Assessment of the Cardiovascular Risk of Olmesartan Medoxomil-Based Treatment: Meta-Analysis of Individual Patient Data.

INTRODUCTION: Results from two long-term studies (ROADMAP and ORIENT) indicated a numerical imbalance in the number of cardiovascular deaths between the olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and placebo groups. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis to provide more complete information regarding OM-associated cardiovascular risks and/or benefits. METHODS: We created an integrated database based on 191 clinical trials from the OM development program. Events were identified and adjudicated by an independent, blinded clinical events committee. The incidence of major cardiovascular events and total mortality for OM versus placebo/active control were evaluated, and the effect of OM on cardiovascular mortality (main endpoint of interest) and morbidity was calculated using a two-stage approach (Tian method). RESULTS: A total of 46 studies (~27,000 patients) met the US FDA-specified inclusion criteria (phase II-IV randomized, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled studies [OM-based monotherapy or combination, double-blind period ≥28 days] and adult patients). The incidence of known adjudicated endpoints in the analysis of all studies combined was low among OM (0.11-0.53 %) and placebo/active control (0.08-0.76 %) groups. For cardiovascular mortality, the estimated risk difference (OM vs. control) was 0.00070 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.0011 to 0.0024; p = 0.60); the risk difference for each endpoint was <1/1000, with no statistically significant difference between groups. Results were similar with and without ROADMAP and ORIENT. DISCUSSION: The results from this meta-analysis did not show a clinically meaningful or statistically significant difference in cardiovascular risk between OM and the placebo/active control groups, and thus did not corroborate the numerical imbalance observed in ROADMAP and ORIENT.

Model-Supported Development of CS-8635: A Fixed-Dose Combination of Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide.

CS-8635, a fixed-dose triple combination of olmesartan, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide, was developed to address the growing need for additional blood pressure (BP) reduction in patients not controlled with dual-combination therapies. Prior to Phase III, modeling and simulation (M&S) was conducted to estimate the additional BP lowering effect of CS-8635 compared to the respective dual combinations. The Phase III study evaluated CS-8635 BP lowering effects only at the highest dose strength among the five dose strengths to be developed. Post-trial M&S was performed using an integrated dataset from three Phase III programs; CS-8635 plus two prior dual combinations. M&S robustly estimated and described the BP lowering effects of CS-8635 evaluated in a clinical setting. Furthermore, M&S evaluated BP lowering effects of the additional four dose strengths not studied. In summary, M&S aided the development of the clinical study and full characterization of the BP lowering effects of CS-8635 across intermediate doses.

A 26-week, placebo- and pioglitazone-controlled, dose-ranging study of rivoglitazone, a novel thiazolidinedione for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and general safety of rivoglitazone, a novel thiazolidinedione, as a treatment for type 2 diabetes in a dose-ranging study over a period of up to 6 months. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 26-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active comparator (pioglitazone 45 mg)-controlled study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once-daily rivoglitazone 1, 2, or 3 mg in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The study was conducted in adults with type 2 diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA(1c)] >or=7.0% and <10.5%) who were either naïve to prior antidiabetes drug treatment or discontinued pre-study antidiabetes medications and were switched to study medication. A total of 441 subjects were randomized, using an equal allocation schedule to one of five treatment arms, including placebo. The primary efficacy measurement was the change in HbA(1c) from baseline to week 26 in the intent-to-treat population (last observation carried forward), for drug treatments minus placebo (placebo-subtracted). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00143520. RESULTS: The incidence of early discontinuations was >50%, with most cases being related to a lack of efficacy (highest on placebo) or adverse experiences (highest on rivoglitazone 3 mg). Rivoglitazone 1, 2, and 3 mg and pioglitazone 45 mg were more effective than placebo in reducing HbA(1c) from baseline to week 26 (placebo-subtracted change from baseline: -0.55% [p = 0.0034], -0.99% [p < 0.0001], -1.10% [p < 0.0001], and -0.59% [p = 0.0016], respectively). In general, all treatments were safe. The most common drug-related adverse events reported with rivoglitazone were peripheral edema and weight gain; incidences increased with dose and were higher with rivoglitazone 2 and 3 mg than with pioglitazone or rivoglitazone 1 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Rivoglitazone is a potent thiazolidinedione agent with demonstrated glycemic benefits over a 6-month period in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Once-daily doses of 1, 2, and 3 mg rivoglitazone demonstrated HbA(1c) reduction similar or superior to those observed for pioglitazone 45 mg. Limitations in generalizing from this study include a modest sample size and a high rate of discontinuation prior to the last scheduled visit.

Effect of the bile acid sequestrant colesevelam on the pharmacokinetics of pioglitazone, repaglinide, estrogen estradiol, norethindrone, levothyroxine, and glyburide.

The purpose of this study was to assess effects of colesevelam on the pharmacokinetics of glyburide, levothyroxine, estrogen estradiol (EE), norethindrone (NET), pioglitazone, and repaglinide in healthy volunteers. Six drugs with a potential to interact with colesevelam were studied in open-label, randomized clinical studies. The presence of a drug interaction was concluded if the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric least squares mean ratios of AUC(0-t) (AUC(0-48) for levothyroxine) and C(max) fell outside the no-effect limits of (80.0%, 125.0%). Concomitant administration of colesevelam had no effect on the AUC(0-t) or C(max) of pioglitazone but significantly decreased the AUC(0-t) and C(max) of glyburide, levothyroxine, and EE and the C(max) of repaglinide and NET. AUC(0-t) and C(max) of glyburide and EE, but not repaglinide or NET, were significantly decreased when the drug was given 1 hour before colesevelam. When glyburide, EE, or levothyroxine was given 4 hours before colesevelam, no drug interaction was observed. Although colesevelam has a cleaner drug interaction profile than other bile acid sequestrants, it does interfere with absorption of some drugs. A 4-hour window appears sufficient to eliminate these interactions.

An evaluation of the efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil in Black patients with hypertension.

Blacks appear to have a more modest blood pressure (BP) response to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy than non-Blacks. This post-hoc analysis compared the BP-lowering efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM), losartan potassium (LOS), and valsartan (VAL) in Black versus non-Black participants in a randomized, forced-titration study. Patients were randomized to OM 20, LOS 50, and VAL 80mg/day or placebo for 4 weeks and uptitrated to 40, 100, and 320mg/day doses, respectively, by study end. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in diastolic BP (DBP) at week 8. All treatments produced significant reductions in mean DBP and systolic BP (SBP) in Blacks (n=150; P < .001). BP <140/90mm Hg was achieved in 35.0%, 15.6%, 29.7%, and 5.0% of Blacks receiving OM, LOS, VAL, and placebo, respectively, and in 41.0%, 21.1%, 28.8%, and 14.5% of non-Blacks receiving OM, LOS, VAL, and placebo, respectively, after 8 weeks. BP-lowering efficacy of the three agents was similar at 3 months. OM had the greatest early efficacy, with numerically greater mean reductions in DBP and SBP, and a higher proportion of Black and non-Black patients achieving goal BP of 140/90mm Hg at week 8.

Colesevelam HCl improves glycemic control and reduces LDL cholesterol in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on sulfonylurea-based therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperglycemia is a risk factor for microvascular complications and may increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study tested the LDL cholesterol-lowering agent colesevelam HCl (colesevelam) as a potential novel treatment for improving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes on sulfonylurea-based therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A 26-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study was carried out between August 2004 and August 2006 to evaluate the efficacy and safety of colesevelam for reducing A1C in adults with type 2 diabetes whose glycemic control was inadequate (A1C 7.5-9.5%) with existing sulfonylurea monotherapy or sulfonylurea in combination with additional oral antidiabetes agents. In total, 461 patients were randomized (230 given colesevelam 3.75 g/day and 231 given placebo). The primary efficacy measurement was mean placebo-corrected change in A1C from baseline to week 26 in the intent-to-treat population (last observation carried forward). RESULTS: The least squares (LS) mean change in A1C from baseline to week 26 was -0.32% in the colesevelam group and +0.23% in the placebo group, resulting in a treatment difference of -0.54% (P < 0.001). The LS mean percent change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 26 was -16.1% in the colesevelam group and +0.6% in the placebo group, resulting in a treatment difference of -16.7% (P < 0.001). Furthermore, significant reductions in fasting plasma glucose, fructosamine, total cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B were demonstrated in the colesevelam relative to placebo group at week 26. CONCLUSIONS: Colesevelam improved glycemic control and reduced LDL cholesterol levels in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving sulfonylurea-based therapy.

Comparison of increasing doses of olmesartan medoxomil, losartan potassium, and valsartan in patients with essential hypertension.

This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, forced-titration study compared the efficacy of 3 angiotensin receptor blockers. Patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg, losartan potassium 50 mg, valsartan 80 mg, or placebo once daily. At week 4, doses were titrated to 40, 100, and 160 mg once daily for olmesartan, losartan, and valsartan, respectively. At week 8, losartan was increased to 50 mg twice daily and valsartan increased to 320 mg once daily (olmesartan remained at 40 mg once daily). The primary end point was mean change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at week 8. All 3 medications significantly reduced mean SeDBP from baseline compared with placebo at weeks 4, 8, and 12 (P<.001). At week 8, olmesartan reduced mean SeDBP more than losartan (P<.001); more patients in the olmesartan medoxomil group achieved a blood pressure goal of <140/90 mm Hg (P<.001). Olmesartan did not reduce mean SeDBP significantly compared with valsartan, although more patients attained blood pressure goal with olmesartan (P=.031). At week 12, all agents lowered blood pressure equivalently.

Use of an olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm for hypertension control.

Hypertension guidelines recommend a stepped-care approach that starts with titration of the initial agent followed by the addition of other agents, as necessary, to achieve goal blood pressure. This study assessed the effectiveness of an antihypertensive treatment algorithm with olmesartan medoxomil as the initial agent. This was a 24-week, open-label trial in patients (N=201) with mean seated diastolic blood pressure of 90-109 mm Hg. Following placebo run-in, all patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/d for 4 weeks. At subsequent 4-week intervals, the regimen was modified in patients with blood pressure >130/85 mm Hg: up-titration of olmesartan medoxomil to 40 mg/d; addition of hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/d; up-titration of hydrochlorothiazide to 25 mg/d; addition of amlodipine besylate 5 mg/d; and up-titration of amlodipine besylate to 10 mg/d. Patients who achieved blood pressure < or =130/85 mm Hg at any point exited the study with no further follow-up. At Week 24, reductions in blood pressure from baseline were 33.7/18.2 mm Hg. Altogether, 87.7% of patients reached the goal blood pressure of < or =130/85 mm Hg and 93.3% achieved a blood pressure of < or =140/90 mm Hg. Thus, an antihypertensive algorithm with olmesartan medoxomil as the initial agent controlled blood pressure in the majority of patients, but with >60% of patients also requiring the use of a thiazide diuretic or a thiazide and a calcium channel blocker.

Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension require more than one agent to control blood pressure (BP). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, factorial design study. After a placebo run-in period, eligible patients (n = 502) with a baseline mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) of 100 to 115 mm Hg were randomized to one of 12 groups: placebo, olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy (10, 20, or 40 mg/day, HCTZ monotherapy (12.5 or 25 mg/day), or one of six groups of olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy. The primary endpoint was the change in mean trough SeDBP from baseline at week 8. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine whether at least one combination produced a larger reduction in SeDBP at week 8 than the individual corresponding component doses, but did not compare BP reductions with different combination doses. RESULTS: Olmesartan medoxomil plus HCTZ produced greater reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) at week 8 than did monotherapy with either component. All olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combinations significantly reduced SeDBP and SeSBP compared with placebo in a dose-dependent manner. Reductions from baseline in mean trough SeSBP/SeDBP were 3.3/8.2 mm Hg, 20.1/16.4 mm Hg, and 26.8/21.9 mm Hg with placebo, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg, and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy produced BP reductions of up to 26.8/21.9 mm Hg and was well tolerated.