Amlodipine 5mg / Valsartan 80mg tablets

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare and rank antihypertensive agents based on their urate-lowering effects in patients with hypertension and hyperuricemia. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and the Wanfang databases for eligible trials published up to September 2023. Randomized controlled trials that directly compared different antihypertensive agents in hypertensive patients with hyperuricemia were included. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. The surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) was used to rank the efficacy of the antihypertensive treatments. RESULTS: A total of 172 trials involving 16,226 hypertensive patients with hyperuricemia were included in the final analysis. According to SUCRA values, losartan plus amlodipine (SUCRA: 96%), valsartan plus amlodipine (SUCRA: 90%), and allisartan (SUCRA: 90%) showed relatively superior effects in reducing serum uric acid levels. Additionally, irbesartan plus amlodipine (SUCRA: 94%), losartan plus amlodipine (SUCRA: 92%), and losartan (SUCRA: 84%) were associated with higher effective rates. CONCLUSION: Based on the only available eligible evidence, the combination of losartan and amlodipine was the optimal dual therapy for Chinese patients with hypertension and hyperuricemia, while allisartan and losartan were the most effective monotherapies for lowering serum uric acid. These findings are not generalizable to non-Chinese populations, reflecting a gap in global evidence rather than intentional study scope restriction.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Objective To systematically evaluate the relative efficacy and impact on cardiac function of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) vs. active antihypertensive comparators represented in the eligible evidence base for reversing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in patients with hypertension using network meta-analysis. Methods PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and SinoMed databases were searched from inception to December 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating sacubitril/valsartan vs. active antihypertensive comparators in patients with essential hypertension and cardiovascular remodeling. The primary outcome was the change in left ventricular mass index (LVMI). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 18.0 software based on the frequentist framework. Given the clinical heterogeneity in imaging assessment modalities, a random-effects model was employed to calculate the weighted mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used as a supportive ranking metric, whereas comparative interpretation primarily relied on effect estimates and their confidence intervals. Results Eleven RCTs involving 851 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that Sac/Val achieved greater LVMI regression than Amlodipine (MD = −22.54 g/m 2 , 95% CI: −40.23, −4.86) and Valsartan (MD = −11.34 g/m 2 , 95% CI: −21.45, −1.23) in reversing LVMI. Compared with Enalapril and Olmesartan, Sac/Val also showed numerically greater LVMI regression, but these differences were not statistically significant. Sac/Val had the highest SUCRA value (96.4%); however, rankings were interpreted descriptively only, while comparative interpretation was primarily based on effect sizes and confidence intervals. Secondary outcome analysis indicated that while Sac/Val effectively reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure, it had no significant impact on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ( P > 0.05). Conclusion In hypertensive patients with cardiovascular remodeling, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater LVMI regression than amlodipine and valsartan within the current network, whereas comparisons with enalapril and olmesartan remained inconclusive. Given the substantial heterogeneity, evidence of network incoherence, and low-to-very-low certainty of the main comparisons, these results should be regarded as tentative rather than definitive. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD420261281426.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background Some clinical guidelines recommend initiating combination antihypertensive therapy as first-line treatment rather than monotherapy. Evidence indicates that a substantial proportion of patients with hypertension require more than one antihypertensive agent to achieve recommended blood pressure targets. However, it remains unclear whether the benefits of initiating combination therapy outweigh the potential risks compared with antihypertensive monotherapy. Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of blood pressure control and the risk of drug-related adverse events associated with amlodipine monotherapy compared against first-line combination therapy of amlodipine and an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients with primary hypertension. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Library up to 15 November 2025, using the following search terms: “amlodipine” AND “angiotensin receptor blocker” AND “primary hypertension” AND “randomized controlled trial.” Only randomized controlled trials comparing amlodipine monotherapy with first-line combination therapy of amlodipine and an ARB, administered for at least 8 weeks, were included. The primary outcomes were blood pressure control and drug-related adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.4. Results Based on six included studies, the analytical results showed that combination therapy with Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) and an ARB was associated with 2.25 (odds ratio = 2.25: 95% CI: 1.78–2.83) times odds ratio with statistically significant overall effect ( P < 0.00001) and 0.93 (risk ratio = 0.93: 95% CI: 0.82–1.05) times risk ratio with statistically insignificant overall effect ( P = 0.24) compared with CCB (amlodipine 5 mg) monotherapy. Conclusions The results of this study indicate that combination therapy with CCB and an ARB is associated with a 2.25-fold higher likelihood of achieving blood pressure control, with a significant correlation, and a lower risk of drug-related adverse events, without a significant correlation, compared with CCB monotherapy.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: Combination therapy is often required for treating hypertension,but the comparative efficacy and safety of triple versus dual antihypertensive regimens remain to be clarified by the latest evidence-based medical data. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of dual versus triple antihypertensive drug therapy for adult primary hypertension, providing updated evidence to support clinical decision-making. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across four databases-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science-up to July 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing dual antihypertensive therapy with triple antihypertensive therapy for treating adult primary hypertension. The primary outcome was mean seated blood pressure; secondary outcomes included blood pressure control rates and adverse events. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two independent researchers.The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate study quality; data analysis was conducted using Stata 15.1 software. Results: A total of 21 studies involving 17,669 patients were ultimately included. Of these, 6,918 patients received triple therapy and 10,751 patients received dual therapy. Triple therapy reduced systolic blood pressure [WMD: -5.98 mmHg, (95% CI: -7.04, -4.92)] and diastolic blood pressure [WMD: -3.34 mmHg, (95% CI: -4.03, -2.65)]. In the ARB subgroup, valsartan-based triple therapy demonstrated significant blood pressure-lowering effects on systolic blood pressure [WMD = -7.41 mmHg, (95% CI: -8.91 to -5.91)] and diastolic blood pressure [WMD = -4.57 mmHg, (95% CI: -5.65 to -3.49)]. An evaluation of 14 adverse reaction symptoms revealed that triple therapy improved patient fatigue [RR: 0.80, (95% CI: 0.67, 0.96)]. Triple therapy increased the rate of blood pressure control [RR: 1.31, (95% CI: 1.23, 1.39)]. Conclusion: Compared with the dual-drug regimen, the triple-drug antihypertensive regimen may be more effective for short-term blood pressure control, and its overall safety profile is acceptable. However, the subgroup analyses in this study represent exploratory findings only and cannot be directly used to guide clinical drug selection. Given that, although the evidence for the primary efficacy outcome is of moderate certainty, significant heterogeneity remains, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are frequently prescribed as alternatives to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), particularly in patients who experience ACEI-induced adverse effects including cough. Although ARBs are associated with a lower incidence of angioedema, rare cases have been reported in patients without prior ACEI exposure. Here, we describe a 58-year-old Black male who developed lip and facial swelling six months after starting losartan. His symptoms did not improve with antihistamines or corticosteroids but resolved after discontinuation of losartan, which was replaced with amlodipine without recurrence. This case emphasizes the need for clinician awareness of ARB-induced angioedema and the importance of balancing this rare risk against the established cardiovascular and renal benefits of ARB therapy.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Amlodipine/valsartan (Aml/Val) single-pill combination (SPC) therapy has been widely used and studied in clinical practice in recent years. This article reviews the Chinese and English literature on the clinical use of Aml/Val SPC therapy in Chinese hypertensive patients. According to five studies concerning the efficacy and safety of this treatment, Aml/Val SPC therapy was more efficacious than monotherapy with valsartan, amlodipine, or the nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system. This treatment showed greater blood pressure-lowering effects, a higher blood pressure control rate, and a higher response rate. Aml/Val SPC treatment was well tolerated, with adverse event rates similar to those of monotherapy with valsartan or amlodipine and significantly rarer adverse events compared with the nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system. Aml/Val SPC is a highly efficacious and well-tolerated antihypertensive treatment in Chinese hypertensive patients.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

AIM: R) blocker, exhibits anti-senescence properties. We tested the hypothesis that tacrolimus causes hypertension and microvascular remodeling that involves induction of senescence, and that valsartan is protective. METHODS: Microperfusion and wire myography were employed to assess the contractile and dilatory functions of renal afferent arterioles (Af-Art) and mesenteric arteries, respectively. The expression of components of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and senescence-associated biomarkers was investigated using qPCR and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Long-term administration of Tac activated the RAS. Tac-induced microvascular remodeling in mesenteric arteries and Af-Art was mitigated by treatment with valsartan. Mice treated with Tac exhibited increased vasoconstriction in response to angiotensin II and reduced dilation to acetylcholine. Both effects were abolished by valsartan. Additionally, senescence-associated biomarkers were upregulated in mesenteric and renal resistance arteries from Tac-treated mice. Co-administration of Tac with valsartan or ABT-263, a senolytic agent, rescued Tac-induced microvascular injury and reduced hypertension (conscious mice, noninvasive tail-cuff system). Treatment with the antihypertensive drug amlodipine normalized blood pressure and downregulated senescence-associated beta-galactosidase in mesenteric arteries. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that cellular senescence contributes to Tac-induced microvascular injury and hypertension and demonstrate the effectiveness of senolytic treatment for protection. Valsartan could reduce senescence indirectly by lowering blood pressure; a direct anti-senescence effect might also play a role in this context.

Abstract licence: CC BY