Phase II randomized sham-controlled study of renal denervation for individuals with uncontrolled hypertension - WAVE IV.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled study was to verify the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of externally delivered focused ultrasound for renal denervation (RDN). BACKGROUND: Nonrandomized, first proof-of-concept study and experimental evidence suggested that noninvasive techniques of RDN emerged as an alternative approach of RDN to invasive technologies. METHODS: WAVE IV, an international, randomized (1 : 1) sham-controlled, double-blind prospective clinical study, was prematurely stopped. Patients were enrolled if office BP was at least 160 mmHg and 24-h ambulatory BP was at least 135 mmHg, while taking three or more antihypertensive medications. The treatment consisted of bilateral RDN using therapeutic levels of ultrasound energy and the sham consisted of bilateral application of diagnostic levels of ultrasound energy. RESULTS: In the 81 treated patients neither changes in office BP at 12 and 24 weeks, nor changes in 24-h ambulatory BP at 24-week follow-up visit differed between the two groups significantly. Of note, no safety signal was observed. Adherence analysis disclosed full adherence in 77% at baseline and 82% at 6 months' follow-up visit. Post hoc analysis revealed that stricter criteria for stabilization of BP at baseline were associated with a numerically greater change in 24-h ambulatory BP in the RDN group than in the sham group. CONCLUSION: Our data did not prove that antihypertensive efficacy of the externally delivered focused ultrasound for RDN was greater than the sham effect. Stabilization of BP at baseline was identified as an important determinant of BP changes.

Azilsartan compared to ACE inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy: one-year outcomes of the observational EARLY registry.

BACKGROUND: Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), has been demonstrated to be more effective than the other sartans currently in use; however, there is insufficient information available comparing it with ACE-inhibitors. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AZL-M with that of ACE-inhibitors in a real life clinical setting. METHODS: The EARLY registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicentre registry with a follow-up period of 12 months. There were two principal objectives: 1) documentation of the achievement of target BP values set according to recent national and international guidelines, and 2) description of the safety profile of AZL-M. RESULTS: A total of 3 849 patients with essential arterial hypertension were recruited from primary care offices in Germany. Patients who initiated monotherapy at baseline comprising either AZL-M or an ACE-inhibitor were included at a ratio of seven to three. Results demonstrated that a blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg was achieved by a significantly greater proportion of patients in the AZL-M group (61.1 %) compared with the ACE-inhibitor group (56.4 %; p < 0.05; OR, 1.21; 95 % CI, 1.03-1.42), with this finding maintained after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. AZL-M appeared to have an equivalent safety profile to the ACE-inhibitors, with a similar incidence of adverse events in the two patient groups (p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: These data add to the results of previous randomized controlled clinical trials suggesting that, compared with other agents that target the renin-angiotensin system, AZL-M provides statistically significant albeit small improvements in blood pressure control.

The renin-angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in clinical trials versus routine practice: insights from the prospective EARLY registry.

BACKGROUND: Patient characteristics and blood pressure-related outcomes in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) differ from clinical practice because of stringent selection criteria. The present study aimed to explore the relationship between clinical trials and clinical practice. We analyzed data from patients enrolled in the "Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy" (EARLY) registry comparing blood pressure (BP) effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril between patients who met the eligibility criteria of a previous RCT and those who did not. METHODS: Patients with primary arterial hypertension were consecutively enrolled from primary care offices in Germany into the EARLY registry in a 7:3 ratio for treatment with AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor, provided that they met the following criteria at baseline: 1) no antihypertensive treatment prior to inclusion or a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) based monotherapy; 2) initiation of treatment with either AZL-M or an ACE inhibitor alone. Analyses were performed to evaluate BP effects for patients in the EARLY registry who met the selection criteria of a prior RCT (RCT+) versus those who did not (RCT-). RESULTS: Out of 3,698 patients considered, 1,644 complied with the RCT criteria (RCT+) while 2,054 did not (RCT-). RCT- patients (55.5%) displayed a higher risk profile in terms of age and comorbidities, and a wider spectrum of BP values at baseline, as highlighted by the grades of hypertension and mean BP values. The proportion of patients who achieved target blood pressure control in the RCT+ group was significantly higher for AZL-M versus ramipril (64.1 versus 56.1%; P<0.01), in accordance with the result of the clinical trial. In the RCT- AZL-M group, the proportion of patients who met BP targets was lower (58.1%) than in the RCT+ AZL-M group (64.1%), whereas the proportion of patients with target BP values in the RCT- ramipril and the RCT+ ramipril groups was similar (57.7 versus 56.1%). Thus, in contrast to results for the RCT+ group, in the RCT- group, the target BP attainment rate for AZL-M was not significantly superior to that for ramipril. However, the tolerability profile of AZL-M and ramipril was comparable in both populations. At the 12-month follow-up, death and stroke rates were low (≤0.5%) and adverse events did not differ between the AZL-M and ramipril groups, irrespective of RCT eligibility. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that the EARLY population comprised a broader spectrum of hypertensive patients than RCTs, and the differences in patient characteristics were accompanied by disparate rates of blood pressure goal attainment. Overall, the validity of the RCT was demonstrated and confirmed in clinical practice with a broader range of patients with various comorbidities.

Patients With Newly Diagnosed Hypertension Treated With the Renin Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Azilsartan Medoxomil vs Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors: The Prospective EARLY Registry.

For patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are usually the first-line therapies. There is, however, no real-life data regarding the relative clinical effectiveness and tolerability of either drug class. The prospective registry, Treatment With Azilsartan Compared to ACE Inhibitors in Antihypertensive Therapy (EARLY), was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the ARB azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) vs ACE inhibitors in real-world patients. Of the 1153 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension who were included in the registry, 789 were prescribed AZL-M and 364 were prescribed an ACE inhibitor. After multivariate adjustment, AZL-M was found to provide superior blood pressure reduction and better target blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) achievement. The proportion of patients with adverse events was not statistically different between groups. The authors conclude that in newly diagnosed hypertensive patients, AZL-M provides superior blood pressure control with a similar safety profile compared with ACE inhibitors.

EARLY Treatment with azilsartan compared to ACE-inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy--rationale and design of the EARLY hypertension registry.

BACKGROUND: Arterial hypertension is highly prevalent but poorly controlled. Blood pressure (BP) reduction substantially reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Recent randomized, double-blind clinical trials demonstrated that azilsartan medoxomil (AZM) is more effective in reducing BP than the ubiquitary ACE inhibitor ramipril. Therefore, we aimed to test whether these can be verified under clinical practice conditions. METHODS/DESIGN: The "Treatment with Azilsartan Compared to ACE-Inhibitors in Anti-Hypertensive Therapy" (EARLY) registry is a prospective, observational, national, multicenter registry with a follow-up of up to 12 months. It will include up to 5000 patients on AZM or ACE-inhibitor monotherapy in a ratio of 7 to 3. A subgroup of patients will undergo 24-hour BP monitoring. EARLY has two co-primary objectives: 1) Description of the safety profile of azilsartan and 2) achievement of BP targets based on recent national and international guidelines for patients treated with azilsartan in comparison to those treated with ACE-inhibitors. The most important secondary endpoints are the determination of persistence with treatment and the documentation of cardiovascular and renal events. Recruitment commenced in January 2012 and will be completed by February 2013. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained will supplement previous results from randomized controlled trials to document the potential value of utilizing azilsartan medoxomil in comparison to ACE-inhibitor treatment for target BP achievement in clinical practice.

Introducing candesartan 32 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg in previously untreated patients with severe essential hypertension.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of candesartan 32 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg combination in patients with severe essential hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, single-group study, 106 previously untreated patients with a baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 150-200 mmHg, and a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 110 to 120 mmHg, started with candesartan 16 mg during the first week. HCTZ 12.5 mg was added at week 2 and from fourth week onwards candesartan 32 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg was given over 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean reduction in SBP and DBP after 9 weeks. Response was defined as a decrease in SBP to <140 mmHg and/or by ≥20 mmHg and in DBP to <90 mmHg and/or by ≥10 mmHg. A second response criterion defined blood pressure reduction below 140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Blood pressure was lowered from 180.0 ± 11.7/114.7 ± 3.1 mmHg by SBP 44.4 ± 16.8 and DBP 32.0 ± 11.3 mmHg (P < 0.0001). Response was 92.4% and 64.8% achieved <140/90 mmHg. Each titration step produced a statistically significant and clinically relevant decrease in SBP and DBP, but a level below 140/90 mmHg was achieved by >50% of the patients only after the third titration step. Adverse reactions were reported by 3.8% of the patients. The disorders were in line with the known safety profile of the study drugs. CONCLUSION: A stepped treatment approach with candesartan/HCTZ combinations is effective and safe to achieve a swift blood pressure reduction in newly diagnosed, severe hypertension. The target of <140/90 mmHg was reached by >50% of the patients only after taking the full dose of candesartan 32 mg and HCTZ 25 mg.

Combination therapy with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide at doses up to 320/25 mg improves blood pressure levels in patients with hypertension inadequately controlled by valsartan 320 mg monotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of valsartan (Val) 320 mg once daily (o.d.), Val/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 320/12.5 mg o.d. and Val/HCTZ 320/25 mg o.d. in patients with hypertension not adequately controlled by Val monotherapy. METHODS: This double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, randomized trial recruited patients > or =18 years with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, defined as mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) of > or =95 mmHg and <110 mmHg without treatment. After washout, 3805 eligible patients received Val 320 mg o.d. single-blind for 4 weeks. Subsequently, patients with MSDBP > or =90 and <110 mmHg (n=2702) were randomized to double-blind treatment with Val 320 mg, Val/HCTZ 320/12.5 mg or Val/HCTZ 320/25 mg for 8 weeks. Mean changes in MSDBP and mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) from the start of the single-blind period were analysed, as well as the proportion of responders (MSDBP <90 mmHg or > or =10 mmHg decrease from the start of the double-blind period). Tolerability and safety were also assessed. RESULTS: Reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP were observed in all groups. Both combinations were associated with significantly greater reductions than monotherapy for MSDBP and MSSBP at Weeks 8 and 12 (all p<0.0001). Both combinations also resulted in significantly greater proportion of responders at study end (74.9% and 68.8% for Val/HCTZ 320/25 mg and Val/HCTZ 320/12.5 mg, respectively) than monotherapy (52.7%; both p < 0.0001). In addition, a dose-response was observed with increasing dose of HCTZ with respect to MSSBP. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The combination ofVal and HCTZ at doses of 320/12.5 mg and 320/25 mg increases antihypertensive efficacy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension inadequately controlled with Val 320 mg monotherapy, without compromising tolerability.

Functional and structural profiling of the human thrombopoietin gene promoter.

Human thrombopoietin (TPO) is involved in cardiovascular disease as it regulates megakaryocyte development and enhances platelet adhesion/aggregation. The THPO promoter structure is still controversial. By reverse transcription-PCR, we confirm that THPO transcription is cell line-dependently initiated at two alternative promoters, which we newly designated P1a and P1. We subsequently electrophoretically scanned and resequenced these portions in 95 and 57 patients with cardiovascular disease, respectively, and identified seven variants (-1450/del58bp, C-920T [rs2855306], A-622G, C-413T [rs885838], C+5A, G+115A, and C+135T). After subcloning of 1032 bp of THPO P1 in pGL3-basic vector, five molecular haplotypes (MolHaps1-5) were observed: [A(-622)-C(-413)-C(+5)-G(+115); wild type (wt)], [A(-622)-T(-413)-C(+5)-G(+115)], [G(-622)-T(-413)-C(+5)-G(+115)], [A(-622)-C(-413)-A(+5)-G(+115)], [A(-622)-C(-413)-C(+5)-A(+115)], and analyzed in reporter gene assays in HEK293T and HepG2 cells. MolHaps 2, 4, and 5 were significantly more active than wt (all p values < or =0.01) in HEK293T cells, MolHap3 exerted a substantial loss of promoter activity (p < 0.0001 in HEK293T and p < 0.01 in HepG2, compared with wt). Electrophoretic mobility shift assays revealed that A-622G and C-413T individually differed from MolHaps in their DNA-protein interaction patterns. Supershift and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays identified CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein delta as the binding protein exclusively for the -622A allelic portion.