Search

In modern clinical practice, less than half of patients with new-onset heart failure (HF) undergo ischemic evaluation and only a minority undergo revascularization. We aimed to assess the proportion of the effect of hypertension (antihypertensive treatment) on incident HF to be eliminated by prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) event treated with or without revascularization, considering possible treatment-mediator interaction. The causal mediation analysis of Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) included 42,418 participants (age 66.9 ± 7.7, 35.6% black, 53.2% men). A new CHD event (myocardial infarction or angina) that occurred after randomization but before the incident HF outcome was the mediator. Incident symptomatic congestive HF (CHF) and hospitalized/fatal HF (HHF) were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Logistic regression (for mediator) and Cox proportional hazards regression (for outcome) were adjusted for demographics, cardiovascular disease history, and risk factors. During a median 4.5-year follow-up, 2,785 patients developed CHF, including 2,216 HHF events. Participants who developed CHD events had twice the higher incidence rate of CHF than CHD-free (28.5 vs 13.9 events/1,000 person-years). The proportion of reference interaction indicating direct harm because of a CHD event for lisinopril (234% for CHF, 355% for HHF) and amlodipine (244% for CHF, 468% for HHF) was greater than for chlortalidone (143% for CHF, 269% for HHF). In patients with revascularized CHD events, chlortalidone and amlodipine eliminated 21% to 24% and lisinopril eliminated -45% of HHF. Antihypertensive treatment could not eliminate harm from CHD events treated without revascularization. In conclusion, the antihypertensive drugs (chlortalidone, lisinopril, and amlodipine) prevent HF not principally by preventing CHD events but by way of other pathways. HF is moderated but not mediated by CHD events. Revascularization of CHD events is paramount for HF prevention., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: In a prospective open study, with intervention, conducted in Primary Health Care Units by General Practitioners (GPs) in Portugal, the effectiveness of a single pill of candesartan/amlodipine (ARB/amlodipine), as the only anti-hypertension (anti-HTN) medication, in adult patients with uncontrolled HTN (BP > 140/or > 90 mm Hg), either previously being treated with anti-HTN monotherapies (Group I), or combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (Group II), or not receiving medication at all (Group III), was evaluated across 12-weeks after implementation of the new therapeutic measure., Materials and Methods: A total of 118 GPs recruited patients with uncontrolled HTN who met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Participants were assigned, according to severity, one of 3 (morning) fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage (8/5 or 16/5 or 16/10 mg/day) and longitudinally evaluated in 3 visits (v0, v6 and v12 weeks). Office blood pressure was measured in each visit, and control of HTN was defined per guidelines (BP< 140/90 mmHg)., Results: Of the 1234 patients approached, 752 (age 61 ± 10 years, 52% women) participated in the study and were assigned to groups according to previous treatment conditions. The 3 groups exhibited a statistically significant increased control of blood pressure after receiving the fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine dosage. The overall proportion of controlled HTN participants increased from 0,8% at v0 to 82% at v12. The mean arterial blood pressure values decreased from SBP= 159.0 (± 13.0) and DBP= 91.1 (± 9.6) at baseline to SBP= 132,1 (± 11.3) and DBP= 77,5 (± 8.8) at 12 weeks ( p  < 0.01). Results remained consistent when controlling for age and sex., Conclusion: In patients with uncontrolled HTN, therapeutic measures in accordance with guidelines, with a fixed combination candesartan/amlodipine, allowed to overall achieve HTN control at 12 weeks in 82% of previously uncontrolled HTN patients, reinforcing the advantages of these strategies in primary clinical practice.

Objectives: The Action To promote brain HEalth iN Adults study aimed to determine the feasibility and applicability of recruitment using home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, routine blood biochemistry and videoconference measures of cognition, in adults at high risk of dementia., Design: A decentralised double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised feasibility trial with a four-stage screening process., Setting: Conducted with participants online in the state of New South Wales, Australia., Participants: Participants were aged 50-70 years with moderately elevated BP (systolic >120 and <160 mm Hg or diastolic >80 and <95 mm Hg) and ≥1 additional enrichment risk factor of monotherapy treatment of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, obesity, current smoking or a first degree relative with dementia, which indicated an elevated risk for future cognitive decline., Intervention: Triple Pill (active antihypertensive treatment of telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg and indapamide 1.25 mg) or placebo Triple Pill (blinded study capsules)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was feasibility of the study expressed as the percentage of participants randomised from those who were screened. Secondary outcomes were the applicability of videoconference measures of cognition and the overall trial, tolerability of the Triple Pill, safety outcomes and medication adherence., Results: The proportion (95% CI) of patients randomised to those screened was 5% (2%-10%). The applicability of the trial expressed as percentage of those who completed all remote assessments over the number of randomised participants was 67% (95% CI 05 to 22%). There were no serious adverse events or withdrawals from treatment. All participants adhered to study medication, except for one person who had two capsules left at the end of the study period., Conclusions: The feasibility of this decentralised trial on BP lowering in patients at high risk for dementia is low. However, the applicability of remote assessments of cognitive function is acceptable., Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000121864., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JC, RL, CSA report research grants from the NHMRC for the 'Triple therapy prevention of Recurrent Intracerebral Disease EveNts Trial' (TRIDENT) trial (APP1103886, APP1149987). CC is supported by the Australian Heart Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship (102741) and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant, Emerging Leadership 1 (APP2009726) and receives research support from Bayer. CMH is supported by the National Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. JC and AL are supported by the NHMRC Program Grant (APP9149987). MW is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant, (APP1174120), Program Grant (APP1149987) and reports consultancies for Amgen and Freeline. SLN is supported by an NHMRC Leadership Fellowship 2008064 and has received consulting fees from Roche, Nutrica and Eisai. CSA reports research grants from Penumbra and Takeda paid to his institution, and he is Editor-in-Chief of Cerebrovascular Diseases and Vice-President of the World Stroke Organisation., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Acute declines in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) occur commonly after starting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Whether declines in eGFR that occur after simultaneously starting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with other antihypertensive agents modifies the benefits of these agents on cardiovascular outcomes is unclear., Methods and Results: We identified predictors of acute declines in eGFR (>15% over 3 months) during randomization to benazepril plus amlodipine versus benazepril plus hydrochlorothiazide in the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial. We then determined the relation between declines in eGFR (treated as a binary variable, ≤15% versus >15% and separately, as a restricted spline variable) and the composite risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events using Cox proportional hazards models. We included 10 714 participants (median age 68 years [Q1 63, Q3 73]), of whom 1024 reached the trial end point over median follow-up of 2.8 years. Predictors of acute declines in eGFR>15% over 3 months included assignment to hydrochlorothiazide (versus amlodipine) and higher baseline albuminuria. Overall, declines in eGFR ≥15% (versus <15%) were associated with a 26% higher hazard of cardiovascular outcomes (95% CI, 1.07-1.48). In spline-based analysis, risk for cardiovascular outcomes was higher in the hydrochlorothiazide arm at every level of decline in eGFR compared with the same magnitude of eGFR decline in the amlodipine arm., Conclusion: Combined use of benazepril and amlodipine remains superior to benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide for cardiovascular outcomes, regardless of the magnitude of the decline in eGFR that occurred with initiation of therapy.

Objective: Several guidelines do not recommend beta-blocker as the first-line treatment for hypertension because of its inferior efficacy in stroke prevention. Combination therapy with beta-blocker is commonly used for blood pressure control. We compared the clinical outcomes in patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol (A + B), a ß1-selective beta-blocker and amlodipine plus valsartan (A + V)., Methods: A population-based cohort study was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 2012 to 2019, newly diagnosed adult hypertensive patients who received initial amlodipine monotherapy and then switched to A + V or A + B were included. The efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and coronary revascularization), hemorrhagic stroke, and heart failure. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between outcomes and different treatments., Results: Overall, 4311 patients in A + B group and 10980 patients in A + V group were included. After a mean follow-up of 4.34 ± 1.79 years, the efficacy outcomes were similar between the A + V and A + B groups regarding all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.18), ASCVD event (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.12), and heart failure (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87-1.30). The risk of hemorrhagic stroke was lower in A + B group (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94). The result was similar when taking death into consideration in competing risk analysis. The safety outcomes were similar between the 2 groups., Conclusions: There was no difference of all-cause death, ASCVD event, and heart failure in A + B vs. A + V users. But A + B users had a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Background: Systolic blood pressure (BP) is a key predictor of cardiovascular events, but patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are rarely included in hypertension trials. The VALUE trial (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation) investigated the long-term effects of valsartan- or amlodipine-based treatments on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension with a high cardiovascular risk. The aim of this subanalysis was to clarify the relationship between achieved BP on treatment and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension with PAD., Methods: Patients were followed for 4 to 6 years, and BP was measured regularly. The primary end point was time to the first major adverse cardiovascular event, including myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and heart failure requiring hospitalization. Statistical analyses were performed using Cox regression, adjusting for various baseline covariates., Results: Of the 13 803 participants, 1898 (13.8%) had PAD. During a median follow-up of 4.5 years, patients with PAD had a 23% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with patients without PAD. Patients with an achieved systolic BP <130 mm Hg and 130 to 139 mm Hg, compared with those with systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg, were associated with a decreased risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.43-0.97]; P =0.037; 0.85 [95% CI, 0.74-0.97]; P =0.016, respectively). Additionally, systolic BP <130 mm Hg was associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]; P =0.034). The incidence of the primary outcome did not differ between antihypertensive treatment regimens ( P =0.365)., Conclusions: Our results indicate that more intensive BP control is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertensive PAD., Competing Interests: Disclosures G. Mancia reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Medtronic, Menarini Group, Merck, Novartis, Recordati, Sandoz, Sanofi, and Servier outside the present work. S.E. Kjeldsen reports lecture honoraria from Emcure, Getz, JB Pharma, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Sanofi-Aventis, and Vector-Intas. M.A. Weber reports honoraria from Abbvie, Johnson & Johnson, Idorsia, Roche, Medtronic, ReCor, Ablative Solutions, Verve, and Omron. M. Vrsalovic reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Viatris, and Berlin Chemie Menarini. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and hypertension are common conditions that may be linked through sympathetic activation and water retention. We hypothesized that diuretics, which reduce the body water content, may be more effective than amlodipine, a blood pressure (BP)-lowering agent implicated with edema, in controlling OSA in patients with hypertension. We also aimed to compare the effects of these treatments on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM)., Methods: In a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, we compared the effects of chlorthalidone/amiloride 25/5 mg with amlodipine 10 mg on OSA measured by portable sleep monitor and BP measured by ABPM. The study included participants older than 40 who had moderate OSA (10-40 apneas/hour of sleep) and BP within the systolic range of 140-159 mmHg or diastolic range of 90-99 mmHg., Results: The individuals in the experimental groups were comparable in age, gender, and other relevant characteristics. Neither the combination of diuretics nor amlodipine alone reduced the AHI after 8 weeks of treatment (AHI 26.3 with diuretics and 25.0 with amlodipine. P = 0.713). Both treatments significantly lowered office, 24-h, and nighttime ABP, but the two groups had no significant difference., Conclusion: Chlorthalidone associated with amiloride and amlodipine are ineffective in decreasing the frequency of sleep apnea episodes in patients with moderate OSA and hypertension. Both treatments have comparable effects in lowering both office and ambulatory blood pressure. The notion that treatments could offer benefits for both OSA and hypertension remains to be demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT01896661., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest On behalf of all the authors of this submission, I declare that we do not have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) our work., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy., Methods: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography., Findings: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study., Implications: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

New approaches are needed to lower blood pressure (BP) given persistently low control rates. QUARTET USA sought to evaluate the effect of four-drug, quarter-dose BP lowering combination in patients with hypertension. QUARTET USA was a randomized (1:1), double-blinded trial conducted in federally qualified health centers among adults with hypertension. Participants received either a quadpill of candesartan 2 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or candesartan 8 mg for 12 weeks. If BP was >130/>80 mm Hg at 6 weeks in either arm, then participants received open label add-on amlodipine 5 mg. The primary outcome was mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 12 weeks, controlling for baseline BP. Secondary outcomes included mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and safety included serious adverse events, relevant adverse drug effects, and electrolyte abnormalities. Among 62 participants randomized between August 2019-May 2022 (n = 32 intervention, n = 30 control), mean (SD) age was 52 (11.5) years, 45% were female, 73% identified as Hispanic, and 18% identified as Black. Baseline mean (SD) SBP was 138.1 (11.2) mmHg, and baseline mean (SD) DBP was 84.3 (10.5) mmHg. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in SBP (-4.8 mm Hg [95% CI: -10.8, 1.3, p = 0.123] and a -4.9 mmHg (95% CI: -8.6, -1.3, p = 0.009) greater mean DBP change in the intervention arm compared with the control arm at 12 weeks. Adverse events did not differ significantly between arms. The quadpill had a similar SBP and greater DBP lowering effect compared with candesartan 8 mg. Trial registration number: NCT03640312., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

An increase in systemic blood pressure causes bleeding and ischemia owing to peripheral vascular breakdown, leading to various forms of organ damage. The brain, eyes, kidneys, and cardiovascular system are known target organs for hypertension. To our knowledge, no reports in Japan describe, in detail, the types of antihypertensive drugs used to treat hypertension in cats or its underlying causes. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the use of antihypertensive drugs in domestic cats with hypertension in Japan, the causes of hypertension, and the vital prognosis of these patients. In the present survey, we found that amlodipine was used alone (60/80 cats) or concomitantly (20/80 cats) in all cat patients with hypertension in Japan. We also determined that blood pressure measurements were not yet routinely performed on cats at veterinary clinics in Japan. Furthermore, we have new information suggesting that amlodipine administration in cats with hypertension, which lowers systolic arterial pressure levels to within the normal range (<140 mmHg), may have a negative impact on their survival. Routine blood pressure measurements for cats during their regular health checkups can help identify hypertension, and proper interpretation of blood pressure readings can facilitate suitable treatment measures.

Objective: The investigation of the real-world use of the extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine (NA-EXC) in adult patients diagnosed with hypertension in Europe., Methods: Retrospective analysis of data extracted from seven databases of patient medical records and prescriptions from Italy, Germany, France, Hungary, and Poland, to determine the prevalence and incidence of NA-EXC use and to estimate the number of patients potentially eligible for a single-pill combination of the two antihypertensives. Secondary objectives included: the description of the population of NA-EXC users and the assessment of their adherence to treatment based on the proportion of days covered., Results: The use of NA-EXC was found to be common in Europe and ranged between 2.9% to 9.9% of all patients identified in the databases with a prescription of nebivolol and/or amlodipine. The estimated numbers of patients potentially eligible in 2019 for a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine in Italy and Germany were, respectively, 178,133 and 113,240. Users of NA-EXC were mostly aged 70-79 years, had metabolic disorders and other comorbidities; >70% of them had received ≥2 concomitant medications before starting NA-EXC. Adherence to NA-EXC was defined as high only in 15.6% to 35% of patients., Conclusions: The extemporaneous combination of nebivolol and amlodipine is commonly prescribed in Europe, however adherence to the therapy is poor. The development of a single-pill combination of nebivolol and amlodipine may improve adherence by reducing the number of pills administered to patients and thus simplifying treatment regimens.

In this cohort study, we determined time to blood pressure (BP) control and its predictors among hypertensive PLHIV enrolled in integrated hypertension-HIV care based on the World Health Organization (WHO) HEARTS strategy at Mulago Immunosuppression Clinic in Uganda. From August 2019 to March 2020, we enrolled hypertensive PLHIV aged ≥ 18 years and initiated Amlodipine 5 mg mono-therapy for BP (140-159)/(90-99) mmHg or Amlodipine 5 mg/Valsartan 80 mg duo-therapy for BP ≥ 160/90 mmHg. Patients were followed with a treatment escalation plan until BP control, defined as BP < 140/90 mmHg. We used Cox proportional hazards models to identify predictors of time to BP control. Of 877 PLHIV enrolled (mean age 50.4 years, 62.1% female), 30% received mono-therapy and 70% received duo-therapy. In the monotherapy group, 66%, 88% and 96% attained BP control in the first, second and third months, respectively. For patients on duo-therapy, 56%, 83%, 88% and 90% achieved BP control in the first, second, third, and fourth months, respectively. In adjusted Cox proportional hazard analysis, higher systolic BP (aHR 0.995, 95% CI 0.989-0.999) and baseline ART tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz (aHR 0.764, 95% CI 0.637-0.917) were associated with longer time to BP control, while being on ART for >10 years was associated with a shorter time to BP control (aHR 1.456, 95% CI 1.126-1.883). The WHO HEARTS strategy was effective at achieving timely BP control among PLHIV. Additionally, monotherapy anti-hypertensive treatment for stage I hypertension is a viable option to achieve BP control and limit pill burden in resource limited HIV care settings., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: We investigated seasonal variation in ambulatory blood pressure control in hypertensive patients on clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment., Methods: The study participants were hypertensive patients enrolled in an 8-week therapeutic study. Antihypertensive treatment was initiated with long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers amlodipine 5 mg/day or the gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation of nifedipine 30 mg/day, with the possible up-titration to amlodipine 10 mg/day or nifedipine-GITS 60 mg/day at 4 weeks of follow-up., Results: The proportion of up-titration to higher dosages of antihypertensive drugs at 4 weeks of follow-up was higher in patients who commenced treatment in autumn/winter ( n  = 302) than those who commenced treatment in spring/summer ( n  = 199, 24.5 vs. 12.0%, P  < 0.001). The control rate of clinic blood pressure, however, was lower in autumn/winter than in spring/summer at 4 (56.7 vs. 70.7%, P  = 0.003) and 8 weeks of follow-up (52.5 vs. 74.9%, P  < 0.001). At 8 weeks, patients who commenced treatment in autumn/winter, compared with those who commenced treatment in spring/summer, had a significantly ( P ≤0.03) smaller daytime (mean between-season difference -3.2/-2.8 mmHg) but greater nighttime SBP/DBP reduction (3.6/1.6 mmHg). Accordingly, at 8 weeks, the prevalence of nondippers was significantly ( P  < 0.001) higher in spring/summer than in autumn/winter for both SBP (54.8 vs. 30.0%) and DBP (53.4 vs. 28.8%)., Conclusion: Clinic blood pressure-guided antihypertensive treatment requires a higher dosage of medication in cold than warm seasons, which may have led to over- and under-treatment of nighttime blood pressure, respectively., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastric cancer (GC) remains a leading cause of cancer mortality globally. Synaptotagmin-4 (SYT4), a calcium-sensing synaptic vesicle protein, has been implicated in the oncogenesis of diverse malignancies., Purpose: This study delineates the role of SYT4 in modulating clinical outcomes and biological behaviors in GC., Methods: We evaluated SYT4 expression in GC specimens using bioinformatics analyses and immunohistochemistry. Functional assays included CCK8 proliferation tests, apoptosis assays via flow cytometry, confocal calcium imaging, and xenograft models. Western blotting elucidated MAPK pathway involvement. Additionally, we investigated the impact of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine on cellular dynamics and MAPK pathway activity., Results: SYT4 was higher in GC tissues, and the elevated SYT4 was significantly correlated with adverse prognosis. Both univariate and multivariate analyses confirmed SYT4 as an independent prognostic indicator for GC. Functionally, SYT4 promoted tumorigenesis by fostering cellular proliferation, inhibiting apoptosis, and enhancing intracellular Ca 2+ influx, predominantly via MAPK pathway activation. Amlodipine pre-treatment attenuated SYT4-driven cell growth and potentiated apoptosis, corroborated by in vivo xenograft assessments. These effects were attributed to MAPK pathway suppression by amlodipine., Conclusion: SYT4 emerges as a potential prognostic biomarker and a pro-oncogenic mediator in GC through a Ca 2+ -dependent MAPK mechanism. Amlodipine demonstrates significant antitumor effects against SYT4-driven GC, positing its therapeutic promise. This study underscores the imperative of targeting calcium signaling in GC treatment strategies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Hypertension is a common disorder of major clinical, public health and economic importance. It affects men and women of all ages, and the prevalence is increasing in most countries. Maintenance of blood pressure below 140/90 mm of Hg is recommended by most of the guideline available around the world. Various classes of drugs are being used in the treatment of hypertension. Losartan potassium and amlodipine are two different antihypertensive agents belonging to two different groups used commonly around the world in treating essential hypertension. Losartan potassium is non-peptide Angiotensin-II receptor antagonist. Amlodipine which is the third generation dihydropyridine group of calcium channel blocker. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of amlodipine and losartan for the treatment of essential hypertensive patients (18-75 years). A non-randomized comparative observational study was conducted in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics in collaboration with Department of Medicine, Sylhet, MAG Osmani Medical College, Sylhet, Bangladesh from July 2021 to June 2022. In this study non-randomization was in two groups. Group A received amlodipine 5mg daily at morning and Group B received losartan potassium 50mg daily at night. The study parameters were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), ankle oedema, serum K+ level. The result of treatment outcome was compared between two groups. After treatment the reduction of SBP was 5.19±2.93mm of Hg versus 3.27±1.34mm of Hg (p<0.001); reduction of DBP was 1.7±0.70 mm of Hg versus 0.68 mm of Hg (p<0.001) and serum K+ level 4.22±0.27mmol/L versus 4.21±0.16mmol/L (p<0.719) in amlodipine and losartan group respectively. Amlodipine is more effective than losartan potassium in respect to treatment of essential hypertension. Regarding adverse events losartan potassium causes angioedema, hyperkalemia, headache, dizziness etc. The study concluded that amlodipine is superior to losartan potassium in treating essential hypertension.

Background: Modern resin hemoadsorption/hemoperfusion for calcium channel blocker overdose is yet to be reported. The characteristics of calcium channel blockers make them unamenable to removal by hemodiafiltration or charcoal hemoperfusion; however, elimination, using styrene bead adsorption in an ex vivo model, has been demonstrated. Its clinical use is described., Case Report: A man in his 20s was admitted with shock into the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) after an overdose of amlodipine and risperidone. Resuscitation and supportive care were administered, but hypotension did not resolve despite the administration of intravenous fluids, infusions of calcium, adrenaline, and hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic therapy. Methylene blue was then administered to maintain the mean arterial pressures. However, the hemodynamic effect did not allow the weaning of the adrenaline. Drug clearance using hemoadsorption/hemoperfusion was attempted using a styrene resin filter (Jafron HA230; Jafron Biomedical Co., Ltd., Guangdong, China). During the two hemoperfusion sessions (6 h duration each, and 18 h apart) the patient had successfully weaned off all supportive measures, with lactate levels returning to normal and was later discharged home. At the end of each session, significant amlodipine concentrations were detected in blood aspirated from both filters, suggesting enhanced clearance. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Our case illustrates a temporal relationship between resin hemoperfusion therapy, resolution of hemodynamic instability, and shock without proving causation. Significant amlodipine elimination was suggested by high concentrations found in blood from the filter. At the same time, shock resolution after initiation of hemoperfusion occurred in less than one elimination half-life of amlodipine., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Visit-to-visit systolic blood pressure variability (BPV) is an important predictor of cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. The long-term effect of a period of blood pressure (BP) control, but with differential BPV, is uncertain. Morbidity and mortality follow-up of UK participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure-Lowering Arm has been extended for up to 21 years to determine the CV impact of mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) control and BPV during the trial, and amongst those allocated to amlodipine- and atenolol-based treatment., Methods: Eight thousand five hundred and eighty hypertensive participants (4305 assigned to amlodipine ± perindopril-based and 4275 to atenolol ± diuretic-based treatment during the in-trial period (median 5.5 years) were followed for up to 21 years (median 17.4 years), using linked hospital and mortality records. A subgroup of participants (n = 2156) was followed up 6 years after the trial closure with a self-administered questionnaire and a clinic visit. In-trial mean SBP and standard deviation of visit-to-visit SBP as a measure of BPV, were measured using >100 000 BP measurements. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk [hazard ratios (HRs)], associated with (i) mean with SBP and BPV during the in-trial period, for the CV endpoints occurring after the end of the trial and (ii) randomly assigned treatment to events following randomization, for the first occurrence of pre-specified CV outcomes., Results: Using BP data from the in-trial period, in the post-trial period, although mean SBP was a predictor of CV outcomes {HR per 10 mmHg, 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.17], P < .001}, systolic BPV independent of mean SBP was a strong predictor of CV events [HR per 5 mmHg 1.22 (95% CI 1.18-1.26), P < .001] and predicted events even in participants with well-controlled BP. During 21-year follow-up, those on amlodipine-based compared with atenolol-based in-trial treatment had significantly reduced risk of stroke [HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.72-0.93), P = .003], total CV events [HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98), P = .008], total coronary events [HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.99), P = .024], and atrial fibrillation [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.83-0.99), P = .030], with weaker evidence of a difference in CV mortality [HR 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.01), P = .073]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal coronary heart disease, heart failure, and all-cause mortality., Conclusions: Systolic BPV is a strong predictor of CV outcome, even in those with controlled SBP. The long-term benefits of amlodipine-based treatment compared with atenolol-based treatment in reducing CV events appear to be primarily mediated by an effect on systolic BPV during the trial period., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: The objective of the PERSONAL-CovidBP (Personalised Electronic Record Supported Optimisation When Alone for Patients With Hypertension: Pilot Study for Remote Medical Management of Hypertension During the COVID-19 Pandemic) trial was to assess the efficacy and safety of smartphone-enabled remote precision dosing of amlodipine to control blood pressure (BP) in participants with primary hypertension during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods and Results: This was an open-label, remote, dose titration trial using daily home self-monitoring of BP, drug dose, and side effects with linked smartphone app and telemonitoring. Participants aged ≥18 years with uncontrolled hypertension (5-7 day baseline mean ≥135 mm Hg systolic BP or ≥85 mm Hg diastolic BP) received personalized amlodipine dose titration using novel (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 mg) and standard (5 and 10 mg) doses daily over 14 weeks. The primary outcome of the trial was mean change in systolic BP from baseline to end of treatment. A total of 205 participants were enrolled and mean BP fell from 142/87 (systolic BP/diastolic BP) to 131/81 mm Hg (a reduction of 11 (95% CI, 10-12)/7 (95% CI, 6-7) mm Hg, P <0.001). The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses (84%); of those participants, 35% were controlled by 1 mg daily. The majority (88%) controlled on novel doses had no peripheral edema. Adherence to BP recording and reported adherence to medication was 84% and 94%, respectively. Patient retention was 96% (196/205). Treatment was well tolerated with no withdrawals from adverse events., Conclusions: Personalized dose titration with amlodipine was safe, well tolerated, and efficacious in treating primary hypertension. The majority of participants achieved BP control on novel doses, and with personalization of dose there were no trial discontinuations due to drug intolerance. App-assisted remote clinician dose titration may better balance BP control and adverse effects and help optimize long-term care., Registration: URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

Background: L-type calcium channels are the only protein channels sensitive to calcium channel blockers, and are expressed in various cancer types. The Cancer Genome Atlas database shows that the mRNA levels of multiple L-type calcium channel subunits in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma tumor tissue are significantly higher than those in normal esophageal epithelial tissue. Therefore, we hypothesized that amlodipine, a long-acting dihydropyridine L-type calcium channel blocker, may inhibit the occurrence and development of esophageal cancer (EC)., Aim: To investigate the inhibitory effects of amlodipine on EC through endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress., Methods: Cav1.3 protein expression levels in 50 pairs of EC tissues and corresponding paracancerous tissues were examined. Subsequently, the inhibitory effects of amlodipine on proliferation and migration of EC cells in vitro were detected using 3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2-H-tetrazolium bromide and Transwell assays. In vivo experiments were performed using murine xenograft model. To elucidate the underlying mechanisms, in vitro cell studies were performed to confirm that ER stress plays a role in inhibition proliferation and migration of EC cells treated with amlodipine., Results: The expression level of Cav1.3 in esophageal carcinoma was 1.6 times higher than that in paracancerous tissues. Amlodipine treatment decreased the viability of esophageal carcinoma cells in a dose- and time-dependent manner. In vivo animal experiments also clearly indicated that amlodipine inhibited the growth of EC tumors in mice. Additionally, amlodipine reduces the migration of tumor cells by inhibiting epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT). Mechanistic studies have demonstrated that amlodipine induces ER stress-mediated apoptosis and suppresses EMT. Moreover, amlodipine-induced autophagy was characterized by an increase in autophagy lysosomes and the accumulation of light chain 3B protein. The combination of amlodipine with the ER stress inhibitor 4-phenylbutyric acid further confirmed the role of the ER stress response in amlodipine-induced apoptosis, EMT, and autophagy. Furthermore, blocking autophagy increases the ratio of apoptosis and migration., Conclusion: Collectively, we demonstrate for the first time that amlodipine promotes apoptosis, induces autophagy, and inhibits migration through ER stress, thereby exerting anti-tumor effects in EC., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors declare that no conflict of interest exists in this study., (©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries is a common condition for which no effective treatment has been established. We hypothesized that the measurement of coronary flow reserve (CFR) allows identification of patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries who would benefit from anti-ischemic therapy., Methods: Patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries underwent blinded invasive CFR measurement and were randomly assigned to receive 4 weeks of amlodipine or ranolazine. After a 1-week washout, they crossed over to the other drug for 4 weeks; final assessment was after the cessation of study medication for another 4 weeks. The primary outcome was change in treadmill exercise time, and the secondary outcome was change in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score in response to anti-ischemic therapy. Analysis was on a per protocol basis according to the following classification: coronary microvascular disease (CMD group) if CFR<2.5 and reference group if CFR≥2.5. The study protocol was registered before the first patient was enrolled (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN94728379)., Results: Eighty-seven patients (61±8 years of age; 62% women) underwent random assignment (57 CMD group and 30 reference group). Baseline exercise time and Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary scores were similar between groups. The CMD group had a greater increment (delta) in exercise time than the reference group in response to both amlodipine (difference in delta, 82 s [95% CI, 37-126 s]; P <0.001) and ranolazine (difference in delta, 68 s [95% CI, 21-115 s]; P =0.005). The CMD group reported a greater increment (delta) in Seattle Angina Questionnaire summary score than the reference group in response to ranolazine (difference in delta, 7 points [95% CI, 0-15]; P =0.048), but not to amlodipine (difference in delta, 2 points [95% CI, -5 to 8]; P =0.549)., Conclusions: Among phenotypically similar patients with angina with nonobstructive coronary arteries, only those with an impaired CFR derive benefit from anti-ischemic therapy. These findings support measurement of CFR to diagnose and guide management of this otherwise heterogeneous patient group., Competing Interests: Disclosures None.

Objectives: This analysis compared adherence, cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality incidence, and healthcare costs among hypertensive patients treated with perindopril (PER)/indapamide (IND)/amlodipine (AML) in single-pill combination (SPC) vs. multiple-pill combination, in a real-world setting in Italy., Methods: In this observational retrospective analysis of Italian administrative databases, adult patients treated with PER/IND/AML between 2010 and 2020 were divided into two cohorts: single-pill vs. multiple-pill. Patient data were available for at least one year before and after index date. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce selection bias. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered: non-adherence, <40%; partial adherence, 40-79%, and adherence ≥80%. Mortality incidence and CV events as single, or composite, endpoints were evaluated after first year of follow-up. Healthcare cost analyses were performed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service., Results: Following PSM, the single-pill cohort included 12 150 patients, and the multiple-pill cohort, 6105. The SPC cohort had a significantly higher percentage of adherent patients vs. the multiple-pill cohort (59.9% vs. 26.9%, P  < 0.001). Following the first year of follow-up, incidence of all-cause mortality, and combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and CV events were lower in the SPC cohort compared with multiple-pill cohort. Average annual direct healthcare costs were lower in the single-pill cohort (€2970) vs. multiple-pill cohort (€3642); cost of all drugs and all-cause hospitalizations were major contributors., Conclusion: The SPC of PER/IND/AML, compared with multiple-pill combination, is associated with higher adherence to medication, lower incidence of CV events and mortality, and reduced healthcare costs., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

The 2022 draft Russian guidelines on arterial hypertension recommend initiation of antihypertensive therapy with a combination of drugs in most patients with blood pressure above 150 / 90 mm Hg and / or in the presence of high-risk criteria. In 2021, the results of a 12-year analysis of the Brisighella Heart Study (BHS) were published. The aim of this study was to compare the use of different triple antihypertensive drug combinations in an Italian cohort of patients in real-life clinical practice. Combination antihypertensive therapy with a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, amlodipine, and thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics provides a better blood pressure control compared to other antihypertensive drug combinations. The use of the triple combination of amlodipine/indapamide/perindopril is associated with a better metabolic profile than any other considered combination of antihypertensive drugs and a more pronounced organ-protective effect.

Introduction: Hypertension (HTN) remains one of the most important risk factors for cardiovascular (CV) diseases and a leading cause of mortality worldwide. Despite improvement in detection and treatment, poor blood pressure (BP) control rates are observed globally. The situation in India is alarming with only 22.5% of patients maintaining their BP under control. Initiating early and effective treatment for HTN helps control BP within normal limits and reduces associated health risks. In India, currently, there are no guidelines on the choice of dual combination treatment that can be considered an initial treatment for newly diagnosed HTN patients to achieve effective BP control and reduce CV risks., Objective: To provide consensus recommendations for preferred initial combinations in newly diagnosed Indian patients with HTN., Methodology: A core group of 100 experts with HTN expertise conceptualized and formulated the four key questions based on answerability, effectiveness, potential for translation to clinical practice, novelty, and potential impact on the healthcare burden. A mix of Delphi and Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methods was adopted for acceptance or refusal of recommendations. Likert scale 1-9 was used for scoring. A score of ≥7 was considered "statement accepted," >6.50 "near to acceptance" and <6.50 "not accepted." A vote of ≥7 by at least two-thirds of the experts (66.66%) was mandatory for acceptance of the recommendation., Conclusion: Combination therapy could be necessary for a majority of newly diagnosed Indian patients for effective BP control. It can manage HTN with better clinical outcomes. Based on mean rating scores from experts, telmisartan plus amlodipine can be considered the preferred initial combination in the management of newly diagnosed Indian patients with HTN to achieve better BP control and improve CV outcomes., (© Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2023.)

Objective: We evaluated the pharmacoeconomics of amlodipine combined with benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril in the treatment of hypertension using a Markov model to provide an evidence-based reference for clinical drug use., Methods: In this retrospective study, we constructed two types of Markov model using data from the ACCOMPLISH (Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension) trial to dynamically simulate the development of hypertension. The models were subjected to rollback analysis and cohort analysis to obtain the cost and effectiveness of the two drug regimens in preventing stroke and myocardial infarction in hypertensive patients. We conducted sensitivity analysis to determine the stability of the results., Results: The cost-effectiveness of amlodipine combined with benazepril was 66,196.97 RMB with 6.59 QALYs and that of hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril was 74,588.50 RMB with 6.46 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril was -64,550.23 compared with amlodipine + benazepril. The amlodipine + benazepril regimen was therefore more cost-effective than hydrochlorothiazide combined with benazepril. The sensitivity analysis results showed that the model was robust., Conclusion: Compared with the hydrochlorothiazide + benazepril treatment regimen, the amlodipine + benazepril regimen showed greater economic benefits., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Background: Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cerebral small vessel disease. We aimed to determine whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect microvascular function in people with small vessel disease., Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised crossover trial with blinded endpoint assessment at five specialist centres in Europe. We included participants aged 18 years or older with symptomatic sporadic small vessel disease or cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) and an indication for antihypertensive treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to one of three sequences of antihypertensive treatment using a computer-generated multiblock randomisation, stratified by study site and patient group. A 2-week washout period was followed by three 4-week periods of oral monotherapy with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol at approved doses. The primary endpoint was change in cerebrovascular reactivity (CVR) determined by blood oxygen level-dependent MRI response to hypercapnic challenge in normal-appearing white matter from the end of washout to the end of each treatment period. Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat principles in all randomly assigned participants who had at least one valid assessment for the primary endpoint, and analyses were done separately for participants with sporadic small vessel disease and CADASIL. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03082014, and EudraCT, 2016-002920-10, and is terminated., Findings: Between Feb 22, 2018, and April 28, 2022, 75 participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean age 64·9 years [SD 9·9]) and 26 with CADASIL (53·1 years [7·0]) were enrolled and randomly assigned to treatment. 79 participants (62 with sporadic small vessel disease and 17 with CADASIL) entered the primary efficacy analysis. Change in CVR did not differ between study drugs in participants with sporadic small vessel disease (mean change in CVR 1·8 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [SE 20·1; 95% CI -37·6 to 41·2] for amlodipine; 16·7 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [20·0; -22·3 to 55·8] for losartan; -7·1 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [19·6; -45·5 to 31·1] for atenolol; p overall =0·39) but did differ in patients with CADASIL (15·7 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [SE 27·5; 95% CI -38·3 to 69·7] for amlodipine; 19·4 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [27·9; -35·3 to 74·2] for losartan; -23·9 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [27·5; -77·7 to 30·0] for atenolol; p overall =0·019). In patients with CADASIL, pairwise comparisons showed that CVR improved with amlodipine compared with atenolol (-39·6 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [95% CI -72·5 to -6·6; p=0·019) and with losartan compared with atenolol (-43·3 × 10 -4 %/mm Hg [-74·3 to -12·3]; p=0·0061). No deaths occurred. Two serious adverse events were recorded, one while taking amlodipine (diarrhoea with dehydration) and one while taking atenolol (fall with fracture), neither of which was related to study drug intake., Interpretation: 4 weeks of treatment with amlodipine, losartan, or atenolol did not differ in their effects on cerebrovascular reactivity in people with sporadic small vessel disease but did result in differential treatment effects in patients with CADASIL. Whether antihypertensive drug classes differentially affect clinical outcomes in people with small vessel diseases requires further research., Funding: EU Horizon 2020 programme., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MD has received consultancy and advisory board fees from Bayer Vital, and speaker's fees from Bayer Vital. MDu reports no competing interests directly related to this work, but declares the following interests outside the submitted work: MIAC (employment), Roche (consultant), Biogen (scientific advisory board), Hovid Berhad (adjudication board), Bayer Vital, and Sanofi Genzyme (speaker honoraria). BN has received consultancy fees from Simbec-Orion for data monitoring committee work. KWM has received consultancy fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen, Abbvie, Lumosa, and Woolsey, advisory board fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, and speaker's fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. PMR has received consultancy and advisory board fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Abbott, and speaker fees from Sanofi and Abbott. RvO reports financial support by the European Union's Horizon 2020 project ‘CRUCIAL’ (grant number 848109), and the Collaboration for New Treatments of Acute Stroke (CONTRAST) consortium (financed by the Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative of the Dutch Heart Foundation, the Netherlands Brain Foundation, Stryker, Medtronic, and Cerenovus). JMW is part funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute (funded by the Medical Research Council, Alzheimer's Society, and Alzheimer's Research UK) but has no competing interests. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives : The Indian Registry on Current Patient Profiles and Treatment Trends in Hypertension (Record) evaluated the current trends and outcomes related to hypertension (HTN) management at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months in India. This study highlights and evaluates the outcomes and trends noted at 24 months. Materials and methods : The detailed study methodology is provided in the earlier publication (interim analysis at 12 months). Aspects such as changes in the quality of life (QOL), percentage of patients reaching target blood pressure (BP), treatment pattern among patients with comorbid conditions, and difference in treatment patterns between public and private healthcare settings, at 24 months, were evaluated in the current study. Results : The study population included 2,000 patients (55.7% males) with a mean age of 54.45 years. Telmisartan (43.7%) and amlodipine + telmisartan (16.4%) were the most prescribed monotherapy and combination therapy among patients with newly diagnosed HTN. A significant decrease in both systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) was noted in the overall patient population at 24 months ( p < 0.001). The mean change in SBP and DBP was slightly higher at 24 months compared to 12 months. This was more evident among patients on combination therapy. A significant improvement in QOL was noted at 24 months. Conclusion : Treatment strategies in HTN management are changing and are associated with effective HTN control and improvements in QOL. However, there is a further need for improved awareness regarding the optimal usage of combination therapy for better management of uncontrolled HTN. How to cite this article : Rajadhyaksha GC, Reddy H, Singh AK, et al. The Indian REgistry on Current Patient PrOfiles and TReatment TrenDs in Hypertension (RECORD): Final Outcomes of the Real-World Observational Study. J Assoc Physicians India 2023;71(11):43-49., (© Journal of the Association of Physicians of India 2023.)

Background: Combined antihypertensive therapy has obvious advantages over single drug therapy. Hypertension guidelines fully affirm the efficacy of dual combination in initial antihypertensive therapy. Recent studies have also pointed out that the quadruple combination of very low-dose antihypertensive drugs is superior to single drugs. However, whether low-dose quadruple therapy is better than dual combination is unknown., Objective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of half-dose quadruple therapy vs standard-dose dual therapy in the initial treatment of hypertensive patients with systolic/diastolic blood pressure 140-179/90-109 mm Hg., Methods: A randomized double-blind crossover clinical trial will be conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose quadruple antihypertensives (irbesartan 75 mg + metoprolol 23.75 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg) with standard-dose dual antihypertensives (irbesartan 150 mg + amlodipine 5 mg) in the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension (140-179/90-109 mm Hg). Ninety patients are required and will be recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 crossover groups. Two groups will receive a different combination therapy for 4 weeks, then switch to the other combination therapy for 4 weeks, with a 2-week wash-out. The patients will be followed up for 4 weeks to compare the antihypertensive effects and related adverse effects of the 2 antihypertensive combination treatments., Conclusions: We present the rationale for the design of the QUADUAL trial. The trial started in July 2022 and is expected to be completed by August 2023. The study aims to evaluate if an initial treatment regimen of quadruple combination of half-dose blood pressure medications will result in greater reduction in blood pressure and fewer side effects compared to standard dose dual therapy., Registration: www., Clinicaltrials: gov (NCT05377203)., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors report no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We evaluated in vitro activity of 13 drugs used in the treatment of some non-communicable diseases via repurposing to determine their potential use in the treatment of Acinetobacter baumannii infections caused by susceptible and multidrug-resistant strains. A. baumannii is a multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria causing nosocomial infections, especially in intensive care units. It has been identified in the WHO critical pathogen list and this emphasises urgent need for new treatment options. As the development of new therapeutics is expensive and time consuming, finding new uses of existing drugs via drug repositioning has been favoured. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were conducted on all 13 drugs according to CLSI. Drugs with MIC values below 128 μg/mL and control antibiotics were further subjected to synergetic effect and bacterial time-kill analysis. Carvedilol-gentamicin (FICI 0.2813) and carvedilol-amlodipine (FICI 0.5625) were determined to have synergetic and additive effect, respectively, on the susceptible A. baumannii strain, and amlodipine-tetracycline (FICI 0.75) and amitriptyline-tetracycline (FICI 0.75) to have additive effect on the multidrug-resistant A. baumannii strain. Most remarkably, both amlodipine and amitriptyline reduced the MIC of multidrug-resistant, including some carbapenems, A. baumannii reference antibiotic tetracycline from 2 to 0.5 μg/mL, for 4-folds. All these results were further supported by bacterial time-kill assay and all combinations showed bactericidal activity, at certain hours, at 4XMIC. Combinations proposed in this study may provide treatment options for both susceptible and multidrug-resistant A. baumannii infections but requires further pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics analyses and in vivo re-evaluations using appropriate models., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: To compare adherence to antihypertensive treatment between patients prescribed a three-drug single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide (P/A/I) vs. the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a calcium-channel blocker (CCB), and a diuretic (D) as a two-drug SPC plus a third drug given separately., Methods: Using the healthcare utilization database of the Lombardy Region (Italy), the 28 210 patients, aged at least 40 years, who were prescribed P/A/I SPC during 2015-2018 were identified and the date of the first prescription was defined as the index date. For each patient prescribed the SPC, a comparator who started ACEI/CCB/D treatment as a two-pill combination was considered. Adherence to the triple combination was assessed over the year after the index date as the proportion of the follow-up days covered by prescription (PDC). Patients who had a PDC >75% were defined as highly adherent to drug therapy. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to estimate the risk ratio of treatment adherence in relation to the drug treatment strategy., Results: About 59 and 25% of SPC and two-pill combination users showed high adherence, respectively. Compared with patients under a three-drug two-pill combination, those who were treated with the three-drug SPC had a higher propensity to be highly adherent to the triple combination (2.38, 95% confidence interval: 2.32-2.44). This was the case regardless of the sex, age, comorbidities, and number of co-treatments., Conclusions: In a real-life setting, patients under three-drug SPC exhibited more frequently a high adherence to antihypertensive treatment than those prescribed a three-drug two-pill combination., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Hypertension is a major public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and calls for large-scale effective hypertension control programs. Adoption of drug and dose-specific treatment protocols recommended by the World Health Organization-HEARTS Initiative is key for hypertension control programs in LMICs. We estimated the annual medication cost per patient using three such protocols (protocol-1 and protocol-2 with Amlodipine, Telmisartan, using add-on doses and different drug orders, adding Chlorthalidone; protocol-3 with a single-pill combination (SPC) of Amlodipine/Telmisartan with dose up-titration, and addition of Chlorthalidone, if required) in India. The medication cost was simulated with different hypertension control assumptions for each protocol and calculated based on prices in the public and private sectors in India. The estimated annual medication cost per patient for protocol-1 and protocol-2 was $33.88-58.44 and $51.57-68.83 for protocol-3 in the private sector. The medication cost was lower in the generic stores ($5.78-9.57 for protocol-1 and protocol-2, and $7.35-9.89 for protocol-3). The medication cost for patients was the lowest ($2.05-3.89 for protocol-1 and protocol-2, and $2.94-3.98 for protocol-3) in the public sector. At less than $4 per patient per annum, scaling up a hypertension control program with specific treatment protocols is a potentially cost-effective public health intervention. Expanding low-cost generic retail networks would extend affordability in the private sector. The cost of treatment with SPC is comparable with non-SPC protocols and can be adopted in a public health program considering the advantage of simplified logistics, reduced pill burden, improved treatment adherence, and blood pressure control., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Anti-hypertensive drugs can improve vascular endothelial function. However, the mechanism remains to be elucidated., Objectives: This study sought to investigate mechanisms of anti-hypertensive drugs on improvement of vascular endothelial function in patients with essential hypertension., Methods: Forty-five patients (mean age 58.5 ± 11.2 years) with uncontrolled essential hypertension were randomly assigned to receive olmesartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) (N = 23), or amlodipine, a calcium channel blocker (CCB) (N = 22), for 6 months. Endothelial function was evaluated by flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) of the brachial artery. Vascular inflammation was measured by blood-normalized standardized uptake value, known as a target-to-background ratio (TBR) within the carotid arteries using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography., Results: There were no significant differences of baseline clinical data between the ARB and CCB groups. Both anti-hypertensive drugs comparably lowered blood pressure and increased %FMD. TBR values were reduced by olmesartan (P < .001), while blood pressure variability was decreased by amlodipine (P = .004). Changes in %FMD from baseline (Δ%FMD) were inversely associated with ΔTBR in the olmesartan group (r = - .606, P = .003) and with Δsystolic blood pressure variability in the amlodipine group (r = - .434, P = .039)., Conclusion: Our study indicated that olmesartan and amlodipine could improve endothelial function in patients with essential hypertension in different manners, suppression of vascular inflammation, and decrease in blood pressure variability, respectively., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to American Society of Nuclear Cardiology.)

The study aimed to analyse the adverse drug reactions report form data received by the State Expert Center of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine from healthcare professionals in the Lviv region in 2022. Regarding specific types of medicines, the ones with proven cause-and-effect relationships that caused the highest frequency of adverse drug reactions incidents were chemotherapeutic agents (35.5%), medicines affecting the cardiovascular system (20.3%), and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (8%). Within the penicillin class, amoxicillin potentiated by clavulanate (67%) and amoxicillin (29%) were the dominant drugs showing the highest incidence rate of adverse reactions. Among cephalosporins, ceftriaxone (46%) and cefixime (15%) were found to take the lead in terms of adverse reaction frequency. The highest proportion among all adverse drug reactions caused by penicillins and cephalosporins was attributed to allergic reactions. To confirm or rule out immediate or delayed type allergies in patients, as well as in patients with a history of immediate-type allergic reactions to β-lactams and planned administration of another β-lactam, it is necessary to conduct skin testing (skin prick test, or, in the case of parenteral administration, intradermal test) with the planned β-lactam antibiotic. The second highest proportion of induced adverse drug reactions was attributed to drugs affecting the cardiovascular system (20.3%). The leading medications in the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors category were enalapril (47%) and the combination of lisinopril with hydrochlorothiazide (24%). In the angiotensin II receptor blockers category of medications, valsartan (30%) and telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination (20%) ranked highest. In the category of CCB drugs, amlodipine (66%) and nifedipine (20%) held the leading positions. among angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, enalapril caused the most prevalent and predicted adverse reaction, that of cough, affecting 10.5% of patients, whereas, with the combination therapy of lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide, the cough was observed in only 5.2% of patients. Angiotensin II receptor blockers have a better safety profile, particularly concerning cough. Analysis of adverse drug reactions reports for angiotensin II receptor blockers showed no cases of cough with valsartan and telmisartan-hydrochlorothiazide combination. Among calcium channel blocker medications, amlodipine emerged to rank highest, causing one of the predicted adverse drug reactions, that of lower extremity oedema in 64% of patients. The second position was taken by the combination of amlodipine with valsartan, which showed a statistically significant reduction of 14.3% (p≤0.05) in the incidence of oedema. Using amlodipine at a dose of 5 mg in combination with sartan medicines as angiotensin receptor blockers is an effective therapeutic alternative not only for enhancing blood pressure control in hypertensive patients but also for improving the safety profile of amlodipine. Among all the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs prescribed to patients in the Lviv region in 2022, the highest number of adverse reactions was associated with the administration of diclofenac, ibuprofen, paracetamol, and nimesulide, causing adverse drug reactions in 22%, 19%, 17%, and 10% of cases, respectively. The most common systemic manifestations of adverse reactions with these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were allergic reactions (63.4%) and gastrointestinal disorders (26.8%). From an evidence-based medicine perspective, the most justified approach for primary and secondary prevention of gastrointestinal complications is the use of proton pump inhibitors.

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to report the concurrent disorders and treatment success of cats with diabetes mellitus (DM) and arterial systolic hypertension (SH)., Methods: A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted of 17 cats with DM and SH that were examined at a university teaching hospital between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2021. The medical records of diabetic cats were searched for the keywords 'hypertension', 'blood pressure', 'amlodipine', 'benazepril' and 'telmisartan' to identify cats with SH, which was defined as systemic arterial blood pressure (SABP) ⩾160 mmHg, documented at least twice, over several days. Comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease and hyperthyroidism, were recorded. Medications used for the treatment of SH and the SABP response to treatment were also noted., Results: Most cats (13/17, 76%) with DM and SH had at least one other documented concurrent illness that could contribute to SH, including chronic kidney disease (12/17 cats, 71%), hyperthyroidism (4/17, 23%) and functional adrenocortical mass secreting either aldosterone alone (1/17, 6%) or glucocorticoids, and possibly also aldosterone (1/17, 6%). Out of 17 cats, 15 (88%) were treated with amlodipine, and none were treated with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker. Mean SABP at the time of diagnosis of SH was 210 ± 23 mmHg and was significantly higher than the mean SABP at the first and second follow-up examinations after the introduction of amlodipine treatment (175 ± 33 mmHg, P  = 0.008 and 172 ± 26 mmHg, P  = 0.01, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: Cats with DM and SH should be evaluated for the presence of chronic kidney disease, hyperthyroidism and functional adrenal masses. Treatment with amlodipine appears to be effective in lowering SABP in cats with DM and SH.

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is the most important cause of chronic renal and end-stage kidney disease in China. Hypertension (HTN) is highly prevalent in individuals with diabetic nephropathy. Arterial HTN affects two-thirds of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). In these patients, HTN increased the potential of both micro- and macrovascular complications, and the co-occurrence of 2 such principal causes results in a 4-fold increased risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) when contrasted with normotensive controls without diabetes. Therefore, the results of valsartan and amlodipine tablets combined with alpha-lipoic acid on total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) need to be investigated. The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of valsartan (VA) and amlodipine tablets combined with alpha-lipoic acid (α-LA) on T-AOC, IL-6 and β2-MG levels in patients with DN. We performed statistical analysis including the chi-square test, independent t-test, paired t-test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Our findings indicate that VA, amlodipine and α-LA has a significant effect in patients with DN.

Hypertension is the leading single preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The India Hypertension Control Initiative (IHCI) project was designed to improve hypertension control in public sector clinics. The project was launched in 2018-2019 in 26 districts across five states: Punjab (5), Madhya Pradesh (3), Kerala (4), Maharashtra (4), and Telangana (10), with five core strategies: standard treatment protocol, reliable supply of free antihypertensive drugs, team-based care, patient-centered care, and an information system to track individual patient treatment and blood pressure control. All states implemented simple treatment protocols with three drugs: a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), angiotensin receptor blocker (telmisartan), and thiazide or a thiazide-like diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone). Medication supplies were adequate to support at least one month of treatment. Overall, 570,365 hypertensives were enrolled in 2018-2019; 11% did not have follow-up visits in the most recent 12 months. Clinic-level blood pressure control averaged 43% (range 22-79%) by Jan-March, 2020. The proportion of the estimated people with hypertension who had it controlled and documented in public clinics increased three-fold, albeit from very low levels (1.4-5.0%). The IHCI demonstrated the feasibility of implementing protocol-based hypertension treatment and control supported by a reliable drug supply and accurate information systems at scale in Indian primary health care facilities. Lessons from the IHCI's initial phase will inform plans to improve screening in health care facilities, increase retention in care, and ensure a sustained supply of drugs as part of a nationwide hypertension control program., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: SBP and blood pressure variability are independent risk factors for cerebral small vessel disease, a leading cause for stroke and dementia. Calcium-channel blockers are known to reduce blood pressure variability and may thus offer benefit against dementia. Beyond this effect, the impact of calcium-channel blockers on hypertension-induced neuroinflammation, and especially, microglial phenotype remains unknown. We aimed to study the ability of amlopidine to alleviate microglia inflammation, and slow down cognitive dysfunction in aged hypertensive mice., Methods: Hypertensive BPH/2J and normotensive BPN/3J mice were studied until 12 months of age. Hypertensive mice were untreated or received amlodipine (10 mg/kg per day). Blood pressure parameters were measured by telemetry and tail cuff plethysmography. Mice underwent repeated series of cognitive tasks. Brain immunohistochemistry was performed to study blood-brain barrier dysfunction and microglial pro-inflammatory phenotype (CD68 + Iba1 + cells; morphological analysis)., Results: Amlodipine normalized SBP over the entire life span and decreased blood pressure variability. BPH/2J mice exhibited impaired short-term memory that was prevented by amlodipine at 12 months (discrimination index 0.41 ± 0.25 in amlodipine-treated vs. 0.14 ± 0.15 in untreated BPH/2J mice, P  = 0.02). Amlopidine treatment of BPH/2J did not prevent blood-brain barrier leakage, a measure of cerebral small vessel disease, but limited its size. Microglia's inflammatory phenotype in BPH/2J, characterized by an increased number of Iba1 + CD68 + cells, increased soma size and shortened processes, was partly reduced by amlodipine., Conclusion: Amlodipine attenuated the short-term memory impairment in aged hypertensive mice. Beyond its blood pressure lowering capacity, amlodipine may be cerebroprotective by modulating neuroinflammation., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Renal denervation (RDN) lowers blood pressure (BP) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Limited data exist on the effectiveness of different antihypertensive medications following RDN on BP and maladaptive cardiac phenotypes., Methods: Eighty-nine male spontaneously hypertensive rats with continuous BP recording underwent RDN or sham operation. Ten days postsurgery, spontaneously hypertensive rats were randomized to receive no antihypertensive medication, amlodipine, olmesartan, hydrochlorothiazide, bisoprolol, doxazosin, or moxonidine for 28 days. Cardiac remodeling was determined histologically, and activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system was explored., Results: Before initiation of antihypertensive drugs, RDN reduced mean arterial pressure (-12.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.4 to -10.8]; P <0.001). At study end, mean arterial pressure was lower in RDN compared with sham operation in drug-naïve controls ( P =0.006), olmesartan ( P =0.002), amlodipine ( P =0.0004), hydrochlorothiazide ( P =0.006), doxazosin ( P= 0.001), and bisoprolol ( P =0.039) but not in animals receiving moxonidine ( P =0.122). Compared with pooled BP change of all other drug classes, mean arterial pressure change was largest for olmesartan (-15.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -18.6 to -13.2]; P <0.001) and amlodipine (-12.0 mm Hg [95% CI, -14.7 to -9.3]; P <0.001). In drug-naïve controls, RDN reduced plasma renin activity (-5.6%¸ P =0.03) and aldosterone concentration (-53.0%; P =0.005). In the presence of antihypertensive medication, plasma renin activity and aldosterone remained unchanged after RDN. Cardiac remodeling was not affected by RDN alone. In animals receiving olmesartan after RDN, cardiac perivascular fibrosis was attenuated. Amlodipine and bisoprolol following RDN reduced cardiomyocyte diameter., Conclusions: Following RDN, treatment with amlodipine and olmesartan resulted in the largest BP reduction. Antihypertensive medications mediated heterogeneous effects on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activity and cardiac remodeling., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Lauder reports speaker honoraria from Medtronic and ReCor Medical. Dr M. Böhm reports personal fees from Abbott, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor. Dr Mahfoud is supported by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB TRR219), and Deutsche Herzstiftung and has received scientific support and speaker honoraria from Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Merck, and ReCor Medical.

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often have exercise intolerance. The prevalence of hypertension in COPD patients ranges from 39-51%, and β-blockers and amlodipine are commonly used drugs for these patients., Objectives: We aimed to study the impact of β-blockers and amlodipine on cardiopulmonary responses during exercise., Methods: A total 81 patients with COPD were included and the patients underwent spirometry, cardiopulmonary exercise tests, and symptoms questionnaires., Results: There were 14 patients who took bisoprolol and 67 patients who did not. Patients with COPD taking ß-blockers had lower blood oxygen concentration (SpO2) and more leg fatigue at peak exercise but similar exercise capacity as compared with patients not taking bisoprolol. There were 18 patients treated with amlodipine and 63 patients without amlodipine. Patients taking amlodipine had higher body weight, lower blood pressure at rest, and lower respiratory rates during peak exercise than those not taking amlodipine. Other cardiopulmonary parameters, such as workload, oxygen consumption at peak exercise, tidal volume at rest or exercise, cardiac index at rest or exercise were not significantly different between patients with or without bisoprolol or amlodipine. Smoking status did not differ between patients with or without bisoprolol or amlodipine., Conclusions: COPD is often accompanied by hypertension, and β-blockers and amlodipine are commonly used antihypertensive drugs for these patients. Patients with COPD taking bisoprolol had lower SpO2 and more leg fatigue during peak exercise. Patients taking amlodipine had lower respiratory rates during exercise than those not taking amlodipine. Exercise capacity, tidal volume, and cardiac index during exercise were similar between patients with and without bisoprolol or amlodipine., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Lan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background and Objectives: We have recently reported that stains have calcium channel blocking activity in isolated jejunal preparations. In this study, we examined the effects of atorvastatin and fluvastatin on blood vessels for a possible vasorelaxant effect. We also studied the possible additional vasorelaxant effect of atorvastatin and fluvastatin, in the presence of amlodipine, to quantify its effects on the systolic blood pressure of experimental animals. Materials and Methods: Atorvastatin and fluvastatin were tested in isolated rabbits' aortic strip preparations using 80mM Potassium Chloride (KCl) induced contractions and 1 micro molar Norepinephrine (NE) induced contractions. A positive relaxing effect on 80 mM KCl induced contractions were further confirmed in the absence and presence of atorvastatin and fluvastatin by constructing calcium concentration response curves (CCRCs) while using verapamil as a standard calcium channel blocker. In another series of experiments, hypertension was induced in Wistar rats and different test concentrations of atorvastatin and fluvastatin were administered in their respective EC 50 values to the test animals. A fall in their systolic blood pressure was noted using amlodipine as a standard vasorelaxant drug. Results: The results show that fluvastatin is more potent than amlodipine as it relaxed NE induced contractions where the amplitude reached 10% of its control in denuded aortae. Atorvastatin relaxed KCL induced contractions with an amplitude reaching 34.4% of control response as compared to the amlodipine response, i.e., 39.1%. A right shift in the EC 50 (Log Ca++ M) of Calcium Concentration Response Curves (CCRCs) implies that statins have calcium channel blocking activity. A right shift in the EC 50 of fluvastatin with relatively less EC 50 value (-2.8 Log Ca++ M) in the presence of test concentration (1.2 × 10 -7 M) of fluvastatin implies that fluvastatin is more potent than atorvastatin. The shift in EC 50 resembles the shift of Verapamil, a standard calcium channel blocker (-1.41 Log Ca++ M). Conclusions: Atorvastatin and fluvastatin relax the aortic strip preparations predominantly through the inhibition of voltage gated calcium channels in high molar KCL induced contractions. These statins also inhibit the effects of NE induced contractions. The study also confirms that atorvastatin and fluvastatin potentiate blood pressure lowering effects in hypertensive rats.

The purpose of this study was to elucidate the therapeutic effect of different antihypertensive drugs (amlodipine and perindopril) on hypertension induced by apatinib and bevacizumab. Sixty patients with hypertension treated with apatinib or bevacizumab were selected and divided into two groups: one group was treated with amlodipine and the other group was treated with perindopril. Before and after treatment, the dynamic blood pressure (BP) measurement (systolic BP [SBP] and diastolic BP [DBP]), echocardiography (left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, interventricular septal thickness [IVST], left ventricular posterior wall thickness [LVPWT], and left atrial diameter [LAD]), and detection of nitric oxide (NO) content in venous blood were performed. In the amlodipine group, the 24hSBP, 24hSSD, 24hSCV, daytime mean SBP (dSBP), daytime mean SSD (dSSD), daytime mean SBP CV, night mean SBP (nSBP), night mean SSD, 24hDBP, 24hDSD, 24 h DBP CV, daytime mean DBP (dDBP), daytime mean DSD (dDSD), daytime mean DBP CV, night mean DBP (nDBP), LAD, and LAD index (LADi) after treatment were all lower than before treatment, while NO was higher than before treatment (all P < 0.05). In the perindopril group, the 24hSBP, dSBP, nSBP, 24hDBP, dDBP, nDBP, LAD, LADi, IVST, LVPWT, and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) after treatment were lower than before treatment, and NO level after treatment was higher than before treatment (all P < 0.05). After treatment, the 24hSBP, 24hSSD, dSBP, dSSD, nSBP, 24hDBP, 24hDSD, dDBP, dDSD, nDBP, night mean DSD, and NO were all lower while the LAD, LADi, IVST, LVPWT, and LVMI were higher in the amlodipine group than those in the perindopril group (all P < 0.05). Our study suggests that the SBP and DBP variability of amlodipine in the treatment of hypertension induced by apatinib and bevacizumab is slightly better than that of perindopril, but the effect of perindopril in improving endothelial function indices NO and echocardiographic data is better than that of amlodipine., Competing Interests: None

Background: Single-pill combination improves adherence and persistence to medication in hypertension. It remains unclear whether this also reduces cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. We analyzed whether single-pill combinations are superior to identical multiple pills on persistence to medication, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality., Methods: This was a retrospective claims data (German AOK PLUS) analysis. Data from hypertensive patients ≥18 years treated with renin-angiotensin system combinations given as single pill or identical multipills covering the years 2012 to 2018 were analyzed and followed up to at least 1 year. After 1:1 propensity score matching, persistence to medication, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality were compared using non-parametric tests. Results were reported as incidence rate ratios and hazard ratios., Results: After propensity score matching data from 57 998 patients were analyzed: 10 801 patients received valsartan/amlodipine, 1026 candesartan/amlodipine, 15 349 ramipril/amlodipine, and 1823 amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide as single pill or identical multipill. No relevant differences in patient characteristics were observed within the 4 groups. In all groups, a significant lower all-cause mortality, a significant a higher persistence to medication, a significant lower event rate in 15 out of 20 comparisons, and a tendency in the remaining 5 comparisons was observed under single pills compared with multipill combinations., Conclusions: Antihypertensive combination therapy reduces all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events when provided as single pill compared to identical drugs as multipills. This strongly supports the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and International Society of Hypertension guidelines recommending the use of a single-pill combination and thus should be more rigorously implemented into daily clinical practice.

This study aimed to investigate the possible drug-drug interactions (DDIs) of 5-FU with antihypertensives metabolised by CYP3A4 and 2C9, using blood pressure (BP) as a pharmacodynamic (PD) parameter. Patients who received 5-FU in combination with antihypertensives metabolised by CYP3A4 or 2C9, specifically, a) amlodipine, nifedipine, or amlodipine + nifedipine, b) candesartan or valsartan, or c) amlodipine + candesartan, amlodipine + losartan, or nifedipine + valsartan, (Group A, n = 20) were identified. Patients who received 5-FU with WF and antihypertensives, specifically, a) amlodipine or b) amlodipine + telmisartan, amlodipine + candesartan, or amlodipine + valsartan, (Group B, n = 5) or 5-FU alone (Group C, n = 25) were also identified and analysed as a comparator and control group, respectively. Regarding the peak BP levels during chemotherapy, there was a significant increase in both SBP ( P < 0.0002 and 0.0013) and DBP ( P = 0.0243 and 0.0032) in Groups A and C, respectively (Tukey-Kramer test). In contrast, although SBP also increased in Group B during chemotherapy, the change was not statistically significant and there was a decrease in DBP. The significant increase in SBP can be attributed to chemotherapy-induced hypertension by 5-FU or other drugs in the chemotherapeutic regimens. However, when comparing the lowest BP levels during chemotherapy, there was a decrease in SBP and DBP in all groups from the baseline values. The median time to peak and lowest BP was at least 2 weeks and 3 weeks, respectively, for all groups, suggesting that a BP lowering effect was observed following the offset of the initial chemotherapy-induced hypertension. At least 1 month after 5-FU chemotherapy, the SBP and DBP returned to baseline values in all groups. Since Group B also showed a significant increase in PT-INR, possibly demonstrating 5-FU inhibition of CYP activity and, consequently, of WF metabolism, it is likely that 5-FU also inhibited the metabolism of the antihypertensive drugs. The findings suggest possible DDIs between 5-FU and antihypertensives metabolised by CYP3A4.

Objectives: Iron overload in patients with thalassemia represents a serious complication by affecting numerous organ systems. This meta-analysis aims to establish an evidence regarding the effect of amlodipine on cardiac iron overload in thalassemia patients., Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and EMBASE for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were cardiac T2* and myocardial iron concentration (MIC). Secondary outcomes were liver iron concentration (LIC), risk of Gastrointestinal (G.I.) upset and risk of lower limb edema. We used Hedges' g to pool continuous outcomes, while odds ratio was used for dichotomous outcomes., Results: Seven RCTs were eligible for this systematic review and meta-analysis, comprising of 233 patients included in the analysis. Amlodipine had a statistically significant lower MIC (Hedges' g = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.40, -0.24], p < .001) and higher cardiac T2* (Hedges' g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.10, 0.62], p = .03). Amlodipine was comparable to standard chelation therapy in terms of the risk of lower limb edema and GI upset., Conclusion: Our meta-analysis found that amlodipine significantly increases cardiac T2* and decreases MIC, hence decreasing the incidence of cardiomyopathy-related iron overload in thalassemia patients., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

This study was designed to evaluate the synergism of two couples of antihypertensive drugs (amlodipine + telmisartan and amlodipine + candesartan) on blood pressure reduction in vivo by both SynergyFinder 3.0 and probability sum test. Spontaneously hypertensive rats were treated with intragastric administration of amlodipine (0.5, 1, 2, and 4 mg/kg), telmisartan (4, 8, and 16 mg/kg), candesartan (1, 2, and 4 mg/kg), nine combinations for amlodipine and telmisartan, and nine combinations for amlodipine and candesartan. The control rats were treated by 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose sodium. Blood pressure was recorded continuously up to 6 h after administration. Both SynergyFinder 3.0 and the probability sum test were used to evaluate the synergistic action. The synergisms calculated by SynergyFinder 3.0 are consistent with the probability sum test both in two different combinations. There is an obviously synergistic interaction between amlodipine and telmisartan or candesartan. The combinations of amlodipine and telmisartan (2 + 4 and 1 + 4 mg/kg) and amlodipine and candesartan (0.5 + 4 and 2 + 1 mg/kg) might exert an optimum synergism against hypertension. Compared with the probability sum test, SynergyFinder 3.0 is more stable and reliable to analyze the synergism., (© 2023 The Authors. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives published by British Pharmacological Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)