IJRPC 2011, 1(3) Patel et al. ISSN: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PHARMACY AND CHEMISTRY

Similar documents
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH AND BIO-SCIENCE

Hypertension Update 2009

Metoprolol Succinate SelokenZOC

In the Literature 1001 BP of 1.1 mm Hg). The trial was stopped early based on prespecified stopping rules because of a significant difference in cardi

Received: / Revised: / Accepted: / Published:

By Prof. Khaled El-Rabat

Hypertension Update Clinical Controversies Regarding Age and Race

47 Hypertension in Elderly

PFIZER INC. THERAPEUTIC AREA AND FDA APPROVED INDICATIONS: See USPI.

High-dose monotherapy vs low-dose combination therapy of calcium channel blockers and angiotensin receptor blockers in mild to moderate hypertension

The Indian Polycap Study 1 & 2 (TIPS 1 & 2) and The International Polycap Study 3 & 4 (TIPS 3 & 4)

Hypertension. Does it Matter What Medications We Use? Nishant K. Sekaran, M.D. M.Sc. Intermountain Heart Institute

HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES WHERE ARE WE IN 2014

SYNOPSIS. Publications No publications at the time of writing this report.

JNC 8 -Controversies. Sagren Naidoo Nephrologist CMJAH

EFFICACY & SAFETY OF ORAL TRIPLE DRUG COMBINATION OF TELMISARTAN, AMLODIPINE AND HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF NON-DIABETIC HYPERTENSION

Hypertension and Cardiovascular Disease

A fixed-dose combination of bisoprolol and amlodipine in daily practice treatment of hypertension: Results of a noninvestigational

The CARI Guidelines Caring for Australasians with Renal Impairment. Blood Pressure Control role of specific antihypertensives

ALLHAT. Major Outcomes in High Risk Hypertensive Patients Randomized to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Calcium Channel Blocker vs Diuretic

DISCLOSURES OUTLINE OUTLINE 9/29/2014 ANTI-HYPERTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE

Combination Therapy for Hypertension

Antihypertensive Trial Design ALLHAT

Managing hypertension: a question of STRATHE

IRBES_R_04320 Generic drug name: Irbesartan + amlodipine Date: Study Code: 31 active centers: 20 in Korea, 7 in India and 4 in Philippines.

Introductory Clinical Pharmacology Chapter 41 Antihypertensive Drugs

DISCLOSURE PHARMACIST OBJECTIVES 9/30/2014 JNC 8: A REVIEW OF THE LONG-AWAITED/MUCH-ANTICIPATED HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES. I have nothing to disclose.

Clinical Study Synopsis for Public Disclosure

Causes of Poor BP control Rates

Abbreviations Cardiology I

Management of Hypertension. M Misra MD MRCP (UK) Division of Nephrology University of Missouri School of Medicine

Sponsor Novartis. Generic Drug Name. Valsartan and amlodipine Trial Indication(s) Hypertension Protocol Number CVAA489A2306 Protocol Title

Reducing proteinuria

Jared Moore, MD, FACP

Hypertension Guidelines: Are We Pressured to Change? Oregon Cardiovascular Symposium Portland, Oregon June 6, Financial Disclosures

4/4/17 HYPERTENSION TARGETS: WHAT DO WE DO NOW? SET THE STAGE BP IN CLINICAL TRIALS?

Hypertension. Risk of cardiovascular disease beginning at 115/75 mmhg doubles with every 20/10mm Hg increase. (Grade B)

Phase 3 investigation of aprocitentan for resistant hypertension management. Investor Webcast June 2018

Blood Pressure Targets: Where are We Now?

Egyptian Hypertension Guidelines

TRIple pill vs. Usual care Management for Patients with mild-to-moderate Hypertension

hypertension Head of prevention and control of CVD disease office Ministry of heath

7/7/ CHD/MI LVH and LV dysfunction Dysrrhythmias Stroke PVD Renal insufficiency and failure Retinopathy. Normal <120 Prehypertension

The hypertensive effects of the renin-angiotensin

Chapter 23. Media Directory. Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Hypertension: Classified into Three Categories

ALLHAT Role of Diuretics in the Prevention of Heart Failure - The Antihypertensive and Lipid- Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial

Target Blood Pressure Attainment in Diabetic Hypertensive Patients: Need for more Diuretics? Waleed M. Sweileh, PhD

Treating Hypertension in Individuals with Diabetes

Byvalson. (nebivolol, valsartan) New Product Slideshow

The prevalence of hypertension in a representative

Management of Lipid Disorders and Hypertension: Implications of the New Guidelines

Prevention of Heart Failure: What s New with Hypertension

Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Rev. Res., 36(1), January February 2016; Article No. 06, Pages: JNC 8 versus JNC 7 Understanding the Evidences

Hypertension Pharmacotherapy: A Practical Approach

International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, Volume 2, Issue 6, June-2013 ISSN

Cardiac Pathophysiology

Hypertension Management: A Moving Target

Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

New Lipid Guidelines. PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE IN WOMEN: Implications of the New Guidelines for Hypertension and Lipids.

Management of Hypertension

DRUG UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVES IN VARIOUS WARDS IN A TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL IN TAMILNADU

Difficult to Treat Hypertension

Hypertension. Most important public health problem in developed countries

Hypertension Update. Sarah J. Payne, MS, PharmD, BCPS Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacotherapy UNT System College of Pharmacy

Outcomes and Perspectives of Single-Pill Combination Therapy for the modern management of hypertension

How Low Do We Go? Update on Hypertension

Thiazide or Thiazide Like? Choosing Wisely Academic Detailing Conference Digby Pines October 12-14

Should beta blockers remain first-line drugs for hypertension?

Clinical Updates in the Treatment of Hypertension JNC 7 vs. JNC 8. Lauren Thomas, PharmD PGY1 Pharmacy Practice Resident South Pointe Hospital

Should we prescribe aspirin and statins to all subjects over 65? (Or even all over 55?) Terje R.Pedersen Oslo University Hospital Oslo, Norway

Hypertension CHAPTER-I CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM. Dr. K T NAIK Pharm.D Associate Professor Department of Pharm.D Krishna Teja Pharmacy College, Tirupati

Hypertension Management Controversies in the Elderly Patient

The Hypertension Clinic is a part of the Internal Medicine

Clinical Study Synopsis

Effectiveness of Add-On Low-Dose Diuretics in Combination Therapy for Hypertension: Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide vs. Candesartan/Amlodipine

Hypertension in the Elderly. John Puxty Division of Geriatrics Center for Studies in Aging and Health, Providence Care

2014 HYPERTENSION GUIDELINES

Drug Class Review on Calcium Channel Blockers

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Rationale for the use of Single Pill Combination. Yong Jin Kim, MD Seoul National University Hospital

Slide notes: References:

Treatment A Placebo to match COREG CR 20 mg OD + Lisinopril 10 mg OD (Days 1-7) Placebo to match COREG CR 40 mg OD + Lisinopril 10 mg OD (Days 8-14)

Cardiovascular Health Practice Guideline Outpatient Management of Coronary Artery Disease 2003

Objectives. Describe results and implications of recent landmark hypertension trials

5.2 Key priorities for implementation

HYPERTENSION IN THE ELDERLY A BALANCED APPROACH. Barry Goldlist October 31, 2014

Improvement of drug adherence using single pill combinations:

Clinical cases with Coversyl 10 mg

Disclosures. Learning Objectives. Hypertension: a sprint to the finish Ontario Pharmacists Association 1

Long-Term Care Updates

JNC Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults

Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) Trial of Cardiovascular Events in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients

Risk Assessment of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus in patient on antihypertensive medication

HYPERTENSION MANAGEMENT IN ELDERLY POPULATIONS

Hypertension targets: sorting out the confusion. Brian Rayner, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, University of Cape Town

Metabolic Consequences of Anti Hypertensives: Is It Clinically Important?

Younger adults with a family history of premature artherosclerotic disease should have their cardiovascular risk factors measured.

State of the art treatment of hypertension: established and new drugs. Prof. M. Burnier Service of Nephrology and Hypertension Lausanne, Switzerland

Explore the Rationale for the Dual Mechanism CCB/ARB Approach in Hypertension Management

Summary of recommendations

Transcription:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PHARMACY AND CHEMISTRY Available online at www.ijrpc.com Research Article EVALUATION OF COMPLIANCE AND BLOOD PRESSURE REDUCTION IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH AMLODIPINE AND METOPROLOL SINGLE PILL COMBINATION VS. ITS INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS Patel PB*, Anand IS and Sharma K Department of Pharmacology, Shri Sarvajanik Pharmacy College, Gujarat Technological University, Arvind Baug, Mehsana, Gujarat, India. *Corresponding Author: purvapatel88@yahoo.com ABSTRACT The objective of study is to compare the efficacy of single pill combination containing Metoprolol and Amlodipine (Metoprolol/Amlodipine 25/2.5) to its individual components in patients having hypertension in Gujarat region. We conducted this study at multicentre and this was open-label, and prospective in patient with Hypertension (140-180 mmhg/90-114 mmhg) in 3 centers from one city. Patients having hypertension were treated with one of three treatments (Metoprolol/Amlodipine 25/2.5, Amlodipine 5mg, mg) and treated for 12 weeks with three follow up visits to record BP and clinical status. At baseline, treatment groups were balanced; mean (standard deviation, SD) sitting BP was 159.7 (±5.35)/102.4 (±3.85) mmhg. The greatest reduction in BP from baseline to 12 weeks was seen in the SPC group (14.46/10.08mmHg; p<0.05). The remaining group demonstrated a significant decline from baseline (p<0.05): Amlodipine 5, -11.66/-8.72;, -9.18/-7.46. Reduction in BP by SPC however was not statistically superior to monotherapies. Responder rates (sitting DBP<90 mmhg or reduction >/=10 mmhg) were 92 % in SPC group. There were no reports of SAEs related to study medications. There were not any discontinuations reported in three groups due to adverse events. Blood pressure reduction from combining drugs from two different classes can be predicted on the basis of additive effects. SPC of Metoprolol and Amlodipine (25/2.5) is more effective as comparison with doubling dose of single individual drug in achieving target BP levels in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Keywords: Amlodipine, Metoprolol, hypertension, single pill combination INTRODUCTION Hypertension is today s silent killer. It affects 10-20% of world population. Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and renal diseases. Untreated hypertension can reduce life expectancy by approximately 5 years. Despite the importance of treating high blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular complications, most patients do not achieve the target blood pressure (BP). The seventh Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure (JNC 7) recommends appropriate treatment of hypertension and the need for combination therapy to achieve and maintain the goal BP. The combination of 579

antihypertensive therapy by reporting that irrespective of the initial antihypertensive agents, more than 40% of hypertensive patients require 2 or more drugs at the end of four years of treatment. Calcium channel blockers inhibit the transmembrane influx of calcium ions into vascular smooth muscle and cardiac muscle. Beta-blockers suppress renin release from kidney, reduces noradrenaline release from sympathetic terminals and with continued treatment, resistance vessels gradually adapt to chronically lower cardiac output that decreases total peripheral resistance. JNC 7 has recommended both of these drug classes as first line therapy for treating hypertension. Amlodipine is a long acting calcium channel blocker with an elimination half-life of 35-50 hrs. The long half-life makes it an ideal choice for once a day dosing (in a fixed-dose combination). Metoprolol is the prototype of beta-1 cardio selective blockers. FDC of calcium channel blockers and β- blockers have complementary antihypertensive effects with low rates of adverse effects which observed in randomized controlled trials. The availability of two drug combination in a FDC reduces the pill burden and may improve treatment adherence in a chronic disease like hypertension. There are no published studies to-date with a combination of metoprolol and amlodipine in hypertension. We conducted a open labeled, multicentre study to compare the efficacy and safety of Single pill combinations of amlodipine and metoprolol with its individual components in Indian patients especially region of Gujarat with hypertension. The primary objective was to demonstrate that the SPC of metoprolol 25 mg and amlodipine 2.5mg was superior to monotherapy with its individual components, metoprolol 50mg and amlodipine 5mg in reducing BP. The secondary objectives were, to, a) assess the number of responders (percent of patients with sitting DBP <90mmHg or a reduction of sitting DBP >/=10mmHg) b) assess the compliance with treatment medications. Methods The study protocol was approved by independent ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to enrolment in the study. Patients Eligible patients were 18-75 years of age with a SBP 140 mmhg and DBP 90 mmhg, documented during two hospital visits. We excluded patients with recent stroke, heart attack, or heart surgery in last 3 months, diagnosis of hyperthyroidism. We also excluded patients with resting heart <55bpm, patients had atrioventricular block, dyspnea class III/IV or had history of allergy or hypersensitivity to study medication. Study design This study was observational study, multicentric, open label conducted in 2 centres of Gujarat in one city between December 2010 to April 2011. Total five visits were required for each subject over a treatment period. At the first visit, eligibility assessment, informed consent, and necessary investigations were carried out to screen the patient for hypertension. All patients underwent a clinical examination and recording of heart rate, and BP. We measured SBP and DBP of patients included in the study at all sites using a digital automatic blood pressure monitor (Omron, model HEM-7080, Omron health care Co., Ltd. Kyoto, Japan). Laboratory measurements included clinical chemistry (lipid profile, serum electrolytes, serum creatinine). If already on an antihypertensive medication, the patient underwent a washout period of at least 1 week before enrollment. At the end of the washout period, all patients were reassessed for eligibility. Fig 1. Efficacy assessment The primary efficacy outcomes were the changes in sitting SBP and DBP between SPC of metoprolol 25mg and amlodipine 2.5mg and its individual components (metoprolol 50mg and amlodipine 5mg) from visit 2 (week 0). The secondary objective was responder rate (responders were patients with sitting DBP <90 mmhg or reduction in sitting DBP >/=10 mmhg [9]) and assessed compliance with treatment medication. BP was measured at all visits by the study physician. BP and heart rate were measured after a rest for 5 minutes. At least three sitting BP measurements, at an interval of 2 minutes were recorded. The BP recorded for assessment was the mean of the three consecutive readings taken with the patient sitting down. 580

Compliance assessment The compliance was carried out by residual tablet counting. Residual tablet counting means that tablet counts may be performed on a regular basis and comparative number of used tablets over a period can be noted down. Sample size A total sample size was 150 patients with 50 patients in each arm. Statistical analysis Data were described using mean and SD when normally distributed. The primary statistical analysis was a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) of change in BP with the baseline SBP or DBP. The three treatment groups considered in this analysis were metoprolol 25 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg, amlodipine 5 mg, metoprolol 50 mg. We used the paired student t test to analyze change in BP from baseline to the end of study. Results Patient allocation and baseline characteristics Out of 150 patients 50 patients treated with Metoprolol 25mg+ amlodipine 2.5mg, 50 patients were treated with mg and rest 50 were treated with Amlodipine 5mg. Details of patient disposition are presented in Figure 2. Out of 150 patients no one discontinued from the study. Baseline characteristic were comparable among the three treatment groups (table 1). The mean age was 56.96(± 8.96) years. Treatment efficacy Systolic BP (SBP) and Sitting Diastolic BP (DBP) At 12 weeks, there was a significant reduction in BP from baseline in all 3 treatment groups in populations (all p< 0.05). The maximum reduction was seen in the SPC group (Metoprolol 25mg+amlodipine 2.5mg) of 14.5 (±2.53) mmhg SBP and 10.1(±1.79) mmhg DBP. (Table 4). Furthermore, the SPC group showed the most rapid and greatest reduction in both SBP and DBP compared to monotherapy groups. (Fig.3 [A and B]). The reduction in BP across the three different groups were not statistically different. The reduction in BP by the SPC was not statistically superior to monotherapies. (Table 5). Responder rates More patients on SPC therapy (92%) responded (sitting DBP <90 mmhg or a reduction of sitting DBP>/=10 mmhg) compared to monotherapies with Metoprolol 50 (22%) and (50%). (Table 7). Safety The most common adverse effects (AEs) overall were headache (12%), peripheral edema (12%), fatigue (10%) and dizziness (6%). Table 8. Metoprolol caused maximum reduction in heart rate 8.5 (± 2.62) bpm and least reduction was seen in the mg group 0.4 (±1.16). Table 6. None of the patients SBP fell below 90 mmhg and DBP below 60 mmhg. None of the patients experienced SAEs during the study. DISCUSSION This is the multicentre trial to assess the efficacy and safety of dose of SPCs of amlodipine and metoprolol in hypertension. Treatment with these SPCs produced robust reductions in SBP and DBP (-14.5 /- 10.1) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. A substantial decrease in cardiovascular complications can be achieved even with small reductions in BP. A 2 mmhg reduction in DBP is estimated to decrease the risk of coronary artery disease by 6% and stroke by 15%. Analyses of pooled results of 3 double blind, placebo controlled studies of metoprolol CR/XL 50 mg once daily demonstrated a reduction of 8.4/4.8 mmhg in supine BP. In direct comparison studies felodipine/metoprolol 5/50 mg reduces BP more effectively than mg alone as assessed by 24-hour ABPM. In comparison of Metoprolol XL/Amlodipine 25/2.5 mg FDCs was found to be more effective than Losartan plus Amlodipine in the treatment of essential hypertension. The antihypertensive effect of the combination of felodipine and metoprolol occurs mostly in the first month of treatment with small additional decrease in BP in the second and third months and thereafter little additional decrease. In this study too we observed a similar pattern. In our study, after 12 weeks of treatment, greater proportion of patients on combination therapies (92% of patients) responded compared to monotherapy with metoprolol or Amlodipine but Long term studies with a 581

larger sample size may provide some insights and large sample data provide better evaluation of control rate and responder rate with treatment. The study by Dahlof with felodipine/metoprolol combination for 12 weeks, reported a responder rate of 90% and a control rate of 71%. A similar study by Hoffmann in 182 patients, over 12 weeks reported a BP reduction of 28/17mmHg, with 98% responder rate and 73% control rate. In our study single pill combination of amlodipine and metoprolol were well tolerated with low rates of adverse events (7 events). Overall, headache and peripheral edema were the most commonly reported adverse effects (AEs) as seen in a previous study. Types of AEs reported in our study were similar to those noted in previous studies with felodipine/ metoprolol combinations. No drug related SAEs were reported in SPCs as well as in any of the other treatment groups. Overall, out of 150 patients no one discontinued from the study. In this study all patients reported more than 80% compliance. Simplified, dosage regimens improve patient compliance especially when the dosage frequency is once daily. This study is the first multicenteric trial in Indian patients specialy Gujarat region demonstrated that SPCs of amlodipine and metoprolol are safe and effective BP lowering in hypertension. SPCs demonstrated clinically meaningful BP reductions and better responder rates compared to monotherapies. Overall, as well as AE related were lower than reported in previous studies. The rates of hypotension were low and there were no reports of drug related SAEs. Therefore when a combination of metoprolol and amlodipine is indicated, these data provide an evidencebased option that is safe and effective. Table 1: Baseline Characteristics of Study Participants (N=150) Characteristics SPC Amlo 5 Meto 50 Age 56.8 ± 9.24 57.1 ± 9.15 57.0 ± 8.66 Male 37 (74%) 33 (66%) 30 (60%) Female 13 (26%) 17 (34%) 20 (40%) Smoking 19 (38%) 21 (42%) 25 (50%) IHD 10 (20%) 10 (20%) 10 (20%) Past PTCA or CABG 14 (28%) 6 (12%) 6 (12%) MI 15 (30%) 6 (12%) 20 (40%) DM 25 (50%) 17 (34%) 24 (48%) Pulse (beats/min) 81.8 ± 8.58 82.2 ± 8.48 80.9 ± 9.49 Sitting SBP mmhg 159.34 ± 5.65 159.02 ± 5.55 159.52 ± 5.69 Sitting DBP mmhg 102.12 ± 4.17 101.98 ± 4.01 101.92 ± 4.02 Table 2: Laboratory Data at Baseline SPC group n=50;mean±sd n=50;mean±sd S. Creatinine 1.1 (0.26) 1.1 (0.30) 1.1 (0.28) K + 4.2 (0.51) 4.2 (0.49) 4.2 (0.51) Na + 137.3 (4.29) 137.5 (4.45) 137.2 (4.59) HDL 45.7 (9.49) 45.9 (9.72) 45.6 (9.36) LDL 152.8 (23.67) 152.4 (23.36) 152.9 (24.30) TG 192.8 (35.77) 193 (35.72) 192.6 (35.29) Total Lipids 897.1 (89.01) 897.6 (89.15) 895.0 (82.93) RBS 108.4 (29.55) 114.6 (36.00) 100.3 (11.38) K + : Potassium; Na + : Sodium; HDL: High Density Lipoprotein; LDL: Low density Lipoprotein; TG: triglyceride; RBS: random blood sugar Table 3: Mean Changes of Blood Pressure with Treatment Parameters Treatment Baseline Week 12 p value SPC group 102.1 (4.17) 92.0 (3.80) <0.0001 DBP Amlodipine 102.0 (4.01) 93.4 (3.63) <0.0001 Metoprolol 101.9 (4.02) 94.7 (3.19) <0.0001 SPC group 159.3 (5.65) 144.9 (5.91) <0.0001 SBP Amlodipine 159.0 (5.55) 147.6 (5.03) <0.0001 Metoprolol 159.5 (5.69) 150.5 (4.90) <0.0001 582

Table 4: Mean reduction in Blood Pressure with Treatment Parameters Treatment Week 4 Week 8 Week 12 DBP SPC group 7.0 ± 1.23 8.7 ± 1.54 10.1 ± 1.79 6.1 ± 2.54 7.3 ± 2.67 8.6 ± 2.76 4.7 ± 1.91 6.2 ± 1.99 7.3 ± 2.05 SBP SPC group 9.6 ± 1.95 12.3 ± 2.27 14.5 ± 2.53 6.8 ± 1.94 9.2 ±1.67 11.5 ± 2.44 6.0 ± 2.39 7.6 ± 2.46 9.1 ± 2.76 Table 5: Change in DBP and SBP from Baseline to Week 12 with Treatment Parameters Treatment Groups Change from Baseline to Week 12 Confidence Interval p Value DBP SPC vs Amlo5-2.439 to -0.2808 < 0.05 ** SPC vs Meto50-3.699 to -1.541 < 0.05 *** Meto50 vs Amlo5-2.339 to -0.1808 < 0.05 * SBP SPC vs Amlo5-3.924 to -1.676 < 0.05 *** SPC vs Meto50-6.404 to -4.156 < 0.05 *** Meto50 vs Amlo5-3.604 to -1.356 < 0.05 *** *,**,*** clinical summary of p value Table 6: Change in Pulse with Treatment as Per Visit Schedule Visit SPC group n=50, mean±sd n=50, mean±sd n=50, mean±sd Visit 1 (week 4) -4.3 ± 1.78-0.3 ± 1.17-7.1 ± 2.15 Visit 2 (week 8) -6.3 ± 2.64-0.0 ± 0.43-8.5 ± 2.62 Visit 3 (week 12) -6.7 ± 2.86-0.4 ± 1.16-8.5 ± 2.62 Table 7: Responder Rates with Treatment Parameter Responder rate n (%) SPC Group n=50 n=50 n=50 46 (92) 25 (50) 11 (22) Table 8: Rates of Adverse Event in Different Treatment Group Adverse SPC group Total event n (%) n (%) n (%) N (%) Headache 1 (2) 4 (8) 1 (2) 6 (12) Peripheral edema 2 (4) 3(6) 1(2) 6(12) Dizziness 2(4) 1(2) 0(0) 3(6) Fatigue 2(4) 1(2) 2(4) 5(10) 583

Overall compliance (%) Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3 Table 9: Treatment Compliance Statistic SPC group n(%) n(%) n(%) 92.1 ± 2.49 92.7 ± 2.23 92.1 ± 2.49 >60 - <100 44 (88) 50 (100) 44 (88) 100 6 (12) 0 6 (12) >60 - <100 50 (100) 50 (100) 50 (100) 100 0 0 0 >60 - <100 50 (100) 50 (100) 50 (100) 100 0 0 0 Procedure Visit Visit No. Eligibility & screening tests Treatment Start any of the three SPC Amlo 5 Meto 50 On treatment follow up visit Final Follwup visit Visit 1 Visit 2 Visit 3,4 visit 5 Week No. Week -1 Week 0 Week 4, 8 Week 12 Fig. 1: Study Design Total Screened N=150 N=50 SPC group N=50 N=50 Fig. 2: Allocation of Participants 584

* Indicated more reduction in DBP as compared to other group Fig. 3A: Mean DBP Changes with Treatment *Indicate more SBP reduction as compared to other groups Fig. 3 B: Mean SBP Changes with Treatment CONCLUSION Combination therapy is recommended by treatment guidelines and has become widely accepted by health care providers for the therapy of hypertension. Single pill combinations provide effective antihypertensive treatment by achieving BP goals more frequently, improving patient adherence, and decreasing adverse effects. Blood pressure reduction from combining drugs from two different classes can be predicted on the basis of additive effects. The study shows that SPCs of Metoprolol and Amlodipine (25/2.5) is more effective as comparison with doubling dose of single individual drug in achieving target BP levels in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Responder rate was high in SPCs group as compared to monotherapy. REFERENCES 1. Franco OH, Peeters A, Bonneux L and de Laet C. Blood Pressure in Adulthood and Life Expectancy with Cardiovascular Disease in Men and Women. Hypertension. 2005;46: 280-286. 2. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL and Black HR. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 Report JAMA. 2003;289:2560-2572. 3. ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major Cardiovascular Events in Hypertensive Patients Randomized to Doxazocin vs Chlorthalidone: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial 585

(ALLHAT). J Am Med Assoc. 2000; 283:1967-1975. 4. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, EKbom T, Dahlof B and Lanke J. Scersten Randomized trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet. 1999; 354:1751-1756. 5. Frishman WH, Hainer JW and Sugg J. For the M-FACT Study Group. A Factorial Study of Combination Hypertension Treatment with Metoprolol Succinate Extended Release and Felodipine Extended Release Results of the Metoprolol Succinate-Felodipine Antihypertension Combination Trial (MFACT). AJH. 2006;19:388 395. 6. Papademetriou V, Hainer JW, Sugg J and Munzer D. for the ATTACH Study Group. Factorial Antihypertensive Study of an Extended-Release Metoprolol and Hydrochlorothiazide Combination. AJH. 2006;19:1217 1225. 7. Dezii CM. A Retrospective Study of Persistence with Single Pill Combination Therapy vs. Concurrent Two Pill Therapy in Patients with Hypertension. Manag Care. 2000; 9(9): S2-S6. 8. Burnier M. Medication Adherence and Persistence as the Cornerstone Effective Antihypertensive therapy. Am J Hypertension. 2006;19:1190-1196. 9. National Cardiovascular Disease Database, Supported by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and World Health Organization, Sticker No: SE/ 04/233208, www.whoindia.org/linkfiles/nmh_res ources_national_cvd_database- Final_Report.pdf.[accessed Jan 1,2010] 10. Westergren G, Olofsson B and Parlevliet K. Effective Once-daily Treatment of Hypertension with Low-Dose, Controlled Release Metoprolol. Curr Ther Res. 1994; 55(2):142-148. 11. Haria M, L Greg, Plosker and Markham A. Felodipine / Metorolol. A review of the Fixed Dose Controlled Formulation in the Management of Essential Hypertension Drugs. 2000; 59(1):149-157. 12. Pareek A, Chandurkar NB, Sharma R, Tiwari D and Gupta BS. Efficacy and Tolerability of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Metoprolol Extended Release Amlodipine in Patients with Mild-to- Moderate Hypertension. A randomized, Parallel-group, Multicentre Comparison with Losartan Plus Amlodipine, Clin Drug Investig. 2010;30:123-31. 13. Dahlof B, Jonsson L and Borgholst O. Improved Antihypertensive Efficacy of the Felodipine Metoprolol Extended Release Tablet Compared with Each Drug Alone. Blood Press 1993;2:37-45. 14. Hoffmann J. Comparison of a Felodipine Metoprolol Combination Tablet vs Each Component Alone as Antihypertensive Therapy. Blood Press. 2003;2:30-6. 586