CLINICAL TRIALS PROFILE FOR TEKTURNA HCT

505(b)(2) Clinical Trials for TEKTURNA HCT

This table shows clinical trials for potential 505(b)(2) applications. See the next table for all clinical trials

Trial Type	Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
New Indication	NCT01417104 ↗	Aliskiren Effect on Aortic Plaque Progression	Terminated	Novartis	Phase 2/Phase 3	2009-10-01	This study is being done to assess the effectiveness of short term (~9 months) Aliskiren/Placebo therapy to slow down the progression of atherosclerotic disease in thoracic and abdominal aorta. This will be checked by comparing before and after therapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pictures of the aortic wall. Aliskiren is an FDA approved drug for hypertension but in this study is used for a new indication. Recent studies with animals have shown that Aliskiren therapy reduces the atherosclerotic plaque. Therefore, in this study, the investigators would like to evaluate whether the investigational drug Aliskiren, which is not FDA approved for this indication has the same beneficial effects in people with atherosclerotic disease.
New Indication	NCT01417104 ↗	Aliskiren Effect on Aortic Plaque Progression	Terminated	Ohio State University	Phase 2/Phase 3	2009-10-01	This study is being done to assess the effectiveness of short term (~9 months) Aliskiren/Placebo therapy to slow down the progression of atherosclerotic disease in thoracic and abdominal aorta. This will be checked by comparing before and after therapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pictures of the aortic wall. Aliskiren is an FDA approved drug for hypertension but in this study is used for a new indication. Recent studies with animals have shown that Aliskiren therapy reduces the atherosclerotic plaque. Therefore, in this study, the investigators would like to evaluate whether the investigational drug Aliskiren, which is not FDA approved for this indication has the same beneficial effects in people with atherosclerotic disease.
New Indication	NCT01417104 ↗	Aliskiren Effect on Aortic Plaque Progression	Terminated	Sanjay Rajagopalan	Phase 2/Phase 3	2009-10-01	This study is being done to assess the effectiveness of short term (~9 months) Aliskiren/Placebo therapy to slow down the progression of atherosclerotic disease in thoracic and abdominal aorta. This will be checked by comparing before and after therapy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pictures of the aortic wall. Aliskiren is an FDA approved drug for hypertension but in this study is used for a new indication. Recent studies with animals have shown that Aliskiren therapy reduces the atherosclerotic plaque. Therefore, in this study, the investigators would like to evaluate whether the investigational drug Aliskiren, which is not FDA approved for this indication has the same beneficial effects in people with atherosclerotic disease.

All Clinical Trials for TEKTURNA HCT

Trial ID	Title	Status	Sponsor	Phase	Start Date	Summary
NCT00223717 ↗	Treatment of Supine Hypertension in Autonomic Failure	Completed	Vanderbilt University	Phase 1	2001-01-01	Supine hypertension is a common problem that affects at least 50% of patients with primary autonomic failure. Supine hypertension can be severe, and complicates the treatment of orthostatic hypotension. Drugs used for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension (eg, fludrocortisone and pressor agents), worsen supine hypertension. High blood pressure may also cause target organ damage in this group of patients. The pathophysiologic mechanisms causing supine hypertension in patients with autonomic failure have not been defined. In a study, we, the investigators at Vanderbilt University, examined 64 patients with AF, 29 with pure autonomic failure (PAF) and 35 with multiple system atrophy (MSA). 66% of patients had supine systolic (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 150 mmHg) or diastolic (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 mmHg) hypertension (average blood pressure [BP]: 179 ± 5/89 ± 3 mmHg in 21 PAF and 175 ± 5/92 ± 3 mmHg in 21 MSA patients). Plasma norepinephrine (92 ± 15 pg/mL) and plasma renin activity (0.3 ± 0.05 ng/mL per hour) were very low in a subset of patients with AF and supine hypertension. (Shannon et al., 1997). Our group has showed that a residual sympathetic function contributes to supine hypertension in patients with severe autonomic failure and that this effect is more prominent in patients with MSA than in those with PAF (Shannon et al., 2000). MSA patients had a marked depressor response to low infusion rates of trimethaphan, a ganglionic blocker; the response in PAF patients was more variable. At 1 mg/min, trimethaphan decreased supine SBP by 67 +/- 8 and 12 +/- 6 mmHg in MSA and PAF patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). MSA patients with supine hypertension also had greater SBP response to oral yohimbine, a central alpha2 receptor blocker, than PAF patients. Plasma norepinephrine decreased in both groups, but heart rate did not change in either group. This result suggests that residual sympathetic activity drives supine hypertension in MSA; in contrast, supine hypertension in PAF. It is hoped that from this study will emerge a complete picture of the supine hypertension of autonomic failure. Understanding the mechanism of this paradoxical hypertension in the setting of profound loss of sympathetic function will improve our approach to the treatment of hypertension in autonomic failure, and it could also contribute to our understanding of hypertension in general.
NCT00223717 ↗	Treatment of Supine Hypertension in Autonomic Failure	Completed	Vanderbilt University Medical Center	Phase 1	2001-01-01	Supine hypertension is a common problem that affects at least 50% of patients with primary autonomic failure. Supine hypertension can be severe, and complicates the treatment of orthostatic hypotension. Drugs used for the treatment of orthostatic hypotension (eg, fludrocortisone and pressor agents), worsen supine hypertension. High blood pressure may also cause target organ damage in this group of patients. The pathophysiologic mechanisms causing supine hypertension in patients with autonomic failure have not been defined. In a study, we, the investigators at Vanderbilt University, examined 64 patients with AF, 29 with pure autonomic failure (PAF) and 35 with multiple system atrophy (MSA). 66% of patients had supine systolic (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > 150 mmHg) or diastolic (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 mmHg) hypertension (average blood pressure [BP]: 179 ± 5/89 ± 3 mmHg in 21 PAF and 175 ± 5/92 ± 3 mmHg in 21 MSA patients). Plasma norepinephrine (92 ± 15 pg/mL) and plasma renin activity (0.3 ± 0.05 ng/mL per hour) were very low in a subset of patients with AF and supine hypertension. (Shannon et al., 1997). Our group has showed that a residual sympathetic function contributes to supine hypertension in patients with severe autonomic failure and that this effect is more prominent in patients with MSA than in those with PAF (Shannon et al., 2000). MSA patients had a marked depressor response to low infusion rates of trimethaphan, a ganglionic blocker; the response in PAF patients was more variable. At 1 mg/min, trimethaphan decreased supine SBP by 67 +/- 8 and 12 +/- 6 mmHg in MSA and PAF patients, respectively (P < 0.0001). MSA patients with supine hypertension also had greater SBP response to oral yohimbine, a central alpha2 receptor blocker, than PAF patients. Plasma norepinephrine decreased in both groups, but heart rate did not change in either group. This result suggests that residual sympathetic activity drives supine hypertension in MSA; in contrast, supine hypertension in PAF. It is hoped that from this study will emerge a complete picture of the supine hypertension of autonomic failure. Understanding the mechanism of this paradoxical hypertension in the setting of profound loss of sympathetic function will improve our approach to the treatment of hypertension in autonomic failure, and it could also contribute to our understanding of hypertension in general.
NCT00627861 ↗	Combined Renin Inhibition/Beta-blockade	Terminated	The Rogosin Institute	N/A	2008-11-01	Antihypertensive drug treatment is effective in only about 50% of patients. One mechanism responsible for treatment failure is a drug related stimulation of the renin-angiotension-aldosterone-system (RAAS). Several classes of medications that treat hypertension by blocking the RAAS system have been developed. However, the kidney responds to these drug treatments by producing greater amounts of renin. This high level of renin can reduce the effectiveness of some of these medications, ultimately causing the blood pressure to rise. This is one reason why blood pressure can be difficult to control in a certain percentage of patients. The hypothesis to be tested in the proposed study is that beta-adrenergic blockade (β-blockade), when superimposed upon aliskiren, a drug that competitively inhibits plasma renin activity (PRA) but stimulates the release of renin by the kidneys (plasma renin concentration [PRC]), can suppress the reactive increase in PRC that occurs during aliskiren monotherapy. The primary aim of this study is to measure plasma renin concentration (PRC) and plasma renin activity (PRA) levels during renin inhibition with aliskiren and combined renin inhibition/β-blocker treatment to determine whether the addition of a β-blocker attenuates the rise in plasma renin concentration (PRC). A secondary aim is to determine whether combined treatment further suppresses PRA and blood pressure.
NCT00773084 ↗	Aliskiren and Renin Inhibition in Diastolic Heart Failure	Withdrawn	Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center	N/A	2008-09-01	This study is being conducted to compare the effects that 2 different combinations of heart failure medications have on the levels of certain blood markers which cause and/or worsen heart failure. Additionally, the investigators will investigate any differences that may exist between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics. The investigators hope to find that Hispanic Americans will have a greater response to this new regimen compared to non-Hispanic Americans.

Clinical Trial Conditions for TEKTURNA HCT

Condition Name

Condition Name for TEKTURNA HCT
Intervention	Trials
Hypertension	6
Diabetes	2
Diabetes Mellitus	2
Diastolic Heart Failure	1

Condition MeSH

Condition MeSH for TEKTURNA HCT
Intervention	Trials
Hypertension	6
Kidney Diseases	3
Diabetes Mellitus	3
Diabetic Nephropathies	2

Clinical Trial Locations for TEKTURNA HCT

Trials by Country

Trials by Country for TEKTURNA HCT
Location	Trials
United States	18

Trials by US State

Trials by US State for TEKTURNA HCT
Location	Trials
Massachusetts	2
Minnesota	2
Michigan	2
Texas	2
New York	2

Clinical Trial Progress for TEKTURNA HCT

Clinical Trial Phase

Clinical Trial Phase for TEKTURNA HCT
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Phase 4	10
Phase 3	1
Phase 2/Phase 3	1

Clinical Trial Status

Clinical Trial Status for TEKTURNA HCT
Clinical Trial Phase	Trials
Terminated	8
Completed	5
Withdrawn	3

Clinical Trial Sponsors for TEKTURNA HCT

Sponsor Name

Sponsor Name for TEKTURNA HCT
Sponsor	Trials
Novartis	7
Novartis Pharmaceuticals	3
Brigham and Women's Hospital	2

Sponsor Type

Sponsor Type for TEKTURNA HCT
Sponsor	Trials
Other	22
Industry	11
NIH	2

TEKTURNA HCT: Clinical-Program Status, Market Position, and Forward Projection

Last updated: April 27, 2026

What is TEKTURNA HCT and what claims are still commercialized?

TEKTURNA HCT is the marketed fixed-dose combination of aliskiren (TEKTURNA) plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) for hypertension. In global markets, aliskiren is sold as a renin inhibitor; the HCTZ combination addresses complementary mechanisms (RAAS blockade plus natriuresis). The commercial product lineage is tied to the FDA approval of TEKTURNA (aliskiren) and subsequent combination labeling with HCTZ.

Regulatory history is dominated by the Aliskiren Heart Failure Trial (ALTITUDE) findings, which drove risk signals for aliskiren-based regimens in key cardiovascular cohorts. The FDA subsequently issued safety communications and labeling restrictions for aliskiren-containing products, including contraindications and limitations around use in patients with diabetes who take an ACE inhibitor or ARB (and, depending on time and label version, related renal safety language). (See FDA safety and label updates for aliskiren-containing products.) [1][2]

What happened to the clinical development after ALTITUDE?

After ALTITUDE, the practical development pathway for new aliskiren-based hypertension combinations narrowed. The remaining clinical activity for TEKTURNA/HCTZ has been dominated by:

• Label refinement and post-marketing safety updates rather than broad new Phase 3 programs in high-risk populations.
• Trial clean-up for efficacy/safety endpoints in narrower populations where risk mitigation is achievable.
• Formulation or pharmacokinetic work where regulatory strategy supports continued commercialization.

The ALTITUDE program’s trial-level headline remains the anchor event for market perception and physician uptake, since the combination’s component (aliskiren) carries the same class risk profile. The risk signal affected the credibility of renin inhibition across multi-drug RAAS regimens in at-risk cohorts and reduced the probability of sponsor-led Phase 3 expansions. [1][3]

What clinical-trials activity is visible in the public record today?

Publicly indexed clinical trials for aliskiren combinations are mostly at two levels: 1) Newer interventional studies that are small, mechanistic, or population-specific (often designed around biomarker, BP kinetics, or renal endpoints). 2) Expanded access or ongoing follow-up tied to earlier protocols.

At a commercial-product level (TEKTURNA HCT), the practical implication for decision-making is that there is no clear evidence of a broad, active late-stage Phase 3 pipeline centered on TEKTURNA HCT itself in the post-ALTITUDE era. The drug’s commercial durability rests on remaining patent life, generic competition dynamics, and label constraints, not on imminent new pivotal efficacy work.

How has the label been constrained and what does it mean for utilization?

Key label-level effects on utilization include:

• Restrictions in diabetes with concomitant ACE inhibitor or ARB, where aliskiren is limited or contraindicated depending on the label revision timeframe. [2]
• Renal and hyperkalemia monitoring expectations when used with RAAS-active regimens outside the restricted settings. [2]
• Harm-risk context from ALTITUDE that reshaped clinician confidence in broad cardiovascular use. [1][3]

For TEKTURNA HCT specifically, these constraints mean prescribers tend to position it primarily in uncomplicated hypertension or when alternative regimens are limited by tolerability or history, with more conservative adoption patterns for high-risk comorbid mixes (especially diabetes plus ACEi/ARB). The HCTZ component adds a practical advantage for BP lowering, but it does not change the aliskiren class risk narrative.

What does the market look like now for aliskiren/HCTZ combination products?

TEKTURNA HCT sits in a hypertension market dominated by:

• Generic ACE inhibitors (lisinopril-class), ARBs (losartan-class), CCBs (amlodipine-class)
• Generic thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics (HCTZ, chlorthalidone)
• Combos (ACEi/diuretic, ARB/diuretic, ACEi/CCB, ARB/CCB) that have mass prescribing due to formulary positioning

In such markets, a fixed-dose combination that includes a branded RAAS inhibitor faces structural pressure:

• Generic competition on component RAAS agents
• Formulary tiering away from branded renin inhibitors
• Conservative prescribing driven by safety communications and label restrictions

As a result, TEKTURNA HCT is typically better described as a niche to mid-tail product rather than a growth engine. The combination can still win in cases where:

• A physician needs a diuretic add-on and prefers a renin inhibitor approach
• Patients have adherence or tolerability needs compatible with fixed dosing
• Formulary access remains open in certain regional or payer contexts

What is the competitive set for TEKTURNA HCT in hypertension?

The most direct substitutes are fixed-dose and multi-pill strategies that reproduce the BP-lowering intent:

• ARB + HCTZ (e.g., valsartan/HCTZ, losartan/HCTZ)
• ACEi + HCTZ (e.g., lisinopril/HCTZ)
• ARBs or ACEi + thiazide-like diuretics in higher-efficacy strategies
• Standalone HCTZ added to an ACEi or ARB used as first-line or second-line therapy

In payer decision-making, the dominant value levers are:

• Lower cost via generics
• Broad guideline alignment
• Predictable safety profiles in routine multimorbidity care

TEKTURNA HCT competes against that cost and comfort baseline with a safety-constrained class profile.

How do guideline and safety communications affect TEKTURNA HCT prospects?

The ALTITUDE outcomes and FDA-aligned safety changes tightened the clinical lens on aliskiren. The market impact shows up as:

• Fewer new starts in high-risk cohorts
• Preference for RAAS inhibition through ACEi or ARB where evidence base is broader and labeling constraints are simpler
• A focus on tolerability and renal monitoring protocols only in selected patients

This shifts commercial expectation from “mainline first-line hypertension combo” to “selected second-line or specialist-driven option.” [1][2]

What is the forward projection for TEKTURNA HCT?

Given the absence of a clear, active late-stage Phase 3 revitalization centered on TEKTURNA HCT, the forward view is driven by three forces: 1) Patent and exclusivity timelines vs generic entry for the relevant aliskiren products and combination forms in major markets 2) Label constraints that limit combination use in common high-risk regimens 3) Payer formulary dynamics in a market where multiple generic combination alternatives dominate

Projection framework (directional)

• Demand: Flat-to-declining in mature markets where generic RAAS combos and thiazide strategies are entrenched. Niche retention possible where payer contracts still list the brand combo.
• Pricing: Downward pressure where competitive access emerges. Brand retention where contract coverage exists, but with limited upsides.
• Share: Gradual erosion versus generic ARB/ACEi HCTZ combos.
• Clinical pipeline: No expansion consistent with a “next growth cycle,” with activity more likely to be post-marketing and label maintenance rather than pivotal efficacy breakthroughs.

This profile aligns with a typical post-safety-communication brand that remains commercially present but lacks momentum.

Key timeline anchors affecting market expectations

• ALTITUDE outcomes and resulting safety communications drive clinician and payer confidence reset for aliskiren in high-risk populations. [1][3]
• FDA labeling restrictions/updates for aliskiren-containing products constrain common multimorbidity use cases. [2]
• Ongoing clinical activity in public registries skews toward smaller studies and follow-up rather than new pivotal hypertension-combo replacement trials.

Business implications for R&D and investment

If you are evaluating TEKTURNA HCT as a platform

• The product is a legacy RAAS combination with value tied to niche prescribing patterns and ongoing contract access rather than competitive differentiation through clinical superiority.

If you are evaluating as a competitive benchmark

• It illustrates how safety signals can permanently reshape class adoption even when BP efficacy is clinically adequate.

If you are planning a sequel program

• Future entrants must plan around:
  • Diabetes plus ACEi/ARB comorbidity restrictions where relevant to label
  • Renal and potassium monitoring operationalization
  • Payer preference for lower cost RAAS combos in hypertension

Key Takeaways

• TEKTURNA HCT is an aliskiren plus HCTZ fixed-dose hypertension combination whose clinical and commercial trajectory is constrained by class safety signals tied to ALTITUDE and subsequent FDA labeling restrictions. [1][2][3]
• The active development posture post-ALTITUDE appears focused on label maintenance rather than a new large-scale efficacy expansion, limiting near-term pipeline-driven demand.
• The forward outlook is flat-to-declining in mature markets as generic ACEi/ARB plus thiazide combinations dominate formularies and prescribing.
• Commercial survival depends on niche patient selection and contract coverage, not on broad guideline-centered adoption.

FAQs

1) Why did TEKTURNA HCT lose momentum after ALTITUDE?
ALTITUDE safety findings shifted the perceived risk-benefit profile of aliskiren-based regimens, leading to regulatory and labeling actions that reduce adoption in common high-risk contexts. [1][3]

2) What restrictions most affect aliskiren-based combination use?
FDA labeling restricts or contraindicates aliskiren use in key populations involving diabetes with concomitant ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy, reducing routine multimorbidity use. [2]

3) Does the HCTZ component materially change aliskiren’s safety profile?
No. HCTZ can improve BP control, but it does not remove the class risk tied to aliskiren. Utilization is still governed by aliskiren label constraints. [2]

4) Where can TEKTURNA HCT still fit in prescribing patterns?
Primarily in selected hypertension patients where a renin inhibitor approach is preferred and where comorbidity and co-medication patterns avoid restricted-label scenarios. [2]

5) What does the market forecast assume about future clinical development?
It assumes no large new pivotal program centered on TEKTURNA HCT post-ALTITUDE, so commercial trajectory is driven mainly by safety-label constraints and generic competition pressure.

---

References

[1] FDA. FDA Drug Safety Communication: Aliskiren (Tekturna) and Aliskiren-containing drugs (for example, Tekturna HCT and Valturna) for patients with diabetes: contraindicated use with ACE inhibitors or ARBs. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
[2] FDA. Tekturna (aliskiren) prescribing information and safety labeling updates. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
[3] The ALTITUDE Study Investigators. Aliskiren Trial in Type 2 Diabetes Using Cardio-Renal Endpoints (ALTITUDE): results and safety outcomes. (Clinical trial results reported in major peer-reviewed literature; see FDA communications for the pivotal headline).