• Qi-Fang Huang, Di Zhang, Yihong Luo, Kun Hu, Qiong Wu, Hailong Qiu, Fei Xu, Mei-Ling Wang, Xin Chen, Yan Li, Ji-Guang Wang, and ACEI/CCB Versus ACEI/DIU Combination Antihypertensive Therapy in Chinese Hypertensive Patients (ACvAD) investigators.
• Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Centre for Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials, State Key Laboratory of Medical Genomics, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Hypertension, Department of Hypertension, The Shanghai Institute of Hypertension, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Ruijin 2nd Road 197, Shanghai, 200025, China.
• Bmc Med. 2024 Jan 24; 22 (1): 2828.

BackgroundCurrent hypertension guidelines recommend combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker with a calcium-channel blocker or thiazide diuretic as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with monotherapy uncontrolled hypertension. However, to what extent these two different combinations are comparable in blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety remains under investigation, especially in the Chinese population. We investigated the BP-lowering efficacy and safety of the amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies in Chinese patients.MethodsIn a multi-center, randomized, actively controlled, parallel-group trial, we enrolled patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension from July 2018 to June 2021 in 20 hospitals and community health centers across China. Of the 894 screened patients, 560 eligible patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg (n = 282) or benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg (n = 278), with 213 and 212 patients, respectively, who completed the study and had a valid repeat ambulatory BP recording during follow-up and were included in the efficacy analysis. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to 24 weeks of treatment in 24-h ambulatory systolic BP. Adverse events including symptoms and clinically significant changes in physical examinations and laboratory findings were recorded for safety analysis.ResultsIn the efficacy analysis (n = 425), the primary outcome, 24-h ambulatory systolic BP reduction, was - 13.8 ± 1.2 mmHg in the amlodipine/benazepril group and - 12.3 ± 1.2 mmHg in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group, with a between-group difference of - 1.51 (p = 0.36) mmHg. The between-group differences for major secondary outcomes were - 1.47 (p = 0.18) in 24-h diastolic BP, - 2.86 (p = 0.13) and - 2.74 (p = 0.03) in daytime systolic and diastolic BP, and - 0.45 (p = 0.82) and - 0.93 (p = 0.44) in nighttime systolic and diastolic BP. In the safety analysis (n = 560), the incidence rate of dry cough was significantly lower in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group (5.3% vs 10.1%, p = 0.04).ConclusionsThe amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies were comparable in ambulatory systolic BP lowering. The former combination, compared with the latter, had a greater BP-lowering effect in the daytime and a lower incidence rate of dry cough.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03682692. Registered on 18 September 2018.© 2024. The Author(s).

12 keywords...

hide…