Sustained blood pressure-lowering effect of aliskiren compared with telmisartan after a single missed dose

What should patients do if they miss a dose? A systematic review of patient information leaflets and summaries of product characteristics

Purpose

Medicines regulatory authorities advise that patient information leaflets (PILs) should provide specific advice on what actions to take if one or more doses are missed. We aimed to assess the content in this regard, of PILs and Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) of prescription only medicines (POMs) marketed in the UK.

Methods

PILs and SmPCs were accessed via the electronic Medicines Compendium. The following terms were used in the advanced search facility: miss(ed), omit(ted), adhere(d), delay(ed), forgot, forget, lapse. Identified documents were screened for instructions on missed doses which were categorised according to level of specificity, and cross-referenced to the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) grading of risk of harm from omitted and delayed medicines. Any supporting clinical or pharmacological evidence was identified from SmPCs.

Results

Two thousand two hundred eighty-four documents were identified from 7248 PILs and SmPCs relating to 1501 POMs. Seven hundred eighty-three (52%) POMs had SmPCs or PILs with no instructions on missed doses; 487 POMs (32%) included non-specific advice (e.g. “take as soon as possible”); 138 (9%) provided specific instructions; and 93 (6%) referred patients to seek medical advice. SmPCs for only 13/138 (9%) of those which included specific instructions provided any supporting clinical or pharmacological evidence. Instructions were absent for several medicines where the NPSA assessed that dose omissions may result in significant risk of harm.

Conclusions

Advice on missed doses is generally inadequate. Pharmaceutical companies and regulatory authorities should produce clear and concise instructions on what patients should do if they miss doses, with supporting evidence where necessary.

The effects of missed doses of amlodipine and losartan on blood pressure in older hypertensive patients

This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study compared the efficacy of amlodipine and losartan in an older hypertensive population, focusing on therapeutic coverage in the case of missed doses. Following a 4-week, single-blind, placebo washout period, 211 patients were randomly assigned to receive either 5 mg of amlodipine once daily or 50 mg of losartan once daily. Doses were doubled after 6 weeks of treatment if the diastolic blood pressure exceeded 90 mm Hg. After the 12-week treatment period, patients received the placebo for 2 days (drug holiday) to simulate two missed doses of antihypertensive medication. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted at the end of the placebo washout period (baseline), upon completion of the 12-week treatment period (steady state), and after the 2-day drug holiday. Amlodipine was more effective than losartan in reducing patients' 24-h ambulatory blood pressure at the steady-state sampling time. The increases in 24-h blood pressure during the drug holiday averaged 6±2/2±1 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the amlodipine group and 3±2/2±1 mm Hg (P<0.0001) in the losartan group. The rise in systolic pressure was greater in patients on amlodipine than in those on losartan (P<0.0001). For diastolic pressure, the changes did not differ. Owing to the lower pressure during treatment, patients in the amlodipine group remained at a significantly lower blood pressure level after the 2-day drug holiday. Amlodipine was more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure and in maintaining blood pressure control after two missed doses, and the difference was most significant for systolic blood pressure.

Effects of treatment withdrawal on brachial and central aortic pressure after direct renin inhibition or angiotensin receptor blockade

INTRODUCTION

Whilst sustained lowering of brachial systolic blood pressure (Br-SBP) and central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) have been demonstrated in patients with hypertension, effects of treatment withdrawal on these parameters have not been investigated. The ASSERTIVE study previously reported more sustained control of Br-SBP with aliskiren versus telmisartan in patients with hypertension, following 7-days treatment withdrawal. In this ASSERTIVE sub-study, we hypothesised that aliskiren would similarly exert more sustained control of CASP than telmisartan during treatment withdrawal.

METHODS

We investigated the effects of treatment withdrawal on both Br-SBP and CASP following 12-weeks treatment with either aliskiren (300 mg) or telmisartan (80 mg). Br-SBP and CASP were measured at the end of treatment, and at days 2 and 7 following treatment withdrawal in 303 patients (CASP randomised set).

RESULTS

Of the CASP randomised set, 94 patients completed CASP measurements at all time points (CASP completer set). After 7 days of treatment withdrawal, aliskiren demonstrated lesser increases in both Br-SBP and CASP than telmisartan; Br-SBP change: -2.0±1.6 vs. +5.6±1.7 mmHg, p = 0.001; CASP change: -0.4±1.6 vs. +4.6±1.7 mmHg, p = 0.041, n = 94. Similar findings were obtained for the CASP randomised set.

CONCLUSIONS

Following treatment withdrawal, aliskiren demonstrated more sustained control of both brachial and central SBP than telmisartan.

Effect of aliskiren, telmisartan and torsemide on cardiac dysfunction in l-nitro arginine methyl ester (l-NAME) induced hypertension in rats

Comparative study of cardio protective effect of aliskiren, telmisartan, and torsemide was carried out on l-nitro arginine methyl ester (l-NAME) induced hypertension in rats. The three drugs were given daily for 8 weeks simultaneously with l-NAME, with a control group for each drug and l-NAME. The degree of protection was assessed by measurement of systolic blood pressure and heart rate of animals every two weeks. At the end of the experimental period blood sampling was carried out for estimation of the level of NO2 (-)/NO3 (-). After which animals were sacrificed for heart dissection to detect collagen types I and III gene expression. Histopathological study was done to evaluate the extension of collagen deposits. The study revealed that the three drugs decreased blood pressure significantly compared to l-NAME. There was no significant difference between aliskiren and telmisartan in all measurements, but there was significant decrease in measurements of both aliskiren and telmisartan treated groups compared to torsemide starting from 4th week. There were insignificant changes in pulse rate values between the three l-NAME treated groups through the experiment. The three drugs significantly increased NO compared to l-NAME. Collagen I and III gene expression was significantly decreased by the three drugs but the highest percentage of inhibition was with telmisartan compared to l-NAME. Comparing the percentage inhibition of cardiac fibrosis, there was insignificant difference between telmisartan and torsemide treated groups while both were superior to aliskiren. In conclusion, further experimental studies are required to elucidate the potential cardioprotective mechanisms of aliskiren, telmisartan and torsemide, and assess their efficacy in treatment of heart failure.

Effects of exercise on central aortic pressure before and after treatment with renin-angiotensin system blockade in patients with hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Brachial blood pressure increases with exercise and an excessive rise predicts increased cardiovascular risk. Measurement of brachial blood pressure alone may exaggerate the true blood pressure elevation due to exercise-induced change to pressure amplification. Whether blood pressure-lowering treatment modulates pressure amplification during exercise is unknown.

METHODS

Thirty-two participants with stage 1-2 hypertension (mean age 59.2 years) received eight weeks' blood pressure lowering with either aliskiren (300mg, n=16) or valsartan (320mg, n=16). Brachial and central aortic pressure (CASP) were measured non-invasively during treadmill exercise (Bruce protocol) at baseline, after eight weeks' treatment and 48 hours following treatment withdrawal.

RESULTS

The rise in brachial blood pressure with exercise exceeded the rise in CASP, indicative of enhanced pressure amplification. Eight weeks' treatment elicited similar reductions in brachial blood pressure and CASP which did not differ between rest and peak exercise (p>0.05). The exercise-induced increase in systolic pressure amplification did not differ between baseline and following eight weeks' treatment (p>0.05). These effects remained unchanged following treatment withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

Blood pressure lowering does not directly influence the relationship between aortic and brachial pressure either at rest or during exercise in patients with hypertension, other than through proportionate lowering of both pressures. These effects remained unchanged 48 hours after a simulated missed medication dose.

Effects of aliskiren- and ramipril-based treatment on central aortic blood pressure in elderly with systolic hypertension: a substudy of AGELESS

BACKGROUND

Systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension in elderly patients. There is increasing evidence that measurement of central aortic pressure (CAP) better accounts for cardiovascular risk than brachial blood pressure (BP). The Aliskiren for GEriatric LowEring of SyStolic hypertension (AGELESS) study in elderly patients with systolic hypertension showed that aliskiren-based therapy provided greater reductions in peripheral BP than ramipril-based therapy over 12 and 36 weeks of treatment. Here, we present CAP results in a substudy of elderly patients from the AGELESS study.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of a 36-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled, optional-titration study in patients ≥65 years of age with systolic BP ≥140 mmHg. Changes in both central and peripheral BP and pulse pressure (PP) and changes in systolic and PP amplification ratios from baseline to the week 36 end point with aliskiren-based versus ramipril-based therapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 901 patients randomized in the overall study, 154 patients (aliskiren, n=78; ramipril, n=76) had CAP data. Numerically comparable reductions were seen for central aortic systolic pressure (CASP) in aliskiren-based therapy (baseline: 143.7±15.0; week 36: -20.3±16.2) compared with ramipril-based therapy (baseline: 147.9±11.9; week 36: -20.7±14.6). However, for the change in central aortic diastolic pressure, the least squares mean between-treatment difference (-3.6 mmHg [95% confidence interval, -6.76, -0.43; P=0.0263]) was in favor of aliskiren, while the other changes were comparable between the two groups with a trend in favor of aliskiren for CASP as well (-2.6 mmHg [95% confidence interval, -7.38, 2.19; P=0.2855)]. Correlation coefficients for change from baseline between CASP and systolic BP and between central aortic pulse pressure and PP (r=0.8, P<0.0001) were highly significant.

CONCLUSION

Aliskiren-based therapy provides comparable reductions in CASP to ramipril-based therapy. Although the results did not reach statistical significance, these findings, when coupled with those of the main study, suggest that aliskiren may offer effective control of central BP in elderly patients with systolic hypertension and may be a good alternative to ramipril.