Dose-response relationships with antihypertensive drugs

Predicted impact of various clinical practice strategies on cardiovascular risk for the treatment of hypertension: a clinical trial simulation study

Hypertension control rate in the US is low with the current clinical practice (JNC 7) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. A 6-month clinical trial simulation case study testing different virtual clinical practice strategies was performed in an attempt to increase the control rate. The CVD risk was calculated using the Framingham CVD risk model at baseline and 6 months post-treatment. The estimated CVD events for the baseline patient sample without any treatment was 998 (95% CI: 967-1,026) over 6 months in 100,000 patients. Treating these patients for 6 months with current clinical practice, high dose strategy, high dose with low target BP strategy resulted in a reduction in CVD events of 191(95% CI: 169-205), 284 (95% CI: 261-305), and 353 (95% CI: 331-375), respectively. Hence the two alternative strategies resulted in an increase in treatment effect by 49% (95%CI: 44-59%) and 85% (95%CI: 79-99%), respectively. The increased safety with the current low dose strategy may potentially be offset by increased CVD risk in the time necessary to control hypertension.

Hydralazine-valproate: a repositioned drug combination for the epigenetic therapy of cancer

INTRODUCTION

DNA methylation (DNMTi) and histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) are in development for cancer therapy. So far, four epigenetic drugs are approved for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). The combination of hydralazine-valproate (TRANSKRIP(™)) is being repositioned as an oral DNMT and HDAC inhibitor.

AREAS COVERED

Brief discussion on the current status of epigenetic drugs and studies published on the preclinical and clinical development of the hydralazine-valproate combination.

EXPERT OPINION

Drug repositioning is a strategy for prompt and cost-efficient drug discovery. There is evidence that combining DNMTi with HDACi would be more efficacious than administering each agent on its own. Hydralazine-valproate is safe when used alone or in combination with chemotherapy or chemoradiation. The fact that both drugs are orally administered is another advantage over current epigenetic drugs. This combination is promising but larger studies are needed. Among these, the randomized Phase III trials in advanced and in locally advanced cervical cancer combined with chemotherapy and cisplatin-radiation respectively, would eventually confirm its efficacy. Studies on MDS and CTCL would also eventually prove the efficacy of hydralazine valproate so that in the coming years hydralazine-valproate could have a role in cancer epigenetic therapy.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of buffered propranolol sublingual tablet (Promptol™)-application of a new "physiologically based" model to assess absorption and disposition

Sublingual administration of certain buffered propranolol may improve the rate and extent of absorption compared to oral administration. The main objectives of this study were to (1) compare the plasma propranolol concentrations (Cp-prop) following sublingual administration of a specially buffered formulation (Promptol™) to that following oral administration of Inderal(®) and (2) evaluate the utility of a special pharmacokinetic model in describing the Cp-prop following sublingual administration. Eighteen healthy volunteers received 10 mg sublingual Promptol™ or oral Inderal(®). Multiple Cp-prop were determined and their pharmacokinetics compared. Additional data following sublingual 40 mg Promptol™ or Inderal(®) were utilized for evaluation of a special advanced compartmental absorption and transit (ACAT) model. For model simulation, the physicochemical parameters were imported from AMET predictor, whereas the pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated and optimized by Gastroplus(®). Based on this model, the quantity of drug absorbed via buccal/sublingual mucosa was estimated. Cp-prop was higher at earlier times with 3-fold greater relative bioavailability following sublingual Promptol™ compared to that from oral Inderal(®). The special ACAT model provided excellent goodness of fit of Cp-prop-time curve and estimated a 56.6% increase in absorption rate from Promptol™ and higher initial Cp-prop compared to the regular formulation. The modified ACAT model provided a useful approach to describe sublingual absorption of propranolol and clearly demonstrated an improvement of absorption of Promptol™. The sublingual 10 mg Promptol™ achieved not only a similar systemic exposure as 30 mg oral Inderal(®) but an earlier effective Cp-prop which may be advantageous for certain clinical conditions.

Intravenous hydralazine for blood pressure management in the hospitalized patient: its use is often unjustified

Due to observations of increased off-label use of intravenous hydralazine in area hospitals, we studied its use in a university teaching hospital. Patients were prospectively identified between April and October 2010 with a pharmacy order for intravenous hydralazine. Demographic and clinical information, including pretreatment blood pressure (BP), change in BP and heart rate within 2 hours after administration of hydralazine, and adverse events were obtained. Ninety-four patients (mean age, 69 ± 18 years, 48% women, 89% with known hypertension) received 201 intravenous hydralazine doses (mean dose of 11.4 ± 4.3 mg). Only 4 (2%) patients had evidence of an urgent hypertensive condition. Following hydralazine, BP was reduced by 24/9 ± 29/15 mmHg and heart rate increased by 4 ± 13 beats per minute. Changes from baseline in BP were related to baseline BP. Seventeen patients experienced an adverse event, the most common being hypotension (n = 11). Intravenous hydralazine is commonly prescribed for non-urgent cases of hypertension in the hospitalized patient. While changes in systolic BP are related to baseline BP values, they are highly variable, and associated with hypotension. Thus, this agent may not be useful for treating hypertension in many hospitalized patients and may cause harm if used inappropriately.

ACE-inhibitor, AT1-receptor-antagonist, or both? A clinical pharmacologist's perspective after publication of the results of ONTARGET

Clinical Pharmacology is commonly accepted to be a bridging discipline between basic science observations and clinical practice. Today, it should be a major task of the clinical pharmacologist in academia to provide support in the interpretation of preclinical and clinical study data, to develop evidence-based treatment guidelines and to serve as drug expert supporting all disciplines of clinical medicine with specific pharmacological and therapeutic knowledge. The results of the ONTARGET-trial confront both researchers and clinicians with the unexpected truth that AT(1)-receptor-blockade with an angiotensin-receptor-blocker (ARB) does not seem to have superior therapeutic benefit compared with an ACE-inhibitor (ACE-I) at reducing fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events. The combination of the two drugs was associated with more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Therefore, the crucial question 'ACE-I, ARB, or both?' requires a new and critical appraisal depending on the medical indication for which these renin-angiotensin-system (RAS)-inhibitors are used: In a population of high-risk patients suffering from cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus, the evidence to favor an ARB over an ACE-I is still limited after ONTARGET and because of the higher costs for ARBs one can rather support the old therapeutic advice that ARBs are equally effective as ACE-Is and therefore therapeutic alternatives for patients with ACE-I intolerance. With respect to a very moderate additive BP-lowering effect of dual therapy with an ACE-I and an ARB seen in metaanalysis which was not even clearly attributable to dual RAS-inhibition and the increased adverse event rate in the combination treatment group of ONTARGET, this regimen seems not to be recommendable for the treatment of hypertension. Dual-RAS-blockade using an ACE-I-ARB-combination is an effective therapy to treat proteinuria and might be of therapeutic benefit especially in diabetic patients without concomitant diseases. There may be a therapeutic rationale to prefer ARBs over ACE-Is in well-selected patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) because a considerable amount of angiotensin II (Ang II) is produced independent of angiotensin-conversion-enzyme (ACE) in the failing heart and is therapeutically unaffected by ACE-I treatment. The results of the Val-HeFt and the CHARM-added-study revealed additive effects of an ARB on heart failure related morbidity and mortality when added to existing therapy with an ACE-I suggesting a role for ACE-I-ARB-combination treatment in well selected heart failure patients. Independent of the medical indication for its use, the concept of dual RAS-blockade with an ARB-ACE-I-combination should clinically be used with caution and a close monitoring of potassium levels and kidney function. Although the results of ONTARGET revealed equity of ramipril and telmisartan at reducing fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, we should not forget that pharmacologically not all ARBs are the same and the question if the study results of ONTARGET with telmisartan are transferable to the complete class of ARBs still merits further investigation.

The prince and the pauper. A tale of anticancer targeted agents

Cancer rates are set to increase at an alarming rate, from 10 million new cases globally in 2000 to 15 million in 2020. Regarding the pharmacological treatment of cancer, we currently are in the interphase of two treatment eras. The so-called pregenomic therapy which names the traditional cancer drugs, mainly cytotoxic drug types, and post-genomic era-type drugs referring to rationally-based designed. Although there are successful examples of this newer drug discovery approach, most target-specific agents only provide small gains in symptom control and/or survival, whereas others have consistently failed in the clinical testing. There is however, a characteristic shared by these agents: -their high cost-. This is expected as drug discovery and development is generally carried out within the commercial rather than the academic realm. Given the extraordinarily high therapeutic drug discovery-associated costs and risks, it is highly unlikely that any single public-sector research group will see a novel chemical "probe" become a "drug". An alternative drug development strategy is the exploitation of established drugs that have already been approved for treatment of non-cancerous diseases and whose cancer target has already been discovered. This strategy is also denominated drug repositioning, drug repurposing, or indication switch. Although traditionally development of these drugs was unlikely to be pursued by Big Pharma due to their limited commercial value, biopharmaceutical companies attempting to increase productivity at present are pursuing drug repositioning. More and more companies are scanning the existing pharmacopoeia for repositioning candidates, and the number of repositioning success stories is increasing. Here we provide noteworthy examples of known drugs whose potential anticancer activities have been highlighted, to encourage further research on these known drugs as a means to foster their translation into clinical trials utilizing the more limited public-sector resources. If these drug types eventually result in being effective, it follows that they could be much more affordable for patients with cancer; therefore, their contribution in terms of reducing cancer mortality at the global level would be greater.

Hydralazine target: from blood vessels to the epigenome

Hydralazine was one of the first orally active antihypertensive drugs developed. Currently, it is used principally to treat pregnancy-associated hypertension. Hydralazine causes two types of side effects. The first type is an extension of the pharmacologic effect of the drug and includes headache, nausea, flushing, hypotension, palpitation, tachycardia, dizziness, and salt retention. The second type of side effects is caused by immunologic reactions, of which the drug-induced lupus-like syndrome is the most common, and provides clues to underscoring hydralazine's DNA demethylating property in connection with studies demonstrating the participation of DNA methylation disorders in immune diseases. Abnormalities in DNA methylation have long been associated with cancer. Despite the fact that malignant tumors show global DNA hypomethylation, regional hypermethylation as a means to silence tumor suppressor gene expression has attracted the greatest attention. Reversibility of methylation-induced gene silencing by pharmacologic means, which in turns leads to antitumor effects in experimental and clinical scenarios, has directed efforts toward developing clinically useful demethylating agents. Among these, the most widely used comprise the nucleosides 5-azacytidine and 2'deoxy-5-azacytidine; however, these agents, like current cytotoxic chemotherapy, causes myelosuppression among other side effects that could limit exploitation of their demethylating properties. Among non-nucleoside DNA demethylating drugs currently under development, the oral drug hydralazine possess the ability to reactivate tumor suppressor gene expression, which is silenced by promoter hypermethylation in vitro and in vivo. Decades of extensive hydralazine use for hypertensive disorders that demonstrated hydralazine's clinical safety and tolerability supported its testing in a phase I trial in patients with cancer, confirming its DNA demethylating activity. Hydralazine is currently being evaluated, along with histone deacetylase inhibitors either alone or as adjuncts to chemotherapy and radiation, for hematologic and solid tumors in phase II studies.

Clinical pharmacokinetics and selective pharmacodynamics of new angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: an update

The angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are widely used in the management of essential hypertension, stable chronic heart failure, myocardial infarction (MI) and diabetic nephropathy. There is an increasing number of new agents to add to the nine ACE inhibitors (benazepril, cilazapril, delapril, fosinopril, lisinopril, pentopril, perindopril, quinapril and ramipril) reviewed in this journal in 1990. The pharmacokinetic properties of five newer ACE inhibitors (trandolapril, moexipril, spirapril, temocapril and imidapril) are reviewed in this update. All of these new agents are characterised by having a carboxyl functional groups and requiring hepatic activation to form pharmacologically active metabolites. They achieve peak plasma concentrations at similar times (t(max)) to those of established agents. Three of these agents (trandolapril, moexipril and imidapril) require dosage reductions in patients with renal impairment. Dosage reductions of moexipril and temocapril are recommended for elderly patients, and dosages of moexipril should be lower in patients who are hepatically impaired. Moexipril should be taken 1 hour before meals, whereas other ACE inhibitors can be taken without regard to meals. The pharmacokinetics of warfarin are not altered by concomitant administration with trandolapril or moexipril. Although imidapril and spirapril have no effect on digoxin pharmacokinetics, the area under the concentration-time curve of imidapril and the peak plasma concentration of the active metabolite imidaprilat are decreased when imidapril is given together with digoxin. Although six ACE inhibitors (captopril, enalapril, fosinopril, lisinopril, quinapril and ramipril) have been approved for use in heart failure by the US Food and Drug Administration, an overview of 32 clinical trials of ACE inhibitors in heart failure showed that no significant heterogeneity in mortality was found among enalapril, ramipril, quinapril, captopril, lisinopril, benazepril, perindopril and cilazapril. Initiation of therapy with captopril, ramipril, and trandolapril at least 3 days after an acute MI resulted in all-cause mortality risk reductions of 18 to 27%. Captopril has been shown to have similar morbidity and mortality benefits to those of diuretics and beta-blockers in hypertensive patients. Captopril has been shown to delay the progression of diabetic nephropathy, and enalapril and lisinopril prevent the development of nephropathy in normoalbuminuric patients with diabetes. ACE inhibitors are generally characterised by flat dose-response curves. Lisinopril is the only ACE inhibitor that exhibits a linear dose-response curve. Despite the fact that most ACE inhibitors are recommended for once-daily administration, only fosinopril, ramipril, and trandolapril have trough-to-peak effect ratios in excess of 50%.

Dose-responsive antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan, a new angiotensin II-receptor blocker

Predictable dose-related efficacy is considered to be an important attribute of any antihypertensive agent. To determine the magnitude of dose-responsive efficacy for valsartan, a highly selective angiotensin II-receptor blocker, we conducted an integrated analysis of efficacy data from nine double-masked, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel studies of similar design and of at least 4 weeks' duration. The intent-to-treat analysis included 4067 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension who had received valsartan (n = 2901) 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, or 320 mg once daily or placebo (n = 1166). Blood pressure was assessed at trough (24 hours after the last dose). In all nine studies, valsartan doses > or = 80 mg produced statistically significant reductions in supine or seated diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) and systolic blood pressure (SSBP) compared with placebo (P < 0.05). The integrated analysis demonstrated a clear increase in blood-pressure-lowering efficacy with increasing dose across the range 10 to 320 mg (placebo-subtracted mean changes from baseline to end point for valsartan 10, 20, 40, 80, 160, and 320 mg, respectively: SDBP, -0.8, -2.8, -2.6, -3.9, -5.1, and -6.4 mm Hg; SSBP, -1.3, -5.7, -5.3, -6.8, -8.6, and -9.0 mm Hg). The data demonstrate that valsartan provides dose-responsive antihypertensive efficacy across the therapeutic dose range, with clinically relevant blood-pressure lowering at doses > or = 80 mg once daily.

A randomized comparison of a conventional dose, a low dose and alternate-day dosing of bendrofluazide in hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare 2.5 mg bendrofluazide daily (the standard antihypertensive dose), 1.25 mg bendrofluazide daily and 2.5 mg bendrofluazide on alternate days, in terms of reduction of blood pressure, patient compliance and adverse effect profile.

DESIGN

A single-blind parallel group trial of patients who were randomly assigned to 16 weeks' treatment with bendrofluazide at doses of 2.5 mg daily, 1.25 mg daily and 2.5 mg every other day after a 4-week placebo run-in period.

SETTING

General practices in the greater Belfast and Lisburn area in Northern Ireland.

PATIENTS

Ninety-three patients with newly diagnosed or previously diagnosed hypertension, who had a mean diastolic blood pressure of 90-110 mmHg after receiving placebo for 4 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Reduction in blood pressure, patient compliance and changes in biochemical variables.

RESULTS

Sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures in members of all three groups were significantly lowered with respect to baseline (P < 0.01) with no differences among groups. Overall mean compliance was 97%. No clear relation between dose and biochemical changes was apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

Bendrofluazide at doses of 1.25 mg daily or 2.5 mg every other day reduces blood pressure as effectively as does the conventional 2.5 mg daily regimen.

Dose-related efficacy of irbesartan for hypertension: an integrated analysis

Results of eight multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group studies were pooled to assess the efficacy of the angiotensin II-receptor blocker irbesartan over the dose range of 1 to 900 mg. A total of 2955 adults with a seated diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 110 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with oral irbesartan once daily or placebo for 6 to 8 weeks. Office blood pressure was measured at trough (24+/-3 hours after the last dose) and peak (3+/-1 hours after the last dose) by mercury sphygmomanometry. Demographic characteristics (mean blood pressure; 151/101 mm Hg; mean age, 54 years; 63% male; and 82% white) were similar across all dose groups. After the groups were pooled, antihypertensive efficacy was assessed by therapeutic response (trough seated diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or a reduction from baseline of > or = 10 mm Hg) and by modeling of the maximum reductions in trough and peak seated diastolic and systolic blood pressure. Antihypertensive effects increased with increasing doses and reached a plateau at > or = 300 mg. Irbesartan 150 mg provided placebo-subtracted reductions in trough seated systolic and diastolic blood pressure of approximately 8 and approximately 5 mm Hg, respectively, with 56% of patients displaying a favorable response. In conclusion, irbesartan provides clinically significant blood pressure lowering, with a clear relationship between (log) dose and antihypertensive effect.

The implications of noncompliance with antihypertensive medication

Given the clear evidence that reducing blood pressure decreases the vascular complications of hypertension, loss of efficacy represents the principal complication of noncompliance with antihypertensive therapy. Withdrawal symptoms are also important and occur after abruptly stopping beta-blockers and centrally-acting antihypertensive drugs. Very few studies have been conducted to assess the impact of missing 1 or 2 doses of an antihypertensive agent on short term control of blood pressure. A high trough to peak ratio (> 50%) for a once-daily medication suggests a long duration of action. However, methodological problems in the design of the studies to determine trough to peak ratios make comparisons between various medications very difficult. In general, however, stopping a drug with a low through to peak ratio is more likely to result in loss of antihypertensive effect than a drug with a high ratio. Poor compliance in dose-escalating studies with antihypertensive agents may have resulted in excessively high dose recommendations in clinical trials.