Olmesartan-based monotherapy vs combination therapy in hypertension: A meta-analysis based on age and chronic kidney disease status.

Antihypertensive monotherapy is often insufficient to control blood pressure (BP). Several recent guidelines advocate for initial combination drug therapy in many patients. This meta-analysis of seven randomized, double-blind studies (N = 5888) evaluated 8 weeks of olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based single-pill dual-combination therapy (OM+amlodipine/azelnidipine or hydrochlorothiazide) vs OM monotherapy in adults with hypertension. BP-lowering efficacy, goal achievement, and adverse events were assessed in the full cohort and subgroups (elderly/nonelderly and patients with and without chronic kidney disease). In the full cohort at week 8, for dual therapy vs monotherapy, seated BP was lower (137.5/86.1 mm Hg vs 144.4/89.9 mm Hg), and the mean change from baseline in BP and BP goal achievement (<140/90 mm Hg) were greater (-22.7/-15.0 mm Hg vs -16.0/-11.3 mm Hg and 51.2% vs 34.7%, respectively). Adverse events were similar between groups. BP-lowering efficacy among subgroups mirrored the findings in the full cohort whereby changes were significantly greater following OM dual-combination therapy vs OM monotherapy

The Diabetes Subgroup Baseline Characteristics of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) Trial

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73240/1/j.1559-4572.2008.00023.x.pd

The OSCAR for cardiovascular disease prevention in chronic kidney disease goes to blood pressure control

Nephropathy progression is slowed and cardiovascular events reduced in patients with stage 3 or higher chronic kidney disease when blood pressure is controlled using combinations of renin–angiotensin system (RAS) blockers with dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers or diuretics. We discuss a trial comparing high-dose RAS blockade with lower-dose RAS blockade combined with a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker. The primary outcome was cardiovascular events. The combination group had better blood pressure control and fewer total events

Redefining diuretics use in hypertension: why select a thiazide-like diuretic?

: Diuretics are listed in hypertension guidelines as one of three equally weighted first-line treatment options. In order to differentiate between antihypertensives, a lot of discussion has been directed at side effect profiles and as a result, has created a perhaps disproportionate fear of the metabolic effects that can be associated with diuretics. Data, however, show that the risk of a clinically meaningful change in laboratory parameters is very low, whereas the benefits of volume control and natriuresis are high and the reductions in morbidity and mortality are clinically significant. Moreover, as clinically significant differences in safety and efficacy profiles exist among diuretics, several international guidelines have started making a distinction between thiazides (hydrochlorothiazide) and thiazide-like (chlorthalidone, indapamide) diuretics; and some of them now recommend longer acting thiazide-like diuretics. In time, pending more data, chlorthalidone and indapamide may need to be subdivided further into separate classifications

Novel non‐steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in cardiorenal disease

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are key agents in guideline-oriented drug therapy for cardiovascular diseases such as chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and resistant hypertension. Currently available steroidal MRAs are efficacious in reducing morbidity and mortality; however, they can be associated with intolerable side effects including hyperkalaemia in everyday clinical practice. Recently, a new class of non-steroidal MRAs (including esaxerenone, AZD9977, apararenone, KBP-5074 and finerenone) have been developed with an improved benefit-risk profile and a novel indication for finerenone for diabetic kidney disease. To better understand the non-steroidal MRAs, this review provides information on the molecular pharmacology as well as relevant current preclinical and clinical data on cardiorenal outcomes. A comparative review of all compounds in the class is discussed with regard to clinical efficacy and safety as well as a perspective outlining their future use in clinical practice. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue on Emerging Fields for Therapeutic Targeting of the Aldosterone-Mineralocorticoid Receptor Signaling Pathway. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v179.13/issueto

Differential effects of calcium channel blockers on size selectivity of proteinuria in diabetic glomerulopathy

Differential effects of calcium channel blockers on size selectivity of proteinuria in diabetic glomerulopathy.BackgroundCalcium channel blockers (CCBs) are known to have differential effects on both changes in proteinuria as well as progression of diabetic nephropathy. No clinical study, however, has evaluated whether the differential antiproteinuric effects of CCBs may be explained by their effect on glomerular membrane permeability. We, therefore, tested the hypothesis that certain subclasses of CCBs reduce proteinuria by changing size selectivity of the glomerular membrane, hence changing its permeability.MethodsTwenty-one patients with type 2 diabetes and the presence of nephropathy with hypertension were randomized to receive either diltiazem CD or nifedipine GITS after baseline data for mean systolic and diastolic pressure, urinary protein excretion, glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow, neutral dextran and IgG clearances were obtained. Glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow, neutral dextran and IgG clearance were measured every three months, arterial pressure and heart rate every month. Patients were followed for 21months.ResultsAt 21months, both patient groups had similar levels of blood pressure control, however, only the diltiazem group had a change in proteinuria (4 ± 10%Δ, nifedipine vs. -57 ± 18%Δ, diltiazem; P < 0.001) with improvement in glomerular size selectivity and change in IgG clearance.ConclusionsThese data support the hypothesis that CCBs that provide sustained reductions in proteinuria do so, in part, by improving glomerular size permselectivity

Evaluation of the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil in African-American patients with hypertension

The efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) were evaluated in African-American patients with hypertension in a 6-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, for which the primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (BP). There were 413 patients, with a mean age of 52years, 57% women, and baseline 24-hour BP of 146/91mmHg. Treatment differences in 24-hour systolic BP between AZL-M 40mg and placebo (-5.0mmHg; 95% confidence interval, -8.0 to -2.0) and AZL-M 80mg and placebo (-7.8mmHg; 95% confidence interval, -10.7 to -4.9) were significant (P.001 vs placebo for both comparisons). Changes in the clinic BPs were similar to the ambulatory BP results. Incidence rates of adverse events were comparable among the treatment groups, including those of a serious nature. In African-American patients with hypertension, AZL-M significantly reduced ambulatory and clinic BPs in a dose-dependent manner and was well tolerated

Sorafenib dose escalation is not uniformly associated with blood pressure elevations in normotensive patients with advanced malignancies.

Hypertension after treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor inhibitors is associated with superior treatment outcomes for advanced cancer patients. To determine whether increased sorafenib doses cause incremental increases in blood pressure (BP), we measured 12-h ambulatory BP in 41 normotensive advanced solid tumor patients in a randomized dose-escalation study. After 7 days' treatment (400 mg b.i.d.), mean diastolic BP (DBP) increased in both study groups. After dose escalation, group A (400 mg t.i.d.) had marginally significant further increase in 12-h mean DBP (P = 0.053), but group B (600 mg b.i.d.) did not achieve statistically significant increases (P = 0.25). Within groups, individuals varied in BP response to sorafenib dose escalation, but these differences did not correlate with changes in steady-state plasma sorafenib concentrations. These findings in normotensive patients suggest BP is a complex pharmacodynamic biomarker of VEGF inhibition. Patients have intrinsic differences in sensitivity to sorafenib's BP-elevating effects

Risk factors for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 4 chronic kidney disease treated with bardoxolone methyl

Background: A phase 3 randomized clinical trial was designed to test whether bardoxolone methyl, a nuclear factor erythroid-2–related factor 2 (Nrf2) activator, slows progression to end-stage renal disease in patients with stage 4 chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The trial was terminated because of an increase in heart failure in the bardoxolone methyl group; many of the events were clinically associated with fluid retention.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Methods and Results: We randomized 2,185 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate 15 to &lt;30 mL min−1 1.73 m−2) to once-daily bardoxolone methyl (20 mg) or placebo. We used classification and regression tree analysis to identify baseline factors predictive of heart failure or fluid overload events. Elevated baseline B-type natriuretic peptide and previous hospitalization for heart failure were identified as predictors of heart failure events; bardoxolone methyl increased the risk of heart failure by 60% in patients with these risk factors. For patients without these baseline characteristics, the risk for heart failure events among bardoxolone methyl– and placebo-treated patients was similar (2%). The same risk factors were also identified as predictors of fluid overload and appeared to be related to other serious adverse events.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; Conclusions: Bardoxolone methyl contributed to events related to heart failure and/or fluid overload in a subpopulation of susceptible patients with an increased risk for heart failure at baseline. Careful selection of participants and vigilant monitoring of the study drug will be required in any future trials of bardoxolone methyl to mitigate the risk of heart failure and other serious adverse events.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt