Effects of Doxazosin and Irbesartan on Blood Pressure and Metabolic Control in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension

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 We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.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.

Dyslipidaemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus: bad for the heart

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with increased coronary heart disease (CHD) morbidity and mortality. These patients are also more prone to heart failure, arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. Furthermore, coronary interventions performed in such high-risk patients have worse outcomes. In this narrative review, we discuss the role of diabetic dyslipidaemia on the risk of CHD in patients with T2DM. The effects of hypolipidaemic, antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs on lipid and glucose metabolism in T2DM are also considered.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among CHD risk factors, diabetic dyslipidaemia characterized by moderately elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, increased triglycerides and small, dense LDL particles as well as decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels may contribute to the increased CHD risk associated with T2DM. Hypolipidaemic, antihypertensive and antidiabetic drugs can affect lipid and glucose parameters thus potentially influencing CHD risk. Such drugs may improve not only the quantity, but also the quality of LDL as well as postprandial lipaemia.

SUMMARY

Current data highlight the importance of treating diabetic dyslipidaemia in order to minimize CHD risk. Both fasting and postprandial lipids are influenced by drugs in patients with T2DM; physicians should take this into consideration in clinical decision making.

Preferred Fourth-Line Pharmacotherapy for Resistant Hypertension: Are We There Yet?

Resistant hypertension (RH) is defined as blood pressure (BP) that remains above target levels despite adherence to at least three different antihypertensive medications, typically including a diuretic. Epidemiological studies estimate that RH is increasing in prevalence, and is associated with detrimental health outcomes. The pathophysiology underlying RH is complex, involving multiple, overlapping contributors including activation of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system and the sympathetic nervous system, volume overload, endothelial dysfunction, behavioural and lifestyle factors. Hypertension guidelines currently recommend specific pharmacotherapy for 1st, 2nd and 3rd-line treatment, however no specific fourth-line pharmacotherapy is provided for those with RH. Rather, five different antihypertensive drug classes are generally suggested as possible alternatives, including: mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, α1-adrenergic antagonists, α2-adrenergic agonists, β-blockers, and peripheral vasodilators. Each of these drug classes vary in their efficacy, tolerability and safety profile. This review summarises the available data on each of these drug classes as a potential fourth-line drug and reveals a lack of robust clinical evidence for preferred use of most of these classes in the setting of RH. Moreover, there is a lack of direct comparative trials that could assist in identifying a preferred fourth-line pharmacologic approach and in providing evidence for hypertensive guidelines for adequate treatment of RH.

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

BACKGROUND

Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for diabetic patients on the basis of postulated advantages for the reduction of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for hypertension in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients, 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 patients with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials up to November 19, 2014 and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to October 19, 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Cochrane Hypertension Group's Specialised Register.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies with at least six months follow-up in people with primary 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. Patients with proven secondary hypertension were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 studies, involving 65,733 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large studies at a low risk of bias 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 hospitalization, total cardiovascular (CV) events (consisted of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalizations), and 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 quality evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.90, ARR 1.2%), and moderate quality evidence that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, ARI 0.7%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; moderate quality evidence), total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09; moderate quality evidence). The results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate quality 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%). They had similar effects on all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07; moderate quality evidence), total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11; moderate quality evidence), and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; moderate quality evidence). Results for ESRF do not exclude potentially important differences (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37; low quality evidence).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, we found low quality evidence 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 low quality evidence that they decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Our analyses do not exclude potentially important differences between first-line RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers on all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; low quality evidence), HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18; low quality evidence), and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; low quality evidence).Blood pressure comparisons between RAS inhibitors and other classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.In the protocol, we identified non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) as a primary outcome. However, when we extracted the data from included studies, none of them reported total SAE in a manner that could be used in the review. Therefore, there is no information about SAE in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found predominantly moderate quality evidence that all-cause mortality is similar when first-line RAS inhibitors are compared to other first-line antihypertensive agents. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. The quality of the evidence comparing first-line beta-blockers and first-line RAS inhibitors was low and the lower risk of total CV events and stroke seen with RAS inhibitors may change with the publication of additional trials. Compared with first-line CCBs, first-line RAS inhibitors reduced HF but increased stroke. The magnitude of the reduction in HF exceeded the increase in stroke. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the primary outcomes.

Metabolic dysfunction in obstructive sleep apnea: A critical examination of underlying mechanisms

It has recently become clear that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is an independent risk factor for the development of metabolic syndrome, a disorder of defective energy storage and use. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain this finding, drawing upon the characteristics that define OSA. In particular, intermittent hypoxia, sleep fragmentation, elevated sympathetic tone, and oxidative stress - all consequences of OSA - have been implicated in the progression of poor metabolic outcomes in OSA. In this review we examine the evidence to support each of these disease manifestations of OSA as a unique risk for metabolic dysfunction. Tissue hypoxia and sleep fragmentation are each directly connected to insulin resistance and hypertension, and each of these also may increase sympathetic tone, resulting in defective glucose homeostasis, excessive lipolysis, and elevated blood pressure. Oxidative stress further worsens insulin resistance and in turn, metabolic dysfunction also increases oxidative stress. However, despite many studies linking each of these individual components of OSA to the development of metabolic syndrome, there are very few reports that actually provide a coherent narrative about the mechanism underlying metabolic dysfunction in OSA.

Selective alpha(1)-adrenoceptor blockade prevents fructose-induced hypertension

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of chronic treatment with prazosin, a selective α1-adrenoceptor antagonist, on the development of hypertension in fructose-fed rats (FFR). High-fructose feeding and treatment with prazosin (1 mg/kg/day via drinking water) were initiated simultaneously in male Wistar rats. Systolic blood pressure, fasted plasma parameters, insulin sensitivity, plasma norepinephrine (NE), uric acid, and angiotensin II (Ang II) were determined following 9 weeks of treatment. FFR exhibited insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypertension, as well as elevations in plasma NE and Ang II levels. Treatment with prazosin prevented the rise in blood pressure without affecting insulin levels, insulin sensitivity, uric acid, or Ang II levels, while normalizing plasma NE levels in FFR. These data suggest that over-activation of the sympathetic nervous system, specifically α1-adrenoceptors, contributes to the development of fructose-induced hypertension, however, this over-activation does not appear to an initial, precipitating event in FFR.

The effects of phentolamine on fructose-fed rats

Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a combination of medical disorders that increase the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and diabetes. MS is associated with obesity, increased blood pressure, hyperlipidemia, and hyperglycemia. This study was designed to investigate the pharmacological profile of phentolamine, a nonselective α adrenergic receptor antagonist, in the prevention of increased blood pressure in fructose-fed rats. Phentolamine prevented the fructose-induced increase in systolic blood pressure without affecting insulin sensitivity and major metabolic parameters. The levels of plasma noradrenaline and angiotensin II, 2 proposed contributors to the development of fructose-induced elevated blood pressure, were examined. Neither noradrenaline nor angiotensin II levels were affected by phentolamine treatment. Since overproduction of nitric oxide has been shown to lead to an elevation in peroxynitrite, the role of oxidative stress, a proposed mechanism of fructose-induced elevated blood pressure and insulin resistance, was examined by measuring plasma levels of total nitrate/nitrite. Plasma nitrate/nitrite was significantly elevated in all fructose-fed animals, regardless of treatment with phentolamine. Another proposed contributor toward fructose-induced MS is an elevation in uric acid levels. In this experiment, plasma levels of uric acid were found to be increased by dietary fructose and were unaffected by phentolamine treatment.

Long-term use and tolerability of irbesartan for control of hypertension

In this review, we discuss the pharmacological and clinical properties of irbesartan, a noncompetitive angiotensin II receptor type 1 antagonist, successfully used for more than a decade in the treatment of essential hypertension. Irbesartan exerts its antihypertensive effect through an inhibitory effect on the pressure response to angiotensin II. Irbesartan 150-300 mg once daily confers a lasting effect over 24 hours, and its antihypertensive efficacy is further enhanced by the coadministration of hydrochlorothiazide. Additionally and partially beyond its blood pressure-lowering effect, irbesartan reduces left ventricular hypertrophy, favors right atrial remodeling in atrial fibrillation, and increases the likelihood of maintenance of sinus rhythm after cardioversion in atrial fibrillation. In addition, the renoprotective effects of irbesartan are well documented in the early and later stages of renal disease in type 2 diabetics. Furthermore, both the therapeutic effectiveness and the placebo-like side effect profile contribute to a high adherence rate to the drug. Currently, irbesartan in monotherapy or combination therapy with hydrochlorothiazide represent a rationale pharmacologic approach for arterial hypertension and early-stage and late-stage diabetic nephropathy in hypertensive type II diabetics.

Endothelial function, blood pressure control, and risk modification: impact of irbesartan alone or in combination

Irbesartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, is approved as monotherapy, or in combination with other drugs, for the treatment of hypertension in many countries worldwide. Data in the literature suggest that irbesartan is effective for reducing blood pressure over a 24-hour period with once-daily administration, and slows the progression of renal disease in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Furthermore, irbesartan shows a good safety and tolerability profile, compared with angiotensin II inhibitors and other angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists. Thus, irbesartan appears to be a useful treatment option for patients with hypertension, including those with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Irbesartan has an inhibitory effect on the pressor response to angiotensin II and improves arterial stiffness, vascular endothelial dysfunction, and inflammation in hypertensive patients. There has been considerable interest recently in the renoprotective effect of irbesartan, which appears to be independent of reductions in blood pressure. In particular, mounting data suggests that irbesartan improves endothelial function, oxidative stress, and inflammation in the kidneys. Recent studies have highlighted a possible role for irbesartan in improving coronary artery inflammation and vascular dysfunction. In this review we summarize and comment on the most important data available with regard to antihypertensive effect, endothelial function improvement, and cardiovascular risk reduction with irbesartan.

Effect of Doxazosin Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System as Third-Line Antihypertensive Therapy on Blood Pressure and Lipids in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial

Background— The role of doxazosin in treatment of hypertension remains controversial.

Methods and Results— We evaluated the effects on blood pressure (BP) and biochemical parameters of doxazosin GITS (gastrointestinal therapeutic system) as a third-line antihypertensive agent among 10 069 participants in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) whose BP remained above 140/90 mm Hg (130/80 mm Hg in those with diabetes mellitus). Among those who received doxazosin, mean age was 63 years (SD 9 years), 79% were male, and 32% had diabetes. Doxazosin was initiated a median of 8 months (interquartile range 3 to 24 months) after randomization and was added to a mean of 2.0 (SD 0.3) other antihypertensive drugs; the mean starting and final doses were 4.1 (SD 0.6) and 7.0 (SD 3.1) mg, respectively. During a median of 12 months (interquartile range 4 to 31 months) of uninterrupted doxazosin treatment, during which other antihypertensive treatments remained unchanged, mean BP fell 11.7/6.9 mm Hg (SD 18.8/9.6 mm Hg, P <0.0001) from 158.7/89.2 mm Hg (SD 18.3/10.6 mm Hg). After the addition of doxazosin, 29.7% of participants achieved target BP. There was no apparent excess of heart failure among doxazosin users. There were associated modest favorable effects on plasma lipid profiles, but a small rise in fasting plasma glucose was observed. Doxazosin was generally well tolerated, with 7.5% of participants discontinuing the drug because of adverse events, most frequently dizziness, fatigue, headache, and edema.

Conclusions— α-Blockers are no longer recommended as add-on therapy in some hypertension guidelines. However, although they are nonrandomized and were not placebo-controlled, the present findings suggest that doxazosin is a safe and effective third-line antihypertensive agent.

Doxazosin in metabolically complicated hypertension

Metabolic syndrome, a cluster of metabolic abnormalities with visceral obesity and insulin resistance as its central component, is highly prevalent among hypertensive patients. Hypertension complicated by metabolic syndrome is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and new-onset Type II diabetes mellitus that further aggravates the prognostic outlook. Such a complex condition requires a multifactorial intervention including blood pressure lowering, improvement of the adverse metabolic profile and delayed onset of new diabetes. In this respect, doxazosin and other alpha-1 adrenoceptor blocking agents are of interest given their effect on the lipid profile in dyslipidemic, obese hypertensive patients, either diabetic or not. Doxazosin improves insulin sensitivity, apparently by accelerating insulin and glucose disposal through vasodilatation of skeletal muscle vascular beds. Whether long-term treatment with the drug might delay, or possibly prevent, incident Type II diabetes in hypertension complicated by metabolic syndrome is an intriguing possibility to be tested in appropriately designed clinical trials.

Metabolic and antihypertensive effects of moxonidine and moxonidine plus irbesartan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild hypertension: a sequential, randomized, double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The autonomic nervous system plays an important part in the homeostasis of blood pressure (BP), and sympathetic overactivity may contribute to metabolic conditions such as glycemic intolerance or insulin resistance.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the anti-hypertensive and metabolic effects of moxonidine, a selective imidazoline II-receptor agonist that lowers BP by central inhibition of the sympathetic nervous system, and moxonidine plus the angiotensin II-receptor blocker irbesartan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild hypertension.

METHODS

This was a study in patients with type 2 diabetes previously untreated with medication and untreated mild hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >90 and <105 mm Hg). For the first 3 months of the study, all patients were treated for hypertension with moxonidine 0.2 mg once daily (M0.2) to establish a moxonidine baseline. After this single-arm period, patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with moxonidine 0.2 mg BID (M0.4) or moxonidine 0.2 mg plus irbesartan 150 mg (M0.2+1) once daily for 3 months. Changes in DBP, systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI), fasting and postprandial plasma glucose (FPG and PPG), fasting and postprandial plasma insulin (FPI and PPI), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), Homeostasis Model Assessment of insulin sensitivity (HOMA-S), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides (TG) were evaluated at baseline, 3 months (end of single arm period), and 6 months (end of randomized treatment period).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 99 patients (50 men, 49 women; mean [SD] age, 55 [7] years; mean BMI, 26.8 [0.9]). No significant changes in BMI, PPG, PPI, TC, or LDL-C were observed over the entire study period. At 3 months, treatment with M0.2 was associated with significant improvements from baseline in SBP and DBP (P < 0.05), whereas there were no significant changes in HbA(1c), FPG, FPI, HOMA-S, HDL-C, or TG. At 6 months, significant decreases from baseline in HbA(1c), FPG, FPI, HOMA-S, and TG were observed in the M0.4 group (all, P < 0.05), but not in the M0.2+1 group. The M0.4 group also had a significant increase from baseline in HDL-C (P < 0.05) that was not seen in the M0.2+1 group. The changes in FPI and HOMA-S were significantly greater in the M0.4 group compared with the M0.2+1 group (P < 0.05). Significant decreases from baseline in SBP and DBP were observed in both the M0.4 and M0.2+1 groups (P < 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively). No patient withdrew from the study because of a drug-related adverse event, and there were no clinically significant drug-related changes in laboratory values during the study.

CONCLUSION

In these patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hypertension, the M0.4 group had greater improvements in measures of glucose metabolism and the plasma lipid profile compared with those treated with M0.2+1.

Metabolic effects of telmisartan and irbesartan in type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome treated with rosiglitazone

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Angiotensin II receptor blockers represent a class of effective and well-tolerated orally active antihypertensive drugs in the general hypertensive population and in diabetic patients. The aim of our study was to investigate the metabolic effects of telmisartan and irbesartan in diabetic subjects treated with rosiglitazone.

METHODS

We evaluated 188 type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome. All patients took a fixed dose of 4 mg rosiglitazone/day. We administered 40 mg telmisartan/day or 150 mg irbesartan/day and evaluated their body mass index, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), homeostasis model assessment-index (Homa-IR), total cholesterol (TC), low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, adiponectin and resistin during 12 months of this treatment.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In addition to a comparable antihypertensive effect for telmisartan and irbesartan after 6 and 12 months, both treatments were associated with a significant reduction in TC and LDL-C plasma levels compared with baseline. After 6 months of treatment, only the telmisartan group experienced a significant improvement in (HbA(1c)), FPG, Homa-IR, adiponectin and resistin compared with the baseline values, whereas both drug regimens were associated with a significant improvement in these parameters after 12 months. However, the improvements observed in the telmisartan group were significantly larger than that noted in the irbesartan group after 12 months of treatment. FPI significantly decreased only after 12 months of treatment in both groups, but again, the reduction was significantly larger in the telmisartan-treated subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Telmisartan seemed to improve glycaemic and lipid control and metabolic parameters of the metabolic syndrome better than irbesartan. These differences could be relevant in the choice of therapy for this condition and diabetes.

Synergistic Effect of Doxazosin and Acarbose in Improving Metabolic Control in Patients with Impaired Glucose Tolerance

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate if the expected improvement in glucose and lipid metabolism obtainable with doxazosin is or is not synergistic with standard antihyperglycaemic treatment using the alpha-glucosidase inhibitor acarbose.

METHODS

Patients in this randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial were enrolled, evaluated and followed up at three Italian centres. We evaluated 107 patients (53 males and 54 females) with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) as determined by oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs). All patients took a fixed dose of acarbose 150 mg/day for 3 months, after which they were titrated up to 300 mg/day for the next 3 months. In addition, patients were randomised to either placebo (53 patients: 27 males and 26 females, aged 50 +/- 4 [mean +/- SD] years) or doxazosin 4 mg/day (54 patients: 26 males and 28 females, aged 51 +/- 5 years) for the entire 6-month treatment period. Parameters evaluated during the 6-month treatment period included body mass index (BMI), glycaemic control (glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA(1c)], fasting plasma [FPG] and post-prandial plasma [PPG] glucose, fasting plasma [FPI] and post-prandial plasma [PPI] insulin levels, homeostasis model assessment [HOMA]-index [insulin resistance]), lipid profile (total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides [TG]), and systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in BMI, HbA(1c), FPG and PPG compared with baseline were observed after 6 months in both groups (p < 0.05). A significant decrease in FPI was obtained after 6 months (p < 0.05) in the doxazosin group compared with baseline, and this difference was also significant (p < 0.05) compared with the placebo group. Similarly, a significant decrease in HOMA-index was observed at 6 months (p < 0.05) compared with baseline in the doxazosin group, and this difference was also significant (p < 0.05) compared with the placebo group. Significant decreases in TC, LDL-C, HDL-C and TG (p < 0.05) were observed in the doxazosin group after 6 months compared with baseline values. Significant decreases in SBP and DBP were also observed at 3 months in the doxazosin group compared with baseline (p < 0.05), and these differences were significant (p < 0.05) compared with placebo. Furthermore, significant decreases in SBP and DBP were observed at 6 months (p < 0.01) in the doxazosin group compared with baseline, and these differences were also significant (p < 0.01) compared with placebo. All patients who completed an OGTT at 6 months (96 patients) were restored to normal glucose tolerance status.

CONCLUSION

In patients with IGT, doxazosin given in combination with acarbose seemed to improve glycaemic and lipid control compared with placebo, with the benefits observed appearing to extend beyond those expected from improvements in blood pressure. Patients in this study also benefited from acarbose therapy, which restored all patients from IGT to normal glucose tolerance status.

Telmisartan and Irbesartan Therapy in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Treated with Rosiglitazone: Effects on Insulin-Resistance, Leptin and Tumor Necrosis Factor-.ALPHA

The aim of our study was to investigate the metabolic effect of telmisartan and irbesartan in subjects treated with rosiglitazone, a well-known insulin-sensitizing drug, in order to clarify the direct metabolic effects of the two former drugs. Patients were enrolled, evaluated, and followed at 3 Italian centers. We evaluated 188 type 2 diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome (94 males and 94 females in total; 49 males and 46 females, aged 56+/-5, treated with telmisartan; and 45 males and 48 females, aged 55+/-4, treated with irbesartan). All had been diabetic for at least 6 months, and glycemic control by the maximum tolerated dietary changes and maximum tolerated dose of oral hypoglycemic agents had been attempted and failed in all cases. All patients took a fixed dose of rosiglitazone, 4 mg/day. We administered telmisartan (40 mg/day) or irbesartan (150 mg/day) in a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical manner. We evaluated body mass index (BMI), glycemic control (HbA1c fasting plasma glucose and insulin levels [FPG, and FPI, respectively], and homeostasis model assessment [HOMA] index), lipid profile (total cholesterol [TC], low density lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C], high density lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides [TG]), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and leptin during the 12 months of this treatment. No BMI change was observed after 6 or 12 months in either group. Significant decreases in HbAlc and FPG were observed after 6 months in the telmisartan group, and after 12 months in both groups. The decrease in HbA1c and FPG at 12 months was statistically significant only in the telmisartan group. A significant decrease in FPI was observed at 12 months in both groups, and this decrease was significantly greater in the telmisartan group. Significant decreases in the HOMA index were observed at 6 and 12 months in both groups, and the decrease in the HOMA index after 12 months was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the irbesartan group. Significant changes in SBP, DBP, TC, and LDL-C were observed after 6 and 12 months in both groups. Significant decreases in TNF-alpha and leptin levels were observed after 6 months in the telmisartan group, and after 12 months in both groups. In conclusion, in this study of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome, telmisartan seemed to result in a greater improvement in glycemic and lipid control and metabolic parameters related to metabolic syndrome compared to irbesartan. These observed metabolic effects of different angiotensin type 1 receptor blockers could be relevant when choosing a therapy to correct metabolic derangement of patients affected by metabolic syndrome and diabetes.