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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
UNASSIGNED: NCT01896661.

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.

UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: Our results indicate that more intensive BP control is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertensive PAD.

UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
What is the context?Arterial hypertension (HTN) represents the main risk factor for cause of death from cardiovascular disease (CV). Adequate control of hypertension reduces CV risk and significantly prevents CV events and associated morbidity and mortality. This requires patients’ adherence and persistence in implemented treatment and the achievement of tension targets that are related to the reduction of CV risk. The latest international recommendations indicate that hypertension control is insufficient in most countries. In Portugal, hypertension control is <43% and a significant number of patients treated do not comply with the recommendations.What is new?In a prospective, interventional, and multicentre study, carried out by General Practitioners (GPs) in Primary Health Care Units across Portugal, the objective was to determine (i) whether the presence of uncontrolled hypertension results from non-compliance with the provisions of the recommendations and the Integrated Care Process (PAI) of the Direção Geral de Saúde (DGS), i.e. inappropriate use of monotherapies or inadequate low doses of combinations of antihypertensives, and (ii) whether the adjustment of hypertension therapies, favouring the schemes provided in the recommendations, allows adequate control of arterial hypertension, in previously uncontrolled patients, when these are closely monitored in a 12-week time period.What is the impact?When the guidelines’ therapeutic protocol is followed, as established for each identified group of patients (monotherapy, hydrochlorothiazide, and no medication), results indicate a marked and statistically significant improvements in both SBP and DBP values and hypertension control across time.

The incidence of paediatric obesity continues to rise worldwide and contributes to a range of diseases including cardiovascular disease. Obesity in children has been shown to impact upon the plasma concentrations of various compounds, including amlodipine. Nonetheless, information on the influence of obesity on amlodipine pharmacokinetics and the need for dose adjustment has not been studied previously. This study applied the physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling and established a paediatric obesity population to assess the impact of obesity on amlodipine pharmacokinetics in children and explore the possible dose adjustments required to reach the same plasma concentration as non-obese paediatrics. The difference in predicted maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC) were significant between children with and without obesity across the age group 2 to 18 years old when a fixed-dose regimen was used. On the contrary, a weight-based dose regimen showed no difference in Cmax between obese and non-obese from 2 to 9 years old. Thus, when a fixed-dose regimen is to be administered, a 1.25- to 1.5-fold increase in dose is required in obese children to achieve the same Cmax concentration as non-obese children, specifically for children aged 5 years and above.

BACKGROUND: In China, the prevalence of hypertension is high and the use of combination antihypertensive therapy is low, which contributes to inadequate blood pressure (BP) control. The availability of simplified treatments combining complementary BP-lowering agents may help more patients achieve their goals.
METHODS: This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study included Chinese adults with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Following a 1-month run-in on perindopril/indapamide bi-therapy, patients with uncontrolled systolic/diastolic BP (≥140/90 mmHg) were randomized to perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind/Aml) single-pill combination (SPC) or perindopril 4 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind + Aml) for 6 months. Uptitration was permitted from month 2 onwards. The primary efficacy objective was the noninferiority of Per/Ind/Aml in lowering office systolic BP at 2 months. The secondary objectives included the effectiveness of SPC on diastolic BP, uptitration efficacy, and office BP control (systolic/diastolic <140/90 mmHg). A subgroup of patients participated in 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM).
RESULTS: A total of 532 patients were randomized: Per/Ind/Aml ( n  = 262) and Per/Ind + Aml ( n  = 269). Overall, the mean (±SD) age was 55.7 ± 8.8 years, 60.7% were male, and the mean office systolic/diastolic BP at baseline on Per/Ind was 150.4/97.2 mmHg. Systolic BP decreased in both groups at 2 months from baseline: -14.99 ± 14.46 mmHg Per/Ind/Aml versus -14.49 ± 12.87 mmHg Per/Ind +Aml. A predefined noninferiority margin of 4 mmHg was observed ( P  < 0.001). The effectiveness of the Per/Ind/Aml SPC was also demonstrated for all secondary endpoints. ABPM demonstrated sustained BP control over 24 h. Both treatments were well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: Per/Ind/Aml is an effective substitute for Per/Ind + Aml, providing at least equivalent BP control over 24 h in a single pill, with comparable safety.

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.
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.
BACKGROUND: URL: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04559074.

OBJECTIVE: 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.