Amlodipine Besylate/Benazepril Hydrochloride

The use of fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) has been increasing since the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommended using ≥2 drugs as the first-line drug therapy for patients with stage 2 hypertension. FDCs simplify the drug therapy regimen and reportedly lower the drug therapy cost compared with the free combination (FC) of 2 single-agent drugs. This study hypothesized that the affordability of FDCs over FCs would change over time depending on the availability of generic single-agent drugs.

This study used the 2009 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Antihypertensive drugs were identified based on the Food and Drug Administration national drug directory. Based on the 2 databases, regression models were run to predict average monthly drug cost as well as out-of-pocket cost for each prescription along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Overall, FDCs (n = 26) had average monthly drug costs similar to respective FCs when FCs were not generically available. However, when FCs were generically available, FDCs (n = 11) had average drugs costs much higher than their respective FCs. For example, Lotrel as an FDC had an average monthly drug cost of $115.97 (95% CI = $96.59-$135.36), whereas its counterpart FC had an average monthly drug cost of $21.00 (95% CI = $18.23-$23.79).

The cost advantage of FDCs over FCs was reversed when FCs were generically available. The finding of this study informs patients, health-care providers, and drug plans of the importance of making dynamic decisions on preferred drug therapy options depending on the availability of generic drugs.

Hypertension is a prevalent condition that is closely associated with chronic complications in patients with diabetes. Fixed-dose combination therapy is currently recommended for the treatment of hypertension due to the advantage of reducing the pill burden. However, the effects of combination therapy may be diverse because of the different components.

We examined blood pressure reduction and metabolic alterations after amlodipine/benazepril and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria.

This randomized, double-blind, parallel comparison, noninferiority clinical trial included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria detected within the past year. After a 2-week, placebo run-in period, patients were assigned to treatment with amlodipine/benazepril or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide for 16 weeks. The primary end point was mean change in diastolic blood pressure. The prespecified boundary for noninferiority was 3.5 mm Hg of the mean change in diastolic blood pressure between treatments (amlodipine/benazepril minus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide). If the upper limit of the 95% CI fell within 3.5 mm Hg, amlodipine/benazepril would be considered noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide.

Of the 226 patients assessed for eligibility, 169 satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were assigned to a treatment group; 83 patients (54.2% male, mean age of 60.5 [10.0] years) in the amlodipine/benazepril group and 84 patients (64.3% male, mean age of 59.0 [10.6] years) in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group received at least 1 dose of study medication and were included in the intention-to-treat population. In the per-protocol population, amlodipine/benazepril (n = 74) was noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (n = 78) with regard to the mean change in diastolic blood pressure (difference, -0.9 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.5 to 1.6). The mean change in systolic blood pressure was not significantly different (2.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, -1.2 to 6.0) between study groups (P = 0.195) in the per-protocol population. However, data from the intention-to-treat population suggest that patients in the amlodipine/benazepril group may have better metabolic outcomes than those in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group; specifically, a preservation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (5.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [95% CI, 1.9 to 9.6]; P = 0.004) and improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (-0.5% [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.2]; P < 0.001), fasting triglycerides (-0.4 mmol/L [95% CI, -0.7 to -0.2]; P = 0.002), HDL-C (0.07 mmol/L [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]; P = 0.022), and uric acid (-57.5 μmol/L [95% CI, -74.8 to -40.3]; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse effects between groups, with the exception of more respiratory disorders in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group (17 vs 5; P = 0 .006).

The study results suggest that amlodipine/benazepril is noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide with regard to blood pressure reduction and that this combination exerts beneficial effects on renal function, glucose control, HDL-C, and triglyceride levels compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. However, respiratory adverse events (particularly coughing) were more frequently reported in the amlodipine/benazepril group. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375322.