A study of the prevalence of significant increases in serum creatinine following angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitor administration

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190 mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5 mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25 mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25 mg [United States] or 20/25 mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

Safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil in subjects with essential hypertension: a one-year, phase 3, open-label study

This 56-week phase 3, open-label, treat-to-target study, involving 2 consecutive, non-randomized cohorts, evaluated the safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) in essential hypertension (mean baseline blood pressure [BP] 152/100 mmHg). All subjects (n = 669) initiated AZL-M 40 mg QD, force-titrated to 80 mg QD at week 4, if tolerated. From week 8, subjects could receive additional medications, starting with chlorthalidone (CLD) 25 mg QD (Cohort 1) or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5–25 mg QD (Cohort 2), if required, to reach BP targets. Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 75.9% of subjects overall in the two cohorts (73.8% Cohort 1, 78.5% Cohort 2). The most common AEs were dizziness (14.3%), headache (9.9%) and fatigue (7.2%). Transient serum creatinine elevations were more frequent with add-on CLD. Clinic systolic/diastolic BP (observed cases at week 56) decreased by 25.2/18.4 mmHg (Cohort 1) and 24.2/17.9 mmHg (Cohort 2). These results demonstrate that AZL-M is well tolerated over the long term and provides stable BP improvements when used in a treat-to-target BP approach with thiazide-type diuretics.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil with or without chlorthalidone during and after 8 months of treatment for hypertension

A phase 3, 26‐week, open‐label, titrate‐to‐target study (n=418) assessed the safety of azilsartan medoxomil (AZL‐M) alone and with chlorthalidone (CLD), followed by a 6‐week, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled reversal phase with change in clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) as the primary endpoint. Target blood pressure (BP) was <140/90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg with diabetes/chronic kidney disease). AZL‐M was initiated at 40 mg once a day (QD), force‐titrated to 80 mg at week 4. CLD 25 mg QD could be added (weeks 8–22), if required, to reach target, followed by additional antihypertensives from week 12. At the end of the open‐label phase, mean change in systolic BP (SBP)/DBP from baseline was −23/−16 mm Hg. The most common adverse events, irrespective of treatment, were dizziness (8.9%) and headache (7.2%). Serious AEs were reported in eight patients (1.9%). Consecutive creatinine elevations ≥50% with values exceeding the upper limit of normal (ULN) were reported in nine (2.2%) patients. All returned to below the 50% threshold; most also returned to below the ULN after drug discontinuation. Mean DBP was maintained through the reversal phase in patients receiving AZL‐M, but increased with placebo (difference: −7.8 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval, −9.8 to −5.8; P<.001). AZL‐M alone or with CLD showed good long‐term safety and stable BP improvements in a titrate‐to‐target approach. BP improvements caused by AZL‐M therapy were safely reversible upon AZL‐M withdrawal.

Review: use of electronic medical records for health outcomes research: a literature review

This review assessed the use of electronic medical record (EMR) systems in outcomes research. We systematically searched PubMed to identify articles published from January 2000 to January 2007 involving EMR use for outpatient-based outcomes research in the United States. EMR-based outcomes research studies (n = 126) have increased sixfold since 2000. Although chronic conditions were most common, EMRs were also used to study less common diseases, highlighting the EMRs' flexibility to examine large cohorts as well as identify patients with rare diseases. Traditional multi-variate modeling techniques were the most commonly used technique to address confounding and potential selection bias. Data validation was a component in a quarter of studies, and many evaluated the EMR's ability to achieve similar results previously achieved using other data sources. Investigators using EMR data should aim for consistent terminology, focus on adequately describing their methods, and consider appropriate statistical methods to control for confounding and treatment-selection bias.