Andrew Lewin

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.

Influence of Race and Dietary Salt on the Antihypertensive Efficacy of an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or a Calcium Channel Antagonist in Salt-Sensitive Hypertensives

Dietary salt restriction is a recommended adjunct with antihypertensive therapy. There may be racial differences in blood pressure response to salt restriction while on antihypertensive therapy. We performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial (black, n=96; Hispanic, n=63; white, n=232). Participants were initially preselected for stage I to III hypertension and then further selected for salt sensitivity (> or = 5 mm Hg increase in diastolic blood pressure after 3 weeks of low salt [< or = 88 mmol/d Na+] and high salt [>190 mmol/d Na+] diet). We compared the antihypertensive effect of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (enalapril 5 or 20 mg BID) or a calcium channel antagonist (isradipine 5 or 10 mg BID) during alternating periods of high and low salt intake. The main outcome measure was blood pressure change and absolute blood pressure level achieved with therapy. During the high salt diet (314.7+/-107.5 mmol/d urinary Na+) there was greater downward change in blood pressure with both enalapril and isradipine compared with the low salt diet (90.1+/-50.8 mmol/d Na+); however, the absolute blood pressure achieved in all races was consistently lower on a low salt diet for both agents. Black, white, and Hispanic isradipine-treated salt-sensitive hypertensives demonstrated a smaller difference between high and low salt diets (black, -3.6/-1.6 mmHg; white, -6.2/-3.9 mmHg; Hispanic, -8.1/-5.3 mm Hg) than did enalapril-treated patients (black, -9.0/-5.3 mm Hg; white, -11.8/-7.0 mm Hg; Hispanic, -11.1/-5.6 mm Hg). On the low salt diet, blacks, whites, and Hispanics had similar blood pressure control with enalapril and isradipine. On the high salt diet, blacks had better blood pressure control with isradipine than with enalapril, whereas there was no difference in the blood pressure control in whites and Hispanics treated with either drug. Dietary salt reduction helps reduce blood pressure in salt-sensitive hypertensive blacks, whites, and Hispanics treated with enalapril or isradipine. These data demonstrate that controlling for salt sensitivity diminishes race-related differences in antihypertensive activity.

An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan

This multicenter, randomized, double-masked, elective-titration study was designed to compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of irbesartan and losartan, two angiotensin II subtype AT1-receptor blockers, in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 3-week, single-masked, placebo lead-in period, 432 patients with a mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) of 95 to 115 mm Hg were randomly allocated to receive either irbesartan 150 mg once daily (n = 213) or losartan 50 mg once daily (n = 219). At week 4, if SeDBP at trough (i.e., 24 +/- 3 hours after the previous dose) was > or = 90 mm Hg, the daily dose was doubled (to irbesartan 300 mg or losartan 100 mg). At week 8, if trough SeDBP was > or = 90 mm Hg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg once daily was added to the regimen; consistent with the prescribing information for losartan, the dose of losartan was reduced to 50 mg once daily on the addition of hydrochlorothiazide. A total of 370 patients (178 irbesartan and 192 losartan) were evaluable for efficacy. The mean change in trough SeDBP at week 8, the primary efficacy end point, was significantly greater in patients receiving irbesartan monotherapy than in those receiving losartan monotherapy (-10.2 mm Hg vs -7.9 mm Hg, respectively). At week 12, reductions in trough SeDBP and seated systolic blood pressure were greater with irbesartan treatment than with losartan treatment (-13.8 mm Hg vs -10.8 mm Hg and -18.0 mm Hg vs -13.9 mm Hg, respectively), and a greater proportion of irbesartan patients responded to therapy (i.e., trough SeDBP < 90 mm Hg or reduction in trough SeDBP > or = 10 mm Hg) compared with losartan patients (78% vs 64%, respectively). Both regimens were well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co‐administered with simvastatin in thiazolidinedione‐treated type 2 diabetic patients

Aim:  In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), combination therapy is usually required to optimize glucose metabolism as well as to help patients achieve aggressive targets for low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) and other lipid parameters associated with cardiovascular risk. The thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are increasingly being used for both their blood glucose‐lowering properties and their modest beneficial effects on triglycerides (TG) and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C). Ezetimibe, an intestinal cholesterol absorption inhibitor, has a mechanism of action that differs from that of statins, which inhibit hepatic cholesterol synthesis. We compared the lipid‐modifying efficacy and safety of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, vs. doubling the dose of simvastatin, in TZD‐treated T2DM patients.

Effects of simvastatin on the lipid profile and attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals when added to thiazolidinedione therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Coronary heart disease is the major cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Given the increasingly aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for patients with DM set by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and the American Diabetes Association, many patients remain above target. Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) improves glycemic control but does not lower (and may raise) LDL-C concentrations. OBJECTIVE This study assessed the lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability of adding the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A-reductase inhibitor simvastatin to existing TZD therapy in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients with type 2 DM who were taking a stable dose of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone and had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value < or =9.0% and an LDL-C concentration > 100 mg/dL were randomized to receive simvastatin 40 mg (the recommended initial dose for patients with DM) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the effect of treatment on LDL-C concentrations. Other lipid, lipoprotein, and safety measures were also assessed. RESULTS Two hundred fifty-three patients (127 [50.2%] men, 126 [49.8%] women; mean age, 56 years) were randomized to treatment (123 simvastatin, 130 placebo). At the end of the study, mean LDL-C concentrations were reduced 34.)% from baseline (from 134.3 to 89.5 mg/dL) in the simvastatin group and were unchanged in the placebo group (P<0.001). Simvastatin produced significant reductions in concentrations of total cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B compared with placebo (all, P<0.001 ) and significant increases in concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ( P=0.002 ) and apo A-I ( P=0.006 ). In patients who had not attained target concentrations of LDL-C (<100 mg/dL), TG (<150 mg/dL), or HDL-C (>45 mg/dL) at baseline, significantly more simvastatin recipients had achieved these goals at the end of the study compared with placebo recipients (LDL-C: 67.3% vs 5.2%, respectively, P<0.001; HDL-C: 95.3% vs 83.6%, P<0.05; TG: 40.8% vs 11.0%, P<0.001 ). Simvastatin was well tolerated, and no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, or discontinuations due to adverse events were observed between groups. There were no significant between-group differences in glycemic control (HbA1c) or concentrations of fasting insulin, creatine phosphokinase, or hepatic transaminases. CONCLUSION Simvastatin was an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for hyperlipidemia when used in combination with TZD therapy in this population of patients with type 2 DM.

Effects of isradipine or enalapril on blood pressure in salt-sensitive hypertensives during low and high dietary salt intake

This large multicenter study, tested the antihypertensive effects of isradipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker and enalapril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, in salt-sensitive hypertensive patients under low and high salt intake diets. After a 3-week (weeks -9 to -6) of ad lib salt diet, those patients who had a sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) of > or =95 but < or =115 mm Hg qualified to enter a 3-week (weeks -6 to -3) placebo run-in low salt diet (50 to 80 mmol Na+/day). Then high salt (200 to 250 mmol Na+/day) was added to the placebo treatment for 3 weeks (weeks -3 to 0). Those patients who demonstrated an increase in SDBP > or =5 mm Hg from the low to high salt diet were considered salt sensitive and were randomized into a 4-week (weeks 0 to 4) double-blind treatment period of either isradipine 2.5 to 10 mg twice a day, enalapril 2.5 to 20 mg twice a day, or placebo. Then they entered a 3-week (weeks 4 to 7) placebo washout phase of low salt diet (50 to 80 mmol Na+/day). After week 7 and while the low salt diet was continued the patients were restarted on their double-blind treatment for 4 more weeks (weeks 7 to 11) and the study was completed. Of 1,916 patients screened, 464 were randomized into the double-blind treatment phase and 397 completed the study. Both isradipine and enalapril decreased the sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) and SDBP during the high salt diet, to a similar degree, whereas enalapril caused a greater reduction in SSBP and SDBP than isradipine during the low salt diet (11.3 +/- 1.2/7.7 +/- 0.7 mm Hg v 7.7 +/- 0.9/4.8 +/- 0.6 mm Hg, mean +/- SEM, respectively, P < .02). Within drugs, the effect of isradipine on blood pressure (BP) was higher during the high than the low salt diet (14.9 +/- 1.5 v 7.6 +/- 1.3 mm Hg for SSBP and 10.1 +/- 0.6 v 4.8 +/- 0.9 mm Hg for SDBP, P < .001), but enalapril exerted a similar effect during both diets. Because salt restriction lowered both SSBP and SDBP, the lowest BP achieved with both drugs were during the salt restriction phase.

Efficacy and safety of omapatrilat with hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension in subjects nonresponsive to hydrochlorothiazide alone

This multicenter, double-blind study evaluated efficacy and safety of the vasopeptidase inhibitor omapatrilat, which simultaneously inhibits neutral endopeptidase and angiotensin converting enzyme, when given in conjunction with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to subjects nonresponsive to HCTZ alone. The study enrolled 657 subjects with mild to severe hypertension. After a 2-week placebo lead-in period and a 4-week HCTZ phase, 274 subjects were randomized to receive omapatrilat (10 or 20 mg, electively titrated to 20 or 40 mg, respectively, at week 4 if seated diastolic blood pressure [SeDBP] was > or =90 mm Hg) or matching placebo in addition to 25 mg of HCTZ as continuing therapy. The primary outcome measure was change in SeDBP from baseline to week 8. At week 8, placebo plus HCTZ-adjusted additional reductions in SeDBP in the omapatrilat 10/20 mg and 20/40 mg treatment groups (4 and 5 mm Hg, respectively) were significant (P < .001), as were changes in seated systolic blood pressure in both omapatrilat-treated groups (7 and 10 mm Hg, respectively; P < .001). Seated diastolic blood pressure was normalized (<90 mm Hg) in 38% of subjects in the placebo group compared to 59% and 64% of subjects in the omapatrilat groups (P < or = .008). Adverse events, serious adverse events, and discontinuations attributed to adverse events were infrequent. There were no clinically relevant changes in serum creatinine or potassium. Omapatrilat was effective and well tolerated when added to HCTZ in subjects whose blood pressure was not controlled with HCTZ alone.

Acetylsalicylic Acid Reduces Niacin Extended-Release-Induced Flushing in Patients with Dyslipidemia

BackgroundNiacin 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of daily oral acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) on NER-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidemia.MethodsA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, 5-week study was conducted (Clinical-Trials.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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionThese data suggest that a clinically meaningful reduction in the severity and incidence of NER-induced flushing may be achieved with ASA use.

Amlodipine versus chlorthalidone versus placebo in the treatment of stage I isolated systolic hypertension

The study was to compare the effects of amlodipine (calcium channel antagonist), chlorthalidone (diuretic), and placebo in adults more than 50 years of age with stage 1 isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). After a 4-week placebo run-in phase, 150 patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind fashion to treatment with 5 mg of amlodipine (n = 48), 15 mg of chlorthalidone (n = 50), or placebo (n = 52). Patients who failed to meet the systolic blood pressure (BP) reduction goal by week 4 had their dose increased to 10 mg of amlodipine or 30 mg of chlorthalidone, and maintained at this increased dose for 12 weeks. Results showed a mean reduction (mean +/- SD) in sitting systolic BP from baseline to the last treatment visit of -14.6+/-12.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] -18.2, -11.0), -14.0+/-13.46 mm Hg (95% CI -17.8, -10.2), and -3.4+/-11.83 mm Hg (95% CI -6.7, -0.1) for the amlodipine, chlorthalidone, and the placebo treatment groups, respectively. Both active treatments showed significantly greater reductions than the placebo group (P < or = .001), but were not significantly different from each other. Sixty-seven percent of the amlodipine, 69% of the chlorthalidone, and 25% of the placebo-treated patients reached the protocol defined systolic BP goal (P = .001). Both active treatment groups showed a trend of better systolic BP response in older patients (> or =65 years). Secondary efficacy measures including pulse pressure, standing systolic, diastolic, and the 24-h ambulatory BP were also statistically significantly improved for both active treatments at the end of treatment, except for chlorthalidone in standing diastolic BP. Adverse events that occurred during the study were as expected and were well tolerated. The results of this study support the efficacy and safety of amlodipine and chlorthalidone for the treatment of stage 1 ISH during 20 weeks of treatment.

Efficacy and safety of a potent and selective peroxisome proliferator activated receptor alpha agonist in subjects with dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The weak peroxisome proliferator activated receptor-alpha (PPAR-alpha) agonists gemfibrozil and fenofibrate achieve only small increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. CP-778,875 is a more potent PPAR-alpha agonist developed to produce greater HDL cholesterol increases. This randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of CP-778,875 in subjects with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes. Eight-six subjects with low HDL cholesterol (< or =45 mg/dl for men and < or =55 mg/dl for women) and increased triglycerides (150 to 500 mg/dl) who had coexisting type 2 diabetes were randomized. Subjects received CP-778,875 doses of 0.5, 2, or 6 mg/day or placebo for 6 weeks. Any other lipid-altering therapy was stopped at screening. The primary end point was percent change in HDL cholesterol from baseline. The 2-mg/day dose of CP-778,875 significantly increased HDL cholesterol by 14%. The 2-mg dose also increased concentrations of apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, HDL(2) cholesterol, and HDL(3) cholesterol by 13%, 12%, and 19%, respectively. An unusual dose-response pattern was observed in that at 6 mg/day CP-778,875 only increased HDL cholesterol by 3% and decreased HDL(2) cholesterol by 24%. Fasting triglyceride levels were significantly decreased to a similar extent (26%) by all 3 doses of CP-778,875. CP-778,875 significantly increased homocysteine levels. There was no significant relation between change in homocysteine and change in apoA-I or HDL cholesterol. No subjects developed myopathy. In conclusion, CP-778,875 2 mg/day significantly increased HDL cholesterol, significantly lowered fasting triglycerides, and increased apoA-I and HDL subfractions. The clinical relevance of the increase in homocysteine levels is unknown.