Moexipril and left ventricular hypertrophy

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors today are the standard therapy of patients with myocardial infarction and heart failure due to their proven beneficial effects in left ventricular remodeling and left ventricular function. ACE inhibitors have also been demonstrated to lead to regression of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). It is believed that the mechanism of action of LVH regression with ACE inhibitors arises from more than simple blood pressure reduction. LVH is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality independent of blood pressure. Moexipril hydrochloride is a long-acting, non-sulfhydryl ACE inhibitor that can be taken once daily for the treatment of hypertension. Moexipril has now also been demonstrated to have beneficial effects on LVH and can lead to LVH regression

Long-term efficacy of a combination of amlodipine and olmesartan medoxomil±hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension stratified by age, race and diabetes status: a substudy of the COACH trial

A prespecified subgroup analysis of a 44-week open-label extension study is presented. The efficacy and safety of the combination of amlodipine (AML)+ olmesartan medoxomil (OM), with and without the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were investigated in patients aged ⩾65 and <65 years, Blacks and non-Blacks and patients with and without type 2 diabetes. After an 8-week double-blind, placebo-controlled portion of the study, patients initiated therapy on AML 5+OM 40 mg per day, were uptitrated stepwise to AML 10+OM 40 mg per day, with the addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg, and 25 mg if blood pressure (BP) goal was not achieved (<140/90 or <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes). Endpoints included the change from baseline in mean seated systolic BP, mean seated diastolic BP and achievement of BP goal. BP decreased from baseline for all treatments in each prespecified subgroup. By the end of the study, BP goal was achieved in 61.0% of patients aged ⩾65 years, 68.1% of patients aged <65 years, 63.3% of Blacks, 67.8% of non-Blacks, 26.9% of patients with diabetes and 72.9% of patients without diabetes. The combination of AML+OM±HCTZ was efficacious, safe and well tolerated by these subgroups

Continuum of vasodilator stress from rest to contrast medium to adenosine hyperemia for fractional flow reserve assessment

Objectives: This study compared the diagnostic performance with adenosine-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.8 of contrast-based FFR (cFFR), resting distal pressure (Pd)/aortic pressure (Pa), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Background: FFR objectively identifies lesions that benefit from medical therapy versus revascularization. However, FFR requires maximal vasodilation, usually achieved with adenosine. Radiographic contrast injection causes submaximal coronary hyperemia. Therefore, intracoronary contrast could provide an easy and inexpensive tool for predicting FFR. Methods: We recruited patients undergoing routine FFR assessment and made paired, repeated measurements of all physiology metrics (Pd/Pa, iFR, cFFR, and FFR). Contrast medium and dose were per local practice, as was the dose of intracoronary adenosine. Operators were encouraged to perform both intracoronary and intravenous adenosine assessments and a final drift check to assess wire calibration. A central core lab analyzed blinded pressure tracings in a standardized fashion. Results: A total of 763 subjects were enrolled from 12 international centers. Contrast volume was 8 ± 2 ml per measurement, and 8 different contrast media were used. Repeated measurements of each metric showed a bias &lt;0.005, but a lower SD (less variability) for cFFR than resting indexes. Although Pd/Pa and iFR demonstrated equivalent performance against FFR ≤0.8 (78.5% vs. 79.9% accuracy; p = 0.78; area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.875 vs. 0.881; p = 0.35), cFFR improved both metrics (85.8% accuracy and 0.930 area; p &lt; 0.001 for each) with an optimal binary threshold of 0.83. A hybrid decision-making strategy using cFFR required adenosine less often than when based on either Pd/Pa or iFR. Conclusions: cFFR provides diagnostic performance superior to that of Pd/Pa or iFR for predicting FFR. For clinical scenarios or health care systems in which adenosine is contraindicated or prohibitively expensive, cFFR offers a universal technique to simplify invasive coronary physiological assessments. Yet FFR remains the reference standard for diagnostic certainty as even cFFR reached only ∼85% agreement

Chemical informatics uncovers a new role for moexipril as a novel inhibitor of cAMP phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4)

PDE4 is one of eleven known cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase families and plays a pivotal role in mediating hydrolytic degradation of the important cyclic nucleotide second messenger, cyclic 3′5′ adenosine monophosphate (cAMP). PDE4 inhibitors are known to have anti-inflammatory properties, but their use in the clinic has been hampered by mechanism-associated side effects that limit maximally tolerated doses. In an attempt to initiate the development of better-tolerated PDE4 inhibitors we have surveyed existing approved drugs for PDE4-inhibitory activity. With this objective, we utilised a high-throughput computational approach that identified moexipril, a well tolerated and safe angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, as a PDE4 inhibitor. Experimentally we showed that moexipril and two structurally related analogues acted in the micro molar range to inhibit PDE4 activity. Employing a FRET-based biosensor constructed from the nucleotide binding domain of the type 1 exchange protein activated by cAMP, EPAC1, we demonstrated that moexipril markedly potentiated the ability of forskolin to increase intracellular cAMP levels. Finally, we demonstrated that the PDE4 inhibitory effect of moexipril is functionally able to induce phosphorylation of the Hsp20 by cAMP dependent protein kinase A. Our data suggest that moexipril is a bona fide PDE4 inhibitor that may provide the starting point for development of novel PDE4 inhibitors with an improved therapeutic window

Efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine combination therapy in reducing ambulatory blood pressure in moderate-to-severe hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine alone

Efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine combination therapy in reducing ambulatory blood pressure in moderate-to-severe hypertensive patients not controlled by amlodipine alon

Combination therapy in hypertension: An update

Meticulous control of blood pressure is required in patients with hypertension to produce the maximum reduction in clinical cardiovascular end points, especially in patients with comorbidities like diabetes mellitus where more aggressive blood pressure lowering might be beneficial. Recent clinical trials suggest that the approach of using monotherapy for the control of hypertension is not likely to be successful in most patients. Combination therapy may be theoretically favored by the fact that multiple factors contribute to hypertension, and achieving control of blood pressure with single agent acting through one particular mechanism may not be possible. Regimens can either be fixed dose combinations or drugs added sequentially one after other. Combining the drugs makes them available in a convenient dosing format, lower the dose of individual component, thus, reducing the side effects and improving compliance. Classes of antihypertensive agents which have been commonly used are angiotensin receptor blockers, thiazide diuretics, beta and alpha blockers, calcium antagonists and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers are effective, as well as combinations that include renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers, in reducing BP. The majority of currently available fixed-dose combinations are diuretic-based. Combinations may be individualized according to the presence of comorbidities like diabetes mellitus, chronic renal failure, heart failure, thyroid disorders and for special population groups like elderly and pregnant females

Application of Direct Renin Inhibition to Chronic Kidney Disease

Chronic kidney disease has serious implications with a high risk for progressive loss of renal function, increased cardiovascular events as well as a substantial financial burden. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is activated in chronic kidney disease, especially in diabetes and hypertension, which are the leading causes of chronic kidney disease. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) decrease the rate of progression of diabetic and non-diabetic nephropathy and are recommended therapy for chronic kidney disease. Key clinical trials supporting the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in chronic kidney disease are discussed. Recent developments in our understanding of RAAS biology and the use of direct renin inhibition are reviewed in the context of their potential impact on the prevention and management of chronic kidney disease. Despite the clinical success of ACE inhibitors and ARBs the rates of mortality and progression to renal failure remain high in these patient populations. ACE inhibitor or ARB monotherapy, in doses commonly used in clinical practice does not result in complete suppression of the RAAS. Aliskiren, a direct renin inhibitor, offers a novel approach to inhibit the RAAS in chronic kidney disease. High dose ARB therapy or combination therapies with ACE inhibitors and ARBs have shown beneficial effects on surrogate markers of chronic kidney disease. Early data based on urinary protein excretion rates as a surrogate marker for renal function suggest a possibly novel role for aliskiren alone or in combination with ARBs in chronic kidney disease

Cardiovascular Response to Beta-Adrenergic Blockade or Activation in 23 Inbred Mouse Strains

We report the characterisation of 27 cardiovascular-related traits in 23 inbred mouse strains. Mice were phenotyped either in response to chronic administration of a single dose of the β-adrenergic receptor blocker atenolol or under a low and a high dose of the β-agonist isoproterenol and compared to baseline condition. The robustness of our data is supported by high trait heritabilities (typically H2>0.7) and significant correlations of trait values measured in baseline condition with independent multistrain datasets of the Mouse Phenome Database. We then focused on the drug-, dose-, and strain-specific responses to β-stimulation and β-blockade of a selection of traits including heart rate, systolic blood pressure, cardiac weight indices, ECG parameters and body weight. Because of the wealth of data accumulated, we applied integrative analyses such as comprehensive bi-clustering to investigate the structure of the response across the different phenotypes, strains and experimental conditions. Information extracted from these analyses is discussed in terms of novelty and biological implications. For example, we observe that traits related to ventricular weight in most strains respond only to the high dose of isoproterenol, while heart rate and atrial weight are already affected by the low dose. Finally, we observe little concordance between strain similarity based on the phenotypes and genotypic relatedness computed from genomic SNP profiles. This indicates that cardiovascular phenotypes are unlikely to segregate according to global phylogeny, but rather be governed by smaller, local differences in the genetic architecture of the various strains

Expert consensus document: A 'diamond' approach to personalized treatment of angina.

In clinical guidelines, drugs for symptomatic angina are classified as being first choice (β-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, short-acting nitrates) or second choice (ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, trimetazidine), with the recommendation to reserve second-choice medications for patients who have contraindications to first-choice agents, do not tolerate them, or remain symptomatic. No direct comparisons between first-choice and second-choice treatments have demonstrated the superiority of one group of drugs over the other. Meta-analyses show that all antianginal drugs have similar efficacy in reducing symptoms, but provide no evidence for improvement in survival. The newer, second-choice drugs have more evidence-based clinical data that are more contemporary than is available for traditional first-choice drugs. Considering some drugs, but not others, to be first choice is, therefore, difficult. Moreover, double or triple therapy is often needed to control angina. Patients with angina can have several comorbidities, and symptoms can result from various underlying pathophysiologies. Some agents, in addition to having antianginal effects, have properties that could be useful depending on the comorbidities present and the mechanisms of angina, but the guidelines do not provide recommendations on the optimal combinations of drugs. In this Consensus Statement, we propose an individualized approach to angina treatment, which takes into consideration the patient, their comorbidities, and the underlying mechanism of disease