Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy of azilsartan and amlodipine besylate in Japanese patients with grade I to II essential hypertension

[Changing Concepts About Optimal Target Blood Pressure and the Therapeutic Advantages of Azilsartan for Achieving it]

The article discusses current issues of the treatment of arterial hypertension. According to presented data, so-called therapeutic nihilism is becoming one of the main barriers to achieving target blood pressure (BP). This nihilism is that despite evidence of the effectiveness of achieving lower BP values, practitioners do not intensify antihypertensive therapy sufficiently to achieve such values. The article specially addresses new criteria for the effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy, which reflect the therapy sustainability. The most commonly used indicator is the duration of the period, during which systolic BP remains in the therapeutic range. The prognostic significance of such indicators is discussed. In these conditions, it is very important to use the most effective antihypertensive drugs for initial antihypertensive therapy, including as a part of combination therapy. This tactic provides more frequent achievement of BP goals without the need for dose adjustment. In this regard, a systematic review was performed, which included sufficiently large randomized studies of the antihypertensive effectiveness of azilsartan medoxomil. This systematic review will provide comprehensive information on a possible role of using the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan as a basic drug for the treatment of a wide range of patients with high BP. Most of the studies included in the systematic review assessed the effectiveness of combination therapy including azilsartan.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Azilsartan and Amlodipine Combination Versus Telmisartan and Amlodipine Combination in Hypertensive Patients: A Non-inferiority Trial

Introduction Hypertension (HTN) is one of the most common conditions encountered in daily practice in hospitals. Combination therapy is mostly initiated in the management of HTN when target blood pressure is not achieved with monotherapy. There are few studies comparing the antihypertensive effect of a combination of azilsartan and amlodipine with a combination of amlodipine and other angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), however, the results are contradictory. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the azilsartan and amlodipine combination versus the telmisartan and amlodipine combination in hypertensive patients. Methods The present study was a prospective, randomized, active-controlled, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial. Hypertensive patients were randomized into two groups of 25 patients each. Baseline evaluations of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) were done. Patients were reassessed after 12 weeks of drug therapy with azilsartan 40 mg and amlodipine 5 mg combination or telmisartan 40 mg once daily (QD) and amlodipine 5 mg combination QD. Results The response rate (defined as a reduction of more than 20 mm Hg in SBP or 10 mm Hg in DBP or both from baseline at 12 weeks) for HTN in the test group and control groups was found to be 88% and 96% respectively. The response rate of the azilsartan amlodipine group was found to be non-inferior to the telmisartan amlodipine group (odds ratio, OR, 0.31, p = 0.61) at the end of 12 weeks of drug therapy. At 12 weeks of follow-up, there was a significant decrease in SBP (p < 0.001), DBP (p < 0.001), and hsTnI levels (p < 0.001) in both groups from baseline values. However, differences between the test and control groups for blood pressure and hsTnI were found to be not statistically significant at 12 weeks of follow-up. The most commonly reported adverse effect in both groups was headache. Conclusion Azilsartan amlodipine combination had an 88% response rate, which was non-inferior to the telmisartan and amlodipine combination. Biomarkers such as hsTnI showed a significant decrease in both groups after 12 weeks of follow-up. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Amlodipine in Asian Hypertensive Patients

Background

Hypertension (HTN) is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality globally. The WHO estimates a 60% increase in Asian HTN patients between 2000 and 2025. Numerous studies have compared safety and efficacy between antihypertensive classes, but in-class comparisons of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in combination therapy (CT) (fixed-dose combination or dual combination) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) are lacking in Asia.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of the various ARB-amlodipine CTs and amlodipine (AML) monotherapy for treatment of HTN in Asian population.

Methods

A systematic literature review sourced Asian randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed and Cochrane Libraries to inform a network meta-analysis (NMA). We considered the ARB-AML CT. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were short-term (8–12 weeks) treatment response and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), respectively. AML monotherapy was used as a comparator to allow for indirect treatment effect estimation in the absence of direct RCTs evidence comparing the different ARB-AML CTs.

Results

The analysis included 1198 Asian HTN patients from seven studies involving six ARB-AML CTs: azilsartan (AZL), candesartan (CAN), fimasartan (FIM), losartan (LOS), olmesartan (OLM), and telmisartan (TEL). Compared to AML monotherapy, CT of AZL-AML had five times greater odds of prompting a treatment response (OR 5.2, 95% CI: 2.5, 11.2), while CAN-AML had 3.9 (95% CI: 2.5, 6.4), FIM-AML had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4, 8.5), TEL-AML had 3.3 (95% CI: 1.6, 7.1), OLM-AML had 2.7 (95% CI: 1.6, 5.0), and LOS-AML had 2.0 (95% CI: 0.6, 7.3). All ARB-AML CTs had safety profiles comparable to AML monotherapy except TEL-AML, which had significantly lower odds of TEAEs (0.26 (95% CI: 0.087, 0.70)).

Conclusion

This study suggests that all ARB-AML CTs compared favorably to AML monotherapy regarding short-term treatment response in uncomplicated HTN patients of Asian origin. AZL-AML prompted the most favorable treatment response. Safety profiles among the ARB-AML CTs were largely comparable. Due to the limited study size and small number of trials (direct evidence), our findings should best be interpreted as an exploratory effort importance to inform future research direction.

Effects of triple combination therapy with azilsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide on office/home blood pressure: a randomized-controlled trial in Japanese essential hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of triple therapy with azilsartan (AZI), amlodipine besylate (AML), and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) compared with dual therapy with AZI/AML or HCTZ monotherapy were evaluated in Japanese essential hypertensive patients in a double-blinded manner.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 353 patients with office blood pressure (BP) of at least 150/95 mmHg were randomized to a 10-week treatment with AZI/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg, AZI/AML/HCTZ 20/5/6.25 mg, AZI/AML 20/5 mg, HCTZ 12.5 mg, or HCTZ 6.25 mg.

RESULTS

The mean change from baseline in office diastolic/systolic BPs at week 10 was -25.9/-41.4, -24.9/-38.6, and -22.4/-34.5 mmHg in the AZI/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg, AZI/AML/HCTZ 20/5/6.25 mg, and AZI/AML 20/5 mg groups, respectively. AZI/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg led to a significantly greater reduction in diastolic and systolic BP than the dual therapy. In addition, the change in home diastolic BP measured with telemetry devices showed a significant difference between the two triple therapy groups. The incidences of adverse events except dizziness postural were similar among the treatment groups in the triple therapy groups.

CONCLUSION

Triple therapy with AZI/AML/HCTZ 20/5/12.5 mg shows a greater antihypertensive effect than the dual therapy and has acceptable safety profiles for Japanese essential hypertensive patients. It was also observed that home BP measurement by automated telemetry could detect changes in BP that were not detected in office BP measurement, although further investigation is needed.

A phase III, open-label, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of long-term triple combination therapy with azilsartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with essential hypertension

PURPOSE

Patients with essential hypertension who are receiving treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker often develop inadequate blood pressure (BP) control and require the addition of a diuretic. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of a triple combination therapy with 20 mg azilsartan (AZL), 5 mg amlodipine (AML) and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The phase III, open-label, multicenter study (NCT02277691) comprised a 4-week run-in period and 52-week treatment period. Patients with inadequate BP control despite AZL/AML therapy (n = 341) received 4 weeks' treatment with AZL/AML (combination tablet) + HCTZ (tablet) and 4 weeks' treatment with AZL/AML/HCTZ (combination tablet) in a crossover manner, followed by AZL/AML/HCTZ (combination tablet) from Week 8 of the treatment period up to Week 52. The primary and secondary endpoints were long-term safety and BP (office and home), respectively.

RESULTS

Most adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate in intensity, and no deaths or treatment-related serious AEs were reported. The triple therapy provided consistent BP-lowering effects in both office and home measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

The triple combination therapy with AZL/AML/HCTZ was well tolerated and effective for 52 weeks in Japanese patients with essential hypertension.

Formulations of Amlodipine: A Review

Amlodipine (AD) is a calcium channel blocker that is mainly used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. However, latest findings have revealed that its efficacy is not only limited to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases as it has shown to possess antioxidant activity and plays an important role in apoptosis. Therefore, it is also employed in the treatment of cerebrovascular stroke, neurodegenerative diseases, leukemia, breast cancer, and so forth either alone or in combination with other drugs. AD is a photosensitive drug and requires protection from light. A number of workers have tried to formulate various conventional and nonconventional dosage forms of AD. This review highlights all the formulations that have been developed to achieve maximum stability with the desired therapeutic action for the delivery of AD such as fast dissolving tablets, floating tablets, layered tablets, single-pill combinations, capsules, oral and transdermal films, suspensions, emulsions, mucoadhesive microspheres, gels, transdermal patches, and liposomal formulations.

Azilsartan as a Potent Antihypertensive Drug with Possible Pleiotropic Cardiometabolic Effects: A Review Study

BACKGROUND

Hypertension related cardiovascular (CV) complications could be amplified by the presence of metabolic co-morbidities. Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is the eighth approved member of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), a drug class of high priority in the management of hypertensive subjects with diabetes mellitus type II (DMII).

METHODS

Under this prism, we performed a systematic review of the literature for all relevant articles in order to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and possible clinical role of AZL-M in hypertensive diabetic patients.

RESULTS

AZL-M was found to be more effective in terms of reducing indices of blood pressure over alternative ARBs or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors with minimal side effects. Preclinical studies have established pleiotropic effects for AZL-M beyond its primary antihypertensive role through differential gene expression, up-regulation of membrane receptors and favorable effect on selective intracellular biochemical and pro-atherosclerotic pathways.

CONCLUSION

Indirect but accumulating evidence from recent literature supports the efficacy and safety of AZL-M among diabetic patients. However, no clinical data exist to date that evince a beneficial role of AZL-M in patients with metabolic disorders on top of its antihypertensive effect. Further clinical studies are warranted to assess the pleiotropic cardiometabolic benefits of AZL-M that are derived from preclinical research.

Azilsartan medoxomil in the management of hypertension: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

Background

Azilsartan (AZI) is a relatively new angiotensin receptor blocker available for the treatment of any stage of hypertension, which was eventually given in combination with chlorthalidone (CLT).

Objective

To review pharmacology and clinical role of AZI monotherapy and AZI/CLT or AZI/amlodipine combination therapies for hypertension management.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched using search terms “ azilsartan”, “chlorthalidone,” “pharmacology,” “pharmacokinetics,” “pharmacodynamics,” “pharmacoeconomics,” and “cost-effectiveness.” To obtain other relevant information, US Food and Drug Association as well as manufacturer prescribing information were also reviewed.

Results

Randomized controlled trials demonstrated AZI to be superior to other sartans, such as valsartan, olmesartan, and candesartan, in terms of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) reduction with respect. That beneficial effect of azilsartan was also associated with similar safety profiles. When compared to other antihypertensive drugs, azilsartan was found to be superior to any angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, including ramipril, in terms of ABPM results, and noninferior to amlodipine in terms of sleep-BP control. The association of AZI and CLT was then found to be superior to other sartans + thiazide combination therapies in terms of both BP lowering and goal achievement. The combination of AZI and amlodipine has also been tested in clinical trials, but compared only with placebo, demonstrating its superiority in terms of efficacy and similarity in terms of safety.

Conclusion

Azilsartan is a safe and effective treatment option for every stage of hypertension, both alone or in fixed-dose combination tablets with chlorthalidone or amlodipine. Beneficial effects of AZI were also noted in patients with any degree of renal impairment. In addition, safety profiles of AZI were similar to that of the placebo.