0
selected
-
1.
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors for the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension and the Role of Olmesartan.
Omboni, S, Volpe, M
Advances in therapy. 2019;(2):278-297
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Blood pressure lowering by all classes of antihypertensive drugs is accompanied by significant reductions of stroke and major cardiovascular (CV) events. Drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), showed similar benefit on major CV events to other antihypertensive medications. In real-world practice, ARBs reduced by 10% the incidence of CV mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and provided superior protection against CV events than ACEIs in high-risk patients. Despite similar antihypertensive properties and a favourable safety profile for both ACEIs and ARBs, evidence indicates that patients treated with ARBs have lower rates of withdrawal for adverse events and greater persistence to therapy than those treated with ACEIs. Among ARBs, olmesartan is one of the latest generation compounds introduced in clinical practice for treating hypertension: head-to-head comparative trials suggest that the efficacy of olmesartan is superior to that of commonly prescribed ACEIs (ramipril and perindopril). The drug, administered as a monotherapy or in combination with a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker or a thiazide diuretic, has proved to be effective in maintaining blood pressure stability over 24 h, with a favourable safety profile and low discontinuation rates. These properties are pivotal for considering olmesartan as a useful antihypertensive agent especially for high-risk patients (e.g. elderly, diabetics, patients with metabolic syndrome).Funding: Article preparation and open access fee were funded by Menarini International Operations Luxembourg S.A. (M.I.O.L.).
-
2.
Angiotensin II receptor blockers improve endothelial dysfunction associated with sympathetic hyperactivity in metabolic syndrome.
Kishi, T, Hirooka, Y, Konno, S, Sunagawa, K
Journal of hypertension. 2012;(8):1646-55
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors are preferred for the treatment of hypertension with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Underlying endothelial dysfunction and sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activation are critically involved in the pathogenesis of hypertension in MetS. We investigated whether treatment with angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) improves endothelial and autonomic function in patients with MetS. METHODS AND RESULTS We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint trial. Sixty patients with MetS were randomized into three treatment groups: telmisartan, candesartan, or diet therapy (control; n = 20 each), and treated for 6 months. To evaluate the endothelial function of forearm resistance arteries, blood flow and vascular resistance were measured using a strain-gauge plethysmograph during intra-arterial infusion of acetylcholine (ACh) or sodium nitroprusside (SNP). At 6 months, both telmisartan and candesartan comparably decreased blood pressure. Furthermore, ARB treatment ameliorated impaired forearm vasodilation in response to ACh. Telmisartan had a greater effect than candesartan on ACh-induced forearm vasodilation. In contrast, forearm vasodilation in response to SNP was comparable between the telmisartan and candesartan-treated groups. ARB treatment increased high-molecular-weight (HMW) adiponectin levels and baroreflex sensitivity, but telmisartan had a stronger effect than candesartan. In addition, only telmisartan treatment significantly decreased plasma norepinephrine concentrations, blood pressure variability, and heart rate variability based on spectral analysis. CONCLUSION These findings indicate that ARBs improve impaired endothelial and baroreflex function, and increase HMW adiponectin levels in patients with MetS. Telmisartan exhibited more beneficial effects than candesartan, and only telmisartan reduced sympathetic hyperactivity, despite similar depressor effects.
-
3.
Comparative efficacy and safety of aliskiren and irbesartan in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome.
Krone, W, Hanefeld, M, Meyer, HF, Jung, T, Bartlett, M, Yeh, CM, Rajman, I, Prescott, MF, Dole, WP
Journal of human hypertension. 2011;(3):186-95
Abstract
Metabolic syndrome, a cluster of risk factors that increase the risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, is common in patients with hypertension. Chronic renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation, shown by elevated plasma renin activity (PRA), is implicated in many of the features of metabolic syndrome. The direct renin inhibitor aliskiren may be of benefit in this patient group as aliskiren targets the RAAS at the rate-limiting step. In this double-blind study, 141 patients with hypertension (mean baseline BP 155/93 mm Hg) and metabolic syndrome (modified National Cholesterol Education Program ATP III criteria) were randomized to aliskiren 300 mg or irbesartan 300 mg once daily. Patients treated with aliskiren 300 mg had their mean sitting blood pressure (BP) lowered by 13.8/7.1 mm Hg after 12 weeks, significantly greater (P≤0.001) than the 5.8/2.8 mm Hg reduction observed in patients treated with irbesartan 300 mg. A significantly greater proportion of patients treated with aliskiren achieved BP control to <135/85 mm Hg (29.2 vs 16.7% with irbesartan; P=0.019). Aliskiren treatment led to a 60% decrease in PRA from baseline, whereas irbesartan increased PRA by 99% (both P<0.001). Aliskiren and irbesartan had similar effects on glucose and lipid profiles and on a panel of biomarkers of inflammation and cardiovascular risk. Both aliskiren and irbesartan were well tolerated. Collectively, these results suggest that aliskiren 300 mg may offer treatment benefits compared with irbesartan 300 mg for BP reduction in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome.
-
4.
Role of angiotensin II in plasma PAI-1 changes induced by imidapril or candesartan in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.
Fogari, R, Zoppi, A, Mugellini, A, Maffioli, P, Lazzari, P, Derosa, G
Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension. 2011;(12):1321-6
Abstract
To evaluate the relationship between plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and angiotensin II (Ang II) changes during treatment with imidapril and candesartan in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome. A total of 84 hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome were randomized to imidapril 10 mg or candesartan 16 mg for 16 weeks. At weeks 4 and 8, there was a dose titration to imidapril 20 mg and candesartan 32 mg in nonresponders (systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 mm Hg). We evaluated, at baseline and after 2, 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks, clinic blood pressure, Ang II and PAI-1 antigen. Both imidapril and candesartan induced a similar SBP/DBP reduction (-19.4/16.8 and -19.5/16.3 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.001 vs. baseline). Both drugs decreased PAI-1 antigen after 4 weeks of treatment, but only the PAI-1 lowering effect of imidapril was sustained throughout the 16 weeks (-9.3 ng ml(-1), P<0.01 vs. baseline), whereas candesartan increased PAI-1 (+6.5 ng ml(-1), P<0.05 vs. baseline and P<0.01 vs. imidapril). Imidapril significantly decreased Ang II levels (-14.6 pg ml(-1) at week 16, P<0.05 vs. baseline), whereas candesartan increased them (+24.2 pg ml(-1), P<0.01 vs. baseline and vs. imidapril). In both groups there was a positive correlation between Ang II and PAI-1 changes (r=0.61, P<0.001 at week 16 for imidapril, and r=0.37, P<0.005 at week 16 for candesartan). Imidapril reduced plasma PAI-1 and Ang II levels, whereas candesartan increased them. This suggests that the different effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and Ang II blockers on Ang II production has a role in their different influence on fibrinolysis.
-
5.
Baseline characteristics of the Nateglinide and Valsartan Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR) trial population: comparison with other diabetes prevention trials.
Krum, H, McMurray, JJ, Horton, E, Gerlock, T, Holzhauer, B, Zuurman, L, Haffner, SM, Bethel, MA, Holman, RR, Califf, RM
Cardiovascular therapeutics. 2010;(2):124-32
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The Nateglinide and Valsartan Impaired Glucose Tolerance Outcomes Research (NAVIGATOR) trial is exploring two pharmacological strategies (nateglinide and valsartan, both alone and in combination) in the prevention of overt diabetes mellitus (DM) and the reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in subjects at high risk for these events. In this analysis, we provide baseline characteristics of the randomized NAVIGATOR study population and contrast them with those from other trials of DM prevention. Key eligibility criteria include impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG), a history of CVD (in patients aged > or =50 years), and > or =1 cardiovascular risk factor (in patients aged > or =55 years). Baseline demographic characteristics, laboratory findings, cardiovascular risk factors, CVD history, and medication use are described and compared with other trials of DM prevention. The full analysis set of subjects (N = 9306) showed a clustering of risk factors consistent with the metabolic syndrome: high rates of hypertension (77.5%), dyslipidemia (44.7%), increased waist circumference (101.0 cm), and high body mass index (BMI) (47.5% with BMI > or =30 kg/m(2)). A minority of patients had a history of CVD (24.3%); of these, 11.7% had a history of myocardial infarction and most of the remainder had evidence of coronary artery disease. Subjects also had elevated blood pressure (BP) (predominantly systolic) (139.7/82.6 mm Hg), increased serum low-density lipoproteins cholesterol levels (3.27 mmol/L), and borderline elevation of triglyceride levels (1.97 mmol/L). Demographic data, BP, and lipid profiles in NAVIGATOR were similar to those of previous DM prevention trials, which were also based largely on meeting criteria for IGT. Medication use at baseline among NAVIGATOR subjects, which frequently included aspirin, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, and lipid-lowering agents, reflects enhanced CVD risk. However, little prescribing of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers was observed, likely due to protocol exclusion criteria. In conclusion, the NAVIGATOR study comprises prediabetic subjects who typically have concurrent BP and metabolic disturbances and an enhanced risk of CVD, and are thus at higher risk for cardiovascular events than subjects in previous DM prevention trials.