Elsevier

Clinical Therapeutics

Volume 25, Issue 11, November 2003, Pages 2765-2780
Clinical Therapeutics

Original research
A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group comparison of valsartan and amlodipine in the treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in elderly patients: The Val-Syst study

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2918(03)80332-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Background: Some antihypertensive therapies are limited by dose-dependent adverse effects (AEs). The angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan has been shown to reduce blood pressure (BP) in a dose-related manner with minimal dose-limiting AEs. Amlodipine besylate is a potent dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker also with dose-related antihypertensive efficacy, but with possible dose-limiting AEs, particularly peripheral edema.

Objectives: This study compared the risk/benefit profiles of valsartan and amlodipine in elderly patients who have isolated systolic hypertension (ISH).

Methods: This 24-week, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, titration-to-effect, parallel-group study was conducted at 35 outpatient centers in Italy. Elderly (aged 60–80 years) patients with ISH received oral treatment with valsartan 80-mg capsules or amlodipine 5-mg capsules once daily. After 8 weeks of treatment, the dose of the patients with poorly controlled systolic BP (SBP) was titrated to 160 mg (valsartan) or 10 mg (amlodipine) once daily. At week 16, if trough SBP was still not adequately controlled, a low-dose diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 12.5 mg) was added to the treatment regimen for an additional 8 weeks. Tolerability was assessed at all study visits using physical examination and patient interview.

Results: Of 421 randomized patients (231 women, 190 men; mean [SD] age, 69 [6] years), 208 were included in the valsartan group, and 213 in the amlodipine group. The efficacy of valsartan-based treatment. in reducing SBP was similar to that of amlodipine-based treatment. With doubled doses, efficacy (change in SBP) increased significantly from baseline (both P < 0.01). The frequency of AEs doubled with amlodipine 10 mg but was not clinically relevant with valsartan 160 mg. Overall, AEs were observed in 31.9% of those receiving amlodipine versus 20.2% of the patients receiving valsartan (P < 0.003), with peripheral edema rates of 26.8% and 4.8%, respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this study population of elderly patients with ISH, valsartan—given alone or in combination with HCTZ 12.5 mg—showed similar efficacy but better tolerability than amlodipine-based treatment.

References (30)

  • P. Palatini et al.

    Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index in the evaluation of 24-h blood pressure control in hypertension: A comparative study between valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine

    Eur J Clin Pharmacol

    (2002)
  • B. Waeber et al.

    Combination of hydrochlorothiazide or benazepril with valsartan in hypertensive patients unresponsive to valsartan alone

    J Hypertens

    (2001)
  • J.M. Mallion et al.

    Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is effective in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by valsartan monotherapy

    Blood Press Suppl

    (2003)
  • J.R. Benz et al.

    Valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension. A multiple dose, double-blind, placebo controlled trial comparing combination therapy with monotherapy

    J Hum Hypertens

    (1998)
  • A. Schmidt et al.

    Antihypertensive effects of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in essential hypertension

    Blood Press

    (2001)

    • Cited by (0)

    ∗

    The Val-Syst Investigators are listed in the Acknowledgments.

    View full text
    Copyright © 2003 Published by Elsevier Inc.