Safety and efficacy of sparsentan versus irbesartan in focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and IgA nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Sparsentan has shown positive effects on managing different subtypes of glomerulonephritis. The recent results of trials require a pooled analysis to validate these results. AIM: We aim to assess the safety and efficacy of sparsentan versus irbesartan for patients with IgA nephropathy and focal glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane through March 2024. We used Review Manager v.5.4 to pool dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) and continuous data using mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Three studies with a total of 884 patients were included. Sparsentan was superior to irbesartan in improving urine protein to creatinine ratio (UP/C) (ratio of percentage reduction 0.66, 95% CI [0.58 to 0.74], P < 0.001); as well as the proportion of patients achieved complete and partial remission of proteinuria (RR = 2.57, 95% CI [1.73 to 3.81], P < 0.001) and (RR = 1.63, 95% CI [1.4 to 1.91], P < 0.001) respectively. Regarding the effect on the glomerular filtration rate, the results estimate did not favor either sparsentan or irbesartan (MD = 1.98 ml/min per 1.73mm2, 95% CI [-1.05 to 5.01], P = 0.2). There were no significant differences in adverse events except for hypotension, which showed higher rates in the sparsentan group (RR = 2.02, 95% CI [1.3 to 3.16], P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Sparsentan is effective and has a good safety profile for treating FSGS and patients with IgA nephropathy. However, more well-designed RCTs against ARBs, ACE inhibitors, and steroids with larger sample sizes are needed to get conclusive evidence.

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).

Initial treatment with a single capsule containing half-dose quadruple therapy versus standard-dose dual therapy in hypertensive patients (QUADUAL): statistical analysis plan for a randomized, blinded, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Combined antihypertensive therapy has obvious advantages over single drug therapy. Hypertension guidelines fully affirm the efficacy of dual combination in initial antihypertensive therapy. Recent studies have also pointed out that the quadruple combination of very low-dose antihypertensive drugs is superior to single drugs. However, whether low-dose quadruple therapy is better than dual combination is unknown. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized double-blind crossover clinical trial will be conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose quadruple antihypertensives (irbesartan 75 mg + metoprolol 23.75 mg + amlodipine 2.5 mg + indapamide 1.25 mg) with standard-dose dual antihypertensives (irbesartan 150 mg + amlodipine 5 mg) in the initial treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension (140-179/90-109 mmHg). Ninety patients are required and will be recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to two crossover groups. Two groups will receive a different combination therapy for 4 weeks, then switch to the other combination therapy for 4 weeks, with a 2-week wash-out. Antihypertensive effects and related adverse effects of the two antihypertensive combination treatments will be compared. The primary outcome, i.e., mean 24-h systolic blood pressure in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, will be assessed via linear mixed-effects model. DISCUSSION: This statistical analysis plan will be confirmed prior to blind review and data lock before un-blinding and is sought to increase the validity of the QUADUAL trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05377203. Registered May 11, 2022, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05377203 .

A Prospective, Multicentered, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial of Keluoxin Capsules in the Treatment of Microalbuminuria in Patients with Type 2 Early Diabetic Kidney Disease.

Background: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Keluoxin (KLX) capsules and provide validated evidence for the application of KLX in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). Methods: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial design was used to screen 129 patients with DKD (urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR]: male, 2.5-30 mg/mmol; female, 3.5-30 mg/mmol) and with Qi and Yin deficiency and blood stasis symptoms. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. The patients were randomly divided into KLX and control groups. The KLX group was orally administered KLX (6 g/day) and irbesartan tablets (150 mg/day), whereas the control group was administered KLX placebo (6 g/day) and irbesartan tablets (150 mg/day). Patients were observed for 24 weeks to evaluate the natural logarithm of the UACR (log-UACR), the odds ratio (OR) for a sustained increase in the UACR of at least 30% and 40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in symptoms and quality-of-life scores, and adverse events. Results: The changes of the natural log-UACR during the 24 weeks compared with baseline in the KLX group were better than those in the control group (LS mean ± standard error, -0.26 ± 0.10 vs. 0.01 ± 0.09, p = 0.0292). The incidence of a sustained increase in the UACR of at least 30% and 40% was found to be significantly lower in the KLX group (OR, 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-0.75; OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10-0.82). Changes in symptoms and quality-of-life scores in the KLX group were better than those in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference in eGFR or the incidence of adverse events between the groups. Conclusions: Overall, these results suggest that KLX capsules combined with irbesartan can reduce microalbuminuria, relieve the symptoms, and improve the quality of life for patients with type 2 early DKD compared with the use of irbesartan alone. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, registration number: ChiCTR2100052764.

Irbesartan eases lipopolysaccharide-induced lung injury In Vitro and In Vivo.

Acute lung injury (ALI) is classified as a devastating pulmonary disorder contributing to significant incidence and fatality rate. Irbesartan (IRB) is an angiotensin II receptor blocker that has been proposed to protect against oleic acid-induced ALI. To this end, the current study is concentrated on ascertaining the role of IRB in ALI and figuring out the probable action mechanism. First, cell counting kit-8 (CCK-8) appraised the viability of human pulmonary microvascular endothelial cells (HPMVECs) exposed to ascending concentrations of IRB. HPMVEC injury model and a mouse model of ALI induced by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) were pretreated by IRB. In vitro, cell viability was estimated by CCK-8 assay, and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release was tested by LDH assay kit. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Western blotting estimated the expression levels of inflammatory factors. Fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran was used to assess HPMVEC permeability. Western blotting examined the expression of adherent and tight junction proteins. In vivo, hematoxylin and eosin staining evaluated lung tissue damage and lung wet/dry (W/D) weight was measured. ELISA analyzed the levels of inflammatory factors in the serum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF), and Western blotting examined the expression of inflammatory factors. The total cell, neutrophil, and macrophage numbers in BALF were determined using a cell counter. Lung capillary permeability was assayed by Evans blue albumin and total protein concentration in BALF was measured using bicinchoninic acid method. Immunofluorescence assay and Western blotting examined the expression of adherent and tight junction proteins in lung tissues. It was observed that IRB dose-dependently enhanced the viability while reduced LDH release, inflammatory response as well as permeability in LPS-challenged HPMVECs in vitro. In addition, LPS-stimulated lung tissue damage, pulmonary edema, inflammatory response as well as lung capillary permeability in vivo were all reversed following IRB treatment. Collectively, IRB treatment might elicit protective behaviors against LPS-triggered ALI.

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. METHODS: PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. FINDINGS: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6-110) was -2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus -3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1-week 110) was -2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus -3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI -0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (-42·8%, 95% CI -49·8 to -35·0, with sparsentan versus -4·4%, -15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function. FUNDING: Travere Therapeutics.

Sparsentan versus Irbesartan in Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: An unmet need exists for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) treatment. In an 8-week, phase 2 trial, sparsentan, a dual endothelin-angiotensin receptor antagonist, reduced proteinuria in patients with FSGS. The efficacy and safety of longer-term treatment with sparsentan for FSGS are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with FSGS (without known secondary causes) who were 8 to 75 years of age; patients were randomly assigned to receive sparsentan or irbesartan (active control) for 108 weeks. The surrogate efficacy end point assessed at the prespecified interim analysis at 36 weeks was the FSGS partial remission of proteinuria end point (defined as a urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio of ≤1.5 [with protein and creatinine both measured in grams] and a >40% reduction in the ratio from baseline). The primary efficacy end point was the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope at the time of the final analysis. The change in eGFR from baseline to 4 weeks after the end of treatment (week 112) was a secondary end point. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients underwent randomization: 184 were assigned to receive sparsentan and 187 to receive irbesartan. At 36 weeks, the percentage of patients with partial remission of proteinuria was 42.0% in the sparsentan group and 26.0% in the irbesartan group (P = 0.009), a response that was sustained through 108 weeks. At the time of the final analysis at week 108, there were no significant between-group differences in the eGFR slope; the between-group difference in total slope (day 1 to week 108) was 0.3 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.7 to 2.4), and the between-group difference in the slope from week 6 to week 108 (i.e., chronic slope) was 0.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year (95% CI, -1.3 to 3.0). The mean change in eGFR from baseline to week 112 was -10.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 with sparsentan and -12.1 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 with irbesartan (difference, 1.8 ml per minute per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 4.9). Sparsentan and irbesartan had similar safety profiles, and the frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with FSGS, there were no significant between-group differences in eGFR slope at 108 weeks, despite a greater reduction in proteinuria with sparsentan than with irbesartan. (Funded by Travere Therapeutics; DUPLEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03493685.).

Risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan in patients.

There is a lack of studies comparing the risk of cardio-cerebrovascular disease between angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) of different half-lives. We aimed to compare the risks of myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), and cerebrovascular disease with the use of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, and telmisartan with different half-lives in a national claim-based retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥ 40 years with hypertension. To establish a cohort exposed to valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan, we performed propensity score (PS) matching and used an as-treated approach to evaluate exposure. The Cox regression model was employed to calculate hazard ratios, which were based on the incidence rate for each newly occurring event of MI, heart failure, or cerebrovascular disease. These hazard ratios were calculated to compare the risk of MI, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease associated with valsartan, losartan, and irbesartan in comparison to telmisartan. A PS-matched cohort of 148,229 patients was established for each of valsartan, losartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan. The matched cohort analysis showed that the adjusted hazard ratio (aHRs, 95% confidence interval) for MI was higher for valsartan use (1.39, 1.33-1.45) and losartan use (1.10, 1.05-1.15) but lower for irbesartan use (0.90, 0.86-0.94) compared with the reference (telmisartan). The aHRs for HF were not different among these ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers). The aHR for cerebrovascular disease was lower for valsartan use (0.85, 0.83-0.87) and losartan use (0.80, 0.78-0.82) but higher for irbesartan use (1.11, 1.09-1.13) compared with the reference. We found differences in the risk of MI and cerebrovascular disease with the use of different ARBs compared to telmisartan use. Valsartan, and losartan with a short half-life, which showed a higher risk of MI, had a lower risk of cerebrovascular disease. Conversely, irbesartan with a long half-life, which showed a lower risk of MI, had a higher risk of cerebrovascular disease.

Zilebesiran, an RNA Interference Therapeutic Agent for Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensinogen is the sole precursor of angiotensin peptides and has a key role in the pathogenesis of hypertension. Zilebesiran, an investigational RNA interference therapeutic agent with a prolonged duration of action, inhibits hepatic angiotensinogen synthesis. METHODS: In this phase 1 study, patients with hypertension were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either a single ascending subcutaneous dose of zilebesiran (10, 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, or 800 mg) or placebo and were followed for 24 weeks (Part A). Part B assessed the effect of the 800-mg dose of zilebesiran on blood pressure under low- or high-salt diet conditions, and Part E the effect of that dose when coadministered with irbesartan. End points included safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, and the change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, as measured by 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure monitoring. RESULTS: Of 107 patients enrolled, 5 had mild, transient injection-site reactions. There were no reports of hypotension, hyperkalemia, or worsening of renal function resulting in medical intervention. In Part A, patients receiving zilebesiran had decreases in serum angiotensinogen levels that were correlated with the administered dose (r = -0.56 at week 8; 95% confidence interval, -0.69 to -0.39). Single doses of zilebesiran (≥200 mg) were associated with decreases in systolic blood pressure (>10 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (>5 mm Hg) by week 8; these changes were consistent throughout the diurnal cycle and were sustained at 24 weeks. Results from Parts B and E were consistent with attenuation of the effect on blood pressure by a high-salt diet and with an augmented effect through coadministration with irbesartan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-dependent decreases in serum angiotensinogen levels and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure were sustained for up to 24 weeks after a single subcutaneous dose of zilebesiran of 200 mg or more; mild injection-site reactions were observed. (Funded by Alnylam Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03934307; EudraCT number, 2019-000129-39.).

Prevalence of and risk factors for abnormal left ventricular geometrical patterns in hypertensive subjects administered irbesartan.

BACKGROUND: Distinct populations differ in LVH prevalence and impaired LV geometry. Currently, the prevalence of and risk factors for LV geometric patterns in Chinese hypertensives administered irbesartan have not been specifically addressed in large studies. METHODS: Totally 10,883 patients (6623 men and 4260 women) completed the survey, including 1181 hypertensives administered irbesartan (488 males and 693 females) that were finally enrolled. Based on LVMI and RWT derived from comprehensive echocardiography, the LV geometric patterns of irbesartan-treated hypertensive individuals were classified into four types, including the normal, concentric remodeling, and concentric and eccentric hypertrophy groups. Logistic regression analysis was applied in males and females, respectively, for determining odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for various potential risk factors for abnormal LV geometrical patterns in irbesartan-treated hypertensives. RESULTS: The clinical and echocardiographic data differed significantly between males and females. The prevalence rates of concentric remodeling, concentric hypertrophy, and eccentric hypertrophy were 36.3%, 15.4%, and 6.1% in males, respectively, and 23.5%, 20.3%, and 23.8% in females, accordingly. Gender, daily dose of irbesartan, BMI, SBP, WtHR, and neck-circumference were significantly associated with LV geometric patterns. After adjustment for confounding factors, risk factors for LVH and impaired LV geometry included SBP, WtHR in males, and MAU-Cr and WtHR in females. CONCLUSIONS: LVH and impaired LV geometric patterns are more prevalent in females (67.7%) compared with that in males (57.8%) among hypertensives upon irbesartan administration. For such population, risk factors beyond elevated blood pressure may be involved in the progression of LVH and impaired LV geometric patterns in both genders.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker attenuates stress pressor response in young adult African Americans.

African Americans (AAs) are susceptible to hypertension (HTN) and its associated organ damage leading to adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Psychological stress is proposed to contribute to the development of HTN; however, the potential role of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in stress-related HTN in AAs is largely unknown. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that activation of RAS is a potential contributing factor for altered CV responses to stress, and suppression of angiotensin II (Ang II) activity will improve hemodynamic responses to a prolonged mental stressor in healthy young AAs. Utilizing a double-blind, randomized, crossover study design, 132 normotensive AAs (25 ± 7 years) were treated with either a placebo (PLC) or 150 mg/d irbesartan (an Ang II type 1 receptor blocker; ARB) for 1 week. On the final day of each treatment, hemodynamic measures and urinary sodium excretion (UNaV) were collected before, during and after a 45 minute-mental stress. The magnitude of stress-induced increase in blood pressure with ARB was blunted and delayed compared to PLC. Systolic blood pressure at the end of recovery on ARB was significantly lower compared to either PLC (110 ± 13 vs 117 ± 12 mm Hg respectively; P < 0.001) or the prestress level on ARB (P = 0.02). ARB treatment reduced overall vasoconstriction and improved poststress UNaV. ARB attenuated blood pressure responses to mental stress and improved the poststress BP recovery process which were partly linked to reduced overall vasoconstriction and improved stress-induced UNaV in young adult AAs prior to the development of disease conditions. These results suggest that treatment approaches that inhibit RAS action could have significant relevance to potentially lower susceptibility to stress responses and eventually the premature development of HTN in AAs.

Effects of Sevelamer Carbonate in Patients With CKD and Proteinuria: The ANSWER Randomized Trial.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Hyperphosphatemia is associated with increased risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression and reduced antiproteinuric effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers. We investigated whether the phosphate binder sevelamer carbonate may enhance the antiproteinuric effect of RAS inhibitors in patients with CKD. STUDY DESIGN: Phase 2, randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Between November 2013 and December 2014, we enrolled 53 patients with CKD with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)>15mL/min/1.73m2 and residual proteinuria with protein excretion≥0.5g/24h despite maximal tolerated ramipril and/or irbesartan therapy from 2 nephrology units in Italy. INTERVENTION: After stratification by serum phosphate level, ≤4 or>4mg/dL, patients were randomly assigned to 3 months of sevelamer (1,600mg thrice daily) treatment followed by 3 months without sevelamer separated by a 1-month washout period or 3 months without sevelamer followed by 3 months with sevelamer, also separated by a 1-month washout period. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was 24-hour proteinuria (n=49patients). Secondary outcomes included measured GFR (using iohexol plasma clearance), office blood pressure (BP), serum lipid levels, levels of inflammation and bone metabolism biomarkers, urinary electrolyte levels, and arterial stiffness. RESULTS: Changes in proteinuria during the 3-month treatment with (from 1.36 [IQR, 0.77-2.51] to 1.36 [IQR, 0.77-2.60] g/24h) or without (from 1.36 [IQR, 0.99-2.38] to 1.48 [IQR, 0.81-2.77] g/24h) sevelamer were similar (P=0.1). Sevelamer reduced urinary phosphate excretion without affecting serum phosphate levels. Sevelamer reduced C-reactive protein (CRP), glycated hemoglobin, and total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels without affecting levels of office BP, measured GFR, fibroblast growth factor 23, klotho, intact parathyroid hormone, serum vitamin D, or other urinary electrolytes. Results were similar in the low- and high-phosphate groups. Sevelamer was well tolerated. Adverse events were comparable between treatment periods. One case of transient hypophosphatemia was observed during treatment with sevelamer. LIMITATIONS: Short treatment duration, lower pretreatment proteinuria than expected. CONCLUSIONS: 3-month sevelamer treatment did not reduce proteinuria in patients with CKD on maximal RAS blockade. Amelioration of inflammation and dyslipidemia with sevelamer treatment raises the possibility that it may confer benefit in patients with CKD beyond reduction of proteinuria. FUNDING: Sanofi (Milan, Italy). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01968759.

Short-term treatment of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide decreases plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels in subjects with acute exacerbations of COPD.

BACKGROUND: Plasma levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are elevated in subjects with COPD, and high plasma NT-proBNP levels are correlated with a poor prognosis. Thus, it is crucial to decrease the plasma NT-proBNP levels at the early stage of disease. We aimed to assess the effects of short-term treatment of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide on plasma NT-proBNP levels and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in subjects with acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eighty subjects with AECOPD and high plasma NT-proBNP levels, without any clinical evidence of cor pulmonale, were enrolled. The subjects were randomly allocated into two groups of 40 subjects. In addition to standard treatment for AECOPD, the subjects in group I were treated with irbesartan alone, and those in group II were treated with irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide for a week. Forty subjects with stable COPD were enrolled as a control group. Plasma NT-proBNP concentrations were measured on admission and on the first, fourth, and seventh days. The subjects' health-related quality of life was evaluated applying the 36-item short-form questionnaire on the first day before treatment and on the seventh day after treatment. RESULTS: Treatment of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide significantly decreased plasma NT-proBNP levels in subjects with AECOPD, and this reduction was more significant in group II than that in group I. There were no significant differences in 36-item short-form domain scores between subjects with stable COPD and those with AECOPD who were treated with irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide. CONCLUSION: Treatment of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide rapidly decreased plasma NT-proBNP levels in subjects with AECOPD, and the treatment did not impair their physical status.

Comparison of efficacy and safety between two different irbesartan, generic vs branded, in the treatment of Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, Phase IV clinical study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of generic and branded irbesartan for 8 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We screened 221 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After exclusion per study criteria, 177 subjects were randomized to receive 150 mg generic irbesartan (n=91) or branded irbesartan (n=86) as the intention to treat set. The primary efficacy endpoint of this study was the change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) from baseline to 8 weeks between the generic and branded irbesartan groups. The secondary efficacy endpoints were the change in mean SiDBP at Week 4 from baseline and the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) at Weeks 4 and 8 from baseline in both groups. All safety issues were evaluated. RESULTS: At Week 8, the generic and branded irbesartan groups showed significantly reduced SiDBP (-10.3±8.0, -10.7±7.7 mmHg, all P<0.0001) compared with baseline values, and the mean between-group difference in SiDBP change after 8 weeks of treatment was -0.4±1.2 mmHg, showing the non-inferiority of generic irbesartan vs branded irbesartan. Furthermore, secondary efficacy, which was the mean change of SiDBP from baseline at 4 weeks, was comparable between the two groups (-9.4±8.1 vs -9.9±7.4 mmHg, P=0.69). There were no between-group differences in mean changes of SiSBP after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment (P=0.78, P=0.97, respectively), or in the incidence of adverse effects (16.7 vs 24.4%, P=0.20). CONCLUSION: Generic irbesartan treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension has shown effective antihypertensive effects comparable with the branded irbesartan treatment, with similar incidence of adverse effects.

DUET: A Phase 2 Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Sparsentan in Patients with FSGS.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated and compared the effects of sparsentan, a dual endothelin type A (ETA) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, with those of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with primary FSGS. METHODS: In this phase 2, randomized, double-blind, active-control Efficacy and Safety of Sparsentan (RE-021), a Dual Endothelin Receptor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, in Patients with Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis (FSGS): A Randomized, Double-blind, Active-Control, Dose-Escalation Study (DUET), patients aged 8-75 years with biopsy-proven FSGS, eGFR>30 ml/min per 1.73 m2, and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio (UP/C) ≥1.0 g/g received sparsentan (200, 400, or 800 mg/d) or irbesartan (300 mg/d) for 8 weeks, followed by open-label sparsentan only. End points at week 8 were reduction from baseline in UP/C (primary) and proportion of patients achieving FSGS partial remission end point (FPRE) (UP/C: ≤1.5 g/g and >40% reduction [secondary]). RESULTS: Of 109 patients randomized, 96 received study drugs and had baseline and week 8 UP/C measurements. Sparsentan-treated patients had greater reductions in UP/C than irbesartan-treated patients did when all doses (45% versus 19%; P=0.006) or the 400 and 800 mg doses (47% versus 19%; P=0.01) were pooled for analysis. The FSGS partial remission end point was achieved in 28% of sparsentan-treated and 9% of irbesartan-treated patients (P=0.04). After 8 weeks of treatment, BP was reduced with sparsentan but not irbesartan, and eGFR was stable with both treatments. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. Hypotension and edema were more common among sparsentan-treated patients but did not result in study withdrawals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with FSGS achieved significantly greater reductions in proteinuria after 8 weeks of sparsentan versus irbesartan. Sparsentan was safe and well tolerated.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Irbesartan in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan reduces the risk of cardiovascular mortality among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but its effects on kidney function and cardiac biomarkers in people with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease are unknown. METHODS: The UK HARP-III trial (United Kingdom Heart and Renal Protection-III), a randomized double-blind trial, included 414 participants with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) 20 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 who were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus irbesartan 300 mg once daily. The primary outcome was measured GFR at 12 months using ANCOVA with adjustment for each individual's baseline measured GFR. All analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: In total, 207 participants were assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 207 to irbesartan. Baseline measured GFR was 34.0 (SE, 0.8) and 34.7 (SE, 0.8) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. At 12 months, there was no difference in measured GFR: 29.8 (SE 0.5) among those assigned sacubitril/valsartan versus 29.9 (SE, 0.5) mL/min/1.73 m2 among those assigned irbesartan; difference, -0.1 (0.7) mL/min/1.73 m2. Effects were similar in all prespecified subgroups. There was also no significant difference in estimated GFR at 3, 6, 9, or 12 months and no clear difference in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio between treatment arms (study average difference, -9%; 95% CI, -18 to 1). However, compared with irbesartan, allocation to sacubitril/valsartan reduced study average systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 5.4 (95% CI, 3.4-7.4) and 2.1 (95% CI, 1.0-3.3) mm Hg and levels of troponin I and N terminal of prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (tertiary end points) by 16% (95% CI, 8-23) and 18% (95% CI, 11-25), respectively. The incidence of serious adverse events (29.5% versus 28.5%; rate ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.75-1.53), nonserious adverse reactions (36.7% versus 28.0%; rate ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.96-1.90), and potassium ≥5.5 mmol/L (32% versus 24%, P=0.10) was not significantly different between randomized groups. CONCLUSIONS: Over 12 months, sacubitril/valsartan has similar effects on kidney function and albuminuria to irbesartan, but it has the additional effect of lowering blood pressure and cardiac biomarkers in people with chronic kidney disease. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN11958993.

Chinese herbal medicine Shenzhuo Formula treatment in patients with macroalbuminuria secondary to diabetic kidney disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a serious complication associated with diabetes mellitus and can cause end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is widely used in China to treat DKD, and in particular microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. This study will address the efficacy and safety of Shenzhuo Formula (SZF), a frequently prescribed TCM, in DKD patients with macroalbuminuria. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a 24-week, randomized, multi-center, double-blinded, double-dummy, controlled, clinical trial that will include 120 DKD patients aged 18 to 80 years old with a 24-h urinary protein (24-h UP) level of between 0.5 g and 3 g and serum creatinine (SCr) ≤ 133 µmol/L (1.5 mg/dL) and compare SZF to irbesartan. The 24-h UP change from baseline to week 24 will represent the primary endpoint with secondary endpoints including SCr, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), TCM symptoms, urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), etc. Safety assessments will also be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This study will provide initial evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of SZF relative to irbesartan in the treatment of DKD patients with macroalbuminuria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ChiCTR-ICR-15006311 . Registered on 15 April 2015.