Explore the vast range of titles available.

This phase III study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with those of olmesartan in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. Patients ( n  = 1161, aged ≥20 years) with mild to moderate hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [msSBP] ≥150 to <180 mmHg) were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg ( n  = 387), sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg ( n  = 385), or olmesartan 20 mg ( n  = 389) once daily for 8 weeks. The primary assessment was a reduction in msSBP from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg vs. olmesartan 20 mg at Week 8. Secondary assessments included msSBP reduction with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan at Week 8 and reductions in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP), mean sitting pulse pressure (msPP), and overall blood pressure (BP) control rate for all treatment groups at Week 8. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP from baseline than olmesartan at Week 8 (between-treatment difference: −5.01 mmHg [95% confidence interval: −6.95 to −3.06 mmHg, P  < 0.001 for noninferiority and superiority]). Greater reductions in msSBP with sacubitril/valsartan 400 mg vs. olmesartan, as well as in msDBP and msPP with both doses of sacubitril/valsartan vs . olmesartan ( P  < 0.05 for all), were also observed. Patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan achieved an overall higher BP control rate. The safety and tolerability profiles of sacubitril/valsartan were generally comparable to those of olmesartan. The adverse event rate with sacubitril/valsartan was not dose-dependent. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was effective and provided superior BP reduction, with a higher proportion of patients achieving target BP goals than treatment with olmesartan in Japanese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.

To investigate the effects of sacubitril valsartan sodium combined with levosimendan on improving cardiac and renal functions in patients with CRS. 90 patients with the cardiorenal syndrome who were hospitalized in our hospital from February 2020 to February 2022 were selected and divided into two groups, the control group, and the joint group, according to both single and double number methods, with 45 cases in each group. Patients who met the diagnostic criteria for CRS, were older than 18 years of age, had NYHA class II to IV, and had stage 1 or 2 chronic kidney disease were included in the study. Patients with severe hypersensitivity to the drugs used in this test, haemodynamic instability, combined hyperthyroidism, malignancy, severe pulmonary hypertension, cardiogenic shock, malignant arrhythmias and pregnant women were excluded. Among them, the control group was treated with sacubitril valsartan sodium alone, and the joint group was treated with levosimendan supplemented with the treatment method of the control group. The treatment effect, the improvement of cardiac and renal function, and the incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups of CRS patients, and the prognostic effect was followed up 6 months after treatment. The total effective rate of treatment in the joint group was 95.56%, which was significantly higher than that in the control group of 80.00%, and the difference was statistically significant by using χ2 test (P < .05). After treatment, LVEF, LVEDD, and NT-proBNP levels in both groups were significantly improved compared with those before treatment (P < .05), and the improvement effect of each index in the joint group was more significant than that in the control group (P < .05). After treatment, the levels of SCr, BUN, and UA in both groups were significantly lower than those before treatment (P < .05), and the levels of each index in the joint group were significantly lower than those in the control group, statistical analyses showed significant differences (P < .05) using t test. The incidence of adverse effects such as tachycardia, premature ventricular contractions, heart failure, and myocardial ischaemia was 22.22% in the combined group, which was significantly lower than 42.22% in the control group, and the difference in the total incidence between the two groups was statistically significant by χ2 test (P < .05). One case of malignant arrhythmia and five cases of recurrence of heart failure occurred 6 months after surgery in the combined group, which were significantly lower than the eight and twelve cases in the control group. Sacubitril valsartan sodium combined with levosimendan can significantly improve the therapeutic effect of CRS, with significant improvement in cardiac and renal function of CRS patients, and its incidence of adverse effects and long-term prognostic effects are lower than those of sacubitril valsartan sodium alone. This combination therapy offers a promising new direction for CRS management, warranting further investigation in larger, multicenter trials.

Purpose Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) indicated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with chronic heart failure (NYHA class II–IV) and reduced ejection fraction. This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of single oral therapeutic (400 mg) and supratherapeutic (1200 mg) doses of LCZ696 on cardiac repolarization. Method This randomized double-blind crossover study in healthy male subjects compared the effect of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of LCZ696 with placebo and moxifloxacin 400 mg (open-label treatment) as positive control. The primary assessment was mean baseline- and placebo-corrected QTcF (∆∆QTcF; Fridericia correction). Additional assessments included the ∆∆QTcB (Bazett’s correction), PR interval, QRS duration, heart rate (HR), LCZ696 pharmacokinetics, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships, and safety. Results Of the 84 subjects enrolled, 81 completed the study. The maximum upper bound of the two-sided 90 % confidence interval for ∆∆QTcF for LCZ696 400 mg and 1200 mg were <10 ms, and assay sensitivity was confirmed with moxifloxacin. No relevant treatment-emergent changes were observed in any of the ECG-derived parameters with LCZ696 or placebo, and the incidence of adverse events was comparable among the treatment groups. Conclusion Single therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of LCZ696 did not affect cardiac repolarization as defined by the E14 ICH guidelines.

We investigated changes in blood pressure (BP) and metabolic adverse effects, especially elevation of uric acid (UA), after treatment with a thiazide-like diuretic (TD) in patients with essential hypertension. Furthermore, the role of genetic factors in the elevation of UA by TD was assessed by a 500 K SNP DNA microarray. The subjects included 126 hypertensive patients (57 women and 69 men, mean age 59 ± 12 years) who registered for the GEANE (Gene Evaluation for ANtihypertensive Effects) study. After one month of the nontreatment period, TD, indapamide, angiotensin II receptor antagonist valsartan, and Ca channel blocker amlodipine were administered to all patients for 3 months each in a randomized crossover manner. BP, renal function, serum UA level, and electrolytes were measured at baseline and at the end of each treatment period. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with UA elevation after treatment with indapamide were investigated by a genome-wide association study (GWAS). Indapamide significantly decreased both office and home BP levels. Treatment with indapamide also significantly reduced the estimated glomerular filtration rate and serum potassium and increased serum UA. Patients whose UA level increased more than 1 mg/dl showed significantly higher baseline office SBP and plasma glucose and showed greater decline in renal function compared with those who showed less UA increase (<1 mg/dl). Some SNPs strongly associated with an increase in UA after treatment with indapamide were identified. This study is the first report on SNPs associated with UA elevation after TD treatment. This information may be useful for the prevention of adverse effects after treatment with TD.

We tested our hypothesis that, in hypertensive patients with higher nocturnal home systolic blood pressure (HSBP) at baseline, a valsartan/cilnidipine (80/10 mg) combination would reduce nocturnal HSBP more markedly than a valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (80/12.5 mg) combination. Patients measured their nocturnal HSBP over three nights prior to study randomization and at the end of treatment. Sixty‐three and 66 patients comprised the valsartan/cilnidipine and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide groups; their respective baseline nocturnal HSBP values were 124.3 ± 15.6 and 125.8 ± 15.2 mm Hg (P = .597). Nocturnal HSBPs were significantly reduced from baseline in both groups. Although the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group exhibited a significantly greater reduction in nocturnal HSBP compared to the valsartan/cilnidipine group (−5.0 vs. −10.0 mm Hg, P = .035), interaction between the treatment groups and the baseline nocturnal HSBP levels for the changes in nocturnal HSBP after the treatment periods was significant (P = .047). The BP‐lowering effect of valsartan/cilnidipine was more dependent on baseline nocturnal HSBP than that of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide.

Abstract Beneficial adaptations to exercise depend on the normal function of the endocrine system. Whether commonly prescribed antihypertensive medication inhibits erythropoietin (EPO) production with exercise, a key response to enhance aerobic capacity, remains unknown. Healthy adults (n = 63, 42.3 ± 16.5 yr, 52% ♀) matched by age, sex, and physical activity were randomized in a blinded and crossover manner to orally ingest valsartan (angiotensin II type 1 receptor-blockade, AT1-blockade) or placebo (calcium carbonate, PBO) 4 h before starting the experimental protocol. Before and after 1 h of moderate cycling exercise, blood samples were taken to measure circulating EPO and EPO-regulating hormones along with blood pressure. Cardiac structure/function and peak pulmonary O2 consumption (VO2peak) were assessed during exercise. AT1-blockade decreased heart volumes (left atrium and ventricle) during exercise compared with PBO, particularly in men (P ≤ 0.036). Whole-body O2 extraction and VO2peak were unaffected by AT1-blockade irrespective of sex (P ≥ 0.325). Before and after exercise, AT1-blockade reduced arterial blood pressures (systolic, diastolic) in both sexes (P < 0.001). A condition × time interaction was detected for circulating EPO (P = 0.002), such that AT1-blockade decreased EPO at 3-h post-exercise compared with PBO (P ≤ 0.025). The effect of exercise on EPO-regulating hormones (angiotensin II, aldosterone, copeptin) was diminished with AT1-blockade. Sex per se did not influence the endocrine response to AT1-blockade. In conclusion, in a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study design, AT1-blockade abolishes the acute EPO response to exercise in women and men. Antihypertensive medications hindering AT1 signaling may restrict key endocrine responses to exercise.

Head-to-head comparison of the blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of fimasartan versus valsartan, with olmesartan as a reference, on office blood pressure and ambulatory BP. Of the 369 randomly assigned patients in this study, 365 hypertensive patients were referred as the full analysis set and divided into 3 groups with a 3:3:1 ratio (fimasartan group: 155, valsartan group: 157, olmesartan group: 53). After the 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period, initial standard doses of 60-mg fimasartan, 80-mg valsartan, and 10-mg olmesartan were administered for 2 weeks, then forcibly up-titrated higher doses (fimasartan 120 mg, valsartan 160 mg, olmesartan 20 mg) were given for 4 weeks. ABP was measured before and after the 6-week treatment. Primary endpoint was reduction of sitting office systolic BP (SiSBP) of fimasartan compared to valsartan after 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints were reduction of sitting office diastolic BP (SiDBP) and 24 hrs, day-time, and night-time mean systolic and diastolic ABP (ASBP, ADBP) after 6 weeks. Patients' mean age was 58.34±7.68 years, and 289 patients were male (79.18%). After the 6-week treatment, SiSBP reduction of fimasartan and valsartan were -16.26±15.07 and -12.81±13.87 (p=0.0298) and SiDBP were -7.63±9.67 and -5.14±8.52 (p=0.0211). Reductions in 24 hrs mean ASBP were -15.22±13.33 and -9.45±12.37 (p=0.0009), and ADBPs were -8.74±7.55 and -5.98±7.85 (p=0.0140). Reductions of night-time ASBPs were -16.80±15.81 and -10.32±14.88 (p=0.0012), and those of night-time ADBPs were -8.89±9.93 and -5.55±9.70 (p=0.0152). Reduction of BP in olmesartan group did not demonstrate significant difference with fimasartan group in all end-points. Fimasartan 120-mg treatment demonstrated superior efficacy in reduction of SiSBP, SiDBP, and 24 hrs ASBP and ADBP compared to valsartan 160 mg. Reduction of night-time ASBP from baseline was largest in fimasartan group, suggesting that fimasartan may be effective for recovering dipping pattern. NCT02495324 (Fimasartan Achieving SBP Target (FAST) study).

Background Endothelial dysfunction occurs in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) contributes to endothelial dysfunction in ESRD. In the general population, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) decrease ADMA levels, but no study has compared the effect of these drugs in patients with ESRD on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). Methods We evaluated the effect of 1-week treatment with ramipril (5 mg/d), valsartan (160 mg/d), and placebo on ADMA levels in 15 patients on MHD in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, three x three cross-over study. Results We found that ADMA levels were increased at baseline and throughout the dialysis session during ramipril treatment ( p  < 0.001 compared to both, placebo and valsartan). Ramipril did not increase ADMA levels in a study of patients without ESRD, suggesting that factors related to ESRD or hemodialysis contribute to the ACE inhibitor-induced increase in ADMA. We have previously shown that ACE inhibition increases bradykinin (BK) levels during hemodialysis. We therefore evaluated the effect of bradykinin on ADMA production in A549 cells; a cell line that expresses BK receptors. Incubation with BK increased intracellular ADMA concentration through BK B2-receptor stimulation. Conclusion These data indicate that short-term ACE inhibition increases ADMA in patients on MHD whereas ARBs do not. In vitro studies further suggest that this may occur through BK-mediated increase in ADMA production during ACE inhibition. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00732069 August 6 2008 and NCT00607672 February 4 2008

Cardiovascular disorders and the medications used to treat them can affect physiological patterns of behavior. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the dual inhibition of neprilysin and angiotensin II—sacubitril/valsartan (ARNI) can modify anxiety-like behavior in male spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). We compared ARNI with two other drugs in the portfolio of heart failure treatment, captopril and ivabradine. Six groups (n = 13) of 12-week-old rats were treated for six weeks: control (Wistar rats), control + ARNI, SHR, SHR + ARNI, SHR + captopril, and SHR + ivabradine. The elevated plus maze test, the open field test, and the light–dark box test were used to determine anxiety-like behavior. SHRs exhibited higher systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate (HR), left ventricular weight (LVW), and hydroxyproline concentration (LVHP) but displayed a reduced level of anxiety-like behavior in comparison to controls. ARNI reduced SBP, HR, and LVW but had no significant effect on the level of anxiety in SHR, and similar results were achieved by captopril and ivabradine. Additionally, correlation analysis indicated that anxiety-like behavior in Wistar rats or SHR, either with or without cardiovascular therapy, was independent of SBP, HR, LVW, or LVHP. The level of anxiety-like behavior can, therefore, be considered part of the inherent neurobehavioral traits unrelated to fundamental hemodynamic or structural cardiovascular parameters.

The present study is designed to determine the effect of LCZ696 on DCM in rats and investigate the underlying mechanism involved. Diabetes was induced by feeding rats with a high-fat diet for six weeks following a single injection of STZ (30 mg/kg). Diabetic rats were divided into three groups (n = 10). LCZ696 and valsartan treatment was started two weeks after diabetic induction and continued for eight weeks. At the end of the treatment, serum and cardiac tissues were analyzed by RT-PCR, Western blot, and ELISA kits. LCZ696 and valsartan ameliorated DCM progression by inhibiting AGEs formation at activity levels; pro-apoptotic markers (BAX/Bcl2 ratio and caspase-3) in mRNA and protein expressions, the NF-κB at mRNA; and protein levels associated with the restoration of elevated proinflammatory cytokines such as the TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-1β at the activity level. Furthermore, LCZ696 and valsartan contribute to restoring the induction of ER stress parameters (GRP78, PERK, eIF2a, ATF4, and CHOP) at mRNA and protein levels. LCZ696 and valsartan attenuated DCM by inhibiting the myocardial inflammation, ER stress, and apoptosis through AGEs/NF-κB and PERK/CHOP signaling cascades. Collectively, the present results reveal that LCZ696 had a more protective solid effect against DCM than valsartan.