Why the study?
Does amlodipine/valsartan reduce left ventricular hypertrophy compared to losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension?
Does amlodipine/valsartan reduce left ventricular hypertrophy compared to losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension?
Both amlodipine/valsartan and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide are effective at reducing left ventricular mass in patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy.
Both regimens reduce LV mass index in hypertensive LVH; confirms comparable efficacy of these combinations for regression.
BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a marker of cardiac end-organ damage, is frequently found in patients with arterial hypertension and is associated with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality. Therefore, LVH regression is an important treatment goal. For amlodipine plus valsartan (A/V) no specific study on LVH has been reported to date. METHODS: Prospective, open-label, randomized parallel-group study. Patients with essential hypertension and LVH were randomized to 52-week treatment with A/V 10/160 mg (n = 43) or the active comparator losartan/HCT 100/25 mg (L/H, n = 47). Add-on medication was allowed in case of inadequate blood pressure control. LV parameters were measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and adjudicated in a blinded manner. Study identifiers were NCT00446563 and EudraCT 2006-001977-17. RESULTS: In addition to the study treatment, 35% of patients in the A/V group and 49% in the L/H group received additional antihypertensive medication. Compared to baseline, both treatments reduced measures of LVH significantly after 52 weeks (e.g. LV mass index in the A/V group from 64.7 g/m(2) by -3.5 g/m(2), in the L/H group from 69.1 g/m(2) by -4.4 g/m(2), p < 0.01 for both). LV ejection fraction and LV volumes were not significantly changed by any regimen. A/V and L/H treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Both regimen were effective in reducing LV mass compared to baseline and were well tolerated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruder et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: