Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: Recent Advances, Unmet Needs, and Future Direction.

Cancer-associated thrombosis, with the incidence rising over the years, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Recent advances in the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) include the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), which provide a more convenient and effective option than low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Nonetheless, important unmet needs remain including an increased risk of bleeding in certain patient subgroups such as those with gastroesophageal cancer, concerns about drug-drug interactions, and management of patients with severe renal impairment. Although DOACs are more convenient than LMWH, persistence can decline over time. Factor XI inhibitors have potential safety advantages over DOACs because factor XI appears to be essential for thrombosis but not hemostasis. In phase II trials, some factor XI inhibitors were superior to enoxaparin for the prevention of VTE after knee replacement surgery without increasing the risk of bleeding. Ongoing trials are assessing the efficacy and safety of factor XI inhibitors for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE.

MAA868, a novel FXI antibody with a unique binding mode, shows durable effects on markers of anticoagulation in humans.

A large unmet medical need exists for safer antithrombotic drugs because all currently approved anticoagulant agents interfere with hemostasis, leading to an increased risk of bleeding. Genetic and pharmacologic evidence in humans and animals suggests that reducing factor XI (FXI) levels has the potential to effectively prevent and treat thrombosis with a minimal risk of bleeding. We generated a fully human antibody (MAA868) that binds the catalytic domain of both FXI (zymogen) and activated FXI. Our structural studies show that MAA868 traps FXI and activated FXI in an inactive, zymogen-like conformation, explaining its equally high binding affinity for both forms of the enzyme. This binding mode allows the enzyme to be neutralized before entering the coagulation process, revealing a particularly attractive anticoagulant profile of the antibody. MAA868 exhibited favorable anticoagulant activity in mice with a dose-dependent protection from carotid occlusion in a ferric chloride-induced thrombosis model. MAA868 also caused robust and sustained anticoagulant activity in cynomolgus monkeys as assessed by activated partial thromboplastin time without any evidence of bleeding. Based on these preclinical findings, we conducted a first-in-human study in healthy subjects and showed that single subcutaneous doses of MAA868 were safe and well tolerated. MAA868 resulted in dose- and time-dependent robust and sustained prolongation of activated partial thromboplastin time and FXI suppression for up to 4 weeks or longer, supporting further clinical investigation as a potential once-monthly subcutaneous anticoagulant therapy.

The effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan on cardiovascular remodelling in subjects with essential hypertension: the results of a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study.

AIMS: Progressive aortic stiffening eventually leads to left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and heart failure if left untreated. Anti-hypertensive agents have been shown to reverse this to some extent. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696), a dual-action angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), and neprilysin inhibitor, on arterial stiffness and LV remodelling have not been investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized, multi-centre, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel group, study to compare the effects on cardiovascular remodelling of sacubitril/valsartan with those of olmesartan in patients with hypertension and elevated pulse pressure. Magnetic resonance imaging scans were used to assess LV mass and local aortic distensibility, at baseline and at 12 and 52 weeks after initiation of treatment. Central pulse and systolic pressure were determined using a SphymoCor® XCEL device at each time point. A total of 114 patients were included, with 57 in each treatment group. The mean age was 59.8 years, and 67.5% were male. Demographic characteristics did not vary between the two sets of patients. Left ventricular mass index decreased to a greater extent in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to the olmesartan group from baseline to 12 weeks (-6.36 vs. -2.32 g/m2; P = 0.039) and from baseline to 52 weeks (-6.83 vs. -3.55 g/m2; P = 0.029). These differences remained significant after adjustment for systolic blood pressure (SBP) at follow-up (P = 0.036 and 0.019 at 12 and 52 weeks, respectively) and similar signals (though formally non-significant) were observed after adjusting for changes in SBP (P = 0.0612 and P = 0.0529, respectively). There were no significant differences in local distensibility changes from baseline to 12 or 52 weeks between the two groups; however, there was a larger reduction in central pulse pressure for the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to the olmesartan group (P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Since LV mass change correlates with cardiovascular prognosis, the greater reductions in LV mass indicate valuable advantages of sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan. The finding that LV mass index decrease might be to some extent independent of SBP suggests that the effect of the dual-acting agent may go beyond those due to its BP-lowering ability.

Sacubitril/Valsartan (LCZ696) in Heart Failure.

It has been known since the 1990s that long-term morbidity and mortality is improved in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by treatments that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). It has also long been thought that enhancement of the activity of natriuretic peptides (NPs) could potentially benefit patients with HFrEF, but multiple attempts to realize this benefit had failed over the years - until 2014, when a large, phase III, randomized, controlled clinical trial (PARADIGM-HF) was completed comparing sacubitril/valsartan with enalapril, a well-established treatment for HFrEF. Sacubitril/valsartan (formerly known as LCZ696) is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) that simultaneously suppresses RAAS activation through blockade of angiotensin II type 1 receptors and enhances vasoactive peptides including NPs through inhibition of neprilysin, the enzyme responsible for their degradation. In PARADIGM-HF, patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan had 20% less risk for cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure (the primary endpoint), 20% less risk for cardiovascular death, 21% less risk for first hospitalization for heart failure, and 16% less risk for death from any cause, compared with enalapril (all p < 0.001). Concerning tolerability, the sacubitril/valsartan group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough, compared with the enalapril group. The use of sacubitril/valsartan has been endorsed by the latest heart failure treatment guidelines in Europe and the USA. This chapter reviews the discoveries, scientific reasoning, and clinical evidence that led to the development of sacubitril/valsartan, the first novel therapy in a new drug class to improve survival in HFrEF in the last 15 years.

Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves.

BACKGROUND: Dabigatran is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor that has been shown to be an effective alternative to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. We evaluated the use of dabigatran in patients with mechanical heart valves. METHODS: In this phase 2 dose-validation study, we studied two populations of patients: those who had undergone aortic- or mitral-valve replacement within the past 7 days and those who had undergone such replacement at least 3 months earlier. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either dabigatran or warfarin. The selection of the initial dabigatran dose (150, 220, or 300 mg twice daily) was based on kidney function. Doses were adjusted to obtain a trough plasma level of at least 50 ng per milliliter. The warfarin dose was adjusted to obtain an international normalized ratio of 2 to 3 or 2.5 to 3.5 on the basis of thromboembolic risk. The primary end point was the trough plasma level of dabigatran. RESULTS: The trial was terminated prematurely after the enrollment of 252 patients because of an excess of thromboembolic and bleeding events among patients in the dabigatran group. In the as-treated analysis, dose adjustment or discontinuation of dabigatran was required in 52 of 162 patients (32%). Ischemic or unspecified stroke occurred in 9 patients (5%) in the dabigatran group and in no patients in the warfarin group; major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (4%) and 2 patients (2%), respectively. All patients with major bleeding had pericardial bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The use of dabigatran in patients with mechanical heart valves was associated with increased rates of thromboembolic and bleeding complications, as compared with warfarin, thus showing no benefit and an excess risk. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01452347 and NCT01505881.).

Effect of small angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib (BIBF 1120) on QT interval in patients with previously untreated, advanced renal cell cancer in an open-label, phase II study.

PURPOSE: Some targeted anticancer agents are associated with serious ventricular tachyarrhythmias, which may be predicted by electrocardiographic evaluation of drug-related QT prolongation. We studied the effects of nintedanib (BIBF 1120; an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, fibroblast growth factor, and platelet-derived growth factor receptors) on the QT interval in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) participating in an open-label phase II trial. METHODS: Treatment-naïve, adult patients with unresectable/metastatic, clear cell RCC received nintedanib 200 mg twice daily. QT intervals were evaluated at baseline (day -1), on day 1 (after the first dose), and on day 15 (steady state) by 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) performed in triplicate. Pharmacokinetic sampling was also undertaken. RESULTS: Among 64 evaluable patients, the upper limits of the 2-sided 90 % confidence intervals for the adjusted mean time-matched changes in QTcF interval (corrected for heart rate by Fridericia's method) from baseline to day 1 and 15 (primary ECG endpoint) were well below the regulatory threshold of 10 ms at all times. No relationship between nintedanib exposure and change from baseline in QTcF was seen. Nintedanib was generally well tolerated with no drug-related cardiovascular adverse events. CONCLUSION: Nintedanib administered at 200 mg twice daily was not associated with clinically relevant QT prolongation.

Acceptability of multiple coated mini-tablets in comparison to syrup in infants and toddlers: a randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: Drug treatment of children is often limited to liquid formulations or manipulation of adult solid oral dosage forms because of the lack of age-appropriate formulations, concerns around particle aspiration and paediatric acceptability. Recent research revealed that the administration of mini-tablets has substantial advantages in improving dose accuracy and avoiding issues related to drug stability, storage conditions, potentially toxic excipients and taste masking (especially effective when the mini-tablets are coated). Most trials were performed with single and multiple uncoated mini-tablets. This study here aimed to investigate young children's acceptability and swallowability of multiple coated placebo mini-tablets compared with glucose syrup. DESIGN: This clinical trial was conducted as a single-centre randomised cross-over study. SETTING: Prospective cross-over study performed at the Children's University Hospital Düsseldorf. PATIENTS: This study was conducted on 50 children in five age groups from 1 to <6 years. INTERVENTIONS: An age-adapted amount of 16-28 mini-tablets and 3-6 mL syrup was administered in randomised order. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability and swallowability of multiple coated mini-tablets and syrup. RESULTS: In all age groups, administration of multiple coated mini-tablets and syrup showed good acceptability (mini-tablets 80%-100%, syrup 90%-100%) and swallowability (mini-tablets 30%-70%, syrup 20%-80%) without any clinically meaningful difference. This is consistent with results from large studies with uncoated mini-tablets. CONCLUSION: Multiple coated mini-tablets are a suitable age-appropriate alternative to liquid formulations in the paediatric population. No safety concerns with the use of coated mini-tablets were observed in the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00010395.

Dabigatran vs. placebo in patients with acute coronary syndromes on dual antiplatelet therapy: a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial.

AIM: After an acute coronary syndrome, patients remain at risk of recurrent ischaemic events, despite contemporary treatment, including aspirin and clopidogrel. We evaluated the safety and indicators of efficacy of the novel oral direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial, 1861 patients (99.2% on dual antiplatelet treatment) in 161 centres were enrolled at mean 7.5 days (SD 3.8) after an ST-elevation (60%) or non-ST-elevation (40%) myocardial infarction and randomized to twice daily treatment with dabigatran 50 mg (n = 369), 75 mg (n = 368), 110 mg (n = 406), 150 mg (n = 347), or placebo (n = 371). Primary outcome was the composite of major or clinically relevant minor bleeding during the 6-month treatment period. There were 96 primary outcome events and, compared with placebo, a dose-dependent increase with dabigatran, hazard ratio (HR) 1.77 (95% confidence intervals 0.70, 4.50) for 50 mg; HR 2.17 (0.88, 5.31) for 75 mg; HR 3.92 (1.72, 8.95) for 110 mg; and HR 4.27 (1.86, 9.81) for 150 mg. Compared with placebo, D-dimer concentrations were reduced in all dabigatran dose groups by an average of 37 and 45% at weeks 1 and 4, respectively (P< 0.001). Fourteen (3.8%) patients died, had a myocardial infarction or stroke in the placebo group compared with 17 (4.6%) in 50 mg, 18 (4.9%) in 75 mg, 12 (3.0%) in 110 mg, and 12 (3.5%) in the 150 mg dabigatran groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran, in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy, was associated with a dose-dependent increase in bleeding events and significantly reduced coagulation activity in patients with a recent myocardial infarction.

Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide compared with amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with other cardiovascular risk factors: the VAST study.

BACKGROUND: Recent antihypertensive treatment guidelines recommend greater use of combination therapies. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether combination therapy with valsartan 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg OD would be more effective than monotherapy with amlodipine 10 mg OD in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with moderate (stage II) hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition. A secondary objective was to assess the effects of the study treatments on circulating markers of endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week study. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to 3 groups, 2 of them receiving valsartan 160 mg OD and 1 receiving amlodipine 5 mg OD. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg OD was added to valsartan in one of the treatment groups (V+HCTZ12.5), HCTZ 25 mg OD was added to the other (V+HCTZ25), and the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg OD (A10). The primary efficacy variable was change in mean sitting SBP at week 24. Other variables were changes in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean pulse pressure (PP) from baseline, and response rate (systolic response defined as mean sitting SBP <140 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting SBP of > or =20 mm Hg from baseline; diastolic response defined as mean sitting DBP <90 mm Hg or a reduction in mean sitting DBP of > or =10 mm Hg from baseline). Changes in the following markers of endothelial dysfunction were determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, and 24 in all randomized patients from the participating European and South African centers: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), vascular tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) antigen, and oxidized low-density lipoprotein (LDL). RESULTS: The study enrolled 1088 patients with moderate hypertension (mean age, 61 years; 82% white; 53% women). The intent-to-treat population consisted of 1079 patients: 357 in the V+HCTZ12.5 group, 363 in the V+HCTZ25 group, and 359 in the A10 group. At baseline, the groups were comparable in terms of blood pressure and most other characteristics; the only statistically significant difference between groups was in the proportion of patients aged > or =65 years, which was lower in the amlodipine group (P = 0.01). At the end of the study, the least squares mean (SD) changes from baseline in mean sitting SBP were 27.1 (13.7), 29.7 (13.7), and 27.6 (13.8) mm Hg in the V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10 groups, respectively, with corresponding percent changes of 16%, 18%, and 17% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). The changes in mean sitting DBP did not differ significantly between groups. The reductions in PP were 17.5 (11.3), 18.7 (11.3), and 16.9 (11.3) mm Hg, with percent changes of 24%, 26%, and 23% (P < 0.05, V+HCTZ25 vs A10). Significant reductions in t-PA antigen were observed in both combination-therapy groups compared with the amlodipine monotherapy group at week 12 (P < 0.05); the reductions remained significant through the end of the study in the V+HCTZ12.5 group. There was a significant reduction in IL-6 and hs-CRP at week 12 with V+HCTZ25 compared with A10 (P < 0.05). Oxidized LDL values were reduced by approximately 10% with all treatments. Rates of total adverse events were significantly lower with the valsartan-based treatments compared with amlodipine monotherapy (49.7%, 49.6%, and 67.5% with V+HCTZ12.5, V+HCTZ25, and A10, respectively; P < 0.05). Rates of total discontinuations were a respective 10.1%, 9.0%, and 24.5%, and discontinuation rates due to AEs were 4.2%, 3.5%, and 18.2%. Leg edema was more common with amlodipine monotherapy than with the valsartan-based combinations (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with moderate hypertension and > or =1 other cardiovascular risk factor or concomitant condition, similar and greater antihypertensive effects were seen with the fixed-dose combinations of valsartan 160 mg and HCTZ 12.5 and 25 mg OD, respectively, compared with amlodipine 10 mg OD, with significantly lower rates of treatment-related adverse events and possible beneficial effects on vascular markers.

Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of two fixed-dose combinations of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide compared with valsartan monotherapy in patients with stage 2 or 3 systolic hypertension: an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with at least 2 antihypertensive agents is usually needed to achieve appropriate blood pressure (BP) control in patients with isolated or predominant systolic hypertension. A currently recommended combination is a diuretic added to an angiotensin-receptor blocker. OBJECTIVE: This was a study of the effects on sitting systolic BP (SBP)of 2 combinations of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) compared with valsartan monotherapy in patients with stage 2 or 3 systolic hypertension (SBP > or =160 mm Hg and < or =200 mm Hg) with or without other cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: After a placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with either valsartan 80 mg OD(monotherapy group) or valsartan 160 mg OD (combination-therapy groups) for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to valsartan 160 mg OD (V160), valsartan 160 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg OD (V160 +HCTZ12.5), or valsartan 160 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg OD (V160 +HCTZ25) for an additional 4 weeks. End points were the change in SBP between the groups receiving combination therapy and the monotherapy group, between-group changes in diastolic BP (DBP), responder rates (SBP <140 mm Hg or a reduction in SBP of > or =20 mm Hg), and tolerability. RESULTS: A total of 774 patients were randomized to treatment: 261 to V160, 258 to V160+HCTZ12.5, and 255 to V160 +HCTZ25. The intent-to-treat population consisted of 767 patients (411 men, 356 women; mean age, 60 years; mean weight, 84 kg; clinic mean [SD] baseline BP, 167.5 [8.1]/93.4 [9.1] mm Hg). All treatments produced significant reductions in SBP from baseline (mean [SD] reduction, 20.7 [15.7] mm Hg with V160, 27.9 [13.8] mm Hg with V160 +HCTZ12.5, and 28.3 [13.1] mm Hg with V160+HCTZ25; all, P < 0.05). DBP was reduced by 6.6 (8.9) mm Hg in the V160 group and by 10.2 (7.7) and 10.1 (7.8) mm Hg in the V160+HCTZ12.5 and V160 +HCTZ25 groups, respectively (all, P < 0.05). The additional reductions in BP with V160+HCTZ25 did not reach statistical significance compared with V160+HCTZ12.5. Responder rates were 56.9% in the V160 group, 74.4% in the V160+HCTZ12.5 group, and 75.0% in the V160 +HCTZ25 group P < 0.05, combination therapy vs monotherapy). Adverse events were reported by 27.5% of patients in the monotherapy group, compared with 28.6% and 34.0% in the groups that received V160+HCTZ12.5 and V160+HCTZ25, respectively; the differences were not significant between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Monotherapy with V160 was effective in these patients with stage 2 or 3 systolic hypertension. Significant additional reductions in SBP and DBP and an increase in responder rates were achieved with the addition to V160 of HCTZ12.5 and HCTZ25, with no significant effect on tolerability.

24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure effects of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide combinations compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients at increased cardiovascular risk: a VAST sub-study.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of data on the effects of angiotensin-receptor blocker and diuretic combinations on ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind trial, the effects on 24-h ABP of the combination valsartan 160 mg od and hydrochlorothiazide 25 or 12.5 mg during 24 weeks of therapy were compared with the effects of amlodipine 10 mg monotherapy (group A10) in 474 stage-II hypertensive patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors. After a two-week single-blind placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive valsartan 160 mg od or amlodipine 5 mg od. At week 4, HCTZ 12.5 mg (group V160/HCTZ12.5) and 25 mg (group V160/HCTZ25) were added to the valsartan groups and in the A10 patients the amlodipine dose was force-titrated to 10 mg od. RESULTS: All three treatments reduced 24-h BP as well as night-time and daytime BP levels from baseline. Twenty-four hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 15.9+/-1.0 mmHg (least-squares mean change+/-SE), 19.3+/-1.0 mmHg and 16.1+/-1.1 mmHg in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/HCTZ25 and A10 groups, respectively and 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced by 9.3+/-0.6 mmHg, 11.4+/-0.6 mmHg and 9.6+/-0.7 mmHg in the three groups. The differences between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the A10 group were significant (p<0.05) for the changes in 24-h systolic BP as well as for changes in daytime systolic BP and night-time diastolic BP. Control rates defined as ABPM < or =130/80 mmHg were: 48.4%, 60.8% and 50.9% in the V160/HCTZ12.5, V160/25 and A10 groups, respectively. The differences in control rates between the V160/HCTZ25 group and the other two treatment groups were significant at p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed-dose combination of valsartan 160 mg+HCTZ 25 mg od is an attractive therapeutic option measured on the effects on 24-h ABPM, night-time and daytime BP reduction and control rates in hypertensive patients at additional cardiovascular risk.

Ambulatory blood pressure-lowering effects of valsartan and enalapril after a missed dose in previously untreated patients with hypertension: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 3 days a month, some 15% to 20% of patients with hypertension do not recall having taken their antihypertensive medication. Individuals with this frequency of missed doses may be at increased risk for a cardiovascular event and may have a poorer long-term prognosis. OBJECTIVE: This study used ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) to compare the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of valsartan and enalapril over the 24 hours after missing 1 dose in previously untreated patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, blinded end-point trial in previously untreated patients (age >18 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension (European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines: systolic BP 140-179 mm Hg or diastolic BP 90-109 mm Hg). Patients were randomly assigned to receive 16 weeks of treatment with valsartan 160 mg/d or enalapril 20 mg/d, taken on waking. ABPM was conducted for 48 consecutive hours at baseline and again after 16 weeks of therapy. Patients took a dose of their assigned treatment at the beginning of the final session of ABPM and were instructed to skip the next daily dose. RESULTS: The study enrolled 148 Spanish patients (84 men, 64 women; mean [SD] age, 45.8 [10.7] years) with previously untreated hypertension. At the end of treatment, there were significant differences between groups during the first 24 hours of ABPM, starting in the final 6 hours of the dosing interval (P < 0.001). There was no significant change in BP reduction between the first and second 24-hour periods of ABPM with valsartan (-2.1/-1.4 mm Hg), whereas enalapril was associated with a significant increase in BP over this period (5.5/3.8 mm Hg; P < 0.001 vs first 24 hours; P = 0.032 vs valsartan). CONCLUSIONS: In this study in previously untreated patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, valsartan was associated with a sustained BP-lowering effect beyond the initial 24 hours after dosing, whereas enalapril was not. There was no significant change in the efficacy of valsartan in the 24 hours after a missed dose. At the doses tested, valsartan was more effective than enalapril, both during active treatment and after a missed dose.