Abstract:Objective To compare the difference of the treatment effects and the incidence of CVE in further 10 years in the mild to moderate essential hypertensive population who used Exforge—a new fixed combination regimen, or Norvasc—a classic antihypertensive monotherapy, in order to provide more choices of regimens for them. Designs and Methods This stage III clinical trial was 8-week and randomised. Patients received Exforge (Amlodipine 5 mg/Valsartan 80 mg) or Norvasc (Amlodipine 5 mg) once daily. The difference of blood pressure reductions between them were compared. The Chinese Multi-Provincial Cohort Study (CMCS) model, which is an adjusted model of Framingham model in China, was used to predict the incidence of CVE in further 10 years before and after taking the drug regimens in hypertensive patients with different levels of risk factors. Results A total of 256 patients were randomised to the treatment groups (128 in Exforge group and 128 in Norvasc group), and the overall mean age was 54.4 years. (1) The treatment effects in Exforge group was better than that in Norvasc group, and the blood pressure lowering efficiency were 84.9% and 71.9% respectively. Meanwhile the risk difference was 13.0% (12.49%–13.51%), which was statistically different (χ2=6.692, p=0.010). (2) After taking the anti-hypertensive treatment, the incidence of CVE in further 10 years were smaller than those before therapy, and the reduction of incidence in Exforge group were more than those in Norvasc group. The preventive effects on stroke were more obvious than those on CHD. 1. Before taking the hypertensive treatment, the incidence of CHD in further 10 years was 17.40% at the baseline level of risk factors, and after the treatment, the incidence were 9.43% in Exforge group and 12.22% in Norvasc group, reducing 45.81% and 29.74% respectively. The reduction of incidence in Exforge group was 1.54 times than that in Norvasc group. Before taking the hypertensive treatment, the mean incidence of CHD in further 10 years was 27.63% at different levels of risk factors, and after the treatment, the mean incidence were 15.74% in Exforge group and 19.53% in Norvasc group, reducing 44.44% and 29.93% respectively. The reduction of incidence in Exforge group was 1.48 times than that in Norvasc group. 2. Before taking the hypertensive treatment, the incidence of stroke in further 10 years was 24.51% at the baseline level of risk factors, and after the treatment, the incidence were 8.31% in Exforge group and 15.22% in Norvasc group, reducing 66.82% and 37.91% respectively. The reduction of incidence in Exforge group was 1.76 times than that in Norvasc group. Before taking the hypertensive treatment, the mean incidence of stroke in further 10 years was 33.81% at different levels of risk factors, and after the treatment, the mean incidence were 12.71% in Exforge group and 22.34% in Norvasc group, reducing 63.02% and 34.60% respectively. The reduction of incidence in Exforge group was 1.82 times than that in Norvasc group. Conclusions Compared to Norvasc, Exforge had better treatment effects in the patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. The reductions of incidence of CVE in future 10 years in Exforge group were more than those in Norvasc group, and the preventive effects on stroke were more obvious than those on CHD. Exforge could be recommended to use in anti-hypertensive treatment and the CVE prevention.

A18046 Levamlodipine Maleate or AmlodipineBesylate for Treatment of Hypertension

Levamlodipine Maleate Or Amlodipinebesylate For Treatment Of Hypertension: A Comparative Effectiveness Research

Effectiveness of Levoamlodipine Maleate for Hypertension Compared with Amlodipine Besylate: a Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Study

Synergistic effect of amlodipine and atorvastatin on blood pressure, left ventricular remodeling, and C-reactive protein in hypertensive patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

Effects of Atenolol and Diltiazem-Sr on Quality of Life in the Hypertensive Patients

The Efficacy and Safety of Amlodipine Maleate on Patients with Mild to Moderate Essential Hypertension

The Effectiveness and Safety of L-amlodipine Besylate for Blood Pressure Control in Patients with Mild to Moderate Essential Hypertension

Effect of levamlodipine besylate on vascular function in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

A Retrospective Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of S-Amlodipine in China.

Meta-analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Levoamlodipine and Amlodipine for Essential Hypertension

Effect and safety of levoamlodipine maleate tablets on patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

E0584 A Study of Exforge on the Treatment Effects and CVE Prevention in Patients with Mild to Moderate Essential Hypertension

PS 14-31 AMBULATORY BLOOD PRESSURE LOWERING EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF INITIAL HIGH DOSE OF AMLODIPINE IN MILD OR MODERATE HYPERTENSION

525 4 YEARS OUTCOME OF AMLODIPINE PLUS TELMISARTAN OR AMLODIPINE PLUS DIURETICS REGIMEN ON CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS 13542

Tolerability and effectiveness of (S)-amlodipine compared with racemic amlodipine in hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

A single-dose, randomized, crossover bioequivalence study of levamlodipine besilate tablets in healthy subjects

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Domestic Produced Amlodipine Besylate in Patients with Mild to Moderate Hypertension: a Multi-center Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Efficacy and tolerability of initial high vs low doses of S-(-)-amlodipine in hypertension

A Meta-analysis on efficacy and safety of manidipine on hypertension

G-002 AMLODIPINE/VALSARTAN 5/160 MG VERSUS VALSARTAN 160 MG IN PREDOMINANTLY CHINESE PATIENTS WITH STAGE 1 OR 2 ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION NOT ADEQUATELY CONTROLLED ON VALSARTAN 160 MG MONOTHERAPY

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) Add-on to Amlodipine in Asian Patients with Systolic Hypertension Uncontrolled with Amlodipine Monotherapy