34
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Combination With Low-dose Dextromethorphan Improves the Effect of Amlodipine Monotherapy in Clinical Hypertension : A First-in-human, Concept-proven, Prospective, Dose-escalation, Multicenter Study

      research-article
      , MD, PhD, , PhD, , MD, PhD, , MD, , MD, , MD, PhD, , MD, , MD, PhD, , MD, PhD, , MD, PhD, , MD
      Medicine
      Wolters Kluwer Health

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The combination of low rather than high dose of dextromethorphan (DXM) with amlodipine (AM) could improve blood pressure (BP) reduction in hypertensive animals. The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of different doses of DXM combined with standard AM treatment in clinical hypertension.

          This was a prospective, 14-week, dose-escalation, multicenter study. After 2-week run-in period with AM 5 mg/day, hypertensive patients who got the BP goal of 140/90 mmHg kept receiving AM monotherapy for another 12 weeks. The nonresponders, while kept on AM 5 mg/day, received additional DXM treatment for 3 sequential dose-titrated periods with initially 2.5 mg/day, followed by 7.5 mg/day, and finally 30 mg/day. Each period was for 4 weeks. The patients at BP goal after each treatment period were defined as the responders and kept on the same combination till the end of the study. The responder rate of each treatment period was recorded. The changes of BP and serum antioxidant/endothelial markers between week 14 and week 2 were evaluated.

          Of the 103 patients initially enrolled, 89 entered the treatment period. In the 78 patients completing the study, 31 (40%) at BP goal after 2-week AM run-in kept on AM monotherapy (DXM0). The addition of 2.5 (DXM2.5) and 7.5 mg/day (DXM7.5) of DXM enabled BP goal achievement in 22 (47%) nonresponders to AM monotherapy including 16 (29%) with DXM2.5 and 6 (18%) with DXM7.5. Only 4 patients (16%) reached BP goal with the combination of DXM 30 mg/day (DXM30). Overall, 73% of the 78 patients reached BP goal at the end of the 14-week study. Mean systolic BP was reduced by 7.9% ± 7.0% with DXM2.5 ( P < 0.001) and by 5.4% ± 2.4% with DXM7.5 ( P = 0.003) respectively at week 14 from that at week 2, which was unchanged in either DXM0 or DXM30 group. Besides, the effects of combination treatment were particularly significant in the patients with impaired endothelial function suggested by reduced serum NOx level at baseline.

          Accordingly, the combination with low dose of DXM was feasible to improve BP control in patients who failed to achieve the BP goal by standard AM monotherapy. The benefit effects might be significant especially in patients with impaired endothelial function.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension.

          Hypertension is estimated to cause 4.5% of current global disease burden and is as prevalent in many developing countries, as in the developed world. Blood pressure-induced cardiovascular risk rises continuously across the whole blood pressure range. Countries vary widely in capacity for management of hypertension, but worldwide the majority of diagnosed hypertensives are inadequately controlled. This statement addresses the ascertainment of overall cardiovascular risk to establish thresholds for initiation and goals of treatment, appropriate treatment strategies for non-drug and drug therapies, and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Since publication of the WHO/ISH Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension in 1999, more evidence has become available to support a systolic blood pressure threshold of 140 mmHg for even 'low-risk' patients. In high-risk patients there is evidence for lower thresholds. Lifestyle modification is recommended for all individuals. There is evidence that specific agents have benefits for patients with particular compelling indications, and that monotherapy is inadequate for the majority of patients. For patients without a compelling indication for a particular drug class, on the basis of comparative trial data, availability, and cost, a low dose of diuretic should be considered for initiation of therapy. In most places a thiazide diuretic is the cheapest option and thus most cost effective, but for compelling indications where other classes provide additional benefits, even if more expensive, they may be more cost effective. In high-risk patients who attain large benefits from treatment, expensive drugs may be cost effective, but in low-risk patients treatment may not be cost-effective unless the drugs are cheap.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

            (2002)
            Antihypertensive therapy is well established to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality, but the optimal first-step therapy is unknown. To determine whether treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) or other cardiovascular disease (CVD) events vs treatment with a diuretic. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial conducted from February 1994 through March 2002. A total of 33 357 participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor from 623 North American centers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n = 15 255); amlodipine, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 9048); or lisinopril, 10 to 40 mg/d (n = 9054) for planned follow-up of approximately 4 to 8 years. The primary outcome was combined fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intent-to-treat. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, combined CHD (primary outcome, coronary revascularization, or angina with hospitalization), and combined CVD (combined CHD, stroke, treated angina without hospitalization, heart failure [HF], and peripheral arterial disease). Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. The primary outcome occurred in 2956 participants, with no difference between treatments. Compared with chlorthalidone (6-year rate, 11.5%), the relative risks (RRs) were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.07) for amlodipine (6-year rate, 11.3%) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.08) for lisinopril (6-year rate, 11.4%). Likewise, all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Five-year systolic blood pressures were significantly higher in the amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P =.03) and lisinopril (2 mm Hg, P<.001) groups compared with chlorthalidone, and 5-year diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower with amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P<.001). For amlodipine vs chlorthalidone, secondary outcomes were similar except for a higher 6-year rate of HF with amlodipine (10.2% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.25-1.52). For lisinopril vs chlorthalidone, lisinopril had higher 6-year rates of combined CVD (33.3% vs 30.9%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16); stroke (6.3% vs 5.6%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30); and HF (8.7% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31). Thiazide-type diuretics are superior in preventing 1 or more major forms of CVD and are less expensive. They should be preferred for first-step antihypertensive therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension among United States adults 1999-2004.

              Detection of hypertension and blood pressure control are critically important for reducing the risk of heart attacks and strokes. We analyzed the trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States in the period 1999-2004. We used the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999-2004 database. Blood pressure information on 14 653 individuals (4749 in 1999-2000, 5032 in 2001-2002, and 4872 in 2003-2004) aged >or=18 years was used. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure >or=140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medications. The prevalence of hypertension in 2003-2004 was 7.3+/-0.9%, 32.6+/-2.0%, and 66.3+/-1.8% in the 18 to 39, 40 to 59, and >or=60 age groups, respectively. The overall prevalence was 29.3%. When compared with 1999-2000, there were nonsignificant increases in the overall prevalence, awareness, and treatment rates of hypertension. The blood pressure control rate was 29.2+/-2.3% in 1999-2000 and 36.8+/-2.3% in 2003-2004. The age-adjusted increase in control rate was 8.1% (95% CI: 2.4 to 13.8%; P=0.006). The control rates increased significantly in both sexes, non-Hispanic blacks, and Mexican Americans. Among the >or=60 age group, the awareness, treatment, and control rates of hypertension had all increased significantly (P
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Wolters Kluwer Health
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                March 2016
                25 March 2016
                : 95
                : 12
                : e3234
                Affiliations
                From the Heart Center, Cheng-Hsin General Hospital (W-HY); Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University (W-HY); Institute of Pharmacology, National Yang-Ming University (J-WC); TSH Biopharm Corporation Ltd (PC); Department of Medicine, Mackay Memorial Hospital, Taipei (H-IY); Division of Cardiology, Taichung Veterans General Hospital (K-YW); Department of Internal Medicine, Chung San Medical University, Taichung (K-YW); Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism (Y-JH); Division of Cardiology, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei (S-MC); Department of Cardiology, E-DA Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung (W-KT); Department of Cardiology, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital Linkou, Taoyuan (M-SW); Division of Cardiology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital (T-CW, J-WC); Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital (C-CW); and Department of Medical Research, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC (J-WC).
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Jaw-Wen Chen, MD, FAHA, FESC, Department of Medical Research, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Sec. 2, Shih-Pai Road, Taipei 11217, Taiwan, R.O.C (e-mail: jwchenvghtpe.gov.tw, iwche99@ 123456gmail.com ).
                Article
                03234
                10.1097/MD.0000000000003234
                4998419
                27015224
                c865450c-a262-4a91-9986-7bd4b58ee372
                Copyright © 2016 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0, where it is permissible to download, share and reproduce the work in any medium, provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0

                History
                : 3 January 2016
                : 1 March 2016
                : 2 March 2016
                Categories
                3400
                Research Article
                Observational Study
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                Comments

                Comment on this article