The Impact of Azilsartan Medoxomil Treatment (Capsule Formulation) at Doses Ranging From 10 to 80 mg: Significant, Rapid Reductions in Clinic Diastolic and Systolic Blood Pressure

Efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers for nocturnal blood pressure reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) is correlated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events and is an important predictor of cardiovascular death in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

Nocturnal BP control is of great importance for cardiovascular risk reduction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to explore the efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for nocturnal BP reduction in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

METHODS

PICOS design structure was used to formulate the data extraction. All statistical calculations and analyses were performed with R.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven studies with 13,314 participants were included. The overall analysis indicated that nocturnal BP drop varied considerably among different ARBs. Allisartan (13.04 [95% CI (-18.41, -7.68)] mmHg), olmesartan (11.67 [95% CI (-14.12, -9.21)] mmHg), telmisartan (11.11 [95% CI (-12.12, -10.11)] mmHg) were associated with greater reduction in nocturnal systolic BP. In the aspect of the nocturnal-diurnal BP drop ratio, only allisartan was greater than 1. While, the variation tendency of last 4-6 h ambulatory BP was basically consistent with nocturnal BP. Additionally, allisartan showed improvement effect in the proportion of patients with dipping BP pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that for patients with mild to moderate hypertension, allisartan, olmesartan and telmisartan have more advantages in nocturnal BP reduction among the ARBs, while allisartan can reduce nighttime BP more than daytime BP and improve the dipping pattern.

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.

[Changing Concepts About Optimal Target Blood Pressure and the Therapeutic Advantages of Azilsartan for Achieving it]

The article discusses current issues of the treatment of arterial hypertension. According to presented data, so-called therapeutic nihilism is becoming one of the main barriers to achieving target blood pressure (BP). This nihilism is that despite evidence of the effectiveness of achieving lower BP values, practitioners do not intensify antihypertensive therapy sufficiently to achieve such values. The article specially addresses new criteria for the effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy, which reflect the therapy sustainability. The most commonly used indicator is the duration of the period, during which systolic BP remains in the therapeutic range. The prognostic significance of such indicators is discussed. In these conditions, it is very important to use the most effective antihypertensive drugs for initial antihypertensive therapy, including as a part of combination therapy. This tactic provides more frequent achievement of BP goals without the need for dose adjustment. In this regard, a systematic review was performed, which included sufficiently large randomized studies of the antihypertensive effectiveness of azilsartan medoxomil. This systematic review will provide comprehensive information on a possible role of using the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan as a basic drug for the treatment of a wide range of patients with high BP. Most of the studies included in the systematic review assessed the effectiveness of combination therapy including azilsartan.

Is the newest angiotensin-receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Angiotensin‐receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin‐receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin‐receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6‐12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20‐80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20‐40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160‐320 mg), but not candesartan (8‐16 mg), losartan (50‐100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24‐hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin‐receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.

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.

A randomized trial of the efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil combined with chlorthalidone

INTRODUCTION

We measured the effects of azilsartan medoxomil co-administered with chlorthalidone 25 mg in stage 2 hypertension.

METHODS

Azilsartan medoxomil 40 or 80 mg plus chlorthalidone were compared with placebo plus chlorthalidone once daily in a randomized, double-blind, 6-week trial. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

RESULTS

Patients ( N=551; mean age 59 years; 51.7% men) were randomly assigned to placebo plus chlorthalidone ( n=184), azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg plus chlorthalidone ( n=185), or azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg plus chlorthalidone ( n=182). Baseline systolic blood pressures were similar among groups. After 6 weeks, least squares mean (standard error) reductions with azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg and 80 mg plus chlorthalidone were similar in magnitude (-31.7 (1.0) and -31.3 (1.0) mmHg, respectively), but greater than chlorthalidone alone (-15.9 (1.0) mmHg). Hypotension and serum creatinine elevations were more frequent with azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone than chlorthalidone alone (reversed with drug discontinuation). Notably, plasma potassium reduction of 0.43 meq/L with chlorthalidone was attenuated to 0.13 and 0.05 meq/L by azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg and 80 mg, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg or 80 mg plus chlorthalidone 25 mg was significantly more efficacious than chlorthalidone alone in reducing blood pressure and was well tolerated. Clinicaltrial.gov , https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00591773 , NCT00591773.

Single-Center Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of the Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist Azilsartan Medoxomil in Mild to Moderate Hepatic Impairment

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL‐M) is a potent angiotensin II receptor blocker that decreases blood pressure in a dose‐dependent manner. It is a prodrug that is not detected in blood after its oral administration because of its rapid hydrolysis to the active moiety, azilsartan (AZL). AZL undergoes further metabolism to the major metabolite, M‐II, and minor metabolites. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of mild to moderate hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of AZL and its major metabolite. This was a single‐center, open‐label, phase 1 parallel‐group study that examined the single‐dose (day 1) and multiple‐dose (days 4–8) — 40 mg — pharmacokinetics of AZL and M‐II in 16 subjects with mild and moderate hepatic impairment by Child‐Pugh classification (n = 8 per group) and subjects (n = 16) matched based on age, sex, race, weight, and smoking status. Mild or moderate hepatic impairment did not cause clinically meaningful increases in exposure to AZL and M‐II. Mild or moderate hepatic impairment had no clinically meaningful effect on the plasma protein binding of AZL and M‐II. Single and multiple doses of AZL‐M 40 mg were well tolerated in all subject groups. Based on the pharmacokinetic and tolerability findings, no dose adjustment of AZL‐M is required for subjects with mild and moderate hepatic impairment.