Azilsartan Medoxomil: A New Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist for Treatment of Hypertension

Abstract

Spanish

French

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and clinical role of azilsartan medoxomil, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) that recently gained Food and Drug Administration approval for towering of Wood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension.

Data Sources:

A systematic review of the literature was performed through August 2011 using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and the key words and MeSH terms azilsartan, azilsartan medoxomil, TAK-491, TAK-536, and Edarbi. Abstracts presented in the last 2 years from the annual meetings of appropriate medical societies were reviewed in addition to a search of clintcaltrials.gov.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Studies eligible for inclusion were in vitro or in vivo evaluations of azilsartan medoxomil, with no restrictions on patient population or Indication. Data related to the patient populations and outcomes of interest were extracted from each publication.

Data Synthesis:

Three trials are available in full publication form with others available only as abstracts. Azilsartan medoxomil 40 mg and 60 mg daily significantly improves both systolic and diastolic BP from baseline compared with placebo, and the 80-mg dose has greater efficacy than other ARBs, including olmesartan 40 mg daily and valsartan 320 mg daily. Improvements in both 24-hour BP using ambulatory monitoring and clinic monitoring have been seen with azilsartan medoxomil as well as a higher proportion of patients reaching the goal level. Additional information shows added BP lowering when azilsartan medoxomil is combined with chlorthalidone. Adverse events are similar with azilsartan medoxomil versus other ARBs and include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infections, and fatigue.

Conclusions:

Azilsartan medoxomil is a safe and effective ARB with a unique pharmacologic profile versus other agents, including slowed angiotensin II type 1 receptor dissociation rates and improved receptor specificity. Studies have shown azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg once daily to reduce BP to a greater extent than valsartan and olmesartan, with similar safety and tolerability.

Keywords

angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil blood pressure hypertension TAK-491

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chobanian

, Bakris

, Cushman

. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003; 289:2560–72. DOI 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560

Elliott

, Plauschinat

, Skrepnek

, Gause

. Persistence, adherence, and risk of discontinuation associated with commonly prescribed antihypertensive monotherapies. J Am Board Fam Med 2007; 20:72–80. DOI 10.3122/jabfm.2007.01.060094

Burnier

. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers. Circulation 2001; 103:904–12. DOI 10.1161/01.CIR.103.6.904

Verdecchia

, Angeli

, Repaci

, Mazzotta

, Gentile

, Reboldi

. Comparative assessment of angiotensin receptor blockers in different clinical settings. Vase Health Risk Manag 2009; 5:939–48. DOI 10.2147/VHRM.S7263

Baumhakel

, Bohm

. Cardiovascular outcomes with angiotensin II receptor blockers: clinical implications of recent trials. Vase Health Risk Manag 2011; 7:391–7. DOI 10.2147/VHRM.S17168

Song

, White

. Pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and therapeutic differences among angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20:130–9. DOI 10.1592/phco03.13034788

Morsing

, Adler

, Brandt-Eliasson

. Mechanistic differences in various ATI-receptor blockers in isolated vessels of different origin. Hypertension 1999; 33:1406–13.

Elmfeldt

, Olofsson

, Meredith

. The relationship between dose and antihypertensive effect of four ATI-receptor blockers. Differences in potency and efficacy. Blood Press 2002; 11:293–301.

Baker

, White

, Coleman

. The impact of angiotensin II receptor blocker potency on the clinical outcomes of stroke, acute myocardial infarction, or death. Formulary 2007; 42:581–98.

10.

Kohara

, Kubo

, Imamiya

, Wada

, Inada

, Naka

. Synthesis and angiotensin II receptor antagonist activities of benzimidazole derivatives bearing acidic heterocycles as novel tetrazole bioisosteres. J Med Chem 1996; 39:5228–35.

11.

Edarbi label. Package insert: 2011 April 12. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_dccs/label/2011/200796s0011bl.pdf (accessed 2011 Jim 20).

12.

Ojima

, Igata

, Tanaka

. In vitro antagonistic properties of a new angiotensin type 1 receptor blocker, azilsartan, in receptor binding and function studies. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2011; 336:801–8. DOI10.1124/jpet.110.176636

13.

Iwai

, Chen

, Imura

, Horiuchi

. TAK-536, a new ATI receptor blocker, improves glucose intolerance and adipocyte differentiation. Am J Hypertens 2007; 20:579–86. DOI10.1016/j.amjhyper.2006.12.010

14.

Zhao

, Li

, Wang

. Azilsartan treatment improves insulin sensitivity in obese spontaneously hypertensive Koletsky rats. Diab Obet Metab 2011; 13:1123–9. DOI10.1111/j.1463–1326.2011.01471.x

15.

French

, Zaman

, Sobel

. The angiotensin receptor blocker, azilsartan medoxomil (TAK-491), suppresses vascular wall expression of plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 (PAI-1) protein potentially facilitating the stabilization of atherosclerotic plaques. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2011; 58:143–8. DOI 10.1097/FJC.0b013e31821dcbea

16.

, Keyes

, Zhang

. Additive effect of TAK-491, a new angiotensin receptor blocker, and pioglitazone, in reducing myocardial infarct size. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2010; 24:107–20. DOI 10.1007/s10557-010-6227-y

17.

Buclin

, Bioliaz

, Kung

. Tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the angiotensin II (Ang U) antagonist TAK-536 in healthy volunteers (abstract Pm-39). Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995: 57:204.

18.

Bakris

, Sica

, Weber

. The comparative effects of azilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2011; 13:81–8. DOI 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00482.x

19.

White

, Weber

, Sica

. Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension. Hypertension 2011; 57:413–20. DOI 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.163402

20.

Sica

, White

, Weber

. Comparison of the novel angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2011; 13:467–72. DOI 10.1111/j.1751-71762011.00482.x

21.

Bonner

, Bakris

, Sica

. Comparison of antihypertensive efficacy of the new angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil with ramipril (abstract). J Hypertens 2010; 28:e283

22.

Weber

, White

, Sica

. Antihypertensive efficacy of the new angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil in combination with amlodipine (abstract). J Clin Hypetens (Greenwich) 2010; 12(suppl 1):A115.

23.

Sica

, Bakris

, White

. New angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil coadministered with chlorthalidone provides potent blood pressure reduction in stage 2 hypertension (abstract). J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2010; 12(suppl 1):A114.

24.

Sica

, Bakris

, White

. Fixed-dose combination of azilsartan medoxomil/CLD provides superior BP reduction to monotherapies in stage 2 HTN (abstract). J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2011; 13(suppl 1):A90.

25.

Cushman

, Sica

, Bakris

. Efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmensartan/HCTZ combination in stage 2 systolic HTN (abstract). J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2011; 13(suppl 1):A81.

26.

Oparil

, Williams

, Chrysant

, Marbury

, Neutel

. Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2001; 3:283–91. DOI 10.111/j.1524-6175.2001.01136.x

27.

White

. Relating cardiovascular risk to out-of-office blood pressure and the importance of controlling blood pressure 24 hours a day. Am J Med 2008; 121(suppl 8):s2–s7. DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.05.016

28.

Fagard

, Thijs

, Staessen

, Clement

, De Buyzere

, De Bacquer

. Prognostic significance of ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients with history of cardiovascular disease. Blood Press Monit 2008; 13:325–32. DOI 10.1097/MBP.0b.013e32831054f5

29.

Dolan

, Stanton

, Thorn

. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring predicts cardiovascular events in treated hypertensive patients-an Anglo-Scandinavian cardiac outcomes trial substudy. J Hypertens 2009; 27:876–85. DOI 10.1097/HJH.0b013e328322cb62

30.

White

. Advances in ambulatory blood pressure monitoring for the evaluation of antihypertensive therapy. In: White

, ed. Blood pressure monitoring in cardiovascular medicine and therapeutics. 2nd ed. Totowa, NJ: Springer-Verlag-Humana Press, 2007: 437–62.

31.

Mansoor

, McCabe

, White

. Long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure. J Hypertens 1994; 12:703–8.

32.

Campbell

, Ghuman

, Wakefield

, Wolfson

, White

. Long-term reproducibility of ambulatory blood pressure is superior to office blood pressure in the very elderly. J Hum Hypertens 2010; 24:749–54. DOI 10.1038/jhh.2010.8

33.

Johnson

, White

, Sica

. Efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil, a novel angiotensin II receptor blocker, in African-Americans with hypertension (abstract). J Clin Hypertens 2011; 12(suppl 1):A111.

34.

Jamerson

, Weber

, Bakris

. Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:2417–28.

35.

Ernst

, Carter

, Goerdt

. Comparative antihypertensive effects of hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone on ambulatory and office blood pressure. Hypertension 2006; 47:352–8. DOI 10.1161/01HYP.0000203309.07140.d3

36.

Dorsch

, Gillespie

, Erickson

, Bleske

, Weder

. Chlorthalidone reduces cardiovascular events compared with hydrochlorothiazide: a retrospective cohort analysis. Hypertension 2011; 57:689–94. DOI 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.161505

37.

Ross

, Akhras

, Zhang

, Rozinsky

, Nalysnyk

. Discontinuation of antihypertensive drugs due to adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21:940–53. DOI 10.1592/phco.21.11.94034520

38.

Mancia

, Seravalle

, Grassi

. Tolerability and treatment compliance with angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Am J Hypertens 2003; 16:1066–73. DOI 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2003.07.012

39.

Conlin

, Gerth

, Fox

, Roehm

, Boccuzzi

. Four-year persistence patterns among patients initiating therapy with the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan versus other antihypertensive drug classes. Clin Ther 2001; 23:1999–2010.

40.

Information for Vermont Prescribers of Prescription Drugs: (Long Form). http://www.tpna.com/responsibility/pdf/EdarbiVermontPrescribersLongForm.pdf (accessed 2011 Sept 6).

41.

Saji

, Yamanaka

, Hagiwara

, Ijiri

. Losartan and fetal toxic effects. Lancet 2001; 357:363. DOI 10.1016/S0140-6796(00)03648-5

42.

Pfeffer

, Swedberg

, Granger

. Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet 2003; 362:759–66. DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14282-1

43.

The TRANSCEND Investigators. Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 372:1174–83. DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61242-8

44.

The ONTARGET Investigators. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1547–59.