Effect of Fimasartan versus Valsartan and Olmesartan on Office and Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Korean Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Essential Hypertension: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Control, Three-Parallel Group, Forced Titration, Multicenter, Phase IV Study (Fimasartan Achieving Systolic Blood Pressure Target (FAST) Study)

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.

Effect of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Dose in Myocardial Infarction With Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function

ABSTRACT

There have been few studies of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) dose in myocardial infarction (MI) with preserved left ventricular (LV) systolic function. We evaluated the association of ARB dose with clinical outcomes after MI with preserved LV systolic function. We used MI multicenter registry. Six months after discharge, the ARB dose was indexed to the target ARB doses used in randomized clinical trials and grouped as >0%-25% (n = 2333), >25% of the target dose (n = 1204), and no ARB (n = 1263). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or MI. Univariate analysis showed that mortality of those with any ARB dose was lower than those without ARB therapy. After multivariable adjustment, patients receiving >25% of target dose had a similar risk of cardiac death or MI compared with those receiving ≤25% or no ARB [hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.33; HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.08, respectively]. Propensity score analysis also demonstrated that patients with >25% dose had no difference in primary endpoint compared with those ≤25% dose or the no ARB group (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79-1.33; HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14, respectively). The present study demonstrates that patients treated with >25% of target ARB dose do not have better clinical outcomes than those treated with ≤25% of target ARB dose or those with no ARB dose in MI patients with preserved LV systolic function.

Comparison Between Fimasartan Versus Other Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure After Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUNDS

Fimasartan is the most recently developed, potent, and long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). However, data are limited regarding treatment effects of fimasartan in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

Between 2010 and 2016, patients who underwent coronary revascularization for myocardial infarction (MI) with heart failure and prescription of ARB at hospital discharge were enrolled from the Korean nationwide medical insurance data. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (candesartan, valsartan, losartan, telmisartan, olmesartan, and irbesartan). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke.

RESULTS

Of 2,802 eligible patients, fimasartan was prescribed to 124 patients (4.4%). During a median follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-3.9), 613 events of the primary outcome occurred. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-1.45). Compared with patients receiving other ARBs, those receiving fimasartan had comparable incidence of all-cause death (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30-1.63), recurrent MI (adjusted HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.49-3.34), hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27-1.84), and stroke (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.18-1.96).

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide cohort, fimasartan, compared with other ARBs, had comparable treatment effects for a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke in patients with heart failure after MI.

Blood Pressure-Lowering Effect of Fimasartan Versus Comparators: A Cross-Inference With a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Through a Quality Management System

PURPOSE

Fimasartan, one of the newest angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) available worldwide, has been investigated extensively since its initial development. Our study group conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fimasartan and comparators for their blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect. Moreover, we employed a cross-inference (frequentist and Bayesian inference) system, which has never been used in the medical field, to confirm the results of our study. In addition, a quality management system was integrated throughout the study for data quality.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalKey, and ClinicalTrial.gov were searched for RCT studies from March 1998 to March 2022. In each study, the mean differences (MD^s) and 95% CIs were identified for reductions in clinic sitting systolic and diastolic BP (SiSBP/SiDBP) or 24-hour mean systolic BP and diastolic BP by ambulatory BP monitoring (ASBP/ADBP) from baseline between the fimasartan and comparator groups, followed by meta-analysis. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed with frequentist and Bayesian inference as a tool in the cross-checking system.

FINDINGS

Eleven RCTs with a total of 2459 subjects were included in the study. The clinic SiSBP/SiDBP-lowering effect of fimasartan was significantly greater relative to those of comparators (MD for clinic SiSBP, -2.58 mm Hg [95% CI, -4.35 to -0.81; P = 0.004]; MD for clinic SiDBP, -2.13 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.96 to -1.30; P = 0.00001]). The ASBP/ADBP-lowering effect of fimasartan was also significantly greater relative to those of comparators (MD for ASBP, -3.58 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.74 to -1.43; P = 0.001]; MD for ADBP, -1.99 mm Hg [95% CI, -3.34 to -0.63; P = 0.004]).

IMPLICATIONS

Fimasartan seems to be more effective in lowering BP than its comparators, including other ARBs. Although there is a limited amount of data and a minuscule number of study subjects available, the results of cross-inference (frequentist + Bayesian) were fairly consistent with the meta-analysis results through our quality management system.

Long-term mortality and cardiovascular events of seven angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertensive patients: Analysis of a national real-world database: A retrospective cohort study

Background and Aims

Although many angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used, comparative data regarding their impact on clinical outcomes are limited. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of seven ARBs on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in Korean patients with hypertension.

Methods

Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, the data of 780,785 patients with hypertension without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated ARB treatment (candesartan, fimasartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, or valsartan) in 2014 and underwent this treatment for more than 6 months, were analyzed. Cox-regression analysis was performed using Losartan as a comparator, as it was the most widely used drug, by adjusting age, sex, diabetes, dyslipidemia, smoking, alcohol drinking, exercise, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, albuminuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and concomitant medications. The occurrence of mortality and the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) of the six ARBs was compared with that of losartan.

Results

The median follow-up duration was 5.94 (interquartile range, 5.87-5.97) years. In the crude analysis of all-cause mortality and MACEs, fimasartan exhibited the lowest event rates. In the Cox-regression analysis with adjustment, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality among ARBs. The risk of MACEs with ARBs was similar to that with losartan, although the risks with irbesartan (hazard ratio [HR], 1.079; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.033-1.127; p = 0.007) and candesartan (HR: 1.066; 95% CI, 1.028-1.106; p = 0.015) were slightly higher.

Conclusion

In a Korean population of patients with hypertension without CVD, six different ARBs showed similar efficacy to losartan in terms of long-term mortality and MACEs. Further well-designed prospective studies are required to confirm our findings.

Incidence and Pattern of Aminotransferase Elevation During Anti-Hypertensive Therapy With Angiotensin-II Receptor Blockers

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin type II receptor blockers (ARBs) are the most widely used anti-hypertensive drugs. This study aimed to elucidate the likelihood and pattern of ARB-induced liver injury in a hospital-based cohort.

METHODS

Data of patients receiving fimasartan (n = 5,543), candesartan (n = 6,406), valsartan (n = 6,040), and losartan (n = 9,126) were retrieved from the clinical data warehouse of two tertiary hospitals. Patients with alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels > 5 times the upper normal limit were assessed according to the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM).

RESULTS

A total of 27,115 patients were enrolled, including 14,630 (54.0%) men, with a mean age of 64.6 years (standard deviation, 13.6). During 31,717 person-years of ARB therapy, serum ALT levels > 120 IU/L were found in 558 (2.1%) person-years, and levels > 200 IU/L were found in 155 (0.6%) person-years. The incidence of ALT elevation > 120 IU/L per 10⁶ cumulative defined daily doses was 6.6, 3.6, 3.9, and 4.0 in the fimasartan, candesartan, valsartan, and losartan groups, respectively (P = 0.002). An ALT level > 200 IU/L with RUCAM score ≥ 6 was found in 20 patients, suggesting probable drug-induced liver injury for 11 (0.2%) patients receiving fimasartan, five (0.1%) receiving candesartan, four (0.1%) receiving valsartan, and none receiving losartan (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Approximately 2% of patients receiving ARB therapy had significant ALT elevation (4.24/10⁶ cumulative defined daily doses [cDDDs]), which was associated with probable ARB-related liver injury in 0.07% of patients (0.15/10⁶ cDDDs). Elevation of ALT was more commonly associated with fimasartan than the other ARBs. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of ARB-related ALT elevation in patients with unexplained chronic abnormal ALT.