Dataset Information

Effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared with olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are preferred antihypertensive therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a potent ARB for the treatment of stages 1-2 hypertension. We compared the efficacy, safety, and metabolic effects of AZL-M to both valsartan (VAL) and olmesartan (OLM), separately in patients with impaired fasting glucose (prediabetes mellitus) and T2DM.

Methods

A pooled analysis of 3821 patients from three separate randomized placebo-controlled trials comparing the effects of AZL-M (40 and 80?mg), OLM (40?mg), VAL (320?mg), and placebo on changes in ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) among patients with hypertension and prediabetes mellitus or T2DM was performed. Two analysis pools were created to facilitate comparisons: Pool A included patients who received placebo, AZL-M or OLM and Pool B included those who received AZL-M or VAL. Within each pool, patients were stratified by glycemic subgroups (normoglycemic, prediabetes mellitus, or T2DM) based on hemoglobin A1c values. Changes from baseline in both 24-h and clinic SBP were the primary efficacy assessments.

Results

Baseline 24-h mean SBPs were approximately 145 and 146?mmHg in the prediabetes mellitus and T2DM subgroups, respectively; corresponding clinic SBPs were approximately 158 and 159?mmHg. Baseline hemoglobin A1c values for each subgroup (both pools) were normoglycemic, 5.3%; prediabetes mellitus, 6.0%; and T2DM, 6.9%. Changes from baseline in 24-h or clinic SBP were significantly greater with AZL-M, 80?mg compared with either OLM 40?mg or VAL 320?mg in all subgroups in each pool. Safety and tolerability were similar among the active treatment and placebo subgroups.

Conclusion

These analyses indicate that AZL-M, 80?mg/day lowers SBP by a greater magnitude than OLM or VAL at maximally approved doses in patients with prediabetes mellitus and T2DM. These findings have important clinical implications for this high-risk patient group.

SUBMITTER: White WB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4947533 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared with olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

White William B WB Cuadra René H RH Lloyd Eric E Bakris George L GL Kupfer Stuart S

Journal of hypertension 20160401 4

<h4>Background</h4>Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are preferred antihypertensive therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a potent ARB for the treatment of stages 1-2 hypertension. We compared the efficacy, safety, and metabolic effects of AZL-M to both valsartan (VAL) and olmesartan (OLM), separately in patients with impaired fasting glucose (prediabetes mellitus) and T2DM.<h4>Methods</h4>A pooled analysis of 3821 patients from three sepa ...[more]

PMID: 26766564

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAzilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has a well-characterized efficacy and safety profile in patients with hypertension. AZL-M is approved for use in over 40 countries globally; however, it is not yet approved in China. Therefore, a phase 3 registration study to assess the efficacy (antihypertensive effect), safety, and tolerability of AZL-M compared with valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension was undertaken.MethodsThis multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 8-week phase 3 study compared AZL-M with valsartan in Chinese patients aged ≥18 years with essential hypertension. Endpoints included change from baseline to week 8 in trough sitting clinic systolic blood pressure (scSBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring parameters.ResultsOverall, 612 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; 57.5% male) were randomized to AZL-M 80 mg (n = 209), AZL-M 40 mg (n = 199), or valsartan 160 mg (n = 204). Baseline mean scSBP was similar in all groups (157.9-158.5 mm Hg). The mean reduction in trough scSBP from baseline to week 8 was significantly greater with AZL-M 80 mg than with valsartan (-24.2 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .010), and noninferior with AZL-M 40 mg versus valsartan (-22.5 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .184). Mean reduction in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (n = 257) was significantly greater with both AZL-M 80 mg (-17.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and AZL-M 40 mg (-14.7 mm Hg; P = .014) than with valsartan (-9.4 mm Hg). Treatment-emergent adverse events had similar incidence (52.8%-56.5%) across the treatment groups and were generally mild or moderate. Dizziness was the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (AZL-M 80 mg, 1.9%; AZL-M 40 mg, 1.5%; valsartan, 1.0%). The safety and tolerability of AZL-M were comparable with valsartan.ConclusionsAZL-M was noninferior to valsartan at the 40-mg dose and superior to valsartan at the 80-mg dose in reducing trough scSBP, and showed acceptable safety-consistent with the AZL-M safety profile in other populations-in Chinese adults with hypertension.Trial registration numberNCT02480764.

Dataset Information

Effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared with olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared with olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets