Safety of irbesartan in the treatment of mild to moderate systemic hypertension

The cost-effectiveness of irbesartan for hypertension

High blood pressure is a very common problem in the adult and elderly population, both in developed and developing countries. A relatively large number of drug classes are available to treat this condition and prevent its complications, which are not only more frequent in the aforementioned patients but also those affected by metabolic syndrome and/or Type 2 diabetes. Irbesartan is an angiotensin-receptor blocker class drug with good antihypertensive efficacy and specific pharmacological characteristics, whose efficacy has been more deeply evaluated in metabolically complex hypertensive patients. In this review, the authors will analyze its effectiveness in preventing or delaying organ damage in hypertensive patients, with a closer look at the economic implications of treating hypertension with irbesartan in the context of available antihypertensive drugs.

AT1receptor antagonism in hypertension: what has been learned with irbesartan?

Irbesartan is a long-acting angiotensin II antagonist acting specifically at the level of the Type 1-receptor subtype (AT1-receptor). This compound lowers blood pressure dose-dependently in hypertensive patients and has a placebo-like tolerability. The antihypertensive efficacy of irbesartan is greatly enhanced by the coadministration of a diuretic, and fixed-dose combinations of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide are now available. Irbesartan-based treatment appears especially effective for high-risk patients, such as those with diabetes, renal disease and cardiac hypertrophy. In patients with Type 2 diabetes, irbesartan delays the development of nephropathy as well as the progression of renal failure. Irbesartan may have antiatherosclerotic properties beyond those expected from blood pressure lowering per se: this AT1-blocker decreases the vascular oxidative stress and prevents the procoagulant as well as the pro-inflammatory effects of angiotensin II. Irbesartan given alone or in combination with a diuretic therefore represents a rational approach to treat hypertensive patients.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of irbesartan in Beagle dogs after oral administration at two dose rates

Irbesartan (Irb) is an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist widely used in humans to treat hypertension. Age-related diseases such as hypertension are increasingly being diagnosed in dogs and there is the need for new drugs. The PK/PD of Irb was tested in Beagle dogs. Ten healthy Beagles were orally administered two dose rates (2 and 5 mg/kg), according to a cross over study design. Blood collections for PK analysis and systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart and respiratory rate, mucous membranes colour, capillary refill time and temperature evaluations were performed at scheduled intervals. The drug plasma concentration was dose dependent. The dogs administered 5 mg/kg showed a significant reduction in SBP, while in those receiving 2 mg/kg, this parameter was minimally affected. A counter clockwise hysteresis showed no direct correlation between SBP and plasma concentrations. The minimum effective concentration was theorized to be within the range 550-800 ng/mL. Although further studies are necessary, 5 mg/kg seems to be the more appropriate dose to obtain a hypotensive effect in Beagle dogs.

The role of irbesartan in the treatment of patients with hypertension: a comprehensive and practical review

Irbesartan is an orally active angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) whose pharmacological profile differs significantly from those of many other compounds of the same class. In particular, according to its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile, irbesartan has a high bioavailability, a long duration of action and a small potential for pharmacological interactions due to the nature of the enzymatic pathway involved in its metabolic process. Morbidity data with irbesartan have been mainly accumulated in patients with renal impairment where the drug has demonstrated the most remarkable evidence of efficacy among the ARBs class, regardless of the stage of the renal disease (from early to late) and the length of the observational period. The efficacy of irbesartan has also been demonstrated in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy and congestive heart failure. The drug is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and renal impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and hypertension, and its tolerability and safety profile have been extensively investigated and reported to be similar to placebo. From the pharmacoeconomic point of view, treating patients with T2D, hypertension and overt nephropathy using irbesartan was both a cost- and life-saving procedure compared with the use of amlodipine and standard antihypertensive treatment in an Italian setting. The role of irbesartan in the management of hypertension with or without T2D and renal impairment is clearly recognized by national and international guidelines and largely acknowledged by the medical community according to the efficacy of the drug in the prevention of cardiovascular risk in addition to and beyond kidney prevention.

Retrospective analysis of real-world efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers versus other classes of antihypertensive agents in blood pressure management

BACKGROUND

Efficacy of blood pressure (BP) lowering may differ between clinical trials and what is observed in clinical practice. These differences may contribute to poor BP control rates among those at risk.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an observational study to determine the BP-lowering efficacy of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) versus non-ARB-based antihypertensive treatments in a large Canadian primary care database.

METHODS

We analyzed the South Western Ontario database of 170,000 adults (aged >18 years) with hypertension persisting with antihypertensive medication for ≥9 months. Routine standard of care office BP was measured using approved manual aneroid or automated devices. BP <140 mm Hg and/or <90 mm Hg ≤9 months after treatment initiation, persistence (presence of initial antihypertensive prescription at the first, second, third, and fourth year anniversary) with antihypertensive therapy, and the presence of a cardiovascular (CV) event (ie, myocardial infarction) were studied.

RESULTS

After 9 months of monotherapy, 28% (978 of 3490) of patients on ARBs achieved target BP versus 27% (839 of 3110) on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (P > 0.05), 26% (265 of 1020) on calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (P > 0.05), 21% (221 of 1050) on β-blockers (P = 0.002), and 19% (276 of 1450) on diuretics (P = 0.001). Attainment rates were significantly higher with irbesartan (38%; 332 of 873) versus losartan (32%; 335 of 1047; P = 0.01), valsartan (19%; 186 of 977; P = 0.001), and candesartan (25%; 148 of 593; P = 0.001). BP goal attainment rates were significantly higher when ARB was compared with non-ARB-based dual therapy (39%; 1007 of 2584 vs 31%; 1109 of 3576; P = 0.004); irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was significantly higher than losartan + HCTZ (36%; 500 of 1390 vs 20%; 252 of 1261; P = 0.001). For patients receiving dual or tri-therapy, 48% (667 of 1390) of patients receiving irbesartan reached target BP versus 41% to 42% for losartan (517 of 1261), valsartan (194 of 462), and candesartan (168 of 401) (P = 0.001 for each). After 4 years, persistence rates were not statistically different among ARB, CCB, and diuretic monotherapies, but appeared somewhat higher with ACEIs and β-blockers (78%, 78%, 79%, 91%, and 84%, respectively). Persistence was not significantly different between irbesartan and losartan monotherapy (76% for both; P > 0.05), but was significantly higher with irbesartan + HCTZ versus losartan + HCTZ (96% vs 73%, respectively; P = 0.001). Patients treated with ARBs reported fewer CV events than those receiving ACEIs or CCBs (4.3% vs 7.0% and 11.0%, respectively; P < 0.001). Within the ARB class, the lowest rate was with irbesartan (3.0% vs 4.6%-5.0% for other ARBs; P < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world setting, hypertensive adults treated with ARBs versus β-blockers or diuretics were more likely to have evidence-based target BP recorded. In addition, patients using ARBs versus ACEIs or CCBs had fewer reports of CV events.

Long-term use and tolerability of irbesartan for control of hypertension

In this review, we discuss the pharmacological and clinical properties of irbesartan, a noncompetitive angiotensin II receptor type 1 antagonist, successfully used for more than a decade in the treatment of essential hypertension. Irbesartan exerts its antihypertensive effect through an inhibitory effect on the pressure response to angiotensin II. Irbesartan 150-300 mg once daily confers a lasting effect over 24 hours, and its antihypertensive efficacy is further enhanced by the coadministration of hydrochlorothiazide. Additionally and partially beyond its blood pressure-lowering effect, irbesartan reduces left ventricular hypertrophy, favors right atrial remodeling in atrial fibrillation, and increases the likelihood of maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion in atrial fibrillation. In addition, the renoprotective effects of irbesartan are well documented in the early and later stages of renal disease in type 2 diabetics. Furthermore, both the therapeutic effectiveness and the placebo-like side effect profile contribute to a high adherence rate to the drug. Currently, irbesartan in monotherapy or combination therapy with hydrochlorothiazide represent a rationale pharmacologic approach for arterial hypertension and early-stage and late-stage diabetic nephropathy in hypertensive type II diabetics.

Efficacy and safety of treating stage 2 systolic hypertension with olmesartan and olmesartan/HCTZ: results of an open-label titration study

This study investigated an aggressive treatment program for stage 2 systolic hypertension (pretreatment systolic blood pressure [SBP] > or = 160 mm Hg) using the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). In this open-label, 16-week trial, 170 subjects received OM 20 mg/d for 3 weeks. If seated SBP/diastolic BP remained > or = 120/80 mm Hg, subjects were advanced to successive 3-week courses of OM 40 mg/d, OM/HCTZ 40/12.5 mg/d, and OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/d. OM 20 mg/d reduced mean SBP by 16.9 mm Hg (P<.001), and there were further dose-dependent decreases in mean SBP to a maximum of 34.5 mm Hg with OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg/d. At study end, 75.1% of subjects achieved SBP goal (<140 mm Hg) and 16.0% achieved SBP normalization (<120 mm Hg). Treatment was well tolerated at all doses. The addition of HCTZ did not change serum potassium levels but resulted in a dose-independent but not symptomatic increase in serum glucose and uric acid. The authors conclude that an OM-based regimen, with or without HCTZ in conventional doses, is effective in controlling and normalizing BP in stage 2 systolic hypertension.

Enhanced renoprotective effects of ultrahigh doses of irbesartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the renoprotective effect as reflected by short-term changes in albuminuria of ultrahigh doses of irbesartan in type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria.

METHODS

This double-masked randomized crossover trial included 52 (41 males) hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria on ongoing antihypertensive medication. At inclusion, previous antihypertensive treatment was discontinued and replaced with bendroflumethiazide, 5 mg once daily, for the entire study. Following 2 months wash-out (baseline), patients were treated randomly with irbesartan 300, 600, and 900 mg once daily, each dose for 2 months. End points evaluated at the end of each study period included urinary albumin excretion rate (UAE) (mean of three 24-hour collections), 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure, and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [chromium 51 ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (51Cr-EDTA)].

RESULTS

Baseline values were: 24-hour UAE [geometric mean (95% CI)] 134 (103 to 170) mg/24 hours, ambulatory blood pressure [mean (SD)] 140 (10)/77 (7) mm Hg, and GFR 103 (19) mL/min/1.73 m2. All doses of irbesartan significantly reduced UAE, ambulatory blood pressure, and GFR from baseline. Reductions in UAE from baseline were 52% (46% to 57%), 49% (43% to 54%), and 59% (54% to 63%) with increasing doses of irbesartan (P < 0.01). UAE was reduced significantly more by irbesartan 900 mg compared with lower doses with an additional reduction in UAE of 15% (2% to 26%) by irbesartan 900 mg compared with 300 mg (P = 0.02). The greater reduction in albuminuria by irbesartan 900 vs. 300 mg was more pronounced in patients with UAE during irbesartan 300 mg above vs. below the median [31% (18% to 42%) vs. -9% (-25% to 6%), respectively (P < 0.05)]. With increasing doses systolic ambulatory blood pressure was reduced from baseline by 8 (4 to 12), 9 (5 to 13), and 9 (5 to13) mm Hg, and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure by 6 (4 to 7), 7 (6 to 9), and 7 (6 to 9) mm Hg (NS between doses).

CONCLUSION

Ultrahigh dosing of irbesartan (900 mg once daily) is generally safe and offers additional renoprotection independent of changes in systemic blood pressure and GFR in comparison to the currently recommended dose of 300 mg.

Pharmacology of irbesartan

Despite the introduction of new antihypertensive agents such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel antagonists, the blood pressure of fewer than 30% of hypertensive patients is controlled with current therapies; compliance and continuation with medication are poor. The renin-angiotensin system is important in the pathophysiology of hypertension, end-organ damage and congestive cardiac failure. Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist that provides dose-dependent, specific, insurmountable blockade of the AT1 receptor both in vivo and in vitro. It is rapidly absorbed after oral administration, has a bioavailability of 60-80% with no food effect, does not require metabolism to a bioactive compound, and is excreted by both biliary and renal routes so that dosage adjustments are unnecessary in patients with renal or hepatic disease. Irbesartan produces dose-dependent blood pressure reductions, with 24 h activity confirmed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Irbesartan is effective in the elderly and non-elderly, men and women and in cases of mild and severe hypertension. The recommended starting dosage is 150 mg once daily (o.d.), which can be increased to 300 mg. Its antihypertensive effect is accentuated by diuretic co-administration. In controlled clinical trials, irbesartan was at least as effective as atenolol, hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine and enalapril. In a double-blind study, irbesartan 300 mg was more effective than losartan 100 mg, and in a dose-titration study, irbesartan 150-300 mg produced significantly greater blood pressure reductions than losartan 50-100 mg. In pooled data from nine placebo-controlled studies, adverse event and discontinuation rates for irbesartan were similar to those for placebo, and there was no relationship between dose and adverse effects. Preliminary clinical data suggest positive haemodynamic effects in heart failure and renoprotective effects in diabetic nephropathy.

Irbesartan: a review of its use in hypertension and in the management of diabetic nephropathy

Irbesartan (Avapro, Aprovel) is a potent and selective angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor antagonist indicated for use in patients with hypertension, including those with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy. Once-daily administration of irbesartan provided 24-hour control of blood pressure (BP). In patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension irbesartan was as effective as enalapril, atenolol and amlodipine, and more effective than valsartan in terms of absolute reduction in BP and response rates. Irbesartan produced a greater reduction in diastolic BP at trough than once-daily losartan, but had a smaller effect than olmesartan; the reduction in systolic BP achieved with irbesartan was similar or greater than that with losartan and similar to that seen with olmesartan. The combination of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide produced additive effects on BP reduction. Irbesartan also induced regression of left ventricular mass in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. In two large studies (IRbesartan MicroAlbuminuria type 2 diabetes mellitus in hypertensive patients [IRMA 2] and the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial [IDNT]) irbesartan exerted a renoprotective effect in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes at both the early and later stages of diabetic nephropathy. The renoprotective effect was at least partly independent of the BP-lowering effect. In the IRMA 2 trial, the proportion of patients progressing to overt nephropathy was significantly lower for recipients of irbesartan 300mg once daily than placebo. In patients with overt nephropathy in the IDNT, irbesartan 300mg once daily provided significantly greater renoprotection than amlodipine 10mg once daily or placebo. The relative risk of doubling of serum creatinine was significantly lower with irbesartan than amlodipine or placebo. Irbesartan is well tolerated in hypertensive patients, including those with type 2 diabetes and incipient or overt nephropathy. The overall incidence of adverse events with irbesartan was similar to that with placebo. Irbesartan was associated with a lower incidence of cough than enalapril and was not associated with ankle oedema or with any clinically significant drug interactions. In conclusion, irbesartan is a well tolerated and effective antihypertensive agent. It also slows the progression of renal disease in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes at both the early and later stages of diabetic nephropathy. Thus, irbesartan is a valuable agent in the management of patients with these indications.

The KARTAN study: A postmarketing assessment of Irbesartan in patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

An important purpose of postmarketing surveillance of drugs is to better characterize the safety profile of drug therapy in the clinical setting. Another goal is to confirm the effectiveness of these drugs in patients who are candidates for antihypertensive therapy and who may have been excluded from Phase III studies. Irbesartan is a long-acting angiotensin II-receptor blocker specific for the angiotensin 1-receptor subtype that, in clinical trials in patients with hypertension, reduces blood pressure.

OBJECTIVES

The KARTAN (this word was derived from the first and last syllables of Karvea [trademark of Bristol-Myers Squibb Group, Madrid, Spain] and irbesartan) study was designed to confirm and extend the findings from previous clinical trials using data from a large number of patients with hypertension treated with irbesartan in routine clinical practice. The primary goal was to assess the types and incidences of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurring at a low frequency (<0.05%) with irbesartan. The secondary objectives were to study the effect of irbesartan as an antihypertensive agent, to assess the types and incidences of the most frequent ADRs (>/=0.05%) occurring in routine clinical practice, and to detect possible interactions between irbesartan and other drugs frequently used in the primary care setting.

METHODS

This 6-month, observational, open-label, uncontrolled, national, longitudinal, prospective study was conducted by 852 primary care physicians across Spain. Men and women aged >/=18 years with mild to moderate hypertension who, in their physicians' opinion, should have been treated with irbesartan were included. Each patient was followed up for 6 months, attending visits at baseline (ie, the start of treatment) and 1, 3, and 6 months after the start of treatment. A sample size of 3219 patients was calculated for the detection of >/=1 low-incidence (<0.05%) ADR. After the baseline visit, therapy typically was begun with irbesartan 150 mg/d. The initial dose was titrated up, at 300-mg increments based on the patient's response, at each visit as needed to achieve the treatment goals (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure, <90 mm Hg). Information regarding ADRs was collected on case-report forms designed for each visit and analyzed by the scientific committee of the study. All recruited patients were included in the tolerability analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 4887 patients were enrolled (2165 men, 2 772 women; mean [SD] age, 61.1 [11.0] years [range, 19-94 years]; 23.3% of patients were aged >70 years); 4612 were assessable for efficacy. One hundred eight patients (2.2%) experienced ADRs over the 6-month treatment period; 3 of these patients (0.1%) experienced >1 ADR. Of the total number of clinical manifestations of ADRs, 24 occurred at an incidence <0.05%. Irbesartan produced reductions in blood pressure that were statistically significant from the first visit (all p < 0.001), and 39.9% of the patients achieved the treatment goal at the end of the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

In this postmarketing surveillance study of patients with hypertension treated in routine clinical practice, irbesartan showed a satisfactory tolerability profile that was consistent with that seen in randomized, controlled trials.

Once-daily fixed-combination irbesartan 300 mg/ hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg and circadian blood pressure profile in patients with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND

More than 60% of patients with hypertension included in morbidity and mortality trials needed >or=2 drugs to achieve a substantial, sustained reduction in blood pressure. Tolerable combinations using higher doses of antihypertensive drugs are frequently required to control blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the effect of a once-daily fixed combination of irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg on the circadian blood pressure profile in patients with essential hypertension that was not controlled with full-dose single therapy or low-dose combined therapy.

METHODS

Study patients were recruited consecutively from the outpatient hypertension clinics of 3 university hospitals in Spain. After a 1-week washout period, patients with a mean daytime blood pressure >135/85 mm Hg were treated with irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 mg once daily for 12 weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at the end of the washout period and during the last week of treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven patients with essential hypertension (28 men, 29 women) were enrolled; their mean (SD) age was 60.4 (7.2) years (range, 45-78 years). After treatment, a significant reduction in both clinic and ambulatory mean (SD) blood pressure values was observed in the whole group of 57 patients (from 146.0 [11.0] mm Hg to 123.3 [13.3] mm Hg, P < 0.001 for 24-hour systolic blood pressure [SBP]; from 89.9 [8.2] mm Hg to 76.5 [9.4] mm Hg, P < 0.001 for 24-hour diastolic blood pressure [DBP]. The mean lowering of ambulatory SBP and DBP at peak was 25.2 (14.5) mm Hg and 14.7 (9.5) mm Hg, respectively, and at trough, 22.3 (18.3) mm Hg and 12.3 (10.9) mm Hg. The trough-to-peak ratio of the group was 0.92 for SBP (0.97 in responders) and 0.84 for DBP (0.89 in responders). The smoothness index, calculated as the mean of all individual values, was 1.7 (1.0) for SBP (1.8 [0.9] in responders) and 1.3 (0.8) for DBP (1.5 [0.6] in responders). Seven side effects in 6 patients were reported. No metabolic changes were observed, and no patient discontinued the study because of treatment-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The fixed combination of irbesartan 300 mg/HCTZ 25 administered once daily produced a crude meaningful effect in reducing 24-hour blood pressure and was well tolerated. The circadian profile was preserved, as shown by trough-to-peak ratios and smoothness index values for both SBP and DBP.

Pharmacokinetics of irbesartan are not altered in special populations

Studies were conducted to determine whether pharmacokinetics of irbesartan (IRBE), a potent, long-acting angiotensin (AT)-II receptor antagonist selective for AT-II type 1 receptor subtype, are altered in patients with renal impairment (RI), hepatic impairment (HI), or heart failure (HF) or by patient gender, age, or race. IRBE pharmacokinetics and blood pressure (BP) response in hypertensive (HT) children and adolescents were also studied. HI or RI (including end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis) had no effect on IRBE pharmacokinetics after single or repeated dosing. IRBE was not removed by hemodialysis. In patients with New York Heart Association class II or III HF, IRBE single-dose pharmacokinetics were not altered following either oral or IV administration. There were no clinically significant differences in IRBE pharmacokinetics between men and women, elderly and young, or black and white patients. No accumulation of IRBE occurred with repeated dosing in RI or HI patients or in HT men or women. In a pediatric study, IRBE pharmacokinetics were comparable between 6- to 12-year and 13- to 16-year age groups and to that previously determined for adult subjects receiving the same dose; accumulation of IRBE was minimal during multiple dosing. IRBE lowered BP in the pediatric population. Adverse event profile with IRBE was similar in all patient groups. Based on these pharmacokinetic and safety data, no dosage adjustments of IRBE are necessary for patients with RI, HI, or HF, or based on patient age, gender, or race. IRBE may be a treatment option for pediatric HT patients. The pharmacokinetic profile of IRBE and lack of necessary dosage adjustments in special populations suggest that IRBE is an excellent choice for management of hypertension across all patient groups.

Efficacy of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in preventing headache: a systematic overview and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine whether angiotensin II receptor antagonists prevent headaches.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for studies in which participants were randomly assigned to an angiotensin II receptor antagonist or placebo. We also contacted experts and manually reviewed all references to identify additional articles. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. We estimated the pooled relative risk (RR) for headache using the random-effects model and examined dose response using random-effects Bayesian logistic regression.

RESULTS

Data from 27 studies involving 12,110 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of headache was about one third lower in patients taking an angiotensin II receptor antagonist than in those taking placebo (RR = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.76; the test of heterogeneity was negative, P = 0.2). The odds ratio for having a headache per unit dose of the reference drug losartan was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.93).

CONCLUSION

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists appear to be effective in preventing headaches, but the mechanism of this benefit and the types of headaches that are prevented are not known. Randomized trials are warranted.

Drug interactions with irbesartan

Irbesartan is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist indicated for the treatment of patients with hypertension. Although irbesartan does not require biotransformation for its pharmacological activity, it does undergo metabolism via the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 isoenzyme and negligible metabolism by the CYP3A4 isoenzyme. The long term treatment of patients with hypertension is generally required for effective management of the disease, and the use of concurrent medications is usually inevitable. This paper reviews the drug and food interaction trials involving irbesartan that have been conducted to date. Based on the available literature, no significant interactions have been identified between irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide, nifedipine, simvastatin, tolbutamide, warfarin, magnesium and aluminum hydroxides, digoxin or food. Fluconazole did increase the steady-state peak plasma concentration (by 19%) and area under the concentration-time curve (by 63%) of irbesartan, but these increases are not likely to be clinically significant. In summary, irbesartan has demonstrated minimal potential for drug or food interactions in trials conducted to date.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and enalapril in adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension, as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the MAPAVEL Study (Monitorización Ambulatoria Presión Arterial APROVEL)

BACKGROUND

When blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy is assessed by measurements taken in a clinic setting, angiotensin II-receptor antagonists show similar efficacy to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and better tolerability. A search of MEDLINE to date, however, reveals no randomized, double-blind studies using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to compare the BP-lowering efficacy of irbesartan and enalapril in a large number of patients ( > 200) with essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared 24-hour BP reduction and BP control, as assessed by ABPM, in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension treated with irbesartan or enalapril. The relative tolerability of the 2 treatments was also evaluated.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (office diastolic BP [DBP] 90-109 mm Hg or systolic BP [SBP] 140-179 mm Hg). After a 3-week, single-blind placebo washout phase, patients with a mean daytime DBP > or = 85 mm Hg, as measured by ABPM between 10 AM and 8 PM, were randomized to 12 weeks of active treatment with irbesartan or enalapril. Starting doses were 150 and 10 mg/d, respectively, with titration to 300 or 20 mg/d if clinic DBP was > or = 90 mm Hg at week 4 or 8. Based on clinic measurements, BP control was defined as a BP reading < 140/90 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in DBP of > or = 10 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders. The ABPM criterion for BP control, independent of clinic values, was achievement of a daytime BP < 130/85 mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment; patients achieving a reduction in 24-hour DBP > or = 5 mm Hg at 12 weeks were considered responders, in dependent of clinic values.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients were randomized to treatment, 115 to irbesartan and 123 to enalapril. The study population was approximately 52.0% female and 48.0% male, with a mean ( +/- SD) age of 52.7 +/- 10.6 years. The study was completed by 111 patients in the irbesartan group (dose titrated to 300 mg/d in 72.0% of patients) and 115 patients in the enalapril group (dose titrated to 20 mg/d in 76.5% of patients). BP reductions were similar in the 2 groups, both as measured in the clinic (DBP, 12.7 +/- 8.8 mm Hg irbesartan vs 12.4 +/- 7.4 mm Hg enalapril; SBP, 19.0 +/- 14.1 mm Hg vs 17.5 +/- 14.0 mm Hg) and by 24-hour ABPM (DBP, 9.4 +/- 8.5 mm Hg vs 8.8 +/- 8.5 mm Hg: SBP, 14.7 +/- 14.7 mm Hg vs 12.6 +/- 13.1 mm Hg). As assessed by ABPM, rates of BP control were 40.5% (45/111) for irbesartan and 33.9% (39/115) for enalapril, and the response rates were a respective 71.2% (79/111) and 71.3% (82/115). The overall incidence of adverse events (40.0% irbesartan, 51.2% enalapril) was not statistically different between groups, although the incidence of adverse events considered probably related to antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher with enalapril than with irbesartan (24.6% vs 9.2%, respectively; P = 0.026), essentially because of the higher incidence of cough (8.1% vs 0.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

As assessed by ABPM, irbesartan 150 to 300 mg/d was as effective in lowering BP and achieving BP control as enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d. Based on the number of treatment-related adverse events, irbesartan was better tolerated than enalapril.

The pharmacokinetics of irbesartan in hypertensive children and adolescents

An open-label study was conducted to characterize the pharmacokinetics and antihypertensive response to irbesartan in children (1-12 years) and adolescents (13-16 years) with hypertension. Patients received single once-daily oral doses of irbesartan 2 mg/kg (maximum of 150 mg once daily) for 2 to 4 weeks (+/- nifedipine or hydrochlorothiazide). Plasma irbesartan concentrations were determined by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography/fluorescence method from blood samples taken predose, up to 24 hours after dosing on Day 1, and up to 48 hours after the final dose. The plasma concentration-time profiles were similar between the 6- to 12-year and the 13- to 16-year age groups and to that previously determined from a study of adult subjects receiving approximately 2 mg/kg (i.e., 150 mg) oral irbesartan once daily. Mean reductions in systolic/diastolic blood pressure were 16/10 mmHg at Day 28 with irbesartan monotherapy (n = 8). Irbesartan was well tolerated and may be a treatment option for pediatric hypertensive patients.

End-stage renal failure after irbesartan prescription in a diabetic patient with previously stable chronic renal insufficiency

We report the case of a 78-year-old hypertensive diabetic patient without evidence of renal artery stenosis who had moderate chronic renal insufficiency, which had been stable for several years under low-dose captopril therapy, and who rapidly developed acute renal failure when irbesartan was prescribed. Unfortunately the medication was not stopped promptly and the patient never recovered his basal renal function and had to undergo chronic hemodialysis. This observation emphasizes the importance of a careful monitoring of renal function in patients receiving angiotensin II receptor antagonists.

Irbesartan does not affect the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin in healthy subjects

This open-label, single-dose, crossover study was conducted to assess the effect of irbesartan on the pharmacokinetics of total simvastatin acid in 14 healthy subjects. Subjects were randomized to receive one simvastatin 40 mg tablet or one simvastatin 40 mg tablet + one irbesartan 300 mg tablet. Subjects were crossed over to the other treatment after a 7- to 10-day washout period. Serum samples were collected at specified times before and over a 24-hour period after dosing. Safety was assessed by monitoring vital signs, laboratory tests, and adverse events. Irbesartan did not exhibit a clinically significant effect on the peak serum concentration and area under the concentration versus time curve to infinity (AUC0-infinity) of total simvastatin acid. The mean AUC0-infinity of total simvastatin acid was 74.55 ng x h/mL when simvastatin was given alone and 67.55 ng x h/mL when simvastatin and irbesartan were given concomitantly. The time to peak serum concentration for both treatments was 3 hours. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, and both agents were well tolerated. In summary, irbesartan had no significant effect on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of total simvastatin acid.

The efficacy and tolerability of losartan versus atenolol in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Losartan ISH Investigators Group

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist losartan and the beta-blocker atenolol in the treatment of patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) after 16 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, multi-country study was carried out in 273 patients with ISH. Patients with a sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) of 160-205 mmHg, and a sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) < 90 mmHg at screening and at placebo baseline were subjected to a 4-week placebo period and then randomly grouped to receive 50 mg losartan or 50 mg atenolol once daily for 16 weeks. At 8 and 12 weeks, patients not controlled (SiDBP > or = 160 mmHg) were given additional treatment of 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) once daily.

RESULTS

Similar significant reductions in SiSBPs (mean +/- SD) were obtained with 50 mg losartan and 50 mg atenolol, from 173.7 +/- 10.3 and 173.5 +/- 10.7 mmHg at baseline to 149.0 +/- 15.5 and 148.2 +/- 15.3 mmHg after 16 weeks of losartan or atenolol treatment respectively. Sixty-seven percent of the losartan-treated and 64% of the atenolol-treated patients remained on monotherapy throughout the study. Only 1.5% of the losartan-treated patients withdrew because of a clinical adverse event (CAE) compared with 7.2% in the atenolol-treatment group (P= 0.035). Drug-related CAEs were observed significantly more frequently with atenolol than with losartan treatment (20.3 versus 10.4%; P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that 50 mg losartan and 50 mg atenolol produced comparable reductions in SiSBP in patients with ISH but losartan was better tolerated. This is the first demonstration of the therapeutic value of selective Ang II receptor blockade with losartan in the treatment of ISH.

Irbesartan: an updated review of its use in cardiovascular disorders

Irbesartan interrupts the renin-angiotensin system via selective blockade of the angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor; the latter being responsible for the pressor related effects of angiotensin II. As treatment for mild to moderate hypertension, irbesartan 150 mg/day controlled diastolic BP in 56% of patients according to pooled data from several phase III studies and 77% of patients in a large phase IV study. in comparative trials, irbesartan was significantly more effective than losartan and valsartan as treatment for mild to moderate essential hypertension and as effective as enalapril or atenolol. Results from many studies show an additive antihypertensive effect when hydrochlorothiazide is added to irbesartan monotherapy. The drug also induces statistically significant regression of left ventricular mass in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, and preliminary evidence suggests it has beneficial haemodynamic effects in patients with heart failure. Irbesartan is very well tolerated, exhibiting an adverse event profile similar to that seen with placebo in comparative trials. In conclusion, although the role of irbesartan as a treatment for heart failure is little clearer than it was 2 years ago, the place of the drug in the management of hypertension is now better established. There is evidence to suggest the drug may have a role as initial therapy for hypertension, although formal recommendation in management guidelines will almost certainly not occur until long term morbidity and mortality benefits are established.

Safety of drugs commonly used to treat hypertension, dyslipidemia, and type 2 diabetes (the metabolic syndrome): part 1

The benefits of blood pressure lowering, lipid lowering, and glycemic control on morbidity and mortality have been established in major long-term clinical trials. The most extensive information is available for diuretics or beta-blockers in hypertension, hepatic hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) in dyslipidemia, and insulin or sulfonylureas in diabetes. Other drug classes provide similar improvements in blood pressure, lipid profile, and glycemic control, and thereby might be expected to provide comparable long-term benefits. As a result, national guidelines advocate treating patients aggressively in order to achieve control of blood pressure low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and blood glucose. The risks associated with drug treatment are generally class-specific. Among antidiabetic agents, sulfonylureas and insulin are associated with risk for severe hypoglycemia, metformin with risk for lactic acidosis, and troglitazone with risk for idiosyncratic hepatocellular injury. Similarly, widely used antihypertensive and lipid-lowering agents are associated with risk for serious complications, such as angioedema with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, possible increased risk for myocardial infarction and cancer with calcium antagonists, and myositis and liver dysfunction with statins. Physicians must take an aggressive approach to patient management in order to achieve a level of disease control that optimally reduces risk for morbidity and mortality. Serious adverse events may occur rarely with most drug classes; these events can be minimized by appropriately monitoring or selecting patients for treatment.

Long-term safety and antihypertensive efficacy of irbesartan: pooled results of five open-label studies

An analysis of 5 multicenter, open-label studies was conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of irbesartan in 1,006 patients with seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) 95-110 mm Hg. Irbesartan monotherapy was started at 75 mg and titrated to 300 mg at 2- to 4-week intervals to achieve normalized blood pressure (SeDBP <90 mm Hg). If normalized BP was not attained with irbesartan 300 mg alone, adjunctive medications could be added. At 12 months of therapy, the mean reduction in seated systolic blood pressure/SeDBP was 21.0/15.8 mm Hg, and 83% (684/821) of patients were normalized. Of those normalized, 64% were receiving irbesartan monotherapy and 86% were receiving irbesartan or irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide only. No evidence of tachyphylaxis to the antihypertensive effect of irbesartan was noted. Thus, long-term irbesartan therapy, with or without other antihypertensives, achieved and maintained normalized BP in the majority of patients and was well tolerated.

The antihypertensive efficacy of the combination of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Irbesartan Multicenter Study Group

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, 178 patients with ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =85 mm Hg and seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) 95-110 mm Hg received either once-daily irbesartan 75 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo for 8 weeks to assess reductions in 24-hour ambulatory BP and office BP. Safety and tolerability of all treatment regimens were also evaluated. BP results and therapeutic response (trough SeDBP normalized to <90 mm Hg) were expressed as change from baseline to Week 8. Mean reductions in 24-hour ambulatory BP and office seated BP for irbesartan/HCTZ combinations were significantly greater compared with placebo (all, p<0.01). More patients were normalized with irbesartan/HCTZ (65%-69%) than placebo (24%, p<0.01). The frequency of adverse events was similar in all groups. Irbesartan/HCTZ given once-daily appears to be a well-tolerated, safe, and effective antihypertensive treatment.

Spectrum of use for the angiotensin-receptor blocking drugs

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in regulating blood pressure, and maintaining fluid and electrolyte balance. Angiotensin II is the principal mediator of the RAS and has been implicated in the development of hypertension as well as other forms of cardiovascular and renal disease. Angiotensin II-receptor antagonists are a new class of drugs that inhibit the RAS by selectively blocking the AT(1) receptor. These compounds therefore provide more specific and thorough blockade of the RAS by inhibiting the deleterious actions of angiotensin II at the receptor level, irrespective of how this peptide is formed. The increased specificity of action of angiotensin II-receptor antagonists may also circumvent unwanted side-effects normally associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (eg, cough and angioedema) as these agents do not interfere with the metabolism of other peptides (eg, bradykinin, substance P, etc.). There is still some concern with angiotensin II-receptor antagonists and the long-term effects of hyper-stimulation of the unopposed AT(2) receptor that is caused by elevated levels of angiotensin II. However, it appears that stimulation of the AT(2) receptor may actually contribute to the beneficial effects of angiotensin II-receptor antagonists by counteracting the effects mediated by the AT(1) receptor. Angiotensin II-receptor antagonists display great therapeutic promise in the field of cardiovascular medicine and are currently being exploited as new antihypertensive agents. These drugs have demonstrated safety, efficacy, and tolerability; however, morbidity and mortality data are still lacking. Nonetheless, it is likely that angiotensin II-receptor antagonists will become part of the medical arsenal against cardiovascular and renal disease, thus consideration should be given to their future use as first-line antihypertensive agents.

How do angiotensin II receptor antagonists affect blood pressure?

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays an important role in the regulation of blood pressure. Angiotensin II is the principal effector hormone in the RAS, causing vasoconstriction and increased sodium and water retention, leading to increased blood pressure. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists both inhibit the actions of angiotensin II. ACE inhibitors prevent the formation of angiotensin II from angiotensin I, whereas angiotensin II receptor antagonists inhibit the final crucial step of angiotensin II binding with the AT1 receptor site. This article discusses the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor antagonists and their possible role in organ protection.

Non-peptide angiotensin type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of hypertension

Angiotensin II (Ang II) acts at the cellular level on two receptor subtypes: the AT1 receptor which can be blocked by losartan and its analogues (the 'sartan family'), and the AT2 receptor that does not react with the above antagonists but which can be blocked by different compounds, such as PD123319. AT1 receptor blockade has proven to be a highly effective means of interference with the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and hence of reducing high blood pressure. As a result of the terminal blockade of the RAS cascade, circulating Ang II levels tend to rise two- to threefold. The free access of such enhanced levels to uninhibited AT2 receptors may be clinically relevant, as argued in the present review. The most extensive experimental and clinical experience with AT1 receptor blockade so far has been obtained with the pioneer drug losartan, although major contributions have also been made on candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan and valsartan. All of these four drugs have been instrumental in substantial clinical trials, serving as sources of information in the clinically oriented part of this review. AT1 receptor blocking drugs generally provide a relatively gradual decrease in blood pressure, which is comparable to that obtained with conventional anti-hypertensive drugs. Clinical trials reveal an astounding lack of drug-related adverse effects, scoring even better than placebo in terms of frequencies and sometimes patterns. The trough/peak ratio on single dosages seems to have been mastered, particularly with the second generation of AT1 receptor blockers, as is evident from 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Combination with low-dose thiazide regimens is well established. Intermediate endpoints (micro-albuminuria and left ventricular hypertrophy) appear to be controllable. Morbid cardiovascular sequelae are currently under study in comparison with beta- and calcium channel blockade.

Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics of Irbesartan in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension

BACKGROUND: The pharmacodynamics (plasma angiotensin II [AII], plasma renin activity [PRA], renal function, blood pressure [BP], urinary excretion of major metabolites of prostacyclin [PGI(2)-M], and thromboxane A(2) [TXA(2)-M]) and pharmacokinetics of irbesartan were assessed in hypertensive patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-four white patients with seated diastolic blood pressure 95 to 110 mmHg were randomized to double-blind irbesartan 300 mg or placebo once daily for 4 weeks, following a placebo lead-in. Irbesartan-treated patients had significantly greater 24-hour area under the curve values for mean change from baseline in AII and PRA versus placebo-treated patients on day B15 (AII [pg |mZ h/mL]: 261 +/- 515 vs 12 +/- 51; PRA [(ng/mL/h); h]:74 +/-162 vs -2 +/-14; P values >.05). Irbesartan significantly lowered BP without clinically important changes in renal function. Irbesartan had no effect on 24-hour urinary TXA(2)-M excretion, but significantly increased 24-hour PGI(2)-M excretion versus placebo on day B29 (20.7 +/- 23 pg/mg creatinine vs _2.3 +/- 43 pg/mg creatinine; P <.05). Pharmacokinetics were comparable to those from previous studies. The hourly relationship between plasma irbesartan concentration and antihypertensive effect indicated a broad, clockwise hysteresis, with peak concentration occurring at 1.5 hours, whereas peak antihypertensive effect occurred at 4 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan increases plasma AII and PRA and lowers BP consistent with AT(1) receptor blockade, without clinically important effects on renal function.

The effects of irbesartan added to hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension in patients non-responsive to hydrochlorothiazide alone

AIM

To evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of adding irbesartan to hydrochloride (HCTZ) in patients not adequately controlled by HCTZ alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter study, after a single-blind, placebo lead-in period, hypertensive patients received single-blind HCTZ 25 mg once daily. After 4 weeks, 238 patients with seated diastolic blood pressure of 93-110 mmHg continued on HCTZ 25 mg once daily and were randomized to double-blind irbesartan 75 mg once daily or matching placebo for 12 weeks. At week 6, the dosage of irbesartan or placebo was doubled for seated diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mmHg.

RESULTS

At weeks 2, 6, and 12, irbesartan/HCTZ resulted in significantly greater (P<0.01) reductions from baseline in trough seated diastolic and systolic blood pressure compared with placebo/HCTZ. At week 12, the mean reductions in trough seated diastolic and systolic blood pressure were 7.2 mmHg (95%, C.I., 5.1-9.3 mmHg) and 11.1 mmHg (95% C.I., 7.9-14.3 mmHg) greater, respectively, with irbesartan/HCTZ compared with placebo/HCTZ. At week 12, significantly (P < 0.01) more patients were normalized (trough seated diastolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) with irbesartan/HCTZ (67%) compared with placebo/HCTZ (29%). The frequency of adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations attributed to adverse events was similar in both groups, and there were no clinically relevant changes in serum creatinine, potassium, or any other laboratory parameter.

CONCLUSION

Irbesartan was effective and well tolerated when added to a background of HCTZ 25 mg in patients whose blood pressure was not adequately controlled by HCTZ alone.

Dose-responsive antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan, a new angiotensin II-receptor blocker

Predictable dose-related efficacy is considered to be an important attribute of any antihypertensive agent. To determine the magnitude of dose-responsive efficacy for valsartan, a highly selective angiotensin II-receptor blocker, we conducted an integrated analysis of efficacy data from nine double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel studies of similar design and of at least 4 weeks' duration. The intent-to-treat analysis included 4067 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension who had received valsartan (n = 2901) 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 mg once daily or placebo (n = 1166). Blood pressure was assessed at trough (24 hours after the last dose). In all nine studies, valsartan doses > or = 80 mg produced statistically significant reductions in supine or seated diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) and systolic blood pressure (SSBP) compared with placebo (P < 0.05). The integrated analysis demonstrated a clear increase in blood-pressure-lowering efficacy with increasing dose across the range 10 to 320 mg (placebo-subtracted mean changes from baseline to end point for valsartan 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, and 320 mg, respectively: SDBP, -0.8, -2.8, -2.6, -3.9, -5.1, and -6.4 mm Hg; SSBP, -1.3, -5.7, -5.3, -6.8, -8.6, and -9.0 mm Hg). The data demonstrate that valsartan provides dose-responsive antihypertensive efficacy across the therapeutic dose range, with clinically relevant blood-pressure lowering at doses > or = 80 mg once daily.

Dose-related efficacy of irbesartan for hypertension: an integrated analysis

Results of eight multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group studies were pooled to assess the efficacy of the angiotensin II-receptor blocker irbesartan over the dose range of 1 to 900 mg. A total of 2955 adults with a seated diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 110 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with oral irbesartan once daily or placebo for 6 to 8 weeks. Office blood pressure was measured at trough (24+/-3 hours after the last dose) and peak (3+/-1 hours after the last dose) by mercury sphygmomanometry. Demographic characteristics (mean blood pressure; 151/101 mm Hg; mean age, 54 years; 63% male; and 82% white) were similar across all dose groups. After the groups were pooled, antihypertensive efficacy was assessed by therapeutic response (trough seated diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or a reduction from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg) and by modeling of the maximum reductions in trough and peak seated diastolic and systolic blood pressure. Antihypertensive effects increased with increasing doses and reached a plateau at > or = 300 mg. Irbesartan 150 mg provided placebo-subtracted reductions in trough seated systolic and diastolic blood pressure of approximately 8 and approximately 5 mm Hg, respectively, with 56% of patients displaying a favorable response. In conclusion, irbesartan provides clinically significant blood pressure lowering, with a clear relationship between (log) dose and antihypertensive effect.