Matrix study of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Dose finding studies with imidapril--a new ACE inhibitor. Tricenter assessment of the efficacy of the ACE inhibitor, moexipril, by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. Distinct time courses of renal protective action of angiotensin receptor antagonists and ACE inhibitors in chronic renal disease. Effect of intensive blood pressure control with valsartan on urinary albumin excretion in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Evaluation of the 24-hour blood pressure effects of eprosartan in patients with systemic hypertension. Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators.
The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and antihypertensive dose-response effects of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 4- to 5-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 683 patients with seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) between 95 and 110 mm Hg were randomized to receive once-daily dosing with one of 16 different double-blind, fixed combinations of irbesartan (0, 37.5, 100, and 300 mg irbesartan) and HCTZ (0, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg HCTZ) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in trough SeDBP after 8 weeks of therapy. Data were analyzed by response surface modeling. At Week 8, mean changes from baseline in trough SeDBP (mm Hg) ranged from -3.5 for placebo, -7.1 to -10.2 for the irbesartan monotherapy groups, -5.1 to -8.3 for the HCTZ monotherapy groups, and -8.1 to -15.0 for the combination groups. Irbesartan plus HCTZ produced additive reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic BP, with at least one combination producing greater BP reduction than either drug alone (P < .001). All treatments were well tolerated; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events. Irbesartan tended to ameliorate the dose-related biochemical abnormalities associated with HCTZ alone. In conclusion, the combination of HCTZ in doses up to 25 mg with irbesartan, in doses up to 300 mg, is safe and produces dose-dependent reductions in BP. 1. We describe an approach involving a smaller, shorter study, leading onto a longer, larger study in which the antihypertensive effects of ascending doses of imidapril, a new ACE inhibitor, were investigated. Both studies were planned prospectively, assuming a clinically useful fall in BP to be 8 mm Hg (s.d. = 9). The studies included patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (baseline sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) 95-115 mm Hg). After a placebo run-in of 2-3 weeks patients received either placebo or imidapril 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 mg in the 2 week study (n = 91) or imidapril 5, 10, 20 or 40 mg in the 4 week study (n = 162). 2. The overall mean baseline SDBP was 103.4 mm Hg (s.d. 0.62) in the initial study and 101.5 mm Hg (s.d. 0.41) in the 4 week study. 3. Compared with placebo, imidapril 10, 20 and 40 mg significantly reduced SDBP. There was no significant difference between these doses, suggesting that 10 mg achieved maximal ACE inhibition in most patients. The 2.5 mg dose showed no significant effect. The 5 mg dose gave an intermediate effect. In both studies the overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the imidapril and placebo groups, and was not worrying. To assess the efficacy and time-dependent effects of once-daily moexipril, a nonsulfhydryl ester prodrug of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, moexiprilat, we conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 51 hypertensive patients using both clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Patients were included in the trial based on a minimum of 40% of the daytime diastolic BPs of 90 mm Hg or more during a placebo baseline phase; and the primary endpoint was change in 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP. Patients were randomized to receive placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, or 15 mg of moexipril once daily. Clinic and ambulatory BPs were taken on the first day and after eight weeks of double-blind therapy. After the 7.5-mg dose, there were no significant changes in the acute or prolonged clinic BPs compared with placebo. Compared with adjusted mean changes for placebo, the 15-mg moexipril dose lowered clinic systolic BP, but not diastolic BP. In contrast, acute (1 day) reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were -2/-3 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -14/-9 mm Hg on placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, and 15 mg of moexipril, respectively (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose). Similarly, after long-term dosing for 8 weeks, reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were 1/-2 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -12/-9 mm Hg for the respective treatment groups (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Pharmaceutical care programs may be an option to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of pharmaceutical care programs in treating patients with resistant hypertension.
                In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 71 patients with uncontrolled BP were enrolled in a pharmaceutical care program or in a control group and underwent a series of cognitive tests. The primary outcome was change in ambulatory BP (ABP) between the baseline evaluation and the final visit 6 months later. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of drug-related problems and adherence as determined by plasma levels of hydrochlorothiazide.
                The delta-values between the intervention and control groups for ABP in the different daily periods, with the corresponding 95% confidence limits, adjusted for age and baseline BP were: 3 (-1 to 5), 2 (-2 to 4), and 5 (-1 to 6) mm Hg for 24 h, daily and nightly systolic BP, respectively. The corresponding values for diastolic BP were 1 (-1 to 3), 0 (-2 to 2), and 3 (-1 to 4) mm Hg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide was detected in the plasma in 21 of 27 patients in the intervention group that attended to all appointments and 24 of 30 patients in the control group (P = .904).
                The pharmaceutical care program tested in this trial was feasible and showed a trend for better BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. BP is an important determinant of kidney disease among patients with diabetes. The recommended thresholds to initiate treatment to lower BP are 130/80 and 125/75 mmHg for people with diabetes and nephropathy, respectively. We sought to determine the effects of lowering BP below these currently recommended thresholds on renal outcomes among 11,140 patients who had type 2 diabetes and participated in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed combination perindopril-indapamide or placebo, regardless of their BP at entry. During a mean follow-up of 4.3 yr, active treatment reduced the risk for renal events by 21% (P < 0.0001), which was driven by reduced risks for developing microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (both P < 0.003). Effects of active treatment were consistent across subgroups defined by baseline systolic or diastolic BP. Lower systolic BP levels during follow-up, even to <110 mmHg, was associated with progressively lower rates of renal events. In conclusion, BP-lowering treatment with perindopril-indapamide administered routinely to individuals with type 2 diabetes provides important renoprotection, even among those with initial BP <120/70 mmHg. We could not identify a BP threshold below which renal benefit is lost. Although the angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB) shares the angiotensin-II-blocking activity with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I), pharmacological mechanisms of action of these agents differ. We evaluated the temporal profiles of action of ACE-I and ARB on urinary protein excretion and nitrate/nitrate (NO(x)) excretion in hypertensive (140 and/or 90 mmHg) patients with chronic renal disease (serum creatinine < 265 (range, 44-265) micromol/l or creatinine clearance > 30 (range, 30-121) ml/min). Patients with mild (<1 g/day; range, 0.4-1.0) and moderate proteinuria (>1 g/day; range, 1.1-6.9) were randomly assigned to ACE-I- and ARB-treated groups, and were treated with ACE-I (trandolapril or perindopril) or ARB(losartan or candesartan) for 48 weeks. In all groups, treatment with ACE-I or ARB decreased blood pressure to the same level, but had no effect on creatinine clearance. In patients with mild proteinuria, neither ACE-I nor ARB altered urinary protein excretion. In patients with moderate proteinuria, ACE-I caused 44 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria (from 2.7 +/- 0.5 to 1.5 +/- 0.4 g/day, n = 14) at 12 weeks, and this beneficial effect persisted throughout the protocol (48 weeks, 1.2 +/- 0.2 g/day). In contrast, ARB did not produce a significant decrease in proteinuria at 12 weeks (23 +/- 8%, n = 13), but a 41 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria was observed at 48 weeks. Similarly, although early (12 weeks) increases in urinary NO(x) excretion were observed with ACE-I (from 257 +/- 70 to 1111 +/- 160 micromol/day) and ARB (from 280 +/- 82 to 723 +/- 86 micromol/day), the ARB-induced increase in NO(x) excretion was smaller than that by ACE-I (P < 0.05). In conclusion, although both ACE-I and ARB reduce blood pressure similarly, the effect of these agents on proteinuria differs in chronic renal disease with moderate proteinuria. Relatively early onset of the proteinuria-reducing effect was observed with ACE-I, which paralleled the increase in urinary NO(x) excretion. Conversely, ARB decreased proteinuria and increased urinary NO(x) excretion gradually. These time course-dependent changes in proteinuria and urinary NO(x) may reflect the pharmacological property of ACE-I and ARB, with regard to the action on bradykinin. Diabetes is the most common cause of renal failure in the United States, and data regarding the effects of aggressive blood pressure (BP) therapy in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes are inadequate.
                A total of 129 type 2 diabetic patients with a BP of <140/80 to 90 mm Hg without overt albuminuria were randomized to either intensive BP control (diastolic BP goal 75 mm Hg) using an angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, versus moderate BP control (diastolic BP 80 to 90 mm Hg with placebo initially) to evaluate the effect on the change in urinary albumin excretion (UAE) from baseline.
                The mean entrance BP was 126 +/- 8.8/84 +/- 2.4 mm Hg. The mean follow-up period was 1.9 +/- 1.0 years. During the follow-up period, the mean BP was 118 +/- 10.9/75 +/- 5.7 for the intensive v 124 10.9/80 6.5 mm Hg for the moderate BP groups (P < .001). No difference was observed in change in creatinine clearance or serum creatinine from baseline between the two groups. An analysis of covariance model for change in log (UAE + 1), adjusting for age, HBA(1c), duration of diabetes, baseline log (UAE + 1), sex, and ethnicity resulted in a significant treatment difference at 2 years (P = .007) with intensive BP control reducing log (UAE+1) compared with moderate BP control.
                Intensive BP control with valsartan to <120/80 mm Hg in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes and normo- or microalbuminuria significantly decreased the progression of UAE and in some cases caused regression of UAE. Eprosartan is a new nonphenyl angiotensin II receptor blocker, which has been approved for the treatment of hypertension. Although the drug has a relatively short plasma half-life of 5 to 9 h, clinical studies have suggested that its antihypertensive effect persists for 24 h.
                We assessed both the changes in 24-h and trough blood pressure (BP) (last 4 h of the ambulatory BP while the patient was awake) of eprosartan at doses of 600 and 1,200 mg once daily in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ambulatory BP was monitored at placebo baseline and after 8 weeks of double-blind therapy.
                Two hundred patients randomized in the study with 177 patients completing the trial. The 24-h change in BP from baseline was 0.2/0.1 +/- 1.4/1.0 mm Hg, -7.9/ -5.4 +/- 1.0 mm Hg (P < .0001), and -7.4/-5.0 +/- 0.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) in the placebo, 600-mg eprosartan, and 1,200-mg eprosartan groups, respectively. Changes in trough ambulatory BP showed significant reductions of -6.3/-4.1 +/- 1.6/1.1 mm Hg and -7.7/-5.5 +/- 1.5/1.0 mm Hg for 600 mg of eprosartan and 1,200 mg of eprosartan, respectively.
                These data demonstrate that eprosartan at doses of 600 or 1200 mg significantly reduced BP throughout an entire 24-h dosing period. There were no differences between the 600- and 1,200-mg dose; thus, 600 mg once daily should be the only dose used in the treatment of hypertension with eprosartan. The primary objectives of this double-blind study were to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan and losartan, two angiotensin II (AT1 subtype) receptor antagonists with different pharmacokinetic profiles in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Both drugs are approved for once-daily use (although losartan may also be prescribed twice-daily). After a placebo lead-in, 567 patients were randomized (1:1:1:1) to once-daily therapy with placebo, 100 mg losartan, 150 mg irbesartan, or 300 mg irbesartan for 8 weeks. Treatment groups had comparable demographic and baseline characteristics. After 8 weeks of treatment, reductions from baseline in trough seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) and trough seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) with 300 mg irbesartan were greater than with 100 mg losartan (P < .01 for both comparisons), by 3.0 and 5.1 mm Hg, respectively; larger reductions were also demonstrated at weeks 1 and 4 (P < .01 and P = .017, respectively, for SeDBP). Throughout the study, the antihypertensive effect of 150 mg irbesartan did not differ significantly from that of 100 mg losartan. All therapies were well tolerated. The 300 mg dose of irbesartan was associated with the lowest incidence of adverse events (AE) and discontinuations because of AE. This study demonstrates that the maximally effective once-daily doses of two different AT1 receptor antagonists may result in clinically significant differences in blood pressure reductions, and therefore highlights the potential importance of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences between these two members of this class.
The evidence from this review suggests that there are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between available ARBs. The BP lowering effect of ARBs is modest and similar to ACE inhibitors as a class; the magnitude of average trough BP lowering for ARBs at maximum recommended doses and above is -8/-5 mmHg.  Furthermore, 60 to 70% of this trough BP lowering effect occurs with recommended starting doses. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ARBs because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.