Pharmacological profiles and clinical effects of olmesartan medoxomil, a novel angiotensin II receptor blocker

Olmesartan medoxomil is a new angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) indicated for the treatment of hypertension. Olmesartan medoxomil is a pro-drug that is converted to the active metabolite olmesartan. Olmesartan does not undergo further metabolism and does not interact with cytochrome P450 enzymes. Olmesartan is a potent ARB with high selectivity for the type 1 (AT(1)) receptor subtype and shows insurmountable antagonism against the AT(1) receptor in vascular tissues. This antagonistic mode, which could be attributed to tight binding of this drug to the receptor, would underlie the potent and persistent action of olmesartan medoxomil in vivo. In fact, oral administration of olmesartan medoxomil produces a potent and long-lasting antihypertensive action without inducing tachycardia. The preventive effects of olmesartan medoxomil on end-organ damage in the kidney, heart, and blood vessels have been demonstrated in various animal models. In clinical studies, olmesartan medoxomil is shown to be well tolerated and have an excellent safety profile that is comparable to that of placebo. Head-to-head comparisons with other ARBs (losartan, valsartan, irbesartan, and candesartan cilexetil) conducted in the United States and Europe have revealed that olmesartan medoxomil is superior to these other ARBs in lowering blood pressure. These facts suggest that olmesartan medoxomil would be beneficial for the treatment of hypertension and other end-organ diseases.     

Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers Inhibit the Generation of Epoxyeicosatrienoic Acid from Arachidonic Acid in Recombinant CYP2C9, CYP2J2 and Human Liver Microsomes

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9, CYP2C8 and CYP2J2 enzymes, which metabolize arachidonic acid (AA) to epoxyeicosatrienoic acids, have cardioprotective effects including anti‐inflammation and vasodilation. We have recently shown that some angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may inhibit AA metabolism via CYP2C8. Using recombinant CYP2C9, CYP2J2 and human liver microsomes (HLMs), the aim was now to compare the ability of six different clinically used ARBs to inhibit AA metabolism in vitro. The rank order of the ARBs for the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) of AA metabolism was losartan <telmisartan <irbesartan <candesartan <olmesartan <valsartan via CYP2C9, and telmisartan <irbesartan <olmesartan <losartan <candesartan and valsartan via CYP2J2. The order for the HLMs was losartan <telmisartan <irbesartan <olmesartan <candesartan <valsartan. Some ARBs having lower concentration of IC₅₀ indicate that these ARBs might inhibit the AA metabolism in the liver.     

Inhibitory effects of angiotensin receptor blockers on CYP2C9 activity in human liver microsomes

We investigated the inhibitory effects of the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), candesartan, irbesartan, losartan, losartan active metabolite (EXP-3174), olmesartan, telmisartan and valsartan (0.3-300 microM), on the CYP2C9 activity in human liver microsomes using (S)-(-)-warfarin as a typical CYP2C9 substrate. Except for olmesartan and valsartan, these ARBs inhibited the activity of 7-hydroxylation of (S)-(-)-warfarin with IC50 values of 39.5-116 microM. Of six synthetic derivatives of olmesartan, five compounds which possess either alkyl groups or a chloro group at the same position as that of the hydroxyisopropyl group in olmesartan inhibited CYP2C9 activity with IC50 values of 21.7-161 microM. Olmesartan and the olmesartan analogue, RNH-6272, both having a hydroxyisopropyl group, showed no inhibition, indicating that the hydrophilicity of this group greatly contributes to the lack of CYP2C9 inhibition by these two compounds. A three-dimensional model for docking between EXP-3174 and CYP2C9 indicated that the chloro group of EXP-3174 is oriented to a hydrophobic pocket in the CYP2C9 active site, indicating that the lipophilicity of the group present in ARBs at the position corresponding to that of the hydroxyisopropyl group in olmesartan is important in inhibiting CYP2C9 activity.     

Olmesartan medoxomil

Olmesartan medoxomil is a nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist which selectively and competitively inhibits the type 1 angiotensin II receptor without affecting other receptors regulating the cardiovascular system. In well designed randomised trials, olmesartan medoxomil was significantly more effective than placebo, and at dosages of 10 to 20 mg/day was at least as effective as atenolol 50 to 100 mg/day in reducing diastolic blood pressure (DBP). At dosages of 5 to 20 mg/day, olmesartan medoxomil was more effective than captopril 12.5 to 50mg twice daily at lowering seated DBP in patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a dose titration study. Reductions in seated DBP were greater with olmesartan medoxomil 10 to 20 mg/day than losartan 50 to 100 mg/day. Olmesartan medoxomil at 20 mg/day was more effective in lowering seated DBP than losartan 50 mg/day, valsartan 80 mg/day or irbesartan 150 mg/day, and was more efficacious than losartan 50 mg/day or valsartan 80 mg/day at reducing 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure. Olmesartan medoxomil has shown no clinically important pharmacokinetic interactions with digoxin, warfarin or antacid (aluminium magnesium hydroxide). Adverse events were infrequent in clinical studies of olmesartan medoxomil and were similar to those attributed to placebo. With olmesartan medoxomil, the frequency of dizziness was higher than with placebo but similar to that occurring with losartan, valsartan and irbesartan.     

Clinical and experimental aspects of olmesartan medoxomil, a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist

Olmesartan medoxomil is a new orally active angiotensin II (Ang II) type 1 receptor antagonist. It is a prodrug and is rapidly de-esterified during absorption to form olmesartan, the active metabolite. Olmesartan is a potent, competitive and selective Ang II type 1 receptor antagonist. Olmesartan is not metabolized by the cytochrome P-450 and has a dual route of elimination, by kidneys and liver. In patients with essential hypertension olmesartan medoxomil administered once daily at doses of 10-80 mg dose-dependently reduced diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Troughto-peak ratios for both DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were above 50%. At the recommended once-daily starting doses, olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg) was more effective than losartan (50 mg), valsartan (80 mg) or irbesartan (150 mg) in reducing cuff DBP in patients with essential hypertension. The results of cuff SBP and mean 24-h DBP and SBP were similar to those of cuff DBP measurement. In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients the recommended starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil was as effective as that of amlodipine besylate (5 mg/day) in reducing both cuff and 24-h blood pressure. In lowering DBP olmesartan medoxomil, at 10-20 mg/day, was as effective as atenolol at 50-100 mg/day. In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, olmesartan medoxomil, at 5-20 mg once daily, was more effective than captopril at 12.5-50 mg twice daily. At 20-40 mg once daily olmesartan medoxomil was as effective as felodipine, at 5-10 mg once daily. Olmesartan medoxomil has minimal adverse effects with no clinically important drug interactions. Animal studies have shown that olmesartan medoxomil provides a wide range of organ protection. Olmesartan medoxomil ameliorated atherosclerosis in hyperlipidemic animals and ameliorated cardiac remodeling and improved survival in rats with myocardial infarction. Olmesartan medoxomil has renoprotective effects in a remnant kidney model and type 2 diabetes models. Future investigation should reveal whether these beneficial effects of olmesartan medoxomil are applicable to human diseases.     

Use of 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring to Assess Antihypertensive Efficacy

INTRODUCTION: Goal rates, the percentage of patients with hypertension achieving recommended SBP/DBP, are a clinically important assessment of an antihypertensive agent's efficacy. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) allows accurate assessment of a patient's hypertension and risk for cardiovascular events, and provides the most accurate measure of an antihypertensive agent's efficacy throughout a 24-hour dosing interval. METHODS: A 12-week (4-week single-blind placebo run-in phase followed by an 8-week double-blind active treatment phase) randomized, parallel-group study reported that the recommended starting dose of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker; ARB) olmesartan medoxomil (Benicar(trade mark)) 20 mg/day was more effective than starting doses of losartan potassium (Cozaar) 50 mg/day, valsartan (Diovan) 80 mg/day, or irbesartan (Avapro) 150 mg/day in reducing cuff DBP in patients with essential hypertension. The present report includes analyses of secondary efficacy variables from this 12-week trial. RESULTS: The mean reduction in blood pressure from baseline to week 8 (end of treatment) was significantly greater with olmesartan medoxomil than with valsartan for all ABPM times analyzed (24 hours, daytime, night-time, and last 2 and 4 hours of monitoring). Statistical significance was reached for comparisons of olmesartan medoxomil with losartan potassium for a majority of times analyzed and with irbesartan for SBP in the last 4 hours of monitoring. Goal rates for accepted critical ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) values of <130/80 mm Hg for mean 24-hour ABP, <135/85 mm Hg for mean daytime ABP, and <120/75 mm Hg for mean night-time ABP were significantly greater for patients receiving olmesartan medoxomil than for those receiving losartan potassium or valsartan. Goal rates were numerically superior, but not statistically significant, to those achieved with irbesartan. Compared with losartan potassium or valsartan recipients, a significantly higher percentage of patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil achieved the 24-hour ABP goal of <130/85 mm Hg. The last 2 and 4 hours of ABPM indicated that olmesartan medoxomil maintained larger mean decreases in blood pressure through the morning surge. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: ABP goal rates are a meaningful measure of antihypertensive efficacy. The effects on mean change from baseline in ABP and ABP goal rates after 8 weeks of treatment were numerically better, but not statistically significant, for olmesartan medoxomil than for irbesartan. However, olmesartan medoxomil was significantly more effective than losartan potassium or valsartan.     

Olmesartan medoxomil: a review of its use in the management of hypertension

Olmesartan medoxomil (Olmetec, Benicar) is an angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) that inhibits the actions of angiotensin II on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, which plays a key role in the pathogenesis of hypertension. Oral olmesartan medoxomil 10-40 mg once daily is recommended for the treatment of adult patients with hypertension. In those with inadequate BP control using monotherapy, fixed-dose olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [Olmetec plus, Benicar-HCT] combination therapy may be initiated. Extensive clinical evidence from several large well designed trials and the clinical practice setting has confirmed the antihypertensive efficacy and good tolerability profile of oral olmesartan medoxomil, as monotherapy or in combination with HCTZ, in patients with hypertension, including elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Notably, BP control is sustained throughout the 24-hour dosage interval, including during the last 4 hours of this period. In clinical trials, olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy provided better antihypertensive efficacy than losartan, candesartan cilexetil or irbesartan monotherapy, and was at least as effective as valsartan treatment, with a faster onset of action than other ARBs in terms of reductions from baseline in diastolic BP (DBP) and, in most instances, systolic BP (SBP). Combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil plus HCTZ was superior to that with benazepril plus amlodipine, as effective as that with losartan plus HCTZ, noninferior to that with atenolol plus HCTZ, but less effective than that with telmisartan plus HCTZ, in individual trials. Data from ongoing clinical outcome trials are required to more fully determine the relative position of olmesartan medoxomil therapy in the management of hypertension. In the meantime, the consistent antihypertensive efficacy during the entire 24-hour dosage interval and good tolerability profile of olmesartan medoxomil, with or without HCTZ, make it a valuable option for the treatment of adult patients with hypertension, including the elderly.     

Cost Effectiveness of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Monotherapy in Patients with Hypertension in the Netherlands

Background and Objective

Health gains and related cost savings achieved by optimizing treatment in hypertensive patients is highly important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the costs and cost effectiveness of treatment with angiotensin II receptor antagonists (angiotensin II receptor blockers [ARBs]) in patients with essential hypertension and to compare within-trial with real-life dosing of ARBs.

Methods

Cost effectiveness was estimated based on a published clinical trial comparing the BP-lowering effects of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan. BP lowering after 8 weeks of treatment was entered into the Framingham risk functions to estimate cardiovascular complications after 1 and 5 years, using an international health economics model that was adapted to the Netherlands. Dutch costs (2006 values) and complications derived from the model were discounted at 4% and 1.5%, respectively, and cost effectiveness was expressed in net costs per cardiovascular complication averted. In a drug-utilization study, pharmacy dispensing records were used to evaluate differences between within-trial and daily-practice dosing and related costs for treatment in the Netherlands.

Results

After 8 weeks, the trial-based analysis showed that treatment with olmesartan versus losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan resulted in a significantly larger decrease in BP (11.5 vs 8.2, 7.9 and 9.9 mmHg [p<0.05], respectively) and consequently more complications averted. Cost effectiveness for olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan was estimated at €39 100, €77 100, €70 700, and €50 900 per cardiovascular complication averted, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the most favorable cost-effectiveness outcome for olmesartan, with lower costs and less cardiovascular complications for olmesartan compared with the other three ARBs. The drug-utilization analysis showed that the dosing followed within clinical trials was not found in daily practice. On average, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan were administered at doses above those used in clinical trials, whereas olmesartan was dosed lower than in clinical trials, resulting in relatively lower costs.

Conclusion

Based on the exact trial data, olmesartan was estimated to be the most favorable option of the four ARBs based on within-trial decreases in BP levels after 8 weeks and in terms of cost-effectiveness for this particular Dutch setting. However, for definite conclusions to be drawn, this hypothesis-generating study requires confirmation from further prospective studies comparing ARBs based on comparable BP control and including hard endpoints.     

Investigation of Carcinogenic Impurities of N-Nitrosamines in Sartan Pharmaceutical Products Marketed in Brazil: Development and Validation of Method Based on High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

N-nitrosamines (NA) impurities have unexpectedly been found in sartan products, angiotensin II receptor antagonists that are used to control hypertension, representing an urgent concern for industry, global regulators and for the patients. In this study, an HPLC-MS/MS method was developed and validated for the quantification of six NA (N-nitrosodimethylamine, N-Nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid, N-Nitrosodiethylamine, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-2-propanamine, N-nitroso-diisopropylamine and N-nitroso-di-n-butylamine) in losartan, valsartan, olmesartan, irbesartan, candesartan and telmisartan products. The method was validated in terms of sensitivity, linearity, accuracy, precision, robustness and stability. The limits of quantification were 100, 31.25, 250, 33, 312.5 and 125 µg kg⁻¹ in losartan, valsartan, olmesartan, irbesartan, candesartan and telmisartan samples, respectively, which met the sensitivity requirements for the limits set by Food and Drug Administration of the United States. The standard curves showed good linearity. The recoveries ranged from 93.06 to 102.23% in losartan matrix, 83 to 85.9% in valsartan, 96.1 to 101.2% in olmesartan, 89.2 to 97.5% in irbesartan, 93.4 to 132.0% in candesartan and 62.3 to 106.2% in telmisartan matrix. The other parameters met the validation criteria, the good sensitivity and precision, high accuracy and simple and fast analysis provides a reliable method for quality control of NA in sartan pharmaceutical products. The developed method was successfully applied for the determination of N-nitrosamines in 71 sartan products marketed in Brazil.     

Cardiovascular Outcomes in High-Risk Patients without Heart Failure Treated with ARBs

Background and objective

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) are widely used as a substitute for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) to treat patients without heart failure, but their effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been clearly determined. A systematic review and metaanalysis was undertaken to determine the impact of ARBs on cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients without heart failure.

Methods

A computerized literature search was carried out using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, from January 1990 to April 2008. The following search terms were used: ‘hypertension’, ‘clinical trial’, ‘sartan’, ‘ARB’, ‘angiotensin receptor antagonist’, ‘losartan’, ‘candesartan’, ‘valsartan’, ‘irbesartan’, ‘eprosartan’, ‘telmisartan’, ‘olmesartan’, ‘coronary disease’, ‘coronary heart disease’, ‘myocardial infarction’, ‘cardiovascular disease’, ‘cerebrovascular disease’, and ‘stroke’. Criteria for inclusion of clinical trials in our meta-analysis were the use of a randomized control group not receiving an ARB and the availability of outcome data for any one of four endpoints: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death (these were not always pre-specified endpoints in all trials). Out of 45 potentially relevant studies, 37 trials met the inclusion criteria. We tabulated all occurrences of these four adverse outcomes.

Results

Homogenous subgroups were combined by means of a fixed-effects model, while heterogenous subgroups were not combined. In the subgroup without heart failure, ARBs, when compared with the control group, had an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% CI 1.00, 1.18; p = 0.05) for MI. Other endpoints, namely, cardiovascular death and all-cause death, did not reach statistical significance. There was a clear trend for fewer strokes in the ARB group, but these studies were clearly heterogenous, and therefore a pooled risk estimate was not computed.

Conclusion

After pooling more than 89 000 patients, there is no evidence to suggest that ARBs confer cardiovascular protection akin to ACEIs, and the results that emerged are not in favor of ARB therapy in terms of its use as a substitute for ACEIs in non-heart failure patients. ARBs may have a small benefit in terms of stroke risk, but the studies are heterogenous, making it very difficult to quantify this effect. Given that ACEIs protect against both stroke and MI, caution is advised in the use of ARBs as a substitute for ACEIs in patients without a heart failure indication, who are tolerant of an ACEI.     

Telmisartan has the strongest binding affinity to angiotensin II type 1 receptor: comparison with other angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers

There is a growing body of evidence that the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases. Indeed, large clinical trials have demonstrated a substantial benefit of the blockade of this system for cardiovascular-organ protection. Although several types of angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blockers (ARBs) are commercially available for the treatment of patients with hypertension, comparisons of the binding affinity to AT1 receptor among them remain to be elucidated. In this study, we examined the dissociation rate of several ARBs from AT1 receptor in vitro. Angiotensin II time-dependently dissociated telmisartan, olmesartan, candesartan, valsartan, losartan and an active metabolite of losartan, EXP3174, from membrane components containing human AT1 receptor The dissociation rate constant of each ARB was 0.003248, 0.004171, 0.005203, 0.009946, 0.01027 and 0.008561 min(-1), with corresponding half-lives of 213, 166, 133, 70, 67 and 81 min, respectively. These results demonstrate that telmisartan has the strongest binding affinity to AT1 receptor among various ARBs examined herein. The rank order of affinity was telmisartan > olmesartan > candesartan > EXP3174 > or = valsartan > or = losartan. The present findings suggest that telmisartan (Micardis) may have long-lasting blood pressure-lowering effects and superior cardioprotective properties in patients with hypertension due to its strongest AT1 receptor antagonistic ability.     

Substrate recognition of renally eliminated angiotensin II receptor blockers by organic anion transporter 4

Organic anion transporter (OAT) 4, which is localized at the apical membrane of human renal proximal tubules, transports olmesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). Many ARBs, including olmesartan, undergo partial tubular secretion as active forms, and inhibit OAT4-mediated uptake activity. Here, we examined the substrate recognition of various ARBs by OAT4 in order to assess whether OAT4 might be involved in the renal handling of ARBs. Concentration-dependent OAT4-mediated uptake of azilsartan, candesartan, carboxylosartan, losartan, and valsartan was observed with K_m values of 6.6, 31, 7.2, 13, and 1.7 μM, respectively, in the absence of extracellular Cl⁻. In the presence of extracellular Cl⁻, OAT4-mediated uptake of dianionic ARBs (azilsartan, candesartan, carboxylosartan, and valsartan) was lower and reached a steady state faster than in the absence of extracellular Cl⁻. Thus, OAT4 is proposed to use extracellular Cl⁻ as a counterpart for anion efflux. Our results suggest that OAT4 may play a role in the excretion of azilsartan, candesartan, carboxylosartan, and valsartan, as well as olmesartan. In contrast, OAT4-mediated uptake of losartan, a monoanionic ARB, was little affected by extracellular Cl⁻, suggesting that only OAT4-mediated dianion transport is Cl⁻-sensitive.     

Palatability of angiotensin II antagonists among nephropathic children

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: * Among children, medication palatability is crucial for adherence to therapeutic regimen. * Several studies have measured the palatability of antimicrobial suspensions in paediatric patients by means of a visual analogue scale palatability score. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: * This is the first analysis comparing the taste and smell acceptability of angiotensin II receptor blockers among paediatric patients with kidney disease. * From the perspective of the child with kidney disease, the taste of pulverized candesartan is significantly superior to that of pulverized irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan or valsartan. AIM: Angiotensin II receptor blockers are widely prescribed in kidney disease. Among children, medication palatability is crucial for adherence. METHODS: Taste and smell acceptability of five angiotensin II receptor blockers were compared among 21 nephropathic children using a visual analogue scale palatability score. RESULTS: The score assigned to pulverized tablets of candesartan cilexetil was significantly higher than that assigned to pulverized tablets of irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan and valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the nephropathic child, the taste of pulverized candesartan cilexetil is superior to that of irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan or valsartan.     

Comparison of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of essential hypertension

Hypertension is a major health problem worldwide, yet remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) are highly effective at reducing blood pressure (BP), exhibit renoprotective properties and have placebo-like tolerability. However, it is unclear whether there are clinical differences in efficacy and tolerability between the available ARBs. A review of published, randomized, comparative clinical trials suggests that differences in BP-lowering efficacy and 24-hour BP control may exist between ARBs, although it appears that there is no evidence for important differences in tolerability between ARBs. Few studies have assessed attainment rates for important combined systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) goals recommended in treatment guidelines. Likewise, few studies have directly compared more than two agents or ARB/hydrochlorothiazide fixed-dose combinations, and most ARBs have not been compared across their full recommended dosage ranges. Overall, there is insufficient weight of evidence to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of the available ARBs. However, newer ARBs (e.g. olmesartan medoxomil and telmisartan) appear to be more effective than older ARBs (e.g. losartan and valsartan) in reducing DBP and/or SBP in some trials. In addition, olmesartan medoxomil treatment regimens resulted in high BP control rates in several trials, but head-to-head trials with other ARBs are required to put these control rates into perspective, especially for SBP control with various agents. The purpose of this review is to present published data from ARB efficacy trials for a comparison of various efficacy parameters among the agents within this drug class.     

Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists Alone and Combined with Hydrochlorothiazide

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs) and thiazide diuretics have an accepted place in the management of hypertension. Most patients require combination therapy with two or more drugs to adequately control blood pressure to targets recommended by European and international guidelines. ARBs and the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide have complementary modes of action. Fixed-dose combinations of an ARB and low-dose hydrochlorothiazide provide a convenient and effective treatment option for patients who do not achieve blood pressure targets on monotherapy, without compromising the placebo-like tolerability of ARBs. In Europe, fixed-dose combinations with hydrochlorothiazide currently are available for the ARBs candesartan, eprosartan, irbesartan, losartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. Recently, a number of studies have focused on the use of ARBs in monotherapy and in combination therapy, in conditions including congestive heart failure, post-myocardial infarction management, hypertension with cardiovascular risk factors, and diabetic and non-diabetic nephropathy. Evidence from these studies suggests a beneficial role beyond the antihypertensive effect of these therapies in providing protection against cardiovascular, renovascular, and cerebrovascular events.     

Switch strategies in the management of hypertension: a cost minimisation analysis of angiotensin receptor blocker based regimen

ABSTRACT

Background and objective: Budgetary pressures within health care systems have led many health care providers to consider the switching of patients on long term anti­hypertensive medication to agents with the lowest acquisition price. The long term success of this strategy hinges on price differentials remaining stable, an assumption that may not be valid in drug classes where patent expiry times vary. The treatment of hypertension using angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) represents just such a case. The present study, therefore, modelled the 5-year cost consequences of treatment based on losartan, candesartan, valsartan and irbesartan, based on expected patent expiry dates.

Methods: A Markov model was constructed, applying dose-specific blood-pressure lowering and costs to a cohort of uncontrolled mild–moderate hypertensive patients and assessing the anticipated cost of treatment over a 5 year period. A probabilistic approach was adopted to account for between-patient and between-treatment differences.

Results: For both undiscounted and discounted models, a losartan-based regimen represents the least costly option of the four agents tested. Median (IQR) discounted expenditure per patient for each agent was: losartan: £506 (£441–£650), candesartan: £610 (£542–£766), valsartan: £809 (£796–£1078), irbesartan £696 (£694–£934).

Conclusion: Switching hypertensive patients taking ARBs to the agent with the lowest current acquisition cost may yield only transient budgetary savings. Once patent expiry is taken into account, this model suggests that maintaining or switching patients to losartan would yield considerably greater savings over 5 years.     

Rapid Quantitation of Four Nitrosamine Impurities in Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Drug Substances

Starting in July 2018, the FDA alerted patients and health care professionals to the recall of ARBs such as valsartan by several pharmaceutical companies because of their potential contamination with carcinogenic nitrosamine impurities, including: (1) N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), (2) N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), (3) N-nitrosoethylisopropylamine (NEIPA), (4) N-nitrosodiisopropylamine (NDIPA), (5) N-nitrosodibutylamine (NDBA) and (6) N-nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA). The FDA initiated a laboratory investigation to develop analytical procedures to test multiple lots of marketed ARB drugs to determine the possible presence of carcinogenic impurities and, if present, quantitate the levels of these impurities.Here the FDA laboratory developed and validated an automated micro-solid phase extraction MS/MS method, where all the analytes are not separated prior to elution to the MS, to simultaneously quantify NEIPA, NDIPA, NDBA and NMBA in ARB drug substances with an instrument sample analysis time of 12 seconds. The method was validated according to the ICH Q2(R1) guideline, and was determined to be specific, accurate, precise and linear over the corresponding nitrosamine analytical ranges. The method has been successfully implemented to quantitate the four nitrosamine impurities in 129 generic losartan, valsartan, olmesartan, irbesartan and telmisartan drug substance samples from 32 lots; and 32 losartan and valsartan drug product samples from 6 lots.     

The value of irbesartan in the management of hypertension

Elevated blood pressure levels are highly prevalent and are a major reason for cardiovascular events and thus place a significant financial burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Guidelines recommend five first-line anti-hypertensive drug classes, but compelling indications may indicate favoring one drug class over another. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have demonstrated a blood pressure lowering efficacy which is at least comparable with other drug classes, including ACE inhibitors (ACE-I), β-blockers, calcium channel blockers and diuretics. They have, in addition, a lower side effect profile than other drug classes and patients on ARBs are more persistent with therapy. Compelling indications for the use of ARBs are heart failure, post-myocardial infarction, diabetic nephropathy, proteinuria/microalbuminuria, left ventricular hypertrophy, atrial fibrillation, metabolic syndrome and ACE-I induced cough. The ARB irbesartan has demonstrated a high efficacy in lowering blood pressure, which has been shown to be at least comparable with ACE-Is and superior to other ARBs such as losartan and valsartan. This translated into a better cost-effectiveness for irbesartan than for valsartan and losartan in the treatment of hypertension. In addition, irbesartan has been shown to be effective in both early and late stage diabetic nephropathy. It has further demonstrated considerable cost savings over standard therapy including β-blockers, diuretics and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers at all stages of kidney disease. Based on efficacy data from the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial and Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM (non insulin dependant diabetes melitis) with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan Study, it has also demonstrated cost savings over losartan in late stage renal disease. While both losartan and irbesartan are registered for the treatment of late stage diabetic nephropathy, irbesartan is also registered for early stage diabetic nephropathy in the EU. In summary, the data from randomized clinical trials on the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs provides an indication of their real value to patients. In addition observational data from clinical practice and proven end-organ protection in diabetic nephropathy provides further evidence of the true value of irbesartan compared to other ARBs in the treatment of hypertension.     

Identification and determination of selected angiotensin II receptor antagonist group drugs by HPLC method

Losartan potassium, valsartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, eprosartan mesylate and candesartan cilexitil, the angiotensin II receptor antagonists, were analyzed in bulk substances and in tablets: Lorista tablets 50 mg, Diovan tablets 160 mg, Micardis tablets 20 mg, Aprovel tablets 300 mg, Teveten tablets 600 mg and Blopress tablets 16 mg. The conditions for identification by HPLC method in a gradient system and for determination of those compounds in isocratic systems were developed. The determination was carried out using Zorbax SB-Phenyl column with UV-VIS detector set at 230 nm and the following mobile phases: 0.1 mol/L sodium acetate (pH = 5.5) - acetonitrile - methanol in 35:9:6 v/v/v ratio for eprosartan mesylate and valsartan, in 15:6:4 v/v/v ratio for losartan potassium and irbesartan and in 10:9:6 v/v/v ratio for telmisartan and candesartan cilexitil. The recovery from simulated tablets was determined and amounted to: for eprosartan mesylate - 99.04%, valsartan - 100.0%, losartan potassium - 100.03%, irbesartan - 100.35%, telmisartan - 100.06% and candesartan cilexitil - 100.40%.