Solidification of deep eutectic solvent containing fimasartan through wet impregnation and exploration of flow attributes by modified SeDeM-SLA expert system.

The solidification of deep eutectic solvent (DES) through wet impregnation techniques on inert solid carriers is an interesting approach that offers better processing attributes and excellent stability. Herein, DES of Fimasartan (FS) was developed to improve its solubility and bioavailability. The selected DES-FS was solidified by wet impregnation method employing Nesulin US2 and Aerosil 200. The SeDeM-SLA (solid-liquid adsorption) system was employed to investigate flow attributes of solidified DES-FS. Further, the selected solidified DES-FS (A) was characterized by Fourier transforms infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), Powder X-ray diffraction (PXRD), Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), Scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The DES comprising Choline Chloride (ChCl): Glycerol (Gly) (1:3) revealed maximum drug solubility (35.6 ± 2.2 mg/mL) and thus opted for solidification. Solidification through wet impregnation was employed using 1:0.5 ratios (DES-FS to carriers). The Index of Good Flow (IGF) value was calculated from the SeDeM-SLA expert system, which indicates the better flow characteristics of solidified DES-FS, particularly with Neusilin US2 [SDES-FS (A)]. The solid-state evaluation data of SDS-FS (A) suggested a transition of FS to an amorphous form, resulting in an increment in solubility and dissolution. A similar trend was reported in the in vivo pharmacokinetic study, which indicated a 2.9 folds increment in the oral bioavailability of FS. Furthermore, excellent stability, i.e., a shelf life of 28.44 months, reported by SDES-FS (A) in accelerated stability studies, suggests better formulation perspectives. In a nutshell, the present study evokes the potentiality of performing solidification through wet impregnation and successful implementation of the SeDeM-SLA expert model, which could find wide applications in pharmaceutical science.

Blood Pressure-lowering Effect of Fimasartan Versus Comparators: A Cross-inference With a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Through a Quality-management System.

PURPOSE: Fimasartan, one of the newest angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) available worldwide, has been investigated extensively since its initial development. Our study group conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fimasartan and comparators for their blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect. Moreover, we employed a cross-inference (frequentist and Bayesian inference) system, which has never been used in the medical field, to confirm the results of our study. In addition, a quality management system was integrated throughout the study for data quality. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalKey, and ClinicalTrial.gov were searched for RCT studies from March 1998 to March 2022. In each study, the mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs were identified for reductions in clinic sitting systolic and diastolic BP (SiSBP/SiDBP) or 24-hour mean systolic BP and diastolic BP by ambulatory BP monitoring (ASBP/ADBP) from baseline between the fimasartan and comparator groups, followed by meta-analysis. A subsequent meta-analysis was performed with frequentist and Bayesian inference as a tool in the cross-checking system. FINDINGS: Eleven RCTs with a total of 2459 subjects were included in the study. The clinic SiSBP/SiDBP-lowering effect of fimasartan was significantly greater relative to those of comparators (MD for clinic SiSBP, -2.58 mm Hg [95% CI, -4.35 to -0.81; P = 0.004]; MD for clinic SiDBP, -2.13 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.96 to -1.30; P = 0.00001]). The ASBP/ADBP-lowering effect of fimasartan was also significantly greater relative to those of comparators (MD for ASBP, -3.58 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.74 to -1.43; P = 0.001]; MD for ADBP, -1.99 mm Hg [95% CI, -3.34 to -0.63; P = 0.004]). IMPLICATIONS: Fimasartan seems to be more effective in lowering BP than its comparators, including other ARBs. Although there is a limited amount of data and a minuscule number of study subjects available, the results of cross-inference (frequentist + Bayesian) were fairly consistent with the meta-analysis results through our quality management system.

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III study on the efficacy and safety of a combination treatment involving fimasartan, amlodipine, rosuvastatin in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy involving fimasartan, amlodipine, and rosuvastatin in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond to fimasartan monotherapy. METHODS: This phase III, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study was conducted in adults aged 19-70 years. Patients who voluntarily consented were screened for eligibility to enroll in the study. Patients who failed to respond to 4 weeks of fimasartan monotherapy were randomized with a 1:1:1 ratio to the fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS/ALD + RSV) as study group, fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg (FMS/ALD) as control 1 group, and fimasartan 60 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS + RSV) as control 2 group. The primary efficacy endpoints were the change in the sitting systolic blood pressure and the rate of change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 8 weeks. The adverse events, adverse drug reactions, physical examination findings, laboratory test results, electrocardiograms, and vital signs were evaluated to assess safety in the study. RESULTS: Of 138 randomized patients, 131 were conducted efficacy analysis, and 125 completed the study. For the change in LDL-C and sitting SBP (SiSBP) as primary efficacy assessments, the change in LDL-C at week 8 was significantly reduce in the FMS/ALD + RSV group than in the control 1 group (P < 0.001). The change in SiSBP at week 8 were greater reduce in the FMS/ALD + RSV group than in the FMS + RSV group (both P < 0.001). For the safety evaluation, there were no differences among the treatment groups in the incidence of adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The fimasartan/amlodipine + rosuvastatin combination therapy can effectively and safely lower blood pressure and improve lipid levels in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia who fail to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03156842, Registered 17 May 2017.

Simultaneous Analysis of a Combination of Anti-Hypertensive Drugs, Fimasartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide, in Rats Using LC-MS/MS and Subsequent Application to Pharmacokinetic Drug Interaction with Red Ginseng Extract.

Fimasartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide are commonly used in combination therapies as antihypertensive drugs. This study aimed to develop and validate an analytical method for fimasartan, its active and major metabolite fimasartan-amide, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide in rat plasma using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The standard calibration curves for fimasartan (1−500 ng/mL), its active and major metabolite fimasartan-amide (0.3−100 ng/mL), amlodipine (0.5−200 ng/mL), and hydrochlorothiazide (5−5000 ng/mL) were linear with R2 > 0.9964, and the inter- and intra-day accuracy and precision and stability were within the acceptable criteria. Using this validated analytical method, the pharmacokinetic interaction of these triple combination drugs between single administration and concomitant administration of the triple combination was investigated; the results did not reveal a significant difference in any of the pharmacokinetic parameters. Based on these results, we investigated the effects of red ginseng extract (RGE) on the pharmacokinetics of fimasartan, fimasartan-amide, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide after oral administration of the combination in rats. No significant difference was observed in the pharmacokinetic parameters of fimasartan, fimasartan-amide, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide, except for the Tmax values of amlodipine. The delayed Tmax value of amlodipine was attributed to its decreased intestinal permeability after repeated RGE treatments. In conclusion, using a combination of antihypertensive drugs and simultaneous analytical methods, we established efficient drug interaction and toxicokinetic studies using a small number of animals.

Incidence and Pattern of Aminotransferase Elevation During Anti-Hypertensive Therapy With Angiotensin-II Receptor Blockers.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin type II receptor blockers (ARBs) are the most widely used anti-hypertensive drugs. This study aimed to elucidate the likelihood and pattern of ARB-induced liver injury in a hospital-based cohort. METHODS: Data of patients receiving fimasartan (n = 5,543), candesartan (n = 6,406), valsartan (n = 6,040), and losartan (n = 9,126) were retrieved from the clinical data warehouse of two tertiary hospitals. Patients with alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels > 5 times the upper normal limit were assessed according to the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM). RESULTS: A total of 27,115 patients were enrolled, including 14,630 (54.0%) men, with a mean age of 64.6 years (standard deviation, 13.6). During 31,717 person-years of ARB therapy, serum ALT levels > 120 IU/L were found in 558 (2.1%) person-years, and levels > 200 IU/L were found in 155 (0.6%) person-years. The incidence of ALT elevation > 120 IU/L per 106 cumulative defined daily doses was 6.6, 3.6, 3.9, and 4.0 in the fimasartan, candesartan, valsartan, and losartan groups, respectively (P = 0.002). An ALT level > 200 IU/L with RUCAM score ≥ 6 was found in 20 patients, suggesting probable drug-induced liver injury for 11 (0.2%) patients receiving fimasartan, five (0.1%) receiving candesartan, four (0.1%) receiving valsartan, and none receiving losartan (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Approximately 2% of patients receiving ARB therapy had significant ALT elevation (4.24/106 cumulative defined daily doses [cDDDs]), which was associated with probable ARB-related liver injury in 0.07% of patients (0.15/106 cDDDs). Elevation of ALT was more commonly associated with fimasartan than the other ARBs. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of ARB-related ALT elevation in patients with unexplained chronic abnormal ALT.

Comparative efficacy and safety of fimasartan in patients with hypertension: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Hypertension is a prevalent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin II receptor blockers are widely prescribed to patients with hypertension, while new drugs are continuously developed. However, data on comparative efficacy and safety of novel agents, such as fimasartan, are scarce. Here, we aimed to collect clinical evidence on different angiotensin II receptor blockers using a network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials whose follow-up time is within 12 weeks were identified from eight databases via a systematic literature review. Of the 7909 possibly relevant studies, 61 studies with 14,249 adult patients were included in the analysis. These studies were further subjected to quality appraisal using Cochran's Risk of Bias, and sitting systolic blood pressure was considered the primary endpoint. A Bayesian random effect generalized linear model was used for the network meta-analysis, and the treatment rank probability was determined. Olmesartan (standardized mean difference -0.987 [-1.29, -0.729]) and fimasartan (standardized mean difference -0.966 [-1.21, -0.745]) showed the highest rank probabilities (37% and 35%) in the 4-week group, considering the primary endpoint. Furthermore, the odds ratio of adverse events for all agents did not differ significantly from that of the placebo. The treatment rank of angiotensin II receptor blockers varied depending on the outcome type and follow-up period considerably. Fimasartan rapidly lowered blood pressure in 4 weeks, which was further maintained until 12 weeks, indicating its competent efficacy and tolerability. Our findings may help medical practitioners and patients to select the best angiotensin II receptor blocker against hypertension.

Fimasartan Ameliorates Deteriorations in Glucose Metabolism in a High Glucose State by Regulating Skeletal Muscle and Liver Cells.

PURPOSE: Since diabetes and hypertension frequently occur together, it is thought that these conditions may have a common pathogenesis. This study was designed to evaluate the anti-diabetic function of the anti-hypertensive drug fimasartan on C2C12 mouse skeletal muscle and HepG2 human liver cells in a high glucose state. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The anti-diabetic effects and mechanism of fimasartan were identified using Western blot, glucose uptake tests, oxygen consumption rate (OCR) analysis, adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and immunofluorescence staining for diabetic biomarkers in C2C12 cells. Protein biomarkers for glycogenolysis and glycogenesis were evaluated by Western blotting and ELISA in HepG2 cells. RESULTS: The protein levels of phosphorylated 5' adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase (p-AMPK), p-AKT, insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1), and glucose transporter type 4 (Glut4) were elevated in C2C12 cells treated with fimasartan. These increases were reversed by peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta (PPARδ) antagonist. ATP, OCR, and glucose uptake were increased in cells treated with 200 µM fimasartan. Protein levels of glycogen phosphorylase, glucose synthase, phosphorylated glycogen synthase, and glycogen synthase kinase-3 (GSK-3) were decreased in HepG2 cells treated with fimasartan. However, these effects were reversed following the addition of the PPARδ antagonist GSK0660. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, fimasartan ameliorates deteriorations in glucose metabolism as a result of a high glucose state by regulating PPARδ in skeletal muscle and liver cells.

Fimasartan ameliorates renal ischemia reperfusion injury via modulation of oxidative stress, inflammatory and apoptotic cascades in a rat model.

Ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) can be defined as changes in the functions and structures of the tissues resulting from the restoration of blood after a period of ischemia. This study aimed to assess the potential protective effect of Fimasartan (angiotensin receptor antagonist) in the bilateral renal IRI in male rats through its potential effect on renal functions, modulation of the inflammatory cascade, oxidative stress, and apoptotic effect. The animals were equally assigned into four groups. The sham (negative control) group was exposed to surgical conditions without induction of IRI. The control group was exposed to ischemia by occluding the renal pedicles by clamps for 30 min, followed by restoration of blood for 2h. The vehicle-treated group received dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) by intraperitoneal injection (IP) 30 minutes before clamping. Fimasartan-treated group: rats pretreated with Fimasartan a dose of 3 mg/kg IP; this was half hour before occluding the renal pedicles. Animals were then exposed to 30 min ischemia (clamping the renal pedicles) followed by 2h reperfusion by releasing the clamps. Blood samples were collected to examine the levels of serum urea and creatinine. Renal tissue was used to measure the levels of cytokines (TNFα, IL-6) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC). Immunohistochemistry was used to assess the levels of Bax, caspase 3, and Bcl-2. Histopathological analyses were performed to detect the parenchymal injury. The present study shows that pretreatment with Fimasartan improves kidney function through its effects on oxidative stress, cytokines, and apoptotic markers.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Two Parallel-Group, Optional Titration, Multicenter, Phase IIIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan Versus Perindopril Monotherapy With and Without a Diuretic Combination in Elderly Patients With Essential Hypertension.

PURPOSE: The efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan in elderly patients have not been fully evaluated. This study was therefore conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan compared with perindopril in elderly Korean patients aged >70 years with essential hypertension (defined by a mean sitting systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≥140 mm Hg). METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 2 parallel-group, optional titration, multicenter, Phase IIIb trial (FITNESS [Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects]) enrolled 241 patients from 23 cardiac centers in the Republic of Korea between August 2017 and December 2019. After the placebo run-in period, treatment started with fimasartan 30 mg or perindopril arginine 2.5 mg once daily at a 1:1 ratio; if BP was not controlled at week 4, the dose was doubled. If BP was not controlled at week 8, a diuretic combination (fimasartan 60 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or perindopril arginine 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg) was administered. After 16 weeks of the double-blind treatment, the patients with controlled BP participated in an 8-week open-label extension study, with the 2 groups unified by fimasartan 60 mg with or without hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in SBP for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes included a change in sitting diastolic BP (DBP) for 8 weeks and changes in SBP and DBP for 4, 16, and 24 weeks. FINDINGS: At week 8, mean SBP significantly decreased from baseline in both groups: -14.2 (14.4) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and -9.0 (16.1) mm Hg in the perindopril group. The difference between the 2 groups was 5.4 (2.1) mm Hg, indicating the noninferiority of fimasartan to perindopril. Moreover, fimasartan exhibited a higher BP-lowering effect than perindopril (P = 0.0108). In addition, reductions in SBP and DBP from baseline to weeks 4, 8, and 16 were significantly greater in the fimasartan group than in the perindopril group, although the SBP reduction was comparable at week 16. Both groups reported an excellent mean compliance rate of 97.4% (4.7%) through week 16. During the study period, 82 adverse events were reported in 52 patients, 40 in the fimasartan group and 42 in the perindopril group (P = 0.4647). Dizziness was the most commonly reported adverse event (7 cases). Remarkably, only 1 case of orthostatic hypotension was reported during the study period. IMPLICATIONS: In elderly patients with essential hypertension, fimasartan 30 to 60 mg with a possible hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-mg combination was noninferior to perindopril 2.5 to 5 mg with a possible indapamide 1.25-mg combination. Furthermore, fimasartan exhibited higher BP-lowering efficacy than perindopril. There was no difference in tolerability between the 2 groups. Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555.

Fimasartan-Based Blood Pressure Control after Acute Cerebral Ischemia: The Fimasartan-Based Blood Pressure Control after Acute Cerebral Ischemia Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Blood pressure (BP) control is strongly recommended, but BP control rate has not been well studied in patients with stroke. We evaluated the BP control rate with fimasartan-based antihypertensive therapy initiated in patients with recent cerebral ischemia. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm trial involved 27 centers in South Korea. Key inclusion criteria were recent cerebral ischemia within 90 days and high BP [systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 mm Hg]. BP lowering was initiated with fimasartan. BP management during the follow-up was at the discretion of the responsible investigators. The primary endpoint was the target BP goal achievement rate (<140/90 mm Hg) at 24 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included achieved BP and BP changes at each visit, and clinical events (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03231293). RESULTS: Of 1,035 patients enrolled, 1,026 were included in the safety analysis, and 951 in the efficacy analysis. Their mean age was 64.1 years, 33% were female, the median time interval from onset to enrollment was 10 days, and the baseline SBP and DBP were 162.3±16.0 and 92.2±12.4 mm Hg (mean±SD). During the study period, 55.5% of patients were maintained on fimasartan monotherapy, and 44.5% received antihypertensive therapies other than fimasartan monotherapy at at least one visit. The target BP goal achievement rate at 24-week was 67.3% (48.6% at 4-week and 61.4% at 12-week). The mean BP was 139.0/81.8±18.3/11.7, 133.8/79.2±16.4/11.0, and 132.8/78.5±15.6/10.9 mm Hg at 4-, 12-, and 24-week. The treatment-emergent adverse event rate was 5.4%, including one serious adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Fimasartan-based BP lowering achieved the target BP in two-thirds of patients at 24 weeks, and was generally well tolerated.

Pharmacokinetic comparison between a fixed-dose combination of fimasartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide 60/10/25 mg and a corresponding loose combination of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/25 mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in healthy subjects.

For the treatment of hypertension, fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of antihypertensive drugs can provide complementary benefits from improved compliance and cost-effectiveness compared with loose combinations of corresponding drugs. A new FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide 60/10/25 mg is undergoing clinical development. A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 3-period, 3-sequence, partially replicated crossover phase 1 study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) between the FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide 60/10/25 mg and a loose combination of a dual-combination FDC (fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg) and hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg. Sixty healthy subjects were randomized, and 55 subjects completed the study. Serial blood samples were collected, and plasma concentrations of fimasartan, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide were measured to analyze PK parameters. The PK profiles of the FDC were similar to those of the loose combinations. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the FDC to loose combinations for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve until the last measurable time point (AUClast) were within the conventional bioequivalent range of 0.80 to 1.25. The GMRs and 90% CIs of fimasartan, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide were 1.0163 (0.8681-1.1898), 0.9595 (0.9256-0.9946), and 1.1294 (1.0791-1.1821) for Cmax and 1.0167 (0.9347-1.1059), 0.9575 (0.9317-0.9841), and 1.0561 (1.0170-1.0967) for AUClast, respectively. Both the FDC and loose combinations were well tolerated. In conclusion, the FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide 60/10/25 mg showed similar PK profiles to those of the corresponding loose combination, and both treatments were well tolerated.

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of Highly Variable Drugs in Healthy Subjects Using a Partial Replicated Crossover Study: A Fixed-Dose Combination of Fimasartan 120 mg and Atorvastatin 40 mg versus Separate Tablets.

PURPOSE: A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of fimasartan and atorvastatin is used to treat hypertension and dyslipidemia. The peak plasma concentration (Cmax) of fimasartan and atorvastatin has a large intra-subject variability with a maximum coefficient of variation of 65% and 48%, respectively. Therefore, both drugs are classified as highly variable drugs. The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) between a FDC of fimasartan 120 mg and atorvastatin 40 mg versus separate tablets in healthy male Korean subjects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A randomized, single-dose, two-treatment, three-sequence, three-period, partial replicated crossover study was conducted with a 7-day washout interval between periods. Blood samples for fimasartan and atorvastatin were collected until 48 hours after administration in each period. PK parameters were calculated using the non-compartmental method. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for PK parameters of FDC to loose combination and their 90% confidence intervals (90% CIs) were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 56 subjects completed the study. GMRs (90% CIs) of the Cmax for fimasartan and atorvastatin were 1.08 (0.93-1.24) and 1.02 (0.92-1.13), respectively. The expanded 90% CIs of both drugs using the intra-subject variability was calculated range of 0.70-1.43 and 0.73-1.38, respectively. The corresponding values of area under the concentration-time curve from zero to the last measurable time point were 1.02 (0.97-1.08) and 1.02 (0.98-1.07), respectively. CONCLUSION: FDC of fimasartan 120 mg and atorvastatin 40 mg between their loose combination showed similar PK characteristics.

A Pharmacokinetic Drug Interaction Between Fimasartan and Linagliptin in Healthy Volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Fimasartan, an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, and linagliptin, a dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor, are frequently coadministered to treat patients with hypertension and diabetes, respectively. This study sought to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interactions between fimasartan and linagliptin after co-administration in healthy Korean subjects. METHODS: The overall study was divided into two separate parts, with each part designed as an open-label, multiple-dose, two-period, and single-sequence study. In Part A, to investigate the effect of linagliptin on fimasartan, 25 subjects received 120 mg fimasartan alone once daily for seven days during Period I, and 120 mg fimasartan with 20 mg linagliptin for seven days during Period II. In Part B, to examine the effect of fimasartan on linagliptin, 12 subjects received only linagliptin once daily for seven days during Period I, followed by concomitant administration of fimasartan for seven days during Period II, at the same doses used in Part A. Serial blood samples were collected at scheduled intervals for up to 24 h after the last dose to determine the steady-state pharmacokinetics of both drugs. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects completed the study. The geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence intervals for maximum plasma concentration at steady state (Cmax,ss) and area under the concentration-time curve at steady state (AUCτ,ss) of fimasartan with or without linagliptin were 1.2633 (0.9175-1.7396) and 1.1740 (1.0499-1.3126), respectively. The corresponding values for Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss of linagliptin with or without fimasartan were 0.9804 (0.8480-1.1336) and 0.9950 (0.9322-1.0619), respectively. A total of eight adverse events (AEs) were reported and the incidence of AEs did not increase significantly with co-administration of the drugs. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that there are no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions between fimasartan and linagliptin when co-administered. Treatments were well tolerated during the study, with no serious adverse effects. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03250052.

Effectiveness of Fimasartan and Rosuvastatin Combination Treatment in Hypertensive Patients With Dyslipidemia.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the concurrent control rate of hypertension and dyslipidemia by fimasartan and rosuvastatin in patients who were concomitantly prescribed both drugs. METHODS: This single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted in 536 patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia who were taking fimasartan and rosuvastatin together for at least 12 weeks. Patients were enrolled from October 2016 to March 2018 at a tertiary hospital in the Republic of Korea. The primary end point was the concurrent control rate of blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) and LDL-C. As a secondary end point, the target blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg was adopted in all patients or in high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. Target LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels followed the domestic guidelines. Correlation between blood pressure control and lipid profile was also evaluated. All parameters were assessed in a clinic by board-certified physicians. FINDINGS: Of the total 536 patients, 69% (n = 368) had very high (n = 308) or high (n = 60) cardiovascular risk, with an average age of 65 years; 57% were male. When the target blood pressure was set at 140/90 mm Hg, the proportion of patients meeting the targeting LDL-C level was 40.3% (95% CI, 36.2-44.5; P < 0.001). When applied to the revised blood pressure criteria targeting 130/80 mm Hg, the concurrent control rate dropped by one half to 20.3% (95% CI, 17.2-24.0; P < 0.001). To apply the new blood pressure criteria, more intensive management is mandatory in patients with high or very high cardiovascular risk. There was no positive correlation between the controlled rate of hypertension and dyslipidemia. IMPLICATIONS: Fimasartan and rosuvastatin were shown to have effects on target diseases, but there was no synergistic effect when administered in combination. The higher the cardiovascular risk of the patients, the lower the rate of concurrent control when fimasartan and rosuvastatin were administered simultaneously. More active treatment is therefore required in high-risk patients.

Long-Term Safety of a Novel Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, Fimasartan, According to the Absence or Presence of Underlying Liver Disease in Korean Hypertensive Patients: A Prospective, 12-Month, Observational Study.

PURPOSE: Fimasartan, the ninth and most recent angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) approved by the Korea Food and Drug Administration, has shown similar efficacy and safety profiles compared to other ARBs. However, due to being predominantly excreted by the hepatobiliary system, concerns on safety have been raised regarding its use in patients with underlying liver disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective, 12-month, observational study evaluated patients with essential hypertension (HTN) receiving ≥1 dose of fimasartan. Self-reported and physician-reported events were recorded and classified according to organ class and severity. Outcomes were compared according to the absence and presence of underlying liver disease. RESULTS: A total of 601 patients were screened, and 566 patients who met predefined inclusion criteria were grouped according to the presence of underlying liver disease. Adverse events (AE) were reported in 28.7% (128/446) of patients without prior liver disease, while 42.5% (51/120) experienced events in the group with chronic liver disease. There was no difference in discontinuations due to liver function between patients with and without baseline liver disease (1.1% [5] vs 2.5% [3], p=0.376), and only a non-significant increase was observed in events associated to the hepatobiliary system in patients with chronic liver disease (9.7% [7] vs 2.7% [9], p=0.061). There were no deaths or serious adverse drug reactions (SADR) during the study period. In multivariate regression analysis, the presence of chronic liver disease (OR 2.01), female sex (OR 1.49) and old age (OR 1.12 for every 5-year increase) were independent predictors for the development of AE. Finally, no significant difference was observed in the reduction of systolic blood pressure after 12 months of treatment (least square mean change -6.57 ± 0.80 mmHg for normal liver function group; -7.65 ± 1.59 mmHg for chronic liver disease group; p=0.546). CONCLUSION: Long-term use of fimasartan for treatment of HTN was associated with a low rate of adverse events overall, especially in the absence of underlying liver disease. Even for patients with chronic liver disease, fimasartan treatment was well tolerated. Fimasartan could be a safe option for long-term treatment of essential HTN. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02385721.

Fimasartan: A new armament to fight hypertension.

Hypertension is a major public health problem of modern era. Fimasartan is a new Angiotensin Receptor Blocker approved for treatment of hypertension. It is more potent and longer acting angiotensin receptor blocker with effects lasting over 24 hours. Many clinical studies have affirmed its role in pharmacotherapy of hypertension. Further, it is renoprotective and has proven beneficial in diabetes also. This article briefly discusses the pharmacology and clinical evidence with fimasartan with a short summary of previous angiotensin receptor blockers.

Fimasartan versus perindopril with and without diuretics in the treatment of elderly patients with essential hypertension (Fimasartan in the Senior Subjects (FITNESS)): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease, even in the elderly. Fimasartan is a new non-peptide angiotensin II receptor blocker with a selective type I receptor blocking effect. The objective of this study is to confirm the safety and the non-inferiority of the blood pressure-lowering effect of fimasartan compared with those of perindopril, which has been proven safe and effective in elderly patients with hypertension. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, two-parallel group, optional-titration, multicenter, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of fimasartan and perindopril arginine. The study population consists of individuals 70 years old or older with essential hypertension. The primary outcome will be a change in sitting systolic blood pressure from baseline after the administration of the investigational product for 8 weeks. The secondary outcomes will be a change in sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline and changes in sitting systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure from baseline after the administration of the investigational product for 4, 16, and 24 weeks. The sample size will be 119 subjects for each group to confer enough power to test for the primary outcome. DISCUSSION: Research to confirm the efficacy and safety of a new medicine compared with those of previously proven anti-hypertensive drugs is beneficial to guide physicians in the selection of therapeutic agents. If it is confirmed that the new drug is not inferior to the existing drug, the drug will be considered as an option in the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03246555 , registered on July 25, 2017.

Fimasartan reduces neointimal formation and inflammation after carotid arterial injury in apolipoprotein E knockout mice.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) on atherosclerosis have been demonstrated in numerous studies. We investigated the effects of fimasartan on reducing neointimal formation and systemic inflammation after carotid artery (CA) injury in Apolipoprotein E knockout (ApoE KO) mice. METHODS: ApoE KO mice were randomly allocated to Group I (without CA injury), Group II (without CA injury + Fimasartan), Group III (CA injury), and Group IV (CA injury + Fimasartan). Fimasartan was orally administered everyday starting 3 days before iatrogenic left CA injury. RESULTS: At 28 days, neointimal hyperplasia and the inflammatory cytokines including TNFα, IL-6, ICAM, and MMP-9 in the peripheral blood were significantly reduced in Groups II and IV compared to Groups I and III, respectively. All fimasartan-administered groups revealed significant increases of CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T (Treg) cells with increased plasma levels of IL-10 and TGFß. In addition, increased CD8+ T cells by fimasartan were correlated with reduced smooth muscle cell (SMC) proliferation in the neointima in Groups II and IV. Furthermore, the populations of Treg and CD8+ T cells in total splenocytes were increased in Groups II and IV compared to Groups I and III, respectively. The enlargement of spleens due to CA injury in the Group III was attenuated by fimasartan, as shown in the Group IV. These data indicate that fimasartan significantly reduced SMC proliferation in neointima and increased Treg cells in ApoE KO CA injury mice. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests fimasartan could be an efficient strategy for reduction of atherosclerotic progression, with a decrease in immune response and systemic inflammation.

Fimasartan for Remodeling after Myocardial Infarction.

An angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) mitigates cardiac remodeling after myocardial infarction (MI). Here, we investigated the effect of fimasartan, a new ARB, on cardiac remodeling after MI. Sprague⁻Dawley rats were assigned into 3 groups: surgery only (sham group, n = 7), MI without (MI-only group, n = 13), and MI with fimasartan treatment (MI + Fima group, n = 16). MI was induced by the permanent ligation of the left anterior descending artery. Treatment with fimasartan (10 mg/kg) was initiated 24 h after MI and continued for 7 weeks. Rats in the MI + Fima group had a higher mean ejection fraction (66.3 ± 12.5% vs. 51.3 ± 14.8%, P = 0.002) and lower left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (9.14 ± 1.11 mm vs. 9.91 ± 1.43 mm, P = 0.045) than those in the MI-only group at 7 weeks after MI. The infarct size was lower in the MI + Fima than in the MI group (P < 0.05). A microarray analysis revealed that the expression of genes related to the lipid metabolism and mitochondrial membrane ion transporters were upregulated, and those involved in fibrosis and inflammation were downregulated by fimasartan. Fimasartan attenuates cardiac remodeling and dysfunction in rats after MI and may prevent the progression to heart failure after MI.

Pharmacokinetic comparison between fixed-dose combination of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg and the corresponding loose combination through partial replicated crossover study in healthy subjects.

Combination therapies of antihypertensive drugs are recommended in cases where hypertension is not controlled by monotherapy. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) between fixed-dose combination (FDC) of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg and the corresponding loose combination. Because of the high intra-subject variability for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of fimasartan, a randomized, open-label, 3×3 partial replicated crossover design was adopted. Subjects received a single dose of FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg or the corresponding loose combination in each period. Blood samples for PK analysis were collected up to 48 hours for fimasartan and 144 hours for amlodipine, respectively. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and its 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the FDC to the loose combination for Cmax and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable time point (AUClast) were calculated. Sixty healthy subjects were randomized, and 57 subjects completed the study. The concentration-time profiles of fimasartan and amlodipine were similar between the FDC and loose combination. The GMRs (90% CIs) of the FDC to the loose combination for Cmax and AUClast were 1.0440 (0.9202-1.1844) and 1.0412 (0.9775-1.1090) for fimasartan, and 1.0430 (1.0156-1.0711) and 1.0339 (1.0055-1.0631) for amlodipine, respectively. The GMRs and its 90% CIs for Cmax and AUClast of fimasartan and amlodipine were included not only in the scaled bioequivalence criteria but also in the conventional bioequivalence criteria. In conclusion, FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg showed comparable PK profiles with the corresponding loose combination, which suggests their bioequivalence.