Comparison of candesartan versus enalapril in essential hypertension. Italian Candesartan Study Group

Real world effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in the treatment of migraine: a retrospective cohort study

To date, two randomized, controlled studies support the use of candesartan for migraine prophylaxis but with limited external validity. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of candesartan in clinical practice and to explore predictors of patient response. Retrospective cohort study including all patients with migraine who received candesartan between April 2008-February 2019. The primary endpoint was the number of monthly headache days during weeks 8-12 of treatment compared to baseline. Additionally, we evaluated the frequency during weeks 20-24. We analysed the percentage of patients with 50% and 75% response rates and the retention rates after three and 6 months of treatment. 120/4121 patients were eligible, aged 45.9 [11.5]; 100 (83.3%) female. Eighty-four patients (70%) had chronic migraine and 53 (42.7%) had medication-overuse headache. The median number of prior prophylactics was 3 (Inter-quartile range 2-5). At baseline, patients had 20.5 ± 8.5 headache days per month, decreasing 4.3 ± 8.4 days by 3 months (weeks 12-16) and by 4.7 ± 8.7 days by 6 months (paired Student's t-test, p < 0.001). The percentage of patients with a 50% response was 32.5% at 3 months and 31.7% at 6 months, while the retention rate was 85.0% and 58.3%. The number of prior treatments (Odds ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97) and the presence of daily headache (Odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.16-0.97) were associated with a lower probability of response. Candesartan showed beneficial effects in the preventive treatment of migraine in clinical practice, including patients with chronic migraine, medication-overuse headache and resistance to prior prophylactics.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are drugs commonly used for the treatment of hypertension. However, studies on their comparative efficacy have not been extensively investigated. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis studied the comparative efficacy of the two antihypertensive treatment categories in reducing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension patients. A literature search was carried out in Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trials, which had reported blood pressure effects, mortality, and/or morbidity. Blood pressure results were found in 30 studies with 7370 participants and 8 studies with 25,158 participants with mortality/morbidity results included in the analysis. The two drug classes had similar effectiveness in lowering systolic (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.59, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.38) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.62, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.30), all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)): 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37) and stroke (RR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more helpful in the prevention and/or the hospitalization for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers (RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were similarly effective in decreasing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more protective in the advancement and/or hospitalization of the hypertensive patient for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers.

Impact Assessment of Pharmaceutical Care in the Management of Hypertension and Coronary Risk Factors after Discharge

INTRODUCTION

Almost 50% of the 17.5 million deaths worldwide from cardiovascular disease have been associated with systemic arterial hypertension (SAH). Into this scenario, Pharmaceutical Care (PC) has been inserted in order to improve the management of SAH and reduce its risks.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the outcomes and healthcare assistance achieved after discharge of hypertension patients from the PC program.

METHODS

This is a quasi-experimental study with historical controls. Retrospective data collection from 2006 to 2012 was begun in 2013 and included a PC program performed over one year. PC was performed in two basic units of the public health system in Ribeirão Preto-SP, Brazil, where the pharmacist followed up 104 hypertensive patients. The clinical indicators of systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), triglycerides, total-cholesterol, high and low density lipoprotein cholesterol were collected, as well as care indicators related to the number of consultations (basic, specialized and emergency care) and antihypertensive drugs used. The coronary risk of patients by the Framingham risk score was also calculated. For the analysis, the data were divided into three periods, 2006-2008 as pre-PC, 2009 as PC and 2010-2012 as post-PC.

RESULTS

In the pre-PC period, 54.4%, 79.0% and 27.3% of patients presented satisfactory levels of SBP, DBP and total-cholesterol, respectively. In the post-PC period, the percentages were 93.0% for SBP and DBP [p <0.001] and 60.6% for total-cholesterol [p <0.001]. The average number of consultations per patient/year in primary care was 1.66 ± 1.43 and 2.36 ± 1.73, [p = 0.012]; and for emergency care was 1.70 ± 1.43 and 1.06 ± 0.81, [p = 0.002] in the pre-PC and post-PC periods, respectively. The pre-PC Framingham risk in the last year was 14.3% ± 10.6 and the average post-PC was 10.9% ± 7.9.

CONCLUSION

PC was effective in the control of blood pressure and total-cholesterolafter discharge of the hypertensive patients from PC program.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

ACE inhibitors are widely prescribed for hypertension so it is essential to determine and compare their effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE).

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related systolic and/or diastolic BP lowering efficacy of ACE inhibitors versus placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2007), EMBASE (1988 to February 2007) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with an ACE inhibitor compared with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. WDAE information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety two trials evaluated the dose-related trough BP lowering efficacy of 14 different ACE inhibitors in 12 954 participants with a baseline BP of 157/101 mm Hg. The data do not suggest that any one ACE inhibitor is better or worse at lowering BP. A dose of 1/8 or 1/4 of the manufacturer's maximum recommended daily dose (Max) achieved a BP lowering effect that was 60 to 70% of the BP lowering effect of Max. A dose of 1/2 Max achieved a BP lowering effect that was 90% of Max. ACE inhibitor doses above Max did not significantly lower BP more than Max. Combining the effects of 1/2 Max and higher doses gives an estimate of the average trough BP lowering efficacy for ACE inhibitors as a class of drugs of -8 mm Hg for SBP and -5 mm Hg for DBP. ACE inhibitors reduced BP measured 1 to 12 hours after the dose by about 11/6 mm Hg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between different ACE inhibitors. The BP lowering effect of ACE inhibitors is modest; the magnitude of trough BP lowering at one-half the manufacturers' maximum recommended dose and above is -8/-5 mm Hg. 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 ACE inhibitors because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for hypertension so it is essential to determine and compare their effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAE).

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related systolic and/or diastolic BP lowering efficacy of ARBs versus placebo in the treatment of primary hypertension.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2007), EMBASE (1988 to February 2007) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of fixed-dose monotherapy with an ARB compared with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. WDAE information was collected from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty six RCTs evaluated the dose-related trough BP lowering efficacy of 9 ARBs in 13 451 participants with a baseline BP of 156/101 mm Hg. The data do not suggest that any one ARB is better or worse at lowering BP. A dose of 1/8 or 1/4 of the manufacturers' maximum recommended daily dose (Max) achieved a BP lowering effect that was 60 to 70% of the BP lowering effect of Max. A dose of 1/2 Max achieved a BP lowering effect that was 80% of Max. ARB doses above Max did not significantly lower BP more than Max. Due to evidence of publication bias, the largest trials provide the best estimate of the trough BP lowering efficacy for ARBs as a class of drugs: -8 mm Hg for SBP and -5 mm Hg for DBP. ARBs reduced BP measured 1 to 12 hours after the dose by about 12/7 mm Hg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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.

Antihypertensive activity of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists: a systematic review of studies with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the antihypertensive activity of the angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists (ARB).

METHODS

Studies in which blood pressure (BP) was measured using ambulatory BP monitoring for at least 24 h were collected from MEDLINE. Data for each treatment group, ARB, placebo or the drug used for its comparison were obtained from the selected studies. Only studies with a minimum of quality criteria were selected. The final study group contained 36 publications, with a total of 47 patient cohorts receiving ARB in monotherapy, 10 with placebo, 10 with amlodipine, and five with enalapril. The reduction in clinical and ambulatory BP during 24 h, day, night and the last 4-h period for each of the drugs analysed were calculated and adjusted by age, sex, number of participants and by the initial BP level.

RESULTS

The global antihypertensive activity of ARB differs from that observed with amlodipine in the sense that the magnitude of the reduction in the BP values does not essentially depend on the initial BP values nor on the dose used. When only ARB were considered, the drug used was a determinant for systolic BP reduction, whereas for diastolic BP the influence was on the BP reduction and the duration of the antihypertensive activity. The dose used had a particular influence on the duration of the antihypertensive activity for both systolic and diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Among the ARB, the influence is on duration more than on the magnitude of BP reduction. Dose, therefore, is an important factor in the duration of antihypertensive activity.

Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Cardiovascular Disease

The cardiovascular continuum describes the progression of pathophysiologic events from cardiovascular risk factors to symptomatic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and life-threatening events. Pharmacologic intervention early in the continuum may prevent or slow CVD development and improve quality of life. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is central to the pathophysiology of CVD at many stages of the continuum. Numerous clinical trials of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have shown that RAAS blockade provides benefits to patients across the continuum. ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension; however tolerability and adherence to therapy appear to be improved with ARBs. Large clinical trials have shown that ARBs may provide therapeutic benefits beyond blood pressure control in patients with diabetes, heart failure or at risk of heart failure following a myocardial infarction. In addition, ARBs have been shown to provide protective effects in patients with impaired renal function or left ventricular hypertrophy. Additional clinical trials are ongoing to further characterize the role of ARBs in CVD management.

Candesartan

Candesartan cilexetil is the prodrug of candesartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist. Candesartan binds selectively and non-competitively to the angiotensin II receptor type 1, thus preventing the actions of angiotensin II. Clinical trials have demonstrated its efficacy at a dose range of 2 to 32 mg once daily in hypertension of all grades, heart failure, in reducing urinary albumin excretion in diabetes mellitus and in coexisting hypertension and renal failure. Pharmacokinetic properties of candesartan cilexetil in elderly patients are not significantly different from those in younger individuals. Hepatic impairment does not change pharmacokinetics of candesartan cilexetil at doses up to 12 mg/day. No dose adjustment is necessary in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Tolerability of candesartan cilexetil is not much different from that of placebo. All adverse events are usually of mild to moderate severity and not dose-related. The most common adverse events were headache, upper respiratory tract infection, back pain, and dizziness. The incidence of these adverse effects, as well as of cough, was similar in patients treated with candesartan cilexetil or placebo. The incidence of adverse events in long-term trials was not different from that in short-term trials. Tolerability of candesartan cilexetil does not differ with either age or gender.

Office compared with ambulatory blood pressure in assessing response to antihypertensive treatment: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a systematic review of the studies on the effect of antihypertensive treatment on ambulatory (ABP) and office blood pressure in order to obtain a differential assessment of the magnitude of the reduction in (1) office blood pressure compared with 24-h average ABP values, and (2) daytime compared with night-time average blood pressure values.

DATA SOURCES

Medline search, Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

This review is based on a meta-analysis (carried out according to the Quality of Reports of Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials Group statement, whenever applicable) of papers on the effect of antihypertensive drugs on blood pressure. Papers were selected if they provided information on drug-induced changes in one or both of: (1) both office blood pressure and 24-h ABP, and/or (2) both daytime and night-time average blood pressure. Additional inclusion criteria were administration of antihypertensive drugs for at least 1 week and good quality ABP, according to current guidelines. Comparison between the effect of treatment on blood pressure values was made by meta-regression of the data provided by the individual studies (weighted by their size) and by calculating differences between weighted average values obtained by pooling the results of individual papers.

RESULTS

We identified 984 papers on this issue by Medline search, with no additional information from the Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were satisfied by only 44 papers, which were included in the final analysis. The results showed that treatment-induced reduction in blood pressure is both smaller for the 24-h average than for the office systolic and diastolic blood pressure and smaller for night-time than for daytime average diastolic blood pressure, the average ratio ranging from 0.67 to 0.75. A different ratio characterized the treatment-induced changes in office blood pressure and ABP in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) ABP substudy.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of antihypertensive treatment is greater on office blood pressure than on ABP, and is unevenly distributed between day and night. This suggests caution when interpreting trials on cardiovascular protection by antihypertensive treatment that are based only on office blood pressure readings, and advocates a more systematic adoption of ABP monitoring in these trials. The conflicting data provided by the main HOPE study and by the HOPE-ABP monitoring substudy on the role of blood pressure reduction in explaining the reduced event rates associated with treatment by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are a clear example of the importance of performing ABP monitoring in trials on cardiovascular protection.

Randomized, controlled, parallel-group comparison of ambulatory and clinic blood pressure responses to amlodipine or enalapril during and after treatment in adult chinese patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Few studies have examined the relative efficacy and tolerability of antihypertensive drug classes in Chinese populations.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and duration of antihypertensive effect of amlodipine besylate and enalapril in Chinese patients with hypertension, including elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group dose-titration study was conducted at the Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Chinese University of Hong Kong. Chinese patients aged 18 to 80 years with primary hypertension were enrolled. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive active oral, once-daily treatment with amlodipine (5 mg) or with enalapril (5 mg) for 14 weeks. Treatment doses were titrated at weeks 4 and 8 if necessary according to blood pressure (BP) response and if the dose had been tolerated. Patients also underwent 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) at the end of the placebo run-in, after the first and last doses of active treatment, and 48 hours after discontinuation of treatment to determine the duration of drug action and to mimic the effect of 2 missed doses.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were recruited for the study (26 men, 54 women; mean [SD] age, 60.5 [11.6] years) (40 patients per group). Thirty-seven patients in each group completed the active treatment phase. Baseline trough BPs were similar: 167.7 (15.0)/94.6 (9.7) mm Hg in the amlodipine group and 168.6 (11.9)/93.4 (9.5) mm Hg in the enalapril group. After 14 weeks of treatment, amlodipine (mean [SD] final dose, 6.3 [2.3] mg) produced greater reductions than enalapril (mean [SD] final dose, 13.3 [6.6] mg) in trough BP (-20.8 [13.2]/-9.2 [9.0] vs -5.5 [14.9]/-3.2 [10.6] mm Hg, respectively; P < or = 0.01). Most of the effect of amlodipine persisted for 72 hours after the last dose (-18.9 [14.6]/-11.1 [11.7] mm Hg), but enalapril had no significant antihypertensive effect at 72 hours (-1.3 [12.3]/-1.8 [9.1] mm Hg). Similar observations were found with ABPM recordings. Cough was reported in 5 patients (12.5%) and 13 patients (32.5%) in the amlodipine and enalapril groups, respectively, but was thought to be treatment related in only 6 patients (15.0%), all in the enalapril group. One of the patients in the enalapril group withdrew from the study because of cough, and 1 patient in the amlodipine group withdrew because of ankle edema.

Comparison of candesartan with lisinopril on ambulatory blood pressure and morning surge in patients with systemic hypertension

We performed a prospective crossover study in 73 essential hypertensives to compare the effects of candesartan and lisinopril on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and early-morning BP. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at baseline and for each active treatment. Small doses of thiazide diuretic were added as needed. The effects of both drugs on 24-hour BP were almost identical and satisfactory. When we classified patients into the morning surge group (the highest quartile of morning systolic BP surge >36 mm Hg) and the non-morning surge group (the remaining 3 quartiles of morning BP surge), candesartan was superior in decreasing morning BP and morning BP surge.

Treatment of hypertension with an angiotensin II-receptor antagonist compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: a review of clinical studies of telmisartan and enalapril

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II (ATII)-receptor antagonists suppress the effects of ATII and are effective antihypertensive agents. However, the use of ACE inhibitors is sometimes associated with intolerable side effects (eg, cough, angioedema), and patients may develop a compensatory rise in ATII levels. ATII-receptor antagonists have tolerability profiles similar to that of placebo and inhibit the effects of ATII more completely by blocking the AT1 receptor.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes clinical studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of the ATII-receptor antagonist telmisartan with the ACE inhibitor enalapril in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing telmisartan with enalapril in patients with primary hypertension were identified through a PubMed search of the English-language literature from 1998 through 2001 and from bibliographic data provided by the manufacturer of telmisartan.

RESULTS

In 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (total number of patients, 647), telmisartan 40 or 80 mg/d was at least as effective as enalapril 20 mg/d for lowering blood pressure (BP) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. An open-label, titration-to-response study involving 86 patients with severe hypertension found that telmisartan 80 to 160 mg/d was as efficacious as enalapril 20 to 40 mg/d. The antihypertensive effects of telmisartan 20 to 80 mg/d and enalapril 5 to 20 mg/d were comparable in 278 elderly patients (age > or = 65 years) with mild to moderate hypertension enrolled in a 26-week, double-blind, dose-titration study. A double-blind, titration-to-response study in 71 patients with moderate renal impairment and mild to moderate hypertension found equivalent reductions in BP with telmisartan 40 to 80 mg/d and enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d without any clinically relevant decline in renal function. Telmisartan tended to be better tolerated than enalapril in this study, with fewer patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (8.9% vs 26.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the literature included in this review, telmisartan and enalapril produced comparable reductions in BP in a broad range of patients with hypertension. Telmisartan appeared to have a better tolerability profile.

Problems in dealing with missing data and informative censoring in clinical trials

Acommon problem in clinical trials is the missing data that occurs when patients do not complete the study and drop out without further measurements. Missing data cause the usual statistical analysis of complete or all available data to be subject to bias. There are no universally applicable methods for handling missing data. We recommend the following: (1) Report reasons for dropouts and proportions for each treatment group; (2) Conduct sensitivity analyses to encompass different scenarios of assumptions and discuss consistency or discrepancy among them; (3) Pay attention to minimize the chance of dropouts at the design stage and during trial monitoring; (4) Collect post-dropout data on the primary endpoints, if at all possible; and (5) Consider the dropout event itself an important endpoint in studies with many.