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

A personal history of research on hypertension From an encounter with hypertension to the development of hypertension practice based on out-of-clinic blood pressure measurements

In the 1970s, many people had severe hypertension and related cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases; however, antihypertensive treatments were not available at the time. The author encountered such conditions during the initial exposure to medicine. The author subsequently entered the field of hypertension medicine to prevent such conditions and engaged in hypertension research for more than 50 years. The author's central interest was the physiological and clinical aspects of blood pressure (BP) variability. Out-of-clinic BP measurements were the focus of clinical research. It was anticipated that self-measurement of BP at home (HBP) would improve medical practice surrounding hypertension. To establish evidence-based hypertension medicine, the Ohasama study (an epidemiology based on HBP) was conducted. The study provided firm evidence of the clinical significance of HBP and diagnostic criteria for hypertension and normotension. To establish target HBP levels for antihypertensive therapy, the Hypertension Objective treatment based on Measurement by Electrical Devices of Blood Pressure (HOMED-BP) study (a prospective intervention study) was also conducted. Application of HBP measurements expanded to obstetric, clinical pharmacology, pathophysiology, and genetic studies. During these studies, crucial information on the clinical significance of BP variability (such as circadian and day-by-day variation of BP, nocturnal BP, white-coat hypertension, and masked hypertension) was established. Finally, the author described the priority of HBP over clinic-measured BP for the diagnosis of hypertension in the 2014 Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines. In this article, the author's history of hypertension research, from the first encounter with hypertension to the construction of guidelines on hypertension, is reviewed.

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.

Combination therapy of midodrine and droxidopa for refractory hypotension in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction per a pharmacist's proposal: a case report

Background

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) are often treated using many diuretics for symptom relief; however, diuretic use may have to continue despite hypotension development in these patients. Here, we present a case of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which is defined as ejection fraction ≥50% in CHF, and refractory hypotension, which was treated with midodrine and droxidopa to normalize blood pressure.

Case presentation

The patient was a 62-year-old man with a history of HFpEF due to mitral regurgitation and complaints of dyspnea on exertion. He had been prescribed multiple medications at an outpatient clinic for CHF management, including azosemide 60 mg/day, bisoprolol 2.5 mg/day, enalapril 2.5 mg/day, spironolactone 50 mg/day, and tolvaptan 15 mg/day. The systolic blood pressure (SBP) of the patient remained at 70–80 mmHg because the use of the diuretic could not be reduced or discontinued owing to edema and weight gain. He was hospitalized for the exacerbation of CHF. Although midodrine 8 mg/day was administered to improve hypotension, the SBP of the patient increased only up to 90 mmHg. On the 35th day after hospitalization, the urine volume decreased significantly (< 100 mL/day) due to hypotension. When droxidopa 200 mg/day replaced intravenous noradrenaline on the 47th day, the SBP remained at 100–120 mmHg and the urine volume increased.

Conclusions

Oral combination treatment with midodrine and droxidopa might contribute to the maintenance of blood pressure and diuretic activity in HFpEF patients with refractory hypotension. However, further long-term studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of this combination therapy for patients with HFpEF are needed.

Antihypertensive drug effects according to the pretreatment self-measured home blood pressure: the HOMED-BP study

OBJECTIVES

To clarify whether or not the antihypertensive drug effect is proportional to the baseline pretreatment self-measured home blood pressure (HBP) in accordance with the law of initial value (Wilder's law).

DESIGN

A post-hoc analysis of a multicentre clinical trial.

SETTING

Outpatients across Japan with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

PARTICIPANTS

Among 3518 randomised participants, 2423 who self-measured HBP during the pretreatment drug-free period (10-28 days after starting fixed-dose antihypertensive monotherapy) with a mean 7.0 years follow-up were eligible.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We analysed individual HBP readings during pretreatment and monotherapy.

RESULTS

The day-to-day HBP during both the pretreatment period and monotherapy period remains almost the same throughout each period; the results were consistent, regardless of the pretreatment HBP. Following monotherapy, the reduction in the HBP increased by 2.2 mm Hg (95% CI: 1.8 to 2.5 mm Hg) per 10 mm Hg pretreatment HBP increase, up to 11.0 mm Hg (95% CI: 9.9 to 12.0 mm Hg) among patients with an HBP ≥165 mm Hg during pretreatment. Among the 1005 patients receiving low-dose monotherapy (defined daily dose: 0.5 units), the reduction peaked at 8.9-9.1 mm Hg in those with pretreatment HBP 155-164 mm Hg and ≥165 mm Hg (p=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

According to Wilder's law, the HBP reduction due to fixed-dose monotherapy was proportional to the pretreatment HBP without any regression to the mean phenomenon. With low-dose antihypertensive drugs, however, the HBP reduction peaked in patients with a high pretreatment HBP, indicating the need for such patients to receive a sufficient amount of antihypertensive drug medication at the initial treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr), Unique identifier: C000000137.

Exploring a New Natural Treating Agent for Primary Hypertension: Recent Findings and Forthcoming Perspectives

Primary hypertension describes abnormally-high systolic/diastolic blood pressure in a resting condition caused by various genetic or environmental risk factors. Remarkably, severe complications, such as ischemic cardiovascular disease, stroke, and chronic renal disease have led to primary hypertension becoming a huge burden for almost one-third of the total population. Medication is the major regimen for treating primary hypertension; however, recent medications may have adverse effects that attenuate energy levels. Hence, the search for new hypotensive agents from folk or traditional medicine may be fruitful in the discovery and development of new drugs. This review assembles recent findings for natural antihypertensive agents, extracts, or decoctions published in PubMed, and provides insights into the search for new hypotensive compounds based on blood-pressure regulating mechanisms, including the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the sympathetic/adrenergic receptor/calcium channel system.

Losartan has no additive effect on the response to heavy-resistance exercise in human elderly skeletal muscle

Our purpose here was to investigate the potential of blocking the angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) on the hypertrophy response of elderly human skeletal muscle to 4 mo of heavy-resistance exercise training. Fifty-eight healthy elderly men (+65 yr) were randomized into three groups, consuming either AT1R blocker (losartan, 100 mg/day) or placebo for 4 mo. Two groups performed resistance training (RT) and were treated with either losartan or placebo, and one group did not train but was treated with losartan. Quadriceps muscle biopsies, MR scans, and strength tests were performed at baseline and after 8 and 16 wk. Biopsies were sectioned for immunohistochemistry to determine the number of satellite cells, capillaries, fiber type distribution, and fiber area. Gene expression levels of myostatin, connective tissue, and myogenic signaling pathways were determined by real-time RT-PCR. Four months of heavy-resistance training led in both training groups to expected improvements in quadriceps (∼3-4%) and vastus lateralis (∼5-6%), cross-sectional area, and type II fiber area (∼10-18%), as well as dynamic (∼13%) and isometric (∼19%) quadriceps peak force, but with absolutely no effect of losartan on these outcomes. Furthermore, no changes were seen in satellite cell number with training, and most gene targets failed to show any changes induced by training or losartan treatment. We conclude that there does not appear to be any effect of AT1R blocking in elderly men during 4 mo of resistance training. Therefore, we do not find any support for using AT1R blockers for promoting muscle adaptation to training in humans. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Animal studies have suggested that blocking angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1R) enhances muscle regeneration and prevents disuse atrophy, but studies in humans are limited. Focusing on hypertrophy, satellite cells, and gene expression, we found that AT1R blocking did not result in any greater responses with 4 mo of resistance training. These results do not support previous findings and question the value of blocking AT1R in the context of preserving aging human muscle.

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.

Improvement of Diurnal Blood Pressure Variation by Azilsartan

Background

Azilsartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker with a potent antihypertensive effect.

Methods

In a multicenter, prospective, open-label study, 265 patients with poor blood pressure control despite treatment with other angiotensin II receptor blockers were switched to 20 mg/day of azilsartan (patients on standard dosages) or 40 mg/day of azilsartan (patients on high dosages).

Results

Blood pressure was 149/83 mm Hg before switching and was significantly reduced from 1 month after switching until final assessment (132/76 mm Hg, P < 0.001). The pulse rate was 72/min before switching and increased significantly from 3 months after switching until final assessment (74/min, P < 0.005). A significant decrease of home morning systolic and diastolic pressure was observed from 1 and 3 months, respectively. Home morning blood pressure was 143/82 mm Hg before switching and 130/76 mm Hg at final assessment (P < 0.01). The morning-evening difference of systolic blood pressure decreased from 14.6 to 6.6 mm Hg after switching (P = 0.09). The estimated glomerular filtration rate was significantly decreased at 3, 6, and 12 months after switching, and serum uric acid was significantly increased at 12 months. No serious adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

Azilsartan significantly reduced the blood pressure and decreased diurnal variation in patients responding poorly to other angiotensin II receptor blockers.

The effects of increasing calcium channel blocker dose vs. adding a diuretic to treatment regimens for patients with uncontrolled hypertension

In patients with insufficient blood pressure (BP) control, despite using a combination regimen containing an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker (CCB), whether a greater dose of CCB or adding a diuretic is more effective at lowering BP remains unclear. We conducted a multicenter randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of switching from the daily administration of a single-pill fixed-dose combination of irbesartan (100 mg) and amlodipine (5 mg) to irbesartan (100 mg) with an increased dose of amlodipine (10 mg) (HD group, n=62) or irbesartan (100 mg) and amlodipine (5 mg) with 1 mg of indapamide (D group, n=63) in patients with poorly controlled hypertension. BP measured at home was monitored by a physician using a telemonitoring system. Between the HD and D groups, no significant differences were observed in morning home BP changes (mean reduction of systolic/diastolic BP, 1.7/0.9 mmHg; 95% confidence intervals, -2.4 to 5.7/-1.4 to 3.2; P=0.19/0.37), achievement rate of target BP (45.2% vs. 42.9%, P=0.80), BP variability independent of the mean (P⩾0.74), other variability indices (P⩾0.55) and time to stabilization, which was calculated using a fitted analysis (13.1 days vs. 11.4 days, P=0.99). Although a significant increase in serum uric acid was observed in the D group (P<0.0001), neither clinically relevant abnormal laboratory test results nor critical BP changes were observed throughout the trial period. Both antihypertensive drug combination strategies were effective treatment options. Further investigation is required to determine the appropriate use of both therapies based on the various pathologies associated with hypertension.