Fixed-dose manidipine/delapril versus losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria

Chronic Kidney Disease Progression Risk in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Using Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers: A Nationwide, Population-Based, Propensity Score Matching Cohort Study

Background: Whether diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) can glean individual renal benefit from dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DCCBs) remains to be determined. We conducted a nationwide, population-based, propensity score matching cohort study to examine the effect of DCCBs on CKD progression in DM patients with CKD.

Methods: One million individuals were randomly sampled from Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Research Database. The study cohort consisted of DM patients with CKD who used DCCBs. The comparison cohort was propensity-matched for demographic characteristics and comorbidities. The endpoint was advanced CKD or end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate the risks.

Results: In total, 9,761 DCCB users were compared with DCCB nonusers at a ratio of 1:1. DCCB users had lower risk of advanced CKD and ESRD than nonusers—with adjusted hazard ratio [aHR; 95% confidence interval (CI)] of 0.64 (0.53–0.78) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.50–0.71) for advanced CKD and ESRD, respectively. DCCB users aged ≥65 years had the lowest incidence rates of advanced CKD and ESRD—with aHR (95% CI) of 0.47 (0.34–0.65) and 0.48 (0.35–0.65) for advanced CKD and ESRD, respectively. Finally, cumulative DCCB use for >1,100 days was associated with the lowest advanced CKD and ESRD risks [(aHR, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.19–0.44)].

Conclusion: DM patients with CKD who used DCCBs had lower risk of progression to advanced CKD and ESRD than nonusers did.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Antihypertensive Agents for Adult Diabetic Patients with Microalbuminuric Kidney Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive treatment mitigates the progression of chronic kidney disease. Here, we comparatively assessed the effects of antihypertensive agents in normotensive and hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuric kidney disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antihypertensive agents in adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. The primary efficacy outcome was reduction in albuminuria, and the primary safety outcomes were dry cough, presyncope, and edema. Random-effects pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to produce outcome estimates for all RCTs, only hypertensive RCTs, or only normotensive RCTs. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability rankings were calculated for all outcomes. Sensitivity analyses on type 2 diabetes status, age, or follow-up duration were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-calcium channel blocker (ACEI-CCB) combination therapy of captopril+diltiazem was most efficacious in reducing albuminuria irrespective of blood pressure status. However, the ACEI-angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI-ARB) combination therapy of trandolapril+candesartan was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while the ACEI-CCB combination therapy of fosinopril+amlodipine was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. The foregoing combination therapies displayed inferior safety profiles relative to ACEI monotherapy with respect to dry cough, presyncope, and edema. With respect to type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, the Chinese herbal medicine Tangshen formula followed by the ACEI ramipril were the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria.

CONCLUSIONS

Trandolapril+candesartan appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while fosinopril+amlodipine appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. For practitioners opting for monotherapy, our SUCRA analysis supports the use of trandolapril and fosinopril in normotensive and hypertensive adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, respectively.

Renoprotective effects of renin-angiotensin system inhibitor combined with calcium channel blocker or diuretic in hypertensive patients: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a meta-analysis of studies comparing the renoprotective effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) combined with either calcium channel blocker (CCB) or diuretic, but not both, in hypertensive patients.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of blood pressure lowering treatments in patients with hypertension.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs comparing the renoprotective effects of ACEI/ARB plus CCB with ACEI/ARB plus diuretic in hypertensive patients, with at least one of the following reported outcomes: urinary protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate/creatinine clearance (eGFR/CrCl), or serum creatinine.

RESULTS

Based on 14 RCTs with 18,125 patients, statistically significant benefits were found in ACEI/ARB plus CCB for maintaining eGFR/CrCl (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.53; P < 0.001), serum creatinine reduction (mean difference [MD] = -0.05 mg/dL; 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.03; P < 0.001). However, no statistical differences were found between the 2 therapeutic strategies in terms of urinary protein (MD = 7.48%; 95% CI: -6.13% to 21.08%; P = 0.28; I = 92%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis concluded that ACEI/ARB plus CCB have a stronger effect on the maintenance of renal function in patients with hypertension than ACEI/ARB plus diuretic.

Comparative effectiveness of renin-angiotensin system blockers and other antihypertensive drugs in patients with diabetes: systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of different classes of antihypertensive treatments, including monotherapy and combination therapy, on survival and major renal outcomes in patients with diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic literature search of PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to December 2011.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy (angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), α blockers, β blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, and their combinations) in patients with diabetes with a follow-up of at least 12 months, reporting all cause mortality, requirement for dialysis, or doubling of serum creatinine levels.

DATA EXTRACTION

Bayesian network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative effects between treatments as well as the probabilities of ranking for treatments based on their protective effects.

RESULTS

63 trials with 36,917 participants were identified, including 2400 deaths, 766 patients who required dialysis, and 1099 patients whose serum creatinine level had doubled. Compared with placebo, only ACE inhibitors significantly reduced the doubling of serum creatinine levels (odds ratio 0.58, 95% credible interval 0.32 to 0.90), and only β blockers showed a significant difference in mortality (odds ratio 7.13, 95% credible interval 1.37 to 41.39). Comparisons among all treatments showed no statistical significance in the outcome of dialysis. Although the beneficial effects of ACE inhibitors compared with ARBs did not reach statistical significance, ACE inhibitors consistently showed higher probabilities of being in the superior ranking positions among all three outcomes. Although the protective effect of an ACE inhibitor plus calcium channel blocker compared with placebo was not statistically significant, the treatment ranking identified this combination therapy to have the greatest probability (73.9%) for being the best treatment on reducing mortality, followed by ACE inhibitor plus diuretic (12.5%), ACE inhibitors (2.0%), calcium channel blockers (1.2%), and ARBs (0.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses show the renoprotective effects and superiority of using ACE inhibitors in patients with diabetes, and available evidence is not able to show a better effect for ARBs compared with ACE inhibitors. Considering the cost of drugs, our findings support the use of ACE inhibitors as the first line antihypertensive agent in patients with diabetes. Calcium channel blockers might be the preferred treatment in combination with ACE inhibitors if adequate blood pressure control cannot be achieved by ACE inhibitors alone.

Combination therapy in hypertension

Hypertension is recognized as a major risk factor for cardiovascular and renal diseases and represents the leading cause of mortality worldwide. In spite of proven benefits of hypertension treatment, blood pressure control rates are poor, even in high-income countries with virtually full-access to therapies. Nearly 75% of hypertensive patients do not achieve adequate control with monotherapy, thus needing combination treatment. Strategies to improve blood pressure control include the prompt shift from monotherapy to combination therapy, the initial treatment with a two-drug combination, and the use of fixed-dose combinations in a single pill. Currently, preferred combinations include a renin-angiotensin blocker, either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker plus a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic. Some patients will also require a triple combination to achieve blood pressure control.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of fixed dose antihypertensive drugs]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of different fixed-dose combinations of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers and calcium channel blockers, to use it as a guide to assist the rational prescribing in antihypertensive therapy.

METHODS

The efficacy of each drug was obtained from intervention studies randomized, double-blind, made with these combinations and a utility-cost modeling from the model proposed and used by NICE. The perspective of our analysis is the National Health System and the time horizon is long enough to achieve therapeutic goals.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per mmHg reduction in BP, percentage of reduction necessary to achieve the therapeutic goals for hypertension control and cost, and finally quantity and quality of life gained with these treatments in patients with hypertension, diabetes.

RESULTS

We studied three fixed-dose combinations: amlodipine/olmesartán, amlodipine/valsartan and manidipine/delapril. The cost per mmHg systolic BP ranged from 24.93 to 12.34 €/mmHg, and diastolic BP ranged from 34.24 to 18.76 €/mmHg, depending on the drug used. For an initial value of 165mmHg systolic BP the most efficient treatment to achieve the therapeutic goal of hypertension control (<140mmHg) is manidipine/delapril with a cost of 67.76 €. The use of these drugs to control diabetic and hypertensive patients resulted in all cases being cost-effective (more effective and lower cost compared to "no treatment"). Manidipine/delapril showed the best relation cost-utility (1,970 €/QALY (quality-adjusted life year)) followed by amlodipine/olmesartan and amlodipine/valsartan (2,087 and 2,237 €/QALY, respectively).

Combination delapril/manidipine as antihypertensive therapy in high-risk patients

The majority of patients with hypertension, and in particular high-risk patients or those with diabetes mellitus or renal dysfunction, are likely to require combination therapy with at least two antihypertensive agents (from different classes) to achieve their blood pressure (BP) target. The delapril/manidipine fixed-dose combination consists of two antihypertensive agents with different, yet complementary, mechanisms of action. Delapril/manidipine has demonstrated short- and long-term antihypertensive efficacy in a number of clinical studies in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy. Comparative studies have demonstrated that delapril/manidipine is as effective as enalapril/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy, and as effective as irbesartan/HCTZ, losartan/HCTZ, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ, ramipril/HCTZ and valsartan/HCTZ in reducing BP in patients with hypertension and diabetes, or in obese patients with hypertension. Therapy with delapril/manidipine also appears to exert beneficial effects that extend beyond a reduction in BP, including nephroprotective activity and an improvement in fibrinolytic balance, supporting its value as a treatment option in these patient populations at high or very high cardiovascular risk because of the presence of organ damage, diabetes or renal disease.

Manidipine treatment in patients with albuminuria not sufficiently reduced with renin-angiotensin system blockers

Microalbuminuria is an issue of great concern in hypertensive patients owing to its close relation with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Treatment should aim to reduce microalbuminuria to the normal range. Drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system have specific antiproteinuric properties, but more than one drug is needed to achieve blood pressure control in most cases. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of adding manidipine to the treatment of patients with essential hypertension and persistent albuminuria, despite full-dose treatment with a renin-angiotensin system blocker on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) after 24 weeks of therapy. Patients with diabetes and renal insufficiency were excluded. At baseline, blood pressure and UAE were 155.1 +/- 12/87.76 +/- 11 mmHg and 293.19 +/- 285 mg/g, respectively. At study end, blood pressure was 137.1 +/- 13.1/77.24 +/- 10.4 mmHg (p < 0.001 vs baseline). UAE was reduced by 45% to 161.52 +/- 163 mg/g (p < 0.001 vs baseline). No correlations were found between systolic blood pressure reduction and UAE reduction (Pearson's R = -0.034; p = not significant) nor between estimated glomerular filtration rate and UAE reduction (Pearson's R = -0.0056; p = not significant). No patient withdrew from the study owing to side effects. In conclusion, treatment with manidipine resulted in a large reduction in UAE rates, and this reduction appeared to be independent of the degree of blood pressure reduction or changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate. Our data supports the added value of manidipine in the treatment of patients with hypertension and microalbuminuria.