Efficacy and safety of a combination antihypertensive drug (olmesartan plus azelnidipine): "Issues with hypertension studies in real-world practice".

Background: This study investigated whether a combination drug containing an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and a calcium channel blocker (CCB) could provide effective antihypertensive therapy.Methods: A multicenter, prospective, open-label study was conducted at the clinics of Clinical Research Network. The subjects had uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) despite ARB or CCB monotherapy. The effect on both office and home BP was examined after patients switched to a combination drug (REZ: containing 20 mg of olmesartan [OL] and 16 mg of azelnidipine [AZ]).Results: A total of 78 patients were enrolled. After switching to REZ, a significant and sustained reduction of office BP was observed. The proportion of patients who achieved the target for both office and home BP was an increase from 0% to 55%. Switching from amlodipine to REZ resulted in a significant and sustained decrease of office and home BP. There was also a significant decrease of home pulse rate (PR), but office PR was unchanged. To determine the accuracy of the BP and PR values reported by patients, the frequency of each number as the first digit was determined. The frequency of "0" was extremely high for both office and home BP values, and the same was noted for home PR values.Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that switching from a single drug to combination therapy with REZ could achieve a stronger antihypertensive effect. However, concern was raised regarding the methods of BP and PR measurement and recording in this clinical trial involving general practitioners.

Chronological Delivery of Antihypertensive Drugs in Bilayered Core-in-Cup Buccoadhesive Tablets: In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation.

Hypertension shows circadian blood pressure rhythms (day-night pattern) that urge the delivery of antihypertensive drugs at the right time in the desired levels. Thus, a bilayered core-in-cup buccoadhesive tablet was formulated that immediately releases olmesartan, to give a burst effect, and controls azelnidipine release, to prolong its therapeutic effect. The main challenge was the poor bioavailability of azelnidipine due to its poor aqueous solubility and first-pass effect. Hence, liquisolid compact buccoadhesive tablets were prepared to enhance solubility, dissolution profiles, and bypass the oral route. Two factorial designs were conducted to study the type and concentration effect of the mucoadhesive polymers on the dissolution and mucoadhesion of olmesartan and azelnidipine. Characterization studies were conducted regarding drug content, surface pH, water uptake, mucoadhesive strength, in vitro release, and ex vivo permeability. The core-in-cup olmesartan/azelnidipine buccoadhesive tablet showed similar release profile to the statistically optimized formulae of each drug. In vitro dissolution study showed enhanced release of azelnidipine than the directly compressed tablets, to comply with the regulatory standards of controlled release systems. In vivo pharmacokinetic study of olmesartan and azelnidipine conducted on human volunteers against Rezaltas® 10/8 mg tablet showed percentage relative bioavailability of 106.12 and 470.82%, respectively. Graphical Abstract.

Effect of Switching from Cilnidipine to Azelnidipine on Cardiac Sympathetic Nerve Function in Patients with Heart Failure Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Cardiac sympathetic nerve activity is known to play a key role in the development and progression of heart failure (HF). Azelnidipine, an L-type calcium channel blocker (CCB), inhibits the sympathetic nerve activity of the central system. In contrast, cilnidipine, an N-type CCB, inhibits the sympathetic nerve activity of the peripheral system. CCBs are recommended as class IIa in patients with HF preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF); however, there are no comparative data on the difference in effect of cilnidipine and azelnidipine in patients with HFpEF and hypertension. We investigated the difference in effect of azelnidipine compared with cilnidipine in patients with HFpEF. Twenty-four consecutive HF patients who received angiotensin II type1a receptor blocker and beta blocker from April 2013 to January 2015 were enrolled. Cilnidipine was switched to azelnidipine during the follow-up period. Blood pressures, heart rate, blood tests, echocardiography, and 123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) cardiac-scintigraphy were measured before and after 6 months from azelnidipine administration. B-type natriuretic peptide tended to decrease after switching to azelnidipine; however, there were no significant differences between the pre-state and post-state (pre-state: 118.5 pg/mL and post-state: 78.4 pg/mL, P = 0.137). Other laboratory findings, including catecholamine, also did not change significantly. In echocardiography, there were no significant differences in systolic and diastolic functions at the pre-state and post-state. As for MIBG, there were no significant changes in heart/mediastinum ratio. However, washout rate was significantly reduced (pre-state: 42.9 and post-state: 39.6, P = 0.030). Azelnidipine improved the dysfunction of cardiac sympathetic nerve activity compared with cilnidipine in patients with HFpEF.

Discovery of A-971432, An Orally Bioavailable Selective Sphingosine-1-Phosphate Receptor 5 (S1P5) Agonist for the Potential Treatment of Neurodegenerative Disorders.

S1P5 is one of 5 receptors for sphingosine-1-phosphate and is highly expressed on endothelial cells within the blood-brain barrier, where it maintains barrier integrity in in vitro models (J. Neuroinflamm. 2012, 9, 133). Little more is known about the effects of S1P5 modulation due to the absence of tool molecules with suitable selectivity and drug-like properties. We recently reported that molecule A-971432 (Harris, 2010) (29 in this paper) is highly efficacious in reversing lipid accumulation and age-related cognitive decline in rats (Van der Kam , , AAIC 2014). Herein we describe the development of a series of selective S1P5 agonists that led to the identification of compound 29, which is highly selective for S1P5 and has excellent plasma and CNS exposure after oral dosing in preclinical species. To further support its suitability for in vivo studies of S1P5 biology, we extensively characterized 29, including confirmation of its selectivity in pharmacodynamic assays of S1P1 and S1P3 function in rats. In addition, we found that 29 improves blood-brain barrier integrity in an in vitro model and reverses age-related cognitive decline in mice. These results suggest that S1P5 agonism is an innovative approach with potential benefit in neurodegenerative disorders involving lipid imbalance and/or compromised blood-brain barrier such as Alzheimer's disease or multiple sclerosis.

Comparison of Azelnidipine and Trichlormethiazide in Japanese Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Hypertension: The COAT Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and safety of azelnidipine with that of trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension. METHODS: In a multicenter, open-label trial, 240 patients with adequately controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) under lifestyle modification and/or administration of hypoglycemic agents and inadequately controlled hypertension (systolic blood pressure [sBP] ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [dBP] ≥ 80 mmHg) who were being treated with olmesartan were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to an azelnidipine group or a trichlormethiazide group and were followed up for 48 weeks. Main outcome measure was the difference in the change in HbA1c levels from the baseline values at 48 weeks between these two groups. RESULTS: Of the 240 subjects that were enrolled, 209 subjects (azelnidipine group: 103 patients, trichlormethiazide group: 106 patients) completed this trial. At 48 weeks, the following changes were observed in the azelnidipine and trichlormethiazide groups, respectively: HbA1c levels, 0.19 ± 0.52% and 0.19 ± 0.54%; sBP/dBP, -10.7 ± 9.6/-6.6 ± 6.6 mmHg and -7.1 ± 7.7/-3.3 ± 6.1 mmHg (P < 0.001 for both sBP and dBP). In both groups, dizziness (12 patients [11.7%] and 16 patients [15.1%]) and edema (16 patients [15.5%] and 7 patients [6.6%], P = 0.047) were observed during the 48-week follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Azelnidipine was more effective for controlling blood pressure than trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients, whereas trichlormethiazide was more effective for reducing albuminuria than azelnidipine. Both of these agents, however, similarly exacerbated glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN 000006081.

Blood pressure control and satisfaction of hypertensive patients following a switch to combined drugs of an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in clinical practice of nephrology.

BACKGROUND: Combination drugs containing an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker have been widely commercialized in recent years, and their advantages, such as improvements in adherence, and reductions in medication costs, have been greatly emphasized. However, the actual situations and the impact of switching to combination drugs in clinical practice of nephrology are not fully understood. METHODS: This study was conducted in outpatients of nephrology who received antihypertensive medicines, and who switched to combination drugs. Changes in the potency of the antihypertensive drugs, and blood pressure were examined retrospectively before and after changing treatments. In addition, the study also involved patients' questionnaire, which examined changes in blood pressure at home, the presence or absence of missed doses, the impact on medication-related expenses, and the level of patients' satisfaction with regard to combination drugs. RESULTS: Survey results from 90 participants revealed that changing to combination drugs resulted in a reduction of missed doses, a decrease in blood pressure measured in an outpatient setting, and a reduction in medication-related expenses in total patients, non-chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, and CKD patients. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that switching to combination antihypertensive drugs resulted in an improvement in adherence and a reduction in medication-related expenses, and revealed that patient satisfaction was high. Combination drugs for hypertensive patients may be beneficial in both medical and economical viewpoints.

Impact of azelnidipine and amlodipine on left ventricular mass and longitudinal function in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of long-acting calcium channel blocker (CCB) administration on serial changes in left ventricular (LV) function and morphology in hypertensive patients with LV hypertrophy remains unclear. This study attempted to clarify this impact by comparing the effects of administration of azelnidipine with that of amlodipine using conventional and speckle tracking echocardiography. METHODS: An equal number (16) of 32 hypertensive patients was prospectively assigned to a group administered 5 mg of amlodipine/day or a group administered 16 mg of azelnidipine/day. LV function and morphology was examined by conventional and speckle tracking echocardiography at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment initiation. RESULTS: Both groups were found to have experienced a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure by 1 month after treatment initiation; a significant reduction in septal thickness and LV mass index at 6 and 12 months. Transmitral flow E/A ratio and early diastolic mitral annular velocity at lateral wall significantly improved at 12 months. On the other hand, a significant improvement of global longitudinal strain was observed earlier than the above indexes at 3, 6, and 12 months. Ar-A duration difference was significantly decreased at 3 months. The global circumferential strain improved significantly at 3 months, but there were no significant changes in mid-/apical circumferential and radial strains throughout the study period. CONCLUSION: Azelnidipine has beneficial effects on LV mass regression, transmitral flow, tissue Doppler, and LV longitudinal strain that are comparable to those of amlodipine on the same parameters.

Effects of combination therapy with olmesartan and azelnidipine on serum osteoprotegerin in patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Vascular calcification is a potent predictor of plaque instability and cardiac events. Osteoprotegerin (OPG), well-known vascular calcification mediator, is a signaling molecule involved in bone remodeling, which has been implicated in the regulation of vascular calcification and atherogenesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the combination treatments of olmesartan/azelnidipine and olmesartan/diuretics on serum bone-related markers in patients with essential hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 48 patients with hypertension treated with 20 mg olmesartan were randomized to receive combination treatment with 16 mg azelnidipine (O/A group) or diuretics (1 mg indapamide; O/D group) for 12 months. Osteoprotegerin, matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP-2), and high-sensitive CRP (hs-CRP) were measured after 3 and 12 months of treatment. Cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) was measured as the arterial stiffness using a VaSera CAVI instrument at the same time points. In both groups, the systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduction is similar. Serum OPG, MMP-2, and hs-CRP were significantly decreased at 12 months in the O/A group (P < .05), while there were no significant reductions in the O/D group. CAVI was significantly improved at 12 months in both the treatment groups. The improvement in CAVI was significantly greater in the O/A group than in the O/D group. CONCLUSION: Azelnidipine, but not indapamide, combined with olmesartan, improved arterial stiffness and were associated with significant decrease in OPG, MMP-2, and hs-CRP concentrations. These results suggest that the beneficial effects of the combination treatments of olmesartan/azelnidipine on arterial stiffness are mediated by alteration in bone-remodeling and inflammatory markers.

Azelnidipine plus olmesartan versus amlodipine plus olmesartan on arterial stiffness and cardiac function in hypertensive patients: a randomized trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term effects of olmesartan combined with either azelnidipine or amlodipine on central blood pressure (CBP), left ventricular (LV) mass index (LVMI), LV diastolic function (e' velocity, E/e' ratio, E/A ratio) and arterial stiffness (brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity [baPWV] and augmentation index normalized for a heart rate of 75 bpm [AIx]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg received olmesartan monotherapy (20 mg/day) for 12 weeks. They were then randomly assigned to fixed-dose add-on therapy with azelnidipine (16 mg/day; n = 26) or amlodipine (5 mg/day; n = 26) for a further 2 years. CBP, LVMI, e' velocity, E/e' ratio, E/A ratio, baPWV, and AIx were measured at baseline, 6 months, and 2 years. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of both groups were similar. The decrease in brachial BP over 2 years was similar in both groups. CBP, LVMI, E/e' ratio, baPWV, and AIx decreased significantly, and the E/A ratio and e' velocity increased significantly in both groups. The decreases in CBP (P < 0.001), AIx (P < 0.001), baPWV (P < 0.001), LVMI (P < 0.001), and E/e' (P = 0.002) as well as the increase in E/A ratio (P = 0.03) over 2 years were significantly greater in the olmesartan/azelnidipine group than in the olmesartan/amlodipine group. Multivariate linear regression analyses showed that the changes in baPWV (ß = 0.41, P < 0.001) and CBP (ß = 0.47, P = 0.01) were independently associated with the change in LVMI, the change in baPWV (ß = 0.25, P < 0.001) was independently associated with the change in E/e' ratio, and the changes in baPWV (ß = 0.21, P = 0.001) and AIx (ß = 0.25, P = 0.03) were independently associated with the change in E/A ratio. CONCLUSION: Treatment with olmesartan/azelnidipine for 2 years resulted in greater improvements in CBP, LVMI, and LV diastolic function, and arterial stiffness compared with olmesartan/amlodipine. Improvements in LV diastolic function were associated with improvements in arterial stiffness.

The pharmacological differences in antianginal effects of long-lasting calcium channel blockers: azelnidipine and amlodipine.

We examined antianginal effects of azelnidipine and amlodipine in an arginine vasopressin-induced rat anginal model. Oral administration of azelnidipine or amlodipine produced long lasting inhibition of arginine vasopressin-induced ST-segment depression in electrocardiogram. The degrees of inhibition with azelnidipine at doses of 1 and 3 mg/kg were comparable to those with amlodipine at 3 and 10 mg/kg. Both drugs lowered mean blood pressure in a dose-related manner, whereas only azelnidipine decreased heart rate. Azelnidipine at 3 mg/kg and amlodipine at 10 mg/kg produced a similar decrease in the rate pressure product, an index for cardiac oxygen consumption. Their inhibitory effects on calcium-induced vascular contraction were compared in isolated porcine coronary arteries. Both drugs produced a slow-developing inhibition of calcium-induced contraction. Although their inhibitory effects were similar, the way the both drugs inhibited calcium-induced contraction differed with each other. After removing the drug from bathing solution, the inhibitory effects of azelnidipine were not blunted but were sustained for a long time, which indicates that azelnidipine has high vascular affinity. On the other hand, those of amlodipine were rapidly blunted. These results suggest that the mechanisms underlying antianginal effects of azelnidipine differ from those of amlodipine. The antianginal effect with azelnidipine may be accounted for by its high affinity to the coronary blood vessels and the heart rate slowing effect, both of which are not shared with amlodipine.

Effects of iron and zinc foliar applications on rice plants and their grain accumulation and grain nutritional quality.

BACKGROUND: Foliar sprays of iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) fertilisers are known to be an effective way to improve Fe and Zn concentrations in rice grain. However, results can differ significantly among different rice cultivars and/or types of foliar fertiliser. In this study, several Fe-rich rice cultivars were used to identify an effective foliar fertiliser for optimal Fe and Zn enrichment of rice grain. RESULTS: Foliar Fe amino acid (Fe-AA) fertiliser significantly improved the Fe concentration in brown rice of most cultivars. Compared with the control, the average Fe concentration in all tested cultivars was increased by 14.5%. The average Fe concentration was increased by 32.5% when 1% (w/v) nicotianamine (NA) was added to Fe-AA, while the average Zn concentration was increased by 42.4% when 0.5% (w/v) ZnSO4 · 7H2O was added to Fe-AA. CONCLUSION: The results suggested that NA at a suitable concentration added to Fe-AA fertiliser could accelerate Fe accumulation in rice grain. A relatively low concentration of ZnSO4 · 7H2O added to Fe-AA significantly increased Fe and Zn accumulation in rice grain. The study identified some useful foliar fertilisers for enhancing the levels of Fe and Zn in selected Fe-rich rice cultivars.

Design and rationale of Japanese evaluation between Formula of Azelnidipine and amlodipine add on olmesartan to Get antialbuminuric effect study (J-FLAG) : evaluation of the antialbuminuric effects between calcium channel blocker with sympatholytic action in hypertensive patients with diabetes and albuminuria.

PURPOSE: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are recommended second-line antihypertensives for renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor-treated patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but they do not always ameliorate the progression of CKD. However, small clinical studies suggest that sympatholytic CCBs may protect against kidney injury. Therefore, a clinical trial was designed to test whether the sympatholytic CCB azelnidipine decreases the urinary albumin levels of CKD patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan more potently than the widely-used non-sympatholytic CCB amlodipine. METHODS: A multi-center, open-labeled, randomized clinical intervention trial was designed to compare the antialbuminuric effect of azelnidipine (8-16 mg/day) and amlodipine (2.5-5 mg/day) in olmesartan-treated hypertensive (blood pressure 130-180/80-110 mmHg) patients with type 2 diabetes (fasting blood sugar ≥126 mg/dL or treatment with antidiabetic agents) and albuminuria (urinary albumin/creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g). The primary study endpoint is the change in the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio after 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The present trial is expected to clarify whether the sympatholytic CCB azelnidipine is a beneficial second-line choice for RAS inhibitor-treated hypertensive patients with CKD, such as diabetic nephropathy.

Azelnidipine and amlodipine anti-coronary atherosclerosis trial in hypertensive patients undergoing coronary intervention by serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis in Juntendo University (ALPS-J).

BACKGROUND: A previous study reported that amlodipine retarded coronary plaque progression in patients with coronary artery disease. The goal of this multicenter study was to determine which calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) other than amlodipine attenuated the progression of plaque volume (PV) accessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS AND RESULTS: ALPS-J was a prospective, randomized open-label study conducted at 5 centers. Patients who had hypertension and were scheduled for coronary intervention were enrolled. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 16 mg/day of azelnidipine or 5mg/day of amlodipine administered for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change in coronary PV measured by IVUS. Between 2007 and 2009, 199 patients were enrolled; 115 had evaluable IVUS images at both baseline and after 48 weeks of treatment. Blood pressure significantly reduced to 128/68 mmHg at follow-up. The lipid profiles in the 2 groups were comparable (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: 97 mg/dl). The %change in PV showed a significant regression of 4.67 and 4.85% in the azelnidipine and amlodipine groups, respectively. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference in %change PV between the 2 groups (0.18%, 95% confidence interval 4.62 to 4.98%) did not exceed the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 6.525%. CONCLUSIONS: ALPS-J demonstrated that azelnidipine was not inferior to amlodipine for primary efficacy. In addition to standard medical therapy, dihydropyridine CCBs will retard PV progression in hypertensive patients.

Azelnidipine and amlodipine: a comparison of their effects and safety in a randomized double-blinded clinical trial in Chinese essential hypertensive patients.

The purpose of this study is to compare the effects and safety of azelnidipine and amlodipine in Chinese essential hypertensive patients. Patients were randomized to receive administration of azelnidipine 8-16 mg/day or amlodipine 2.5-5 mg/day for 8 weeks. The blood pressure and pulse rate were evaluated in an outpatient clinic and by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. There were 220 patients enrolled to the study. The blood pressure in both groups was decreased significantly (P < 0.001). Compared with amlodipine, the patients received azelnidipine had better response in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (P < 0.01). No significant changes of pulse rate were observed in either group. For the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, both drugs had stable anti-hypertensive effects over 24 h. The trough/peak ratios of DBP for the azelnidipine and amlodipine groups were, respectively, 46% and 40%. Adverse events occurred at 7.3% and 10.0%, respectively in the azelnidipine and amlodipine groups (P = 0.485). Headache and dizziness were observed at an incidence of more than 1% in both groups. Once-daily administration of azelnidipine effectively controlled blood pressure and had a stable action over 24 h. Azelnidipine had good safety and compliance similar to amlodipine.

Effects of combination olmesartan medoxomil plus azelnidipine versus monotherapy with either agent on 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and pulse rate in Japanese patients with essential hypertension: additional results from the REZALT study.

BACKGROUND: In a previously reported randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of the efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan medoxomil (OLM) and azelnidipine (AZL) combination therapy compared with monotherapy with each agent in Japanese patients with essential hypertension (the REZALT study), the use of a combination of OLM, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, plus AZL, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, was associated with significantly greater reductions in office sitting blood pressure (BP) and 24-hour ambulatory BP compared with monotherapy with either agent, and was well tolerated. OBJECTIVE: This article reports the results from an a priori planned analysis and post hoc analyses of the diurnal BP and pulse rate (PR) profiles of OLM/AZL versus monotherapy with either agent from the REZALT study. METHODS: Male and female Japanese outpatients with essential hypertension were eligible if they met the following inclusion criteria: age > or = 20 years; systolic BP (SBP) > or = 140 to <180 mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) > or = 90 to <110 mm Hg; and 24-hour ambulatory SBP/DBP > or = 135/> or = 80 mm Hg. Patients were randomly assigned to receive OLM/AZL 10/8 mg, OLM/AZL 20/16 mg, OLM 20 mg, or AZL 16 mg, once daily for 12 weeks. The effectiveness of the treatments was assessed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and PR, analyzed by time period (BP and PR, 24 hours, daytime [7 AM-<10 PM], nighttime [10 PM-<7 AM], and early morning [6 AM-<9 AM]; PR, morning [6 AM -<11 AM]) and dipping status at baseline (dippers [(Daytime BP - Nighttime BP)/Daytime BP > or = 10%] or nondippers [(Daytime BP - Nighttime BP)/Daytime BP <10%]). RESULTS: A total of 867 patients were enrolled, and 862 randomized patients were included in the full analysis set (590 men, 272 women; mean age, 56.6 years). A total of 839 patients had assessable ABPM data (213, 211, 206, and 209 patients in the OLM/AZL 10/8 mg, OLM/AZL 20/16 mg, OLM, and AZL groups, respectively). No clinically significant between-group differences were observed in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Combination therapy was associated with significantly greater antihypertensive effects on 24-hour ABPM compared with either monotherapy in all of the time periods, as follows: SBP/DBP reductions with OLM/AZL 20/16 mg in the daytime, nighttime, and early morning were -22.6/-14.1, -21.2/-12.5, and -20.6/-11.9 mm Hg, respectively (all, P < 0.05 vs the other 3 treatment groups). The SBP/DBP reductions with OLM/AZL 10/8 mg (daytime, -18.2/-11.0 mm Hg; nighttime, -18.1/-10.0 mm Hg; and early morning, -15.6/-9.3 mm Hg) were also significantly greater than with OLM 20 mg (-11.8/-6.7, -12.8/-7.2, and -11.0/ -6.9 mm Hg, respectively; all, P < 0.01) and AZL 16 mg (-13.1/-7.8, -10.2/-5.5, and -9.9/-6.1 mm Hg; all, P < 0.001) in all of the time periods. The antihypertensive effects associated with OLM/AZL 10/8 mg or 20/16 mg were significantly greater than those with monotherapies regardless of dipping pattern at baseline (all, P < 0.05) in all of the time periods, with the exception of nighttime reduction with OLM/AZL 10/8 mg versus OLM in dippers. The numbers of patients who had any increase in BP were 12/213 (5.6%) with OLM/AZL 10/8 mg, 13/211 (6.2%) with OLM/AZL 20/16 mg, 35/206 (17.0%) with OLM, and 36/209 (17.2%) with AZL. The AZL-containing regimens were associated with reduced morning PR (mean [95% CI] changes from baseline to week 12: -1.5 beats/min [-2.5 to -0.4] with OLM/AZL 10/8 mg, -2.1 beats/min [-3.0 to -1.1] with OLM/AZL 20/16 mg, 0.4 beat/min [-0.5 to 1.3] with OLM, and -1.9 beats/min [-2.8 to -1.0] with AZL). CONCLUSION: In this study in Japanese patients with essential hypertension, the reductions in daytime, nighttime, and early-morning BP assessed using 24-hour ABPM were significantly greater with combination OLM/AZL than with either monotherapy, regardless of dipping pattern at baseline. Japan Pharmaceutical Information Center registration number: JapicCTI-060286.

Nicotianamine, a novel enhancer of rice iron bioavailability to humans.

BACKGROUND: Polished rice is a staple food for over 50% of the world's population, but contains little bioavailable iron (Fe) to meet human needs. Thus, biofortifying the rice grain with novel promoters or enhancers of Fe utilization would be one of the most effective strategies to prevent the high prevalence of Fe deficiency and iron deficiency anemia in the developing world. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We transformed an elite rice line cultivated in Southern China with the rice nicotianamine synthase gene (OsNAS1) fused to a rice glutelin promoter. Endosperm overexpression of OsNAS1 resulted in a significant increase in nicotianamine (NA) concentrations in both unpolished and polished grain. Bioavailability of Fe from the high NA grain, as measured by ferritin synthesis in an in vitro Caco-2 cell model that simulates the human digestive system, was twice as much as that of the control line. When added at 1:1 molar ratio to ferrous Fe in the cell system, NA was twice as effective when compared to ascorbic acid (one of the most potent known enhancers of Fe bioavailability) in promoting more ferritin synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated that NA is a novel and effective promoter of iron utilization. Biofortifying polished rice with this compound has great potential in combating global human iron deficiency in people dependent on rice for their sustenance.

Combination therapy of calcium channel blocker and angiotensin II receptor blocker reduces augmentation index in hypertensive patients.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal combination treatment for hypertension has not been established. We investigated the effect of a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic added to angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on the augmentation index (AI), as a marker of arterial stiffness and wave reflection, in hypertensive patients. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients treated with ARBs were randomly allocated to either of the 2 groups receiving an ARB plus azelnidipine (AZ group) or trichlormethiazide (TCM group). Changes in brachial blood pressure (BP), AI, high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP), and serum asymmetric dimethylarginine, as an endogenous nitric oxide synthase inhibitor, were determined. RESULTS: Systolic and diastolic blood pressure after 6 months were significantly reduced in both the groups similarly; however, after adjustment for baseline covariates, the extent of the reduction in AI (%) in the AZ group was significantly greater than in the TCM group (between-group difference was 3.2; 95%CI: 0.2-6.3; P = 0.03). The reduction of high-sensitive C-reactive protein (mg/L) and serum asymmetric dimethylarginine (micromol/L) was significantly greater in the AZ group than in the TCM group (between-group difference was 0.18 and 0.05; 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.36 and -0.01 to 0.11; P = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). Further, when patients were analyzed according to age younger than 60 years or older than 60 years, the reduction in AI in the AZ group aged older than 60 years was significantly greater than in the TCM group. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that azelnidipine has a more beneficial effect on vascular properties in combination therapy with ARB than trichlormethiazide.

Beneficial effect of combination therapy comprising angiotensin II receptor blocker plus calcium channel blocker on plasma adiponectin levels.

The study aim was to examine the effect of combination therapy comprising angiotensin receptor blocker plus calcium antagonist on post-treatment plasma adiponectin levels compared to pretreatment levels. There was a significant gender difference in the relationship between preadiponectin level and age. In the search for contributing factors for treatment-based changes in adiponectin levels, these effects of gender and age were considered in statistical analysis. The adiponectin level in the combination therapy group was further increased compared to that in each of the monotherapy groups, despite there being no significant difference in antihypertensive effect, indicating that the combined medication provided an effect beyond that of lowering blood pressure.

Cardiovascular effects of azelnidipine in comparison with those of amlodipine assessed in the halothane-anaesthetized dog.

Azelnidipine is a new dihydropyridine Ca(2+) channel blocker with long plasma half-life. To understand the in vivo cardiovascular profile of azelnidipine, it was assessed in the halothane-anaesthetized, closed-chest canine model and compared with the effect of amlodipine. We administered azelnidipine in doses of 10, 20 and 70 microg/kg, i.v. or amlodipine in doses of 30, 70 and 200 microg/kg, i.v. cumulatively to the animals. The hypotensive effects of azelnidipine and amlodipine were slow in onset and long-lasted, while their extents of dose-related hypotensive effects were similar. Azelnidipine hardly affected the heart rate or plasma noradrenaline concentration at any doses, whereas the high dose of amlodipine increased these parameters. Azelnidipine as well as amlodipine tended to increase the ventricular contraction, which did not achieve statistical significance. During autonomic receptor blockade with atropine and propranolol, neither drug affected the heart rate, ventricular contraction or plasma noradrenaline concentration, although a more significant hypotensive action was observed. These results indicate that azelnidipine and amlodipine do not directly affect cardiac function. Amlodipine may induce sinus tachycardia via reflex-mediated increase in sympathetic tone. Such lack of reflex tachycardia with azelnidipine will provide potential therapeutic strategy for treatment of patients with cardiovascular diseases, being more beneficial than amlodipine.

A randomized, double-blind, four-arm parallel-group study of the efficacy and safety of azelnidipine and olmesartan medoxomil combination therapy compared with each monotherapy in Japanese patients with essential hypertension: the REZALT study.

A 12-week randomized, double-blind, four-arm parallel-group, comparative study was conducted in patients with essential hypertension to evaluate the antihypertensive effect and safety of combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil (OLM, an angiotensin-receptor blocker) 20 mg plus azelnidipine (AZL, a long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker) 16 mg, (O/A (20/16)), or OLM 10 mg/AZL 8 mg (O/A (10/8)) compared with those of monotherapy with OLM 20 mg (OLM (20)) or AZL 16 mg (AZL (16)). The change from baseline to week 12 in seated blood pressure (SeBP) was -23.6/-14.2 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic BP) in the O/A (20/16) group, and -20.3/-13.0 mm Hg in the O/A (10/8) group, which was a significantly greater reduction in SeBP than in the monotherapy groups (-15.7/-9.9 mm Hg in OLM (20); -15.0/-9.4 mm Hg in AZL (16)). The change from baseline in 24-h ambulatory BP was also significantly greater in the O/A (20/16) and O/A (10/8) combination groups (-22.1/-13.5 and -18.2/-10.6 mm Hg, respectively) than in the OLM (20) and AZL (16) monotherapy groups (-12.1/-6.9 and -12.0/-6.9 mm Hg). The proportion of patients achieving the SeBP goal (<130/85 mm Hg for normal BP or <140/90 mm Hg for high-normal BP) was significantly higher in the O/A (20/16) combination group than in the monotherapy groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the O/A combination groups and the monotherapy groups. These results showed that combination therapy with O/A was well tolerated and exerted a stronger antihypertensive effect compared with monotherapy with OLM or AZL in patients with essential hypertension.