Dose-Dependent Influence of Azilsartan Medoxomil on Office, 24-Hour and Central Aortic Pressure in Patients with Hypertension Stage I and II

A.S. Dobrokhod, Yu.M. Sirenko

Abstract


Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a new angiotensin II receptor blocker. Its efficacy, safety and tolerability have already been proved. Currently, studies of AZL-M dose-dependent impact on clinic blood pressure (BP), 24-hours blood pressure (24BP) and central aortic blood pressure (CAP) in certain categories of patients are needed. Objective: to evaluate dose-dependent effects of azilsartan medoxomil on office blood pressure, 24-hours blood pressure and central aortic blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Design and methods. Thirty-seven patients (81 % men, all white, mean age was 42 years old) with mild to moderate essential hypertension were enrolled. Dose of AZL was gradually increased every 4 weeks from 20 to maximum 80 mg once-daily. Follow-up period of the study was 6 months. Clinical blood pressure, central blood pressure (CAP) (SphygmoCor CVMS, Atcor, Australia) and 24-hours blood pressure (24-SBP, 24-DBP) (ABPM, Meditech, Hungary) were measured before and on the each visit (every 4th week). Results and discussion. At the end of the study clinical SBP/DBP decreased on 21.8/10.2 mm Hg
(p < 0.0001). Blood pressure lowering effect of AZL-M was dose-dependent. We noted a significant dose-dependent decrease of 24-SBP and 24-DBP: on 14.3 ± 0.8 and 9.8 ± 0.4 mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both). Also in dose-dependent manner AZL-M decreased CAP: from initial 136.0 ± 3.13 to 119.0 ± ± 2.92 mm Hg at the end of the study (p < 0.005), so observed CAP lowering effect was 18.0 ± 2.92 mm Hg. Conclusions. The results show dose-dependent influence of AZL-M on office, 24-hours and central aortic blood pressure in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.


Keywords


azilsartan medoxomil; hypertension; clinical aortic pressure; central aortic pressure; 24-hours blood pressure; dose-dependent efficacy

References


Bönner G., Bakris G.L., Sica D. et al. Antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril // J. Hum. Hypertens. — 2013 Aug. — 27(8) . — 479-86.

Carter B.L., Ernst M.E., Cohen J.D. Hydrochlorothiazide versus chlorthalidone: evidence supporting their interchangeability // Hypertension. — 2004. — 43 (1). — 4-9.

Davies R.O., Gomez H.J., Irvin J.D. et al. An overview of the clinical pharmacology of enalapril // Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. — 1984. — 18, Suppl. 2. — 215-29.

De Caterina A.R., Harper A.R., Cuculi F. Critical evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of azilsartan // Vasc. Health Risk ­Manag. — 2012. — 8. — 299-305.

Dhakam Z., McEniery C.M., Yasmin, Cockcroft J.R., Brown M.J., Wilkinson I.B. Atenolol and eprosartan: differential effects on central blood pressure and aortic pulse wave velocity // Am. J. Hypertens. — 2006 Feb. — 19(2). — 214-9.

Fogari R., Ambrosoli S., Corradi L. et al. 24-hour blood pressure control by once-daily administration of irbesartan assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Irbesartan Multicenter Investigators’ Group // J. Hypertens. — 1997. — 15 (12 Pt 1). — 1511-8.

Frattola A., Parati G., Cuspidi C. et al. Prognostic value of 24-hour blood pressure variability // J. Hypertens. — 1993. — 11 (10). — 1133-7.

Gitt et al. Azilsartan compared to ACE inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy: one-year outcomes of the observational EARLY registry // BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. — 2016. — 16. — 56. DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0222-6.

Harrell R.E., Karim A., Zhang W., Dudkowski C. Effects of Age, Sex, and Race on the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Single and Multiple Doses of Azilsartan Medoxomil in Healthy Subjects // Clin. Pharmacokinet. — 2016 May. — 55(5). — 595-604. doi: 10.1007/s40262-015-0333-8.

Hayoz D., Zappe D.H., Meyer M.A. et al. Changes in aortic pulse wave velocity in hypertensive postmenopausal women: comparison between a calcium channel blocker vs angiotensin receptor blocker regimen // J. Clin. Hypertens (Greenwich). — 2012 Nov. — 14(11). — 773-8.

Kurtz T.W., Kajiya T. Differential pharmacology and benefit/risk of azilsartan compared to other sartans // Vasc. Health Risk Manag. — 2012. — 8. — 133-43.

Lim S.S., Vos T., Flaxman A.D., Danaei G. et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 // Lancet. — 2012. — 380 (9859). — 2224-60.

Mancia G., Fagard R., Narkiewicz K.. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension // European Heart Journal. — 2013. — 34. — 2159-2219.

McGaughey T.J., Fletcher E.A., Shah S.A. Impact of Antihypertensive Agents on Central Systolic Blood Pressure and Augmentation Index: A Meta-Analysis // Am J Hypertens. — 2016 Apr. — 29(4). — 448-57.

Parati G., Pomidossi G., Albini F., et al. Relationship of 24-hour blood pressure mean and variability to severity of target-organ damage in hypertension // J. Hypertens. — 1987. — 5 (1). — 93-8.

Preston R., Karim A., Dudkowski C., Zhao Z., Garg D., Lenz O., Sica D.A. Single-center evaluation of the single-dose pharmacokinetics of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist azilsartan medoxomil in renal impairment // Clin/ Pharmacokinet. — 2013 May. — 52(5). — 347-58.

Raff U., Walker S., Ott C., Schneider M.P., Schmieder R.E. Olmesartan improves pulse wave velocity and lowers central systolic blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure in patients with metabolic syndrome // J. Clin. Hypertens (Greenwich). — 2015 Feb. — 17(2). — 98-104.

Rule A.D., Bailey K.R., Schwartz G.L., Khosla S., Lieske J.C., Melton L.J., 3rd. For estimating creatinine clearance measuring muscle mass gives better results than those based on demographics // Kidney Int. — 2009. — 75(10). — 1071-8.

Salvetti A., Di Venanzio L. Clinical pharmacology of long-acting calcium antagonists: what relevance for therapeutic effects? // J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. — 1994. — 23 Suppl. 5. — S31-4.

Setiawati A. et al. Safety and Effectiveness of Candesartan and Candesartan/HCT Fixed Dose Combination in Patients with Hypertension Acta Med Indones-Indones // J. Intern. Med. — 2013 July. —Vol. 45, № 3. — P. 193-201.

Sica D., White W.B., Weber M.A., Bakris G.L., Perez A., Cao C., Handley A., Kupfer S. Comparison of the novel angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring // J. Clin. Hypertens. (Greenwich). — 2011 Jul. — 13(7). — 467-72.

Taddei S., Bruno R.M., Ghiadoni L. The Correct Administration of Antihypertensive Drugs According to the Principles of Clinical Pharmacology // Am. J. Cardiovasc. Drugs. — 2011. — 11(1). — 13-20.

Takagi H., Mizuno Y., Niwa M. et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of azilsartan therapy for blood pressure reduction // Hypertens. Res. — 2014 May. — 37(5). — 432-7.

Takahara M., Shiraiwa T., Shindo M. Efficacy and safety of 10-mg azilsartan compared with 8-mg candesartan cilexetil in Japanese patients with hypertension: a randomized crossover non-inferiority trial // Hypertens. Res. — 2014 Sep. — 37(9). — 852-7.

White W.B., Weber M.A., Sica D., Bakris G.L., Perez A., Cao C., Kupfer S. Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension // Hypertension. — 2011 Mar. — 57(3). — 413-20.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22141/2224-1485.4.48.2016.76999

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 HYPERTENSION

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

 

© Publishing House Zaslavsky, 1997-2017

 

 Яндекс.МетрикаSeo анализ сайта Рейтинг@Mail.ru