INTELLANCE 2/EORTC 1410 randomized phase II study of Depatux-M alone and with temozolomide vs temozolomide or lomustine in recurrent EGFR amplified glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M) is a tumor-specific antibody-drug conjugate consisting of an antibody (ABT-806) directed against activated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and the toxin monomethylauristatin-F. We investigated Depatux-M in combination with temozolomide or as a single agent in a randomized controlled phase II trial in recurrent EGFR amplified glioblastoma. METHODS: Eligible were patients with centrally confirmed EGFR amplified glioblastoma at first recurrence after chemo-irradiation with temozolomide. Patients were randomized to either Depatux-M 1.25 mg/kg every 2 weeks intravenously, or this treatment combined with temozolomide 150-200 mg/m2 day 1-5 every 4 weeks, or either lomustine or temozolomide. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty patients were randomized. In the primary efficacy analysis with 199 events (median follow-up 15.0 mo), the hazard ratio (HR) for the combination arm compared with the control arm was 0.71 (95% CI = 0.50, 1.02; P = 0.062). The efficacy of Depatux-M monotherapy was comparable to that of the control arm (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.73, 1.48; P = 0.83). The most frequent toxicity in Depatux-M treated patients was a reversible corneal epitheliopathy, occurring as grades 3-4 adverse events in 25-30% of patients. In the long-term follow-up analysis with median follow-up of 28.7 months, the HR for the comparison of the combination arm versus the control arm was 0.66 (95% CI = 0.48, 0.93). CONCLUSION: This trial suggests a possible role for the use of Depatux-M in combination with temozolomide in EGFR amplified recurrent glioblastoma, especially in patients relapsing well after the end of first-line adjuvant temozolomide treatment. (NCT02343406).

Combination of niacin extended-release and simvastatin results in a less atherogenic lipid profile than atorvastatin monotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of combination niacin extended-release + simvastatin (NER/S) versus atorvastatin alone on apolipoproteins and lipid fractions in a post hoc analysis from SUPREME, a study which compared the lipid effects of niacin extended-release + simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with hyperlipidemia or mixed dyslipidemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 137) with dyslipidemia (not previously receiving statin therapy or having discontinued any lipid-altering treatment 4-5 weeks prior to the study) received NER/S (1000/40 mg/day for four weeks, then 2000/40 mg/day for eight weeks) or atorvastatin 40 mg/day for 12 weeks. Median percent changes in apolipoprotein (apo) A-1, apo B, and the apo B:A-I ratio, and nuclear magnetic resonance lipoprotein subclasses from baseline to week 12 were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: NER/S treatment produced significantly greater percent changes in apo A-I and apo B:A-I, and, at the final visit, apo B < 80 mg/dL was attained by 59% versus 33% of patients, compared with atorvastatin treatment (P = 0.003). NER/S treatment resulted in greater percent reductions in calculated particle numbers for low-density lipoprotein (LDL, 52% versus 43%; P = 0.022), small LDL (55% versus 45%; P = 0.011), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) and total chylomicrons (63% versus 39%; P < 0.001), and greater increases in particle size for LDL (2.7% versus 1.0%; P = 0.007) and VLDL (9.3% versus 0.1%; P < 0.001), compared with atorvastatin. CONCLUSION: NER/S treatment significantly improved apo A-I levels and the apo B:A-I ratio, significantly lowered the number of atherogenic LDL particles and VLDL and chylomicron particles, and increased the mean size of LDL and VLDL particles, compared with atorvastatin.

Acetylsalicylic acid reduces niacin extended-release-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Niacin extended-release (NER) is safe and effective for treatment of dyslipidemia. However, some patients discontinue NER treatment because of flushing, the most common adverse event associated with niacin therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of daily oral acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) on NER-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidemia. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, 5-week study was conducted (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00626392). Patients (n = 277) were randomly assigned to one of six treatment arms and received a 1-week run-in with ASA 325 mg or placebo followed by 4 weeks of ASA 325 mg or placebo 30 minutes before NER at a starting dose of 500 mg or 1000 mg; all patients were titrated to NER 2000 mg at week 3. The primary endpoint was the maximum severity of flushing events during week 1. RESULTS: In week 1, ASA run-in, ASA pretreatment, and a lower starting dosage of NER (500 mg/day) resulted in reductions in mean maximum severity of flushing; 48% fewer patients who received ASA experienced flushing episodes of moderate or greater intensity relative to placebo (absolute rates 15% vs 29%; p = 0.01). Over 4 weeks, ASA reduced the number of flushing episodes/patient/week by 42% relative to placebo. The discontinuation rate due to flushing was lower in the ASA group compared with placebo (1.8% vs 9.4%; p = 0.007). Overall safety was not different between groups. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that a clinically meaningful reduction in the severity and incidence of NER-induced flushing may be achieved with ASA use.

Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST): psychometric properties of a new measure assessing flushing symptoms and clinical impact of niacin therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A common adverse effect of niacin therapy is flushing, manifested by cutaneous warmth, redness, itching and/or tingling. The Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST) was developed to assess flushing symptoms and their impact on patients receiving niacin therapy. This study evaluated the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the FAST. The minimal important difference (MID) of the FAST was also examined. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group 8-week study conducted to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the FAST. The instrument is administered daily using an electronic patient diary. The study was conducted at 41 clinical sites in the US. 276 patients with dyslipidaemia were randomized to treatment and were at least 18 years of age, with fasting laboratory values of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <250 mg/dL and one of the following: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) <40 mg/dL for males or <50 mg/dL for females; or triglycerides (TG) > or = 150 and < or = 400 mg/dL; or LDL-C > or = 70 mg/dL for patients with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalents, or > or = 100 mg/dL for subjects with two risk factors, or > or = 160 mg/dL for subjects with 0-1 risk factors. Patients were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to receive niacin extended-release (NER) 500 mg/day in week 1, 1000 mg/day in week 2 and 2000 mg/day in weeks 3-6/aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]), NER/ASA placebo, or NER placebo/ASA placebo. RESULTS: FAST test-retest reliability in stable patients during the first 2 weeks was demonstrated for overall flushing severity using patient and physician overall treatment effect (OTE) ratings (intraclass correlation coefficients of >0.7 for mean overall and individual flushing severity scores). Over the 6-week treatment period, FAST scores demonstrated significant correlations with individual symptoms, impact on daily activities and sleep, and dissatisfaction related to flushing (p < 0.01). Changes in FAST scores were associated with treatment satisfaction (p < 0.01) and patient- and physician-rated OTE (p < 0.01). Using patient-rated OTE, the mean maximum flushing severity scores improved 1.85 points in responders and only 0.18 points in non-responders (p < 0.001); responders were defined by improved patient- or physician-rated OTE. Among patients with flushing, mean maximum overall flushing scores differed between patients who subsequently discontinued due to flushing (7.9 points) and those who did not discontinue (4.7 points; p < 0.001). The probable range in this study for a detectable change in flushing symptoms (MID) was 0.29-0.38 points for mean flushing severity and 0.66-0.86 points for maximum flushing severity. CONCLUSION: The FAST exhibited test-retest reliability, good evidence of construct validity, and, overall, flushing severity was responsive to change over time. The FAST is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the impact of niacin-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidaemia.

Selective aldosterone blockade with eplerenone reduces albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Previous studies have shown that the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone, in doses of up to 200 mg/d, reduces albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study was conducted to ascertain whether lower doses of eplerenone (50 or 100 mg/d) co-administered with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor enalapril would produce a similar antialbuminuric effect while obviating the hyperkalemia observed previously. After open-label run-in with enalapril 20 mg/d, patients with diabetes and a urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) > or = 50 mg/g were randomly assigned to receive enalapril plus one of three double-blind daily treatments for 12 wk: placebo, eplerenone 50 mg (EPL50), or eplerenone 100 mg (EPL100). After week 4, amlodipine 2.5 to 10 mg/d was allowed for BP control (systolic/diastolic BP < or = 130/80 mmHg). The primary study end points were the percentage change from baseline at week 12 in UACR and the incidence of hyperkalemia. Secondary end points included percentage changes from baseline in UACR at weeks 4 and 8 and changes from baseline in systolic and diastolic BP. Treatment with EPL50 or EPL100 but not placebo significantly reduced albuminuria from baseline. By week 12, UACR was reduced by 7.4% in the placebo group, by 41.0% in the EPL50 group, and by 48.4% in the EPL100 group (both eplerenone groups, P < 0.001 versus placebo). The incidences of sustained and severe hyperkalemia were not significantly different in any of the three treatment arms and did not differ on the basis of quartile of estimated GFR (all NS). For the secondary end points, both eplerenone treatment groups significantly reduced albuminuria from baseline as early as week 4 (P < 0.001), whereas placebo treatment (including enalapril) did not result in any significant decreases in UACR. Systolic BP decreased significantly in all treatment groups at all time points, but, generally, all treatment groups experienced similar decreases in BP. Co-administration of EPL50 or EPL100 with an ACE inhibitor as compared with an ACE inhibitor alone significantly reduces albuminuria in patients with diabetes without producing significant increases in hyperkalemia.

Effects of eplerenone versus losartan in patients with low-renin hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Sodium retention and volume expansion, mediated in part by aldosterone, are prominent features in low-renin hypertension. Agents that block aldosterone at its receptor sites, therefore, should have significant clinical benefit in patients with low-renin hypertension. METHODS: This 16-week, multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, titration-to-effect trial compared the blood pressure and neurohumoral responses of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone (100-200 mg/d; n = 86) with those of the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan (50-100 mg/d; n = 82) in patients with low-renin hypertension (active renin < or = 25 pg/mL [< or = 42.5 mU/L]). Patients with diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mm Hg after 8 weeks of monotherapy received add-on therapy with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 to 25 mg daily. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of therapy, eplerenone reduced blood pressure to a greater extent than losartan (systolic blood pressure -15.8 vs -10.1 mm Hg, P = .017; diastolic blood pressure -9.3 vs -6.7 mm Hg, P = .05). After 16 weeks of therapy, significantly fewer eplerenone-treated patients (32.5%) than losartan-treated patients (55.6%) required add-on hydrochlorothiazide as allowed per protocol for blood pressure control (P = .003). Eplerenone consistently reduced blood pressure regardless of baseline active plasma renin levels whereas losartan reduced blood pressure more effectively in patients with higher baseline active renin levels. There were no differences between treatments in adverse events (reported by 62.8% of eplerenone patients and by 72.0% of losartan patients). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that eplerenone was more effective than losartan in reducing blood pressure in patients with low-renin hypertension. Further studies evaluating the efficacy of eplerenone in difficult-to-treat or resistant hypertension are needed.

Efficacy of eplerenone versus enalapril as monotherapy in systemic hypertension.

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of eplerenone and enalapril in 499 patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension who were randomized to receive eplerenone or enalapril for 6 months in a 3-step titration-to-effect study. After 6 months, patients whose diastolic blood pressure (BP) was <90 mm Hg had their dosages down-titrated were followed for an additional 6 months. Diastolic BP was the primary end point. Eplerenone was as effective as enalapril in reducing both systolic BP (eplerenone, -14.5 mm Hg; enalapril, -12.7 mm Hg; p = 0.199) and diastolic BP (eplerenone, -11.2 mm Hg; enalapril, -11.3 mm Hg; p = 0.910) at 6 months. BP reductions at 12 months were also similar between groups (-16.5/-13.3 mm Hg for eplerenone, -14.8/-14.1 mm Hg for enalapril; p = 0.251 and 0.331, respectively). Withdrawal rates for adverse events (eplerenone 7.9%, enalapril 9.3% at 6 months) and treatment failures (eplerenone 23.3%, enalapril 22.8% at 6 months) were also equivalent. Approximately 2/3 of each group had normal BP with monotherapy treatment at 6 months. BP response was independent of renin levels in the eplerenone group, but not in the enalapril group. Both agents reduced albuminuria in patients who had an elevated value at baseline, with significantly greater improvement in patients treated with eplerenone versus enalapril (-61.5% vs -25.7%; p = 0.01). Both agents were similarly well tolerated, and there was no increased incidence of any sexual adverse events in the eplerenone group. Patients taking enalapril had a higher rate of cough. Both agents increased serum potassium levels, but <1% in each group reported adverse events from hyperkalemia. Eplerenone was as effective as enalapril as monotherapy in patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension, was more effective in reducing albuminuria, and was well tolerated for 12 months.

Long-term safety and efficacy of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone in patients with essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Even within the normal range, aldosterone levels are linked to end-organ toxicity and mortality in patients with hypertension. Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers does not sufficiently reduce plasma aldosterone levels. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to assess the long-term safety profile and efficacy of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled trial in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. After a 1-week washout of previous antihypertensive medications, eplerenone was initiated at 50 mg once daily; the dose was titrated to a maximum of 200 mg/d to achieve a diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg and a systolic blood pressure <140 mm Hg. Thereafter, another antihypertensive agent could be added and titrated once, or another agent could be substituted for eplerenone. Eplerenone treatment was continued for up to 14 months in a subset of patients. RESULTS: Five hundred eighty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Their adjusted mean blood pressure (BP) at baseline was 150/96 mm Hg. The majority (80.4%) were white; 51.5% were male and 48.5% were female; 62.3% were between the ages of 45 and 64 years and 21.7% were aged >64 years. Three hundred eighty-five patients (65.7%) completed the study; 98 (16.7%) were withdrawn due to treatment failure (only 4.8% of them after month 4), and 40 (6.8%) were withdrawn due to treatment-emergent adverse events. Four hundred thirty-three of 582 (74.4%) patients in the intent-to-treat population achieved BP control during eplerenone treatment: 261 (44.8%) received eplerenone monotherapy and 172 (30.0%) received eplerenone plus another antihypertensive agent. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone therapy was effective in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension over a 14-month period, either as monotherapy or in combination with another antihypertensive agent. Use of eplerenone was well tolerated in the population studied.

Can renin status predict the antihypertensive efficacy of eplerenone add-on therapy?

Since neither angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) nor angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) can completely suppress aldosterone levels, there is a need for alternative/supplementary antihypertensive medications, such as the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone (Inspra). This multicenter study measured the safety and efficacy of add-on eplerenone therapy to reduce blood pressure not controlled by ACE-I or ARB monotherapy. An ad hoc analysis evaluated whether active plasma renin or serum aldosterone levels could predict blood pressure response to eplerenone therapy. Patients (N = 341) with a diastolic blood pressure > 95 mmHg on a fixed dose of ACE-I or ARB were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with eplerenone 50 mg qd or placebo. If blood pressure remained uncontrolled following 2, 4, or 6 weeks of treatment, the eplerenone dose was increased to 100 mg qd. In a combined cohort analysis of these patients, the placebo-adjusted change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was -5.9/-2.4 mmHg (p< 0.001 and p = 0.006, respectively). While adding eplerenone to an ACE-I or ARB is safe and effective for blood pressure reduction, there was no baseline value or range of values of active plasma renin, serum aldosterone, or their ratio that predicted a favorable response to either of these drug combinations.

Effects of eplerenone, enalapril, and eplerenone/enalapril in patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the 4E-left ventricular hypertrophy study.

BACKGROUND: Elevated renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activity correlates with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and cardiovascular risk, but the relative contributions of angiotensin II and aldosterone remain unclear. This study compared LVH regression during treatment with the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone, enalapril, and their combination in patients with hypertension. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 9-month, double-blind, randomized study was performed in 202 patients with LVH and hypertension who received eplerenone 200 mg daily, enalapril 40 mg daily, or eplerenone 200 mg and enalapril 10 mg daily. At week 8, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 to 25 mg and/or amlodipine 10 mg was added if diastolic blood pressure was >90 mm Hg. Change in left ventricular (LV) mass as assessed by MRI was the primary end point. Change in blood pressure, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system hormones, albuminuria, and safety were also assessed. Eplerenone significantly reduced LV mass from baseline (-14.5+/-3.36 g; n=50) similarly to enalapril (-19.7+/-3.20 g; n=54; P=0.258), but eplerenone/enalapril (-27.2+/-3.39 g; n=49) was more effective than eplerenone alone (P=0.007). All treatments reduced systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure from baseline (eplerenone, -23.8 and -11.9 mm Hg; enalapril, -24.7 and -13.4 mm Hg; and eplerenone/enalapril, -28.7 and -14.4 mm Hg, P=0.048, in systolic blood pressure compared with eplerenone alone). Cough was more common with enalapril than with eplerenone (P=0.033), and elevated potassium was more common with eplerenone. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone was as effective as enalapril in LVH regression and blood pressure control. The combination of eplerenone and enalapril was more effective in reducing LV mass and systolic blood pressure than eplerenone alone.

Symptoms and the distress they cause: comparison of an aldosterone antagonist and a calcium channel blocking agent in patients with systolic hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Although there has been increasing recognition that a substantial part of the cardiovascular, central nervous system, and renal conditions induced by renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system activation reflects an action of aldosterone, the potential influence of therapy designed to block aldosterone has been limited by the fact that spironolactone (until recently the only aldosterone antagonist available) exerts a substantial array of adverse effects. We sought to compare the magnitude of the distress induced by a widely used calcium channel blocking agent, amlodipine, and a new aldosterone antagonist, eplerenone, in patients treated for systolic hypertension. METHODS: A total of 269 patients older than 50 years with systolic hypertension were randomized to either eplerenone, 50 mg/d, or amlodipine, 2.5 mg/d, and titrated to a maximum 200-mg eplerenone dose or 10-mg amlodipine dose. Patients were followed up for 24 weeks. Quality-of-life questionnaires (SF-36 Health Survey) and a validated instrument for assessing symptom distress (Symptom Distress Index) were administered at randomization and 24 weeks after starting treatment. RESULTS: The systolic blood pressure response to eplerenone and amlodipine did not differ (eplerenone = -20.5 mm Hg and amlodipine = -20.1 mm Hg). For the quality-of-life analysis, 119 patients were randomized to eplerenone and 122 to amlodipine. No significant treatment group differences in the Symptom Distress Index were detected at baseline. There was an overall significant treatment effect on symptom distress in favor of eplerenone (P =.03). Indeed, Symptom Distress Index showed significant worsening distress in 36 of 71 symptoms in the amlodipine arm and none in the eplerenone arm. Significant treatment effect in favor of eplerenone was observed in 5 symptoms: ankle swelling, weight gain, nocturia, increased urination, and shortness of breath. Patients with symptom distress also showed an erosion of psychosocial measures of quality of life (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The aldosterone antagonist eplerenone is substantially better tolerated than the widely used calcium-channel blocking agent amlodipine, with comparable reductions in systolic blood pressure. This feature should improve therapeutics in patients in whom blockade of aldosterone's effect would be helpful.

Assessment of the novel selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone using ambulatory and clinical blood pressure in patients with systemic hypertension.

Eplerenone is a highly selective aldosterone blocking agent, which was recently approved for the treatment of hypertension and has also been shown to reduce mortality in post-myocardial infarction patients with heart failure. To assess its usefulness in patients with essential hypertension, we performed a 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, fixed-dose study over a range of doses using clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP). After single-blind placebo therapy for 3 to 4 weeks to obtain baseline measures, 400 patients were randomized to receive placebo or 1 of 4 doses of eplerenone (25, 50, 100, and 200 mg once daily). In addition, changes from baseline in serum potassium, active renin activity, and serum aldosterone were assessed. After 12 weeks of therapy, reductions in clinic BP showed a significant dose response in which 25 mg of eplerenone achieved statistical significance compared with placebo for systolic BP; maximum clinic BP reduction was achieved with the 100 mg dose. Ambulatory BP monitoring showed that all doses of eplerenone (25 to 200 mg/day) lowered BP significantly greater than placebo with a significant dose response. The 24-hour mean BP reductions ranged from 6.4/4.4 to 10.3/5.7 mm Hg on eplerenone compared with 1.3/0.8 mm Hg on placebo. One patient on placebo and 1 patient on 200 mg of eplerenone had episodes of elevated serum potassium levels (>5.5 mEq/L). Increases in serum aldosterone were related to dose but not to reductions in 24-hour BP. Side effects and withdrawal rates attributed to eplerenone were similar to those of placebo. These data show that eplerenone is an effective antihypertensive agent at doses as low as 25 mg/day. The top effective dose in stage 1 to 3 hypertension based on clinic and ambulatory BP was 100 mg once daily. The incidence of elevated serum potassium levels was not increased across doses of eplerenone in this study.

Effects of the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone versus the calcium antagonist amlodipine in systolic hypertension.

Eplerenone is a highly selective aldosterone blocker, which is under development for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure. To assess its usefulness in older patients with systolic hypertension and widened pulse pressure, we compared the effects of eplerenone with amlodipine, on clinic blood pressure (BP) and pulse pressure and in a subset of the patients, ambulatory BP, vascular compliance, and urinary albumin excretion. The study involved 269 patients > or =50 years of age who were randomly assigned to either eplerenone (50 to 200 mg daily) or amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg daily) in a double-blind titration to effect design. After 24 weeks of therapy, reductions in clinic systolic BP were similar for both treatments (eplerenone, -20.5+/-1.1 mm Hg; amlodipine, -20.1+/-1.1 mm Hg). Reductions in clinic diastolic BP were modestly larger on amlodipine (-6.9+/-0.7 mm Hg) compared with eplerenone (-4.5+/-0.7 mm Hg) (P=0.014). Pulse pressure was also reduced similarly from baseline by the 2 treatment groups (eplerenone, -15.9 mm Hg versus amlodipine, -13.4 mm Hg, P=0.07). Changes from baseline in pulse wave velocity after 24 weeks of therapy were statistically similar for eplerenone and amlodipine. In patients with microalbuminuria at baseline (>30 mg albumin/g creatinine), eplerenone reduced the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio by 52% compared with a reduction of 10% by amlodipine (P=0.04). Thus, eplerenone was as effective as amlodipine in lowering systolic BP and pulse pressure as well as pulse wave velocity in older patients with widened pulse pressure hypertension. Furthermore, eplerenone reduced microalbuminuria to a greater extent than amlodipine in this older patient group.

Efficacy and tolerability of eplerenone and losartan in hypertensive black and white patients.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy with the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone in both black and white patients with hypertension. BACKGROUND: Essential hypertension and cardiovascular-renal-target organ damage is more prevalent in black than white adults in the U.S. METHODS: Black (n = 348) and white (n = 203) patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to double-blind treatment with eplerenone 50 mg, the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan 50 mg, or placebo once daily. Doses were increased if blood pressure remained uncontrolled. The primary end point was change in mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 16 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Adjusted mean changes from baseline in DBP were -5.3 +/- 0.7, -10.3 +/- 0.7, and -6.9 +/- 0.6 mm Hg in the placebo, eplerenone-treated, and losartan-treated groups, respectively (mean +/- SE, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. placebo, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. losartan). In black patients, DBP decreased by -4.8 +/- 1.0, -10.2 +/- 0.9, and -6.0 +/- 0.9 mm Hg for the placebo, eplerenone-treated, and losartan-treated groups, respectively (mean +/- SE, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. placebo, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. losartan), whereas in white patients, DBP decreased by -6.4 +/- 1.0, -11.1 +/- 1.1, and -8.4 +/- 1.0 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.001 eplerenone vs. placebo, p = 0.068 for eplerenone vs. losartan). For reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP), eplerenone was superior to placebo and losartan in all patients combined and in black patients, and was superior to placebo in white patients. Eplerenone was as effective as losartan in reducing SBP and DBP in the high renin patient, but more effective than losartan in the low renin patient. Similarly, eplerenone was at least as effective as losartan in patients with differing baseline levels of aldosterone. Both eplerenone and losartan were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The antihypertensive effect of eplerenone was equal in black and white patients and was superior to losartan in black patients.

Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, in mild-to-moderate hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker (SAB) that is highly specific for the aldosterone receptor, has the potential to be efficacious in the treatment of hypertension. METHODS: This 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of eplerenone in eligible patients randomized to eplerenone 50, 100, or 400 mg once daily; eplerenone 25, 50, or 200 mg twice daily; spironolactone 50 mg twice daily; or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was the adjusted mean change in baseline to final visit for seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP). RESULTS: Of 417 randomized patients, 409 were evaluated for efficacy. The adjusted mean change from baseline to final visit in seated and standing systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP was significantly greater (P < .05) in all eplerenone groups than in the placebo group. The adjusted mean change in 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) measurements of SBP and DBP also documented a 24-h duration significantly greater (P < .05) than placebo in eplerenone-treated patients. For all measurements, the antihypertensive effect of eplerenone increased in a dose-response fashion. Eplerenone (100 mg) reduced BP by 75% compared with spironolactone (100 mg) and had an adverse events incidence rate similar to placebo. No antiandrogenic or progestational effects or clinically relevant safety issues were observed in eplerenone-treated patients. However, one spironolactone-treated patient reported menstrual irregularities. CONCLUSIONS: Eplerenone doses of 50 to 400 mg once daily are well tolerated and effective in reducing BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension during a 24-h period.

Efficacy of eplerenone added to renin-angiotensin blockade in hypertensive patients.

The efficacy and tolerability of eplerenone, a selective aldosterone blocker, was assessed when added to existing antihypertensive therapy with an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). Hypertensive patients (n=341) whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled despite ACE inhibitor or ARB were randomized (double-blind) to receive 50 mg eplerenone (increasing to 100 mg if required) once daily or placebo for 8 weeks. Diastolic and systolic BP and adverse events were recorded. By study end (week 8), mean seated diastolic BP was significantly reduced from week 0 among patients receiving eplerenone/ARB (-12.7+/-0.81 mm Hg) compared with those receiving placebo/ARB (-9.3+/-0.83 mm Hg). The change in mean seated diastolic BP was -9.9+/-0.88 mm Hg in eplerenone/ACE inhibitor patients and -8.0+/-0.86 mm Hg in placebo/ACE inhibitor patients (P=NS). Systolic BP levels were also significantly lower at week 8 for eplerenone/ACE inhibitor (-13.4+/-1.35 mm Hg) and eplerenone/ARB (-16.0+/-1.37 mm Hg) patients, respectively, compared with placebo/ACE inhibitor (-7.5+/-1.31 mm Hg) and placebo/ARB patients (-9.2+/-1.41 mm Hg). Adverse events were generally nonsevere and not significantly different between eplerenone and placebo. This study demonstrated that in patients whose BP was not controlled with an ACE inhibitor or ARB, the addition of eplerenone over an 8-week period significantly lowered systolic BP in both groups and diastolic BP in ARB patients. Selective aldosterone blockade with eplerenone, therefore, may be useful add-on therapy in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled on ACE inhibitor or ARB alone.