Benjamin J. Epstein

Dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists in the management of hypertension.

Dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists have been maligned in recent years because of concerns regarding their cardiovascular and overall safety profile. Specifically, it was widely publicised in the mid-1990s that these agents might increase the risk of myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleeding and cancer. Data linking these agents with increased cardiovascular risk were based on nonrandomised studies and implicated short-acting, immediate-release agents. These results were inappropriately extrapolated to longer-acting compounds, extended-release products, and to the non-dihydropyridine class. Fortunately, recent studies have vindicated the class from safety allegations. These studies are reviewed herein.Compared with both diuretics and contemporary agents, amlodipine decreases cardiovascular events to a similar or greater extent without evidence for increased coronary heart disease, gastrointestinal bleeding or cancer. Despite these data, initial concerns have had lasting repercussions, as the use of dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists appears to lag behind what emerging data would support. Dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists have several noteworthy attributes that merit consideration in the management of hypertension. The blood pressure response to this class of drugs is less contingent on patient factors such as age and race compared with other antihypertensive agents (e.g. ACE inhibitors). Dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists may exert effects that protect against stroke that are independent of their blood pressure-lowering mechanism. Unlike diuretics and β-adrenoceptor anatagonists (β-blockers), dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists are lipid neutral and do not disturb glucose homeostasis. Dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists demonstrate a highly desirable profile when administered as part of combination therapy. Combinations of dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists and ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonists display additive efficacy and an enviable adverse-effect profile. Collectively, the cardiovascular benefit, metabolic neutrality and homogeneous blood pressure response illuminated in recent studies, and reviewed here, represent a reaffirmation of the benefit of long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists and should serve to help reinforce the critical importance of these agents in the therapeutic armamentarium against cardiovascular disease.

SGLT-2 inhibitors and their potential in the treatment of diabetes.

Diabetes remains a burgeoning global problem, necessitating ongoing efforts on the part of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, patients, and society to curb the frightening trends in morbidity and mortality attributable to the malady. Since 1835 when phlorizin was discovered, sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors have rested tantalizingly on the horizon, promising a more physiological approach to glucose control. These agents lower glucose by enhancing its excretion by blocking reabsorption in the renal tubules, thus eliminating glucose from the body along with the molecules’ attendant effects on caloric balance, plasma osmolality, and lipids. Consequently, SGLT-2 inhibitors improve glucose control to an extent comparable to other hypoglycemic agents while simultaneously reducing body weight, blood pressure, and cholesterol – an admirable portfolio. One agent, canagliflozin, has recently been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and two other agents have progressed through Phase III trials, including dapagliflozin and empagliflozin. Collectively, when used as monotherapy, these agents have demonstrated reductions in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), body weight, and blood pressure of −0.34% to −1.03%, −2.0 to −3.4 kg, and −1.7 to −6.4 mmHg/−0.3 to −2.6 mmHg (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure), respectively. SGLT-2 inhibitors have been well tolerated, with hypoglycemia (0.9% to 4.3%) occurring infrequently in clinical trials. Safety signals related to breast and bladder cancer have arisen with dapagliflozin, though these are unsubstantiated and likely ascribed to the presence of preexisting cancer. As these agents emerge, clinicians should embrace the addition to the formulary for treating type 2 diabetes, but must also weight the risk–benefit of this new class in deciding which patient types are most likely to benefit from their novel mechanism of action.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers versus ACE Inhibitors: Prevention of Death and Myocardial Infarction in High-Risk Populations

OBJECTIVE: To determine, through a review of the medical literature, whether there is adequate evidence to support the use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in place of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in high-risk populations, focusing on the prevention of death and myocardial infarction (MI). DATA SOURCES: Original investigations, reviews, and meta-analyses were identified from the biomedical literature via a MEDLINE search (1966–August 2004). Published articles were also cross-referenced for pertinent citations, and recent meeting abstracts were searched for relevant data. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: All articles identified during the search were evaluated. Preference was given to prospective, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated major cardiovascular endpoints and compared ARBs with ACE inhibitors, active controls, or placebo. DATA SYNTHESIS: The renin—angiotensin system plays a pivotal role in the continuum of cardiovascular disease and represents a major therapeutic target in the treatment of patients at risk for vascular events. While ACE inhibitors have been definitively shown to prevent death and MI, studies with ARBs in similar populations have not reduced these endpoints. In clinical trials that enrolled patients with heart failure, post-MI, diabetes, and hypertension, ARBs did not prevent MI or prolong survival compared with ACE inhibitors, other antihypertensives, or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: ACE inhibitors and ARBs should not be considered interchangeable, even among patients with a documented history of ACE inhibitor intolerance. ARBs can be considered a second-line alternative in such patients with the realization that they have not been shown to prevent MI or prolong survival.

The Changing Face of Antibiotic Prescribing: The Mutant Selection Window

OBJECTIVE To describe the mutant selection window, discuss supporting evidence and limitations, and suggest potential applications for clinical practice. DATA SOURCES A MEDLINE search (1990–December 2003) of the English-language literature was conducted using the key words antibiotic, antimicrobial, resistance, mutant, selection window, prevention, MPC, and MSW in various combinations. Original investigations and reviews evaluating the mutant selection window, including abstracts and proceedings, were considered for inclusion. Published articles were also cross-referenced, and experts were contacted to locate additional pertinent data. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION All data sources identified were evaluated and all information deemed relevant was included. DATA SYNTHESIS Until recently, physicians have had few ways to preserve antimicrobials from resistance other than by prescribing the agents less often. The mutant selection window hypothesis may modify this paradigm by shifting the focus to dosing strategies that reduce the growth of resistant mutants. Conventional dosing strategies have been formulated on the likelihood of curing an individual patient. Unfortunately, doses that cure patients appear to enrich resistant subpopulations of bacteria, thus promoting resistance. Antimicrobial—pathogen combinations can be identified that minimize mutant selection and cure patients while possibly restricting the progression of resistance. CONCLUSIONS The mutant selection window hypothesis provides a framework for considering the contribution of dosing to resistance, and it offers ideas for restricting the enrichment of resistant mutants and antimicrobial resistance.

Dapagliflozin: a novel sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The prevalence of diabetes mellitus has grown to staggering numbers, and its incidence is expected to rise in the next 2 decades. The need for novel approaches to treat hyperglycemia cannot be ignored. Current agents have been shown to modestly improve glycemia and in some cases prevent complications of diabetes, but they become less effective over time and are often accompanied by undesirable adverse effects. Dapagliflozin is the lead agent in a new class of oral antidiabetic agents known as sodium‐glucose cotransporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, which represent a novel approach to the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus. By selectively and reversibly blocking the SGLT2 receptor, dapagliflozin prevents the reabsorption of glucose at the renal proximal tubule. Phase II and III clinical trials have demonstrated that dapagliflozin is a safe and effective method for treating type 2 diabetes. Dapagliflozin produces a sustained, dose‐dependent reduction in plasma glucose levels while simultaneously improving insulin secretion and sensitivity. Over 12–24 weeks, reductions in hemoglobin A1c ranged from 0.54–0.89% when dapagliflozin was administered once/day (either as monotherapy or add‐on therapy to oral antidiabetic drugs with or without insulin) to patients with type 2 diabetes. Therapy with dapagliflozin also results in a mild osmotic‐diuretic effect that may account for decreases in total body weight (~2–3 kg) and blood pressure (systolic 2–5 mm Hg, diastolic 1.5–3 mm Hg), and increases in hematocrit (1–2%). Dapagliflozin has a favorable safety profile, with the rates of hypoglycemia similar to those of placebo. Genital and urinary tract infections were more commonly reported in patients taking dapagliflozin (2–13%) than those taking placebo (0–8%). Dapagliflozin does not appear to cause electrolyte disturbances, hepatotoxicity, or nephrotoxicity. Results from clinical trials have been promising, and well‐designed clinical programs that address the long‐term safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin are under way.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor: A Reversible P2Y12 Receptor Antagonist

Objective: To summarize the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ticagrelor, a selective P2Y12 receptor antagonist, and evaluate its role in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Data Sources: A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (1966–November 2009), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970–November 2009), and EMBASE (1990–November 2009) using the MeSH terms and key words AZD6140, ticagrelor, P2Y12 receptor antagonist, cardiovascular disease, ACS, atherothrombosis, and platelets. Study Selection And Data Extraction: Selected studies evaluated the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of ticagrelor for the treatment of ACS. Data Synthesis: Ticagrelor selectively and reversibly blocks the P2Y12 receptor, inhibiting platelet aggregation and preventing amplification of platelet activation. Optimal dosing strategy as determined by ticagrelors pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile is a loading dose of 180 mg followed by 90 mg by mouth twice daily. At these doses, greater platelet inhibition is observed with ticagrelor as compared to clopidogrel 75 mg once daily in both clopidogrel-experienced and -naïve patients. Studies in patients experiencing ACS concluded that ticagrelor reduced the rate of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and overall mortality compared to clopidogrel without increasing major bleeding when administered with standard therapy for ACS. There was no significant difference in the risk of stroke with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel; however, intracranial bleeding was more common with ticagrelor. Ticagrelor is well tolerated; however, minor bleeding, dyspnea, hypotension, nausea, and ventricular pauses were reported more frequently than with clopidogrel. Reversible inhibition with ticagrelor may allow for more rapid surgical intervention after discontinuation, suggesting greater flexibility in treatment of ACS. Conclusions: Ticagrelors improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile builds upon the limitations of currently available P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Ticagrelor represents a promising approach for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with ACS.

Elevations in serum creatinine concentration: concerning or reassuring?

The use of angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has significantly reduced morbidity and mortality across the continuum of vascular disease. The utilization of these agents, however, remains suboptimal. The drugs are not prescribed in many patients because of concerns regarding their effects on renal function. Despite overwhelming evidence in favor of renoprotection, it is not uncommon for the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to decrease shortly after starting treatment with an ACE inhibitor or ARB. This response is functional in nature and should be expected based on renal physiology and its dependence on the renin‐angiotensin system to maintain GFR. Unfortunately, this phenomenon sometimes is viewed as an adverse effect or an indicator of underlying pathology. Although somewhat counterintuitive, early elevations in serum creatinine concentration are associated with improved long‐term renal outcomes in patients with renal insufficiency and thus support, rather than condemn, continued treatment. Clinicians should be aware of the physiologic course associated with blockade of the renin‐angiotensin system so that these agents will not be withheld unnecessarily.

Carvedilol reduces aortic wave reflection and improves left ventricular/vascular coupling: a comparison with atenolol (CENTRAL Study).

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:917–924. ©2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Actions of selected cardiovascular hormones on arterial stiffness and wave reflections.

The large conduit arteries of the thorax and abdomen are elastic while those in the arms and legs are muscular. Alterations in wall properties of elastic arteries occur over time and are usually permanent in nature; acute changes can, however, occur is response to a change in transmural pressure. Chronic alterations in properties of muscular arteries are minimal but changes (e.g vasoconstriction, vasodilation or tone) do occur in response to smooth muscle cell (SMC) stimulation. In general an increase in arterial stiffness (and wave reflection) increases systolic blood pressure (BP) and is detrimental while a decrease is beneficial. The augmentation in systolic BP increases left ventricular (LV) mass, wasted energy, tension-time index (TTI) and myocardial oxygen demand while the fall in diastolic BP decreases coronary artery perfusion causing a mismatch in ventricular/vascular coupling and an imbalance in the myocardial oxygen supply/demand ratio. Cardiovascular hormones such as renin, angiotensin, aldosterone, parathormone, sympathomimetic amines and endothelin induce vasoconstriction and increase arterial stiffness while insulin, thyroxine, testosterone, atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), estrogen and nitric oxide (NO) have the opposite effect. The undesirable effects can be reversed with selected blocking agents. Vasodilator drugs have little direct active effect on large elastic arteries and unaugmented BP but can markedly reduce wave reflection amplitude and duration and augmentation index by decreasing stiffness of the muscular arteries and reducing transmission velocity of the reflected wave from the periphery to the heart. This decrease in amplitude and increase in travel time (or delay) of the reflected wave causes a generalized decrease in systolic BP, arterial wall stress, wasted LV energy and TTI.

Recent changes in the landscape of combination RAS blockade.

The renin–angiotensin system (RAS) is a prime target for cardiovascular drug therapy. Inhibition of the RAS lowers blood pressure and confers protection against cardiovascular and renal events. These latter benefits cannot be entirely attributed to blood pressure lowering. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been studied extensively and, while there is irrefutable evidence that these agents mitigate the risk for cardiovascular and renal events, their protection is incomplete. In outcomes studies that have employed ACE-inhibitors or ARBs there has been a relatively high residual event rate in the treatment arm and this has been ascribed, by some, to the fact that neither ACE-inhibitors nor ARBs completely repress RAS. For this reason, combined RAS blockade with an ACE-inhibitor and ARB has emerged as a therapeutic option. In hypertension, combined RAS blockade elicits only a marginal incremental drop in blood pressure and it does not further lower the risk for cardiovascular events. In chronic heart failure and proteinuric renal disease, combining these agents in carefully selected patients is associated with a reduction in clinical events. Irrespective of the setting, dual RAS blockade is associated with an increase in the risk for adverse events, primarily hyperkalemia and worsening renal function. The emergence of the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, has afforded clinicians a new strategy for RAS blockade. Renin system blockade with aliskiren plus another RAS agent is the subject of ongoing large-scale clinical trials and early studies suggest promise for this strategy. Currently, combined RAS blockade with an ACE-inhibitor and an ARB should not be routinely employed for hypertension; however, the combination of an ACE-inhibitor or ARB with aliskiren might be considered in some patients given the more formidable blood pressure-lowering profile of this regimen. In carefully selected patients with heart failure or kidney disease, combination therapy with two RAS inhibitors should be considered.