Azilsartan compared to ACE inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy: one-year outcomes of the observational EARLY registry

[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.

RSSDI Guidelines for the management of hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus

Hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) are two of the leading lifestyle diseases in the Indian and South Asian populations that often co-exist due to overlapping pathophysiological factors. Obesity, insulin resistance, inflammation, and oxidative stress are thought to be some common pathways. Up to 50% of hypertensive cases in India are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which defines the need for a comprehensive guideline for managing hypertension in diabetic patients. These RSSDI guidelines have been formulated based on consultation with expert endocrinologists in India and Southeast Asia, acknowledging the needs of the Indian population. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and office and home-based blood pressure (BP) monitoring are recommended for the early analysis of risks. Cardiovascular risks, end-organ damage, and renal disorders are the primary complications associated with diabetic hypertension that needs to be managed with the help of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. The non-pharmacological interventions include the nutrition education of the patient to reduce the intake of salt, sodium, and trans fats and increase the consumption of nuts, fresh fruits, vegetables, and potassium-rich foods. It is also recommended to initiate 50 to 60 min of exercise three to four times a week since physical activity has shown to be more beneficial for hypertension control in Indian patients than dietary modulation. For the pharmacological management of hypertension in patients with T2DM, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended as the first line of therapy, demonstrating their superiority over other antihypertensive agents such as ACEi. However, most of the global hypertension guidelines recommend initiation with combination therapy to achieve better BP control in most patients and to reduce the risk of adverse events. For combination therapy, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are recommended to be administered along with ARBs instead of beta-blockers or diuretics to avoid the risk of cardiovascular events and hyperglycaemia. Among the CCBs, novel molecules (e.g. cilnidipine) are recommended in combination with ARBs for better cardiovascular and reno-protection in diabetic hypertensive patients.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in the Management of Hypertension: A Real-World Perspective and Current Recommendations

Hypertension represents a major common cardiovascular risk factor. Optimal control of high blood pressure levels is recommended to reduce the global burden of hypertensive-mediated organ damage and cardiovascular (CV) events. Among the first-line drugs recommended in international guidelines, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists [angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)] have long represented a rational, effective, and safe anti-hypertensive pharmacological strategy. In fact, current US and European guidelines recommend ACEi and ARBs as a suitable first choice for hypertension treatment together with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide diuretics. Different studies have demonstrated that ARBs and ACEi exert a comparable effect in lowering blood pressure levels. However, ARBs are characterized by better pharmacological tolerability. Most importantly, the clinical evidence supports a relevant protective role of ARBs toward the CV and renal damage development, as well as the occurrence of major adverse CV events, in hypertensive patients. Moreover, a neutral metabolic effect has been reported upon ARBs administration, in contrast to other antihypertensive agents, such as beta-blockers and diuretics. These properties highlight the use of ARBs as an excellent pharmacological strategy to manage hypertension and its dangerous consequences. The present review article summarizes the available evidence regarding the beneficial effects and current recommendations of ARBs in hypertension. The specific properties performed by these agents in various clinical subsets are discussed, also including an overview of their implications for the current COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

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.

Evaluating the Safety and Tolerability of Azilsartan Medoxomil Alone or in Combination With Chlorthalidone in the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Azilsartan medoxomil (AZM) is the newest representative in the class of angiotensin receptor blockers. Azilsartan medoxomil in combination with the older diuretic chlorthalidone (CLD) in fixed-doses of AZM/CLD 40/12.5 mg and 40/25 mg has been approved by the FDA for use in patients with essential hypertension. We sought to evaluate the safety and tolerability of AZL-M alone and in combination with CLD.

METHODS

We conducted a search in PubMed using the keywords 'azilsartan', 'azilsartan medoxomil', 'chlorthalidone, 'safety', 'tolerability' in order to find scientific studies evaluating the safety of these drugs. We included studies reporting side effects of these drugs, alone or in combination, in comparison to placebo or other antihypertensive medications. For our systematic review, we followed the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Azilsartan medoxomil is a potent antihypertensive medicine with an acceptable safety profile. The most commonly reported adverse events are dizziness, headache, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection and urinary tract infection. Chlorthalidone is more potent and has a considerably longer duration of action than the most commonly prescribed diuretic hydrochlorothiazide. Safety and tolerability between these two drugs are similar except higher serum uric acid and lower potassium levels with chlorthalidone.

CONCLUSION

The combination of azilsartan medoxomil with chlorthalidone has been shown to be effective in lowering blood pressure with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. This fixeddose combination is an attractive treatment option for hypertension management.

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.

Azilsartan: Current Evidence and Perspectives in Management of Hypertension

Hypertension continues to be global pandemic with huge mortality, morbidity, and financial burden on the health system. Unfortunately, most patients with hypertension would eventually require two or more drugs in combination to achieve their target blood pressure (BP). To this end, emergence of more potent antihypertensive drugs is a welcome sign. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are cornerstones of hypertension management in daily practice. Among all ARBs, azilsartan is proven to be more potent in most of the head-to-head trials till date. Azilsartan is the latest ARB approved for hypertension with greater potency and minimal side effects. This review highlights the role of azilsartan in management of hypertension in the current era.

Use of azilsartan medoxomil in the primary-care setting in Germany: A real-world evidence study

Objective: To evaluate azilsartan medoxomil (AZM) (Edarbi^®) utilization patterns in the primary-care setting in Germany. Materials and methods: This is a retrospective cohort study among patients receiving AZM in the primary-care setting in Germany. Prescription patterns – including patient demographics, off-label use, use in specific populations, concomitant use of other antihypertensive drugs, and drugs potentially causing interactions with AZM – were analyzed in two periods (01/2012 – 12/2013 and 01/2014 – 11/2016) using the primary-care physician panel of German IMS^® Disease Analyzer, a patient-level electronic medical records database. Results: In total, 852 of 1,159 (74%) and 696 of 811 (86%) patients met the inclusion criteria for both periods, respectively. Approximately 25% of patients were aged ≥ 75 years; 1 patient was < 18 years old; ~ 50% were females. AZM was prescribed for the approved indication of essential hypertension in 83% and 68% of patients in the first and second period, while indication was missing in 12% and 26% of patients, respectively. AZM was coprescribed on the same day with other antihypertensive drugs in 23% (first period) and 37% (second period) of patients. Drugs that might cause an interaction with AZM were coprescribed on the same day in 3% of patients in both periods; overlapping prescription periods were detected in 14% (first period) and 8% (second period) of patients. Coprescription of AZM with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (2%) or aliskiren (< 1%) on the same day was rare in both periods. Overlapping prescription periods with AZM decreased from 20 to 6% for ACE inhibitors and from 8 to 1% for aliskiren. Conclusion: Findings from this real-world evidence study demonstrate that AZM was generally utilized for approved indication and in accordance with the summary of product characteristics recommendations.

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.

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.

Advances in understanding the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in blood pressure control and recent pivotal trials of RAAS blockade in heart failure and diabetic nephropathy

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a fundamental role in the physiology of blood pressure control and the pathophysiology of hypertension (HTN) with effects on vascular tone, sodium retention, oxidative stress, fibrosis, sympathetic tone, and inflammation. Fortunately, RAAS blocking agents have been available to treat HTN since the 1970s and newer medications are being developed. In this review, we will (1) examine new anti-hypertensive medications affecting the RAAS, (2) evaluate recent studies that help provide a better understanding of which patients may be more likely to benefit from RAAS blockade, and (3) review three recent pivotal randomized trials that involve newer RAAS blocking agents and inform clinical practice.

A Pilot Study on the Effect of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers on Platelet Aggregation in Hypertensive Patients- A Prospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Thrombosis is an invariable component contributing to cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension. One of the risk factors of cardiovascular disease is increased platelet activity. One among the widely used antihypertensive agents are Angiotensin II type 1 Receptor Blockers (ARBs). Even though there are many studies involving antihypertensive agents, their antithrombotic properties remain elusive and not fully characterized.

AIM

To evaluate the anti-aggregatory effect of ARBs on platelets in-vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 subjects were included in this observational pilot study conducted in the medicine out patient department of JJM Hospital, Davanagere, Karnataka, India. Among them, 30 patients with essential hypertension attending Medicine OPD of a tertiary care hospital, who were on ARB for at least one month, were enrolled into study group. The control group consisted of 30 normotensive subjects who were not on any drug affecting platelet function. The Bleeding Time (BT) was evaluated for both the groups using Duke method of BT estimation. Data was analysed using SPSS software version 20. The test group was compared with control group using student's unpaired t-test.

RESULTS

The mean BT of study group was 2.488 minutes ± 0.0361 Standard Error of Mean (SEM) and that of control group was 1.998 minutes ± 0.0362 SEM. The result was statistically significant (p<0.001). The average duration of treatment was 2.933 years.

CONCLUSION

ARB have antiplatelet activity. Increase in BT in ARB group when compared with that of control group is a reflection of antiplatelet activity.

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.