Why the study?
Does combination therapy of nifedipine GITS 30 mg plus valsartan 80 mg improve blood pressure reduction compared to high-dose valsartan 160 mg monotherapy in Asian patients with hypertension inadequately controlled on valsartan 80 mg?
Does combination therapy of nifedipine GITS 30 mg plus valsartan 80 mg improve blood pressure reduction compared to high-dose valsartan 160 mg monotherapy in Asian patients with hypertension inadequately controlled on valsartan 80 mg?
In Asian patients with hypertension uncontrolled on valsartan 80 mg, adding nifedipine GITS 30 mg provided superior diastolic blood pressure reduction and overall blood pressure control rates compared to up-titrating valsartan to 160 mg, despite no significant difference in systolic blood pressure reduction.
Supports adding nifedipine GITS over valsartan uptitration for DBP control in Asians; extends CCB-ARB combination evidence.
AIMS: ADVISE was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, prospective, open-label, parallel-group study comparing combination therapy of nifedipine GITS 30 mg plus valsartan 80 mg (N + V) with high-dose valsartan (160 mg) monotherapy (V160) in Asian patients with hypertension. METHODS: Patients with hypertension inadequately controlled with valsartan 80 mg for at least 4 weeks were randomized. The coprimary endpoints were the mean changes in clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP, respectively) at Week 12. Other endpoints included blood pressure (BP) control rate, response rate, and adverse events. RESULTS: The full analysis set (FAS) comprised 359 patients. Least squares (LS) mean changes in SBP were -18.3 mmHg (N + V; n = 177) and -16.5 mmHg (V160; n = 182) (difference: -1.9 mmHg; P = 0.0998). DBP LS mean changes were -9.8 mmHg (N + V) and -7.4 mmHg (V160) (difference: -2.4 mmHg; P = 0.0011). BP control rates were significantly higher in the N + V group (Week 4: 51.2% vs. 38.4%, P = 0.0138; Week 8: 68.3% vs. 50.3%, P = 0.0004; and Week 12: 71.2% vs. 55.5%, P = 0.0024). Similar findings were observed when patients were stratified according to smoking status, SBP baseline quartiles, and ESC/ESH guideline-defined added-risk category. The BP response rate was also higher in the N + V group compared with the V160 group. Rates of adverse drug reactions (all mild-to-moderate) were similar: 4.5% (N + V) and 4.4% (V160). CONCLUSIONS: Although one of the coprimary endpoints did not reach statistical significance, combination treatment with N + V provided a greater early and more consistent BP-lowering effect than monotherapy with V160, including superior reduction in DBP and BP control rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ke et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: