The European Medicines Agency's approval of new medicines for type 2 diabetes.

Since 2005, more than 40 new medicines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been introduced on the market. These consist of 15 new active substances establishing three new classes of non-insulin products, and several new or modified insulin products and combinations. The approval of these products in Europe is regulated via the centralized procedure at the European Medicines Agency. Demonstration of benefit with regard to improved glucose control remains the principal outcome required from confirmatory studies to demonstrate efficacy. For the majority of these new medicines approved since 2005, cardiovascular outcome trials have now been completed, and have invariably supported the cardiovascular safety of these products. In some of these trials additional important benefits have been observed, for instance, a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and improvement of renal outcome. The existing regulatory framework and the continuous adaption of regulatory requirements to emerging developments will continue to guide the approval of new products in the future.

Implications of a clinical medication review and a pharmaceutical care plan of polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder.

Background A clinical medication review, including patient involvement, is expected to improve pharmaceutical care. Objective To determine whether a clinical medication review followed by a pharmaceutical care plan decreases the number of potential drug-related problems (DRPs) and pharmaceutical care issues (PCIs) and leads to a positive effect on relevant clinical and laboratory parameters for elderly cardiovascular patients with multiple drug use. Setting Randomized controlled trial in eight primary care settings in the Netherlands. Method Elderly polypharmacy patients with a cardiovascular disorder were randomized into two groups. Intervention patients received a clinical medication review, followed by a pharmaceutical care plan developed in cooperation between these patients' pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs), and agreed to by the patients. Control patients received care as usual. Patient data were collected at the start of the study (t = 0) and after 1-year follow-up (t = 1). Main outcome measure Decrease in potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs, improvement of clinical and laboratory parameters. Results 512 patients were included. An average of 2.2 potential DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs were defined per patient in the intervention group. After 1-year follow-up, 47.2 % of potential DRPs and PCIs were resolved. In total, 156 care interventions were proposed (0.9/patient), 108 of which were implemented after 1 year (69.2 %). For control-group patients, a total of 47 proposed care interventions were documented for 255 patients (0.2/patient); after 1 year, 43 had been implemented (91.5 %). The study intervention (p < 0.001) and the number of medicines used (p = 0.030) had a significant effect on the number of interventions proposed. Small biochemical changes in cardiovascular risk factors did occur, but the differences were small and not considered clinically relevant. Conclusion The integrated use of a clinical medication review with a pharmaceutical care plan in a primary care setting supports the detection of and decrease in DRPs and pharmaceutical PCIs in almost half of the patients. Its benefit in terms of control of cardiovascular risk factors and safety parameters was relatively low. Risk stratification might be necessary to decide which patients might benefit most from this type of intervention.

Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives.

AIMS: To compare the values regulators attach to different drug effects of oral antidiabetic drugs with those of doctors and patients. METHODS: We administered a 'discrete choice' survey to regulators, doctors and patients with type 2 diabetes in The Netherlands. Eighteen choice sets comparing two hypothetical oral antidiabetic drugs were constructed with varying drug effects on glycated haemoglobin, cardiovascular risk, bodyweight, duration of gastrointestinal complaints, frequency of hypoglycaemia and risk of bladder cancer. Responders were asked each time which drug they preferred. RESULTS: Fifty-two regulators, 175 doctors and 226 patients returned the survey. Multinomial conditional logit analyses showed that cardiovascular risk reduction was valued by regulators positively (odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.11-3.53), whereas drug choices were negatively affected by persistent gastrointestinal problems (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.41) and cardiovascular risk increase (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.87). Doctors and patients valued these effects in a similar manner to regulators. The values that doctors attached to large changes in glycated haemoglobin and that both doctors and patients attached to hypoglycaemia and weight gain also reached statistical significance. No group's drug choice was affected by a small absolute change in risk of bladder cancer when presented in the context of other drug effects. When comparing the groups, the value attached by regulators to less frequent hypoglycaemic episodes was significantly smaller than by patients (P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Regulators may value major benefits and risks of drugs for an individual diabetes patient mostly in the same way as doctors and patients, but differences may exist regarding the value of minor or short-term drug effects.

Post-approval safety issues with innovative drugs: a European cohort study.

BACKGROUND: At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation. METHODS: A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation. RESULTS: In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively. CONCLUSION: A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.

The Additional Value of an E-Mail to Inform Healthcare Professionals of a Drug Safety Issue: A Randomized Controlled Trial in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The usefulness and the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs, or 'Dear Doctor letters') in changing the clinical behaviour of physicians have been debated. Changes in the current risk communication methods should preferably be based on the preferences of the healthcare professionals, to optimize the uptake of the message. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess whether safety issues are communicated more effectively with an additional e-mail sent by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than with the DHPC only. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted amongst ophthalmologists and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands, who were the target group of a DHPC that was issued for pegaptanib, a drug that is administered intra-ocularly in patients with macular degeneration. The intervention group (N = 110) received the pegaptanib DHPC, as well as the MEB e-mail. The control group (N = 105) received the traditional paper-based DHPC only. Two weeks later, the study population received an invitation to fill out an online questionnaire. Questions were asked about the respondents' knowledge and attitude regarding the pegaptanib issue, and any action they had consequently taken. Additional questions were asked about their satisfaction with the DHPC and the e-mail, and their preferred source of such information. RESULTS: Forty respondents (18.6%) completed the questionnaire. Eighty-one percent of the respondents in the intervention group (N = 21) and 47% of the control group (N = 19) correctly indicated that a serious increase in intra-ocular pressure could be caused by pegaptanib injections (Fishers' exact test, p = 0.046). Nine respondents in the intervention group versus none of the control group respondents indicated that they had taken action in response to the pegaptanib safety issue (Fishers' exact test, p = 0.01). The majority of both the intervention group and the control group confirmed that they would like to receive an MEB e-mail with safety information about drugs in the future (90 and 95 %, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that an additional e-mail might strengthen the uptake of the safety information provided to healthcare professionals, who prefer to receive an e-mail from the MEB as a source of such information, as well as the DHPC. This study may serve as a starting point for new strategies to improve risk communication regarding safety issues associated with drugs and its impact on prescribing.

Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a survey among experts in the European regulatory network.

BACKGROUND: Experts are perceived to be veridical and to focus only on objective data when evaluating risk. Only a few research studies have attempted to characterize the subjectivity in risk evaluation among experts. OBJECTIVE: The hypothesis of this study is that expert evaluation of a pharmaceutical drug can be partly explained by dimensions that describe the drug and by individual characteristics. DESIGN: Seventy-five medical assessors in 9 EU countries evaluated a list of 28 pharmaceutical drugs using 4 scales: risk, benefit, seriousness of harm, and patients' knowledge of the risk. They were also given a mock "clinical dossier" and asked to rate it on 8 dimensions: risk, benefit, worry, magnitude of the exposure, scientific knowledge of the risk, familiarity of the risk, ethical concerns, and risk acceptability. RESULTS: Female assessors perceived significantly higher benefits than men for a large number of the 28 drugs. Principal component analysis of the ratings for the clinical dossiers revealed 2 underlying components: seriousness of harm and scientific evidence. A regression model predicting the risk perception of the drug showed that the variables seriousness of harm (benefit, worry, magnitude of exposure, ethical concerns, and risk acceptability), years of regulatory experience, gender, and type of drug explained 54% of the variability among assessors. CONCLUSION: Assessors' view of the risks associated with pharmaceutical drugs is influenced by worry for patient safety, magnitude of patient exposure, and ethical concerns. These dimensions may influence their perceptions of benefit and risk acceptability. Senior assessors are more risk averse than junior assessors, and female assessors seem to be sensitive to the promise of benefit from medicines and consequently may be less risk averse than male assessors.

Healthcare professionals' self-reported experiences and preferences related to direct healthcare professional communications: a survey conducted in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) are important tools to inform healthcare professionals of serious, new drug safety issues. However, this tool has not always been successful in effectively communicating the desired actions to healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore healthcare providers' experiences and their preferences for improvement of risk communication, comparing views of general practitioners (GPs), internists, community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and pilot tested to assess experiences and preferences of Dutch healthcare professionals with DHPCs. The questionnaire and two reminders were sent to a random sample of 3488 GPs, internists and community and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands. Descriptive statistics were used to describe demographic characteristics of the respondents. Chi squares, ANOVAs and the Wilcoxon signed rank test were used, when appropriate, to compare healthcare professional groups. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 34% (N = 1141, ranging from 24% for internists to 46% for community pharmacists). Healthcare providers trusted safety information more when provided by the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) than by the pharmaceutical industry. This was more the case for GPs than for the other healthcare professionals. Respondents preferred safety information to be issued by the MEB, the Dutch Pharmacovigilance Center or their own professional associations. The preferred alternative channels of drug safety information were e-mail, medical journals and electronic prescribing systems. CONCLUSIONS: Safety information of drugs does not always reach healthcare professionals through DHPCs. To improve current risk communication of drug safety issues, alternative and/or additional methods of risk communication should be developed using electronic methods and medical journals. Moreover, (additional) risk communication coming from an independent source such as the MEB should be considered. Special effort is needed to reach GPs.

Impact of safety-related regulatory action on clinical practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: After market approval, new serious safety issues are regularly identified for drugs that lead to regulatory action to inform healthcare professionals. However, the effectiveness of these safety-related regulatory actions is under question. We currently lack a comprehensive overview of the effects of these drug safety warnings on clinical practice to resolve the debate about their effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of studies that assessed the impact of safety warnings. STUDY SELECTION: A systematic search was performed for articles assessing the impact of Direct Healthcare Professional Communications or 'Dear Doctor' letters, Black Box Warnings and Public Health Advisories on clinical behaviour published between January 1996 and January 2010. The following variables were extracted: publication year, country, name of the drug, safety issue, specific safety warning (Direct Healthcare Professional Communication/Black Box Warning/Public Health Advisory), effect (intended/unintended) of the safety warning, outcome measure and study design. Papers were checked for several quality aspects. Study data were summarized using descriptive analyses. RESULTS: A total of 50 articles were identified. Two articles assessed two different drugs and were therefore counted twice (n = 52). Thirty-three articles described the impact of safety warnings issued for three drugs and drug groups, i.e. third-generation oral contraceptives, cisapride and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The remaining 19 articles described a broad variety of 14 drugs and drug groups. Twenty-five studies applied an interrupted time series design, 23 a controlled or uncontrolled before/after design, and four articles applied both. None of the articles could rule out the influence of confounding factors. The intended effects were reported in 18 (72%) of the 25 before/after analyses, whereas only 11 (41%) of the 27 interrupted time series analyses reported an impact. Only two (8%) of the before/after analyses against 11 (41%) of the interrupted time series analyses reported mixed impacts. When unintended effects were assessed in case of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and third-generation oral contraceptives, these were almost always present: in 19 of 22 and 4 of 5 articles, respectively. Our review shows that safety-related regulatory action can have some impact on clinical practice but firm conclusions are difficult to draw. Evidence is primarily based on three drugs and drug groups. Almost half of the studies had inadequate before/after designs and the heterogeneity in analyses and outcome measures hampered the reporting of overall effect sizes. Studies with adequate interrupted time series design reported a more mixed impact of safety warnings than before/after studies. Furthermore, this review shows the relevance of considering not only the intended but also the unintended effects of safety warnings. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need for further research with appropriate study designs and statistical analyses, with more attention to confounding factors such as media coverage, to understand the impact of safety-related regulatory action.

Moderation of dietary sodium potentiates the renal and cardiovascular protective effects of angiotensin receptor blockers.

Dietary sodium restriction has been shown to enhance the short-term response of blood pressure and albuminuria to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Whether this also enhances the long-term renal and cardiovascular protective effects of ARBs is unknown. Here we conducted a post-hoc analysis of the RENAAL and IDNT trials to test this in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy randomized to ARB or non-renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (non-RAASi)-based antihypertensive therapy. Treatment effects on renal and cardiovascular outcomes were compared in subgroups based on dietary sodium intake during treatment, measured as the 24-h urinary sodium/creatinine ratio of 1177 patients with available 24-h urinary sodium measurements. ARB compared to non-RAASi-based therapy produced the greatest long-term effects on renal and cardiovascular events in the lowest tertile of sodium intake. Compared to non-RAASi, the trend in risk for renal events was significantly reduced by 43%, not changed, or increased by 37% for each tertile of increased sodium intake, respectively. The trend for cardiovascular events was significantly reduced by 37%, increased by 2% and 25%, respectively. Thus, treatment effects of ARB compared with non-RAASi-based therapy on renal and cardiovascular outcomes were greater in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy with lower than higher dietary sodium intake. This underscores the avoidance of excessive sodium intake, particularly in type 2 diabetic patients receiving ARB therapy.

Effect of safety issues with HIV drugs on the approval process of other drugs in the same class: an analysis of European Public Assessment Reports.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge on the safety of new medicines is limited at the time of market entry. Nearly half of all drugs used to treat HIV registered in the EU required ≥1 Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC) in the past 10 years for safety issues identified post-approval. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the extent to which regulators and industry have addressed the risk of safety issues for HIV drugs based on prior experience with other drugs in the same class and whether doing so impacts development time of these drugs. METHODS: HIV drugs receiving ≥1 DHPC in the Netherlands between January 1999 and December 2008 were identified. Each drug with a DHPC ('index' drug) was paired with subsequently approved HIV drug(s) in the same class (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] 4th level) ['follow-on' drugs]. Characteristics of safety issues were extracted from the DHPCs of the 'index' drugs. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were reviewed regarding whether the safety issues had been considered during development and approval. Consideration of previously identified safety issues in 'follow-on' drug applications was assessed regarding attention paid to adverse drug reaction (ADR) symptoms in pre-marketing studies, Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and postmarketing commitments, and whether size of the safety population was in accordance with Regulatory guidelines. 'Index' drugs were also paired with drugs in the same class already on the market ('older' drugs). For 'older' drugs, we identified whether the safety issue led to appropriate changes in the current SmPC (January 2011) compared with the SmPC at the time of marketing authorization. Clinical development time was assessed using time from first patent application to market authorization as proxy, and comparison was made between 'index' and 'follow-on' drugs. RESULTS: For 9 (43%) of the 21 centrally authorized HIV drugs, 11 serious safety issues that required a DHPC were identified. Two drugs were excluded from our analysis (DHPCs related to contamination/medication error). Six 'index' drugs were paired, each with one to six 'follow-on' drugs. Three concerned drug-drug interactions (DDIs); the other three were intracranial haemorrhage, neuromuscular weakness and severe skin/hepatic reactions. All but one 'follow-on' drug had information in the EPAR on that specific ADR (i.e. attention was paid to the ADR). The DDIs were addressed in pre-marketing studies and/or the SmPC. Two of the other ADRs were addressed by postmarketing surveillance commitments; intracranial haemorrhage was not addressed. Three safety issues for two 'index' drugs could not be paired with a 'follow-on' drug as no drug in the same class was approved after the corresponding DHPCs were issued. Five of the nine safety issues were added to at least one of the current SmPCs for the 'older' drugs already on the market at the time of DHPC issue. Two safety issues were already in the SmPC of the 'older' drugs at time of market approval and two were not introduced into the SmPC of 'older' drugs. Population size to assess short-term safety complied with the guidelines for four 'index', seven 'follow-on' and three 'older' drugs; population size to assess long-term safety complied for one, three and two drugs, respectively. For five drugs, EPARs did not provide adequate information on population size. No statistically significant difference in development time between 'index' and 'follow-on' drugs was found. CONCLUSION: Generally, safety issues were taken into account in the approval process of other drugs in the class. The approaches were different and determined by the nature of the ADR. Taking safety issues into account in the approval process did not seem to impact on the time taken to perform the pre-approval clinical programme.

Regulatory pathways for development of antiarrhythmic drugs for management of atrial fibrillation/flutter.

New antiarrhythmic drugs are urgently required for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), an increasingly common sustained cardiac arrhythmia seen predominantly in the elderly population. Pharmaceutical companies are generally interested in this important group of patients and a relatively large number of antiarrhythmic agents are under development for several indications relating to AF, predominantly rhythm and rate management. Because of the significant clinical consequences of the arrhythmia, it has been recognized that controlled trials in patients with AF should assess the effect of therapy in several major outcome domains such as mortality, morbidity, and hospitalization, with an emphasis on stroke and heart failure. As part of a regular series of meetings, the European Society of Cardiology recently met with European regulators and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry to review the current status of medical therapies for AF. Special attention has been paid to the debate on the relevant clinical endpoints in future AF trials and their implications for drug indications. The need for large-scale major cardiovascular outcome and comparator studies for the approval of drugs designed to manage rhythm and/or control the rate has been discussed. The requirements for appropriate ancillary studies, including quality of life and left ventricular function assessment and cost-effectiveness analysis, have been identified. This article reports the discussions that were held.

An acute fall in estimated glomerular filtration rate during treatment with losartan predicts a slower decrease in long-term renal function.

Intervention in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) is associated with slowing the progressive loss of renal function. During initiation of therapy, however, there may be an acute fall in glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We tested whether this initial fall in GFR reflects a renal hemodynamic effect and whether this might result in a slower decline in long-term renal function. We performed a post hoc analysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial. Patients assigned to losartan had a significantly greater acute fall in estimated (eGFR) during the first 3 months compared to patients assigned to placebo, but a significantly slower long-term mean decline of eGFR thereafter. A large interindividual difference, however, was noticed in the acute eGFR change. When patients were divided into tertiles of initial fall in eGFR, the long-term eGFR slope calculated from baseline was significantly higher in patients with an initial fall compared to those with an initial rise. When eGFR decline was calculated from 3 months to the final visit, excluding the initial effect, patients with a large initial fall in eGFR had a significant lower long-term eGFR slope compared to those with a moderate fall or rise. This relationship was independent of other risk markers or change in risk markers for progression of renal disease such as blood pressure and albuminuria. Thus, the greater the acute fall in eGFR, during losartan treatment, the slower the rate of long-term eGFR decline. Hence, interpretation of trial results relying on slope-based GFR outcomes should separate the initial drug-induced GFR change from the subsequent long-term effect on GFR.

Additional safety risk to exceptionally approved drugs in Europe?

AIMS: Regulatory requirements for new drugs have increased. Special approval procedures with priority assessment are possible for drugs with clear 'unmet medical need'. We question whether these Exceptional Circumstances (EC) or Conditional Approval (CA) procedures have led to a higher probability of serious safety issues. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed of new drugs approved in Europe between 1999 and 2009. The determinant was EC/CA vs. standard procedure approval. Outcome variables were frequency and timing of a first Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC). An association between approval procedure and the time from market approval to DHPC was assessed using Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis and Cox-regression to correct for covariates. RESULTS: In total 289 new drugs were approved. Forty-six (16.4%) were approved under EC or CA, of which seven received a DHPC (15%). This was similar to the standard approval drugs (243), of which 33 received one or more DHPC (14%, P= 0.77). The probability of acquiring a DHPC for standard approval drugs vs. EC/CA drugs during 11-year follow-up is 22% (95% CI 14%, 29%) and 26% (95% CI 8%, 44%), respectively (log-rank P= 0.726). This difference remained not significant in the Cox-regression model: hazard ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.40, 2.20). Only drug type was identified as a confounding covariate. CONCLUSION: The EC/CA procedure is not associated with a higher probability of DHPCs despite limited clinical development data. These data do not support the view that early drug approval increases the risk of serious safety issues emerging after market approval.

Albuminuria and blood pressure, independent targets for cardioprotective therapy in patients with diabetes and nephropathy: a post hoc analysis of the combined RENAAL and IDNT trials.

AIMS: The long-term cardioprotective effect of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is associated with the short-term lowering of its primary target blood pressure, but also with the lowering of albuminuria. Since the individual blood pressure and albuminuria response to an ARB varies between and within an individual, we tested whether the variability and discordance in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and albuminuria response to ARB therapy are associated with its long-term effect on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The combined data of the RENAAL and IDNT trials were used. We first investigated the extent of variability and discordance in SBP and albuminuria response (baseline to 6 months). Subsequently, we assessed the combined impact of residual Month 6 SBP and albuminuria level with cardiovascular outcome. In ARB-treated patients, 421 patients (34.5%) either had a reduction in SBP but no reduction in albuminuria, or vice versa, indicating substantial discordance in response in these parameters. The initial reduction in SBP and albuminuria independently correlated with cardiovascular protection: HR per 5 mmHg SBP reduction 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.99) and HR per decrement log albuminuria 0.87 (95% CI 0.76-0.99). Across all SBP categories at Month 6, a progressively lower cardiovascular risk was observed with a lower albuminuria level. This was particularly evident in patients who reached the guideline recommended SBP target of ≤130 mmHg. CONCLUSION: The SBP and albuminuria response to ARB therapy is variable and discordant. Therapies intervening in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the aim of improving cardiovascular outcomes may therefore require a dual approach targeting both blood pressure and albuminuria.