Comparative effects of telmisartan and valsartan as add-on agents for hypertensive patients with morning blood pressure insufficiently controlled by amlodipine monotherapy

Comparison of effects of telmisartan versus valsartan on post-induction hypotension during noncardiac surgery: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Telmisartan is considered more potent than valsartan. Hemodynamic response during anesthesia induction may be influenced by anti-hypertension (HTN) medication. The present study compared the effect of anti-HTN medications on post-induction hypotension during noncardiac surgeries.

METHODS

This observational study standardized the anesthetic regimen across patients, with hypotension defined as mean blood pressure (BP) of less than 65 mmHg. The hemodynamic changes within 5 min before and after endotracheal intubation, and within 10 min before and after surgical incision were measured. Transthoracic echocardiographic evaluation of the left ventricle (LV) during anesthesia induction was performed. The primary endpoint was the decline in mean BP after anesthetic administration in telmisartan and valsartan groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of post-induction hypotension.

RESULTS

Data from 157 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery were analyzed. No significant differences were found in mean BP decline between the two groups during anesthesia induction. Hemodynamic changes and LV ejection fraction (EF) during anesthesia induction were similar between the groups. Age and preoperative initial mean BP in operation room (OR) were associated with post-induction hypotension in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) type did not influence post-induction hypotension during anesthesia induction. Age and preoperative initial mean BP in OR were associated with post-induction hypotension in patients taking ARBs.

Effects of telmisartan on metabolic syndrome components: a comprehensive review

Telmisartan is an antagonist of the angiotensin II receptor used in the management of hypertension (alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents. It belongs to the drug class of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Among drugs of this class, telmisartan shows particular pharmacologic properties, including a longer half-life than any other angiotensin II receptor blockers that bring higher and persistent antihypertensive activity. In hypertensive patients, telmisartan has superior efficacy than other antihypertensive drugs (losartan, valsartan, ramipril, atenolol, and perindopril) in controlling blood pressure, especially towards the end of the dosing interval. Telmisartan has a partial PPARγ-agonistic effect whilst does not have the safety concerns of full agonists of PPARγ receptors (thiazolidinediones). Moreover, telmisartan has an agonist activity on PPARα and PPARδ receptors and modulates the adipokine levels. Thus, telmisartan could be considered as a suitable alternative option, with multi-benefit for all components of metabolic syndrome including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and hyperlipidemia. This review will highlight the role of telmisartan in metabolic syndrome and the main mechanisms of action of telmisartan are discussed and summarized. Many studies have demonstrated the useful properties of telmisartan in the prevention and improving of metabolic syndrome and this well-tolerated drug can be greatly proposed in the treatment of different components of metabolic syndrome. However, larger and long-duration studies are needed to confirm these findings in long-term observational studies and prospective trials and to determine the optimum dose of telmisartan in metabolic syndrome.

Comparison of the Effect of Fimasartan versus Valsartan on Blood Pressure Variability in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Double-Blind Randomized Trial

Higher blood pressure variability (BPV) is associated with poor functional outcome and mortality in acute stroke. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on BPV between fimasartan and valsartan (Boryung Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to receive either valsartan or fimasartan after 7 days of acute ischemic stroke onset, for duration of 8 weeks. Of them, 62 patients completed the study [valsartan (n=31), fimasartan (n=31)]. We measured BP for 24 hours using ambulatory BP monitoring device before and after 8 weeks of starting BP medication. We calculated several indexes such as standard deviation (SD), weighted 24-hour BP with SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability (ARV) to assess BPV and to compare indexes of BPV between 2 drugs. SD values of systolic BP in daytime, nighttime, and 24 h period (15.55±4.02 versus 20.55±8.77, P=0.006; 11.98±5.52 versus 16.47±6.94, P=0.007; 17.22±5.30 versus 21.45±8.51, P=0.024), wSD of systolic BP (8.27±3.01 versus 10.77±4.18, P=0.010), and ARV of systolic BP (15.85±6.17 versus 19.68±7.83, P=0.040) of patients receiving fimasartan after 8 weeks were significantly lower than patients receiving valsartan. In paired t-test, SD values of daytime, nighttime, and 24 h period of systolic BP of patients receiving fimasartan were significantly decreased after 8 weeks (15.55±4.02 versus 18.70±7.04, P=0.038; 11.98±5.52 versus 17.19±7.35, P=0.006; 17.22±5.30 versus 20.59±5.91, P=0.015). Our study showed that fimasartan had greater effect on reducing BPV after acute ischemic stroke than valsartan. Trials registry number is KCT0003254.

Fimasartan for independent reduction of blood pressure variability in mild-to-moderate hypertension

Background

The angiotensin receptor antagonist fimasartan lowered blood pressure (BP) in a previous large population study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether fimasartan treatment for 3 months affects clinical and home BP variability in addition to reducing BP.

Methods

The study enrolled 1,396 patients (mean age 56.2±10.0 years; males 53.6%) with mild-to-moderate hypertension who had a complete set of home BP measurements (morning and evening) and metabolic risk evaluation. During the 3 months of study, fimasartan alone was used to control BP at a daily dose of 30–120 mg. Clinical and home BP measurements were performed before and after the 3-month treatment. BP variability included beat-to-beat variability (clinical) and day-to-day variability (home).

Results

Fimasartan reduced BP after 3 months of treatment. The average reduction of clinical systolic BP (c-SBP) was 15.08±18.36 mmHg (P<0.0001), and the average reduction of morning home SBP (m-SBP) was 11.49±19.33 mmHg (P<0.0001). Beat-to-beat variability as standard deviation (SD) of c-SBP was reduced from 4.56±3.22 to 4.24±3.11 mmHg (P=0.0026). Day-to-day variability as SD of m-SBP was reduced from 7.92±6.74 to 6.95±4.97 mmHg (P<0.0001). Multiple regression analysis revealed an independent association between the change in the SD of c-SBP and the change in c-SBP (P=0.0268) and, similarly, between the change in the SD of m-SBP and the change in m-SBP (P=0.0258), after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and change in mean BP.

Conclusion

This study indicated that 3 months of fimasartan treatment reduced day-to-day BP variability independent of BP reduction in patients with hypertension.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers decrease serum concentration of fatty acid-binding protein 4 in patients with hypertension

Elevated circulating fatty acid-binding protein 4 (FABP4/A-FABP/aP2), an adipokine, is associated with obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension and cardiovascular events. However, how circulating FABP4 level is modified by pharmacological agents remains unclear. We here examined the effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on serum FABP4 level. First, essential hypertensives were treated with ARBs: candesartan (8 mg day(-1); n=7) for 2 weeks, olmesartan (20 mg day(-1); n=9) for 12 weeks, and valsartan (80 mg day(-1); n=94) or telmisartan (40 mg day(-1); n=91) for 8 weeks added to amlodipine (5 mg day(-1)). Treatment with ARBs significantly decreased blood pressure and serum FABP4 concentrations by 8-20% without significant changes in adiposity or lipid variables, though the M value determined by hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic glucose clamp, a sensitive index of insulin sensitivity, was significantly increased by candesartan. Next, alterations in FABP4 secretion from 3T3-L1 adipocytes were examined under several agents. Lipolytic stimulation of the β-adrenoceptor in 3T3-L1 adipocytes by isoproterenol increased FABP4 secretion, and conversely, insulin suppressed FABP4 secretion. However, treatment of 3T3-L1 adipocytes with angiotensin II or ARBs for 2 h had no effect on gene expression or secretion of FABP4 regardless of β-adrenoceptor stimulation. In conclusion, treatment with structurally different ARBs similarly decreases circulating FABP4 concentrations in hypertensive patients as a class effect of ARBs, which is not attributable to blockade of the angiotensin II receptor in adipocytes. Reduction of FABP4 levels by ARBs might be involved in suppression of cardiovascular events.