Abstract:Hypertension affects nearly one-third of all individuals in the US, yet one-half of all treated patients achieve blood pressure (BP) controlled to recommended goals. The percentage of patients with uncontrolled BP is likely to be much higher when considering the number of patients who are not even aware of their hypertensive state. Elevated BP is associated with increased risks of cardiovascular events and end-organ damage. Antihypertensive monotherapy is not always sufficient to achieve BP goals, and thus mor… Show more
“…4 Monotherapy for the treatment of HTN has shown to achieve the desired BP goals in only one third of patients, and hence combination therapy is essential for reduction in the risk of adverse vascular outcome by effective achievement of BP goals in majority of hypertensive patients, especially stage 2 HTN. 26,27 For combination with S (-) amlodipine, telmisartan was the preferred agent of choice by the physicians. The rationale for combining agents which block the reninangiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and CCB is well established, and addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to CCB monotherapy has shown to ameliorate oedema by reducing the capillary bed pressure owing to its venodilatory action along with arteriolar dilatation.…”
BACKGROUND Calcium channel blockers (CCB) like amlodipine, S (-) amlodipine and cilnidipine, etc. have established place in the treatment of hypertension (HTN). As perceived by most of the physicians, they have comparative antihypertensive efficacy. However, available evidences suggest varied differences in incidence of pedal oedema. Aim-This survey was planned to understand real-world clinical practice pattern of Indian physicians for usage of various antihypertensive agents with emphasis on CCBs and whether differential incidence of oedema with CCBs is encountered in their clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Survey questionnaire consisting of 10 questions about preferred antihypertensive choice for different subsets of patients with HTN and efficacy and safety of S (-) amlodipine was prepared and validated in small group of physicians. Overall, 494 general physicians and cardiologists practising in India were approached for seeking their opinion on usage of various CCBs. Statistical Analysis-Data were expressed in percentage. Design-Prospective, cross sectional, questionnaire-based survey. RESULTS Amongst various anti-hypertensive agents, majority of the physicians preferred CCB as their initial drug of choice for patients with HTN (53.8%), HTN with CKD (41.1%), elderly (55.3%), and young (30.8%) patients. Though amlodipine was preferred by 75.7% physicians, pedal oedema was observed in >10% patients by 40.5% physicians. Most of the physicians rated S (-) amlodipine to have better efficacy (79.4%) and safety profile (88.3%) with decreased incidence of pedal oedema than racemic Amlodipine. CONCLUSION Available evidences suggest comparative efficacy of S (-) amlodipine and racemic amlodipine with varied differences in incidence of pedal oedema. However, our survey suggests better efficacy and safety of S (-) amlodipine over racemic amlodipine as opined by most of the physicians of India. The survey findings need to be further evaluated in randomised clinical trials.
“…4 Monotherapy for the treatment of HTN has shown to achieve the desired BP goals in only one third of patients, and hence combination therapy is essential for reduction in the risk of adverse vascular outcome by effective achievement of BP goals in majority of hypertensive patients, especially stage 2 HTN. 26,27 For combination with S (-) amlodipine, telmisartan was the preferred agent of choice by the physicians. The rationale for combining agents which block the reninangiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and CCB is well established, and addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to CCB monotherapy has shown to ameliorate oedema by reducing the capillary bed pressure owing to its venodilatory action along with arteriolar dilatation.…”
BACKGROUND Calcium channel blockers (CCB) like amlodipine, S (-) amlodipine and cilnidipine, etc. have established place in the treatment of hypertension (HTN). As perceived by most of the physicians, they have comparative antihypertensive efficacy. However, available evidences suggest varied differences in incidence of pedal oedema. Aim-This survey was planned to understand real-world clinical practice pattern of Indian physicians for usage of various antihypertensive agents with emphasis on CCBs and whether differential incidence of oedema with CCBs is encountered in their clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS Survey questionnaire consisting of 10 questions about preferred antihypertensive choice for different subsets of patients with HTN and efficacy and safety of S (-) amlodipine was prepared and validated in small group of physicians. Overall, 494 general physicians and cardiologists practising in India were approached for seeking their opinion on usage of various CCBs. Statistical Analysis-Data were expressed in percentage. Design-Prospective, cross sectional, questionnaire-based survey. RESULTS Amongst various anti-hypertensive agents, majority of the physicians preferred CCB as their initial drug of choice for patients with HTN (53.8%), HTN with CKD (41.1%), elderly (55.3%), and young (30.8%) patients. Though amlodipine was preferred by 75.7% physicians, pedal oedema was observed in >10% patients by 40.5% physicians. Most of the physicians rated S (-) amlodipine to have better efficacy (79.4%) and safety profile (88.3%) with decreased incidence of pedal oedema than racemic Amlodipine. CONCLUSION Available evidences suggest comparative efficacy of S (-) amlodipine and racemic amlodipine with varied differences in incidence of pedal oedema. However, our survey suggests better efficacy and safety of S (-) amlodipine over racemic amlodipine as opined by most of the physicians of India. The survey findings need to be further evaluated in randomised clinical trials.
“…Use of HCTZ alone causes volume contraction, which has been shown to cause an increase in RAS pathway activity to compensate. The synergistic addition of a RAS inhibitor to HCTZ blunts this physiological response to diuresis, thereby achieving volume contraction with decreased RAS activity [Punzi 2009[Punzi , 2011Punzi et al 2010].…”
Treatment with OM/AM/HCTZ achieved superior (SBP) ABPM reductions compared with mono, dual or triple drug therapy, resulting in all patients achieving systolic ABPM goal without ABPM documented hypotension.
“…It can also be used as initial therapy in those who need large reductions in systolic or diastolic BP to achieve goal BP 16,17. A recent review integrating the relevant approval studies for the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan and HCTZ with and without amlodipine found that the BP-lowering effect of the combination of olmesartan and HCTZ was superior to other combination therapies, and discussed a rationale for choosing HCTZ over another diuretic, ie, chlorthalidone, based on pharmacokinetic differences, clinical concerns, and trends in use 18. One of the largest studies tested the combination of olmesartan and HCTZ in 502 patients against placebo and the respective monotherapies, and found greater reductions in BP than with the individual components for all six dose combinations.…”
BackgroundThe safety and efficacy of olmesartan 40 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as a fixed-dose combination has been investigated in clinical trials leading to its approval. The aims of the present study were to confirm these data in an unselected patient population in daily practice and to determine the impact of physical activity on blood pressure control.MethodsIn a multicenter, noninterventional study, 3,333 patients with either insufficient blood pressure control on olmesartan 40 mg alone or on a fixed/free combination of olmesartan 40 mg and HCTZ 12.5/25 mg were primarily assessed for safety and tolerability of the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan 40 mg and HCTZ 12.5/25 mg at 24 ± 2 weeks. Secondary objectives were blood pressure reduction, treatment compliance, and impact of physical activity as measured by the sum of weekly energy costs.ResultsThe mean patient age was 63.2 ± 11.46 years, mean baseline blood pressure was 159.6 ± 15.28/93.5 ± 9.52 mmHg, and 70.9% had at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Adverse drug reactions were rare (n = 19), and no serious adverse drug reactions occurred. Compliance with drug therapy was at least sufficient in more than 99% of patients at the end of the study. Blood pressure at the last available visit was reduced by 26.1 ± 15.5/13.0 ± 10.1 mmHg versus baseline (P < 0.0001), but had reduced effectiveness in patients ≥75 years with diabetes or impaired renal function. In 69% of patients, blood pressure was normalized (<140/90 mmHg). No noteworthy differences in baseline characteristics or baseline blood pressure were found between patients with an activity level (sum of weekly energy costs) above or below the median of 9,460.6. A higher versus lower physical activity score had no impact on blood pressure reduction.ConclusionOur data confirm randomized trial data concerning safe and efficient blood pressure reduction using a fixed-dose combination of olmesartan 40 mg and HCTZ 12.5/25 mg in a large, unselected patient population, independent of physical activity level.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.