Dataset Information

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide.

ABSTRACT: This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

SUBMITTER: Neutel JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8031288 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide.

Neutel Joel M JM Cushman William C WC Lloyd Eric E Barger Bruce B Handley Alison A

Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) 20170706 9

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United St ...[more]

PMID: 28681550

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of triple fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 20 mg, amlodipine (AML) 5 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg (OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5) in Korean patients with moderate hypertension not controlled with dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5).MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study, Korean patients aged 20 to 75 years with stage 2 hypertension who had a mean seated diastolic blood pressure (msDBP) ≥100 mmHg were enrolled when their BP was uncontrolled [mean seated systolic BP (msSBP)/msDBP >140/90 mmHg or msSBP/msDBP >130/80 mmHg with diabetes or chronic kidney disease] with 4-week dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5). The patients were randomized to receive either OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 or OM/HCTZ 20/12.5 once daily for 8 weeks. At the end of 8 weeks, patients with uncontrolled BP were assigned to receive either OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 or OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 in an additional 8-week open-label extension period.ResultsA total of 623 patients received a 4-week run-in treatment with OM/HCTZ, 341 patients were randomized, and finally, 167 patients in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and 171 patients in the OM/HCTZ group were analyzed for the full analysis set. Non-responders after the 8 weeks of double-blind treatment continued the 8-week open-label treatment with OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 mg (n = 32) or OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg (n = 71). After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the changes in msDBP were -9.50 (8.46) mmHg in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and -4.23 (7.41) mmHg in the OM/HCTZ group (both p < 0.0001 vs. baseline; p < 0.0001 between groups). The response rates for both msSBP and msDBP at week 8 were 65.27 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ group and 37.43 % in the OM/HCTZ group (p < 0.0001 between groups). The response rates for both msSBP and msDBP at week 16 after open-label treatment were 18.75 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ 40/5/12.5 group and 46.48 % in the OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 group (p = 0.0073 between groups). All medications were well tolerated.ConclusionIn Korean patients with moderate hypertension not controlled with dual FDC therapy (OM/HCTZ 20/12.5) as first-line therapy, switching to triple FDC therapy (OM/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5) was associated with significant BP reductions and greater achievement of BP goals, and was well tolerated (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01838850).

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

Project description:ObjectivesThis is a prespecified subgroup analysis in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients of a study that evaluated blood pressure (BP) control with fixed-dose amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (AML/OM)-based therapy in patients whose condition was uncontrolled on prior monotherapy.MethodsIn this prospective, open-label, dose-titration study, patients with uncontrolled BP after at least 1 month of antihypertensive monotherapy were switched to fixed-dose AML/OM 5/20 mg. Patients were uptitrated to AML/OM 5/40 and 10/40 mg, with uptitration to AML/OM + hydrochlorothiazide 10/40 + 12.5 mg and 10/40 + 25 mg to achieve target BP. The primary efficacy endpoint was the cumulative proportion of patients achieving seated cuff systolic BP (SeSBP) less than 140 mmHg (<130 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) at 12 weeks. Secondary endpoints included SeBP goal rates, ambulatory BP (ABP) target rates, and mean change from baseline in seated cuff BP (SeBP) and ABP at weeks 12 and 20.ResultsMean baseline BP was similar in Hispanics (153.6/92.8 mmHg; n = 105) and non-Hispanics (153.7/91.8 mmHg; n = 894). At 12 weeks, 72.0% of Hispanics and 76.3% of non-Hispanics achieved the primary endpoint. At week 12, goal rates for cumulative SeBP (<140/90 mmHg or <130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes) were 69.0% and 71.5% in Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients, respectively. Mean change in SeBP in Hispanics ranged from -15.3/-7.3 mmHg for AML/OM 5/20 mg to -23.2/-13.8 mmHg for AML/OM 10/40 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, and in non-Hispanics from -14.1/-7.8 mmHg to -25.4/-13.7 mmHg (all p < 0.0001 versus baseline). A majority of patients achieved mean 24 h, daytime, and nighttime ABP targets in both subgroups. Greater proportions of Hispanics achieved ABP targets versus non-Hispanics at week 12; however, this trend was reversed at week 20. Treatment was well tolerated.ConclusionsSwitching to a fixed-dose combination of AML/OM ± hydrochlorothiazide provided significant BP lowering and effectively controlled BP in a large proportion of Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with hypertension uncontrolled on previous monotherapy.

Dataset Information

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide.

Publications

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets