Azilsartan medoxomil 80mg tablets

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the safety of azilsartan and amlodipine combination therapy versus other angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and amlodipine in patients with hypertension. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study utilizing healthcare databases from Korea and Taiwan. Patients aged between 18 years and 75 years who were newly prescribed both an ARB and amlodipine within 6 months of hypertension diagnosis were included. Safety outcomes assessed were hypotension, angioedema, acute pancreatitis, hyperkalemia, hypokalemia, toxic liver disease, hepatic failure, nausea and vomiting, and fall-related injury. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each safety outcome associated with azilsartan medoxomil and amlodipine versus other ARBs combined with amlodipine were calculated within a 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched cohort. Summary HRs across databases were computed using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 2,472 eligible patients (1,521 from Korea, 951 from Taiwan) initiating treatment with azilsartan medoxomil and amlodipine, and 671,468 patients (312,322 from Korea, 355,409 from Taiwan) initiating other ARBs with amlodipine. After PS matching, baseline characteristics were well-balanced between treatment groups. During the 180-day follow-up, most adverse outcomes did not occur even once in either group, thus precluding the calculation of HRs. The risk of acute pancreatitis was not significantly different between the azilsartan medoxomil and amlodipine group and the other ARB and amlodipine groups (summary HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.14 to 5.37). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort study, azilsartan medoxomil combined with amlodipine was not associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes compared to other ARBs combined with amlodipine.

Abstract licence: CC BY

INTRODUCTION: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis was conducted on azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) versus other antihypertensive drugs' efficacy in hypertensive patients. METHODS: The search utilized English platforms, from January 2000 until December 2023, resulting in 10,380 articles being screened. Screening criteria included hypertension (mild or moderate); first-line treatment and washout periods; studies (monotherapy) with AZL-M, angiotensin type II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNIs), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and diuretics, either as intervention or comparator; and antihypertension efficacy as an outcome measure. Study design was randomized clinical trials. Efficacy variables included absolute office systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) reductions. A total of 21 publications provided adequate data for analysis, of which 20 studies reported both systolic and diastolic BP and one study reported only the diastolic BP. RESULTS: In 21 studies on systolic BP, against the common comparator placebo, the differences in systolic BP were significantly in favor of AZL-M, amlodipine, candesartan, irbesartan, nebivolol, nifedipine, olmesartan, sacubitril valsartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ranking shows that AZL-M 80 mg had the highest ranking, with a possibility of 93% being the best in all other included treatments. In 20 studies on diastolic BP, against the common comparator placebo, the differences in diastolic BP were significantly in favor of AZL-M, amlodipine, bisoprolol, nebivolol, olmesartan, sacubitril valsartan, telmisartan, and valsartan. The SUCRA ranking shows that AZL-M 80 mg had the highest ranking, with a possibility of 90% being the best in all other included treatments. CONCLUSION: AZL-M at 40 mg and 80 mg shows favorable efficacy compared to other anti-hypertensives, and the 80 mg dosage seemed to be the most efficacious of all the included treatments in reducing both office systolic and diastolic BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC

Abstract Characterized by ventricular and vascular stiffness, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has led to high morbidity and mortality. As azilsartan is an angiotensin receptor blocker with the highest myocardial and vascular affinities, azilsartan may improve the left ventricular (LV) diastolic function in patients with hypertension and either HFpEF or HF with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) more than candesartan. In this randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 193 hypertensive patients with HF and LV ejection fraction ≥ 45% to 20 mg of azilsartan (n = 95) or 8 mg of candesartan (n = 98), once daily for 48 weeks. After the initiation of treatment, changes in the doses of the study drugs were permitted based on the patient’s conditions, including blood pressure (median dose at 48 weeks: azilsartan 20.0 mg/day, candesartan 8.0 mg/day). The primary endpoint was the baseline-adjusted change in the ratio of peak early diastolic transmitral flow velocity (E) to early diastolic mitral annular velocity (e′) (E/e′). Adjusted least-squares mean (LSM) change in E/e′ was − 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] − 1.49 to − 0.04) in the azilsartan group and 0.2 (95% CI − 0.49 to 0.94) in the candesartan group, providing the LSM differences of − 1.0 (95% CI − 2.01 to 0.03, P = 0.057). The median change in left atrial volume index was – 2.7 mL/m 2 with azilsartan vs 1.4 mL/m 2 with candesartan (P = 0.091). The frequency of adverse events related to hypotension and hyperkalemia did not differ between the groups. The current study did not provide strong evidence that azilsartan improves LV diastolic dysfunction, and further confirmatory study is required.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Renal ischemia/reperfusion (IR) injury is characterized by an unexpected impairment of blood flow to the kidney. Azilsartan is an angiotensin receptor blocker that is approved for the management of hypertension. The present study aimed to investigate, on molecular basics, the nephroprotective activity of azilsartan on renal IR injury in rats. Rats were assigned into four groups: (1) Sham group, (2) Azilsartan group, (3) IR group, and (4) IR/Azilsartan-treated group. Histological examination and renal function were evaluated. Levels of KIM-1, HMGB1, caspase 3, GPX, SOD, NF-κB, and p53 proteins were investigated using ELISA. mRNA levels of IL-1β, IL6, IL10, TNF-α, NF-κB, p53, and bax were assessed by qRT-PCR. Expression of p38, JNK, and ERK1/2 proteins was investigated by Western blotting. IR injury resulted in tissue damage, elevation of creatinine, BUN, KIM-1, HMGB1, caspase 3, NF-κB, and p53 levels, decreasing GPX and SOD activities, and up-regulation of NF-κB, IL-1β, IL6, TNF-α, p53, and bax genes. Furthermore, it up-regulated the expression of phosphorylated/total ratio of p38, ERK1/2, and JNK proteins. Interestingly, treatment of the injured rats with azilsartan significantly alleviated IR injury-induced histopathological and biochemical changes. It reduced the creatinine, BUN, KIM-1, HMGB1, caspase-3, NF-κB, and p53 levels, elevated GPX and SOD activities, down-regulated the expression of NF-κB, IL-1β, IL6, TNF-α, p53, and bax genes, and up-regulated IL10 gene expression. Furthermore, it decreased the phosphorylated/total ratio of p38, ERK1/2, and JNK proteins. Azilsartan exhibited nephroprotective activity in IR-injured rats via its antioxidant effect, suppression of inflammation, attenuation of apoptosis, and inhibition of HMGB1/NF-κB/p38/ERK1/2/JNK signaling pathway.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal-dominant neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor, psychiatric and cognitive symptoms. Injection of 3-nitropropionic acid (3-NP) is a widely used experimental model for induction of HD. The current study aimed to inspect the potential neuroprotective properties of azilsartan (Azil), an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ATR1), in 3-NP-induced striatal neurotoxicity in rats. Rats were randomly allocated into five groups and treated for 14 days as follows: group I received normal saline; group II received Azil (10 mg/kg, p.o.); group III received 3-NP (10 mg/kg, i.p); group IV and V received Azil (5 or 10 mg/kg, p.o, respectively) 1 h prior to 3-NP injection. Both doses of Azil markedly attenuated motor and behavioural dysfunction as well as striatal histopathological alterations caused by 3-NP. In addition, Azil balanced striatal neurotransmitters levels as evidenced by the increase of striatal gamma-aminobutyric acid content and the decrease of glutamate content. Azil also amended neuroinflammation and oxidative stress via modulating IĸB/NF-ĸB and KEAP1/Nrf2 downstream signalling pathways, as well as reducing iNOS and COX2 levels. Moreover, Azil demonstrated an anti-apoptotic activity by reducing caspase-3 level and BAX/BCL2 ratio. In conclusion, the present study reveals the neuroprotective potential of Azil in 3-NP-induced behavioural, histopathological and biochemical changes in rats. These findings might be attributed to inhibition of ATR1/NF-κB signalling, modulation of Nrf2/KEAP1 signalling, anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and anti-apoptotic properties.

Abstract licence: CC BY