Safety and efficacy of antihypertensive therapy with add-on angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker after successful coronary stent implantation

Novel Insights in the Hypertension Treatment & Type 2 Diabetics Induced by Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: MD Simulation Studies & Molecular Docking of Some Promising Natural Therapies

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used to treat hypertension that target the hormonal system (renin-angiotensin system (RAS)), which regulates various physiological functions in the body. ARBs work by blocking the binding of angiotensin II to its receptor, thereby preventing a rise in blood pressure. These drugs not only normalize the overactivation of RAS but also provide protective effects against cardiovascular, renal, and type 2 diabetic patients. Inappropriate RAS activity has been linked to insulin resistance of type 2 diabetes. Olmesartan, as an ARB, was found to have a beneficial role in reducing postprandial glucose levels in type 2 diabetes. However, ARBs can cause side effects, prompting a search for new compounds that have fewer adverse effects. This study explores the potential of natural metabolites, specifically eugenol, gallic acid, myricetin, p-cymene, quercetin, and kaempferol, as ARB inhibitors compared to the current standard, olmesartan. Using in silico studies, the binding affinity of these natural substances to the ARB receptor was evaluated. The results showed that myricetin and kaempferol had affinities higher than those of olmesartan, suggesting that they could serve as promising ARB inhibitors for hypertension treatment. These natural compounds could provide an alternative approach to conventional antihypertensive drugs, which may have fewer side effects. However, more research is needed to validate the efficacy and safety of these natural compounds as antihypertensive drugs. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to confirm their effectiveness and safety. This study provides a promising starting point for future investigations into the potential of natural metabolites as alternative treatments for hypertension. The findings also highlight the importance of exploring natural alternative treatments for hypertension and the protective effects of ARBs on early stage type-2 diabetics.

The short-term effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers on albuminuria and renal function in Korean patients

Each angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) asserts independent molecular effects. No study has compared the renoprotective potency of different types of ARBs in Korea. This study evaluated the differences among medications for treating albuminuria. Data were obtained from electronic medical records of adult patients who underwent albuminuria test and received treatment with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or ARBs between January 2009 and June 2016. Patients' albuminuria and renal function data were observed for three months after treatment initiation. In total, 1475 patients were included. Patients treated with ACEIs had no significant changes in albuminuria (from 127.7 ± 55.1 mg/g to 46.7 ± 18.7 mg/g, P = .127), but those treated with ARBs showed significant improvement (from 491.2 ± 33.2 mg/g to 372.0 ± 28.0 mg/g, P < .001). The ARB group had significantly more patients with normal albuminuria after treatment (from 55.8% to 59.3% for normal albuminuria, from 16.7% to 18.5% for moderately increased albuminuria and from 27.5% to 22.2% for severely increased albuminuria, P = .005), but renal function did not change significantly. Subgroup analysis of ARB types showed that candesartan (from 712.5 ± 71.1 to 489.8 ± 57.8 mg/g, P < .001) and irbesartan (from 522.6 ± 65.7 to 352.6 ± 54.3 mg/g, P < .001) had significant effects. Candesartan improved albuminuria in patients older than 60 years (from 506.9 ± 84.2 to 371.9 ± 70.6 mg/g, P = .004) and irbesartan improved albuminuria in patients with glomerular filtration rate <60 (from 551.6 ± 100.0 to 392.4 ± 76.2, P = .007). Only irbesartan and candesartan could reduce albuminuria, suggesting that all ARBs do not have the same outcome. This indicates the importance of optimizing ARB selection, considering both patient condition and organ-specific characteristics of medications.

Randomized trial of an increased dose of calcium channel blocker or angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker as an add-on intensive depressor therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension: the ACADEMIE Study

There is a lack of data on how to treat hypertensive patients with diabetes when treatment with medium doses of calcium channel blocker and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) is insufficient to achieve the target blood pressure (BP). A total of 121 participants with type 2 diabetes and uncontrolled essential hypertension, who were receiving medium doses of amlodipine (5 mg/day) and ARB, were enrolled. Participants were randomized to receive either a high dose of amlodipine (10 mg/day) plus a medium dose of ARB (high-AML) or a medium dose of amlodipine (5 mg/day) plus a high dose of ARB (high-ARB). The depressor effects of these two regimens were monitored using a telemonitoring home BP-measuring system. Fifty-four patients were excluded after an observation period, and the remaining 67 eligible participants were randomized into the two groups; 42 which had a record of their home BP for analysis. The change in morning home systolic and diastolic BP was greater in the high-AML than in the high-ARB (systolic BP; - 7.9 mmHg vs. + 2.7 mmHg; p = 0.0002, diastolic BP; - 3.9 mmHg vs. + 0.6 mmHg; p = 0.0007). In addition, the home systolic and diastolic BP before going to bed and office systolic BP were significantly reduced from week 0 only in the high-AML. An increased dose of amlodipine, but not ARB, reduced home morning BP in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes who were already receiving combination therapy with medium doses of amlodipine and ARB.

Comparative effect of angiotensin II type I receptor blockers on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective observational study

Background

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARB) are a frequently used class of antihypertensive drug. The ARB losartan is known to decrease the serum uric acid (SUA) level. However, there are very few clinical data comparing the effects of other ARBs on SUA level under the conditions of clinical practice. This study evaluated and compared the long-term effects of monotherapy with five ARBs on SUA level in Japanese hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM).

Methods

We identified hypertensive patients with type 2 DM who had been treated with monotherapy with losartan (n = 214), valsartan (n = 266), telmisartan (n = 185), candesartan (n = 458), or olmesartan (n = 192), in whom laboratory data of SUA between November 1, 2004 and July 31, 2011 were available, from the Nihon University School of Medicine’s Clinical Data Warehouse (NUSM’s CDW). We used a propensity-score weighting method and a multivariate regression model to adjust for differences in the background among ARB users, and compared the SUA level. The mean exposure of losartan was 264.7 days, valsartan 245.3 days, telmisartan 235.9 days, candesartan 248.9 days, and olmesartan 234.5 days.

Results

In losartan users, mean SUA level was significantly decreased from baseline, while it was conversely increased in users of other ARBs; valsartan, telmisartan, candesartan, and olmesartan. The mean reduction of SUA level from baseline was significantly greater in losartan users compared with that in other ARB users. Comparison of ARBs other than losartan showed no significant difference in mean change in SUA level from baseline.

Conclusions

Our study showed that losartan had the most beneficial effect on SUA level among five ARBs, and that there was no significant difference in the unfavorable effects on SUA level among four ARBs other than losartan, at least during one year. These findings provide evidence of an effect of ARBs on SUA level, and support the benefit of the use of losartan in hypertensive patients with type 2 DM.

Recent progress in the treatment of cardiovascular disease using olmesartan

Angiotensin II (Ang II) evokes inflammatory responses and plays a central role in atherosclerosis mediated by Ang II type 1 (AT1) receptor. AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs) prevent the diverse effects of Ang II. Unique molecule-specific, or off-target effects of ARBs are due to their slightly different structures, although all ARBs have common, or class, effects. In nonsignificant coronary stenotic lesions, it is important that we use aggressive medical treatments using ARBs in addition to statins and oral hypoglycemic agents, to induce the regression and stabilization of coronary plaque. This review focuses on current evidence regarding the molecule-specific effects of ARB olmesartan to prevent the increase in coronary atheroma volume.

Efficacies of Controlling Morning Blood Pressure and Protecting the Kidneys by Treatment With Valsartan and Nifedipine CR or Valsartan and Amlodipine (MONICA Study)

Background

It is controversial whether a single-pill fixed-dose combination of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker and calcium channel blocker (CCB) is effective for all types of hypertension.

Methods

Thirty-five patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) under treatment with valsartan 80 mg/day or amlodipine 5 mg/day were enrolled. They were randomly divided into two treatment groups: a single-pill fixed-dose combination of valsartan 80 mg/day and amlodipine 5 mg/day in the morning (VA group), or valsartan 80 mg/day in the morning and nifedipine CR 20 mg/day at night (VN group), and treated for 16 weeks. If the patient did not reach the target office BP at 8 weeks, they received double doses of CCBs.

Results

In the VN group, morning diastolic BP was significantly lower than the respective values in the VA group at 8 weeks. The percentage of patients who required a double dose of CCB in the VN group was significantly lower than that in the VA group. At 16 weeks, the BP levels in both groups were significantly reduced. Urinary albumin/creatinine at 16 weeks was significantly less than that at 0 weeks in the VN group.

Conclusion

Combination therapy with valsartan and nifedipine CR may help to control morning BP and protect the kidneys.

Comparison of the efficacies of irbesartan and olmesartan after successful coronary stent implantation

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacies of irbesartan and olmesartan after successful stent implantation in patients with stable angina.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients were randomly divided into irbesartan and olmesartan groups and treated for approximately eight months (at follow-up coronary angiography).

RESULTS

There were no differences in blood pressure (BP) reduction or late loss between the groups. The BP levels in both groups at follow-up were significantly reduced. The equality of variance of systolic (S)BP (i.e., the intragroup standard deviation of SBP) in the irbesartan group was significantly smaller than that observed in the olmesartan group at follow-up. In addition, log[pentraxin-3] was significantly decreased in all of the patients at follow-up, with no differences between the groups. Interestingly, the levels of log[high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)] measured at 0 weeks were positively associated with in-stent late loss, and among independent biochemical variables in addition to age, gender, body mass index and the kind of angiotensin receptor blockers at 0 weeks, only these levels were related to in-stent late loss, as assessed by a multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

The ability of irbesartan to reduce BP is comparable to that of olmesartan, and irbesartan exhibits a lower variance of systolic BP after treatment. The level of log[hs-CRP] before stent implantation is a predictor of in-stent late loss.

Olmesartan/amlodipine combination versus olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies on blood pressure and insulin resistance in a sample of hypertensive patients

Despite the wide range of antihypertensive medications, about 45.5% of treated patients fail to achieve the desired blood pressure (BP) target. This study evaluated the effects of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill combination compared to olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies on BP, lipid profile, insulin resistance, and insulin sensitivity parameters. Two hundred and seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to olmesartan (20 mg), amlodipine (10 mg), or a single pill containing olmesartan/amlodipine (5/20 mg) for 12 months. We evaluated the following parameters at the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months: body weight, body mass index (BMI), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), and lipid profile. At the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, patients underwent an euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamp to assess M value. Olmesartan/amlodipine gave a greater decrease in SBP and DPB compared to amlodipine and olmesartan at 6 (P < .05) and 12 months (P < .01). There was a decrease in FPG with olmesartan/amlodipine after 12 months compared to amlodipine (P < .05). Olmesartan/amlodipine decreased FPI and homeostasis model assessment index compared to both baseline (P < .05) and olmesartan and amlodipine (P < .05). Olmesartan/amlodipine gave an increase in M value, compared to baseline (P < .01) and to olmesartan monotherapy (P < .05) and amlodipine monotherapy (P < .01). In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, olmesartan/amlodipine combination resulted more effective than olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies in reducing BP, in improving insulin resistance, and insulin sensitivity parameters in patients with stage I essential hypertension. The combination also resulted in less peripheral edema.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and olmesartan in patients with hypertension (EARTH study)

Fifty-four patients were randomly divided into irbesartan and olmesartan groups. Blood pressure (BP) was significantly decreased in all patients at 12 weeks. In particular, BP in patients who initially received irbesartan showed significant reductions. The equality of variance of BP in the irbesartan group was significantly smaller than that in the olmesartan group at 12 weeks. Blood concentrations of adiponectin were significantly increased in the irbesartan group at 12 weeks. Log [pentraxin-3] in the irbesartan group were significantly decreased. In conclusion, the ability of irbesartan to reduce BP is comparable to that of olmesartan with equivalent safety.

Neointimal hyperplasia inhibition effect of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers in patients after coronary stent implantation: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

It remains unclear whether angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) can inhibit neointimal hyperplasia after stent implantation in patients with coronary artery disease. The aim of this meta-analysis was therefore to evaluate the benefits of ARBs in patients after coronary stent implantation based on the currently available randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

We conducted a pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes after stent implantation in patients administered ARBs with those not administered ARBs. We searched Ovid/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the ISI web of knowledge using the terms 'angiotensin receptor blocker,' 'renin angiotensin system inhibitor,' 'angiotensin receptor antagonist,' 'stent,' 'angiograph,' 'percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI),' and 'coronary artery disease.' Published meta-analyses, review articles, and editorials were reviewed for potential studies of interest. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials published in English, with a follow-up period of 6 months, comparing the outcomes after coronary stent implantation with and without the administration of any kind of ARB, reporting at least one outcome of interest (restenosis rate and late lumen loss). Data abstraction included study design, patient characteristics, follow-up period, type of ARB, type of stent, restenosis rate, and late lumen loss. Fixed-effects models were used to calculate the pooled relative risk for the restenosis rate and the standardized mean difference for late lumen loss.

RESULTS

Five studies were included, with a total number of 624 patients. Seventy-five of 314 patients in the ARB group were diagnosed with in-stent restenosis at the 6-month follow-up, compared with 87 of 310 patients in the control group (relative risk 0.85; 95% CI 0.65, 1.11; p = 0.23). Consistent with this, there was no significant difference in late lumen loss between the two groups (0.04 mm; 95% CI -0.15, 0.23; p = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

There is no evident benefit with the use of an ARB in terms of inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia in patients after coronary stent implantation.

The effect of amlodipine besylate, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, and other antihypertensives on central aortic blood pressure and biomarkers of vascular function

Biomarkers are being increasingly used in the study of cardiovascular disease because they provide readily quantifiable surrogate endpoints and allow accurate assessment of the effects of therapy on particular pathological processes. However, in order to be useful, biomarkers must be relevant, predictable, accurate, and reproducible. There is compelling evidence from large-scale clinical trials that inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system [angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin type II receptor blockers (ARBs)] and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may have beneficial effects beyond blood pressure control in the treatment of hypertension. Biomarkers are expected to provide further insight into these beneficial effects and allow for quantitative assessment. This review summarizes the published clinical evidence on the effects of various antihypertensive drugs, particularly ARBs (e.g. losartan and olmesartan medoxomil) and CCBs (e.g. amlodipine), alone and in combination with other agents (e.g. hydrochlorothiazide), on central aortic pressure and the biomarkers high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), adiponectin, cystatin C, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), procollagen, tumor necrosis factor-α, and interleukin-6. Of these biomarkers, the benefits of antihypertensive therapy on hsCRP, adiponectin, and HOMA-IR reflect a potential for quantifiable long-term vascular benefits.

Significance of pigment epithelium-derived factor levels with angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers in patients with successful coronary stent implantation

Pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) and pentosidine have received growing attention as sensitive biomarkers of the progression of atherosclerosis. The present study was performed to evaluate the utility of these biomarkers for assessing the effects of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs). Sixty-three patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) following successful stent implantation were divided into an ARB group (n = 50), who initially received valsartan or olmesartan immediately following stent implantation, and a non-ARB group (n = 13) according to their blood pressure (BP) at baseline. Measurement of BP and blood sampling was performed prior to (at baseline) and 6-8 months following stent implantation (at follow-up). There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the groups. Although there were no differences in the percentage of diameter re-stenosis between the groups, the BP level in the ARB group at follow-up showed a significant reduction and reached the target BP. The levels of plasma PEDF were significantly increased at follow-up in the ARB group, but not in the non-ARB group, while there were no differences in the levels of pentosidine between the groups. Changes in BP (ΔBP = BP at follow-up minus BP at baseline) were not associated with ΔPEDF. In conclusion, PEDF may be a useful biomarker for assessing the effects of ARBs independent of a reduction in BP.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of single-pill fixed-dose combinations of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension (SALT-VAT study)

OBJECTIVE

We analyzed the efficacy and safety of Preminent(®) [losartan (50 mg/day)/HCTZ (12.5 mg/day)] compared to CodioMD(®) [valsartan (80 mg/day)/HCTZ (6.25 mg/day)].

METHODS

In this study, 31 hypertensive patients after receiving 3 months of Preminent(®) (Stage A) were enrolled. We applied a changeover with switching from Preminent(®) to CodioMD(®) (Stage B). We then applied another changeover with switching from CodioMD(®) to Preminent(®) after 3 months (Stage C).

RESULTS

Average values of 24-h blood pressure (BP), daytime BP and nighttime BP using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) significantly increased from Stage A to B [4/3 mmHg, 5/3 mmHg and 3/3 mmHg, respectively]. Average values of 24-h BP, morning BP, daytime BP, nighttime BP significantly decreased from the end of Stage B to C [-5/-5 mmHg, -4/-6 mmHg, -5/-5 mmHg and -6/-4 mmHg, respectively]. Interestingly, the serum levels of uric acid and the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio showed a significant increase after the change to CodioMD(®). Since these adverse effects did not disappear after the return to Preminent(®) at the end of Stage C, we performed an additional 3-month follow-up (extended stage). These adverse effects finally disappeared at the end of this extended stage.

CONCLUSION

Single-pill fixed-dose combination therapy using Preminent(®) showed significant 24-h BP-lowering effects and was safe when compared with CodioMD(®).

Review: angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers: class effects versus molecular effects

Highly selective angiotensin II (Ang II) type 1 (AT(1)) receptor blockers (ARBs) are now available. The AT(1) receptor is a member of the G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) superfamily and block the diverse effects of Ang II. Several ARBs are available for clinical use. Most ARBs have common molecular structures (biphenyl-tetrazol and imidazole groups) and it is clear that ARBs have 'class effects'. On the other hand, recent clinical studies have demonstrated that not all ARBs have the same effects, and some benefits conferred by ARBs may not be class effects, and instead may be 'molecular effects'. In addition, each ARB has been clearly shown to have specific molecular effects in basic experimental studies, and these effects may be due to small differences in the molecular structure of each ARB. However, it is controversial whether ARBs have molecular effects in a clinical setting. Although the presence of molecular effects for each ARB based on experimental studies may not directly influence the clinical outcome, this possibility has not been adequately evaluated. This review focuses on the class effects versus molecular effects of ARBs from bench to bedside.