Effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared with olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes

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.

MARRIAGE: A Randomized Trial of Moxonidine Versus Ramipril or in Combination With Ramipril in Overweight Patients With Hypertension and Impaired Fasting Glucose or Diabetes Mellitus. Impact on Blood Pressure, Heart Rate and Metabolic Parameters

BACKGROUND

Moxonidine, an imidazoline I1 receptor agonist, is an effective antihypertensive drug that was shown to improve insulin sensitivity. RAAS-blockers are recommended as first-line therapy in patients with diabetes, alone or in combination with a calcium-channel antagonist or a diuretic.

AIMS

This study compared the effects of moxonidine and ramipril on blood pressure (BP) and glucose metabolism in overweight patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and impaired fasting glucose or type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Treatment-naïve patients for hypertension and dysglycemia were randomized to 12 weeks of double-blind moxonidine 0.4 mg or ramipril 5 mg once-daily treatment. At 12 weeks, for a further 12 weeks non-responders received combination of mox/ram, while responders continued blinded treatment.

RESULTS

Moxonidine and ramipril were equivalent in lowering SiDBP and SiSBP at the end of the first 12 weeks. The responder rate was approximately 50% in both groups, with a mean SiDBP and SiSBP decrease of 10 and 15 mm Hg in the responders, respectively. The normalization rate (SiDBP < 85 mm Hg) was non significantly different between treatments groups. Moxonidine reduced heart rate (HR) (average -3.5 bpm, p = 0.017) during monotherapy, and when added to ramipril. HbA1c decreased significantly at Week 12 in both groups. Neither drug affected glucose or insulin response to the oral glucose tolerance test. In non-responders, moxonidine/ramipril combination further reduced BP without compromising metabolic parameters.

CONCLUSION

Moxonidine 0.4 mg and ramipril 5 mg were equally effective on BP lowering and were well tolerated and mostly metabolically neutral either as monotherapies or in combination. HR was lowered on moxonidine treatment.

[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.

A Prospective Study of Azilsartan Medoxomil in the Treatment of Patients with Essential Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes in Asia

This phase 4 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) in patients with essential hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Thailand. This was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study with patients aged 18-75 years with T2DM and essential hypertension and on stable treatment for T2DM. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension were treated with AZL-M 40 mg daily, with the option to uptitrate to 80 mg at 6 weeks. In all, 380 of the 478 patients screened in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Thailand were enrolled. At week 6, 97 patients (25.5%) were titrated up to AZL-M 80 mg based on BP readings. At 12 weeks, 54.8% of patients reached the blood pressure (BP) goal of <140/85 mm Hg by trough sitting clinic BP (primary endpoint), and 62.8% and 27.0% achieved a BP of <140/90 mm Hg and <130/80 mm Hg, respectively. The efficacy of AZL-M over 12 weeks was also seen in different age and body mass index groups. The incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 12.9% before 6 weeks and 16.1% after 6 weeks, and they were mostly mild in severity. The most frequent TEAE was dizziness (4.7%). The incidence of TEAEs leading to study drug discontinuation (4.5%) and drug-related TEAEs (5.0% before 6 weeks; 3.9% after 6 weeks) was low. In patients with essential hypertension and T2DM in Asia, treatment with AZL-M indicated a favorable efficacy and safety profile in achieving target BP.

Approach to Resistant Hypertension from Cardiology and Nephrology Standpoints: Tailoring Therapy

Resistant hypertension is commonly encountered in primary care, cardiology, and nephrology clinics. In patients presenting for the evaluation of resistant hypertension, taking a thoughtful approach to excluding pseudoresistant hypertension or a secondary cause of hypertension is important. When a patient is deemed to have true resistant hypertension, following an evidence-based treatment approach while considering patient-specific comorbidities results not only in better blood pressure control but also better patient long-term adherence to lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions. This article details an approach to the diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension with special consideration for patients with preexisting renal and/or cardiovascular disease.

Stronger Effect of Azilsartan on Reduction of Proteinuria Compared to Candesartan in Patients with CKD: A Randomized Crossover Trial

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are preferably used in hypertensive patients with CKD. Azilsartan is a strong antihypertensive ARB, but its antiproteinuric effects are not well understood. We compared the antiproteinuric effect of azilsartan and candesartan in CKD patients in an open-label, randomized, crossover trial.

METHODS

A total of 111 patients were treated with 20 mg of azilsartan daily for 2 months as a run-in period. After the run-in period, patients were randomized into 2 arms and received either 20 mg of azilsartan or 8 mg of candesartan daily for 3 months in a crossover trial. The primary outcome was the percent change in urinary protein-to-Cr ratio (UPCR).

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients completed the trial. The mean age was 64.3 years. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and UPCR were 41.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 1.8 g/gCr, respectively. The baseline systolic and diastolic blood pressures were 131.4 and 71.0 mm Hg, respectively. The mean percent change in the UPCR was -3.8% in the azilsartan group and 30.8% in the candesartan group at the 1st endpoint (p = 0.0004), and 6.1% in the azilsartan group and 25.8% in the candesartan group at the 2nd (final) endpoint (p = 0.029). The incidence of adverse events, including eGFR levels and serum potassium levels, was not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

A 20 mg azilsartan dose had potent antiproteinuric effects compared with an 8 mg candesartan dose, without an increase in adverse events. Azilsartan may provide renal protection in addition to antihypertensive effects in CKD patients.

Angiotensin Type 1 Receptor Blockers in Heart Failure

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

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.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Azilsartan Medoxomil and Telmisartan in Hypertensive Patients: A Randomized, Assessor-Blinded Study

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the safety and efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) and telmisartan in hypertensive patients, especially using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of AZL-M and telmisartan in hypertensive patients using ABPM and clinic blood pressure (BP) monitoring.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-arm study included 700 patients, aged 18-70 years, with clinic and 24-h mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) of 150-180 mmHg and 130-170 mmHg, respectively. They were randomized equally into two groups: Group A received AZL-M 40 mg and Group T received telmisartan 40 mg; the dose was force titrated to 80 mg after 2 weeks if the response rate was not achieved. BP (clinical and ambulatory) was measured after 12 weeks and compared with baseline measurements.

RESULTS

AZL-M significantly reduced the 24-h mean ambulatory SBP (Group A: 112.74 ± 7.58 mmHg; Group T: 113.96 ± 8.52 mmHg; P < 0.0001) and diastolic BP (Group A: 71.39 ± 5.89 mmHg; Group T: 67.29 ± 6.79 mmHg; P < 0.0001) compared with telmisartan at week 12. The clinic SBP significantly decreased in Group A at weeks 4 (-30.69± -0.33 mmHg) and 12 (-39.69± -1.09 mmHg) (for both, P = 0.0001). Dose titration was done in 99 and 128 patients from Group A and Group T, respectively (P = 0.012). Headache was the most common adverse drug reaction (Group A: 21; Group T: 27) and fatigue the least.

CONCLUSION

This study found that AZL-M has greater antihypertensive efficacy than telmisartan, with comparable side effects. In addition, ABPM was shown to be a feasible method for such studies.

Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Amlodipine in Asian Hypertensive Patients

Background

Hypertension (HTN) is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality globally. The WHO estimates a 60% increase in Asian HTN patients between 2000 and 2025. Numerous studies have compared safety and efficacy between antihypertensive classes, but in-class comparisons of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in combination therapy (CT) (fixed-dose combination or dual combination) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) are lacking in Asia.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of the various ARB-amlodipine CTs and amlodipine (AML) monotherapy for treatment of HTN in Asian population.

Methods

A systematic literature review sourced Asian randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed and Cochrane Libraries to inform a network meta-analysis (NMA). We considered the ARB-AML CT. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were short-term (8–12 weeks) treatment response and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), respectively. AML monotherapy was used as a comparator to allow for indirect treatment effect estimation in the absence of direct RCTs evidence comparing the different ARB-AML CTs.

Results

The analysis included 1198 Asian HTN patients from seven studies involving six ARB-AML CTs: azilsartan (AZL), candesartan (CAN), fimasartan (FIM), losartan (LOS), olmesartan (OLM), and telmisartan (TEL). Compared to AML monotherapy, CT of AZL-AML had five times greater odds of prompting a treatment response (OR 5.2, 95% CI: 2.5, 11.2), while CAN-AML had 3.9 (95% CI: 2.5, 6.4), FIM-AML had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4, 8.5), TEL-AML had 3.3 (95% CI: 1.6, 7.1), OLM-AML had 2.7 (95% CI: 1.6, 5.0), and LOS-AML had 2.0 (95% CI: 0.6, 7.3). All ARB-AML CTs had safety profiles comparable to AML monotherapy except TEL-AML, which had significantly lower odds of TEAEs (0.26 (95% CI: 0.087, 0.70)).

Conclusion

This study suggests that all ARB-AML CTs compared favorably to AML monotherapy regarding short-term treatment response in uncomplicated HTN patients of Asian origin. AZL-AML prompted the most favorable treatment response. Safety profiles among the ARB-AML CTs were largely comparable. Due to the limited study size and small number of trials (direct evidence), our findings should best be interpreted as an exploratory effort importance to inform future research direction.

Effects of valsartan, benazepril and their combination in overt nephropathy of type 2 diabetes: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial

AIMS

To evaluate whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) combination therapy is more nephroprotective than ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy in people with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, open, blind-endpoint phase III trial sponsored by the Italian Drug Agency, 103 consenting patients with type 2 diabetes, aged >40 years, with serum creatinine levels 159 to 309 μmol/L, spot morning urinary albumin-creatinine ratio > 1000 mg/g (or > 500 mg/g in those on ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy at inclusion) were stratified by centre and randomized to 4.5-year treatment with valsartan 320 mg/d (n = 36), benazepril 20 mg/d (n = 34) or halved doses of both medications (n = 33). The primary endpoint was end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Modified intention-to-treat analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Recruitment took place between June 2007 and February 2013 at 10 centres in Italy and one in Slovenia. A total of 77 participants completed the study and 26 were prematurely withdrawn. During a median (interquartile range) of 41 (18-54) months, 12 participants on benazepril (35.3%) and nine on combination therapy (27.3%) progressed to ESRD, versus five on valsartan (13.9%). Differences between benazepril (hazard ratio [HR] 3.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25-10.30; P = 0.018) or combination therapy (HR 3.28, 95% CI 1.07-10.0; P = 0.038) and valsartan were significant, even after adjustment for age, gender and baseline serum creatinine, systolic blood pressure and 24-hour proteinuria (HR 5.16, 95% CI 1.50-17.75, P = 0.009 and HR 4.75, 95% CI 1.01-22.39, P = 0.049, respectively). Adverse events were distributed similarly among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with type 2 diabetes with nephropathy, valsartan (320 mg/d) safely postponed ESRD more effectively than benazepril (20 mg/d) or than halved doses of both medications.

Antihypertensive effect of azilsartan versus olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The comparison of antihypertensive effects between azilsartan and olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension has been investigated in several studies. The results were not consistent. We performed this meta-analysis determining the antihypertensive effect of azilsartan versus olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS

Pubmed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched for all published randomized studies comparing the antihypertensive effects between azilsartan and olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension.

RESULTS

The antihypertensive effects were assessed in 1402 patients included in five trials. The reduction of office systolic blood pressure treated with azilsartan was greater than olmesartan (weighted mean differences (WMD) - 2.15 (95% confidence interval (CI), - 3.78, - 0.53) mm Hg, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference in reduction of office diastolic blood pressure between azilsartan and olmesartan (WMD - 0.99 (95% CI, - 2.06, 0.08) mm Hg, p > 0.05). The reduction of office systolic blood pressure treated with azilsartan was greater than olmesartan at same dose for both drugs (WMD - 2.24 (95% CI, - 4.03, - 0.44) mm Hg, p < 0.05), whereas there was no significant difference in reduction of office diastolic blood pressure between azilsartan and olmesartan (WMD - 0.55 (95% CI, - 1.76, 0.66) mm Hg, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides the evidence that the reduction of office systolic blood pressure treated with azilsartan was greater than olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension. These findings suggest the importance of strict designed randomized controlled trials in determining antihypertensive effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers in clinical practice.

Long-term efficacy and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide in chronic kidney disease

An open-label, long-term study evaluated safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in hypertensive participants with stage 3 chronic kidney disease. Initial therapy was AZL-M/CLD 20/12.5 mg (n = 77) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (n = 76), but could be up-titrated (AZL-M/CLD to 40/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [US] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) with other agents added during weeks 4-52. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with ≥ 1 adverse event (AE) through week 52. Baseline demographics were similar. AEs did not differ between groups (88.3%, AZL-M/CLD vs 76.3%, OLM/HCTZ; P = .058). AZL-M/CLD showed greater systolic BP reductions after initial dosing (P = .037) but not during long-term follow-up (P = .588). A greater proportion of participants up-titrated to the highest dose with OLM/HCTZ (48.7%) vs AZL-M/CLD (29.9%) (P = .021) and were taking additional antihypertensive medications (26.3% vs 16.9%). Both AZL-M/CLD and OLM/HCTZ showed similar efficacy and tolerability.

Combination Therapy Is Superior to Sequential Monotherapy for the Initial Treatment of Hypertension: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for hypertension vary in their preference for initial combination therapy or initial monotherapy, stratified by patient profile; therefore, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of these approaches.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a 1-year, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 605 untreated patients aged 18 to 79 years with systolic blood pressure (BP) ≥150 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥95 mm Hg. In phase 1 (weeks 0-16), patients were randomly assigned to initial monotherapy (losartan 50-100 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-25 mg crossing over at 8 weeks), or initial combination (losartan 50-100 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-25 mg). In phase 2 (weeks 17-32), all patients received losartan 100 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 to 25 mg. In phase 3 (weeks 33-52), amlodipine with or without doxazosin could be added to achieve target BP. Hierarchical primary outcomes were the difference from baseline in home systolic BP, averaged over phases 1 and 2 and, if significant, at 32 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, and difference in home systolic BP responses between tertiles of plasma renin. Home systolic BP after initial monotherapy fell 4.9 mm Hg (range: 3.7-6.0 mm Hg) less over 32 weeks (P<0.001) than after initial combination but caught up at 32 weeks (difference 1.2 mm Hg [range: -0.4 to 2.8 mm Hg], P=0.13). In phase 1, home systolic BP response to each monotherapy differed substantially between renin tertiles, whereas response to combination therapy was uniform and at least 5 mm Hg more than to monotherapy. There were no differences in withdrawals due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial combination therapy can be recommended for patients with BP >150/95 mm Hg.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00994617.

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

Blood pressure control in type 2 diabetic patients

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and essential hypertension are common conditions that are frequently present together. Both are considered risk factors for cardiovascular disease and microvascular complications and therefore treatment of both conditions is essential. Many papers were published on blood pressure (BP) targets in diabetic patients, including several works published in the last 2 years. As a result, guidelines differ in their recommendations on BP targets in diabetic patients. The method by which to control hypertension, whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological, is also a matter of debate and has been extensively studied in the literature. In recent years, new medications were introduced for the treatment of DM, some of which also affect BP and the clinician treating hypertensive and diabetic patients should be familiar with these medications and their effect on BP. In this manuscript, we discuss the evidence supporting different BP targets in diabetics and review the various guidelines on this topic. In addition, we discuss the various options available for the treatment of hypertension in diabetics and the recommendations for a specific treatment over the other. Finally we briefly discuss the new diabetic drug classes and their influence on BP.

Depressor and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Metabolic and/or Hypertensive Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized, Prospective Study (DIAMOND Study)

Background

We compared the efficacy and safety of azilsartan to those of olmesartan in a prospective, randomized clinical trial.

Methods

Forty-four hypertensive patients who had coronary artery disease (CAD) were enrolled. We randomly assigned patients to changeover from their prior angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to either azilsartan or olmesartan, and followed the patients for 12 weeks.

Results

Office systolic blood pressure (SBP) in the azilsartan group was significantly decreased after 12 weeks. SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 12 weeks in the azilsartan group were significantly lower than those in the olmesartan group. The percentage of patients who reached the target BP at 12 weeks (78%) in the azilsartan group was significantly higher than that at 12 weeks (45%) in the olmesartan group. There were no significant changes in pentraxin-3, high-sensitively C-reactive protein or adiponectin in blood after 12 weeks in either group. Although serum levels of creatinine (Cr) in the azilsartan group significantly increased, these changes were within the respective normal range.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ability of azilsartan to reduce BP may be superior to that of prior ARBs with equivalent safety in hypertensive patients with CAD.

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.