A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of azilsartan therapy for blood pressure reduction

Effect of Azilsartan on clinical blood pressure reduction compared to other angiotensin receptor blockers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Hypertension has significantly contributed to morbidity and mortality, necessitating effective management. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have emerged as a cornerstone in hypertension treatment. Azilsartan, a relatively recent addition to the ARB family, offers unique characteristics, including prodrug activation. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate Azilsartan's role in reducing clinical blood pressure compared to other ARBs and determine the most effective dosage.

Methods

Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov. Eligible studies included adult hypertensive patients receiving Azilsartan compared to other ARBs, with clinical systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) outcomes. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed, and statistical analysis employed comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software.

Results

Eleven randomized controlled trials encompassing 18 studies involving 6024 patients were included. Azilsartan demonstrated significant reductions in clinical SBP (mean difference=-2.85 mmHg) and DBP (mean difference=-2.095 mmHg) compared to other ARBs. Higher doses of Azilsartan showed greater efficacy, with 80 mg exhibiting the most substantial reduction in SBP. The analysis emphasized the need for more studies investigating lower Azilsartan doses (10 and 20 mg).

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis underscore Azilsartan's effectiveness in reducing SBP and DBP. Dose-dependent effects emphasize the importance of optimal dosing when prescribing Azilsartan. These findings provide valuable insights for clinicians in managing hypertension effectively and call for further research, primarily focusing on lower Azilsartan doses and a more diverse patient population.

[Sartans in the treatment of arterial hypertension: focus on telmisartan and azilsartan. A review]

The activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is one of the main pathogenetic mechanisms underlying cardiovascular diseases at all stages of the cardiovascular continuum. This article discusses the role of telmisartan and azilsartan as the most powerful sartans in modern cardiology. Azilsartan and especially telmisartan have a significant organoprotection and are superior to other antihypertensive drugs in terms of lowering blood pressure. However, the effect of azilsartan on hard endpoints has not been studied while the efficacy of telmisartan on hard endpoints has been evaluated in plenty clinical trials including 3 large randomized clinical trials with several thousand patients. The article also presents calculations showing the better cost-effectiveness of telmisartan compared to azilsartan.

The assessment of renal function during the therapy of arterial hypertension with azilsartan medoxomil in patients with obesity or overweight and concomitant metabolic disorders

Aim. To assess the influence of the therapy of arterial hypertension with azilsartan medoxomil on the renal function in overweight or obese patients with concomitant metabolic disorders. Materials and methods. An international multicenter observational nonintervention prospective study included 1945 patients, taking azilsartan medoxomil in accordance with approved prescribing information. The observation period reached 6 months. Results. In patients with an initial glomerular filtration rate (GFR)60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 mean change in systolic blood pressure after 6 months of therapy reached -32.511.1 and -30.413.6 mmHg, correspondingly, while the change in diastolic blood pressure was -13.78.8 and -14.29.4 mmHg, respectively. No decrease in renal function was observed. Moreover, in patients with an initial GFR60 ml/min/1.73 m2 GFR increased significantly (p0.001). Conclusion. Azilsartan medoxomil, prescribed as monotherapy or in free combinations, provided an effective control of blood pressure in patients with arterial hypertension with both normal or moderately reduced and initially significantly reduced renal function. High efficacy and acceptability of the drug was associated with a beneficial effect on renal function, which allows to consider azilsartan medoxomil as the drug of choice for the treatment of hypertension in patients with concomitant metabolic disorders.

Arterial hypertension and antihypertensive therapy in older patients. The agreed opinion of experts from the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatricians, the Antihypertensive League, the National Society for Preventive Cardiology

High blood pressure is a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as cognitive decline and loss of autonomy in the elderly and old age. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in populations of older patients living at home with low comorbidity and preserved autonomy indicate the benefit of lowering elevated blood pressure in patients over 80 years of age. Older patients with senile asthenia, loss of autonomy and other geriatric problems were excluded from RCTs, and observational studies in these groups of patients indicate an increase in morbidity and mortality with lower blood pressure and antihypertensive therapy. Obviously, in very elderly patients, a universal strategy for the treatment of arterial hypertension cannot be applied due to the significant heterogeneity of their functional status. The geriatric approach to the management of arterial hypertension in older patients involves an assessment of the functional status, the presence of senile asthenia, and the degree of autonomy for the choice of antihypertensive therapy tactics.

Antihypertensive treatment guided by genetics: PEARL-HT, the randomized proof-of-concept trial comparing rostafuroxin with losartan

We compared a standard antihypertensive losartan treatment with a pharmacogenomics-guided rostafuroxin treatment in never-treated Caucasian and Chinese patients with primary hypertension. Rostafuroxin is a digitoxigenin derivative that selectively disrupts the binding to the cSrc-SH2 domain of mutant α-adducin and of the ouabain-activated Na-K pump at 10^-11 M. Of 902 patients screened, 172 were enrolled in Italy and 107 in Taiwan. After stratification for country and genetic background, patients were randomized to rostafuroxin or losartan, being the difference in the fall in office systolic blood pressure (OSBP) after 2-month treatment the primary endpoint. Three pharmacogenomic profiles (P) were examined, considering: P1, adding to the gene variants included in the subsequent P2, the variants detected by post-hoc analysis of a previous trial; P2, variants of genes encoding enzymes for endogenous ouabain (EO) synthesis (LSS and HSD3B1), EO transport (MDR1/ABCB1), adducin (ADD1 and ADD3); P3, variants of the LSS gene only. In Caucasians, the group differences (rostafuroxin 50 μg minus losartan 50 mg in OSBP mmHg) were significant both in P2 adjusted for genetic heterogeneity (P2a) and P3 LSS rs2254524 AA [9.8 (0.6-19.0), P = 0.038 and 13.4 (25.4-2.5), P = 0.031, respectively]. In human H295R cells transfected with LSS A and LSS C variants, the EO production was greater in the former (P = 0.038); this difference was abolished by rostafuroxin at 10^-11 M. Chinese patients had a similar drop in OSBP to Caucasians with losartan but no change in OSBP with rostafuroxin. These results show that genetics may guide drug treatment for primary hypertension in Caucasians.

Is the newest angiotensin-receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Angiotensin‐receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin‐receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin‐receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6‐12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20‐80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20‐40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160‐320 mg), but not candesartan (8‐16 mg), losartan (50‐100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24‐hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin‐receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.

Angiotensin Type 1 Receptor Blockers in Heart Failure

Homeostasis in the cardiovascular system is maintained by physiological functions of the Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System (RAAS). In pathophysiological conditions, over activation of RAAS leads to an increase in the concentration of Angiotensin II (AngII) and over activation of Angiotensin Type 1 Receptor (AT1R), resulting in vasoconstriction, sodium retention and change in myocyte growth. It causes cardiac remodeling in the heart which results in left ventricular hypertrophy, dilation and dysfunction, eventually leading to Heart Failure (HF). Inhibition of RAAS using angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has shown to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality due to HF. ACEi have been shown to have higher drug withdrawal rates due to discomfort when compared to ARBs; therefore, ARBs are the preferred choice of physicians for the treatment of HF in combination with other anti-hypertensive agents. Currently, eight ARBs have been approved by FDA and are clinically used. Even though they bind to the same site of AT1R displacing AngII binding but clinical outcomes are significantly different. In this review, we described the clinical significance of each ARB in the treatment of HF and their clinical outcome.

Machine Learning Assessment of Left Ventricular Diastolic Function Based on Electrocardiographic Features

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction is recognized as playing a major role in the pathophysiology of heart failure; however, clinical tools for identifying diastolic dysfunction before echocardiography remain imprecise.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to develop machine-learning models that quantitatively estimate myocardial relaxation using clinical and electrocardiography (ECG) variables as a first step in the detection of LV diastolic dysfunction.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective study was conducted at 4 institutions in North America enrolling a total of 1,202 subjects. Patients from 3 institutions (n = 814) formed an internal cohort and were randomly divided into training and internal test sets (80:20). Machine-learning models were developed using signal-processed ECG, traditional ECG, and clinical features and were tested using the test set. Data from the fourth institution was reserved as an external test set (n = 388) to evaluate the model generalizability.

RESULTS

Despite diversity in subjects, the machine-learning model predicted the quantitative values of the LV relaxation velocities (e') measured by echocardiography in both internal and external test sets (mean absolute error: 1.46 and 1.93 cm/s; adjusted R² = 0.57 and 0.46, respectively). Analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) revealed that the estimated e' discriminated the guideline-recommended thresholds for abnormal myocardial relaxation and diastolic and systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction) the internal (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.83, 0.76, and 0.75) and external test sets (0.84, 0.80, and 0.81), respectively. Moreover, the estimated e' allowed prediction of LV diastolic dysfunction based on multiple age- and sex-adjusted reference limits (AUC: 0.88 and 0.94 in the internal and external sets, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A quantitative prediction of myocardial relaxation can be performed using easily obtained clinical and ECG features. This cost-effective strategy may be a valuable first clinical step for assessing the presence of LV dysfunction and may potentially aid in the early diagnosis and management of heart failure patients.

An international multicenter observational non-interventional prospective study of the efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil in overweight or obese patients with arterial hypertension (CONSTANT)

BACKGROUND

Control of arterial hypertension in obese or overweight patients is complicated since obesity directly contributes to increased blood pressure, requiring new, highly effective antihypertensive drugs. This study evaluates the efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil in real clinical practice.

METHODS

An international multicenter observational non-interventional prospective study of azilsartan medoxomil was conducted in 64 clinical centers in the Russian Federation and 5 centers in the Republic of Kazakhstan. This study included 1945 obese or overweight patients with arterial hypertension. Azilsartan medoxomil was prescribed in accordance with the approved instruction for use. The decision to prescribe the drug, dose adjustment and monitoring target BP achievement belonged to the attending physicians according to their routine clinical practice. The observation period took about 6 months.

RESULTS

The average duration of taking the medicine was 26.1 ± 4 weeks. By the fourth visit, the use of azilsartan medoxomil either in a monotherapy regimen or in free combinations resulted in a pronounced decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 30.5 ± 13.4 and 14 ± 9.4 mmHg, respectively (p < .001 compared to baseline value). A positive response to therapy was observed in 92.6% of cases (95% CI: 91.3-93.7%). Target blood pressure was achieved by 86.4% of cases (95% CI: 84.8-87.9%). During the study period 43 adverse events were recorded, the most common of which were arterial hypotension and dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the study time of 1945 patients, significant changes in blood pressure levels over time were noted, and a high frequency of response to the azilsartan therapy was observed. Adverse events related to the study drug were of mild or moderate intensity and did not require discontinuation of therapy. Thus, azilsartan medoxomil demonstrated a good safety profile and provided effective blood pressure control for overweight or obese patients with hypertension in real clinical practice.

Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients With Hypertension in Japan - Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used for the management of hypertension in Japan; however, comparative efficacy data within the ARB drug class remain limited. Methods and Results: This systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCT) indexed in PubMed and Ichushi in Japanese patients with hypertension receiving ARB monotherapy (azilsartan, candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, valsartan) in at least 1 arm. Of 763 RCTs identified, 77 met the eligibility criteria; of which, 37 reported mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline in the office setting and were used to construct the network. A fixed-effects model (FEM) showed the effect of each drug vs. the reference, azilsartan. Using the FEM, the mean (95% credible interval) change from baseline in SBP/DBP for candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, and valsartan was 3.8 (2.9-4.8)/2.6 (2.0-3.1), 4.8 (2.0-7.5)/3.7 (1.8-5.6), 3.0 (0.8-5.1)/1.9 (0.5-3.3), 3.2 (1.2-5.1)/2.7 (1.3-4.1), 3.2 (0.8-5.6)/2.0 (0.3-3.6), and 3.1 (1.1-5.1)/2.4 (1.1-3.8) mmHg, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis provide evidence that azilsartan has a more favorable efficacy profile than the other ARBs in reducing SBP and DBP.

Azilsartan: Current Evidence and Perspectives in Management of Hypertension

Hypertension continues to be global pandemic with huge mortality, morbidity, and financial burden on the health system. Unfortunately, most patients with hypertension would eventually require two or more drugs in combination to achieve their target blood pressure (BP). To this end, emergence of more potent antihypertensive drugs is a welcome sign. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are cornerstones of hypertension management in daily practice. Among all ARBs, azilsartan is proven to be more potent in most of the head-to-head trials till date. Azilsartan is the latest ARB approved for hypertension with greater potency and minimal side effects. This review highlights the role of azilsartan in management of hypertension in the current era.

Efficacy and safety of different doses of azilsartan medoxomil in patients with hypertension: A protocol of a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is one of the most common chronic diseases and an increasingly public-health challenge worldwide. Previous meta-analyses evaluated the effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared to placebo or other antihypertensive drugs in patients with hypertension. However, it is still unclear which dose of azilsartan is optimal. This study will perform a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of different doses of azilsartan medoxomil in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE.com, the Cochrane library, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2019. Randomized controlled trials reporting efficacy and safety of different doses of azilsartan medoxomil on hypertension will be included if they compared 1 dose of azilsartan medoxomil with another dose of azilsartan medoxomil or with a placebo. Risk of bias of the included trials will be evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0. NMA will be performed in a Bayesian hierarchical framework using WinBUGS 14.

RESULTS

The results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

CONCLUSION

This study will summarize all the available data to provide reliable evidence of the value of different doses of azilsartan medoxomil for the treatment of hypertension.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019136882.

Effects of azilsartan compared with telmisartan on insulin resistance in patients with essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: An open-label, randomized clinical trial

Background

Based on non-clinical data, it is expected that azilsartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, will help improve insulin resistance in addition to its hypotensive action. The present study is aimed to explore the effect of azilsartan compared to telmisartan on insulin sensitivity in hypertensive patients in the clinical setting.

Methods

This multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group exploratory study was conducted in Japan. We randomized adult patients (≥20 years old) with grade I or II essential hypertension and coexisting type 2 diabetes (1:1) to receive either oral azilsartan (20 mg/day;17 patients) or telmisartan (40 mg/day;16 patients) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the homeostasis model assessment ratio of insulin resistance (HOMA-R) from the baseline at the end of the treatment period. We also evaluated its safety and efficacy on other diabetes-related variables and blood pressure.

Findings

The mean changes in HOMA-R at the end of treatment were 0.22 (95% CI, −1.09–1.52) in the azilsartan group and −0.23 (95% CI, −0.72–0.27) in the telmisartan group. We found no clinically remarkable changes between the groups in diabetes-related variables such as fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin, HbA1c (NGSP), HOMA-β, or 1,5-anhydroglucitol. Reductions in clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure were observed at week 4 and the reduced levels were maintained throughout the treatment period in both groups. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were observed. Only one drug-related TEAE (mild decrease in blood pressure) was reported in one patient in the azilsartan group.

Conclusion

Neither azilsartan nor telmisartan had any clinically remarkable effects on insulin resistance parameters when administered for 12 weeks to patients with grade I or II essential hypertension and coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus. Azilsartan (20 mg/day) and telmisartan (40 mg/day) exerted comparable antihypertensive effects.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02079805

The velocity of antihypertensive effects of seven angiotensin II receptor blockers determined by home blood pressure measurements

BACKGROUND

We aimed to examine the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and the time to attain the maximal antihypertensive effect (stabilization time) of several angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) based on home BP measurements.

METHODS

We surveyed consecutive newly diagnosed, untreated patients with hypertension who started the treatment with a mid-level dose of one of seven ARBs (losartan 50 mg, telmisartan 40 mg, candesartan 8 mg, olmesartan 20 mg, valsartan 80 mg, irbesartan 100 mg, or azilsartan 20 mg). All study participants measured home BP in the morning for at least 1 week during an untreated period and 4 weeks during the treatment period.

RESULTS

Age, the proportion of men, and baseline home BP levels did not differ significantly between groups (total n = 232; age, 62.2 years; 50.9% men; home SBP/DBP, 151.6/90.0 mmHg). Significant differences in the BP-lowering effect and the stabilization time between ARBs were observed (P ≤ 0.02). The extent of BP-lowering effects of azilsartan 20 mg was significantly greater than that of valsartan 80 mg or irbesartan 100 mg (15.3 vs. 7.9 or 8.2 mmHg, respectively P ≤ 0.03). The stabilization time of losartan for home SBP was significantly longer than that of valsartan, irbesartan, or azilsartan (22.8 vs. 7.1, 4.7, or 7.1 days, respectively, P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The maximum effect and the stabilization time differed among ARBs used at the mid-level dose in Japan. An ARB should be chosen based on its desired characteristics.

Azilsartan medoxomil in the management of hypertension: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Background

Azilsartan (AZI) is a relatively new angiotensin receptor blocker available for the treatment of any stage of hypertension, which was eventually given in combination with chlorthalidone (CLT).

Objective

To review pharmacology and clinical role of AZI monotherapy and AZI/CLT or AZI/amlodipine combination therapies for hypertension management.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched using search terms “ azilsartan”, “chlorthalidone,” “pharmacology,” “pharmacokinetics,” “pharmacodynamics,” “pharmacoeconomics,” and “cost-effectiveness.” To obtain other relevant information, US Food and Drug Association as well as manufacturer prescribing information were also reviewed.

Results

Randomized controlled trials demonstrated AZI to be superior to other sartans, such as valsartan, olmesartan, and candesartan, in terms of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) reduction with respect. That beneficial effect of azilsartan was also associated with similar safety profiles. When compared to other antihypertensive drugs, azilsartan was found to be superior to any angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, including ramipril, in terms of ABPM results, and noninferior to amlodipine in terms of sleep-BP control. The association of AZI and CLT was then found to be superior to other sartans + thiazide combination therapies in terms of both BP lowering and goal achievement. The combination of AZI and amlodipine has also been tested in clinical trials, but compared only with placebo, demonstrating its superiority in terms of efficacy and similarity in terms of safety.

Conclusion

Azilsartan is a safe and effective treatment option for every stage of hypertension, both alone or in fixed-dose combination tablets with chlorthalidone or amlodipine. Beneficial effects of AZI were also noted in patients with any degree of renal impairment. In addition, safety profiles of AZI were similar to that of the placebo.

Azilsartan Improves Salt Sensitivity by Modulating the Proximal Tubular Na+-H+ Exchanger-3 in Mice

A potent angiotensin II type-1 receptor blocker, azilsartan, has been reported to reduce blood pressure more effectively than candesartan. Interestingly, azilsartan can also restore the circadian rhythm of blood pressure. We hypothesized that azilsartan could also improve salt sensitivity; thus, we examined the effect of azilsartan on sodium handling in renal tubules. Subtotal nephrectomized C57BL/6 mice received azilsartan (1.0 mg/kg/day), candesartan (0.3 mg/kg/day), or vehicle via the oral route in conjunction with a normal- (0.3%) or high-salt (8.0%) diet. Two weeks later, the azilsartan group showed significantly lower blood pressure during the light period than the candesartan and vehicle groups (azilsartan: 103.1 ± 1.0; candesartan: 111.7 ± 2.7; vehicle: 125.5 ± 2.5 mmHg; P < 0.05; azilsartan or candesartan vs. vehicle). The azilsartan group also showed higher urinary fractional excretion of sodium during the dark period than the candesartan and vehicle groups (azilsartan: 21.37 ± 3.69%; candesartan: 14.17 ± 1.42%; vehicle: 13.85 ± 5.30%; P < 0.05 azilsartan vs. candesartan or vehicle). A pressure—natriuresis curve demonstrated that azilsartan treatment restored salt sensitivity. Immunofluorescence and western blotting showed lower levels of Na⁺-H⁺ exchanger-3 (NHE3) protein (the major sodium transporter in renal proximal tubules) in the azilsartan group, but not in the candesartan or vehicle groups. However, azilsartan did not affect NHE3 transcription levels. Interestingly, we did not observe increased expression of downstream sodium transporters, which would have compensated for the increased flow of sodium and water due to non-absorption by NHE3. We also confirmed the mechanism stated above using cultured opossum kidney proximal tubular cells. Results revealed that a proteasomal inhibitor (but not a lysosomal inhibitor) blocked the azilsartan-induced decrease in NHE3 protein expression, suggesting that azilsartan increases NHE3 ubiquitination. In conclusion, azilsartan (but not candesartan) improved salt sensitivity possibly by decreasing NHE3 expression via ubiquitin—proteasomal degradation.

Patients With Newly Diagnosed Hypertension Treated With the Renin Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Azilsartan Medoxomil vs Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: The Prospective EARLY Registry

For patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are usually the first-line therapies. There is, however, no real-life data regarding the relative clinical effectiveness and tolerability of either drug class. The prospective registry, Treatment With Azilsartan Compared to ACE Inhibitors in Antihypertensive Therapy (EARLY), was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the ARB azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) vs ACE inhibitors in real-world patients. Of the 1153 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension who were included in the registry, 789 were prescribed AZL-M and 364 were prescribed an ACE inhibitor. After multivariate adjustment, AZL-M was found to provide superior blood pressure reduction and better target blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) achievement. The proportion of patients with adverse events was not statistically different between groups. The authors conclude that in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients, AZL-M provides superior blood pressure control with a similar safety profile compared with ACE inhibitors.

New developments in the pharmacological treatment of hypertension: dead-end or a glimmer at the horizon?

Arterial hypertension is the most prevalent controllable disease world-wide. Yet, we still need to further improve blood pressure control, deal with resistant hypertension, and we hope to reduce risk "beyond blood pressure." The number of candidate molecules aspiring for these aims is constantly declining. The new possible approaches to combat high blood pressure include neprilysin/neutral endopeptidase (NEP) inhibition, particularly when combined with an angiotensin receptor blockade (such as the ARNI, LCZ696), phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE5) inhibition (KD027/Slx-2101), natriuretic agents (PL3994), or a long-lasting vasointestinal peptide (VIP) analogue (PB1046). Other options exploit the protective arm of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system by stimulating the angiotensin AT2 receptor (compound 21), the Mas receptor (AVE-0991), or the angiotensin converting enzyme 2. Finally, we review the possibilities how to optimize the use of the available treatment options by using drug combinations or by tailoring therapy to each patient's angiotensin peptide profile.