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.

Characterization of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist TCV-116 in healthy volunteers.

The purpose of this study was to assess the inhibitory effect of TCV-116, an orally active angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist, on the pressor action of exogenous Ang II and to determine the compensatory rise in plasma renin activity and Ang II levels. Twenty-three male volunteers were treated for 8 days in a double-blind fashion with either placebo or TCV-116 (1, 2, or 4 mg PO daily) and challenged on the first, fourth, and eighth days with repeated bolus injections of Ang II. An additional 4 subjects received 8 mg PO daily in a single-blind fashion. The inhibitory effect on the systolic blood pressure response to Ang II was long lasting and clearly dose related. Six hours after 4 mg TCV-116, the systolic blood pressure response to a given dose of Ang II was reduced to 40 +/- 4% and 35 +/- 8% of baseline value on days 1 and 8, respectively. TCV-116 induced a dose-related increase in plasma renin activity and Ang II levels that was more pronounced on the eighth than on the first day of drug administration. Despite this compensatory mechanism, the relation between the time-integrated systolic blood pressure response to Ang II and the time-integrated CV-11974 levels, the active metabolite of TCV-116, was not different between days 1 and 8. In conclusion, TCV-116 appears to be a well-tolerated, orally active, potent, and long-lasting antagonist of Ang II in men.

Clinical pharmacology of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan potassium in healthy subjects

INTRODUCTION: The evaluation of a new drug in normotensive volunteers provides important pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic information as long as the compound has a specific mechanism of action which can be evaluated in healthy subjects as well as in patients. The purpose of the present paper is to discuss the results that have been obtained in normal volunteers with the specific angiotensin II receptor antagonist, losartan potassium. DOSE-FINDING: Over the last few years, studies in normotensive subjects have demonstrated that the minimal dose of losartan that produces maximal efficacy is 40-80 mg. Losartan has a long duration of action and its ability to produce a sustained blockade of the renin-angiotensin system is due almost exclusively to the active metabolite E3174. HORMONAL EFFECTS: Angiotensin II receptor blockade with losartan induces an expected increase in plasma renin activity and plasma angiotensin II levels. A decrease in plasma aldosterone levels has been found only with a high dose of losartan (120 mg). RENAL AND BLOOD PRESSURE EFFECTS: In normotensive subjects, losartan has little or no effect on blood pressure unless the subjects are markedly salt-depleted. Losartan causes no change in the glomerular filtration rate and either no modification or only a slight increase in renal blood flow. Losartan significantly increases urinary sodium excretion, however, and surprisingly produces a transient rise in urinary potassium excretion. Finally, losartan increases uric acid excretion and lowers plasma uric acid levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that losartan is an effective angiotensin II receptor antagonist in normal subjects. Its safety and clinical efficacy in hypertensive patients will be addressed in large clinical trials.

Combining blockers of the renin-angiotensin system or increasing the dose of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist in proteinuric patients: a randomized triple-crossover study.

Objective The goal of this study was to investigate whether increasing the dose of an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) provides as much benefits as combining the ARB with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in terms of blood pressure (BP) control and urinary albumin excretion (UAE) in hypertensive patients with a proteinuria.Methods We enrolled 20 hypertensive patients with proteinuric nephropathies and a reduced renal function in a randomized, 12-month, triple-crossover, prospective, open-label study to compare the effects of a regular dose of losartan (Los 100mg q.d., LOS100) vs. a high dose of losartan (Los 100mg b.i.d., LOS200) vs. losartan 100mg q.d. associated with lisinopril 20 mg q.d. (LOS100 + LIS20). Each treatment was given for 8 weeks with a 4-week initial run-in period and 2 weeks of washout between each treatment phases. 24 h UAE and ambulatory BP were measured during the running phase and at the end of each treatment period.Results Compared to pretreatment, 24 h SBP and DBP were reduced by 10/5 +/- 7/4 mmHg with LOS100 (P=0.023 vs. baseline) and, respectively, 13/6 +/- 12/5 mmHg with LOS200 (P=0.011) and 19/9 +/- 15/8 mmHg with LOS100+LIS20 (P < 0.01). UAE decreased significantly with LOS100 and to an even greater degree with LOS200 and LOS100+LIS20 (P < 0.01 vs. baseline for both and P=0.032, LOS100+LIS20 vs. LOS200). The combination had a greater impact in patients with a high baseline proteinuria as suggested by a nonparallel leftward shift of the relationship between the changes in UAE induced by the combination and those induced by LOS200. The high dose of losartan was better tolerated than the combination.Conclusion Increasing the dose of losartan from 100mg once daily to 100mg twice a day enables to obtain a greater decrease in BP and proteinuria and is better tolerated than combining the ARB with lisinopril, though the high dose appears to be slightly less effective than the combination in patients with a marked proteinuria. J Hypertens 29: 1228-1235 (C) 2011 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

DuP 532, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist: first administration and comparison with losartan.

We investigated the tolerability and angiotensin II antagonist activity of oral DuP 532 in healthy male subjects. DuP 532 (1 to 200 mg) was well tolerated, with no effect on blood pressure or heart rate. Compared with losartan (100 mg), DuP 532 (200 mg) was a weak antagonist of pressor responses to intravenous angiotensin II. Maximum inhibition of diastolic pressor response was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%, 88%) approximately 4.6 hours after losartan and 48% (95% CI, 38%, 56%) 8.7 hours after DuP 532. Twenty-four hours after dosing, inhibition by losartan and DuP 532 was similar (40% to 45%). DUP 532 is extensively bound in human plasma, with an in vitro free fraction of 0.06. Although DuP 532 and EXP3174 (losartan's active metabolite) have similar AT1-receptor potency, and plasma concentrations of DuP 532 were much greater than losartan/EXP3174, the level of antagonism was much less for DuP 532. These results indicate that multiple factors determine the in vivo potency of angiotensin II antagonists, including affinity for and distribution to the receptor as modulated by plasma binding.

Drug concentration response relationships in normal volunteers after oral administration of losartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between plasma concentrations of losartan, an orally active angiotensin II inhibitor, its active metabolite EXP3174, and angiotensin II blockade. Six healthy subjects received single oral doses of 40, 80, or 120 mg losartan and placebo at 1-week intervals in a crossover study. Angiotensin II blockade was assessed by the blood pressure response to exogenous angiotensin II before and after losartan administration. EXP3174 reached higher plasma concentrations and was eliminated more slowly than its parent compound; its levels paralleled the profile of angiotensin II blockade closer than losartan. Inhibition of the pressure response was dose dependent. The Hill-shaped relationship between response and EXP3174 concentration (or time-integrated variables) approached a plateau with 80 mg. The dose-dependent increase in plasma renin and angiotensin II exhibited a considerable individual scatter. We conclude that losartan produces a dose-dependent, effective angiotensin II blockade that is largely determined by the active metabolite EXP3174.

Pharmacology of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist.

Valsartan is the second orally-active, non-peptide angiotensin II receptor blocker to reach the market in Europe and the USA for the treatment of hypertension. Preclinical studies have demonstrated that this blocker is specific for the AT(1) receptor and has no affinity for the angiotensin II AT(2) receptor. Experimentally, valsartan dose-dependently inhibits the vasoconstriction induced by angiotensin II and lowers blood pressure in renin-dependent models of hypertension. Pharmacologically, oral valsartan is characterised by a low bioavailability but a rapid absorption and distribution with a half-life in keeping with once-daily administration. Thus, after oral administration, the maximal plasma concentration is reached 2 h after dosing and the elimination half-life is about 6 h. Clinically, several dose-finding and comparative studies have demonstrated that valsartan is an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive drug in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Valsartan has also been shown to be effective in severe hypertension. Valsartan is at least as effective as ACE inhibitors, diuretics, beta-blockers and calcium antagonists. However, none of the side-effects observed with these latter agents, including cough and lower limb oedema, has been observed with the administration of valsartan. Three large clinical trials are now underway to demonstrate whether valsartan can reduce morbidity and mortality: one in hypertensives with a high cardiovascular risk profile (VALUE), one in patients with heart failure previously treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (VAL-HeFT) and one in post-myocardial infarct patients (VALIANT). These studies will further define the place of valsartan beyond the treatment of hypertension.

Human fetal malformations associated with the use of an angiotensin II receptor antagonist: Case Report

Introduction: The potential risks related to drug exposure during pregnancy represent a vast chapter in modern obstetrics and data regarding the safety of antihypertensive drugs during pregnancy are relatively scarce. Case report: A 37-year-old patient discovered her fifth pregnancy at our hospital after 26 weeks and 4 days of gestation. She reported a history of hypertension and was currently being treated with Losartan. Hospitalization was recommended for the patient and further evaluation of fetal vitality was performed. On the fourth day an ultrasound was performed, resulting in a severe oligohydramnios, fetal centralization and abnormal ductus venosus. After 36 hours, the newborn died. Pathologic evaluation: At autopsy, the skullcap had large fontanels and deficient ossification. The kidneys were slightly enlarged. A microscopic examination detected underdevelopment of the tubules and the presence of some dilated lumens. Immunohistochemical detection of epithelial membrane antigen was positive. Immunoreactivity of CD 15 was also assayed to characterize the proximal tubules, and lumen collapse was observed in some regions. Discussion: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARAs) are among the most widely prescribed drugs for hypertension. They are often used by hypertensive women who are considering become pregnant. While their fetal toxicity in the second or third trimesters has been documented, their teratogenic effect during the first trimester has only recently been demonstrated. Conclusion: Constant awareness by physicians and patients should be encouraged, particularly in regard to the prescription of antihypertensive drugs in women of childbearing age who are or intend to become pregnant.

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.

Renal response to the angiotensin II receptor subtype 1 antagonist irbesartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the acute and sustained renal hemodynamic effects on hypertensive patients of 100 mg irbesartan and 20 mg enalapril each once daily. PATIENTS: Twenty patients (aged 35-70 years) with uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and normal serum creatinine levels completed this study. STUDY DESIGN: After random allocation to treatment (n=10 per group), administration schedule (morning or evening) was determined by further random allocation, with crossover of schedules after 6 weeks' therapy. Treatment and administration assignments were double-blind. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure was monitored before and after 6 and 12 weeks of therapy. Renal hemodynamics were determined on the first day of drug administration and 12 and 24 h after the last dose during chronic treatment. RESULTS: Administration of each antihypertensive agent induced a renal vasodilatation with no significant change in glomerular filtration rate. However, the time course appeared to differ: irbesartan had no significant acute effect 4 h after the first dose, but during chronic administration a renal vasodilatory response was found 12 and 24 h after the dose; enalapril was effective acutely and 12 h after administration, but no residual effect was found 24 h after the dose. Both antihypertensive agents lowered mean ambulatory blood pressure effectively, with no significant difference between treatments or between administration schedules (morning versus evening). CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan and enalapril have comparable effects on blood pressure and renal hemodynamics in hypertensive patients with normal renal functioning. However, the time profiles of the renal effects appear to differ, which might be important for long-term renoprotective effects.

Pharmacologic profile of UR-7247, an orally active angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonist, in healthy volunteers. p6.

This study was conducted to assess the pharmacologic properties of the new orally active angiotensin II subtype I (AT1) antagonist UR-7247, a product with a half-life >100 h in humans. The experiment was designed as an open-label, single-dose administration study with four parallel groups of four healthy men receiving increasing single oral doses (2.5, 5, and 10 mg) of UR-7247 or losartan, 100 mg. Angiotensin II receptor blockade was investigated < or =96 h after drug intake, with three independent methods [i.e., the inhibition of blood pressure (BP) response to exogenous Ang II, an in vitro Ang II-receptor assay (RRA), and the reactive increase in plasma angiotensin II. Plasma drug levels also were measured. The degree of blockade observed in vivo was statistically significant < or = 96 h with all UR-7247 doses for diastolic BP (p < 0.05) and < or =48 h for systolic BP. The maximal inhibition achieved with 10 mg UR-7247 was measured 6-24 h after drug intake and reached 54 +/- 17% and 48 +/- 20% for diastolic and systolic responses, respectively. Losartan, 100 mg, induced a greater short-term AT1-receptor blockade than 2.5- and 5.0-mg doses of UR-7247 (p < 0.001 for diastolic BP), but the UR-7247 effect was longer lasting. In vivo, no significant difference was observed between 10 mg UR-7247 and 100 mg losartan 4 h after drug intake, but in vitro, the blockade achieved with 100 mg losartan was higher than that seen with UR-7247. Finally, the results confirm that UR-7247 has a very long plasma elimination half-life, which may be due to a high but also tight binding to protein binding sites. In conclusion, UR-7247 is a long-lasting, well-tolerated AT1 receptor in healthy subjects.

Positive effects of an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist in Camurati-Engelmann disease: a single case observation.

Camurati-Engelmann disease is characterized by hyperostosis of the long bones and the skull, muscle atrophy, severe limb pain, and progressive joint contractures in some patients. It is caused by heterozygous mutations in the transforming growth factor β1 (TGFβ1) believed to result in improper folding of the latency-associated peptide domain of TGFβ1 and thus in increased or deregulated bioactivity. Losartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, has been found to downregulate the expression of TGFβ type 1 and 2 receptors. Clinical trials with losartan have shown a benefit in Marfan syndrome, while trials are underway for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and other myopathies associated with TGFβ1 signaling. We hypothesized that due to its anti-TGFβ1 activity, losartan might be beneficial in Camurati-Engelmann disease. This report concerns a boy who presented at age 13 years with severe limb pain and difficulty in walking. Clinical and radiographic evaluation results were compatible with Camurati-Engelmann disease and the diagnosis was confirmed by mutation analysis (c.652C > T [p.Arg218Cys]). The boy underwent an experimental treatment with losartan at a dosage of 50 mg/day, orally. During the treatment period of 18 months, the intensity and frequency of limb pain decreased significantly (as shown by a pain diary), and muscle strength improved, allowing the boy to resume walking and climbing stairs. No obvious side effects were observed. We cautiously conclude that TGFβ1 inhibition with losartan deserves further evaluation in the clinical management of Camurati-Engelmann disease.