Potential Protective Role of Blood Pressure-Lowering Drugs on the Balance between Hemostasis and Fibrinolysis in Hypertensive Patients at Rest and During Exercise

In patients with hypertension, the triad represented by endothelial dysfunction, platelet hyperactivity, and altered fibrinolytic function disturbs the equilibrium between hemostasis and fibrinolysis and translates into a hypercoagulable state, which underlies the risk of thrombotic complications. This article reviews the scientific evidence regarding some biological effects of antihypertensive drugs, which can protect patients from the adverse consequences of hypertensive disease, improving endothelial function, enhancing antioxidant activity, and restoring equilibrium between hemostatic and fibrinolytic factors. These protective effects appear not to be mediated through blood pressure reduction and are not shared by all molecules of the same pharmacological class.

Fixed-dose combination of zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with established metabolic syndrome uncontrolled by previous monotherapy. The ZAMES study (Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome)

OBJECTIVE

Whether all antihypertensive drugs are equally effective in patients with metabolic syndrome is still unclear. The goal of the Zofenopril in Advanced MEtabolic Syndrome (ZAMES) study was to investigate whether treatment with the fixed-dose combination of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide is at least as effective as that with the angiotensin receptor blocker irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with metabolic syndrome and essential hypertension, uncontrolled by a previous monotherapy.

METHODS

We enrolled 721 patients in a multicenter, international (Italy and Romania), randomized, double-blind, parallel group, phase III study. Following a 1-week screening withdrawal period, 482 patients (mean age 59 ± 10 years, 53% men) bearing a SBP at least 140 mmHg and/or DBP at least 90 mmHg plus metabolic syndrome (ATP-III criteria) were randomly allocated to a fixed-dose combination of zofenopril 30 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or irbesartan 150 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily for a cumulative period of 24 weeks. After 8 and 16 weeks, zofenopril and irbesartan doses were doubled in nonnormalized study participants. The study endpoint was the office DBP reduction at study end. In 20% of patients, an ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of diabetes at baseline was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in the zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group (82%) than in the irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide (73%) group. Baseline-adjusted DBP reductions were superimposable (P = 0.370) with zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 231; 9.8 (95% confidence interval: 11.1, 8.4) mmHg] and irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide [n = 235; 10.4 (11.8, 9.0) mmHg]. The same was for SBP [17.0 (19.2, 14.8) mmHg zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 18.8 (21.0, 16.6) mmHg irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, P = 0.113]. Rate of normalized and responder patients (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg or SBP reduction more than 20 mmHg or DBP reduction more than 10 mmHg) did not differ at study end (65.8% and 77.5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide vs. 67.7% and 81.5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide; P = 0.695, P = 0.301). These results were confirmed in the 69 study participants undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (35 zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 34 irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide), with a comparable 24-h average BP reduction [BP difference between-treatment: SBP: 0.1 (-5.7, 5.9) mmHg, P = 0.975; DBP: -0.9 (-3.8, 2.0) mmHg, P = 0.541]. Both drugs attained similar BP reductions also in the last 6 h of the dosing interval [between-treatment difference SBP: 0.1 (-7.4, 7.5) mmHg P = 0.990; DBP: -0.9 (-4.4, 2.6) mmHg, P = 0.602]. Metabolic and renal indexes were not altered. Few patients were withdrawn for moderate adverse events (5% zofenopril plus hydrochlorothiazide; 5% irbesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide).

CONCLUSION

This is the first study supporting the comparable antihypertensive and metabolic response to fixed-dose combinations of sulphydril-containing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (zofenopril) or angiotensin receptor blockers (Irbesartan) with a diuretic in patients with advanced metabolic syndrome and nonresponders to monotherapy. The results of this study can further improve the clinical management of high cardiovascular risk patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome, because these two drug combinations increase the number of available combinations, which may significantly improve patients' adherence in this special clinical condition that is frequently found in everyday practice.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril in elderly mild to moderate essential hypertensive patients with or without metabolic syndrome: a pooled post hoc analysis of two comparative trials

BACKGROUND

Two recent identically designed trials (one Italian and one European multinational) have compared the head-to-head efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil and the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril, in elderly patients with essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with hypertension, with or without metabolic syndrome, by performing a pooled analysis of data from the two head-to-head trials.

METHODS

After a 2-week, placebo wash-out, 1,453 treated or untreated elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years [with sitting office diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office systolic BP (SBP) 140-179 mmHg] were randomized to 12-weeks of double-blind treatment with olmesartan 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once daily. Treatment could be up-titrated to 20 and 40 mg for olmesartan, and 5 and 10 mg for ramipril, after the first 2 and 6 weeks, respectively, in patients with inadequately controlled BP (BP ≥ 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetics and ≥ 130/80 mmHg for diabetics). Office BP was measured at randomization and after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment. 24-h ambulatory BP recordings were obtained at randomization and after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Of the 1,426 patients in the intent-to-treat analysis, 735 (51.5 %) had metabolic syndrome (olmesartan, n = 372; ramipril, n = 363). After 12 weeks of treatment, baseline-adjusted office BP reductions were greater (p < 0.05) with olmesartan (SBP 17.0 mmHg; 95% CI 18.4, 15.6; DBP 9.6 mmHg; 95% CI 10.4, 8.8) than with ramipril (SBP 14.7 mmHg; 95% CI 16.1, 13.2; DBP 8.4 mmHg; 95% CI 9.2, 7.6) in patients with metabolic syndrome. In these patients, BP normalization rates were also greater with olmesartan than with ramipril (46.0 vs. 35.8%, p < 0.01). Similarly, in patients without metabolic syndrome, the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan was also significantly (p < 0.05) better than that of ramipril. In the subgroup of patients with valid ambulatory BP (ABP) recordings and metabolic syndrome (olmesartan, n = 182; ramipril, n = 170), the reduction in mean 24-h ABP was greater with olmesartan (SBP 10.2 mmHg; 95% CI 11.8, 8.6; DBP 6.6 mmHg; 95% CI 7.5, 5.6) than with ramipril (SBP 8.5 mmHg; 95% CI 10.2, 6.9; DBP 4.7 mmHg; 95% CI 5.7, 3.7), with a statistically significant (p < 0.01) difference for the DBP comparison. The proportion of patients experiencing drug-related adverse events was comparable in patients with (olmesartan 2.4 % vs. ramipril 2.8 %) and without (3.5 vs. 3.7 %) metabolic syndrome.

CONCLUSIONS

Olmesartan provides more effective BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients with and without metabolic syndrome.

Effects of manidipine plus rosuvastatin versus olmesartan plus rosuvastatin on markers of insulin resistance in patients with impaired fasting glucose, hypertension, and mixed dyslipidemia

AIM

To compare the effect of manidipine 20 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg versus olmesartan 20 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg on markers of insulin resistance in patients with mixed dyslipidemia, hypertension, and impaired fasting glucose (IFG).

METHODS

This study had a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. A total of 40 patients with IFG, mixed dyslipidemia, and stage 1 hypertension were included. Following dietary intervention, patients were randomly allocated to rosuvastatin (10 mg/d) plus olmesartan (20 mg/d) or manidipine (20 mg/d). The primary end point was the between-group difference in changes in the Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) index following 3 months of treatment. Secondary end points included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting insulin levels, and glucosylated hemoglobin.

RESULTS

At the end of the 3-month treatment period, a significant increase in HOMA-IR index by 14% (from 2.4 [0.5-7.9] to 2.7 [0.5-5.2], P = .02 versus baseline) was seen in the olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group. On the contrary, no significant change in HOMA-IR index was observed in the manidipine plus rosuvastatin group (1.7 [0.5-5.2] to 1.7 [0.8-6.0], P = NS versus baseline, P = .04 versus olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group). An increase in fasting insulin levels was observed in the olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group (+8%, from 10.1 [2.0-29.6] to 10.9 [2.0-19.1] μU/mL, P < .05 versus baseline), while no significant change was seen in the manidipine plus rosuvastatin group (+3%, from 7.3 [2.0-17.6] to 7.5 [1.9-15.6] μU/mL, P = NS versus baseline, P = .02 versus olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group). Fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin did not change significantly in any group.

CONCLUSION

Manidipine seems to ameliorate the possible statin-associated increase in insulin resistance as compared with olmesartan in patients with IFG, hypertension, and mixed dyslipidemia.