A systematic comparison of the properties of clinically used angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists.

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) have become an important drug class in the treatment of hypertension and heart failure and the protection from diabetic nephropathy. Eight ARBs are clinically available [azilsartan, candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan, telmisartan, valsartan]. Azilsartan (in some countries), candesartan, and olmesartan are orally administered as prodrugs, whereas the blocking action of some is mediated through active metabolites. On the basis of their chemical structures, ARBs use different binding pockets in the receptor, which are associated with differences in dissociation times and, in most cases, apparently insurmountable antagonism. The physicochemical differences between ARBs also manifest in different tissue penetration, including passage through the blood-brain barrier. Differences in binding mode and tissue penetration are also associated with differences in pharmacokinetic profile, particularly duration of action. Although generally highly specific for angiotensin II type 1 receptors, some ARBs, particularly telmisartan, are partial agonists at peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ. All of these properties are comprehensively reviewed in this article. Although there is general consensus that a continuous receptor blockade over a 24-hour period is desirable, the clinical relevance of other pharmacological differences between individual ARBs remains to be assessed.

Practical solutions to the challenges of uncontrolled hypertension: a white paper.

This white paper is an urgent call to action from an international group of physicians. The continued failure to control hypertension takes an unacceptable toll on patients, families and society and it must be addressed. Any patient with blood pressure of 140/90 mmHg or greater can be characterized as a 'challenging patient', is at significant risk, and requires persistent optimization of therapy until target blood pressure is achieved. Six key challenges in reaching this goal blood pressure are described: (1) inadequate primary prevention; (2) faulty awareness of risk; (3) lack of simplicity; (4) therapeutic inertia; (5) insufficient patient empowerment; and (6) unsupportive healthcare systems. This white paper identifies straightforward actions that will produce rapid improvements in the management of hypertension, with a simple aim: to treat all challenging patients effectively to goal blood pressure, preventing disability and saving lives.

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil in achieving 24-hour blood pressure reductions and ambulatory blood pressure goals.

BACKGROUND: For patients with hypertension, effective 24-hour blood pressure (BP) control is vital to ensure protection against the early morning surge in BP and the associated increased risk of cardiovascular events. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 24-hour antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (20mg once daily) compared with candesartan cilexetil (8mg once daily), with particular emphasis on BP control during the early morning period. METHODS: This is an additional analysis of a previously reported randomised, double-blind study in which 635 patients with mainly mild to moderate hypertension were randomised to 8 weeks of treatment with either olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day or candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/day. Changes from baseline during the last 4 and 2 hours of ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM) after 1, 2 and 8 weeks of treatment were compared between the two groups. In addition, the proportions of patients who achieved various ABPM goals, including those suggested by the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) [<125/80mm Hg] and the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) [<135/80mm Hg], over 24 hours, during the daytime and at the last 4 and 2 hours of ABPM measurement were also compared. RESULTS: After 8 weeks, significantly greater proportions of patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil 20mg achieved 24-hour and daytime ABPM goals recommended by the guidelines of the ESH/ESC (25.6% and 18.3%, respectively) and JSH (37.5% and 26.6%, respectively) compared with candesartan cilexetil 8mg (24-hour ESH/ESC goal = 14.9%, p < 0.001; 24-hour JSH goal = 26.6%, p = 0.003; daytime ESH/ESC goal = 9.6%, p = 0.002; daytime JSH goal = 16.4%, p = 0.002). During the last 4 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals were significantly greater with olmesartan medoxomil (33.3% and 39.1%, respectively) than with candesartan cilexetil (22.9%, p < 0.001 and 31.6%, p = 0.047, respectively). Similarly, during the last 2 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved these BP goals were either significantly greater (JSH) or approached statistical significance (ESH/ESC) with olmesartan medoxomil (26.9% and 19.9%, respectively) compared with candesartan cilexetil (19.6%, p = 0.028 and 14.3%, p = 0.061, respectively). CONCLUSION: Compared with candesartan cilexetil 8mg, greater proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients (20mg) achieved ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals over 24 hours. The superior BP control of olmesartan medoxomil was also reflected in the larger proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals during the early morning surge period. This not only demonstrates that olmesartan medoxomil 20mg provides superior 24-hour BP reduction, but also suggests that olmesartan medoxomil may provide greater protection against the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with the early morning BP surge period.

Olmesartan medoxomil: current status of its use in monotherapy.

Olmesartan medoxomil is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist. In pooled analyses of seven randomized, double-blind trials, 8 weeks' treatment with olmesartan medoxomil was significantly more effective than placebo in terms of the response rate, proportion of patients achieving target blood pressure (BP) and mean change from baseline in diastolic (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP). Olmesartan medoxomil had a fast onset of action, with significant between-group differences evident from 2 weeks onwards. The drug was well tolerated with a similar adverse event profile to placebo. In patients with type 2 diabetes, olmesartan medoxomil reduced renal vascular resistance, increased renal perfusion, and reduced oxidative stress. In several large, randomized, double-blind trials, olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg has been shown to be significantly more effective, in terms of primary endpoints, than recommended doses of losartan, valsartan, irbesartan, or candesartan cilexetil, and to provide better 24 h BP protection. Olmesartan medoxomil was at least as effective as amlodipine, felodipine and atenolol, and significantly more effective than captopril. The efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil in reducing cardiovascular risk beyond BP reduction is currently being investigated in trials involving patients at high risk due to atherosclerosis or type 2 diabetes.

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in animal models of vascular, cardiac, metabolic and renal disease.

We have reviewed the effects of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) in various animal models of hypertension, atherosclerosis, cardiac function, hypertrophy and fibrosis, glucose and lipid metabolism, and renal function and morphology. Those of azilsartan and telmisartan have been included comprehensively whereas those of other ARBs have been included systematically but without intention of completeness. ARBs as a class lower blood pressure in established hypertension and prevent hypertension development in all applicable animal models except those with a markedly suppressed renin-angiotensin system; blood pressure lowering even persists for a considerable time after discontinuation of treatment. This translates into a reduced mortality, particularly in models exhibiting marked hypertension. The retrieved data on vascular, cardiac and renal function and morphology as well as on glucose and lipid metabolism are discussed to address three main questions: 1. Can ARB effects on blood vessels, heart, kidney and metabolic function be explained by blood pressure lowering alone or are they additionally directly related to blockade of the renin-angiotensin system? 2. Are they shared by other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system, e.g. angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors? 3. Are some effects specific for one or more compounds within the ARB class? Taken together these data profile ARBs as a drug class with unique properties that have beneficial effects far beyond those on blood pressure reduction and, in some cases distinct from those of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. The clinical relevance of angiotensin receptor-independent effects of some ARBs remains to be determined.

Sustained 24-hour blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: a high dose of a long-acting blocker is as effective as a lower dose combined with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor.

Whether a higher dose of a long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) can provide as much blockade of the renin-angiotensin system over a 24-hour period as the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a lower dose of ARB has not been formally demonstrated so far. In this randomized double-blind study we investigated renin-angiotensin system blockade obtained with 3 doses of olmesartan medoxomil (20, 40, and 80 mg every day) in 30 normal subjects and compared it with that obtained with lisinopril alone (20 mg every day) or combined with olmesartan medoxomil (20 or 40 mg). Each subject received 2 dose regimens for 1 week according to a crossover design with a 1-week washout period between doses. The primary endpoint was the degree of blockade of the systolic blood pressure response to angiotensin I 24 hours after the last dose after 1 week of administration. At trough, the systolic blood pressure response to exogenous angiotensin I was 58% +/- 19% with 20 mg lisinopril (mean +/- SD), 58% +/- 11% with 20 mg olmesartan medoxomil, 62% +/- 16% with 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil, and 76% +/- 12% with the highest dose of olmesartan medoxomil (80 mg) (P = .016 versus 20 mg lisinopril and P = .0015 versus 20 mg olmesartan medoxomil). With the combinations, blockade was 80% +/- 22% with 20 mg lisinopril plus 20 mg olmesartan medoxomil and 83% +/- 9% with 20 mg lisinopril plus 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil (P = .3 versus 80 mg olmesartan medoxomil alone). These data demonstrate that a higher dose of the long-acting ARB olmesartan medoxomil can produce an almost complete 24-hour blockade of the blood pressure response to exogenous angiotensin in normal subjects. Hence, a higher dose of a long-acting ARB is as effective as a lower dose of the same compound combined with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in terms of blockade of the vascular effects of angiotensin.

Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test the hypothesis that for the same blood-pressure control, valsartan would reduce cardiac morbidity and mortality more than amlodipine in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk. METHODS: 15?245 patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac events participated in a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of therapy based on valsartan or amlodipine. Duration of treatment was event-driven and the trial lasted until at least 1450 patients had reached a primary endpoint, defined as a composite of cardiac mortality and morbidity. Patients from 31 countries were followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. FINDINGS: Blood pressure was reduced by both treatments, but the effects of the amlodipine-based regimen were more pronounced, especially in the early period (blood pressure 4.0/2.1 mm Hg lower in amlodipine than valsartan group after 1 month; 1.5/1.3 mm Hg after 1 year; p<0.001 between groups). The primary composite endpoint occurred in 810 patients in the valsartan group (10.6%, 25.5 per 1000 patient-years) and 789 in the amlodipine group (10.4%, 24.7 per 1000 patient-years; hazard ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.94-1.15, p=0.49). INTERPRETATION: The main outcome of cardiac disease did not differ between the treatment groups. Unequal reductions in blood pressure might account for differences between the groups in cause-specific outcomes. The findings emphasise the importance of prompt blood-pressure control in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk.

Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial.

The Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial was designed to test whether, for the same achieved blood pressures, regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine would have differing effects on cardiovascular endpoints in high risk hypertension. But inequalities in blood pressure, favouring amlodipine, throughout the multiyear trial precluded comparison of outcomes. A technique of serial median matching, applied at 6 months when treatment adjustments intended to achieve control of blood pressure were complete, created 5006 valsartan-amlodipine patient pairs matched exactly for systolic blood pressure, age, sex, and the presence or absence of previous coronary disease, stroke, or diabetes. Subsequent combined cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality were almost identical in the two cohorts, but admission to hospital for heart failure was significantly lower with valsartan. Reaching blood pressure control (systolic <140 mm Hg) by 6 months, independent of drug type, was associated with significant benefits for subsequent major outcomes; the blood pressure response after just 1 month of treatment predicted events and survival.

The neuropeptide Y Y1 receptor regulates leptin-mediated control of energy homeostasis and reproductive functions.

The orexigenic neurotransmitter neuropeptide Y (NPY) plays a central role in the hypothalamic control of food intake and energy balance. NPY also exerts an inhibition of the gonadotrope axis that could be important in the response to poor metabolic conditions. In contrast, leptin provides an anorexigenic signal to centrally control the body needs in energy. Moreover, leptin contributes to preserve adequate reproductive functions by stimulating the activity of the gonadotrope axis. It is of interest that hypothalamic NPY represents a primary target of leptin actions. To evaluate the importance of the NPY Y1 and Y5 receptors in the downstream pathways modulated by leptin and controlling energy metabolism as well as the activity of the gonadotrope axis, we studied the effects of leptin administration on food intake and reproductive functions in mice deficient for the expression of either the Y1 or the Y5 receptor. Furthermore, the role of the Y1 receptor in leptin resistance was determined in leptin-deficient ob/ob mice bearing a null mutation in the NPY Y1 locus. Results point to a crucial role for the NPY Y1 receptor in mediating the NPY pathways situated downstream of leptin actions and controlling food intake, the onset of puberty, and the maintenance of reproductive functions.

Comparative angiotensin II receptor blockade in healthy volunteers: the importance of dosing.

OBJECTIVES: We have reported previously that 80 mg valsartan and 50 mg losartan provide less receptor blockade than 150 mg irbesartan in normotensive subjects. In this study we investigated the importance of drug dosing in mediating these differences by comparing the AT(1)-receptor blockade induced by 3 doses of valsartan with that obtained with 3 other antagonists at given doses. METHODS: Valsartan (80, 160, and 320 mg), 50 mg losartan, 150 mg irbesartan, and 8 mg candesartan were administered to 24 healthy subjects in a randomized, open-label, 3-period crossover study. All doses were given once daily for 8 days. The angiotensin II receptor blockade was assessed with two techniques, the reactive rise in plasma renin activity and an in vitro radioreceptor binding assay that quantified the displacement of angiotensin II by the blocking agents. Measurements were obtained before and 4 and 24 hours after drug intake on days 1 and 8. RESULTS: At 4 and 24 hours, valsartan induced a dose-dependent "blockade" of AT(1) receptors. Compared with other antagonists, 80 mg valsartan and 50 mg losartan had a comparable profile. The 160-mg and 320-mg doses of valsartan blocked AT(1) receptors at 4 hours by 80%, which was similar to the effect of 150 mg irbesartan. At trough, however, the valsartan-induced blockade was slightly less than that obtained with irbesartan. With use of plasma renin activity as a marker of receptor blockade, on day 8, 160 mg valsartan was equivalent to 150 mg irbesartan and 8 mg candesartan. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the differences in angiotensin II receptor blockade observed with the various AT(1) antagonists are explained mainly by differences in dosing. When 160-mg or 320-mg doses were investigated, the effects of valsartan hardly differed from those obtained with recommended doses of irbesartan and candesartan.

Renal endothelin receptor type B upregulation in rats with low or high renin hypertension.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of endothelin-1 (ET-1) in hypertension, we investigated density and distribution of ETA and ETB receptors in hearts and kidneys of deoxycorticosterone acetate (DOCA)-salt and 1 kidney -- 1 clip (1K1C) hypertensive rats. METHODS: Five groups of uninephrectomized Wistar rats were put on a low salt diet. Three groups of rats drank tap water and two groups received saline. One group of each regimen received DOCA subcutaneously and two corresponding groups without DOCA served as controls. The fifth group of rats had the renal artery clipped to induce 1K1C hypertension. At 6 weeks, mean arterial pressure (MAP) was recorded and membrane binding assays using 125I-ET-1 were carried out. RESULTS: MAP was increased from control 122 +/- 3 to 155 +/- 6 and 218 +/- 11 mmHg in DOCA-salt and 1K1C rats, respectively, and cardiac weight index was increased. ETA receptors were predominantly expressed in the heart, whereas ETB receptors were predominant in the kidney. In the kidneys, the density of the ETB receptor subtype was upregulated in DOCA-salt and 1K1C rats from 160 +/- 8 to 217 +/- 12 and 190 +/- 2 fmol/mg (P < 0.05), respectively, and ETA tended to be downregulated (P = 0.057). Plasma renin activity was decreased in DOCA-salt rats from 17 +/- 3 to 0.17 +/- 0.01 ng/ml per h and increased in 1K1C rats on low salt diet to 30 +/- 5 ng/ml per h. CONCLUSIONS: Since ETB is the predominant endothelin receptor in the kidneys, upregulation of the ETB receptor mediating vasodilation and downregulation of the ETA receptor mediating vasoconstriction would be compatible with a mainly renal counter-regulatory effect of endothelin-1 to hypertension. Both low and high renin models of hypertension may be affected.

Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of angiotensin receptor blockade in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of angiotensin II receptor antagonists as a therapeutic class. DESIGN: Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling study. METHODS: The data of 14 phase I studies with 10 different drugs were analysed. A common population pharmacokinetic model (two compartments, mixed zero- and first-order absorption, two metabolite compartments) was applied to the 2685 drug and 900 metabolite concentration measurements. A standard nonlinear mixed effect modelling approach was used to estimate the drug-specific parameters and their variabilities. Similarly, a pharmacodynamic model was applied to the 7360 effect measurements, i.e. the decrease of peak blood pressure response to intravenous angiotensin challenge recorded by finger photoplethysmography. The concentration of drug and metabolite in an effect compartment was assumed to translate into receptor blockade [maximum effect (Emax) model with first-order link]. RESULTS: A general pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model for angiotensin antagonism in healthy individuals was successfully built up for the 10 drugs studied. Representatives of this class share different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Their effects on blood pressure are dose-dependent, but the time course of the effect varies between the drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The characterisation of PK-PD relationships for these drugs gives the opportunity to optimise therapeutic regimens and to suggest dosage adjustments in specific conditions. Such a model can be used to further refine the use of this class of drugs.

NPY, NPY receptors, and DPP IV activity are modulated by LPS, TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma in HUVEC.

Since NPY increases endothelial cell (EC) stickiness for leukocytes, we studied the effects of LPS, TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma on its expression and action in HUVEC. Cytokines raised NPY and pro-NPY intracellular content and dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP IV) activity. Y1 and Y2 receptors were expressed in basal conditions, and LPS, TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma induced Y5 receptor expression with a concomitant extinction of Y2 receptor expression. NPY induced an intracellular calcium increase mainly mediated by Y2 and Y5 receptors in basal conditions. After stimulation with LPS, TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma, calcium increase was mainly caused by Y5 receptor. The modulation of the NPY system by LPS, TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma, and the NPY-induced calcium signaling suggest a role for NPY during the inflammatory response.

Angiotensin II mediates catecholamine and neuropeptide Y secretion in human adrenal chromaffin cells through the AT1 receptor.

The aim of the present work was to study the effect of angiotensin II (Ang II) on catecholamines and neuropeptide Y (NPY) release in primary cultures of human adrenal chromaffin cells. Ang II stimulates norepinephrine (NE), epinephrine (EP) and NPY release from perifused chromaffin cells by 3-, 2- and 12-fold, respectively. The NPY release is more sustained than that of catecholamines. We found that the receptor-AT(2) agonist, T(2)-(Ang II 4-8)(2) has no effect on NE, EP and NPY release from chromaffin cells. We further showed that Ang II increases intracellular Ca(2+) concentration ([Ca(2+)](i)). The selective AT(1)-receptor antagonist Candesartan blocked [Ca(2+)](i) increase by Ang II, while T(2)-(Ang II 4-8)(2) was ineffective. These findings demonstrate that AT(1) stimulation induces catecholamine secretion from human adrenal chromaffin cells probably by raising cytosolic calcium.

Rapid Site-Directed Mutagenesis Using Two-PCR-Generated DNA Fragments Reproducing the Plasmid Template.

We describe a new rapid and efficient polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based site-directed mutagenesis method. This procedure is effective with any plasmid and it employs four oligonucleotide primers. One primer contains the desired mutation, the second is oriented in the opposite direction (one of these two primers should be phosphorylated), and the third and fourth should be coding in complementary fashion for a unique restriction site to be introduced in a nonessential region. The method consists of two simultaneous PCR reactions; the PCR products are digested with the enzyme that recognizes the newly introduced unique restriction site and then ligased and used to transform competent bacteria. Additionally, the use of Dpn I facilitates the elimination of template DNA. The newly introduced restriction site is essential for ligation in the correct orientation of the two-PCR products and is further used for mutant screening. Resulting plasmids carry both the new restriction site and the desired mutation. Using this method, more than 20 mutants have already been generated (using two different kinds of templates); all these mutants were sequenced for the desired mutation and transfected into AtT-20 cells and the expressed mutant proteins encoded by the vector were assayed.

Clinical efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan.

BACKGROUND: Olmesartan medoxomil is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist that selectively and competitively inhibits the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the results of some key studies that assessed the efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan in patients with hypertension. METHODS: Olmesartan has been investigated in several clinical studies. This article reports on data from 1 such study with a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-finding design in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (baseline mean sitting diastolic blood pressure, 100-114 mm Hg). The results from a meta-analysis of 7 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are also presented. RESULTS: In the dose-finding study, 792 patients were randomized to olmesartan (2.5-80 mg) or placebo once daily, and changes were recorded in trough mean sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressures from baseline to the end of a 12-week treatment period. For the meta-analysis, 3055 patients were randomized to treatment; 2511 received olmesartan. In the dose-finding study as well as in the meta-analysis, olmesartan (2.5-80 mg once daily) produced a dose-dependent decrease in diastolic and systolic blood pressures, and at a dose of 10 to 80 mg showed significant superiority in reducing diastolic blood pressure over placebo (P < 0.05). The 20-mg dose was considered optimal, with a responder rate of 70%. Furthermore, in a 2-year study with 462 patients, olmesartan had a good safety profile and was well tolerated. The results of the clinical studies in >3000 patients receiving olmesartan showed that the frequency and profile of adverse events with olmesartan were generally similar to those with placebo; the frequency of adverse events was not dose related. Olmesartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide, was well tolerated over 2 years of treatment.

The new oral angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil: a concise overview.

The new orally active angiotensin II (A II) type-1 receptor antagonist olmesartan medoxomil is a prodrug, which is rapidly converted in vivo to the active metabolite, olmesartan. The pharmacology, antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and/or the pharmacologically active metabolite, olmesartan, have been evaluated in both non-clinical and clinical models. Orally administered olmesartan medoxomil is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and converted during absorption to olmesartan, which is subsequently excreted without further metabolism. Peak plasma concentrations of olmesartan occur 1-3 h after administration, after which concentrations decrease with an elimination half-life of 10-15 h. The absolute bioavailability of olmesartan from olmesartan medoxomil tablets is 28.6%. In a single-dose crossover study in 16 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension receiving a sodium-restricted diet, statistically significant lowering of mean 24-h blood pressure was seen at doses of 10-80 mg. Evaluation of 14 phase II/III studies has confirmed the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil in over 3500 patients who received the drug for up to 2 years. Frequencies of adverse events during treatment with olmesartan medoxomil and placebo are similar, with no evidence of a dose response. There are no clinically significant effects on laboratory parameters, and the drug-interaction potential of olmesartan medoxomil is low. Current indications are that olmesartan medoxomil is a true once-daily, orally active A II antagonist with good antihypertensive efficacy and a favourable adverse-event profile. Clinical pharmaco- dynamic and efficacy studies support a usual dose of 20 mg once daily, increasing to 40 mg if needed.

ET-1 and NOS III gene expression regulation by plaque-free and plaque-prone hemodynamic conditions.

Both plaque-free and plaque-prone hemodynamic environments induce an increase in the oxidative state of endothelial cells (ECs), whereas differential gene expression regulation was described in cells exposed to these conditions. In order to investigate the role of the increased oxidative state in flow-regulation of gene expression, we first exposed EC to non-pulsed unidirectional shear stress. These conditions only slightly increases ECs oxidative state and endothelin-1 (ET-1) mRNA expression, whereas endothelial nitric oxide synthase (NOS III) mRNA level were significantly up-regulated. On the contrary, both ET-1 and NOS III gene expression were significantly induced in EC exposed to pulsed-unidirectional flow (plaque-free). Only ET-1 gene expression was up-regulated by oscillatory flow (plaque-prone). Moreover, use of an antioxidant only partially inhibited NOS III gene up-regulation by unidirectional flow, whereas it completely abrogated ET-1 gene up-regulation by unidirectional and oscillatory flows. Thus suggesting that mechanical forces regulate gene expression in ECs both via oxidative stress-dependent and -independent mechanisms.

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil with that of candesartan cilexetil after 1, 2 and 8 weeks of treatment. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study conducted at 44 centres in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. PATIENTS: 643 patients (aged 19-86 years) with mainly mild-to-moderate essential hypertension received active double-blind treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Following a 2-week placebo run-in, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive olmesartan medoxomil 20mg (n = 319) or candesartan cilexetil 8mg (n = 324) once daily for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline in daytime, 24-hour and night-time diastolic (DBP) and systolic (SBP) blood pressures assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and changes from baseline in sitting cuff DBP and SBP. RESULTS: Mean decreases from baseline in daytime DBP by ABPM at weeks 1, 2 and 8 were 6.7, 8.4 and 9.3mm Hg, respectively, in the olmesartan medoxomil group compared with 5.3, 6.0 and 7.8mm Hg, respectively, in the candesartan cilexetil group. The between-group differences were significantly in favour of olmesartan medoxomil at all three timepoints (p

Clinical efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil.

Olmesartan medoxomil is a new angiotensin-II receptor antagonist for the treatment of hypertension. Olmesartan medoxomil is a pro-drug that is de-esterified to the active metabolite, olmesartan. Olmesartan has a dual method of elimination, with about 60% eliminated by the liver and the remainder by the kidney. In situations of impaired renal or hepatic function, the alternative excretion pathway can compensate for the compromised one. Olmesartan is not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system and therefore has a low potential for metabolic drug interactions, a feature that may be of importance when treating patients on multiple drug regimens, such as the elderly. Olmesartan is well tolerated and has an excellent safety profile that is comparable to that of placebo. In addition, olmesartan provides 24-h blood pressure control with a once-daily dosing. In head-to-head studies, olmesartan delivered superior blood pressure reduction when compared with other angiotensin-II receptor antagonists at their recommended doses.