Explore the vast range of titles available.

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the most lethal gynecological malignancy in women worldwide, with an overall 5 year survival rate below 30%. The low survival rate is associated with the persistence of cancer stem cells (CSCs) after chemotherapy. Therefore, CSC-targeting strategies are required for successful EOC treatment. Pan-human epidermal growth factor receptor 4 (HER4) and L-type calcium channels are highly expressed in ovarian CSCs, and treatment with the pan-HER inhibitor poziotinib or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) selectively inhibits the growth of ovarian CSCs via distinct molecular mechanisms. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that combination treatment with poziotinib and CCBs can synergistically inhibit the growth of ovarian CSCs. Combined treatment with poziotinib and manidipine (an L-type CCB) synergistically suppressed ovarian CSC sphere formation and viability compared with either drug alone. Moreover, combination treatment synergistically reduced the expression of stemness markers, including CD133, KLF4, and NANOG, and stemness-related signaling molecules, such as phospho-STAT5, phospho-AKT, phospho-ERK, and Wnt/β-catenin. Moreover, poziotinib with manidipine dramatically induced apoptosis in ovarian CSCs. Our results suggest that the combinatorial use of poziotinib with a CCB can effectively inhibit ovarian CSC survival and function.

This study compared the efficacy and safety of azelnidipine with that of trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension. In a multicenter, open-label trial, 240 patients with adequately controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≤ 7.0%) under lifestyle modification and/or administration of hypoglycemic agents and inadequately controlled hypertension (systolic blood pressure [sBP] ≥ 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [dBP] ≥ 80 mmHg) who were being treated with olmesartan were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned to an azelnidipine group or a trichlormethiazide group and were followed up for 48 weeks. Main outcome measure was the difference in the change in HbA1c levels from the baseline values at 48 weeks between these two groups. Of the 240 subjects that were enrolled, 209 subjects (azelnidipine group: 103 patients, trichlormethiazide group: 106 patients) completed this trial. At 48 weeks, the following changes were observed in the azelnidipine and trichlormethiazide groups, respectively: HbA1c levels, 0.19 ± 0.52% and 0.19 ± 0.54%; sBP/dBP, -10.7 ± 9.6/-6.6 ± 6.6 mmHg and -7.1 ± 7.7/-3.3 ± 6.1 mmHg (P < 0.001 for both sBP and dBP). In both groups, dizziness (12 patients [11.7%] and 16 patients [15.1%]) and edema (16 patients [15.5%] and 7 patients [6.6%], P = 0.047) were observed during the 48-week follow-up period. Azelnidipine was more effective for controlling blood pressure than trichlormethiazide in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients, whereas trichlormethiazide was more effective for reducing albuminuria than azelnidipine. Both of these agents, however, similarly exacerbated glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension. UMIN 000006081.

We compared three benidipine-based regimens-that is, benidipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), β-blocker (BB) or thiazide-and found that the benidipine-BB combination was less beneficial in reducing the risk of stroke than the benidipine-thiazide combination. This sub-analysis sought to compare the effects of reaching a target blood pressure (BP) (<140/90 mm Hg) on the cardiovascular outcomes among the three benidipine-based treatment groups in the Combination Therapy of Hypertension to Prevent Cardiovascular Events trial. This sub-analysis included 3001 subjects to evaluate the achievement of target BP at a minimum of three points at 6-month intervals of clinical BP measurements during the study period. After randomization, the patients were categorized into two groups on the basis of achieved on-treatment target BP: a good control (GC) group achieving a BP⩾66.7% of the target and a poor control (PC) group with a BP <66.6% of the target. For each of the two control groups, outcomes were compared among the three treatment groups. The event rates for cardiovascular composite endpoints, stroke and hard cardiovascular events were higher in the PC group than the GC group (P=0.041, P=0.042 and P=0.038, respectively). Within the PC group, hazard ratios for the incidence of cardiovascular events were lower in the benidipine-thiazide group than in the benidipine-BB group (composite cardiovascular events: 2.04, P=0.033; stroke: 4.14, P=0.005; and hard cardiovascular events: 3.52, P=0.009). Within the GC group, the incidence of cardiovascular events was not different among the three treatment regimens. The benidipine-thiazide combination may provide better cardiovascular outcomes than the benidipine-BB combination even in patients with poor BP control.

Summary Background It has been suggested that renoprotection with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may differ. This study aimed to compare the anti‐proteinuric effect of different CCBs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods A multicentre, randomized, open‐label, active‐controlled study was performed in seven centres in Korea. A total of 74 patients with T2D and microalbuminuria treated with renin‐angiotensin system (RAS) blockers were randomized to a cilnidipine 10 mg treatment (n=38) or amlodipine 5 mg treatment (n=36). Results Urine albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR) reduction was similar between the two groups at 12 weeks (−53.0±123.2 mg/g in cilnidipine group and −35.7±83.6 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.29) or 24 weeks (−57.3±106.9 mg/g in cilnidipine group and −20.0±110.4 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.24). In a subgroup analysis, cilnidipine treatment showed a larger ACR reduction than amlodipine treatment at 12 weeks (−84.7±106.8 mg/g in cilnidipine group and −9.5±79.2 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.01) and 24 weeks (−84.0±111.7 mg/g in cilnidipine group and 14.6±119.4 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.008), particularly in patients with a longer duration of diabetes more than 10 years. Conclusions Cilnidipine did not show any additional anti‐albuminuric effect compared with amlodipine in patients with T2D and microalbuminuria treated with an RAS blocker. However, the anti‐albuminuric effect of cilnidipine might differ according to the duration of diabetes.

Background Essential hypertension has been extensively reported to cause endothelial dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of barnidipine or lercanidipine, in addition to losartan, on some parameters indicative of endothelial damage and oxidative stress in hypertensive, type 2 diabetic patients. Methods One hundred and fifty one patients were randomised to barnidipine, 20 mg/day, or lercanidipine, 20 mg/day, both in addition to losartan, 100 mg/day, for 6 months. We assessed BP every month, in addition, patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). We also assessed: fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ), some markers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and -9 (MMP-9), soluble vascular adhesion protein-1 (sVCAM-1), soluble intercellular adhesion protein-1 (sICAM-1), isoprostanes and paraoxonase-1 (PON-1). Results Both barnidipine and lercanidipine resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure, even if the reduction obtained with barnidipine + losartan was greater than that obtained with lercanidipine + losartan. Data recorded with ABPM also showed a similar trend. Barnidipine + losartan reduced the levels of Hs-CRP, TNF-α, sVCAM-1, sICAM-1, and isoprostanes both compared to baseline and to lercanidipine + losartan. Conclusions Barnidipine + losartan gave an improvement of some parameters indicative of endothelial damage and oxidative stress in diabetic and hypertensive patients. Trial registration NCT02064218 , ClinicalTrials.gov

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of lercanidipine or barnidipine on echocardiographic parameters, in hypertensive, type 2 diabetics with left ventricular hypertrophy. One hundred and forty-four patients were randomized to lercanidipine, 20 mg/day, or barnidipine, 20 mg/day, in addition to losartan, 100 mg/day, for 6 months. We evaluated: blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ), lipid profile, creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), sodium, potassium and acid uric. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and after 6 months. Both lercanidipine and barnidipine decreased blood pressure. Left ventricular mass index was reduced to a greater extent with barnidipine + losartan. Interventricular septal thickness in diastole was reduced by barnidipine + losartan. Posterior wall thickness in diastole was decreased by both treatments, even if barnidipine + losartan were more effective. Ratio of peak early diastolic filling velocity to peak filling velocity at atrial contraction was increased by barnidipine + losartan, but not by lercanidipine + losartan. Finally, isovolumetric relaxation and time and left atrial volume index were reduced by barnidipine + losartan, while lercanidipine + losartan did not affect them. In conclusion, barnidipine + losartan provided a greater improvement of echocardiographic parameters compared to lercanidipine + losartan.

Background Hypertension is associated with impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. Medical treatment that interferes with various steps in the renin-angiotensin system improves glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. However, it remains unclear if long-acting calcium channel blockers (CCBs) such as azelnidipine and amlodipine affect glucose tolerance and insulin resistance in clinical practice. Methods Seventeen non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension who had controlled blood pressure levels using amlodipine (5 mg/day) were enrolled in this study. After randomization, either azelnidipine (16 mg/day) or amlodipine (5 mg/day) was administered in a crossover design for 12-weeks. At baseline and the end of each CCB therapy, samples of blood and urine were collected and 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) was performed. In addition, hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs) were measured at each point by flow cytometry and endothelial functions were measured by fingertip pulse amplitude tonometry using EndoPAT. Results Although blood pressure levels were identical after each CCB treatment, the heart rate significantly decreased after azelnidipine administration than that after amlodipine administration ( P < 0.005). Compared with amlodipine administration, azelnidipine significantly decreased levels of glucose and insulin 120 min after the 75 g OGTT (both P < 0.05). Serum levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ( P = 0.067) and interleukin-6 ( P = 0.035) were decreased. Although endothelial functions were not different between the two medication groups, the number of circulating HPCs was significantly increased after azelnidipine administration ( P = 0.016). Conclusions These results suggest that azelnidipine treatment may have beneficial effects on glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, the inflammatory state, and number of circulating progenitor cells in non-diabetic patients with essential hypertension.

To achieve the target blood pressure recommended by the latest guidelines, multiple antihypertensive drugs are needed in most patients. In this study, the efficacy of treatment using an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (ARB) combined with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a diuretic was compared from multiple perspectives in patients with hypertension. Twenty-nine patients with essential hypertension, who had failed to achieve their target blood pressure (<130/85 mm Hg for patients <65 years old and <140/90 mm Hg for those ⩾65 years) when treated with the ARB olmesartan at 20 mg day −1 , were additionally given 8–16 mg day −1 of the CCB azelnidipine or 1–2 mg day −1 of trichlormethiazide (a thiazide diuretic) in a randomized crossover manner for 4 months each. At the end of each combination therapy period, blood and urine samples were collected and arterial stiffness was evaluated by measuring the cardio-ankle pulse wave velocity. Compared with monotherapy, the blood pressure was reduced similarly by adding azelnidipine (−12/−10 mm Hg) or trichlormethiazide (−14/−9 mm Hg). The heart rate was decreased with the CCB by 4 b.p.m. ( P <0.05), whereas it was unchanged with the thiazide. Serum K, lipids and blood glucose were not significantly changed with either combination, whereas serum uric acid was increased with the thiazide ( P <0.01) but was unchanged with azelnidipine. Plasma levels of renin, angiotensin II and aldosterone were also increased with the thiazide period, whereas high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and oxidized low-density lipoprotein were decreased with azelnidipine. In addition, the cardio-ankle vascular index, a parameter of arterial stiffness, was decreased with the azelnidipine period but was unchanged with the thiazide period ( P <0.01). It is suggested that the combination of olmesartan and azelnidipine has advantages over the combination of olmesartan and a thiazide with respect to avoiding hyperuricemia, sympathetic activation, renin–angiotensin-aldosterone system stimulation, inflammation, oxidative stress, and increased arterial stiffness in patients with moderate hypertension. These properties may provide cardiovascular protection in addition to the hypotensive effect.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the lercanidipine/valsartan combination compared with lercanidipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension. Part 1 of this study was the randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, Phase III, 8-week clinical trial to compare superiority of lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 80 mg (L10/V80) and lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L10/V160) combinations with lercanidipine 10 mg (L10) monotherapy. At screening, hypertensive patients, whose diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was >90 mm Hg after 4 weeks with L10, were randomized to 3 groups of L10, L10/V80, and L10/V160. The primary end point was the change in the mean sitting DBP from baseline (week 0) after 8 weeks of therapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to L10/V160 and whose mean DBP was still ≥ 90 mm Hg in part 1 were enrolled to the up-titration extension study with lercanidipine 20 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L20/V160) (part 2). Of 772 patients screened, 497 were randomized to 3 groups (166 in the L10 group, 168 in the L10/V80 group, and 163 in the L10/V160 group). Mean (SD) age was 55 (9.9) years, and male patients comprised 69%. The mean (SD) baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were 148.4 (15.1)/94.3 (9.5) mm Hg. No significant differences were found between groups in baseline characteristics except the percentages of previous history of antihypertensive medication. The primary end points, the changes of mean (SD) DBP at week 8 from the baseline were −2.0 (8.8) mm Hg in the L10 group, −6.7 (8.5) mm Hg in L10/V80 group, and −8.1 (8.4) mm Hg in L10/V160 group. The adjusted mean difference between the combination groups and the L10 monotherapy group was −4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, −6.5 to −2.6; P < 0.001) in the L10/V80 group and −5.9 mm Hg (95% CI, −7.9 to −4.0, P < 0.001) in the L10/V160 group, which had significantly greater efficacy in BP lowering. A total of 74 patients were enrolled in the part 2 extension study. Changes of mean (SD) DBP and SBP from week 8 to week 12 and week 16 were −5.6 (7.9)/−8.0 (12.0) mm Hg and −5.5 (7.0)/−8.5 (11.3) mm Hg, respectively. For evaluation of the safety profile, the frequencies of adverse events between groups were also not significantly different. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache (6 cases, 20.7%) in the L10 group, dizziness (8 cases, 16.3%) in L10/V80 group, and nasopharyngitis (3 cases, 9.4%) in L10/V160 group, and the incidences of adverse events were not different between groups. Treatment of L10/V80 or L10/V160 combination therapy resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with L10 monotherapy. Moreover, the L20/V160 high dose combination had additional BP lowering effect compared with nonresponders with the L10/V160 combination. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01928628.

Ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) profile are proposed to be related to renal deterioration and cardiovascular complication in hypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD). In this study, we examined the beneficial effects cilnidipine, a unique L/N-type calcium channel blocker (CCB), in addition to renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, on ambulatory BP and HR profile, as well as cardiorenal function in hypertensive CKD patients. Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to the cilnidipine replacement group (n = 21) or the control CCBs group (n = 24) during a 24-week active treatment period. Although clinical BP values were similar in the cilnidipine and control CCBs groups after the treatment period, the results of ambulatory BP monitoring showed that the 24-h and daytime systolic BP levels in the cilnidipine group were significantly lower compared with the control group after the study. Furthermore, the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) was significantly decreased in the cilnidipine group compared to the control group after the study (LVMI, 135.3 ± 26.4 versus 181.2 ± 88.4, p = 0.031), with a significant difference in the changes in the LVMI between the cilnidipine and control groups (change in LVMI, −12.4 ± 23.7 versus 26.2 ± 64.4, p = 0.007). These results indicate that cilnidipine is beneficial for the suppression of pathological cardiac remodeling, at least partly, via a superior improving effect on ambulatory BP profile compared with control CCBs in hypertensive CKD patients.