Add-on effect of hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in Japanese subjects with essential hypertension uncontrolled with losartan 50 mg and amlodipine 5 mg

被引:0
作者
Hiromi Rakugi
Takuya Tsuchihashi
Kazuyuki Shimada
Hirotaka Numaguchi
Chisato Nishida
Hiroya Yamaguchi
Masayoshi Shirakawa
Kyoichi Azuma
Kenji P Fujita
机构
[1] Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine,Department of Geriatric Medicine and Nephrology
[2] Hypertension Center,Department of Internal Medicine and Cardiology
[3] Steel Memorial Yawata Hospital,undefined
[4] Shin-Oyama City Hospital,undefined
[5] MSD K.K.,undefined
[6] Merck & Co.,undefined
[7] Inc.,undefined
来源
Hypertension Research | 2015年 / 38卷
关键词
amlodipine; hydrochlorothiazide; Japan; losartan;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This study assessed the antihypertensive efficacy of a triple combination, fixed-dose therapy of losartan 50 mg (L50)/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (H12.5)/amlodipine 5 mg (A5) versus co-administration of L50 plus A5 (L50+A5) in Japanese subjects with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Initially, all subjects received single-blind treatment with L50+A5 for 8 weeks. Subjects whose blood pressure (BP) remained stable within pre-specified limits during the last 4 weeks of L50+A5 administration were randomized (n=327) to double-blind treatment with L50/H12.5/A5 or L50+A5 for 8 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were mean change from baseline to Week 8 in trough diastolic BP (DBP) and trough systolic BP (SBP), respectively. Safety was assessed throughout the study. The treatment difference for L50/H12.5/A5 versus L50+A5 in mean change from baseline in DBP at Week 8 was −1.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) −2.7, 0.6; P=0.205). However, the treatment difference in mean change from baseline in SBP at Week 8 was −3.2 mm Hg (95% CI: −5.7, −0.8; P=0.011). A chance imbalance in the change in DBP before randomization between groups was identified in a post-hoc analysis as a major reason for the smaller-than-expected difference in DBP between groups. The overall safety profile was generally similar between groups. In conclusion, treatment with L50/H12.5/A5 for 8 weeks did not demonstrate a significant difference in DBP reduction, but demonstrated a nominally significant difference in SBP reduction, compared with L50+A5. L50/H12.5/A5 was well tolerated. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01302691.)
引用
收藏
页码:329 / 335
页数:6
相关论文
共 129 条
[1]  
Shimamoto K(2014)The Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of hypertension (JSH 2014) Hypertens Res 37 253-387
[2]  
Ando K(2006)Current status of antihypertensive prescription and associated blood pressure control in Japan Hypertens Res 29 143-151
[3]  
Fujita T(2011)Relationship between blood pressure control status and lifestyle in hypertensive outpatients Intern Med 50 2107-2112
[4]  
Hasebe N(2012)How do compliance, convenience, and tolerability affect blood pressure goal rates? Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 12 295-302
[5]  
Higaki J(2013)Treatment adherence, clinical outcomes, and economics of triple-drug therapy in hypertensive patients J Am Soc Hypertens 7 46-60
[6]  
Horiuchi M(2011)Switching therapy from variable-dose multiple pill to fixed-dose single-pill combinations of angiotensin II receptor blockers and thiazides for hypertension Clin Exp Hypertens 33 309-315
[7]  
Imai Y(2013)Hypertension management: rationale for triple therapy based on mechanisms of action Cardiovasc Ther 31 251-258
[8]  
Imaizumi T(2000)Longitudinal data analysis of continuous and discrete responses for pre-post designs Sankyâ 62 134-148
[9]  
Ishimitsu T(2000)Inference for imputation estimators Biometrika 87 113-124
[10]  
Ito M(1997)Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood Biometrics 53 983-997