24-Hour blood pressure response to lower dose (30 mg) fimasartan in Korean patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

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.

Real-world efficacy of fimasartan vs. other angiotensin receptor blockers in combination with calcium channel blockers: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

The antihypertensive efficacy of fimasartan was assessed based on the transition rate from a combination of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) to three-drug combination therapy, as compared to other ARBs.

METHODS

This nationwide cohort study used data obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. Patients who had received national health checkups within 2 years prior to January 1, 2017, and were concurrently prescribed ARBs and CCBs for > 30 days during the 6 months from January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017 were included in the study. Patients were categorized into the 'fimasartan group' (those prescribed fimasartan) and the 'non-fimasartan group' (those prescribed ARBs other than fimasartan). The index date was set as the last day of a 30-day prescription period for ARBs and CCBs, with a subsequent 2.5-year follow-up to observe the potential addition of a third drug, such as beta-blockers or diuretics.

RESULTS

The study included 34,422 patients with a mean age of 60.3 years and 58.3% being male. The fimasartan group constituted 2.7% (n = 928) of the total, and the non-fimasartan group, 97.3% (n = 33,494). During the follow-up period, 38 patients in the fimasartan group (14.3 per 1,000 person-years) and 3,557 patients in the non-fimasartan group (42.8 per 1,000 person-years) required additional antihypertensive medications. After multivariate adjustment for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, cancer, heart failure, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure, the fimasartan group showed a significantly lower rate of adding a third medication (hazard ratio 2.68, 95% confidence interval 1.95-3.69) compared to that of the non-fimasartan group.

CONCLUSIONS

Fimasartan is associated with a lower need for additional antihypertensive drugs compared to other ARBs. This implies its greater effectiveness in hypertension management, potentially enhancing cardiovascular outcomes, and minimizing polypharmacy.

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.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Two Parallel-Group, Optional Titration, Multicenter, Phase IIIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan Versus Perindopril Monotherapy With and Without a Diuretic Combination in Elderly Patients With Essential Hypertension

PURPOSE

The efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan in elderly patients have not been fully evaluated. This study was therefore conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan compared with perindopril in elderly Korean patients aged >70 years with essential hypertension (defined by a mean sitting systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg).

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 2 parallel-group, optional titration, multicenter, Phase IIIb trial (FITNESS [Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects]) enrolled 241 patients from 23 cardiac centers in the Republic of Korea between August 2017 and December 2019. After the placebo run-in period, treatment started with fimasartan 30 mg or perindopril arginine 2.5 mg once daily at a 1:1 ratio; if BP was not controlled at week 4, the dose was doubled. If BP was not controlled at week 8, a diuretic combination (fimasartan 60 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or perindopril arginine 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg) was administered. After 16 weeks of the double-blind treatment, the patients with controlled BP participated in an 8-week open-label extension study, with the 2 groups unified by fimasartan 60 mg with or without hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in SBP for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes included a change in sitting diastolic BP (DBP) for 8 weeks and changes in SBP and DBP for 4, 16, and 24 weeks.

FINDINGS

At week 8, mean SBP significantly decreased from baseline in both groups: -14.2 (14.4) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and -9.0 (16.1) mm Hg in the perindopril group. The difference between the 2 groups was 5.4 (2.1) mm Hg, indicating the noninferiority of fimasartan to perindopril. Moreover, fimasartan exhibited a higher BP-lowering effect than perindopril (P = 0.0108). In addition, reductions in SBP and DBP from baseline to weeks 4, 8, and 16 were significantly greater in the fimasartan group than in the perindopril group, although the SBP reduction was comparable at week 16. Both groups reported an excellent mean compliance rate of 97.4% (4.7%) through week 16. During the study period, 82 adverse events were reported in 52 patients, 40 in the fimasartan group and 42 in the perindopril group (P = 0.4647). Dizziness was the most commonly reported adverse event (7 cases). Remarkably, only 1 case of orthostatic hypotension was reported during the study period.

IMPLICATIONS

In elderly patients with essential hypertension, fimasartan 30 to 60 mg with a possible hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-mg combination was noninferior to perindopril 2.5 to 5 mg with a possible indapamide 1.25-mg combination. Furthermore, fimasartan exhibited higher BP-lowering efficacy than perindopril. There was no difference in tolerability between the 2 groups. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555.

Long-Term Safety of a Novel Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, Fimasartan, According to the Absence or Presence of Underlying Liver Disease in Korean Hypertensive Patients: A Prospective, 12-Month, Observational Study

Purpose

Fimasartan, the ninth and most recent angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) approved by the Korea Food and Drug Administration, has shown similar efficacy and safety profiles compared to other ARBs. However, due to being predominantly excreted by the hepatobiliary system, concerns on safety have been raised regarding its use in patients with underlying liver disease.

Patients and Methods

This prospective, 12-month, observational study evaluated patients with essential hypertension (HTN) receiving ≥1 dose of fimasartan. Self-reported and physician-reported events were recorded and classified according to organ class and severity. Outcomes were compared according to the absence and presence of underlying liver disease.

Results

A total of 601 patients were screened, and 566 patients who met predefined inclusion criteria were grouped according to the presence of underlying liver disease. Adverse events (AE) were reported in 28.7% (128/446) of patients without prior liver disease, while 42.5% (51/120) experienced events in the group with chronic liver disease. There was no difference in discontinuations due to liver function between patients with and without baseline liver disease (1.1% [5] vs 2.5% [3], p=0.376), and only a non-significant increase was observed in events associated to the hepatobiliary system in patients with chronic liver disease (9.7% [7] vs 2.7% [9], p=0.061). There were no deaths or serious adverse drug reactions (SADR) during the study period. In multivariate regression analysis, the presence of chronic liver disease (OR 2.01), female sex (OR 1.49) and old age (OR 1.12 for every 5-year increase) were independent predictors for the development of AE. Finally, no significant difference was observed in the reduction of systolic blood pressure after 12 months of treatment (least square mean change −6.57 ± 0.80 mmHg for normal liver function group; −7.65 ± 1.59 mmHg for chronic liver disease group; p=0.546).

Conclusion

Long-term use of fimasartan for treatment of HTN was associated with a low rate of adverse events overall, especially in the absence of underlying liver disease. Even for patients with chronic liver disease, fimasartan treatment was well tolerated. Fimasartan could be a safe option for long-term treatment of essential HTN. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02385721.

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)

Purpose

Head-to-head comparison of the blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of fimasartan versus valsartan, with olmesartan as a reference, on office blood pressure and ambulatory BP.

Patients and Methods

Of the 369 randomly assigned patients in this study, 365 hypertensive patients were referred as the full analysis set and divided into 3 groups with a 3:3:1 ratio (fimasartan group: 155, valsartan group: 157, olmesartan group: 53). After the 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period, initial standard doses of 60-mg fimasartan, 80-mg valsartan, and 10-mg olmesartan were administered for 2 weeks, then forcibly up-titrated higher doses (fimasartan 120 mg, valsartan 160 mg, olmesartan 20 mg) were given for 4 weeks. ABP was measured before and after the 6-week treatment. Primary endpoint was reduction of sitting office systolic BP (SiSBP) of fimasartan compared to valsartan after 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints were reduction of sitting office diastolic BP (SiDBP) and 24 hrs, day-time, and night-time mean systolic and diastolic ABP (ASBP, ADBP) after 6 weeks.

Results

Patients’ mean age was 58.34±7.68 years, and 289 patients were male (79.18%). After the 6-week treatment, SiSBP reduction of fimasartan and valsartan were −16.26±15.07 and −12.81±13.87 (p=0.0298) and SiDBP were −7.63±9.67 and −5.14±8.52 (p=0.0211). Reductions in 24 hrs mean ASBP were −15.22±13.33 and −9.45±12.37 (p=0.0009), and ADBPs were −8.74±7.55 and −5.98±7.85 (p=0.0140). Reductions of night-time ASBPs were −16.80±15.81 and −10.32±14.88 (p=0.0012), and those of night-time ADBPs were −8.89±9.93 and −5.55±9.70 (p=0.0152). Reduction of BP in olmesartan group did not demonstrate significant difference with fimasartan group in all end-points.

Conclusion

Fimasartan 120-mg treatment demonstrated superior efficacy in reduction of SiSBP, SiDBP, and 24 hrs ASBP and ADBP compared to valsartan 160 mg. Reduction of night-time ASBP from baseline was largest in fimasartan group, suggesting that fimasartan may be effective for recovering dipping pattern.

NCT number

NCT02495324 (Fimasartan Achieving SBP Target (FAST) study).

Fimasartan: A new armament to fight hypertension

Hypertension is a major public health problem of modern era. Fimasartan is a new Angiotensin Receptor Blocker approved for treatment of hypertension. It is more potent and longer acting angiotensin receptor blocker with effects lasting over 24 hours. Many clinical studies have affirmed its role in pharmacotherapy of hypertension. Further, it is renoprotective and has proven beneficial in diabetes also. This article briefly discusses the pharmacology and clinical evidence with fimasartan with a short summary of previous angiotensin receptor blockers.

PK/PD evaluation of fimasartan for the treatment of hypertension Current evidences and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Fimasartan is the ninth and latest Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for the treatment of hypertension. Fimasartan is a derivative of losartan in which the imidazole ring has been replaced. It provides a selective type 1 angiotensin II receptor antagonist effect with noncompetitive, in surmountable binding. Fimasartan is rapidly absorbed following oral administration with an oral bioavailability of 18.6 ± 7.2%. Fimasartan is relatively stable in terms of metabolism and more than 90% of circulating fimasartan moieties in the plasma are in the parent form; fecal elimination and biliary excretion are the predominant elimination pathways of fimasartan. Areas covered: We reviewed data from clinical trials that investigated safety and efficacy of fimasartan in hypertension. Expert opinion: Fimasartan proved good efficacy in blood pressure reduction. In large clinical studies,fimasartan showed an excellent safety profile and when combined with hydrochlorothiazide oram lodipine, it showed a better effect on controlling blood pressure than monotherapy. Fimasartan 60-120 mg once daily has also shown an antihypertensive effect over 24-h. Moreover, preclinical studies demonstrated organ-protecting effects of fimasartan. These results make fimasartan an attractive candidate for the treatment of hypertension. However, it remains to test the benefit of using fimasartan on clinical outcomes.