Angiotensin 1/2 (1-5)

Canagliflozin and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes: results from the CANVAS Program randomised clinical trials

Background: In the Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study (CANVAS) Program, canagliflozin reduced the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and the results suggested a renal benefit in patients with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk for cardiovascular events, compared with those treated with placebo. Here we report the results of a prespecified exploratory analysis of the long-term effects of canagliflozin on a range of sustained and adjudicated renal outcomes. Methods: The CANVAS Program consists of two double-blind, randomised trials that assessed canagliflozin versus placebo in participants with type 2 diabetes who were at high risk of cardiovascular events, done at 667 centres in 30 countries. People with type 2 diabetes and an HbA1c of 7·0-10·5% (53-91 mmol/mol) who were aged at least 30 years and had a history of symptomatic atherosclerotic vascular disease, or who were aged at least 50 years and had at least two cardiovascular risk factors were eligible to participate. Participants in CANVAS were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 300 mg canagliflozin, 100 mg canagliflozin, or matching placebo once daily. Participants in CANVAS-R were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive canagliflozin or matching placebo, at an initial dose of 100 mg daily, with optional uptitration to 300 mg from week 13 or matching placebo. Participants and all study staff were masked to treatment allocations until study completion. Prespecified outcomes reported here include a composite of sustained and adjudicated doubling in serum creatinine, end-stage kidney disease, or death from renal causes; the individual components of this composite outcome; annual reductions in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR); and changes in urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01032629 (CANVAS) and NCT01989754 (CANVAS-R). Findings: Between Nov 17, 2009, and March 7, 2011 (CANVAS), and Jan 17, 2014, and May 29, 2015 (CANVAS-R), 15 494 people were screened, of whom 10 142 participants (with a baseline mean eGFR 76·5 mL/min per 1·73 m2, median UACR 12·3 mg/g, and 80% of whom were receiving renin-angiotensin system blockade) were randomly allocated to receive either canagliflozin or placebo. The composite outcome of sustained doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage kidney disease, and death from renal causes occurred less frequently in the canagliflozin group compared with the placebo group (1·5 per 1000 patient-years in the canagliflozin group vs 2·8 per 1000 patient-years in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·33-0·84), with consistent findings across prespecified patient subgroups. Annual eGFR decline was slower (slope difference between groups 1·2 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 1·0-1·4) and mean UACR was 18% lower (95% CI 16-20) in participants treated with canagliflozin than in those treated with placebo. Total serious renal-related adverse events were similar between the canagliflozin and placebo groups (2·5 vs 3·3 per 1000 patient-years; HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·49-1·19). Interpretation: In a prespecified exploratory analysis, canagliflozin treatment was associated with a reduced risk of sustained loss of kidney function, attenuated eGFR decline, and a reduction in albuminuria, which supports a possible renoprotective effect of this drug in people with type 2 diabetes. Funding: Janssen Research & Development.

A Comparative Effectiveness Meta-Analysis of Drugs for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications.
Design: We performed a network meta-analysis. Data were extracted independently in duplicate and quality was assessed using both the JADAD and Cochrane Risk of Bias instruments. Data were pooled and network meta-analysis performed using random effects models.
Data sources: PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Registry, bibliography of retrieved articles through 18 May 2014.
Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We included randomized controlled trials of adults with migraine headaches of at least 4 weeks in duration.
Results: Placebo controlled trials included alpha blockers (n = 9), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (n = 3), angiotensin receptor blockers (n = 3), anticonvulsants (n = 32), beta-blockers (n = 39), calcium channel blockers (n = 12), flunarizine (n = 7), serotonin reuptake inhibitors (n = 6), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (n = 1) serotonin agonists (n = 9) and tricyclic antidepressants (n = 11). In addition there were 53 trials comparing different drugs. Drugs with at least 3 trials that were more effective than placebo for episodic migraines included amitriptyline (SMD: -1.2, 95% CI: -1.7 to -0.82), -flunarizine (-1.1 headaches/month (ha/month), 95% CI: -1.6 to -0.67), fluoxetine (SMD: -0.57, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.17), metoprolol (-0.94 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.4 to -0.46), pizotifen (-0.43 ha/month, 95% CI: -0.6 to -0.21), propranolol (-1.3 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.0 to -0.62), topiramate (-1.1 ha/month, 95% CI: -1.9 to -0.73) and valproate (-1.5 ha/month, 95% CI: -2.1 to -0.8). Several effective drugs with less than 3 trials included: 3 ace inhibitors (enalapril, lisinopril, captopril), two angiotensin receptor blockers (candesartan, telmisartan), two anticonvulsants (lamotrigine, levetiracetam), and several beta-blockers (atenolol, bisoprolol, timolol). Network meta-analysis found amitriptyline to be better than several other medications including candesartan, fluoxetine, propranolol, topiramate and valproate and no different than atenolol, flunarizine, clomipramine or metoprolol.
Conclusion: Several drugs good evidence supporting efficacy. There is weak evidence supporting amitriptyline's superiority over some drugs. Selection of prophylactic medication should be tailored according to patient preferences, characteristics and side effect profiles.

Dulaglutide versus insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (AWARD-7): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

Background: Many antihyperglycaemic drugs, including insulin, are primarily cleared by the kidneys, restricting treatment options for patients with kidney disease. Dulaglutide is a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that is not cleared by the kidneys, and confers a lower risk of hypoglycaemia than does insulin. We assessed the efficacy and safety of dulaglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease.
Methods: AWARD-7 was a multicentre, open-label trial done at 99 sites in nine countries. Eligible patients were adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (stages 3-4), with an HbA_1c of 7·5-10·5%, and who were being treated with insulin or insulin plus an oral antihyperglycaemic drug and were taking a maximum tolerated dose of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by use of a computer-generated random sequence with an interactive response system to once-weekly injectable dulaglutide 1·5 mg, once-weekly dulaglutide 0·75 mg, or daily insulin glargine as basal therapy, all in combination with insulin lispro, for 52 weeks. Insulin glargine and lispro doses were titrated as per an adjustment algorithm; dulaglutide doses were masked to participants and investigators. The primary outcome was HbA_1c at 26 weeks, with a 0·4% non-inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR). The primary analysis population was all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had at least one post-randomisation HbA_1c measurement. The safety population was all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and had any post-dose data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01621178.
Findings: Between Aug 15, 2012, and Nov 30, 2015, 577 patients were randomly assigned, 193 to dulaglutide 1·5 mg, 190 to dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and 194 to insulin glargine. The effects on HbA_1c change at 26 weeks of dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 0·75 mg were non-inferior to those of insulin glargine (least squares mean [LSM] -1·2% [SE 0·1] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg [183 patients]; -1·1% [0·1] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg [180 patients]; -1·1% [0·1] with insulin glargine [186 patients]; one-sided p≤0·0001 for both dulaglutide doses vs insulin glargine). The differences in HbA_1c concentration at 26 weeks between dulaglutide and insulin glargine treatments were LSM difference -0·05% (95% CI -0·26 to 0·15, p<0·0001) with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 0·02% (-0·18 to -0·22, p=0·0001) with dulaglutide 0·75 mg. HbA_1c-lowering effects persisted to 52 weeks (LSM -1·1% [SE 0·1] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg; -1·1% [0·1] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg; -1·0% [0·1] with insulin glargine). At 52 weeks, eGFR was higher with dulaglutide 1·5 mg (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation by cystatin C geometric LSM 34·0 mL/min per 1·73 m² [SE 0·7]; p=0·005 vs insulin glargine) and dulaglutide 0·75 mg (33·8 mL/min per 1·73 m² [0·7]; p=0·009 vs insulin glargine) than with insulin glargine (31·3 mL/min per 1·73 m² [0·7]). At 52 weeks, the effects of dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 0·75 mg on UACR reduction were not significantly different from that of insulin glargine (LSM -22·5% [95% CI -35·1 to -7·5] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg; -20·1% [-33·1 to -4·6] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg; -13·0% [-27·1 to 3·9] with insulin glargine). Proportions of patients with any serious adverse events were similar across groups (20% [38 of 192] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg, 24% [45 of 190] with dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and 27% [52 of 194] with insulin glargine). Dulaglutide was associated with higher rates of nausea (20% [38 of 192] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 14% [27 of 190] with 0·75 mg, vs 5% [nine of 194] with insulin glargine) and diarrhoea (17% [33 of 192] with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 16% [30 of 190] with 0·75 mg, vs 7% [14 of 194] with insulin glargine) and lower rates of symptomatic hypoglycaemia (4·4 events per patient per year with dulaglutide 1·5 mg and 4·3 with dulaglutide 0·75 mg, vs 9·6 with insulin glargine). End-stage renal disease occurred in 38 participants: eight (4%) of 192 with dulaglutide 1·5 mg, 14 (7%) of 190 with dulaglutide 0·75 mg, and 16 (8%) of 194 with insulin glargine.
Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, once-weekly dulaglutide produced glycaemic control similar to that achieved with insulin glargine, with reduced decline in eGFR. Dulaglutide seems to be safe to use to achieve glycaemic control in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease.
Funding: Eli Lilly and Company.

Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients With Hypertension in Japan - Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used for the management of hypertension in Japan; however, comparative efficacy data within the ARB drug class remain limited. Methods and Results: This systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCT) indexed in PubMed and Ichushi in Japanese patients with hypertension receiving ARB monotherapy (azilsartan, candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, valsartan) in at least 1 arm. Of 763 RCTs identified, 77 met the eligibility criteria; of which, 37 reported mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline in the office setting and were used to construct the network. A fixed-effects model (FEM) showed the effect of each drug vs. the reference, azilsartan. Using the FEM, the mean (95% credible interval) change from baseline in SBP/DBP for candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, and valsartan was 3.8 (2.9-4.8)/2.6 (2.0-3.1), 4.8 (2.0-7.5)/3.7 (1.8-5.6), 3.0 (0.8-5.1)/1.9 (0.5-3.3), 3.2 (1.2-5.1)/2.7 (1.3-4.1), 3.2 (0.8-5.6)/2.0 (0.3-3.6), and 3.1 (1.1-5.1)/2.4 (1.1-3.8) mmHg, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis provide evidence that azilsartan has a more favorable efficacy profile than the other ARBs in reducing SBP and DBP.

Studies on nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonists. I. Synthesis and biological evaluation of pyrazolo[1,5-b][1,2,4]triazole derivatives with alkyl substituents

Alkyl-substituted pyrazolo[1,5-b][1,2,4]triazole derivatives were synthesized and evaluated for activity as angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Molecules with the (methylbiphenylyl)tetrazole moiety and N-5 were the preferred compounds. Ethyl substitutions at both C-2 and C-7 resulted in the optimal compound, 2,7-diethyl-5-[[2"-(1H -tetrazol-5-yl)biphenyl-4-yl]methyl]-5H-pyrazolo[1,5-b][1,2,4]tria zole (5n), with a pA2 value of 8.774 in rabbit aorta. In the in vivo tests, 5n inhibited the angiotensin II-induced pressor response in rats after oral administration. This compound also produced a dose-dependent decrease in blood pressure when administered orally to conscious furosemide-treated dogs, having a longer duration of action as compared to DuP753. These data suggest that 5a may be a useful agent for the treatment of angiotensin II-dependent disease, such as hypertension.