Effect of delapril/manidipine vs olmesartan/ hydrochlorothiazide combination on insulin sensitivity and fibrinogen in obese hypertensive patients

Thiazide Diuretic-Induced Change in Fasting Plasma Glucose: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Prior meta-analyses measuring thiazide-induced glycemic change have demonstrated an increased risk of incident diabetes; however, this measure's definition has changed over time.

AIM

To determine the magnitude of change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) for thiazide diuretics.

DATA SOURCES

A research librarian designed and conducted searches in Medline®, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception through July 2018) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (inception to December 2014).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials comparing a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic to any comparator reporting FPG were identified. Trials enrolling < 50 participants, those with a follow-up period of < 4 weeks, and conference abstracts were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION

Independent duplicate screening of citations and full-text articles, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias was conducted.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Ninety-five studies were included (N = 76,608 participants), with thiazides compared with placebo, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors, potassium-sparing diuretic, and others alone or in combination. Thiazide diuretics marginally increased FPG (weighted mean difference 0.20 mmol/L (95% CI 0.15-0.25); I2 = 84%) (1 mmol/L = 18 mg/dL). Results did not change substantially when considering dose or duration, comparing thiazides with placebo or an active comparator, or using thiazides as monotherapy or combination therapy, even when combined with a potassium-correcting agent.

CONCLUSION

Thiazide diuretics have a small and clinically unimportant impact on FPG.

Potential Protective Role of Blood Pressure-Lowering Drugs on the Balance between Hemostasis and Fibrinolysis in Hypertensive Patients at Rest and During Exercise

In patients with hypertension, the triad represented by endothelial dysfunction, platelet hyperactivity, and altered fibrinolytic function disturbs the equilibrium between hemostasis and fibrinolysis and translates into a hypercoagulable state, which underlies the risk of thrombotic complications. This article reviews the scientific evidence regarding some biological effects of antihypertensive drugs, which can protect patients from the adverse consequences of hypertensive disease, improving endothelial function, enhancing antioxidant activity, and restoring equilibrium between hemostatic and fibrinolytic factors. These protective effects appear not to be mediated through blood pressure reduction and are not shared by all molecules of the same pharmacological class.

Factors associated with the reduction of albumin excretion in diabetic hypertensive patients: differential effect of manidipine versus amlodipine

AIMS

In AMANDHA trial, the addition of manidipine, but not amlodipine, in diabetic patients with uncontrolled hypertension, microalbuminuria and preserved renal function resulted in a large decrease of urinary albumin excretion (UAE) despite similar blood pressure (BP) reductions. Factors associated with the reduction of UAE were analyzed.

METHODS

For this purpose, a multivariable analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Although after 6 months of treatment, manidipine and amlodipine decreased BP to a similar extent, reductions of UAE were higher with manidipine. The assigned treatment, changes in mean BP, sympathetic tone and glycemic control were associated with changes in UAE.

CONCLUSION

The assigned treatment, changes in mean BP, sympathetic tone and glycemic control were independently associated with changes in UAE. Compared with amlodipine, manidipine reduced UAE to a higher extent, independently of BP reduction.

Different aspects of sartan + calcium antagonist association compared to the single therapy on inflammation and metabolic parameters in hypertensive patients

This study aims to evaluate the effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium channel blocker combination on blood pressure control, lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, and inflammation markers. We randomized 276 hypertensive patients to olmesartan 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or a single pill containing an olmesartan/amlodipine combination 20/5 mg for 12 months. We evaluated the following: body weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin (FPI), M value, lipid profile, adiponectin (ADN), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and macrophage migration inhibitory factor-1β (MIP-1β). Olmesartan/amlodipine combination better reduced blood pressure, FPI, homeostasis model assessment index, and increased M value and ADN compared to olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies. Olmesartan/amlodipine significantly decreased Hs-CRP, MCP-1, and MIP-1β. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical study, ARB/calcium antagonist combination resulted to be more effective than single monotherapies in reducing blood pressure, in improving insulin sensitivity, and in reducing inflammation parameters in patients with stage I essential hypertension.

Variation of some inflammatory markers in hypertensive patients after 1 year of olmesartan/amlodipine single-pill combination compared with olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a fixed olmesartan/amlodipine combination on blood pressure control, lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, and some inflammatory markers compared with single-drug monotherapy. A total of 276 hypertensive patients were randomly assigned to olmesartan 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or a single pill containing olmesartan/amlodipine combination 20/5 mg for 12 months. We evaluated the following at baseline and after 6 and 12 months: body weight, body mass index, systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressures (DBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), lipid profile, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), retinol binding protein-4 (RBP-4), and interleukins 6 and 7 (IL-6 and IL-7). At baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, patients underwent an euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamp. The olmesartan/amlodipine combination provided a greater decrease of SBP and DPB compared with amlodipine and olmesartan monotherapies. The olmesartan/amlodipine combination decreased FPG after 12 months compared with amlodipine monotherapy. The combination decreased FPI and homeostasis model assessment index and increased M value both compared with baseline and with olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies. Olmesartan/amlodipine decreased IL-7, but not IL-6, compared with single drug components. The olmesartan/amlodipine combination is effective and safe in reducing blood pressure and has some additive effects not shown by single drugs, such as an improvement of IL-7.

Combination delapril/manidipine as antihypertensive therapy in high-risk patients

The majority of patients with hypertension, and in particular high-risk patients or those with diabetes mellitus or renal dysfunction, are likely to require combination therapy with at least two antihypertensive agents (from different classes) to achieve their blood pressure (BP) target. The delapril/manidipine fixed-dose combination consists of two antihypertensive agents with different, yet complementary, mechanisms of action. Delapril/manidipine has demonstrated short- and long-term antihypertensive efficacy in a number of clinical studies in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy. Comparative studies have demonstrated that delapril/manidipine is as effective as enalapril/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy, and as effective as irbesartan/HCTZ, losartan/HCTZ, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ, ramipril/HCTZ and valsartan/HCTZ in reducing BP in patients with hypertension and diabetes, or in obese patients with hypertension. Therapy with delapril/manidipine also appears to exert beneficial effects that extend beyond a reduction in BP, including nephroprotective activity and an improvement in fibrinolytic balance, supporting its value as a treatment option in these patient populations at high or very high cardiovascular risk because of the presence of organ damage, diabetes or renal disease.

Urinary albumin excretion during angiotensin II receptor blockade: comparison of combination treatment with a diuretic or a calcium-channel blocker

BACKGROUND

We aimed to test the hypothesis that the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)/diuretic combination decreases the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) to a greater extent than treatment with the ARB/calcium-channel blocker (CCB) combination through a mechanism related to a greater reduction of sleep blood pressure (BP).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point trial in hypertensive patients. Patients received olmesartan monotherapy for 12 weeks, followed by an additional use of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (n = 104) or azelnidipine (n = 103) for 24 weeks after randomization. The measurements of central and ambulatory BP, and laboratory tests were performed at baseline and the end of the study.

RESULTS

The adjusted percent reduction in UACR in the olmesartan/HCTZ group was significantly greater than that in the olmesartan/azelnidipine group (-43.2 vs. -24.0%, P = 0.0014), although the olmesartan/azelnidipine group showed greater decreases in central systolic BP (SBP; P = 0.04), oxidative stress (urinary 8-isoprostane; P = 0.02), inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; P = 0.04), and insulin resistance (the homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance index (HOMA(IR)); P < 0.001) than the olmesartan/HCTZ group. In multivariate regression analyses, the significant determinants of change in UACR in the olmesartan/HCTZ group were changes in sleep SBP (P < 0.001), central SBP (P = 0.01), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (P = 0.02), and HOMA(IR) (P = 0.03), and those in the olmesartan/azelnidipine group were changes in central SBP (P = 0.001) and urinary 8-isoprostane (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

These data showed that the ARB/diuretic combination decreased UACR significantly more than the ARB/CCB combination, and this decrease in UACR was associated with a greater magnitude reduction in sleep SBP.

Time to achieve blood pressure goal with a combination versus a conventional monotherapy approach in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome

The time to achieve a blood pressure (BP) goal < or =130/85 mmHg with a combination versus a conventional monotherapy approach was evaluated in 308 hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome. They were randomized to valsartan (V) 8 mg/amlodipine (A) 5 mg combination or to V 160 mg monotherapy for 12 weeks and every 2 weeks, there was a titration in nonresponder patients: in the combination group V/A was progressively increased to V 160/A 5 mg; V160/A 7.5 mg; V160/A 10 mg; V 240/A 10 mg, and V 320/A 10 mg. In the monotherapy group, the regimen was progressively modified as following: V 240 mg; V 320 mg; V 320/A 5 mg; V 320/A 7.5 mg, and V 320/A 10 mg. The mean time to achieve the BP goal was shorter in patients randomized to combination therapy compared to those randomized to conventional monotherapy (4.7 +/- 2.7 weeks vs. 7.1 +/- 3.9 weeks, respectively, p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who achieved target BP in the combination approach group statistically exceeded that of the monotherapy treated one already after 2 weeks of treatment (30.5 vs. 14.9%, p < 0.01) and again after 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks of treatment. Only at 12 weeks the percentage of normalized patients was similar in the two treatment groups (78.8% vs. 75.3%, ns). These results suggest that initial therapy with a V/A combination approach may be more quickly effective than a conventional sequential monotherapy approach in achieving target BP in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.

Effect of telmisartan on selected adipokines, insulin sensitivity, and substrate utilization during insulin-stimulated conditions in patients with metabolic syndrome and impaired fasting glucose

Objective

Telmisartan improves glucose and lipid metabolism in rodents. This study evaluated the effect of telmisartan on insulin sensitivity, substrate utilization, selected plasma adipokines and their expressions in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) in metabolic syndrome.

Design and methods

Twelve patients with impaired fasting glucose completed the double-blind, randomized, crossover trial. Patients received telmisartan (160 mg/day) or placebo for 3 weeks and vice versa with a 2-week washout period. At the end of each period, a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HEC) combined with indirect calorimetry was performed. During HEC (0, 30, and 120 min), plasma levels of adipokines were measured and a needle biopsy (0 and 30 min) of SAT was performed.

Results

Fasting plasma glucose was lower after telmisartan compared with placebo (P<0.05). There were no differences in insulin sensitivity and substrate utilization. We found no differences in basal plasma adiponectin, resistin and tumour necrosis factor α (TNFα), but an increase was found in basal leptin, after telmisartan treatment. Insulin-stimulated plasma adiponectin (P<0.05), leptin and resistin (P<0.001) were increased, whereas TNFα was decreased (P<0.05) after telmisartan treatment. Expression of resistin, but not adiponectin, TNFα and leptin was increased after telmisartan treatment.

Conclusions

Despite the decrease in fasting plasma glucose, telmisartan does not improve insulin sensitivity and substrate utilization. Telmisartan increases plasma leptin as well as insulin-stimulated plasma adiponectin, leptin and resistin, and decreases plasma TNFα during HEC. Changes in plasma adipokines cannot be explained by their expressions in SAT. The changes in plasma adipokines might be involved in the metabolic effects of telmisartan in metabolic syndrome.

Role of olmesartan in combination therapy in blood pressure control and vascular function

Angiotensin receptor blockers have emerged as a first-line therapy in the management of hypertension and hypertension-related comorbidities. Since national and international guidelines have stressed the need to control blood pressure to <140/90 mmHg in uncomplicated hypertension and <130/80 mmHg in those with associated comorbidities such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, these goal blood pressures can only be achieved through combination therapy. Of several drugs that can be effectively combined to attain the recommended blood pressure goals, fixed-dose combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine provide additive antihypertensive effects associated with a safe profile and increased adherence to therapy. In this article, we review the evidence regarding the beneficial effects of renin–angiotensin system blockade with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine in terms of blood pressure control and improvement of vascular function and target organ damage.

Irbesartan has no short-term effect on insulin resistance in hypertensive patients with additional cardiometabolic risk factors (i-RESPOND)

AIMS

Intervention studies have shown that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is currently unclear whether short-term therapy with ARBs affects metabolic parameters.

METHODS

i-RESPOND, a randomised, controlled, multicentre, double-blind study evaluated the effect of 16 weeks of irbesartan vs. hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) on insulin resistance as well as on lipid and inflammatory parameters in hypertensive subjects with metabolic syndrome. Patients received irbesartan (150 mg/d; n = 211) or HCTZ (12.5 mg/d; n = 215), titrated to 300 mg/day and 25 mg/day respectively. In a second part of the study (weeks 16-28), patients initially randomised to irbesartan received additional HCTZ and vice versa.

RESULTS

At week 16 both irbesartan and HCTZ had no effect on insulin resistance measured by the Matzuda index and beta-cell function. Similarly, in the second part of the study (week 16-28) no differences between irbesartan and HCTZ with respect to glucose metabolism were observed. However, irbesartan induced beneficial changes in high-sensitivity-C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (irbesartan: -5.5 +/- 5.2%; HCTZ + 19.9 +/- 6.5%, p = 0.0024) and in urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) (irbesartan: -13%; HCTZ + 9%; p = 0.0041) compared with HCTZ despite a similar decrease in blood pressure in both treatment groups. Irbesartan and HCTZ were well tolerated and adverse events were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Irbesartan did not show significant favourable effects on insulin resistance compared with HCTZ in this study; however, may have beneficial effects on inflammation and microalbuminuria in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.

Manidipine in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: the MARIMBA study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of manidipine versus amlodipine on blood pressure, albuminuria, insulin sensitivity, adiponectin, TNF-alpha and C-reactive protein in nondiabetic subjects with metabolic syndrome (ATP-III definition), including impaired fasting glucose (>5.6 mmol/l) and hypertension.

METHODS

In total, 64 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to manidipine 20 mg versus amlodipine 10 mg (for 12 +/- 2 weeks).

RESULTS

Blood pressure was reduced to a similar extent (p < 0.001) by both treatments. Albuminuria was significantly reduced by manidipine (-37.3%; p = 0.003), but not by amlodipine. C-reactive protein was reduced similarly (p < 0.01) by both treatments. Plasma adiponectin was increased (32.9%; p = 0.011) and plasma TNF-alpha was reduced by manidipine (-37.1%; p = 0.019), but neither was significantly changed by amlodipine. The HOMA insulin resistance index was significantly reduced by manidipine (-21.3%; p = 0.007), but not by amlodipine (-8.3%; p = 0.062). Tolerability with manidipine was superior to that with amlodipine (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

These data support the added value of manidipine in renal and metabolic protection beyond blood pressure reduction in the treatment of hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.

Choice of ACE inhibitor combinations in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: update after recent clinical trials

The diabetes epidemic continues to grow unabated, with a staggering toll in micro- and macrovascular complications, disability, and death. Diabetes causes a two- to fourfold increase in the risk of cardiovascular disease, and represents the first cause of dialysis treatment both in the UK and the US. Concomitant hypertension doubles total mortality and stroke risk, triples the risk of coronary heart disease and significantly hastens the progression of microvascular complications, including diabetic nephropathy. Therefore, blood pressure reduction is of particular importance in preventing cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Successful antihypertensive treatment will often require a combination therapy, either with separate drugs or with fixed-dose combinations. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor plus diuretic combination therapy improves blood pressure control, counterbalances renin-angiotensin system activation due to diuretic therapy and reduces the risk of electrolyte alterations, obtaining at the same time synergistic antiproteinuric effects. ACE inhibitor plus calcium channel blocker provides a significant additive effect on blood pressure reduction, may have favorable metabolic effects and synergistically reduce proteinuria and the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate, as evidenced by the GUARD trial. Finally, the recently published ACCOMPLISH trial showed that an ACE inhibitor/calcium channel blocker combination may be particularly useful in reducing cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients. The present review will focus on different ACE inhibitor combinations in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, in the light of recent clinical trials, including GUARD and ACCOMPLISH.

Do thiazides worsen metabolic syndrome and renal disease? The pivotal roles for hyperuricemia and hypokalemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aims of this article are to review the current controversies related to the use of thiazide diuretics as first-line treatment of hypertension and to discuss the causal roles for hyperuricemia and hypokalemia on the adverse consequences of thiazide usage.

RECENT FINDINGS

Thiazides significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in hypertensive subjects. There remains, however, debate about thiazide usage as first-line treatment of hypertension. This negative impact of thiazides may be partially attributed to the ability of thiazides to exacerbate features of metabolic syndrome or increase the risk for developing diabetes. Several clinical trials suggest that thiazide-induced hyperuricemia and hypokalemia may account for some of these negative effects. Thiazide treatment is also associated with a decline of renal function in spite of a lowering blood pressure. In this review, we discuss the clinical and experimental evidence supporting a potential role of hyperuricemia and hypokalemia on the development of renal injury and worsening of the metabolic syndrome.

SUMMARY

Hyperuricemia and hypokalemia may have pivotal roles in the exacerbation of the metabolic syndrome in response to thiazides. We propose that controlling serum uric acid and serum potassium could improve thiazide efficacy and also reduce its risk for inducing metabolic syndrome or diabetes.

Olmesartan medoxomil: a review of its use in the management of hypertension

Olmesartan medoxomil (Olmetec, Benicar) is an angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) that inhibits the actions of angiotensin II on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which plays a key role in the pathogenesis of hypertension. Oral olmesartan medoxomil 10-40 mg once daily is recommended for the treatment of adult patients with hypertension. In those with inadequate BP control using monotherapy, fixed-dose olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [Olmetec plus, Benicar-HCT] combination therapy may be initiated. Extensive clinical evidence from several large well designed trials and the clinical practice setting has confirmed the antihypertensive efficacy and good tolerability profile of oral olmesartan medoxomil, as monotherapy or in combination with HCTZ, in patients with hypertension, including elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Notably, BP control is sustained throughout the 24-hour dosage interval, including during the last 4 hours of this period. In clinical trials, olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy provided better antihypertensive efficacy than losartan, candesartan cilexetil or irbesartan monotherapy, and was at least as effective as valsartan treatment, with a faster onset of action than other ARBs in terms of reductions from baseline in diastolic BP (DBP) and, in most instances, systolic BP (SBP). Combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil plus HCTZ was superior to that with benazepril plus amlodipine, as effective as that with losartan plus HCTZ, noninferior to that with atenolol plus HCTZ, but less effective than that with telmisartan plus HCTZ, in individual trials. Data from ongoing clinical outcome trials are required to more fully determine the relative position of olmesartan medoxomil therapy in the management of hypertension. In the meantime, the consistent antihypertensive efficacy during the entire 24-hour dosage interval and good tolerability profile of olmesartan medoxomil, with or without HCTZ, make it a valuable option for the treatment of adult patients with hypertension, including the elderly.