Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of angiotensin receptor blockade in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of angiotensin II receptor antagonists as a therapeutic class. DESIGN: Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling study. METHODS: The data of 14 phase I studies with 10 different drugs were analysed. A common population pharmacokinetic model (two compartments, mixed zero- and first-order absorption, two metabolite compartments) was applied to the 2685 drug and 900 metabolite concentration measurements. A standard nonlinear mixed effect modelling approach was used to estimate the drug-specific parameters and their variabilities. Similarly, a pharmacodynamic model was applied to the 7360 effect measurements, i.e. the decrease of peak blood pressure response to intravenous angiotensin challenge recorded by finger photoplethysmography. The concentration of drug and metabolite in an effect compartment was assumed to translate into receptor blockade [maximum effect (Emax) model with first-order link]. RESULTS: A general pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model for angiotensin antagonism in healthy individuals was successfully built up for the 10 drugs studied. Representatives of this class share different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Their effects on blood pressure are dose-dependent, but the time course of the effect varies between the drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The characterisation of PK-PD relationships for these drugs gives the opportunity to optimise therapeutic regimens and to suggest dosage adjustments in specific conditions. Such a model can be used to further refine the use of this class of drugs.

Critical review of cancer risk associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy.

The role of drugs in new cancer occurrence and cancer-related death is a major concern. Recently, a meta-analysis raised the possibility that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) might have an adverse effect on patients. This generated a significant debate until the publication of two further meta-analyses, neither of which demonstrated an increased risk of new cancer occurrence or cancer-related death with the use of ARBs in patients with hypertension, heart failure, and/or nephropathy. This illustrates that the results of meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and critically as bias, such as selection bias, might lead to erroneous conclusions. Overall, the bulk of evidence today indicates that ARBs are not associated with increased cancer risk.

Changes in Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity in Hypertensive Postmenopausal Women: Comparison Between a Calcium Channel Blocker vs Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Regimen.

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:773-778. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Postmenopausal women are at greater risk for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive therapy may help alleviate arterial stiffness that represents a potential modifiable risk factor of hypertension. This randomized controlled study investigated the difference between an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in reducing arterial stiffness. Overall, 125 postmenopausal hypertensive women (age, 61.4±6 years; systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], 158±11/92±9 mm Hg) were randomized to valsartan 320 mg±hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (n=63) or amlodipine 10 mg±HCTZ (n=62). The primary outcome was carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Both treatments lowered peripheral blood pressure (BP) (-22.9/-10.9 mm Hg for valsartan and -25.2/-11.7 mm Hg for amlodipine, P=not significant) and central BP (-15.7/-7.6 mm Hg for valsartan and -19.2/-10.3 mm Hg for amlodipine, P<.05 for central DBP). Both treatments similarly reduced the carotid-femoral PWV (-1.9 vs -1.7 m/s; P=not significant). Amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral edema compared with the valsartan group (77% vs 14%, P<.001). BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness as assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV to a similar degree after 38 weeks of treatment despite differences in central BP lowering, suggesting that the effect of valsartan on PWV is mediated through nonhemodynamic effects.

Changes in Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity in Hypertension Post-Menopausal Women: Comparison Between Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) Vs Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) Regimen

Objective: To compare effects of a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker, using a CCB, or a RAS blocker, using an ARB regimen on the arterial stiffness reduction in postmenopausal hypertensive women. Methods: In this prospective study, a total of 125 hypertensive women (age: 61.4_6 yrs; 98% Caucasian; BW: 71.9_14 kg; BMI: 27.3_5 kg/m2; SBP/ DBP: 158_11/92_9 mmHg) were randomized between ARB (valsartan 320mg_HCTZ) and CCB (amlodipine 10mg _ HCTZ). The primary outcome was carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline demographic data between the two groups. Both treatments effectively lowered BP at the end of the study with similar (p>0.05) reductions in the valsartan (_22.9/_10.9 mmHg) and amlodipine based (_25.2/_11.7 mmHg) treatment groups. Despite a lower (p<0.05 for DBP) central SBP/DBP in the CCB group (_19.2/_10.3 mmHg) compared to the valsartan group (_15.7/_7.6 mmHg) at week 38, a similar reduction in carotid-femoral PWV (_1.7 vs _1.9 m/sec; p>0.05) was observed between both groups. The numerically larger BP reduction observed in the CCB group was associated with a much higher incidence of peripheral edema (77% vs 14%) than the valsartan group. Conclusion: In summary, BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV at 38 weeks of treatment to a similar degree, despite differences in BP lowering suggesting that the effect of RAS blockade to influence PWV may partly be independent of BP.

Angiotensin receptor blockers are not associated with reduced inflammatory markers in the general population.

OBJECTIVE: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been suggested to reduce inflammation in randomized controlled trials. We assessed the association between ARBs and inflammatory markers in a general population setting. METHODS: This is a population-based prospective study conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland. Baseline data from 933 participants on antihypertensive drugs (424 on ARBs) was collected in 2003-2006. Follow-up data from 1120 participants (572 on ARBs) was collected in 2009-2012. C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukins 1β and 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) were assessed and categorized in quartiles. RESULTS: At baseline, no differences were found between participants taking or not taking ARBs for all inflammatory markers studied, and this association persisted after multivariate adjustment: odds ratios (ORs) and (95% confidence interval) for being in the highest quartile of interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, TNF-α and CRP for participants on ARB compared to participants not on ARB were 1.23 (0.89-1.70), 1.26 (0.93-1.70), 1.14 (0.85-1.53) and 1.27 (0.96-1.69) respectively (P > 0.05). These findings were further replicated in the follow-up study: OR and (95% CI) of 1.10 (0.78-1.55), 0.87 (0.64-1.19), 0.83 (0.61-1.14) and 0.91 (0.68-1.22) for interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, TNF-α and CRP respectively (P > 0.05). Finally, no effect of ARBs was found when comparing participants who received ARBs throughout the 5.4-year follow-up with participants on other antihypertensive drugs: OR and (95% CI) of 0.93 (0.61-1.42), 0.80 (0.54-1.17), 0.86 (0.59-1.25) and 0.95 (0.67-1.35) for interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, TNF-α and CRP respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: ARBs are not associated with reduced levels of inflammatory markers in the general population.

Clinical and hormonal effects of the new angiotensin II receptor antagonist LRB081.

The renin-angiotensin system is a major contributor to the pathophysiology of cardiovascular diseases such as congestive heart failure and hypertension. Antagonizing angiotensin (Ang) II at the receptor site may produce fewer side effects than inhibition of the promiscuous converting enzyme. The present study was designed to assess in healthy human subjects the effect of LRB081, a new orally active AT1-receptor antagonist, on the pressor action of exogenous Ang II. At the same time, plasma hormones and drug levels were monitored. At 1-week intervals and in a double-blind randomized fashion, 8 male volunteers received three doses of LRB081 (10, 40, and 80 mg) and placebo. Blood pressure (BP) was measured at a finger by photoplethysmograph. The peak BP response to intravenous injection of a standard dose of Ang II was determined before and for < or = 24 h after administration of an oral dose of LRB081 or placebo. After drug administration, the blood BP response to Ang II was expressed in percent of the response before drug administration. At the same time, plasma renin activity (PRA), Ang II, aldosterone, catecholamine (radioassays), and drug levels (by high-performance liquid chromatography) were monitored. After LRB081 administration, a dose dependent inhibition of the BP response to Ang II was observed. Maximal inhibition of the systolic BP response was 54 +/- 3 (mean +/- SEM), 63 +/- 2, and 93 +/- 1% with 10, 40, and 80 mg LRB081, respectively. The time to peak was 3 h for 6 subjects and 4 and 6 h for 2 others. Preliminary plasma half-life (t1/2) was calculated at 2 h. With the highest dose, the inhibition remained significant for 24 h (31 +/- 5%, p < 0.05). Maximal BP-blocking effect and maximal plasma drug level coincided, suggesting that the unmetabolized LRB081 is responsible for the antagonistic effect. PRA and Ang II increased dose dependently after LRB081 intake. Aldosterone, epinephrine, and norepinephrine concentrations remained unchanged. No clinically significant adverse reaction was observed during the study. LRB081 is a well-tolerated, orally active, potent, and long-acting Ang II receptor antagonist. Unlike in the case of losartan, no active metabolite of LRB081 has been shown to be responsible for the main effects.

Short-term and sustained renal effects of angiotensin II receptor blockade in healthy subjects.

We investigated the short-term and sustained hormonal and renal effects of angiotensin II (Ang II) receptor blockade in normotensive healthy volunteers. Twenty-four subjects maintained on a fixed sodium diet were randomized to receive for 8 days a placebo or 10 or 50 mg doses of the Ang II antagonist irbesartan (SR 47436, BMS 186295) according to a double-blind, parallel group design. Plasma renin activity, plasma immunoreactive Ang II and aldosterone levels, blood pressure, renal hemodynamics, and urinary electrolyte excretion were measured for 8 hours after the first and eighth administration of each dose of irbesartan or placebo. Ang II receptor blockade with irbesartan induced a dose-dependent compensatory increase in plasma renin activity and plasma angiotensin levels and a significant decrease in plasma aldosterone levels. The compensatory rise in plasma renin activity and Ang II levels was more pronounced on day 8, reflecting a long duration of the blocking effect of irbesartan. Irbesartan induced small changes in blood pressure and did not significantly modify renal blood flow and glomerular filtration rate. However, a significant decrease in filtration fraction was observed during receptor blockade on days 1 and 8. The tubular effects of irbesartan were characterized by a dose-dependent increase in sodium and chloride excretions. Interestingly, the cumulative natriuretic response to Ang II receptor blockade was similar on days 1 and 8, suggesting that in these subjects, renal Ang II receptors are not blocked over 24 hours during repeated administration even though this antagonist has a long duration of action (t1/2 of 15 to 17 hours).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effect of indomethacin on the renal response to angiotensin II receptor blockade in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are known to promote sodium retention and to blunt the blood pressure lowering effects of several classes of antihypertensive agents including beta-blockers, diuretics and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the acute and sustained effects of indomethacin on the renal response to the angiotensin II receptor antagonist valsartan and to the ACE inhibitor enalapril. METHODS: Twenty normotensive subjects maintained on fixed sodium intake (100 mmol sodium/day) were randomized to receive for one week: valsartan 80 mg o.d., enalapril 20 mg o.d., valsartan 80 mg o.d. + indomethacin 50 mg bid and enalapril 20 mg o.d. + indomethacin 50 mg bid. This single-blind study was designed as a parallel (valsartan vs. enalapril) and cross-over trial (valsartan or enalapril vs. valsartan + indomethacin or enalapril + indomethacin). Renal hemodynamics and urinary electrolyte excretion were measured for six hours after the first and seventh administration of each treatment regimen. RESULTS: The results show that valsartan and enalapril have comparable renal effects characterized by no change in glomerular filtration rate and significant increases in renal plasma flow and sodium excretion. The valsartan- and enalapril-induced renal vasodilation is not significantly blunted by indomethacin. However, indomethacin similarly abolishes the natriuresis induced by the angiotensin II antagonist and the ACE inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: This observation suggests that although angiotensin receptor antagonists do not affect prostaglandin metabolism, the administration of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug blunts the natriuretic response to angiotensin receptor blockade.

Antagonistes de l'angiotensine II et cancer: un bilan rassurant [Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and cancer: a reassuring balance].

The effects of drugs on new cancer and cancer-related death are a major concern. Recently, a meta-analysis raised the possibility that ARBs might have an adverse impact in this respect. This point of view was highly debated until the publication of two other meta-analyses which did not demonstrate any increased risk of new cancer occurrence as well as of cancer related-death with the use of ARBs in patients with hypertension, heart failure and/or nephropathy. This illustrates that the results of meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and critically in order to avoid biased conclusions. Overall the bulk of evidence today indicates that ARBs are not associated with an increased cancer risk.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: is there room for dual blockade in the cardiorenal continuum?

Antagonism of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is exerted through angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor antagonists, renin inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. These drugs have been successfully tested in numerous trials and in different clinical settings. The original indications of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers have progressively expanded from the advanced stages to the earlier stages of cardiorenal continuum. To optimize the degree of blockade of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, dose uptitrations of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists or the use of a dual blockade, initially identified with the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists, have been proposed. The data from the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) study do not support this specific dual blockade approach. However, the dual blockade of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor antagonists with direct renin inhibitors is currently under investigation while that based on an aldosterone blocker with any of the previous three drugs requires more evidence beyond heart failure. In this review, we revisited potential advantages of dual blockade of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in arterial hypertension and diabetes.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system does not reduce platelet activity at rest or during stress in hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the influence of angiotensin receptor blockade and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition on stress-induced platelet activation in hypertensive patients. Secondary aims were effects on inflammation, coagulation, and endothelial function. METHODS: Following a 4-week placebo period, 25 hypertensive patients entered a double-blind, crossover study comparing enalapril (20 mg once daily) and losartan (100 mg once daily) treatment (each for 8 weeks). Patients were studied at rest and after a standardized exercise test. RESULTS: Mean arterial pressure was reduced from 119 ± 2 to 104 ± 2 (enalapril) and 106 ± 2 (losartan) mmHg (both P <0.001). Plasma angiotensin II decreased from 2.4 ± 0.4 to 0.5 ± 0.1 pmol/l with enalapril, and increased to 7.2 ± 1.3 pmol/l with losartan (both P <0.001). Exercise-evoked platelet activation, as evidenced by increased numbers of P-selectin-positive platelets (P <0.01), elevated circulating platelet-platelet aggregates (P <0.01) and soluble P-selectin levels (P <0.001), and increased platelet responsiveness to adenosine diphosphate and thrombin (both P <0.05). Neither drug influenced these markers of platelet activation at rest or following exercise. Markers of inflammation (high-sensitivity C reactive protein, interleukin-6, tissue necrosis factor-α), coagulation (tissue plasminogen activator antigen, prothrombin fragment F1+2), and endothelial function (von Willebrand factor, soluble vascular cellular adhesion molecule-1, and intercellular adhesion molecule-1) were also uninfluenced by treatment. CONCLUSION: Enalapril and losartan failed to reduce platelet activity both at rest and during exercise in hypertensive patients. Markers of inflammation, coagulation, and endothelial function were similarly unaffected. Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system promotes its beneficial effects in hypertension through mechanisms other than platelet inhibition.

Experience with angiotensin II antagonists in hypertensive patients.

1. The availability of orally active specific angiotensin receptor antagonists (AT1 antagonists) has opened new therapeutic choices and provided probes to test the specific role of the renin-angiotensin system in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. 2. The data available so far suggest that the antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor antagonists is comparable to that of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. This provides further evidence that this latter class of drugs exerts its effect mainly through blockade of the renin-angiotensin enzymatic cascade. As expected, the association of a diuretic exerts an equally strong additive effect to the antihypertensive efficacy of both classes of drugs. 3. The most common side effect of ACE inhibitors, dry cough, does not occur with AT1 antagonists, which confirms the long-held view that this untoward effect of the ACE inhibitors is due to renin-angiotensin-independent mechanisms. 4. Long-term studies with morbidity/mortality outcome results are needed, before a definite position can be assigned to this newcomer in the orchestra of modern antihypertensive drugs. Notwithstanding, this new class of agents already represents an exciting new addition to our therapeutic armamentarium.

Patients with non-insulin depending diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome are suboptimal treated in swiss primary care.

The prevalence of complicated hypertension is increasing in America and Europe. This survey was undertaken to assess the status quo of primary care management of hypertension in patients with the high-risk comorbid diseases metabolic syndrome (MetS) and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (non-insulin depending diabetes mellitus (NIDDM)). Data of anti-hypertensive treatment of 4594 Swiss patients were collected over 1 week. We identified patients with exclusively NIDDM (N = 95), MetS (N = 168), and both (N = 768). Target blood pressure (TBP) attainment, frequency of prescribed substance-classes, and correlations to comorbidities/end-organ damages were assessed. In addition, we analyzed the prescription of unfavorable beta-blockers (BB) and high-dose diuretics (Ds). In NIDDM, Ds (61%), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (40%), and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (31%) were mostly prescribed, while in MetS, drugs prevalence was Ds (68%), ARBs (48%), and BB (41%). Polypharmacy in patients with MetS correlated with body mass index; older patients (>65 years) were more likely to receive dual-free combinations. TBP was attained in 25.2% of NIDDM and in 28.7% of MetS patients. In general, low-dose Ds use was more prevalent in NIDDM and MetS, however, overall, Ds were used excessively (NIDDM: 61%, MetS: 68%), especially in single-pill combination. Patients with MetS were more likely to receive ARBs, ACEIs, CCBs, and low-dose Ds than BBs and/or high-dose Ds. Physicians recognize DM and MetS as high-risk patients, but select inappropriate drugs. Because the majority of patients may have both, MetS and NIDDM, there is an unmet need to define TBP for this specific population considering the increased risk in comparison to patients with MetS or NIDDM alone.

Prevention of microalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes: what do we know?

Cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease are epidemic throughout industrialized societies. Diabetes leads to premature cardiovascular disease and is regarded by many as the most common etiological factor for chronic kidney disease. Because most studies of blood-pressure lowering agents in people with diabetes and hypertension have been conducted in individuals who already have some target organ damage, it is unclear whether earlier intervention could prevent or delay the onset of renal or systemic vascular disease. In early disease there is only a low possibility of observing cardiovascular or renal events; thus intervention trials in this population must rely on disease markers such as microalbuminuria. Accordingly, the authors review the evidence to support the use of microalbuminuria as a disease marker in diabetic patients based on its strong association with renal and cardiovascular events, and discuss recent trials that examine the impact of preventing or delaying the onset of microalbuminuria.