OBJECTIVES:Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has greater predictive value than office blood pressure (BP) with respect to hypertension-related target-organ damage and morbidity. ABPM in a subset of 80 patients from the Exforge Target Achievement trial (N=728) was used to compare the efficacy of intensive-treatment and moderate-treatment regimens of amlodipine/valsartan, and to determine whether treatment differences could be better assessed with ABPM than with office or home BP. Home BP was measured on the morning of clinic visits to minimize differences that timing might have on home versus office BP measures. METHODS: A 12-week randomized, double-blind study in which hypertensive patients earlier uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic BP≥150 and <200 mmHg) on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (other than valsartan) after 28 days or more (N=728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan treatment [10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate)]. Treatment-naive patients (in previous 28 days) or patients who failed on anonangiotensin receptor blocker agent underwent a 28-day run-in period with a 20-mg or 40-mg dose of olmesartan, respectively. RESULTS: Significantly greater 24-h ABP reductions from baseline to week 4 (primary time point) were observed with intensive versus moderate treatment (least-square mean systolic/diastolic BP reduction of -16.2/-10.1 vs. -9.5/-6.5 mmHg; P=0.0024/P=0.010 for least-square mean difference). Similarly, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving an intensive treatment achieved ambulatory BP goal (<130/80 mmHg) at week 4 than did those receiving a moderate treatment (P=0.040). Treatment-group differences did not reach statistical significance for these end points when measured by office and home BP. CONCLUSION: In this first randomized trial evaluating the effects of intensive versus moderate dosing of the combination of amlodipine/valsartan, our data suggest that ABPM was a better method for assessing between-treatment differences than clinic or home BP recordings, although measurement of home BP as a single recording was a limitation of our trial.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has greater predictive value than office blood pressure (BP) with respect to hypertension-related target-organ damage and morbidity. ABPM in a subset of 80 patients from the Exforge Target Achievement trial (N=728) was used to compare the efficacy of intensive-treatment and moderate-treatment regimens of amlodipine/valsartan, and to determine whether treatment differences could be better assessed with ABPM than with office or home BP. Home BP was measured on the morning of clinic visits to minimize differences that timing might have on home versus office BP measures. METHODS: A 12-week randomized, double-blind study in which hypertensivepatients earlier uncontrolled (mean sitting systolic BP≥150 and <200 mmHg) on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy (other than valsartan) after 28 days or more (N=728) were randomized to amlodipine/valsartan treatment [10/320 mg (intensive) or 5/160 mg (moderate)]. Treatment-naive patients (in previous 28 days) or patients who failed on a nonangiotensin receptor blocker agent underwent a 28-day run-in period with a 20-mg or 40-mg dose of olmesartan, respectively. RESULTS: Significantly greater 24-h ABP reductions from baseline to week 4 (primary time point) were observed with intensive versus moderate treatment (least-square mean systolic/diastolic BP reduction of -16.2/-10.1 vs. -9.5/-6.5 mmHg; P=0.0024/P=0.010 for least-square mean difference). Similarly, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving an intensive treatment achieved ambulatory BP goal (<130/80 mmHg) at week 4 than did those receiving a moderate treatment (P=0.040). Treatment-group differences did not reach statistical significance for these end points when measured by office and home BP. CONCLUSION: In this first randomized trial evaluating the effects of intensive versus moderate dosing of the combination of amlodipine/valsartan, our data suggest that ABPM was a better method for assessing between-treatment differences than clinic or home BP recordings, although measurement of home BP as a single recording was a limitation of our trial.
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Renata Cifkova; Robert Fagard; Giuseppe Germano; Guido Grassi; Anthony M Heagerty; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stephane Laurent; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Luis Ruilope; Andrzej Rynkiewicz; Roland E Schmieder; Harry A J Struijker Boudier; Alberto Zanchetti; Alec Vahanian; John Camm; Raffaele De Caterina; Veronica Dean; Kenneth Dickstein; Gerasimos Filippatos; Christian Funck-Brentano; Irene Hellemans; Steen Dalby Kristensen; Keith McGregor; Udo Sechtem; Sigmund Silber; Michal Tendera; Petr Widimsky; José Luis Zamorano; Serap Erdine; Wolfgang Kiowski; Enrico Agabiti-Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Lars H Lindholm; Margus Viigimaa; Stamatis Adamopoulos; Enrico Agabiti-Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Vicente Bertomeu; Denis Clement; Serap Erdine; Csaba Farsang; Dan Gaita; Gregory Lip; Jean-Michel Mallion; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Eoin O'Brien; Piotr Ponikowski; Josep Redon; Frank Ruschitzka; Juan Tamargo; Pieter van Zwieten; Bernard Waeber; Bryan Williams Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Thomas G Pickering; William B White; Thomas D Giles; Henry R Black; Joseph L Izzo; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Michael A Weber Journal: J Am Soc Hypertens Date: 2010 Mar-Apr
Authors: Yves Lacourcière; Jackson T Wright; Rita Samuel; Dion Zappe; Das Purkayastha; Henry R Black Journal: Blood Press Monit Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: José Boggia; Yan Li; Lutgarde Thijs; Tine W Hansen; Masahiro Kikuya; Kristina Björklund-Bodegård; Tom Richart; Takayoshi Ohkubo; Tatiana Kuznetsova; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Lars Lind; Hans Ibsen; Yutaka Imai; Jiguang Wang; Edgardo Sandoya; Eoin O'Brien; Jan A Staessen Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Leopoldo Raij; Brent M Egan; Dion H Zappe; Das Purkayastha; Rita Samuel; James R Sowers Journal: J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Paweł Krzesiński; Adam Stańczyk; Grzegorz Gielerak; Katarzyna Piotrowicz; Małgorzata Banak; Agnieszka Wójcik Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.318