Related Articles

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are known to reduce the cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. This study was designed to examine the effect of an ARB candesartan on subclinical atherosclerosis assessed by cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) in comparison with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) alone in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS). A total of 53 consecutive hypertensive patients with MetS were randomly assigned to the candesartan group, in which candesartan was added on, or the CCBs group, in which CCBs were added on. Clinical and biological parameters were obtained before and after the 12-month treatment period. The primary measure of efficacy was the %change in CAVI. When treated with candesartan, but not CCBs, CAVI significantly decreased from 8.7 to 7.7 by 11%. Blood pressure (BP) significantly decreased with both treatments, but the differences between groups were not significant. The changes in other parameters remained unchanged in both the groups. Analysis of covariance found that both the BP reduction and the therapy difference contributed to the decrease in CAVI, but the BP reduction was not involved in the decrease in CAVI caused by the difference in the therapy. Candesartan may be a better antihypertensive drug than CCBs to improve subclinical atherosclerosis of patients with MetS.

Angiotensin II AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used in the clinical treatment of hypertension. Subcutaneous or oral administration of the ARB candesartan inhibits brain as well as peripheral AT1 receptors, indicating transport across the blood brain barrier. Pretreatment with candesartan profoundly modifies the response to stress. The ARB prevents the peripheral and central sympathetic activation characteristic of isolation stress and abolishes the activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis during isolation. In addition, candesartan prevents the isolation-induced decrease in cortical corticotropin-releasing factor 1 and benzodiazepine receptors induced by isolation. When administered before cold-restraint stress, candesartan totally prevents the production of gastric ulcerations. This preventive effect of candesartan is the consequence of profound anti-inflammatory effects, reduction of sympathetic stimulation, and preservation of blood flow to the gastric mucosa. The ARB does not reduce the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis stimulation during cold-restraint. Preservation of the effects of endogenous glucocorticoids is essential for protection of the gastric mucosa during cold-restraint. Administration of the ARB to non-stressed rats decreases anxiety in the elevated plus-maze. Our results demonstrate that Angiotensin II, through AT1 receptor stimulation, is a major stress hormone, and that ARBs, in addition to their anti-hypertensive effects, may be considered for the treatment of stress-related disorders.

Background

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), including olmesartan and candesartan, are widely used antihypertensive agents. Many clinical studies have demonstrated that ARBs have organ-protecting effects, e.g., cardioprotection, vasculoprotection and renoprotection. However, the effect of prolonged olmesartan monotherapy on lipid metabolism in patients with hypertension is less well studied. We performed a retrospective observational study to compare the effects of olmesartan with those of candesartan, focusing on lipid metabolism and renal function.

Methods

We used data from the Clinical Data Warehouse of Nihon University School of Medicine obtained between Nov 1, 2004 and Feb 28, 2011, to identify cohorts of new olmesartan users (n = 168) and candesartan users (n = 266). We used propensity-score weighting to adjust for differences in all covariates (age, sex, comorbid diseases, previous drugs) between olmesartan and candesartan users, and compared serum chemical data including serum triglyceride (TG), LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), potassium, creatinine and urea nitrogen. The mean exposure of olmesartan and candesartan users was 126.1 and 122.8 days, respectively.

Results

After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in all covariates between olmesartan and candesartan users. The mean age was 60.7 and 61.0 years, and 33.4% and 33.7% of olmesartan and candesartan users were women, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in mean values for all laboratory tests between baseline and during the exposure period in both olmesartan and candesartan users. In olmesartan users, the reduction of serum TG level was significant in comparison with that in candesartan users. Other parameters of lipid profile and renal function showed no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to during the exposure period between olmesartan and candesartan users.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed a more beneficial effect on lipid metabolism, a reduction of serum TG, with olmesartan monotherapy than with candesartan monotherapy. However, there were no clinically significant changes in the levels of all test parameters between baseline and during the exposure period with both drugs. These results suggest that the influence of olmesartan or candesartan monotherapy on lipid metabolism and renal function is small, and that they can be safely used in patients with hypertension.

The advantages of blood pressure (BP) control on the risks of heart failure and stroke are well established. The renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in volume homeostasis and BP regulation and is a target for several groups of antihypertensive drugs. Angiotensin II receptor blockers represent a major class of antihypertensive compounds. Candesartan cilexetil is an angiotensin II type 1 (AT[1]) receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) that inhibits the actions of angiotensin II on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Oral candesartan 8–32 mg once daily is recommended for the treatment of adult patients with hypertension. Clinical trials have demonstrated that candesartan cilexetil is an effective agent in reducing the risk of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, heart failure, arterial stiffness, renal failure, retinopathy, and migraine in different populations of adult patients including patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or kidney impairment. Clinical evidence confirmed that candesartan cilexetil provides better antihypertensive efficacy than losartan and is at least as effective as telmisartan and valsartan. Candesartan cilexetil, one of the current market leaders in BP treatment, is a highly selective compound with high potency, a long duration of action, and a tolerability profile similar to placebo. The most important and recent data from clinical trials regarding candesartan cilexetil will be reviewed in this article.

SUMMARY

In addition to regulating blood pressure, Angiotensin II exerts powerful pro-inflammatory effects in hypertension through stimulation of its AT1 receptors, most clearly demonstrated in peripheral arteries and in the cerebral vasculature. Administration of Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) decreases hypertension-related vascular inflammation in peripheral organs. In rodent models of genetic hypertension, ARBs reverse the inflammation in the cerebral microcirculation.

We hypothesized that ARBs could be effective in inflammatory conditions beyond hypertension. Our more recent studies, summarized here, indicate that this is indeed the case.

We used the model of systemic administration of the bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide (LPS). LPS produces a robust initial inflammatory reaction, the innate immune response, in peripheral organs and in the brain. Pretreatment with the ARB candesartan significantly diminishes the response to LPS, including reduction of pro-inflammatory cytokine release to the general circulation and decreased production and release of the pro-inflammatory adrenal hormone aldosterone. In addition, the ARB very significantly decreased the LPS-induced gene expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and microglia activation in the brain. Our results demonstrate that AT1 receptor activity is essential for the unrestricted development of full-scale innate immune response in the periphery and in the brain. ARBs, due to their immune response-limiting properties, may be considered as therapeutically useful in a number of inflammatory diseases of the peripheral organs and the brain.

As the effect of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade on β-cells in clinical situations remains unclear, new evidence has been presented that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin ‖ receptor blockers (ARBs) may delay or prevent the development of insulin resistance and diabetes through novel mechanisms. This study aimed to determine the effects of ARBs on insulin excretion by β-cells. Hypertensive patients with impaired glucose tolerance were randomly divided into two groups: group A (n = 6), which received 8 mg/day of oral candesartan for three months, and controls (n = 6). Before and after administration, a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test was conducted to compare various parameters. No significant differences in age, body mass index (BMI), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), fasting glucose, or fasting immunoreactive insulin (IRI) were identified between the groups before administration. After three months, there were no significant changes in BMI, SBP, and DBP for the controls and in BMI and DBP for group A. However, SBP was significantly decreased from 144 ± 2.6 mmHg to 125 ± 4.6 mmHg in group A. Insulinogenic index tended to be slightly decreased for controls, but was significantly increased from 0.32 ± 0.0 to 0.47 ± 0.1 for group A. No significant changes in HOMA-R were identified in either group. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have documented a RAS inhibitor improving early-phase insulin response; thus, the present study may be the first of its kind.

Background

A beneficial effect on glucose metabolism is reported with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) treatment of hypertension. The effect on blood glucose level during the course of treatment with ARBs in clinical cases is uncertain. Our objectives were to survey the changes in glucose and HbA1c levels in patients with hypertension over a one-year period, and to study the correlations between these values and the time after the start of ARB therapy.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective longitudinal survey of blood glucose and HbA1c measurements in Japanese patients aged ≥20 years with newly diagnosed hypertension but without diabetes, who had received ARB monotherapy with candesartan cilexetil, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, or valsartan during the period from December 2004 to November 2005. Data including 2465 measurements of non-fasting blood glucose in 485 patients and 457 measurements of HbA1c in 155 patients were obtained from electronic medical records of Nihon University School of Medicine. Linear mixed effects models were used to analyze the relationship between these longitudinal data of blood examinations and covariates of patient age, sex, medication, and duration of ARB therapy.

Results

Casual blood glucose level was associated with the duration of treatment (P < 0.0001), but not with age, sex, or medication. Blood glucose level was significantly decreased during the periods of 0~3 months (P < 0.0001) and 3~6 months (P = 0.0081) compared with baseline, but was not significantly different between 6~12 months and baseline. There was no association between HbA1c level and covariates of sex, age, medication and duration of treatment.

Conclusion

Our findings provide new clinical evidence that the effects of ARBs on glucose metabolism may change during the course of treatment, suggesting a blood glucose-lowering effect in the short-term after the start of treatment.

The attempts to develop new treatments for acute ischemic stroke have been fraught with costly and spectacularly disappointing failures. Repurposing of safe, older drugs provides a lower risk alternative. Vascular protection is a novel strategy for improving stroke outcome. Promising targets for vascular protection after stroke have been identified, and several of these targets can be approached with “repurposed” old drugs, including statins, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and minocycline.

We tested the vascular protection (ability to reduce hemorrhagic transformation) of three marketed drugs (candesartan, minocycline, and atorvastatin) in the experimental stroke model using three different rat strains [Wistar, spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) and type 2 diabetic Goto-Kakizaki (GK) rats]. All agents decreased the infarct size, improved the neurological outcome and decreased bleeding. Mechanisms identified include inhibition of MMP-9, activation of Akt, and increased expression of proangiogenic growth factors. Premorbid vascular damage (presence of either diabetes or hypertension) increased the likelihood of vascular injury after ischemia and reperfusion and improved the response to vascular protection.

Background

Studies focusing on the add-on effects of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) other than their antihypertensive effect are receiving attention. However, the effects of prolonged administration of ARBs on lipid metabolism in clinical cases are unclear. Our aims were to survey the changes in plasma lipid profile in patients with hypertension over a one-year period, and to examine the correlations between these values and the time after the start of ARB monotherapy with candesartan.

Methods

We carried out candesartan monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and examined the longitudinal changes in plasma lipid profile. Data from 405 patients for triglyceride (TG), 440 for total cholesterol (TC), 313 for high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and 304 for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were obtained from the electronic medical records (EMRs) in the Clinical Data Warehouse (CDW) of Nihon University School of Medicine (NUSM). The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method (calculated from the inverse of the propensity score) was used to balance the covariates and reduce bias in each treatment duration. Linear mixed effects models were used to analyse the relationship between these longitudinal data of blood examinations and covariates of patient sex, age, diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM) and duration of candesartan monotherapy.

Results

Plasma HDL-C level was associated with sex, duration of treatment, and interaction of sex and treatment duration, but not with age or diagnosis of DM. HDL-C level was significantly decreased during the 6~9 months period (p = 0.0218) compared with baseline. TG and TC levels were associated with sex, but not with age, diagnosis of DM or treatment duration. LDL-C level was not associated with any covariate. Analysis of the subjects divided by sex revealed a decrease in HDL-C in female subjects (during the 6~9 months period: p = 0.0054), but not in male subjects.

Conclusions

Our study revealed that administration of candesartan slightly decreased HDL-C in female subjects. However, TG, TC and LDL-C levels were not influenced by candesartan monotherapy. Candesartan may be safely used for patients with hypertension with respect to lipid metabolism, because the effect of candesartan on lipids may be small.

Introduction

Toll-like receptors play an important role in the innate immune system and are found to be crucial in severe diseases like sepsis, atherosclerosis, and arthritis. TLR2 and TLR4 expression is upregulated in the inflammatory diseases. Angiotensin II in addition to stimulating vasoconstriction also induces an increase in ROS and a proinflammatory phenotype via AT1R. Angiotensin II type-1 receptor blocker (ARB), widely used as an antihypertensive drug, has been reported to also have anti-inflammatory effects. Thus, we investigated whether an ARB exerts anti-inflammatory effects via inhibiting TLR2 and TLR4 expression.

Methods and results

Monocytes were isolated from healthy human volunteers and treated with the synthetic lipoprotein Pam3CSK4 or LPS in the absence or presence of candesartan. Pretreatment of human monocytes with candesartan significantly decreased Pam3CSK4 or LPS induced TLR2 and TLR4 expression of both mRNA and protein levels (P < 0.05 vs. control) along with decrease in the activity of NF-κB and the expression of IL-1β, IL-6, TNF-α, and MCP-1. Furthermore, candesartan treated mice show decreased TLR2 and TLR4 expression compared to vehicle control mice.

Conclusion

Pam3CSK4 and LPS induced TLR2 and TLR4 expression at mRNA and protein levels are inhibited by candesartan both in vitro and in vivo. Thus, we define a novel pathway by which candesartan could induce anti-inflammatory effects.

Brain inflammation has a critical role in the pathophysiology of brain diseases of high prevalence and economic impact, such as major depression, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, and traumatic brain injury. Our results demonstrate that systemic administration of the centrally acting angiotensin II AT1 receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan to normotensive rats decreases the acute brain inflammatory response to administration of the bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a model of brain inflammation. The broad anti-inflammatory effects of candesartan were seen across the entire inflammatory cascade, including decreased production and release to the circulation of centrally acting proinflammatory cytokines, repression of nuclear transcription factors activation in the brain, reduction of gene expression of brain proinflammatory cytokines, cytokine and prostanoid receptors, adhesion molecules, proinflammatory inducible enzymes, and reduced microglia activation. These effects are widespread, occurring not only in well-known brain target areas for circulating proinflammatory factors and LPS, that is, hypothalamic paraventricular nucleus and the subfornical organ, but also in the prefrontal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala. Candesartan reduced the associated anorexic effects, and ameliorated associated body weight loss and anxiety. Direct anti-inflammatory effects of candesartan were also documented in cultured rat microglia, cerebellar granule cells, and cerebral microvascular endothelial cells. ARBs are widely used in the treatment of hypertension and stroke, and their anti-inflammatory effects contribute to reduce renal and cardiac failure. Our results indicate that these compounds may offer a novel and safe therapeutic approach for the treatment of brain disorders.

The prevalence of heart failure is ever increasing around the world, particularly due to aging populations. Despite improvements in treatment over the last 20 years, the prognosis for heart failure remains poor. Among the treatments recommended for chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers are crucial, provided of course that they are not contraindicated. However, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) can also be a beneficial treatment option. Candesartan is a particular ARB, characterized by a strong binding affinity to the angiotensin II type 1 receptor and slow dissociation. The benefits of candesartan have been demonstrated by the CHARM programme, which showed that candesartan significantly reduces the incidence of cardiovascular death, hospital admissions for decompensated heart failure, and all-cause mortality in chronic heart failure patients with altered left ventricular systolic function, when added to standard therapies or as an alternative to ACE inhibitors when these are poorly tolerated. Furthermore, candesartan can protect against myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation and diabetes. Tolerance to candesartan is good, but blood pressure and serum potassium and creatinine levels must be monitored.

The renin–angiotensin system has an important function in the regulation of blood pressure as well as in pathophysiological processes in the central nervous system. We examined the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan (10 mg kg−1 per day, p.o.) on brain angiotensin II levels in angiotensin II-infused hypertensive rats. Angiotensin II or vehicle was infused subcutaneously for 14 days in Sprague–Dawley rats. Angiotensin II infusion resulted in increased blood pressure, an effect that was blocked by candesartan treatment. There was no effect of the angiotensin II infusion on Angiotensin II levels in the brain or on blood–brain barrier permeability. Brain tissue angiotensinogen and angiotensin converting enzyme mRNA levels were not changed by angiotensin II infusion but were decreased by candesartan treatment. At 2 weeks of treatment, CV11974, an active form of candesartan, was detectable in the plasma but was not detectable in brain tissue. These data suggest that treatment with candesartan decreases brain angiotensin II by decreasing brain angiotensinogen and angiotensin converting enzyme gene expression.

Azilsartan, an angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blocker (ARB), was recently approved by regulatory authorities for treatment of hypertension and is the 8th ARB to join the clinical market. This article discusses the medical reasons for introducing a new AT1 receptor blocker and reviews the experimental and clinical studies that have compared the functional properties of azilsartan to those of other ARBs. The main question addressed is: Does azilsartan have distinguishing features that should motivate choosing it over any of the other sartans for use in clinical practice? Based on studies conducted to date in hypertensive patients without serious comorbidities, azilsartan appears to be characterized by a superior ability to control 24-hour systolic blood pressure (BP) relative to other widely used ARBs including valsartan, olmesartan, and candesartan, and presumably others as well (eg, losartan). Compared to these other ARBs, azilsartan may increase the BP target control and response rate by an absolute value of 8%–10%. Greater antihypertensive effects of azilsartan might be due in part to its unusually potent and persistent ability to inhibit binding of angiotensin II to AT1 receptors. Preclinical studies have indicated that azilsartan may also have potentially beneficial effects on cellular mechanisms of cardiometabolic disease and insulin sensitizing activity that could involve more than just blockade of AT1 receptors and/or reduction in BP. However, the clinical relevance of these additional actions is unknown. Given that the general ability of antihypertensive drugs to protect against target organ damage is largely mediated by their ability to decrease BP, the enhanced antihypertensive effects of azilsartan should serve to justify clinical interest in this ARB relative to other molecules in the class that have a lower capacity to reduce BP.

Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties no comparative studies with cardiovascular disease (CVD) end points have been performed within this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there are blood pressure independent CVD-risk differences between losartan and candesartan treatment in patients with hypertension without known CVD. Seventy-two primary care centres in Sweden were screened for patients who had been prescribed losartan or candesartan between the years 1999 and 2007. Among the 24 943 eligible patients, 14 100 patients were diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed losartan (n=6771) or candesartan (n=7329). Patients were linked to Swedish national hospitalizations and death cause register. There was no difference in blood pressure reduction when comparing the losartan and candesartan groups during follow-up. Compared with the losartan group, the candesartan group had a lower adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD (0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.96, P=0.0062), heart failure (0.64, 95% CI 0.50–0.82, P=0.0004), cardiac arrhythmias (0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.92, P=0.0330), and peripheral artery disease (0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.91, P=0.0140). No difference in blood pressure reduction was observed suggesting that other mechanisms related to different pharmacological properties of the drugs may explain the divergent clinical outcomes.

Objective

To differentiate angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) by vascular effects and outcomes in trials on cardio-protective endpoints.

Data Sources

MEDLINE searches were conducted from January 2003 to March 2009 using the following search terms: renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade or inhibition; angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARBs); cardio-protection; vascular protection; end-organ protection; candesartan; eprosartan, irbesartan; losartan; olmesartan; telmisartan; and valsartan. Ongoing and recruiting clinical trials were identified via Clinicaltrials.gov (July 2008).

Study Selection and Data Abstraction

Pertinent basic science research and clinical trials with cardiovascular endpoints and information from reviews, American Heart Association 2009 statistics, and The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure guidelines were included in this review.

Data Synthesis

ARBs differ in their vascular protective pleiotropic effects and pharmacokinetic properties, which may contribute to their pharmacological protection to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, independently of their blood pressure (BP)–lowering effects.

Conclusion

Emerging data show that ARBs are effective in hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, postmyocardial infarction, and heart failure. To what extent their pleiotropic effects, independent of BP lowering, contribute to these outcomes will be the focus of research in the coming years. Well-designed, comparative-effectiveness studies are needed to clinically differentiate this class of agents. The future will be marked by multifunctional ARBs that will pharmacologically do more than antagonize the angiotensin type I (AT1) receptor.

Background

Both angiotensin II type I receptor blockers (ARBs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are widely used antihypertensive drugs. Many clinical studies have demonstrated and compared the organ-protection effects and adverse events of these drugs. However, few large-scale studies have focused on the effect of these drugs as monotherapy on laboratory parameters. We evaluated and compared the effects of ARB and CCB monotherapy on clinical laboratory parameters in patients with concomitant hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

We used data from the Clinical Data Warehouse of Nihon University School of Medicine obtained between Nov 1, 2004 and July 31, 2011, to identify cohorts of new ARB users (n = 601) and propensity-score matched new CCB users (n = 601), with concomitant mild to moderate hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. We used a multivariate-adjusted regression model to adjust for differences between ARB and CCB users, and compared laboratory parameters including serum levels of triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), non-fasting blood glucose, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), sodium, potassium, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), hemoglobin and hematocrit, and white blood cell (WBC), red blood cell (RBC) and platelet (PLT) counts up to 12 months after the start of ARB or CCB monotherapy.

Results

We found a significant reduction of serum TC, HbA1c, hemoglobin and hematocrit and RBC count and a significant increase of serum potassium in ARB users, and a reduction of serum TC and hemoglobin in CCB users, from the baseline period to the exposure period. The reductions of RBC count, hemoglobin and hematocrit in ARB users were significantly greater than those in CCB users. The increase of serum potassium in ARB users was significantly greater than that in CCB users.

Conclusions

Our study suggested that hematological adverse effects and electrolyte imbalance are greater with ARB monotherapy than with CCB monotherapy.

Summary

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have become established as a major class of antihypertensive on the basis of their powerful effects on blood pressure (BP), excellent tolerability and pleiotropic end-organ-protective effects. However, individual ARBs vary in antihypertensive efficacy, which may be important to clinical outcome. Several strategies are available to ensure that BP reductions with ARBs are at least as great as that which can be achieved with other antihypertensive classes. Firstly, several newer ARBs, including irbesartan, candesartan, telmisartan and olmesartan, have been reported to provide equivalent antihypertensive efficacy to amlodipine and greater efficacy than either losartan, valsartan or both. Secondly, increases in dose may improve the antihypertensive efficacy of agents such as valsartan, although clinical studies are necessary to provide characterisation of new, higher-dose monotherapies. Thirdly, fixed dose combinations with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) increase the antihypertensive effect of all ARBs. It is likely that differences in efficacy between newer and older ARBs will in some cases be sustained in combination therapy, such that the most potent ARBs and HCTZ will provide another tier of control. The future use of ARBs is likely to involve a growing emphasis on compound-specific data, with regard to the antihypertensive efficacy and pleiotropic protective actions of agents.

OBJECTIVE—Many of the effects of angiotensin (Ang) II are mediated through specific plasma membrane receptors. However, Ang II also elicits biological effects from the interior of the cell (intracrine), some of which are not inhibited by Ang receptor blockers (ARBs). Recent in vitro studies have identified high glucose as a potent stimulus for the intracellular synthesis of Ang II, the production of which is mainly chymase dependent. In the present study, we determined whether hyperglycemia activates the cardiac intracellular renin-Ang system (RAS) in vivo and whether ARBs, ACE, or renin inhibitors block synthesis and effects of intracellular Ang II (iAng II).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—Diabetes was induced in adult male rats by streptozotocin. Diabetic rats were treated with insulin, candesartan (ARB), benazepril (ACE inhibitor), or aliskiren (renin inhibitor).

RESULTS—One week of diabetes significantly increased iAng II levels in cardiac myocytes, which were not normalized by candesartan, suggesting that Ang II was synthesized intracellularly, not internalized through AT1 receptor. Increased intracellular levels of Ang II, angiotensinogen, and renin were observed by confocal microscopy. iAng II synthesis was blocked by aliskiren but not by benazepril. Diabetes-induced superoxide production and cardiac fibrosis were partially inhibited by candesartan and benazepril, whereas aliskiren produced complete inhibition. Myocyte apoptosis was partially inhibited by all three agents.

CONCLUSIONS—Diabetes activates the cardiac intracellular RAS, which increases oxidative stress and cardiac fibrosis. Renin inhibition has a more pronounced effect than ARBs and ACE inhibitors on these diabetes complications and may be clinically more efficacious.

To clarify the mechanism of the effects of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists on adipose tissue, we treated 8 week-old male Wistar Kyoto rats with the angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonist Candesartan cilexetil (10 mg/kg/day) for 18 weeks. Candesartan cilexetil reduced body weight gain, decreased fat tissue mass due to hypotrophy of epididymal and retroperitoneal adipose tissue and decreased adipocyte size without changing the number of adipocytes. Candesartan cilexetil decreased serum leptin levels and epididymal leptin mRNA, increased serum adiponectin levels and epididymal adiponectin mRNA, decreased epididymal tumor-necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) mRNA, and increased fatty acid synthase mRNA. Considered free of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (PPARγ) agonist activity, Candesartan cilexetil increased epididymal expression of PPARγ mRNA. The effects of Candesartan cilexetil on adipokine production and release may be attributable to PPARγ activation and/or decrease in adipocyte cell size. In addition, Candesartan cilexetil treatment increased the expression of epididymal angiotensin II AT2 receptor mRNA and protein and decreased the expression of renin receptor mRNA. These results suggest that Candesartan cilexetil influences lipid metabolism in adipose tissue by promoting adipose tissue rearrangement and modulating adipokine expression and release. These effects are probably consequences of local angiotensin II AT1 receptor inhibition, angiotensin II AT2 receptor stimulation, and perhaps additional angiotensin II -independent mechanisms. Our results indicate that the activity of local renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in adipose tissue metabolism The decrease in the pro-inflammatory cytokine TNFα and the increase in the anti-inflammatory adipokine adiponectin indicate that Candesartan cilexetil may exert significant anti-inflammatory properties.

Chronic treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers is largely accepted for protecting cerebral circulation during hypertension, but beneficial effects of short-term treatments are questionable, as highlighted by the recent SCAST trial. We compared the impact of 10 days treatment with candesartan (as SCAST) versus telmisartan (previously described to reverse arteriolar remodeling, chronic treatment) on pial arterioles of spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). We explored whether PPAR-gamma agonist activity or AT1 receptor blockade are involved in their differential effects. In the first study, 4-month-old male SHR were treated with telmisartan (TELMI, 2 mg/kg per day) or candesartan cilexetil (CANDE, 10 mg/kg per day) and compared to vehicle treated SHR and normotensive WKY. In a second study, SHR were treated with CANDE, pioglitazone (a PPAR-gamma agonist, PIO 2.5 mg/kg per day) or CANDE+PIO, compared to TELMI. Internal diameter of pial arterioles (ID, cranial window) was measured at baseline, during hemorrhage-induced hypotension, or following suffusion of Ang II (10−6 mol/L) or EDTA inactivation of smooth muscle cells (passive ID). PPAR-gamma and eNOS (target gene of PPAR-gamma) mRNA were evaluated in brain microvessels. For similar antihypertensive effects, TELMI (+44% versus SHR), but not CANDE, increased baseline ID. During hemorrhage, ID in TELMI group was similar to WKY, while ID in SHR and CANDE remained lower. In the second study, TELMI (+36%, versus SHR) and CANDE+PIO (+43%) increased baseline ID, but not CANDE or PIO alone. TELMI (−66%) and CANDE+PIO (−69%), but neither CANDE nor PIO alone, decreased Ang II-induced vasoconstriction. CANDE+PIO, but not CANDE, increased passive ID. In both studies, PPAR-gamma and eNOS expressions were higher in TELMI than CANDE.

Short-term treatment with TELMI, but not with CANDE, reverses narrowing of pial arteriolar ID in SHR. This may involve PPAR-gamma related mechanisms, since CANDE+PIO treatment induced similar effects, and a better blockade of AT1 receptors.

Recent clinical trials have explored whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or aldosterone blockade should be added to standard angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/β blocker treatment in heart failure. Both strategies are of some value but it is unclear which strategy should be used first in patients with mild but symptomatic heart failure. The arguments for and against each strategy are discussed. The strongest argument for aldosterone blockade is the consistency in the results of the RALES (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study) and EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post‐acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study) studies, but what is lacking is a trial of aldosterone blockade in patients with mild, symptomatic heart failure as such. The strongest argument for ARBs is that the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) Added trial result was positive in the precise patient population of interest (mild, symptomatic heart failure). The strength of this argument is diminished by the somewhat different results in Val‐HeFT (Valsartan Heart Failure Trial). A third possibility is to use neither an ARB nor an aldosterone blocker and arguments can be marshalled for this position also. Clinicians should now assess these various arguments to select what they believe would be best for their patients.

A recent study of two widely used angiotensin receptor blockers reported a reduced risk of cardiovascular events (−14.4%) when using candesartan compared with losartan in the primary treatment of hypertension. In addition to clinical benefits, costs associated with treatment strategies must be considered when allocating scarce health-care resources. The aim of this study was to assess resource use and costs of losartan and candesartan in hypertensive patients. Resource use (drugs, outpatient contacts, hospitalizations and laboratory tests) associated with losartan and candesartan treatment was estimated in 14 100 patients in a real-life clinical setting. We electronically extracted patient data from primary care records and mandatory Swedish national registers for death and hospitalization. Patients treated with losartan had more outpatient contacts (+15.6%), laboratory tests (+13.8%) and hospitalizations (+13.8%) compared with the candesartan group. During a maximum observation time of 9 years, the mean total costs per patient were 10 369 Swedish kronor (95% confidence interval: 3109–17 629) higher in the losartan group. In conclusion, prescribing candesartan for the primary treatment of hypertension results in lower long-term health-care costs compared with losartan.

Background

The raising prevalence of type-2 diabetes mellitus and obesity has been recognized as a major problem for public health, affecting both developed and developing countries. Impaired fasting plasma glucose has been previously associated with endothelial dysfunction, higher levels of inflammatory markers and increased risk of developing insulin resistance and cardiovascular events. Besides life-style changes, the blockade of the renin-angiotensin system has been proposed as a useful alternative intervention to improve insulin resistance and decrease the number of new type-2 diabetes cases. The aim of this clinical trial is to study the effect of the treatment with Candesartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, on the insulin resistance, the plasma levels of adipoquines, oxidative stress and prothrombotic markers, in a group of non diabetic, non hypertensive, dysglycemic and obese subjects.

Methods and design

A randomized, double blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was designed to assess the effects of Candesartan (up to 32 mg/day during 6 months) on the Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA) index, lipid profile, protrombotic state, oxidative stress and plasma levels of inflammatory markers. The participants will be recruited in the "Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia". Subjects who fullfil selection criteria will receive permanent educational, nutritional and exercise support during their participation in the study. After a 15 days-run-in period with placebo and life-style recommendations, the patients who have a treatment compliance equal or greater than 80% will be randomlly assigned to one of the treatment groups. Group A will receive Candesartan during 6 months and placebo during 6 months. Group B will receive placebo during the first 6 months, and then, Candesartan during the last 6 months. Control visits will be programed monthly and all parameters of interest will be evaluated every 6 months.

Hypothesis

Treatment with Candesartan, could improve the HOMA index, the response to the oral glucose tolerance test and reduce the plasma levels of adipoquines, oxidative stress and prothrombotic markers, in non diabetic, non hypertense subjects with dysglycemia and abdominal obesity, recruited from a population at high risk of developing insulin resistance. These effects are independent of the changes in arterial blood pressure. Trial registration: NCT00319202

Background

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is highly prevalent in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Inhibition of the renin-angiotensinsystem (RAS) in hypertension causes differential effects on central and brachial blood pressure (BP), which has been translated into improved outcome. The objective was to examine if a more complete inhibition of RAS by combining an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and an angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB) compared to monotherapy has an additive effect on central BP and pulse-wave velocity (PWV), which are known markers of CVD.

Methods

Sixty-seven CKD patients (mean GFR 30, range 13–59 ml/min/1.73 m2) participated in an open randomized study of 16 weeks of monotherapy with either enalapril or candesartan followed by 8 weeks of dual blockade aiming at a total dose of 16 mg candesartan and 20 mg enalapril o.d. Pulse-wave measurements were performed at week 0, 8, 16 and 24 by the SphygmoCor device.

Results

Significant additive BP independent reductions were found after dual blockade in aortic PWV (−0.3 m/s, P<0.05) and in augmentation index (−2%, P<0.01) compared to monotherapy. Furthermore pulse pressure amplification was improved (P<0.05) and central systolic BP reduced (−6 mmHg, P<0.01).

Conclusions

Dual blockade of the RAS resulted in an additive BP independent reduction in pulse-wave reflection and arterial stiffness compared to monotherapy in CKD patients.

Trial Registration

Clinical trial.gov NCT00235287