Antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril

Efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil in the treatment of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are utilized for the management of hypertension and diabetes. Previous meta-analyses suggested that azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) improved blood pressure (BP) reduction, but there were no safety findings or suggestions for patients with hypertension or diabetes.

Methods

We performed an efficacy and safety meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating AZL-M therapy for reducing BP in patients with hypertension. Patients with hypertension complicated by diabetes were analyzed. The relevant literature was searched in English and Chinese databases for RCTs involving AZL-M in hypertension. Efficacy variables included the change from baseline in the 24-h mean systolic/diastolic BP measured by ambulatory BP monitoring, the change from baseline in clinic systolic/diastolic BP, and responder rates. Safety variables included total adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and AEs related to the study drug. The raw data from the included studies were utilized to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and the mean difference (MD) for continuous data, accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical analysis was performed using R software.

Results

A total of 11 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, representing 7,608 patients, 5 of whom had diabetes. Pooled analysis suggested a reduction in BP among patients randomized to 40 mg of AZL-M vs. control therapy [24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD: -2.85 mmHg), clinic SBP (MD: -3.48 mmHg), and clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD: -1.96 mmHg)] and for 80 mg of AZL-M vs. control therapy [24-h ABPM mean SBP (MD: -3.59 mmHg), 24-h ABPM mean DBP (MD: -2.62 mmHg), clinic SBP (MD: -4.42 mmHg), clinic DBP (MD: -3.09 mmHg), and responder rate (OR: 1.46)]. There was no difference in the reduction of risks, except for dizziness (OR: 1.56) in the 80-mg AZL-M group or urinary tract infection (OR: 1.82) in the 40-mg AZL-M group. Analysis of patients with diabetes revealed that AZL-M can provide superior management, while safety and tolerability were similar to those of control therapy.

Conclusions

AZL-M appears to reduce BP to a greater extent than dose-control therapy and does not increase the risk of adverse events in patients with hypertension and diabetes compared with placebo.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=464284, identifier PROSPERO CRD42023464284.

[Changing Concepts About Optimal Target Blood Pressure and the Therapeutic Advantages of Azilsartan for Achieving it]

The article discusses current issues of the treatment of arterial hypertension. According to presented data, so-called therapeutic nihilism is becoming one of the main barriers to achieving target blood pressure (BP). This nihilism is that despite evidence of the effectiveness of achieving lower BP values, practitioners do not intensify antihypertensive therapy sufficiently to achieve such values. The article specially addresses new criteria for the effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy, which reflect the therapy sustainability. The most commonly used indicator is the duration of the period, during which systolic BP remains in the therapeutic range. The prognostic significance of such indicators is discussed. In these conditions, it is very important to use the most effective antihypertensive drugs for initial antihypertensive therapy, including as a part of combination therapy. This tactic provides more frequent achievement of BP goals without the need for dose adjustment. In this regard, a systematic review was performed, which included sufficiently large randomized studies of the antihypertensive effectiveness of azilsartan medoxomil. This systematic review will provide comprehensive information on a possible role of using the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan as a basic drug for the treatment of a wide range of patients with high BP. Most of the studies included in the systematic review assessed the effectiveness of combination therapy including azilsartan.

[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.

The Number of Pills, Rather Than the Type of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor, Predicts Ambulatory Blood Pressure Control in Essential Hypertensives on Triple Therapy: A Real-Life Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

We evaluated the prevalence and predictors of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control in patients taking a triple antihypertensive therapy (renin–angiotensin system inhibitor + calcium channel blocker + thiazide/thiazide-like diuretic, in either free or fixed-dose combinations) containing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

Methods

We performed an observational cross-sectional study on 520 consecutive patients with essential hypertension taking a stable triple therapy in whom 24-h ambulatory BP was evaluated. Both number of pills and antihypertensive treatment intensity (ATI), as possible pharmacological predictors of ambulatory BP control, were taken into account.

Results

A total of 189 (36.3%) patients were taking triple therapy with ACEi and 331 (63.7%) patients were taking triple therapy with ARB. Mean age was 62.7 ± 12.2 years. Patients on triple therapy with ACEi had a significantly lower ATI and took fewer antihypertensive pills than patients on triple therapy with ARB (22.2% of patients took a single-pill triple fixed-dose combination). Patients taking triple therapy with ACEi had higher prevalence of both 24-h (54.8% vs 44.0%; p = 0.019) and daytime BP control (61.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.006) than patients taking triple therapy with ARB, even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, smoking habit, type 2 diabetes mellitus, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and ATI [OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1–2.2) and OR 1.6 (95% CI 1.1–2.4), respectively]. However, these independent associations with ambulatory BP control were lost when the number of antihypertensive pills was included in the model.

Conclusion

The higher prevalence of ambulatory BP control found in patients taking a triple therapy with ACEi was affected by the lower number of antihypertensive pills taken, which was also the key predictor of ambulatory BP control in our study. This confirms the importance of fixed-dose combinations in the management of essential hypertension.

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.

Evaluating the Safety and Tolerability of Azilsartan Medoxomil Alone or in Combination With Chlorthalidone in the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZM) is the newest representative in the class of angiotensin receptor blockers. Azilsartan medoxomil in combination with the older diuretic chlorthalidone (CLD) in fixed-doses of AZM/CLD 40/12.5 mg and 40/25 mg has been approved by the FDA for use in patients with essential hypertension. We sought to evaluate the safety and tolerability of AZL-M alone and in combination with CLD.

METHODS

We conducted a search in PubMed using the keywords 'azilsartan', 'azilsartan medoxomil', 'chlorthalidone, 'safety', 'tolerability' in order to find scientific studies evaluating the safety of these drugs. We included studies reporting side effects of these drugs, alone or in combination, in comparison to placebo or other antihypertensive medications. For our systematic review, we followed the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Azilsartan medoxomil is a potent antihypertensive medicine with an acceptable safety profile. The most commonly reported adverse events are dizziness, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection and urinary tract infection. Chlorthalidone is more potent and has a considerably longer duration of action than the most commonly prescribed diuretic hydrochlorothiazide. Safety and tolerability between these two drugs are similar except higher serum uric acid and lower potassium levels with chlorthalidone.

CONCLUSION

The combination of azilsartan medoxomil with chlorthalidone has been shown to be effective in lowering blood pressure with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. This fixeddose combination is an attractive treatment option for hypertension management.

Special Article - The management of resistant hypertension: A 2020 update

Resistant hypertension (RH) induces higher morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular disease and stroke than hypertension without treatment resistance. New guidelines define RH as blood pressure (BP) ≥130/80 mmHg in a patient taking ≥3 antihypertensive agents of different classes or BP <130/80 mmHg in a patient taking ≥4 antihypertensive drugs. According to the new definition, pseudo-resistance due to error in BP measurement, white coat effect and medication nonadherence must be excluded to make the diagnosis of RH. This 2020 update focuses on the lifestyle and antihypertensive drug management of RH and includes recent proof-of-principle trials of renal nerve ablation in hypertension. Stepwise evidence-based pharmacologic treatment of RH includes optimization of the 3-drug regimen, substitution of a thiazide-like for a thiazide diuretic and addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist as the fourth drug. Non-evidence-based recommendations include addition of a β-blocker as the fifth drug and switching to a minoxidil-based regimen as the final step in achieving BP control.

A phase 3 double-blind randomized (CONSORT-compliant) study of azilsartan medoxomil compared to valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has a well-characterized efficacy and safety profile in patients with hypertension. AZL-M is approved for use in over 40 countries globally; however, it is not yet approved in China. Therefore, a phase 3 registration study to assess the efficacy (antihypertensive effect), safety, and tolerability of AZL-M compared with valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension was undertaken.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 8-week phase 3 study compared AZL-M with valsartan in Chinese patients aged ≥18 years with essential hypertension. Endpoints included change from baseline to week 8 in trough sitting clinic systolic blood pressure (scSBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring parameters.

RESULTS

Overall, 612 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; 57.5% male) were randomized to AZL-M 80 mg (n = 209), AZL-M 40 mg (n = 199), or valsartan 160 mg (n = 204). Baseline mean scSBP was similar in all groups (157.9-158.5 mm Hg). The mean reduction in trough scSBP from baseline to week 8 was significantly greater with AZL-M 80 mg than with valsartan (-24.2 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .010), and noninferior with AZL-M 40 mg versus valsartan (-22.5 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .184). Mean reduction in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (n = 257) was significantly greater with both AZL-M 80 mg (-17.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and AZL-M 40 mg (-14.7 mm Hg; P = .014) than with valsartan (-9.4 mm Hg). Treatment-emergent adverse events had similar incidence (52.8%-56.5%) across the treatment groups and were generally mild or moderate. Dizziness was the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (AZL-M 80 mg, 1.9%; AZL-M 40 mg, 1.5%; valsartan, 1.0%). The safety and tolerability of AZL-M were comparable with valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

AZL-M was noninferior to valsartan at the 40-mg dose and superior to valsartan at the 80-mg dose in reducing trough scSBP, and showed acceptable safety-consistent with the AZL-M safety profile in other populations-in Chinese adults with hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02480764.

Should Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ever Be Used for the Management of Hypertension?

Purpose of Review

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are commonly used anti-hypertensive medications in a number of clinical settings. They are often used interchangeably, but we pose the provocative question as to whether they should be. We review the literature to evaluate for any differences in efficacy between the two classes in order to determine if the greater side effects associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are offset by any advantageous effects on outcomes to warrant their use over angiotensin receptor blockers.

Recent Findings

In many clinical scenarios, the data supports similar efficacy between ACE inhibitors and ARBs, while in a minority of others, there are murky signals from previous trials that suggest ACE inhibitors may be better. However, when reviewing the literature in its entirety, and taking into account recently published pooled analysis and head to head trials, it is reasonable to conclude that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have similar efficacy. This is in contrast to data on adverse effects, which consistently favors the use of ARBs.

Summary

From the available data, it is reasonable to conclude that ACE inhibitors and ARBs have equal efficacy yet unequal adverse effects. It is in this context that we take the provocative stance that ACE inhibitors should not be used to treat hypertension.

Single-pill Combination Therapy of Azilsartan Medoxomil/Chlorthalidone for Treatment of Hypertension: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to review recent clinical studies of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) and chlorthalidone (CLD), a combined angiotensin receptor blocker and thiazide-like diuretic, and its role in recently published guidelines. This review explores the role of AZL-M/CLD in treating patients with hypertension.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature published from 1990 to 2018 was performed by using the following key words: Edarbyclor, azilsartan, chlorthalidone, pharmacokinetic, and hypertension. Available English-language data from reviews, abstracts, presentations, and clinical trials regarding the use of AZL-M/CLD therapy specifically detailing effects of lowering blood pressure (BP) and outcomes on cardiovascular disease in humans and rats were reviewed.

FINDINGS

One study compared a single-pill combination of AZL-M/CLD with co-administration of AZL-M and hydrochlorothiazide and found a greater reduction in clinic systolic BP with AZL-M/CLD (-35.1 mm Hg vs -29.5 mm Hg) than for AZL-M and hydrochlorothiazide. Another study of 153 patients with chronic kidney disease who received AZL-M/CLD or other single-pill combination agents found that AZL-M/CLD was more effective in lowering BP, achieving superior adherence. According to new guidelines, an increase in the prevalence of resistant hypertension can occur as a result of trying to lower target BP.

IMPLICATIONS

A powerful and effective medication that can increase patient compliance is essential to reduce the incidence of resistant hypertension. AZL-M/CLD is a powerful and safe antihypertensive medication that has been thoroughly studied in patients with hypertension.

Solubility of Azilsartan in Methanol, Ethanol, Acetonitrile, n-Propanol, Isopropanol, Tetrahydrofuran, and Binary Solvent Mixtures between 293.15 and 333.15 K

A precise determination method of azilsartan solubility between 293.15 and 333.15 K in several ordinary solvents and some of their aqueous mixtures was established by high-performance liquid chromatography. In all tested solvents, its solubility shows exponential growth with the increase in temperature. This trend is especially pronounced in methanol and ethanol. The order of solubility of azilsartan can be expressed as ethanol > tetrahydrofuran > ethanol/water (8/2, v/v) > methanol > methanol/water (8/2, v/v) > n-propanol > isopropanol > ethanol/Water (5/5, v/v) > acetonitrile. The solubility data of azilsartan were well correlated by the λh model. Moreover, the thermodynamic data including the dissolving enthalpy, entropy, and Gibbs free energy of azilsartan in each solvent were calculated which is crucial to its preparation technology study.

Resistant Hypertension Updated Guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss the current definition as well as recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension (RH) based on the 2018 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines and recent literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

RH is defined as uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) on ≥ 3 anti-hypertensives, one of which should be a diuretic, prescribed at maximally tolerated doses and appropriate dosing frequency. The diagnosis of RH requires exclusion of white coat effect and medication non-adherence, underscoring the importance of out-of-office BP measurements. Secondary causes of hypertension must be excluded in all patients with RH. A step-wise approach to treatment focusing on lifestyle modifications and medication optimization can be effective in > 50% of the patients with RH. Device-based interventional therapies for RH are currently investigational. Out-of-office BP measurements are central to the diagnosis of RH. Medication optimization is successful in most patients. Further studies are needed to define the role of device-based interventions.

Resistant Hypertension: Detection, Evaluation, and Management: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as above-goal elevated blood pressure (BP) in a patient despite the concurrent use of 3 antihypertensive drug classes, commonly including a long-acting calcium channel blocker, a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker), and a diuretic. The antihypertensive drugs should be administered at maximum or maximally tolerated daily doses. RH also includes patients whose BP achieves target values on ≥4 antihypertensive medications. The diagnosis of RH requires assurance of antihypertensive medication adherence and exclusion of the "white-coat effect" (office BP above goal but out-of-office BP at or below target). The importance of RH is underscored by the associated risk of adverse outcomes compared with non-RH. This article is an updated American Heart Association scientific statement on the detection, evaluation, and management of RH. Once antihypertensive medication adherence is confirmed and out-of-office BP recordings exclude a white-coat effect, evaluation includes identification of contributing lifestyle issues, detection of drugs interfering with antihypertensive medication effectiveness, screening for secondary hypertension, and assessment of target organ damage. Management of RH includes maximization of lifestyle interventions, use of long-acting thiazide-like diuretics (chlorthalidone or indapamide), addition of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (spironolactone or eplerenone), and, if BP remains elevated, stepwise addition of antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to lower BP. If BP remains uncontrolled, referral to a hypertension specialist is advised.

Azilsartan as a Potent Antihypertensive Drug with Possible Pleiotropic Cardiometabolic Effects: A Review Study

Background: Hypertension related cardiovascular (CV) complications could be amplified by the presence of metabolic co-morbidities. Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is the eighth approved member of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), a drug class of high priority in the management of hypertensive subjects with diabetes mellitus type II (DMII).

Methods: Under this prism, we performed a systematic review of the literature for all relevant articles in order to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and possible clinical role of AZL-M in hypertensive diabetic patients.

Results: AZL-M was found to be more effective in terms of reducing indices of blood pressure over alternative ARBs or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors with minimal side effects. Preclinical studies have established pleiotropic effects for AZL-M beyond its primary antihypertensive role through differential gene expression, up-regulation of membrane receptors and favorable effect on selective intracellular biochemical and pro-atherosclerotic pathways.

Conclusion: Indirect but accumulating evidence from recent literature supports the efficacy and safety of AZL-M among diabetic patients. However, no clinical data exist to date that evince a beneficial role of AZL-M in patients with metabolic disorders on top of its antihypertensive effect. Further clinical studies are warranted to assess the pleiotropic cardiometabolic benefits of AZL-M that are derived from preclinical research.

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 compared to ACE inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy: one-year outcomes of the observational EARLY registry

BACKGROUND

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), has been demonstrated to be more effective than the other sartans currently in use; however, there is insufficient information available comparing it with ACE-inhibitors. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZL-M with that of ACE-inhibitors in a real life clinical setting.

METHODS

The EARLY registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry with a follow-up period of 12 months. There were two principal objectives: 1) documentation of the achievement of target BP values set according to recent national and international guidelines, and 2) description of the safety profile of AZL-M.

RESULTS

A total of 3 849 patients with essential arterial hypertension were recruited from primary care offices in Germany. Patients who initiated monotherapy at baseline comprising either AZL-M or an ACE-inhibitor were included at a ratio of seven to three. Results demonstrated that a blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the AZL-M group (61.1 %) compared with the ACE-inhibitor group (56.4 %; p < 0.05; OR, 1.21; 95 % CI, 1.03-1.42), with this finding maintained after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. AZL-M appeared to have an equivalent safety profile to the ACE-inhibitors, with a similar incidence of adverse events in the two patient groups (p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

These data add to the results of previous randomized controlled clinical trials suggesting that, compared with other agents that target the renin-angiotensin system, AZL-M provides statistically significant albeit small improvements in blood pressure control.

Safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil in subjects with essential hypertension: a one-year, phase 3, open-label study

This 56-week phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target study, involving 2 consecutive, non-randomized cohorts, evaluated the safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) in essential hypertension (mean baseline blood pressure [BP] 152/100 mmHg). All subjects (n = 669) initiated AZL-M 40 mg QD, force-titrated to 80 mg QD at week 4, if tolerated. From week 8, subjects could receive additional medications, starting with chlorthalidone (CLD) 25 mg QD (Cohort 1) or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5–25 mg QD (Cohort 2), if required, to reach BP targets. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 75.9% of subjects overall in the two cohorts (73.8% Cohort 1, 78.5% Cohort 2). The most common AEs were dizziness (14.3%), headache (9.9%) and fatigue (7.2%). Transient serum creatinine elevations were more frequent with add-on CLD. Clinic systolic/diastolic BP (observed cases at week 56) decreased by 25.2/18.4 mmHg (Cohort 1) and 24.2/17.9 mmHg (Cohort 2). These results demonstrate that AZL-M is well tolerated over the long term and provides stable BP improvements when used in a treat-to-target BP approach with thiazide-type diuretics.

The renin-angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in clinical trials versus routine practice: insights from the prospective EARLY registry

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and blood pressure-related outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) differ from clinical practice because of stringent selection criteria. The present study aimed to explore the relationship between clinical trials and clinical practice. We analyzed data from patients enrolled in the "Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy" (EARLY) registry comparing blood pressure (BP) effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril between patients who met the eligibility criteria of a previous RCT and those who did not.

METHODS

Patients with primary arterial hypertension were consecutively enrolled from primary care offices in Germany into the EARLY registry in a 7:3 ratio for treatment with AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor, provided that they met the following criteria at baseline: 1) no antihypertensive treatment prior to inclusion or a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) based monotherapy; 2) initiation of treatment with either AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor alone. Analyses were performed to evaluate BP effects for patients in the EARLY registry who met the selection criteria of a prior RCT (RCT+) versus those who did not (RCT-).

RESULTS

Out of 3,698 patients considered, 1,644 complied with the RCT criteria (RCT+) while 2,054 did not (RCT-). RCT- patients (55.5%) displayed a higher risk profile in terms of age and comorbidities, and a wider spectrum of BP values at baseline, as highlighted by the grades of hypertension and mean BP values. The proportion of patients who achieved target blood pressure control in the RCT+ group was significantly higher for AZL-M versus ramipril (64.1 versus 56.1%; P<0.01), in accordance with the result of the clinical trial. In the RCT- AZL-M group, the proportion of patients who met BP targets was lower (58.1%) than in the RCT+ AZL-M group (64.1%), whereas the proportion of patients with target BP values in the RCT- ramipril and the RCT+ ramipril groups was similar (57.7 versus 56.1%). Thus, in contrast to results for the RCT+ group, in the RCT- group, the target BP attainment rate for AZL-M was not significantly superior to that for ramipril. However, the tolerability profile of AZL-M and ramipril was comparable in both populations. At the 12-month follow-up, death and stroke rates were low (≤0.5%) and adverse events did not differ between the AZL-M and ramipril groups, irrespective of RCT eligibility.

CONCLUSIONS

These data confirm that the EARLY population comprised a broader spectrum of hypertensive patients than RCTs, and the differences in patient characteristics were accompanied by disparate rates of blood pressure goal attainment. Overall, the validity of the RCT was demonstrated and confirmed in clinical practice with a broader range of patients with various comorbidities.

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.

Liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry study of forced degradation of azilsartan medoxomil potassium

RATIONALE

Azilsartan medoxomil potassium (AZM) is a new antihypertensive drug introduced in the year 2011. The presence of degradation products not only affects the quality, but also the safety aspects of the drug. Thus, it is essential to develop an efficient analytical method which could be useful to selectively separate and identify the degradation products of azilsartan medoxomil potassium.

METHODS

AZM was subjected to forced degradation under hydrolytic (acid, base and neutral), oxidative, photolytic and thermal stress conditions. Separation of the drug and degradation products was achieved by a liquid chromatography (LC) method using an Acquity UPLC(®) C18 CSH column with mobile phase consisting of 0.02% trifluoroacetic acid and acetonitrile using a gradient method. Identification and characterization of the degradation products was carried out using LC/electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ESI-QTOFMS).

RESULTS

A total of five degradation products (DP 1 to DP 5) were formed under various stress conditions and their structures were proposed with the help of tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) experiments and accurate mass data. A common degradation product (DP 4) was observed under all the degradation conditions. DP 1, DP 2 and DP 5 were observed under acid hydrolytic conditions whereas DP 3 was observed under alkaline conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

AZM was found to degrade under hydrolytic, oxidative and photolytic stress conditions. The structures of all the degradation products were proposed. The degradation pathway for the formation of degradation products was also hypothesized. A selective method was developed to quantify the drug in the presence of degradation products which is useful to monitor the quality of AZM.

Azilsartan medoxomil in the treatment of hypertension: the definitive angiotensin receptor blocker?

INTRODUCTION

Azilsartan medoxomil is the newest angiotensin receptor blocker marketed for the treatment of arterial hypertension. The aim of this article was to review the available evidence about this drug alone or combined with other antihypertensive agents in the treatment of hypertensive population.

AREAS COVERED

For this purpose, a search on MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed. The MEDLINE and EMBASE search included both medical subject headings (MeSHs) and keywords including azilsartan or azilsartan medoxomil or angiotensin receptor blockers or renin angiotensin system or chlorthalidone and hypertension. References of the retrieved articles were also screened for additional studies. There were no language restrictions.

EXPERT OPINION

Azilsartan medoxomil has a potent and persistent ability to inhibit binding of angiotensin II to AT1 receptors, which may play a role in its superior blood pressure (BP) -lowering efficacy compared with other drugs, including ramipril, candesartan, valsartan or olmesartan, without an increase of side effects. Chlortalidone is a diuretic which significantly differs from other classic thiazides and has largely demonstrated clinical benefits in outcome trials. The fixed-dose combination of azilsartan and chlorthalidone has been shown to be more effective than other potent combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers plus hydrochlorothiazide, with a good tolerability profile.

EARLY Treatment with azilsartan compared to ACE-inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy--rationale and design of the EARLY hypertension registry

Background

Arterial hypertension is highly prevalent but poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) reduction substantially reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recent randomized, double-blind clinical trials demonstrated that azilsartan medoxomil (AZM) is more effective in reducing BP than the ubiquitary ACE inhibitor ramipril. Therefore, we aimed to test whether these can be verified under clinical practice conditions.

Methods/Design

The “Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy” (EARLY) registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicenter registry with a follow-up of up to 12 months. It will include up to 5000 patients on AZM or ACE-inhibitor monotherapy in a ratio of 7 to 3. A subgroup of patients will undergo 24-hour BP monitoring. EARLY has two co-primary objectives: 1) Description of the safety profile of azilsartan and 2) achievement of BP targets based on recent national and international guidelines for patients treated with azilsartan in comparison to those treated with ACE-inhibitors. The most important secondary endpoints are the determination of persistence with treatment and the documentation of cardiovascular and renal events. Recruitment commenced in January 2012 and will be completed by February 2013.

Conclusions

The data obtained will supplement previous results from randomized controlled trials to document the potential value of utilizing azilsartan medoxomil in comparison to ACE-inhibitor treatment for target BP achievement in clinical practice.