Effect of azilsartan versus candesartan on morning blood pressure surges in Japanese patients with essential hypertension

Clinical studies on pharmacological treatment of hypertension in Japan

Differences in the epidemiology and phenotypes of hypertension in Japan compared with Western countries mean that optimal approaches to the pharmacological management of hypertension should be based on local data. Fortunately, there is a large body of evidence from studies conducted in Japanese populations to inform guidelines and treatment decisions. This article highlights treatment recommendations and BP targets for Japanese patients with hypertension, and summarizes key literature supporting these recommendations. The latest version of the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) guidelines is consistent with US and European guidelines in recommending that the general BP target should be <130/80 mmHg for office blood pressure (BP) and <125/75 mmHg for home BP. There is good local evidence to support these targets. The JSH guidelines also strongly recommend that antihypertensive therapy is managed and monitored based on home BP, due to the closer association of this parameter with cardiovascular risk compared with office BP. Japan is a leader in out-of-office BP research, meaning that there is good evidence for the Japanese recommendations. Key features of antihypertensive agents for use in Japanese patients with hypertension include the ability to reduce stroke risk provide antihypertensive efficacy throughout the 24-h dosing period. Calcium channel blockers appear to be particularly effective in Asian populations, and are the most commonly prescribed agents in Japan. Again consistent with international recommendations, antihypertensive therapy should be started with a combination of agents to maximize the chances of achieving target BP.

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.

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.

Morning blood pressure surge: pathophysiology, clinical relevance and therapeutic aspects

Morning hours are the period of the day characterized by the highest incidence of major cardiovascular events including myocardial infarction, sudden death or stroke. They are also characterized by important neurohormonal changes, in particular, the activation of sympathetic nervous system which usually leads to a rapid increase in blood pressure (BP), known as morning blood pressure surge (MBPS). It was hypothesized that excessive MBPS may be causally involved in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular events occurring in the morning by inducing hemodynamic stress. A number of studies support an independent relationship of MBPS with organ damage, cerebrovascular complications and mortality, although some heterogeneity exists in the available evidence. This may be due to ethnic differences, methodological issues and the confounding relationship of MBPS with other features of 24-hour BP profile, such as nocturnal dipping or BP variability. Several studies are also available dealing with treatment effects on MBPS and indicating the importance of long-acting antihypertensive drugs in this regard. This paper provides an overview of pathophysiologic, methodological, prognostic and therapeutic aspects related to MBPS.

Utility of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the management of hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, affecting nearly 80 million individuals in the United States alone. Accurate measurement of blood pressure (BP) is the crucial first step to reduce the associated cardiovascular risk of hypertension. For decades, clinicians have relied on office BP measurements for the diagnosis and subsequent management of hypertension. However, it has been clearly demonstrated that ambulatory BP measurements are a better predictor of cardiovascular risk and can provide clinicians with important additional information to improve BP control and reduce cardiovascular risk. This article reviews the available data and provides clinical insights into the use of ambulatory BP monitoring for the management of hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ambulatory BP monitoring is uniquely capable of identifying patients with white-coat hypertension (WCH), masked hypertension and abnormal nocturnal BP profiles. Recently, ambulatory BP data have demonstrated the negative impact of WCH on right ventricular function, a greater prevalence of masked hypertension than previously recognized and the detrimental impact of nocturnal hypertension even in controlled hypertension.

SUMMARY

Ambulatory BP monitoring provides clinicians with the most comprehensive evaluation of hypertension and the ability to define individual BP phenotypes. Hence, these out-of-office measurements can be utilized to improve hypertension control, translating into a reduction of cardiovascular events.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers following intravenous nicardipine administration to lower blood pressure in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH), intravenous nicardipine is primarily used to lower blood pressure (BP). However, there are few studies investigating the role of oral antihypertensives administered after intravenous nicardipine to prevent BP from rising. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may be beneficial in HICH patients not only as antihypertensives but also by lowering plasma catecholamine levels. A prospective randomized study was conducted between January 2015 and March 2016 to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of two ARBs (azilsartan vs. candesartan) following intravenous nicardipine administration on BP reduction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty conscious HICH patients presenting within 6 h of symptom onset were enrolled (15 in each arm). After administering intravenous nicardipine for 24-48 h, the patients were randomized either to the azilsartan (20 mg) arm or to the candesartan (8 mg) arm. Frequency of hematoma expansion, 30-day modified Rankin scale, and temporal profiles of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and plasma norepinephrine/aldosterone were compared.

RESULTS

Substantial hematoma expansion occurred in two (13%) azilsartan patients and in one (7%) candesartan patient (P=1.00). SBPs were maintained at lower than 140±20 mmHg in both arms. Neither SBPs nor plasma norepinephrine/aldosterone levels differed significantly. All 30 patients had 30-day modified Rankin scale scores of 1-2.

CONCLUSION

Administration of ARBs following intravenous nicardipine effectively prevented BP from rising in HICH patients. However, whether BP should be strictly managed after 24 h of symptom onset should be addressed in future studies focusing not only on neurologic but also on cardiovascular and renal functions of HICH patients.

Azilsartan Improves Salt Sensitivity by Modulating the Proximal Tubular Na+-H+ Exchanger-3 in Mice

A potent angiotensin II type-1 receptor blocker, azilsartan, has been reported to reduce blood pressure more effectively than candesartan. Interestingly, azilsartan can also restore the circadian rhythm of blood pressure. We hypothesized that azilsartan could also improve salt sensitivity; thus, we examined the effect of azilsartan on sodium handling in renal tubules. Subtotal nephrectomized C57BL/6 mice received azilsartan (1.0 mg/kg/day), candesartan (0.3 mg/kg/day), or vehicle via the oral route in conjunction with a normal- (0.3%) or high-salt (8.0%) diet. Two weeks later, the azilsartan group showed significantly lower blood pressure during the light period than the candesartan and vehicle groups (azilsartan: 103.1 ± 1.0; candesartan: 111.7 ± 2.7; vehicle: 125.5 ± 2.5 mmHg; P < 0.05; azilsartan or candesartan vs. vehicle). The azilsartan group also showed higher urinary fractional excretion of sodium during the dark period than the candesartan and vehicle groups (azilsartan: 21.37 ± 3.69%; candesartan: 14.17 ± 1.42%; vehicle: 13.85 ± 5.30%; P < 0.05 azilsartan vs. candesartan or vehicle). A pressure—natriuresis curve demonstrated that azilsartan treatment restored salt sensitivity. Immunofluorescence and western blotting showed lower levels of Na⁺-H⁺ exchanger-3 (NHE3) protein (the major sodium transporter in renal proximal tubules) in the azilsartan group, but not in the candesartan or vehicle groups. However, azilsartan did not affect NHE3 transcription levels. Interestingly, we did not observe increased expression of downstream sodium transporters, which would have compensated for the increased flow of sodium and water due to non-absorption by NHE3. We also confirmed the mechanism stated above using cultured opossum kidney proximal tubular cells. Results revealed that a proteasomal inhibitor (but not a lysosomal inhibitor) blocked the azilsartan-induced decrease in NHE3 protein expression, suggesting that azilsartan increases NHE3 ubiquitination. In conclusion, azilsartan (but not candesartan) improved salt sensitivity possibly by decreasing NHE3 expression via ubiquitin—proteasomal degradation.