Olmesartan-associated enteropathy: new insights on the natural history? Report of two cases.

INTRODUCTION: The association between olmesartan and an enteropathy histologically indistinguishable from untreated celiac disease has recently been described. However, pathogenetic mechanisms leading to villous atrophy, prevalence, natural history and genetic background of this condition have not yet been defined. PATIENTS: We describe here two cases of olmesartan-associated enteropathy and discuss some aspects of the natural history of this condition. RESULTS: In both patients, an infectious episode seems to have triggered the severe malabsorption syndrome which led them to hospitalization. High titer positive antinuclear antibodies with homogeneous pattern were found. CONCLUSIONS: Our reports add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that olmesartan-associated enteropathy should be considered in the presence of villous atrophy and negative celiac serology and in the diagnostic algorithm of non-responsive celiac disease.

Barnidipine compared to lercanidipine in addition to losartan on endothelial damage and oxidative stress parameters in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Essential hypertension has been extensively reported to cause endothelial dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of barnidipine or lercanidipine, in addition to losartan, on some parameters indicative of endothelial damage and oxidative stress in hypertensive, type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: One hundred and fifty one patients were randomised to barnidipine, 20 mg/day, or lercanidipine, 20 mg/day, both in addition to losartan, 100 mg/day, for 6 months. We assessed BP every month, in addition, patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). We also assessed: fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), some markers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and -9 (MMP-9), soluble vascular adhesion protein-1 (sVCAM-1), soluble intercellular adhesion protein-1 (sICAM-1), isoprostanes and paraoxonase-1 (PON-1). RESULTS: Both barnidipine and lercanidipine resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure, even if the reduction obtained with barnidipine + losartan was greater than that obtained with lercanidipine + losartan. Data recorded with ABPM also showed a similar trend. Barnidipine + losartan reduced the levels of Hs-CRP, TNF-α, sVCAM-1, sICAM-1, and isoprostanes both compared to baseline and to lercanidipine + losartan. CONCLUSIONS: Barnidipine + losartan gave an improvement of some parameters indicative of endothelial damage and oxidative stress in diabetic and hypertensive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02064218 , ClinicalTrials.gov.

A study about the relevance of adding acetylsalicylic acid in primary prevention in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus: effects on some new emerging biomarkers of cardiovascular risk.

AIM: To evaluate the relevance of adding acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in primary prevention in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: 213 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension were randomized to amlodipine 5 mg, or amlodipine 5 mg + ASA 100 mg for 3 months (Phase A); then, if adequate blood pressure control was reached patients terminated the study; otherwise, amlodipine was up-titrated to 10 mg/day for further 3 months and compared to amlodipine 10 mg + ASA 100 mg (Phase B). We assessed at baseline, at the end of Phase A, and at the end of Phase B the levels of some new emerging biomarkers of cardiovascular risk including: high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), adiponectin (ADN), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß), myeloperoxidase (MPO), soluble CD40 ligand (sCDL40). RESULTS: Compared to baseline, at the end of Phase A, patients treated with amlodipine 5 mg + ASA 100 mg showed a statistically significant reduction of Hs-CRP (-15.0%), TNF-α (-21.7%), MPO (-9.7%), and sCDL40 (-15.7%), and a statistically significant increase of ADN (+15.0%). These values were significantly better than the ones obtained with amlodipine alone. Similarly, at the end of Phase B, amlodipine 10 mg + ASA significantly lowered Hs-CRP (-18.8%), TNF-α (-15.0%), MPO (-9.2%), and sCDL40 (-20.0%) and increased ADN (+11.8%), with a better effect compared to amlodipine alone. CONCLUSION: All biomarkers considered were significantly improved by ASA addition. These data suggest that the use of ASA in primary prevention could be useful in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02064218.

Time to achieve blood pressure goal with a combination versus a conventional monotherapy approach in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.

The time to achieve a blood pressure (BP) goal < or =130/85 mmHg with a combination versus a conventional monotherapy approach was evaluated in 308 hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome. They were randomized to valsartan (V) 8 mg/amlodipine (A) 5 mg combination or to V 160 mg monotherapy for 12 weeks and every 2 weeks, there was a titration in nonresponder patients: in the combination group V/A was progressively increased to V 160/A 5 mg; V160/A 7.5 mg; V160/A 10 mg; V 240/A 10 mg, and V 320/A 10 mg. In the monotherapy group, the regimen was progressively modified as following: V 240 mg; V 320 mg; V 320/A 5 mg; V 320/A 7.5 mg, and V 320/A 10 mg. The mean time to achieve the BP goal was shorter in patients randomized to combination therapy compared to those randomized to conventional monotherapy (4.7 +/- 2.7 weeks vs. 7.1 +/- 3.9 weeks, respectively, p < 0.001). The percentage of patients who achieved target BP in the combination approach group statistically exceeded that of the monotherapy treated one already after 2 weeks of treatment (30.5 vs. 14.9%, p < 0.01) and again after 4, 6, 8, and 10 weeks of treatment. Only at 12 weeks the percentage of normalized patients was similar in the two treatment groups (78.8% vs. 75.3%, ns). These results suggest that initial therapy with a V/A combination approach may be more quickly effective than a conventional sequential monotherapy approach in achieving target BP in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.

Effect of valsartan and ramipril on atrial fibrillation recurrence and P-wave dispersion in hypertensive patients with recurrent symptomatic lone atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the effect of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan or ramipril on atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence, on P-wave dispersion, (PWD) and on serum procollagen type I carboxy terminal peptide (PIP). METHODS: A total of 369 mild hypertensive (systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 and/or 90 < diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 110 mm Hg) outpatients in sinus rhythm but with at least two episodes of AF in the previous 6 months were randomized to valsartan (n = 122), ramipril (n = 124), or amlodipine (n = 123) for 1 year. Clinic blood pressure (BP) and a 24-h electrocardiogram (ECG) were evaluated monthly. Patients were asked to report any episode of symptomatic AF and to perform an ECG as early as possible. PWD and serum PIP levels were evaluated before and after each treatment period. RESULTS: SBP and DBP were significantly reduced by the three treatments (P < 0.001). A total of 46 (47.4%) patients treated with amlodipine had a recurrence of AF as did 26 (27.9%) patients treated with ramipril (P < 0.01 vs. amlodipine) and 16 (16.1%) patients treated with valsartan (P < 0.01 vs. amlodipine and P < 0.05 vs. ramipril). The Kaplan-Meyer analysis showed a significant reduction of AF episodes in the valsartan group (P = 0.005 log-rank test) as well as in the ramipril group (P = 0.021), even if at a lesser degree. PWD values were significantly reduced by ramipril (-4.2 ms, P < 0.05) and even more by valsartan (-11.2 ms, P < 0.01), the difference being significant (P < 0.01). Serum PIP levels were reduced by ramipril (-49.7 microg, P < 0.001) and valsartan (-49.3 microg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar BP lowering, valsartan and ramipril were more effective than amlodipine in preventing new episodes of AF, but the effect of valsartan was greater than that of ramipril. This could be related to the greater PWD reduction observed with valsartan.

Effects of manidipine/delapril versus olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in elderly hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The purpose of this study was to compare the combination treatments of manidipine/delapril and olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in elderly diabetic hypertensives. After a 4-week placebo period, 158 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes (age range: 66 to 74 years) were randomized to receive combination treatment of 10 mg manidipine plus 30 mg delapril or 20 mg olmesartan plus 12.5 mg HCTZ for 48 weeks in a prospective, parallel arm trial. After 12 weeks, manidipine or HCTZ was doubled in nonresponders (systolic blood pressure [SBP] > or =130 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > or =80 mmHg). Patients were checked at the end of the placebo period and every 12 weeks thereafter. At each visit, lying, sitting and standing BP as well as fasting glycemia, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), electrolytes, uric acid, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) were evaluated. Both combinations reduced sitting SBP (-27.7 and -28.3 mmHg, respectively; both p<0.001) and DBP (-15.1 and -14.8 mmHg, respectively; both p<0.01) with no difference between the two treatments. Standing DBP was more markedly reduced by olmesartan/HCTZ (-19.5 mmHg; p<0.001) than by manidipine/delapril (-14.7 mmHg; p<0.05 vs. olmesartan/HCTZ). No changes in metabolic parameters were observed with manidipine/delapril, whereas an increase in HbA1c (+0.7%; p<0.05), uric acid (+0.4 mg/dL; p<0.05) and TG (+41.3 mg/dL; p<0.05), and a decrease in serum potassium (-0.3 mmol/L; p<0.05) and HDL-C (-3.4 mg/dL; p<0.05) were found in the olmesartan/HCTZ group. In conclusion, both combinations were similarly effective in reducing BP in elderly hypertensive diabetic patients. However, manidipine/delapril offered some advantages in terms of the less-pronounced BP orthostatic changes and absence of metabolic adverse effects.

Effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide in combination with telmisartan and olmesartan in adults with moderate hypertension not controlled with monotherapy: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point (PROBE), parallel-arm study.

BACKGROUND: The potential combinations of antihypertensive agents are many, and making rational choices depends on the characteristics of each drug and on their complementary mechanisms of action. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg to olmesartan 20 mg or telmisartan 80 mg on blood pressure (BP) in patients with moderate hypertension. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients at the Centro per l'Ipertensione e la Fisiopatologia Cardiovascolare, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, of both sexes aged 39 to 75 years were considered eligible for enrollment if they had a sitting diastolic BP (DBP) ->99 mm Hg and <110 mm Hg at the end of an initial 2-week washout period. Patients were random- ized to olmesartan 20 mg QD or telmisartan 80 mg QD according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-arm design. After 8 weeks of monotherapy, patients whose BP was not controlled (DBP ->90 mm Hg) received HCTZ 12.5 mg QD for 8 additional weeks. Clinical and ambulatory BPs were measured at the end of the washout period and at the end of both treatment periods. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded from spontaneous reports and direct inquiry from investigators. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five patients, all of whom were white, were recruited for the study. After the initial washout period, 13 patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 6 refused to continue. A total of 126 white patients (69 men, 57 women; mean [SD] age, 60.2 [11.6] years) were randomized to receive monotherapy. Of these, 35 patients (56%) in the olmesartan group and 33 (52%) in the telmisartan group had previously received antihypertensive therapy. At the end of monotherapy, the 52 patients in the olmesartan group and the 49 patients in the telmisartan treatment group who were still in the study and had their BP inadequately controlled by treatment had HCTZ 12.5 mg QD added to their treatment regimen. Both combinations induced a greater ambulatory mean (SD) systolic BP (SBP) and DBP reduction than monothera- py (SBP: 145.3 [6.1] in the olmesartan group and 140.1 [6.4] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05; DBP: 88.1 [5.1] in the olmesartan group and 84.9 [4.9] in the telmisartan group, P < 0.05). The mean (SD) reduction from baseline in the telmisartan/HCTZ-treated patients (21.5 [10.1]/14.6 [5.2] mm Hg for 24 hours, 21.8 [10.2]/14.9 [5.2] mm Hg for daytime, and 20.4 [10.3]/13.7 [5.9] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline) was significantly greater than that observed in the olmesartan/HCTZ-treated patients (18.8 [9.8]/12.3 [4.9] mm Hg for 24 hours, 19.3 [9.8]/12.8 [4.9] mm Hg for daytime, and 17.4 [10.2]/10.6 [5.5] mm Hg for nighttime; all, P < 0.001 vs baseline), with a significant difference between the 2 treatment groups (P < 0.01). Compared with mono- therapy, the add-on effect of HCTZ 12.5 mg QD administration was significantly greater in the telmisartan group than in the olmesartan group (P < 0.05); the differ- ence being more evident for nighttime BP values (SBP, P 0.031; DBP, P 0.025). Reported AEs were similar in the olmesartan/HCTZ and the telmisartan/HCTZ groups (4 patients [7%] vs 3 patients [6%]). CONCLUSION: The addition of HCTZ 12.5 mg to telmisartan 80 mg monothera- py was associated with greater BP reduction than the addition of the same dose of HCTZ to olmesartan 20 nag monotherapy in these patients previously uncontrolled on monotherapy.

Effect of telmisartan-amlodipine combination at different doses on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria.

BACKGROUND: Aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the telmisartan-amlodipine combination at different doses on urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) in hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. METHODS: After a 2-week placebo period, 300 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria were treated with the 40 mg of telmisartan and 2.5 mg of amlodipine combination. After 4 weeks 210 patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled (BP >130/80 mm Hg) were randomized to two-dose titration regimens, one based on increasing doses of telmisartan (up to 160 mg daily) and fixed 2.5-mg dose of amlodipine, the other based on increasing doses of amlodipine (up to 10 mg daily) and fixed 40-mg dose of telmisartan. After 12 weeks the nonresponder patients were given transdermic clonidine (0.1mg/d). After 16 weeks the patients yet not controlled were discontinued, the others were followed for 48 weeks. Office BP, UAER, creatinine clearance, plasma potassium, fasting glycemia, and glycosylated hemoglobin were assessed at the end of the telmisartan (40 mg)/amlodipine (2.5 mg) treatment period and after 48 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Similar decrease in systolic/diastolic BP values were obtained with both regimens (-24/-21, -23/-21, and -24/-21 mm Hg, all P < .001 v baseline, with increasing telmisartan; -25/-22, -25/-21, and -25/-22 mm Hg, all P < .001 v baseline with increasing amlodipine). Reductions of UAER were 47.5% (P < .01), 65.3% (P < .001), and 77% (P < .0001) for telmisartan 80, 120, and 160 mg/amlodipine 2.5 mg daily, respectively, whereas reductions of UAER were 34% (P < .03), 37% (P < .03), and 33% (P < .03) for amlodipine 5, 7.5, and 10 mg/telmisartan 40 mg daily, respectively, The difference between the two regimens was statistically significant (P < .05, P < .01, and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that, at comparable levels of BP reduction, UAE decreased more in subjects treated with escalating doses of telmisartan.

Addition of manidipine improves the antiproteinuric effect of candesartan in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes and microalbuminuria.

BACKGROUND: We sought to compare the effect of manidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in addition to candesartan on the urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER) in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes and microalbuminuria. METHODS: After a 2-week washout and run-in period, and 8-week monotherapy with candesartan 16 mg every day, 174 microalbuminuric diabetic hypertensive patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) (>130/80 mm Hg) were randomized to addition of manidipine 10 mg every day (n = 87) or HCTZ 12.5 mg every day (n = 87) for 24 weeks, with a titration after 4 weeks (manidipine or HCTZ dose-doubling) in nonresponder patients. Blood pressure, UAER, creatinine clearance, serum electrolytes, fasting plasma glycemia, and glycosylated hemoglobin were evaluated at baseline (end of run-in period), after candesartan monotherapy, and at the end of the combination treatment period. RESULTS: Both combinations produced greater systolic BP/diastolic BP reduction than candesartan monotherapy (-28/21 mm Hg versus -16/11 mm Hg and -28/20 mm Hg versus -15/11 mm Hg, respectively; all P < .05 versus monotherapy), with no significant difference between the two combinations. The addition of manidipine produced a greater reduction in UAER than candesartan monotherapy (-55.4 mg/24 h v -36.1 mg/24 h, P < .05), whereas the addition of HCTZ did not significantly modify UAER; the difference between the two combinations was statistically significant (P < .05). Similarly, the percentage of patients moving to a normoalbuminuric state (UAER <30 mg/24 h) was increased by the addition of manidipine to candesartan (from 35% to 64%, P < .05), but not by the addition of HCTZ (from 34% to 39%, NS), with a statistical difference between the two combinations (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings show that, despite equivalent reduction in BP, the addition of manidipine to candesartan further reduced the UAER, whereas the addition of HCTZ did not modify the UAER. This suggests that the antiproteinuric effect of manidipine is partially independent of BP reduction, and is attributable to mechanisms different from those mediated by angiotensin receptor blockade.

Prevalence of primary aldosteronism among unselected hypertensive patients: a prospective study based on the use of an aldosterone/renin ratio above 25 as a screening test.

Primary aldosteronism (PA) has been considered a rare cause of hypertension. The introduction of the aldosterone/renin ratio (ARR) as a screening test has led to an increase in the detection rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of PA among unselected hypertensive patients by using an ARR >25 as a screening test. We studied 3,000 consecutive unselected hypertensive patients. Blood samples for the determination of plasma renin activity (PRA), aldosterone (ALD) and electrolytes were drawn in the morning, and patients with an ARR >25 underwent intravenous saline infusion as a confirmatory test. Adrenal CT and a dexamethasone suppression test were performed in patients with confirmed PA. Patients with a positive dexamethasone test underwent genetic testing for glucocorticoid-remediable aldosteronism (GRA). Out of 3,000 hypertensives, 684 (22.8%) showed an ARR >25 and 177 of them (5.9% of the whole population) had a positive saline loading test. Only 44 of them (24.8%) were hypokalemic. CT was performed in all the patients with confirmed PA and 53 of them (29.9%) had a solitary adrenal macroadenoma, 112 (63.3%) had bilateral adrenal enlargement and 12 (6.8%) had normal appearing adrenal glands. Of 177 patients given dexamethasone to identify GRA, 8 (4.5%) showed aldosterone suppression but only one (0.1%) tested positive for the chimeric gene. In conclusion, our findings indicate that standardized application of an ARR >25 to unselected hypertensive patients, followed by i.v. saline loading as a confirmatory test, can result in the detection of a large number of patients with PA (5.9% of the studied population), most of whom are normokalemic. Bilateral adrenal hypertrophy represents the more common form of PA.

Effect on the development of ankle edema of adding delapril to manidipine in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: a three-way crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Use of the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and a calcium channel blocker (CCB) is considered a rational approach in patients whose hypertension is not controlled by monotherapy, providing better blood pressure (BP) control than the individual components with a lower incidence of adverse effects. In particular, such combinations have been found to reduce the incidence of ankle edema, the most common adverse effect of dihydropyridine annhypertensives. OBJECTIVE: The present study was undertaken to evaluate the effect on the development of ankle edema of adding the ACEI delapril to the CCB manidipine in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. METHODS: Patients between the ages of 30 and 70 years who had mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic BP [DBP] >90 and <110 mm Hg) were included in the study. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, eligible patients were randomized to receive 6 weeks each of manidipine 10 mg/d, delapril 30 mg/d, and both in a crossover fashion. There was a 2-week washout period between treatments. Ankle edema was assessed based on ankle-foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP). Sitting BP, AFV, and PSTP were measured at the end of the placebo run-in period and the end of each active-treatment period. RESULTS: The study enrolled 40 patients with previously untreated hypertension (21 women, 19 men). Both manidipine and delapril monotherapy were associated with significant reductions from baseline in systolic BP (SBP) (mean [SD], -17.3 [4] and -14.8 [4] mm Hg, respectively; both, P<0.01) and DBP (-14.6 [3] and -12.9 [3] mm Hg; both, P<0.01). Compared with monotherapy, the combination of manidipine and delapril was associated with greater reductions from baseline in SBP (-21.8 [5] mm Hg; P<0.001) and DBP (-18.6 [4] mm Hg; P<0.001). Manidipme monotherapy was associated with significant increases from baseline in both AFV (7.9%; P<0.001) and PSTP (36.6%; P<0.01). Compared with manidipine alone, the combination of manidipine and delapril was associated with less pronounced increases in AFV (3.3%; P<0.05) and PSTP (10.4%; P<0.05). Ankle edema was clinically evident in 3 patients after receipt of manidipine monotherapy and in 1 patient after receipt of combination treatment. CONCLUSION: In these patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, the addition of delapril to manidipine partially counteracted the manidipine-induced microcirculatory changes responsible for ankle edema.

Efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine in patients with poorly controlled mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (CC/HCTZ), 12.5 mg was compared with that of amlodipine, in a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy. After a two week run-in period on existing therapy, patients with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 90-110 mmHg and a sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP)

Ambulatory blood pressure parameters after canrenone addition to existing treatment regimens with maximum tolerated dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers plus hydrochlorothiazide in uncontrolled hypertensive patients.

BACKGROUND: Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a cornerstone in cardiovascular disease prevention and hypertension treatment. The relevance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has been widely confirmed for both increasing the accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurements, particularly in pharmacological trials, and focusing on 24 h BP prognostic parameters. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of canrenone addition on ambulatory BP in uncontrolled hypertensive patients already treated with the highest tolerated dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) antagonists plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCT). METHODS: ABPM was performed at baseline and after 3 months of combination therapy in 158 outpatients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension who were randomized to add canrenone (50 or 100 mg) to the pre-existing therapy with ACE inhibitors or AT1R antagonists plus HCT. Twenty-four-hour systolic and diastolic BPs were considered normalized when the values were <130 and <80 mmHg, respectively. RESULTS: The addition of canrenone was associated with a reduction in systolic and diastolic BPs (24 h and daytime and nighttime; P<0.001), mean arterial pressures (P<0.001), and pulse pressures (P<0.01). The Δ 24 h systolic/diastolic BPs were -13.5±11.2/-8±8 mmHg and -16.1±13.5/-11.2±8.3 mmHg (50 and 100 mg/day, respectively). In the 50 mg arm, the 24 h systolic and diastolic BPs were normalized in 67.5% and 74% of the patients, respectively, and in 61.6% and 68.5% of the patients in the 100 mg arm, respectively (P<0.05; P= not significant for 50 vs 100 mg). The percentage of patients whose nocturnal decrease was >10% with respect to diurnal values did not change during combination therapy. CONCLUSION: Canrenone addition to ACE inhibitors or AT1R antagonists plus HCT was associated with a significant reduction of 24 h BP and to an increased number of patients meeting 24 h ABPM targets in a clinical setting of uncontrolled stage 1 or 2 hypertension.

Efficacy and safety of two dosages of canrenone as add-on therapy in hypertensive patients taking ace-inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers and hydrochlorothiazide at maximum dosage in a randomized clinical trial: The ESCAPE-IT trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effects of canrenone as add-on therapy in patients already treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and hydrochlorothiazide at the maximum dosage (25 mg/d). METHOD: In this randomized, open-label, controlled trial, we enrolled 175 Caucasian patients with essential hypertension not well controlled by concomitant ACE-I or ARBs and hydrochlorothiazide. At baseline, 87 patients (57 males and 30 females) were randomized to add canrenone 50 mg, and 88 (56 males and 32 females) patients to canrenone 100 mg, once a day, for 3 months. At baseline and after 3 months, we evaluated blood pressure (BP), pulse pressure (PP), heart rate (HR), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), homeostasis model assessment insulin (HOMA Index), lipid profile, electrolytes, uric acid, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma urea, aldosterone, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and galectin-3. RESULTS: Blood pressure decreased with both dosages of canrenone, with a better effect with canrenone 100 mg (-20.26 vs -23.68 mm Hg for SBP, and -10.58 vs -12.38 mm Hg for DBP), without a clinically relevant increase in potassium levels. We did not observe any differences regarding FPG or HOMA Index, nor of lipid profile, with the exception of triglycerides, which increased compared to baseline with canrenone 50 mg (+0.25 vs +0.34 mEq/L). Creatinine slightly increased with canrenone 100 mg (+0.02 vs +0.05 mg/dL), although no variations of eGFR were observed in neither groups. There was an increase in aldosterone levels with canrenone 50 mg. No changes in BNP or galectin-3 were recorded. CONCLUSION: Both canrenone dosages gave a decrease in blood pressure, with a better effect with the higher dose, with only a slight increase in potassium and creatinine levels, which were not clinically relevant. Clinical Trials Registration Eudract number: 2010-023606-13; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02687178.

Olmesartan Combined With Amlodipine on Oxidative Stress Parameters in Type 2 Diabetics, Compared With Single Therapies: A Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial.

To evaluate the effects of a fixed combination of olmesartan/amlodipine compared with olmesartan or amlodipine alone on some parameters of endothelial damage in diabetic, hypertensive patients.We enrolled 221 patients; 74 were randomized to olmesartan 20 mg, 72 to amlodipine 10 mg, and 75 to olmesartan/amlodipine fixed combination 20/5 mg for 12 months. We assessed blood pressure monthly; in addition, we also assessed at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, the following parameters: lipoprotein (a), myeloperoxidase (MPO), isoprostanes, and paraoxonase-1 (PON-1). Blood pressure values obtained with fixed olmesartan/amlodipine combination were significantly lower than those reached with single monotherapies. There was a reduction of lipoprotein (a), and isoprostanes levels with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed combination, both compared with baseline, and with single monotherapies. On the other hand, there was an increase of PON-1 with fixed olmesartan/amlodipine combination, both compared with baseline, and with single drugs. All treatments reduced MPO compared with baseline; however, in group-to-group comparison, MPO reduction was greater with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed combination. Fixed combination of olmesartan/amlodipine was more effective than single monotherapies in reducing oxidative stress, especially in increasing PON-1, and reducing isoprostanes levels in diabetic and hypertensive patients.

Effect of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination versus nifedipine GITS on ambulatory blood pressure and sympathetic activation.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the effects of telmisartan hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination versus nifedipine GITS on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and sympathetic activity, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. METHODS: One hundred twenty-four outpatients with sitting diastolic BP > or =95 mmHg and <110 mm Hg were randomized to telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg daily (n = 62) or nifedipine GITS 60 mg daily (n = 62) for 12 weeks, according to a prospective, open-label, blind end point, parallel-group design. At the end of a 2-week washout period and after 12 weeks of active treatment, 24-h noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed, clinic BP and heart rate were measured, and plasma norepinephrine and cardiovascular responses to mental stress induced by the color word test were assessed. RESULTS: Both treatments reduced ambulatory and clinic BP. However, the drug combination had an antihypertensive efficacy significantly greater than nifedipine GITS, as shown by the 24-h (P < .001), daytime (P < .001), and night-time (P < .01) ambulatory BP monitoring values, as well as by the clinic BP at trough (P < .05). The trough-to-peak ratio was similar, but the smoothness index was significantly higher with the combination for both systolic and diastolic BP (P < .05). A significant increase in plasma norepinephrine levels in resting conditions was observed with nifedipine GITS (+20%) but not with telmisartan/HCTZ combination. The color word test produced a greater increase in plasma norepinephrine and heart rate values in the patients treated with nifedipine GITS than in those treated with the combination. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg combination provided a more sustained and homogeneous BP control than nifedipine GITS 60 mg, without producing sympathetic activation.

Serum testosterone levels and arterial blood pressure in the elderly.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between serum testosterone levels and arterial blood pressure (BP) in the elderly. We studied 356 non-diabetic, non-smoking, non-obese men aged 60 to 80 years and untreated for hypertension. All subjects were evaluated in the morning after an overnight fast. Evaluation included measurements of the following: BP (by mercury sphygmomanometer, Korotkoff I and V), body weight, height and free testosterone (T) plasma levels (by radioimmunoassay). According to the BP values, the subjects were classified as normotensives (NT; n=112; SBP/DBP<140/90 mmHg), systolic and diastolic hypertensives (HT; n=127; SBP/DBP>140/90 mmHg), and isolated systolic hypertensives (ISH; n=117; SBP>140 mmHg and DBP<90 mmHg). T values decreased with increasing age in all 3 groups and was significantly lower in HT (-15%) and ISH men (-21%) than in NT men (p<0.05). In each group, the T levels showed a highly significant negative correlation with BMI (p<0.001). A significant negative correlation was also found between T levels and SBP in NT (r=-0.35, p<0.001), ISH (r=-0.67, p<0.001), and HT (r=-0.19, p<0.05) men, whereas a negative correlation with DBP was observed only in the NT men (r=-0.19, p<0.05). Adjusting for the BMI confirmed a significant difference in plasma T levels between ISH and NT men, but not between HT and NT men. Multiple regression analysis employing BP as a dependent variable confirmed a strong relationship between T levels and SBP in all 3 groups, whereas a significant relationship between T levels and DBP was found only in NT men. In conclusion, although further studies are needed to clarify the relationship between plasma T levels and BP, our findings suggest that in elderly men with ISH, the reduced plasma levels of testosterone might contribute to the increased arterial stiffness typical of these subjects.

Comparison of the effects of valsartan and felodipine on plasma leptin and insulin sensitivity in hypertensive obese patients.

Aim of this study was to compare the effect of valsartan and felodipine on blood pressure (BP), plasma leptin (L), insulin sensitivity and plasma norepinephrine (NE) in obese hypertensive patients. Ninty-six obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > or = 30 kg/m2) with mild to moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] > 90 and < 110 mmHg, as evaluated with an appropriately sized cuff) aged 31-60 years, were randomized to a valsartan (80 mg/day for 16 weeks; n = 48) or felodipine (5 mg/day for 16 weeks; n = 48) treatment group after a 2-week wash-out period. After the first 4 weeks of treatment there was a titration with dose-doubling in non responder patients (DBP > 90 mmHg). At the end of the placebo period and of active treatment period, BP and BMI were evaluated and a venous sample was drawn at the same hour in the morning to evaluate plasma L and NE. Insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) was calculated. No dietary advice was prescribed. Both valsartan and felodipine significantly decreased BP values (-19.3/15 mmHg and -18.9/13.6 mmHg, respectively p < 0.001 vs. placebo), with no difference between treatments. However, felodipine increased plasma NE (+124 pg/ml, +38.2%, p < 0.05 vs. placebo and < 0.01 vs. valsartan) and had no effect on L, body weight and HOMA-IR index, while valsartan did not modify NE and produced a significant reduction in L (-3.7 ng/ml, -10.1%, p < 0.05 vs. placebo), BMI (-1.7 kg/m2, -4.7%, p < 0.01 vs. placebo) and HOMA-IR index (-1.6, -20%, p < 0.05 vs. placebo). These results suggest that in hypertensive obese subjects, treatment with valsartan might offer an advantage over treatment with felodipine, since valsartan may help to improve obesity-related disorders in addition to lowering BP.

Comparative efficacy of valsartan and olmesartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

The aim of this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of 2 angiotensin II (AII) receptor antagonists with different pharmacologic profiles, valsartan and olmesartan, in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. After an initial 2-week washout period, 114 patients (64 men, 50 women; aged 35-70 years) were randomly assigned to receive valsartan 160 mg or olmesartan 20 mg once daily for 8 weeks. After the washout period and after 2 and 8 weeks of treatment, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed using a noninvasive device, and casual blood pressure (BP) and heart rate were measured. Both olmesartan and valsartan had a clear-cut antihypertensive effect. However, significantly earlier and more pronounced antihypertensive activity was achieved with valsartan than with olmesartan, as demonstrated by (1) significantly lower 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime ABPM values after 2 weeks with valsartan (P<.01); (2) significantly lower percentage of abnormal BP readings with valsartan; (3) significantly higher trough-peak ratio and smoothness index with valsartan, suggesting a more prolonged and homogeneous antihypertensive effect; and (4) lower 24-hour postdose clinic systolic and diastolic BP values versus olmesartan. These findings show that pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic differences between AII receptor antagonists, at clinically comparable dosages, may be associated with differences in antihypertensive efficacy.

Perindopril and barnidipine alone or combined with simvastatin on hepatic steatosis and inflammatory parameters in hypertensive patients.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of perindopril or barnidipine alone or combined with simvastatin on metabolic parameters and hepatic steatosis degree. One hundred and forty nine mild to moderate hypertensive, normocholesterolemic, overweight or obese outpatients with hepatic steatosis were enrolled. They were treated with perindopril 5mg/day, or barnidipine, 20mg/day, for 6 months; subsequently simvastatin, 20mg/day was added to both treatments for further 6 months. Blood pressure variation was recorded. Patients also underwent an ultrasound examination, at baseline and after 6, and 12 months. We also assessed: fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), lipid profile, adiponectin (ADN), tumor necrosis factor-α (ΤΝF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), high-sensitivity C reactive protein (Hs-CRP). Both perindopril and barnidipine reduced blood pressure, with barnidipine being more effective. Barnidipine, but not perindopril, slightly decreased total cholesterol and triglycerides after 6 months compared to baseline; lipid profile improved in both groups when simvastatin was added. Regarding inflammatory parameters, barnidipine reduced TNF-a, IL-6, and Hs-CRP, both in monotherapy, and after simvastatin addition. Hepatic steatosis parameters improved only when simvastatin was added. We can conclude that barnidipine better reduced blood pressure compared to perindopril and inflammatory parameters. Regarding hepatic steatosis parameters, only the addition of simvastatin improved them. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02064218, ClinicalTrials.gov.