Efficacy and safety of the dual L- and T-type calcium channel blocker, ACT-280778: a proof-of-concept study in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis of Azilsartan Medoxomil Compared to Other Anti-hypertensives Efficacy in Lowering Blood Pressure Amongst Mild to Moderate Hypertensive Patients

INTRODUCTION

A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis was conducted on azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) versus other antihypertensive drugs' efficacy in hypertensive patients.

METHODS

The search utilized English platforms, from January 2000 until December 2023, resulting in 10,380 articles being screened. Screening criteria included hypertension (mild or moderate); first-line treatment and washout periods; studies (monotherapy) with AZL-M, angiotensin type II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNIs), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics, either as intervention or comparator; and antihypertension efficacy as an outcome measure. Study design was randomized clinical trials. Efficacy variables included absolute office systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) reductions. A total of 21 publications provided adequate data for analysis, of which 20 studies reported both systolic and diastolic BP and one study reported only the diastolic BP.

RESULTS

In 21 studies on systolic BP, against the common comparator placebo, the differences in systolic BP were significantly in favor of AZL-M, amlodipine, candesartan, irbesartan, nebivolol, nifedipine, olmesartan, sacubitril valsartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking shows that AZL-M 80 mg had the highest ranking, with a possibility of 93% being the best in all other included treatments. In 20 studies on diastolic BP, against the common comparator placebo, the differences in diastolic BP were significantly in favor of AZL-M, amlodipine, bisoprolol, nebivolol, olmesartan, sacubitril valsartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. The SUCRA ranking shows that AZL-M 80 mg had the highest ranking, with a possibility of 90% being the best in all other included treatments.

CONCLUSION

AZL-M at 40 mg and 80 mg shows favorable efficacy compared to other anti-hypertensives, and the 80 mg dosage seemed to be the most efficacious of all the included treatments in reducing both office systolic and diastolic BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Comparative peripheral edema for dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.

The Case for an Unblinded Modeler in Early Clinical Development

The current trend for clinical pharmacology is toward more complex studies (eg, umbrella protocols covering single and multiple ascending doses, food effect, metabolism pathways), requiring many decisions to be made during their conduct. This article discusses guidance of such early clinical studies by modeling and simulation. The ability to make use of all available information each time new data become available during the study requires the modeling scientist to be unblinded. This must of course not jeopardize the blinding of the clinical team, and this article discusses how unblinding can be prevented. Although modeling and simulation are established for guidance of the drug development process overall, they are not frequently used for guidance on a small scale, that is, during studies with the largest uncertainty, the first-in-human studies. Application of a quantitative model backbone makes early clinical drug development a more efficient process and provides additional safety for healthy subjects and patients. Real clinical impact is illustrated by 3 case studies that show different contributions from unblinded modeling: dose escalation based on safety data, modeling and predicting with explicit incorporation of in vitro data, and dose escalation supported by unblinded analysis of adverse event data, which resulted in new insights of the clinical team without being unblinded and made it possible to proceed with dose escalation and to extend the study with an up-titration group.

Blood pressure lowering effect of calcium channel blockers on perioperative hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute perioperative hypertension has been associated with poor outcomes of surgery, and the role of calcium channel blockers (CCB) on controlling perioperative blood pressure (BP) remains controversial. Thus, this meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of CCB in treating perioperative hypertension compared with other antihypertensive agents.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and EMABSE databases was systematically searched up to January 2018 for randomized control trials (RCTs) or other control studies comparing the efficacy of CCB versus other antihypertensive medicines for perioperative hypertension modulation. The efficacy and safety of CCB in treating perioperative hypertension were assessed through pooling mean difference (MD) with its 95% confidence interval (CI) or risk ratio (RR) with its 95% CI.

RESULTS

In total, 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There is no significant difference regarding successful treatment (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 0.95, 7.29; I = 97%, P <.05), systolic blood pressure (SBP) (MD = -7.05, 95% CI: -16.27, 2.17; I = 78%, P <.05), overall adverse events (RR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.16; I = 54%, P = .02), atrial fibrillation (RR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.07; I = 32%, P = .20) and heart rates (MD = -1.05, 95% CI: -7.81, 5.71; I = 84%, P < .05) between patients treated by CCB and other drugs. In the subgroup analysis, statistical significance can be observed regarding successful treatment (RR = 3.46, 95%CI: 1.67, 7.18; I = 84%, P <.05) and postoperative SBP (MD = -9.98, 95%CI: -20.03, 0.08; I = 97%, P <.05) in the RCTs subgroup.

CONCLUSION

CCB was highly effective and well tolerated for treating perioperative hypertension.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Tolerability of Tylerdipine Hydrochloride, a Novel Dihydropyridine Dual L/T-type Calcium Channel Blocker, after Single and Multiple Oral Doses in Healthy Chinese Subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Tylerdipine hydrochloride (KBP-5660) is a novel L/T-type dual calcium channel blocker developed for the treatment of hypertension. We aimed to study the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of tylerdipine in healthy Chinese subjects.

METHODS

Two double-blind, randomized, dose-escalation studies were conducted that included a total of 88 healthy subjects: (1) a single-ascending dose (SAD) study; and (2) a multiple-ascending dose (MAD) study. In the SAD study, 64 subjects were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of 0.5, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 mg of tylerdipine or placebo. In the MAD study, 24 subjects were randomly assigned to receive 10 or 20 mg of tylerdipine or placebo once daily for 9 days. Blood samples were collected at the designated time points for pharmacokinetic analyses. Safety assessments were conducted throughout the study.

RESULTS

Following a single oral dose of tylerdipine of 5-30 mg, the mean maximum plasma concentration (C_max) increased from 0.9993 to 10.11 ng/ml; mean area under the plasma-concentration curve (AUC) from time zero to 72 h increased from 4.332 to 73.95 h·ng/ml. AUC increased in a greater than dose-proportional manner, whereas C_max exhibited a rough but non-typical dose-proportionality increase. In the MAD study, steady-state conditions were achieved after 1 week of daily dosing in both dose groups. Accumulation of tylerdipine was low, with accumulation ratios (R_AUC) of less than 1.65. All adverse events were assessed as mild or moderate.

CONCLUSION

Tylerdipine hydrochloride was safe and well tolerated. The exposure (AUC) of tylerdipine over the dose range of 5-30 mg increased in a greater than dose-proportional manner, while C_max exhibited a rough but non-typical dose proportionality increase. A slight accumulation of tylerdipine was observed following multiple dosing.

STUDY REGISTRATIONS

CTR20140862 and CTR20150660.