Effects of antihypertensive drugs losartan and levamlodipine besylate on insulin resistance in patients with essential hypertension combined with isolated impaired fasting glucose

Recent Advances in the Treatment of Insulin Resistance Targeting Molecular and Metabolic Pathways: Fighting a Losing Battle?

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is amongst the most notable causes of years of life lost worldwide and its prevalence increases perpetually. The disease is characterized as multisystemic dysfunctions attributed to hyperglycemia resulting directly from insulin resistance (IR), inadequate insulin secretion, or enormous glucagon secretion. Insulin is a highly anabolic peptide hormone that regulates blood glucose levels by hastening cellular glucose uptake as well as controlling carbohydrate, protein, and lipid metabolism. In the course of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM), which accounts for nearly 90% of all cases of diabetes, the insulin response is inadequate, and this condition is defined as Insulin Resistance. IR sequela include, but are not limited to, hyperglycemia, cardiovascular system impairment, chronic inflammation, disbalance in oxidative stress status, and metabolic syndrome occurrence. Despite the substantial progress in understanding the molecular and metabolic pathways accounting for injurious effects of IR towards multiple body organs, IR still is recognized as a ferocious enigma. The number of widely available therapeutic approaches is growing, however, the demand for precise, safe, and effective therapy is also increasing. A literature search was carried out using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, SCOPUS and Clinical Trials Registry databases with a combination of keywords and MeSH terms, and papers published from February 2021 to March 2022 were selected as recently published papers. This review paper aims to provide critical, concise, but comprehensive insights into the advances in the treatment of IR that were achieved in the last months.

The Novel Phosphate and Bile Acid Sequestrant Polymer SAR442357 Delays Disease Progression in a Rat Model of Diabetic Nephropathy

As a gut-restricted, nonabsorbed therapy, polymeric bile acid sequestrants (BAS) play an important role in managing hyperlipidemia and hyperglycemia. Similarly, nonabsorbable sequestrants of dietary phosphate have been used for the management of hyperphosphatemia in end-stage renal disease. To evaluate the potential utility of such polymer sequestrants to treat type 2 diabetes (T2D) and its associated renal and cardiovascular complications, we synthesized a novel polymeric sequestrant, SAR442357, possessing optimized bile acid (BA) and phosphate sequestration characteristics. Long-term treatment of T2D obese ^cZucker fatty/Spontaneously hypertensive heart failure F1 hybrid (ZSF1) with SAR442357 resulted in enhanced sequestration of BAs and phosphate in the gut, improved glycemic control, lowering of serum cholesterol, and attenuation of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) progression. In comparison, colesevelam, a BAS with poor phosphate binding properties, did not prevent DKD progression, whereas losartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker that is widely used to treat DKD, showed no effect on hyperglycemia. Analysis of hepatic gene expression levels of the animals treated with SAR442357 revealed upregulation of genes responsible for the biosynthesis of cholesterol and BAs, providing clear evidence of target engagement and mode of action of the new sequestrant. Additional hepatic gene expression pathway changes were indicative of an interruption of the enterohepatic BA cycle. Histopathological analysis of ZSF1 rat kidneys treated with SAR442357 further supported its nephroprotective properties. Collectively, these findings reveal the pharmacological benefit of simultaneous sequestration of BAs and phosphate in treating T2D and its associated comorbidities and cardiovascular complications. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: A new nonabsorbed polymeric sequestrant with optimum phosphate and bile salt sequestration properties was developed as a treatment option for DKD. The new polymeric sequestrant offered combined pharmacological benefits including glucose regulation, lipid lowering, and attenuation of DKD progression in a single therapeutic agent.

Effectiveness of Levoamlodipine Maleate for Hypertension Compared with Amlodipine Besylate: a Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Study

PURPOSE

Antihypertensive treatment is the most important method to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. However, there is scant evidence of the benefits of levoamlodipine maleate for antihypertensive treatment using a head-to-head comparison in the real-world. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of levoamlodipine maleate used to treat outpatients with primary hypertension compared with amlodipine besylate in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study carried out at 110 centers across China in outpatients with primary hypertension treated with levoamlodipine maleate or amlodipine besylate, with 24 months of follow-up. The primary outcomes used for evaluating the effectiveness were composite major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), adverse reactions, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Among the included 10,031 patients, there were 482 MACCE, 223 (4.4%) in the levoamlodipine maleate group (n = 5018) and 259 (5.2%) in the amlodipine besylate group (n = 5013) (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.75-1.08, P = 0.252). The levoamlodipine maleate group had lower overall incidences of any adverse reactions (6.0% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001), lower extremity edema (1.1% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001) and headache (0.7% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.045). There was a nearly 100% chance of the levoamlodipine maleate being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of 150,000 Yuan per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, resulting in more QALYs (incremental QALYs: 0.00392) and cost savings (saving 2725 Yuan or 28.8% reduction in overall costs) per patient.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, levoamlodipine maleate could reduce cost by 29% with a similar MACCE incidence rate and lower occurrence of adverse reactions (especially edema and headache) compared with amlodipine besylate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01844570 registered at May 1, 2013.

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

Angiotensin receptor and tumor necrosis factor-α activation contributes to glucose intolerance independent of systolic blood pressure in obese rats

Pathological activation of the renin-angiotensin system and inflammation are associated with hypertension and the development of metabolic syndrome (MetS). The contributions of angiotensin receptor type 1 (AT1) activation, independent of blood pressure, and inflammation to glucose intolerance and renal damage are not well defined. Using a rat model of MetS, we hypothesized that the onset of glucose intolerance is primarily mediated by AT1 activation and inflammation independent of elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP). To address this hypothesis, we measured changes in SBP, adiposity, plasma glucose and triglyceride levels, and glucose tolerance in six groups of rats: 1) lean, strain control Long-Evans Tokushima Otsuka (LETO; n = 5), 2) obese Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF; n = 8), 3) OLETF + angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB; 10 mg olmesartan/kg; n = 8), 4) OLETF + tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor (ETAN; 1.25 mg etanercept/kg; n = 6), 5) OLETF + TNF-α inhibitor + angiotensin receptor blocker (ETAN+ARB; 1.25 mg etanercept/kg + 10 mg olmesartan/kg; n = 6), and 6) OLETF + calcium channel blocker (CCB; 5 mg amlodipine/kg; n = 7). ARB and ETAN+ARB were most effective at decreasing SBP in OLETF, and ETAN did not offer any additional reduction. Glucose tolerance improved in ARB, ETAN, and ETAN+ARB compared with OLETF, whereas CCB had no detectable effect. Furthermore, all treatments reduced adiposity, whereas ETAN alone normalized urinary albumin excretion. These results suggest that AT1 activation and inflammation are primary factors in the development of glucose intolerance in a setting of MetS and that the associated increase in SBP is primarily mediated by AT1 activation.

S-Amlodipine: An Isomer with Difference-Time to Shift from Racemic Amlodipine

Calcium channel blockers are among the first-line drugs for treatment of hypertension (HTN). S-amlodipine (S-AM), an S-enantiomer of amlodipine, is available in India and in other countries like China, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, and Nepal. Being clinically researched for nearly two decades, we performed in-depth review of S-AM. This review discusses clinical evidence from total 42 studies (26 randomized controlled trials, 14 observational studies, and 2 meta-analyses) corroborating over 7400 patients treated with S-AM. Efficacy and safety of S-AM in HTN in comparison to racemic amlodipine, used as monotherapy and in combination with other antihypertensives, efficacy in angina, and pleiotropic benefits with S-AM, are discussed in this review.