Advances in Therapy

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 149–161

Effects of valsartan/ hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine on ambulatory blood pressure and plasma norepinephrine levels in high-risk hypertensive patients

  • Ettore Malacco
  • Simona Piazza
  • Luciana Scandiani
  • Annalisa Zoppi
Article

Abstract

The efficacy and tolerability of the combination of valsartan and hydrochlorothi-azide (HCTZ) were compared with that of amlodipine in reducing ambulatory blood pressure and plasma norepinephrine levels in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor. At the end of a 2-week washout period, 92 outpatients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure ≥95 and <110 mm Hg, associated with at least 1 additional risk factor, were randomly assigned to receive either valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily (n=46) or amlodipine 10 mg alone once daily (n=46) for 12 weeks, according to a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-group design. At the end of the washout period and after 6 and 12 weeks of active treatment, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed, and clinical blood pressure and heart rate and plasma norepinephrine levels were assessed (by high-performance liquid chromatography). Both the valsartan/HCTZ combination and amlodipine had a demonstrable antihypertensive effect, but the combination showed an antihypertensive effect significantly greater than that of amlodipine, as demonstrated by the 24-hour (P < .001), daytime (P < .001), and nighttime ambulatory blood pressure values (P < .01) and by the clinical blood pressure values at trough, which were all significantly lower. Although the trough-to-peak ratios were similar in both groups, the smoothness indexes pertaining to both systolic and diastolic pressures were significantly higher (P < .05 andP < .001, respectively) in patients receiving valsartan/HCTZ, suggesting the combination produces a more homogeneous antihypertensive effect. A significant increase in plasma norepinephrine levels was associated with amlodipine (+9% at 6 weeks, +15% at 12 weeks) but not with the valsartan/HCTZ combination. The valsartan/HCTZ combination was better tolerated than amlodipine, which was associated with a higher frequency of ankle edema. These results indicate that the combination of valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg provides more sustained and homogeneous control of blood pressure than does amlodipine 10 mg in high-risk hypertensive patients, without producing reflex sympathetic activation.

Keywords

valsartan/HCTZ combination amlodipine norepinephrine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2413–2446.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHO/ISH Guidelines Committee. 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines far the Management of Hypertension.J Hypertens. 1999;17:151–183.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adler AI, Stratton IM, Neil HA, et al. association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study.Br Med J. 2000;321:412–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients.N Engl J Med. 2000; 342:145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Materson BJ, Reader DJ, Cushman WC, et al. Single drug therapy for hypertension in men.N Engl J Med. 1993;328:914–921.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sica DA. Fixed-dose combination of antihypertensive drugs; principles and practice.Cardiovasc Rev Rep. 1997;9:28–46.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weber MA. Rationalizing the treatment of hypertension.Am J Hypertens. 2001;14:3S-7S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puschett JB. Diuretics. In: Oparil S, Weber MA Eds.Hypertension: A Companion to Brenner and Rector’s The Kidney. WB: Saunders Company, Philadelphia 2000, pp. 584–590.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Markham A, Goa KL. Valsartan. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in essential hypertension.Drugs. 1997;54:299–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Langtry HD, McClellan KJ. Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide.Drugs. 1999;57:751–755.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haria M, Wagstaff AJ. Amlodipine: A reappraisal of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in cardiovascular disease.Drugs. 1995;50:580–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lopez LM, Thorman AD, Mehta JL. Effects of amlodipine on blood pressure, heart rate, catecholamines, lipids and responses to adrenergic stimulus.Am J Cardiol. 1990;66:1269–1271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Champlain J, Karas M, Nguyen P et al. Different effects of nifedipine and amlodipine on circulating catecholamine levels in essential hypertensive patients.J Hypertens. 1998;16: 1357–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fogari R, Zoppi A, Corradi L, et al. Effects of different dihydropyridine calcium antagonists on plasma norepinephrine in essential hypertension.J Hypertens. 2000;18:1871–1875.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palatini P. Sympathetic overactivity in hypertension: a risk factor for cardiovascular disease.Curr Hypertens Rep. 2001;3(suppl 1):S3-S9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mancia G, Grassi G, Giannattasio C, Serravalle G. Sympathetic activation in the pathogenesis of hypertension and progression of organ damage.Hypertension. 1999;34:724–728.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leenen FH. Cardiovascular consequences of sympathetic hyperactivity.Callo J Cardiol. 1999; 15(suppl A):2A-7A.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hansson L, Hedner T, Dahlöf B. Prospective, randomized, open, blinded, end-point (PROBE) study: A novel design for intervention trials.Blood Press. 1992;1:113–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groppelli A, Omboni S, Ravogli A, et al. Validation of the Spacelabs 90202 and 90207 devices for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring by comparison with intra-arterial resting and ambulatory measurements.J Hypertens. 1991;9(suppl 3):S334-S355.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Proposed guidelines for the Clinical Evaluation of Antihypertensive Drugs. Rockville; Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Cardio-Renal Drug Products;1988.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zanchetti A On behalf of the Italian Nifedipine GITS Study Group. Trough:peak ratio of the blood pressure response to dihydropyridine calcium antagonists.J Hypertens. 1994;12(suppl 8): S97-S106.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Omboni S, Parati G, Zanchetti A, Mancia G. Calculation of trough:peak ratio of antihypertensive treatment from ambulatory blood pressure. Methodological aspects.J Hypertens. 1995;13:1105–1112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parati G, Omboni S, Rizzoni D, Agabiti-Rosei E, Mancia G. The smoothness index: a new, reproducible and clinically relevant measure of the homogeneity of the blood pressure reduction with treatment for hypertension.J Hypertens. 1998;16:1685–1691.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meredith FA. Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index for antihypertensive agents.Blood Press Monit. 1999;4:257–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rea RF, Eckberg DL, Fritsch JM, Goldstein DS. Relation of plasma norepinephrine and sympathetic traffic during hypotension in humans.Am J Physiol. 1990;258:R982-R986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Remie R, Zaagsma J. A new technique for the study of vascular presynaptic receptors in freely moving rats.Heart Circ Physiol. 1986;251:4463–4467.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hijemdahl P. Plasma catecholamines as markers for sympatho-adrenal activity in human primary hypertension.Phannacol Toxicol. 1988;63(suppl 1):27–31.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Palatini P, Malacco E, Di Somma S, et al. Through:peak ratio and smoothness index in the evaluation of 24h blood pressure control in hypertension: a comparative study between valsartan/ hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;57:765–770.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frattola A, Parati G, Cuspidi C, et al. Prognostic value of 24-hour blood pressure variability.J Hypertens. 1993;11:1133–1137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parati G, Di Rienzo M, Ulian L, et al. Clinical relevance of blood pressure variability.J Hypertens. 1998;16(suppl 3):525–533.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aronow WS, Ahn C, Mercando AD, Epstein S. Association of average heart rate on 24 h ambulatory electrocardiograms with incidence of new coronary events at 48 month follow-up in 1311 patients (mean age:81 years) with heart disease and sinus rhythm.Am J Cardiol. 1996; 78:1175–1176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jouven X, Desnos M, Guerot C, Ducimetiere P. Predicting sudden death in the population: The Paris Prospective Study I.Circulation. 1999;99:1918–1983.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Palatini P. Elevated heart rate as a predictor of increased cardiovascular morbidity.J Hypertens. 1999;17(suppl 3)S3-S10.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Head GA Role of ATI receptors in the centraI control ofsympathetic vasomotor function.Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1996, 3(suppl):S93-S98Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dendorfer A, Raasch W, Tempel K, Dominiak P. Interaction between the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and the sympathetic system.Basic Res Cardiol. 1998;93:24–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Krum H. Differentiation in the angiotensin Il receptor 1 blocker class on autonomic function.Curr Hypertens Reports. 2001;3(suppl 1):S17-S23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Moan A, Hoieggen A, Nordby G, Eide IK, Kjeldsen SE Effects of losartan on insulin sensitivity in severe hypertension:connections through sympathetic nervous system activity?J Hum Hypertens. 1995;9(suppl 5):S45-S50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Balt JC, Mathy MJ, Pfaffendorf M, Van Zwieten PA. Blockade of both preand post-synaptically located ATI receptors by valsartan, candesartan, eprosartan and embusartan.Naunyn Schmiedeberg’s Arch Pharmacol. 2001;363(suppl):R75.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ye S, Zhong H, Duong N, Campese VM. Losartan reduces central and peripheral sympathetic nerve activity in a rat model of neurogenic hypertension.Hypertension. 2002;39:1101–1106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burnier M, Brunner HR. Neurohormonal consequences of diuretics in different cardiovascular syndromes.Eur Heart J. 1992;13:28–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sleight P. The sympathetic nervous system in hypertension: Differing effects of drug treatment.Eur Heart J. 1998;19(suppl F):F39-F44.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Health Communications Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ettore Malacco
    • 1
  • Simona Piazza
    • 1
  • Luciana Scandiani
    • 1
  • Annalisa Zoppi
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Internal Medicine, L. Sacco HospitalUniversity of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations