Effects of the Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Azilsartan Medoxomil Versus Olmesartan and Valsartan on Ambulatory and Clinic Blood Pressure in Patients With Stages 1 and 2 Hypertension

Division of Hypertension and Clinical Pharmacology, Calhoun Cardiology Center, University of Connecticut Health Center, 263 Farmington Ave, Farmington, CT 06030-3940, USA.
Hypertension (Impact Factor: 7.63). 03/2011; 57(3):413-20. DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.163402
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Azilsartan medoxomil is an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) being developed for hypertension treatment. To compare this ARB with others in the class, we studied the effects of 2 doses of azilsartan medoxomil, with valsartan 320 mg and olmesartan medoxomil (olmesartan) 40 mg, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring and clinic BP measurements. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic BP. Hierarchical analysis testing for superiority over placebo was followed by noninferiority analysis and then superiority testing of azilsartan medoxomil (80 mg and then 40 mg) versus the comparator ARBs. For 1291 randomized patients, mean age was 56 years, 54% were men, and baseline 24-hour mean systolic BP was 145 mm Hg. Azilsartan medoxomil at 80 mg had superior efficacy to both valsartan at 320 mg and olmesartan at 40 mg: placebo-adjusted 24-hour systolic BP was lowered (-14.3 mm Hg) more than 320 mg of valsartan (-10.0 mm Hg; P<0.001) and 40 mg of olmesartan (-11.7 mm Hg; P=0.009). Azilsartan medoxomil at 40 mg was noninferior to 40 mg of olmesartan (difference: -1.4 mm Hg [95% CI: -3.3 to 0.5]). For clinic systolic BP, both doses of azilsartan medoxomil were superior to the comparator ARBs. Safety and tolerability were similar among the placebo and 4 active treatments. These data demonstrate that azilsartan medoxomil at its maximal dose has superior efficacy to both olmesartan and valsartan at their maximal, approved doses without increasing adverse events. Azilsartan medoxomil could provide higher rates of hypertension control within the ARB class.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Oral mucositis (OM) is a common complication of treatments for head and neck cancer, particularly radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. OM is characterised by oral erythema, ulceration, and pain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of azilsartan (AZT), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, on 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-induced oral mucositis (OM) in Syrian hamsters. OM was induced by the intraperitoneal administration of 5-FU on experimental days 1 (60mg/Kg) and 2 (40mg/Kg). Animals were pretreated with oral AZT (1, 5, or 10 mg/kg) or vehicle 30 min before 5-FU injection and daily until day 10. Experimental treatment protocols were approved by the Animal Ethics Committee Use/CEUA (Number 28/2012) of the UFRN. Macroscopic analysis and cheek pouch samples were removed for histopathologic analysis. Myeloperoxidase (MPO), Malonyldialdehyde (MDA), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), interleukin-10 (IL-10), and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) were analysed by Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbent Assay (ELISA). Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), fibroblast growth factor (FGF), keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), and transforming growth factor (TGF)-α were measured by immunohistochemistry. Analysis of variance followed by Bonferroni's test was used to calculate the means of intergroup differences (p ≤ 0.05). Treatment with 1 mg/kg AZT reduced levels MPO (p<0.01), MDA (p<0.5) and histological inflammatory cell infiltration, and increased the presence of granulation tissue. AZT treatment at 1 mg/kg reduced the TNF-α (p<0.05) and IL-1β (p<0.05) levels, increased the cheek pouch levels of IL-10 (p<0.01), and upregulated VEGF, FGF, KGF, and TGF-α. Administration of AZT at higher doses (5 and 10 mg/kg) did not significantly reverse the OM. AZT at a dose of 1 mg/kg prevented the mucosal damage and inflammation associated with 5-FU-induced OM, increasing granulation and tissue repair.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0116799. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0116799 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: All national guidelines for the management of hypertension recommend angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as an initial or add-on antihypertensive therapy. The eight available ARBs have variable clinical efficacy when used for control of hypertension. Additive blood pressure-lowering effects have been demonstrated when ARBs are combined with thiazide diuretics or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, augmenting hypertension control. Furthermore, therapeutic use of ARBs goes beyond their antihypertensive effects, with evidence-based benefits in heart failure and diabetic renal disease particularly among angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-intolerant patients. On the other hand, combining renin-angiotensin system blocking agents, a formerly common practice among medical subspecialists focusing on the management of hypertension, has ceased, as there is not only no evidence of cardiovascular benefit but also modest evidence of harm, particularly with regard to renal dysfunction. ARBs are very well tolerated as monotherapy, as well as in combination with other antihypertensive medications, which improve adherence to therapy and have become a mainstay in the treatment of stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension.
    Drug Safety 11/2014; 38(1). DOI:10.1007/s40264-014-0239-7 · 2.62 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Accounting for 15 % of deaths worldwide, hypertension is often treated with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (50 million prescriptions annually). HCTZ has a <24-h duration of action, is less potent than chlorthalidone and all major antihypertensive drug classes, and is inferior to four antihypertensive drugs for cardiovascular event (CVE) reduction. If there were alternative diuretics, why prescribe HCTZ? Chlorthalidone is often offered as an alternative to HCTZ, but has limited pharmaceutical formulations. However, there are seven evidence-based, single-tablet, alternative diuretics. For reducing CVE, the following are superior to their comparators: chlorthalidone versus four antihypertensives in multiple hypertensive populations; indapamide versus placebo in elderly Chinese (and versus enalapril for left ventricular hypertrophy), triamterene-HCTZ versus placebo in elderly Europeans, amiloride-HCTZ versus three antihypertensives, and indapamide-perindopril versus placebo in three populations. Additionally, chlorthalidone-azilsartan and spironolactone-HCTZ are potent combinations The aldosterone antagonist component of the latter combination has been shown to reduce total mortality by 30 % in heart failure. Five of these seven have multiple dose formulations. Six cost $4-$77 monthly. In conclusion, based on both scientific and practical grounds, new prescriptions for HCTZ are rarely justified.
    Current Hypertension Reports 04/2015; 17(4):540. DOI:10.1007/s11906-015-0540-6 · 3.90 Impact Factor