Comparative effect of fixed-dose combination tablets of candesartan cilexetil/amlodipine versus olmesartan medoxomil/azelnidipine on laboratory parameters in patients with hypertension: a retrospective cohort study.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate and compare the long-term effects of two single-pill fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), candesartan/amlodipine and olmesartan/azelnidipine, on laboratory parameters in patients in routine clinical practice. We identified an equal number of new users (n = 182) of a candesartan/amlodipine (8/5 mg/day) FDC tablet (CAN/AML users) and a propensity-score matched cohort (n = 182) receiving an olmesartan/azelnidipine (20/16 mg/day) FDC tablet (OLM/AZ users). Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate and compare the effects of the drugs on serum levels of creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), uric acid, sodium, potassium, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase levels up to 12 months after the start of study drug administration. There was a significant increase of serum creatinine level and a significant decrease of eGFR from the baseline period to during the exposure period in both CAN/AML and OLM/AZ users, and a significant increase of BUN level in CAN/AML users. However, there were no significant differences in the mean changes of laboratory parameters between CAN/AML and OLM/AZ users. Our findings suggested that the effects of CAN/AML and OLM/AZ on laboratory parameters, including an unfavorable effect on renal function, were similar at least during 1 year of administration.

Comparative effect of angiotensin II type I receptor blockers on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARB) are a frequently used class of antihypertensive drug. The ARB losartan is known to decrease the serum uric acid (SUA) level. However, there are very few clinical data comparing the effects of other ARBs on SUA level under the conditions of clinical practice. This study evaluated and compared the long-term effects of monotherapy with five ARBs on SUA level in Japanese hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We identified hypertensive patients with type 2 DM who had been treated with monotherapy with losartan (n = 214), valsartan (n = 266), telmisartan (n = 185), candesartan (n = 458), or olmesartan (n = 192), in whom laboratory data of SUA between November 1, 2004 and July 31, 2011 were available, from the Nihon University School of Medicine's Clinical Data Warehouse (NUSM's CDW). We used a propensity-score weighting method and a multivariate regression model to adjust for differences in the background among ARB users, and compared the SUA level. The mean exposure of losartan was 264.7 days, valsartan 245.3 days, telmisartan 235.9 days, candesartan 248.9 days, and olmesartan 234.5 days. RESULTS: In losartan users, mean SUA level was significantly decreased from baseline, while it was conversely increased in users of other ARBs; valsartan, telmisartan, candesartan, and olmesartan. The mean reduction of SUA level from baseline was significantly greater in losartan users compared with that in other ARB users. Comparison of ARBs other than losartan showed no significant difference in mean change in SUA level from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that losartan had the most beneficial effect on SUA level among five ARBs, and that there was no significant difference in the unfavorable effects on SUA level among four ARBs other than losartan, at least during one year. These findings provide evidence of an effect of ARBs on SUA level, and support the benefit of the use of losartan in hypertensive patients with type 2 DM.

Clinical significance of portal venous metallic stent placement in recurrent periampullary cancers.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We evaluate the clinical significance of portal venous expandable metallic stent (EMS) placement for patients who have malignant portal hypertension caused by recurrent periampullary cancer. METHODOLOGY: Four post-pancreatoduodenectomy patients underwent percutaneous transhepatic portal venous EMS placement because of symptoms of malignant portal hypertension: intractable ascites (2/4), growth of abnormal collateral vein (3/4), melena (2/4), gastroesophageal varix (3/4) and thrombocytopenia (2/4). They were diagnosed with having a recurrence by cytology of ascitis, computed tomography and/or tumor markers in serum. The stenosis segment was measured by percutaneous-transhepatic portography and was dilated with a balloon prestent placement. The patency of stent was confirmed using Doppler ultrasonography and enhanced computed tomography at least once a month. RESULTS: The portal venous pressure was significantly decreased from (24.5 +/- 3.92 mmH2O) to (19.5 +/- 3.87 mmH2O) and the symptoms related to portal hypertension were reduced in all patients. There were no complications related to EMS placement. All patients were alive more than a year later and two of four patients were alive more than two years without morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous-transhepatic portal EMS placement is a minimally invasive procedure and is a useful treatment against malignant portal hypertension caused by recurrent periampullary cancer.