daytime or nighttime at the end of week 8. Office BP was significantly reduced in both treatment groups, with no significant differences between groups. The incidence of adverse events was 23.7% in group A and 21.7% in group B. Conclusions Both treatment options were well tolerated and equally reduced BP. The results support the conclusion that group A (new fixed-dose combination of ramipril/HCTZ) was noninferior to group B (reference medication in Brazil). ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN05051235.

Background : A combination of antihypertensive agents of different drug classes in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) may offer advantages in terms of efficacy, tolerability, and treatment compliance. Combination of a calcium channel blocker with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor may act synergistically to reduce blood pressure (BP). Objective : The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of an amlodipine/ramipril FDC with those of amlodipine monotherapy. Methods : This 18-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted at 8 centers across Brazil. Patients with stage 1 or 2 essential hypertension were enrolled. After a 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients received amlodipine/ramipril 2.5/2.5 mg or amlodipine 2.5 mg, after which the doses were titrated, based on BP, to 5/5 then 10/10 mg (amlodipine/ramipril) and 5 then 10 mg (amlodipine). The primary end point was BP measured in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Hematology and serum biochemistry were assessed at baseline and study end. Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, laboratory analysis, and physical examination, including measurement of ankle circumference to assess peripheral edema. Results : A total of 222 patients completed the study (age range, 40-79 years; FDC group, 117 patients [mean dose, 7.60/7.60 mg]; monotherapy, 105 patients [mean dose, 7.97 mg]). The mean (SD) changes in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), as measured using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and in the physician's office, were significantly greater with combination therapy than monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP (ABPM, −20.76 [1.25] vs −15.80 [1.18] mm Hg and −11.71 [0.78] vs −8.61 [0.74] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.004]; office, −27.51 [1.40] vs −22.84 [1.33] mm Hg [ P = 0.012] and −16.41 [0.79] vs −14.64 [0.75] mm Hg [ P = NS], respectively). In the ITT analysis, the mean changes in ambulatory, but not office-based, BP were statistically significant (ABPM: SBP, −20.21 [1.14] vs −15.31 [1.12] mm Hg and DBP, −11.61 [0.72] vs −8.42 [0.70] mm Hg, respectively [both, P = 0.002]; office: SBP, −26.60 [1.34] vs −22.97 [1.30] mm Hg and DBP, −16.48 [0.78] vs −14.48 [0.75] mm Hg [both, P = NS]). Twenty-nine patients (22.1%) treated with combination therapy and 41 patients (30.6%) treated with monotherapy experienced ≥1 adverse event considered possibly related to study drug. The combination-therapy group had lower prevalence of edema (7.6% vs 18.7%; P = 0.011) and a similar prevalence of dry cough (3.8% vs 0.8%; P = NS). No clinically significant changes in laboratory values were found in either group. Conclusions : In this population of patients with essential hypertension, the amlodipine/ramipril FDC was associated with significantly reduced ambulatory and office-measured BP compared with amlodipine monotherapy, with the exception of office DBP. Both treatments were well tolerated.