fimasartan and Hypertension

Fimasartan, one of the newest angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) available worldwide, has been investigated extensively since its initial development. Our study group conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating fimasartan and comparators for their blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect. Moreover, we employed a cross-inference (frequentist and Bayesian inference) system, which has never been used in the medical field, to confirm the results of our study. In addition, a quality management system was integrated throughout the study for data quality.. Eleven RCTs with a total of 2459 subjects were included in the study. The clinic SiSBP/SiDBP-lowering effect of fimasartan was significantly greater relative to those of comparators (MD for clinic SiSBP, -2.58 mm Hg [95% CI, -4.35 to -0.81; P = 0.004]; MD for clinic SiDBP, -2.13 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.96 to -1.30; P = 0.00001]). The ASBP/ADBP-lowering effect of fimasartan was also significantly greater relative to those of comparators (MD for ASBP, -3.58 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.74 to -1.43; P = 0.001]; MD for ADBP, -1.99 mm Hg [95% CI, -3.34 to -0.63; P = 0.004]).. Fimasartan seems to be more effective in lowering BP than its comparators, including other ARBs. Although there is a limited amount of data and a minuscule number of study subjects available, the results of cross-inference (frequentist + Bayesian) were fairly consistent with the meta-analysis results through our quality management system.

Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Humans; Hypertension

Hypertension is a prevalent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin II receptor blockers are widely prescribed to patients with hypertension, while new drugs are continuously developed. However, data on comparative efficacy and safety of novel agents, such as fimasartan, are scarce. Here, we aimed to collect clinical evidence on different angiotensin II receptor blockers using a network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials whose follow-up time is within 12 weeks were identified from eight databases via a systematic literature review. Of the 7909 possibly relevant studies, 61 studies with 14,249 adult patients were included in the analysis. These studies were further subjected to quality appraisal using Cochran's Risk of Bias, and sitting systolic blood pressure was considered the primary endpoint. A Bayesian random effect generalized linear model was used for the network meta-analysis, and the treatment rank probability was determined. Olmesartan (standardized mean difference -0.987 [-1.29, -0.729]) and fimasartan (standardized mean difference -0.966 [-1.21, -0.745]) showed the highest rank probabilities (37% and 35%) in the 4-week group, considering the primary endpoint. Furthermore, the odds ratio of adverse events for all agents did not differ significantly from that of the placebo. The treatment rank of angiotensin II receptor blockers varied depending on the outcome type and follow-up period considerably. Fimasartan rapidly lowered blood pressure in 4 weeks, which was further maintained until 12 weeks, indicating its competent efficacy and tolerability. Our findings may help medical practitioners and patients to select the best angiotensin II receptor blocker against hypertension.

Topics: Adult; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Bayes Theorem; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Hypertension; Network Meta-Analysis; Pyrimidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tetrazoles

Fimasartan is the ninth and latest Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for the treatment of hypertension. Fimasartan is a derivative of losartan in which the imidazole ring has been replaced. It provides a selective type 1 angiotensin II receptor antagonist effect with noncompetitive, in surmountable binding. Fimasartan is rapidly absorbed following oral administration with an oral bioavailability of 18.6 ± 7.2%. Fimasartan is relatively stable in terms of metabolism and more than 90% of circulating fimasartan moieties in the plasma are in the parent form; fecal elimination and biliary excretion are the predominant elimination pathways of fimasartan. Areas covered: We reviewed data from clinical trials that investigated safety and efficacy of fimasartan in hypertension. Expert opinion: Fimasartan proved good efficacy in blood pressure reduction. In large clinical studies,fimasartan showed an excellent safety profile and when combined with hydrochlorothiazide oram lodipine, it showed a better effect on controlling blood pressure than monotherapy. Fimasartan 60-120 mg once daily has also shown an antihypertensive effect over 24-h. Moreover, preclinical studies demonstrated organ-protecting effects of fimasartan. These results make fimasartan an attractive candidate for the treatment of hypertension. However, it remains to test the benefit of using fimasartan on clinical outcomes.

Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Animals; Antihypertensive Agents; Biological Availability; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Hypertension; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

Fimasartan is the ninth, and most recent, angiotensin II receptor antagonist approved as an antihypertensive agent. Fimasartan, a pyrimidin-4(3H)-one derivative of losartan with the imidazole ring replaced, which enables higher potency and longer duration than losartan. Fecal elimination and biliary excretion are the predominant elimination pathways of fimasartan and the urinary excretion was found to be less than 3 % 24 h after administration. Fimasartan is primarily catabolized by cytochrome P450 isoform 3A and no significant drug interaction was observed when used in combination with hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, warfarin, or digoxin. Fimasartan at a dosage range of 60-120 mg once daily showed an antihypertensive effect over 24 h. In a large, population-based observational study, fimasartan showed an excellent safety profile. Anti-inflammatory and organ-protecting effects of fimasartan have been shown in various preclinical studies, including aortic balloon injury, myocardial infarct ischemia/reperfusion, doxorubicin cardiotoxicity, and ischemic stroke models.

Topics: Angiotensin II Type 2 Receptor Blockers; Animals; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Clinical Trials as Topic; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypertension; Molecular Structure; Observational Studies as Topic; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome

Fimasartan (Kanarb®), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist with selectivity for the AT1 receptor subtype, is a pyrimidinone-related heterocyclic compound that was developed by Boryung Pharm. Co., Ltd. Among numerous synthetic derivatives, fimasartan was chosen as a new drug candidate through in vitro and in vivo screening studies. Pharmadynamic-pharmacokinetic properties and safety profiles were determined in a series of nonclinical and clinical studies. Fimasartan is a new angiotensin receptor blocker, and the first new molecular entity acting on cardiovascular system approved by Korean Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of essential hypertension in September 2010. Further development process for combination therapy and overseas registration is currently ongoing.

Topics: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Animals; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Humans; Hypertension; Patient Safety; Pyrimidines; Renin-Angiotensin System; Tetrazoles

Fimasartan (BR-A-657; BR-A-657-K; Kanarb®), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist with selectivity for the AT(1) receptor subtype, is being developed by Boryung Pharmaceutical as an oral treatment for hypertension. Fimasartan has been approved for use in patients with hypertension in South Korea and has been evaluated in three phase III clinical trials (i.e. NCT00922480, NCT01135212, and NCT01258673). This review discusses the development history and scientific profile of this new compound. This summary has been extracted from Wolters Kluwer's Adis R&D Insight drug pipeline database. Adis R&D Insight tracks and evaluates drug development worldwide through the entire development process, from discovery, through pre-clinical and clinical studies to market launch.

Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Hypertension; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

As angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) may have different antiproteinuric effects in diabetic kidney disease (DKD), we ascertained the albuminuria-reducing effect of fimasartan and losartan in patients with DKD. This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, 4-parallel-group, dose-titration, phase III study designed to compare the efficacy of fimasartan and losartan in reducing albuminuria in patients with DKD (NCT02620306). The primary endpoint was the rate of change in albuminuria from baseline to week 24. A total of 341 patients were randomized to different groups. The urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were not different between the fimasartan and losartan groups at baseline (ACR: 1376.84 vs. 1521.07 mg/gCr, SBP: 154.69 vs. 154.47 mmHg, DBP: 83.96 vs. 83.83 mmHg). However, ACR reduction was significantly larger in the fimasartan group than in the losartan group during the entire study period (% changes in the ACR at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks were -23.58, -33.06, -35.00, and -38.13 in the fimasartan group vs. -8.74, -10.17, -14.91, and -19.71 in the losartan group, p < 0.01, respectively). The superior antiproteinuric effect of fimasartan compared to losartan was still significant after adjustment for SBP levels. There were no significant differences in adverse events, including the incidences of estimated glomerular filtration decline and hyperkalemia. This study demonstrates that compared to losartan, fimasartan significantly reduces albuminuria in patients with DKD, even after adjustment for SBP and DBP.

Topics: Albuminuria; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Nephropathies; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Hypertension; Losartan; Proteinuria; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic

Fimasartan, the ninth and most recent angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) approved by the Korea Food and Drug Administration, has shown similar efficacy and safety profiles compared to other ARBs. However, due to being predominantly excreted by the hepatobiliary system, concerns on safety have been raised regarding its use in patients with underlying liver disease.. This prospective, 12-month, observational study evaluated patients with essential hypertension (HTN) receiving ≥1 dose of fimasartan. Self-reported and physician-reported events were recorded and classified according to organ class and severity. Outcomes were compared according to the absence and presence of underlying liver disease.. A total of 601 patients were screened, and 566 patients who met predefined inclusion criteria were grouped according to the presence of underlying liver disease. Adverse events (AE) were reported in 28.7% (128/446) of patients without prior liver disease, while 42.5% (51/120) experienced events in the group with chronic liver disease. There was no difference in discontinuations due to liver function between patients with and without baseline liver disease (1.1% [5] vs 2.5% [3], p=0.376), and only a non-significant increase was observed in events associated to the hepatobiliary system in patients with chronic liver disease (9.7% [7] vs 2.7% [9], p=0.061). There were no deaths or serious adverse drug reactions (SADR) during the study period. In multivariate regression analysis, the presence of chronic liver disease (OR 2.01), female sex (OR 1.49) and old age (OR 1.12 for every 5-year increase) were independent predictors for the development of AE. Finally, no significant difference was observed in the reduction of systolic blood pressure after 12 months of treatment (least square mean change -6.57 ± 0.80 mmHg for normal liver function group; -7.65 ± 1.59 mmHg for chronic liver disease group; p=0.546).. Long-term use of fimasartan for treatment of HTN was associated with a low rate of adverse events overall, especially in the absence of underlying liver disease. Even for patients with chronic liver disease, fimasartan treatment was well tolerated. Fimasartan could be a safe option for long-term treatment of essential HTN. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02385721.

Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Liver Diseases; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Regression Analysis; Republic of Korea; Tetrazoles; Time Factors

Central and cerebral haemodynamic parameters can vary under similar brachial blood pressure (BP). We aimed to investigate the effects of antihypertensive agents on central and cerebral haemodynamic parameters in hypertensive patients with ischaemic stroke. The Fimasartan, Atenolol, and Valsartan On haemodynamic paRameters (FAVOR) study was conducted in a prospective, double-blinded manner. One hundred five patients were randomly administered atenolol, valsartan, or fimasartan during 12 weeks. We measured brachial, central, cerebral haemodynamic parameters and plasma N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at baseline and after 12-week. Baseline haemodynamic parameters were balanced among the three groups. Even with similar brachial BP reduction, significantly lower central systolic BP (atenolol; 146.5 ± 18.8 vs. valsartan; 133.5 ± 20.7 vs. fimasartan; 133.6 ± 19.8 mmHg, p = 0.017) and augmentation index values (89.8 ± 13.2 vs. 80.6 ± 9.2 vs. 79.2 ± 11.6%; p = 0.001) were seen in the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) groups. The pulsatility index on transcranial Doppler was significantly reduced in valsartan (p = 0.002) and fimasartan group (p = 0.008). Plasma NT-proBNP level was also significantly decreased in ARB groups, especially for the fimasartan group (37.8 ± 50.6 vs. 29.2 ± 36.9 vs.19.2 ± 27.8 pg/mL; p = 0.006). These findings suggest that short-term ARB administration would be favourable for ischaemic stroke patients with hypertension, permitting effective reduction of central pressure and dampening of cerebral pulsatility.

Topics: Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Biphenyl Compounds; Cerebrovascular Circulation; Double-Blind Method; Female; Hemodynamics; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Stroke; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome; Valsartan

Fimasartan is an angiotensin type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) which has comparable efficacy and tolerability with other ARBs. The aim of this study was to evaluate 24-hour blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy and the tolerability of the low dose fimasartan compared with valsartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.. This study was a phase II, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-grouped trial. A total of 75 hypertensive patients, whose mean ambulatory BP monitoring values were ≥ 135/85 mmHg, were randomized to either fimasartan 30 mg or valsartan 80 mg daily. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the mean 24-hour systolic BP (SBP) values from the baseline and at the week 8. Secondary endpoints included the change in the mean 24-hour diastolic BP values, the daytime and the nighttime mean BP values at week 8, the trough-to-peak (T/P) ratio and the smoothness index.. At week 8, the mean 24-hour SBP values significantly decreased in both groups; -10.5 ± 11.9 mmHg (p < 0.0001) in the fimasartan group and -5.5 ± 11.6 mmHg (p = 0.0307) in the valsartan group. The difference between two groups was 4.3 ± 2.9 mmHg but there was no statistical significance (p = 0.1392). The global T/P ratio in the fimasartan 30 mg groups were 0.48 and 0.40 in the valsartan 80 mg group, respectively (p = 0.3411). The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were acute pharyngitis and there were no cases of severe AEs.. In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, low dose (30 mg) fimasartan showed comparable 24-hour BP lowering efficacy compared with valsartan (80 mg). There was no difference in tolerability between two groups.

Topics: Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles; Valsartan

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are major risk factors of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and hypercholesterolemia.. We conducted a randomized double-blind and parallel-group trial. Patients who met eligible criteria after 4 weeks of therapeutic life change were randomly assigned to the following groups. 1) co-administration of fimasartan 120 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg (FMS/RSV), 2) fimasartan 120 mg (FMS) alone 3) rosuvastatin 20 mg (RSV) alone. Drugs were administered once daily for 8 weeks.. Of 140 randomized patients, 135 for whom efficacy data were available were analyzed. After 8 weeks of treatment, the FMS/RSV treatment group showed greater reductions in sitting systolic (siSBP) and diastolic (siDBP) blood pressures than those in the group receiving RSV alone (both p < 0.001). Reductions in siSBP and siDBP were not significantly different between the FMS/RSV and FMS alone groups (p = 0.500 and p = 0.734, respectively). After 8 weeks of treatment, FMS/RSV treatment showed greater efficacy in percentage reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline than that shown by FMS alone treatment (p < 0.001). The response rates of siSBP with FMS/RSV, FMS alone, and RSV alone treatments were 65.22, 55.56, and 34.09%, respectively (FMS/RSV vs. RSV, p = 0.006). The LDL-C goal attainment rates with FMS/RSV, RSV alone, and FMS alone treatments were 80.43%, 81.82%, and 15.56%, respectively (FMS/RSV vs. FMS, p < 0.001). Incidence of adverse drug reactions with FMS/RSV treatment was 8.33%, which was similar to those associated with FMS and RSV alone treatments.. This study demonstrated that the co-administration of fimasartan and rosuvastatin to patients with both hypertension and hypercholesterolemia was efficacious and safe.. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02166814 . 16 June 2014.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Anticholesteremic Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Hypercholesterolemia; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Tetrazoles; Young Adult

A new antihypertensive drug that selectively blocks angiotensin II receptor type 1, fimasartan, has a potent and rapidly acting antihypertensive effect. We investigated the antihypertensive effects of fimasartan 60 and 120 mg and its safety in comparison to 8 mg of candesartan.. This clinical trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active comparator, and parallel group study. Three hundred sixty-two individuals were screened, and 290 patients aged 19 to 75 years with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP], 90-110 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to 60 to 120 mg/d of fimasartan or 8 mg/d of candesartan after a 2-week placebo run-in period. Treatments were administered for 12 weeks without dosage adjustment. The primary end point was the differences in DBP changes at week 12.. After 12 weeks of treatment, DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased significantly in all 3 groups. The decrease in DBP at week 12 was larger but not statistically significant in the fimasartan 60 mg compared with the candesartan 8 mg group with a mean (SD) difference of 1.72 (8.32) mm Hg (95% CI, -0.71 to 4.15 mm Hg; P = 0.17). The lower margin of the CI (-0.71 mm Hg) exceeded the noninferiority margin (-3.5 mm Hg). The DBP-lowering effect of fimasartan 120 mg was also nonsignificantly larger than candesartan 8 mg (difference, 1.58 [8.27] mm Hg; P = 0.20). The decrease in SBP was also nonsignificantly larger in the fimasartan 60 mg group compared with the candesartan 8 mg group (difference, 3.50 [12.63] mm Hg; P = .06). The SBP-lowering effect of fimasartan 120 mg was statistically larger than candesartan 8 mg (difference, 4.98 [13.99] mm Hg; P = .02). Response rate (DBP <90 mm Hg or DBP lowering >10 mm Hg at week 12) was also nonsignificantly greater in both fimasartan groups (Fimasartan 60 mg, 81%; fimasartan 120 mg, 72%; candesartan 8 mg, 71%). The safety profile of the fimasartan 60 mg and 120 mg was similar to candesartan 8 mg, with a slightly higher, but statistically not significant, incidence of hepatic enzyme elevation in fimasartan 120 mg.. The antihypertensive effect of fimasartan, a newly available angiotensin II receptor type 1 blocker, is comparable, although not superior, to candesartan with a good safety profile. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01135212.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Antihypertensive Agents; Benzimidazoles; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles; Young Adult

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of fimasartan/amlodipine combination therapy was superior to that of fimasartan monotherapy after 8 weeks of treatment in patients with hypertension who had failed to respond adequately to fimasartan monotherapy.. This trial was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, Phase III clinical study. Patients who failed to respond after 4 weeks of treatment with 60 mg daily of fimasartan (sitting systolic blood pressure [SiSBP]) ≥140 mm Hg) were randomized to receive either daily fimasartan 60 mg or fimasartan/amlodipine 60 mg/10 mg. The primary efficacy end point was the change in SiSBP from baseline to week 8. Secondary end points included the change in SiSBP from baseline to week 4, the changes in sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to weeks 4 and 8, and the response rate (SiSBP <140 mm Hg or decrease in SiSBP ≥20 mm Hg) or control rate (SiSBP <140 mm Hg) at week 8. Treatment-emergent adverse events were also assessed.. Of 143 patients randomized to treatment, 137 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 59.1 (8.9) years, and 100 (73.0%) were male. Baseline SiSBP and sitting diastolic blood pressure were 150.6 (9.2) mm Hg and 91.7 (8.6) mm Hg, respectively. In the fimasartan/amlodipine combination group, a greater reduction in SiSBP from baseline to week 8 was observed compared with the fimasartan group (7.8 [13.3] mm Hg in the fimasartan group vs 20.5 [14.6] mm Hg in the fimasartan/amlodipine group; P < 0.0001). This reduction was observed after 4 weeks. The mean SiSBP changes from baseline to week 4 were 8.1 (15.8) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and 20.1 (14.7) mm Hg in the fimasartan/amlodipine group (P < 0.0001). At week 8, the response rate was significantly higher in the fimasartan/amlodipine (82.1%) group than in the fimasartan (32.9%) group (P < 0.0001). The control rate at week 8 was also higher in the fimasartan/amlodipine (79.1%) group than in the fimasartan (31.4%) group (P < 0.0001). Adverse drug reactions were observed in 9 patients (6.3%), with no significant differences between treatment groups. There were no serious adverse events associated with the study drugs.. Fimasartan/amlodipine combination therapy exhibited superior efficacy in reducing blood pressure, with no increase in adverse drug reactions, compared with fimasartan monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02152306.

Topics: Aged; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Double-Blind Method; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fimasartan/amlodipine combination in patients with hypertension and to determine the optimal composition for a future single-pill combination formulation.. This Phase II study was conducted by using a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3 × 3 factorial design. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, eligible hypertensive patients (with a sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] between 90 and 114 mm Hg) were randomized to treatment. They received single or combined administration of fimasartan at 3 doses (0, 30, and 60 mg) and amlodipine at 3 doses (0, 5, and 10 mg) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change in SiDBP from baseline and at week 8; secondary end points included the change in SiDBP from baseline and at week 4 and the changes in sitting systolic blood pressure from baseline and at weeks 4 and 8. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.. 420 Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomly allocated to the 9 groups. Mean (SD) SiDBP changes in each group after 8 weeks were as follows: placebo, -6.0 (8.5) mm Hg; amlodipine 5 mg, -10.6 (9.2) mm Hg; amlodipine 10 mg, -15.9 (7.2) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg, -10.1 (9.1) mm Hg; fimasartan 60 mg, -13.0 (10.0) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, -16.2 (8.5) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg/amlodipine 10 mg, -19.5 (7.5) mm Hg; fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, -16.6 (6.9) mm Hg; and fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg, -21.5 (8.3) mm Hg. All treatment groups produced significantly greater reductions in blood pressure compared with the placebo group. In addition, all combination treatment groups had superior reductions in blood pressure compared with the monotherapy groups. In the combination treatment groups, doubling fimasartan dose in the given dose of amlodipine did not show further BP reduction, whereas doubling amlodipine dose showed significantly further BP reduction in the given dose of fimasartan. During the study period, 75 (17.9%) of 419 patients experienced 110 AEs. Ninety-five AEs were mild, 9 were moderate, and 6 were severe in intensity. Eight patients discontinued the study due to AEs. There was no significant difference in incidence of AEs among groups (P = 0.0884). The most common AE was headache (12 patients [2.9%]), followed by dizziness (11 patients [2.6%]) and elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels (6 patients [1.4%]).. Fimasartan combined with amlodipine produced superior blood pressure reductions and low levels of AEs compared with either monotherapy. Therefore, a single-pill combination with fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg will be developed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01518998.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Double-Blind Method; Essential Hypertension; Female; Headache; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

The study reported here compared the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of fimasartan alone with that of fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination in patients whose BP goal was not achieved after 4 weeks of treatment with once-daily fimasartan 60 mg.. Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (siDBP) ≥90 mmHg with 4 weeks of once-daily fimasartan 60 mg were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily fimasartan 60 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or fimasartan 60 mg for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, the dose was increased from fimasartan 60 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to fimasartan 120 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or from fimasartan 60 mg to fimasartan 120 mg if siDBP was ≥90 mmHg.. Of the 263 randomized patients, 256 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. The fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group showed a greater reduction of siDBP compared to the fimasartan treatment group at Week 4 (6.88±8.10 mmHg vs 3.38±7.33, P=0.0008), and the effect persisted at Week 8 (8.67±9.39 mmHg vs 5.02±8.27 mmHg, P=0.0023). Reduction of sitting systolic BP in the fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group was also greater than that in the fimasartan treatment group (at Week 4, 10.50±13.76 mmHg vs 5.75±12.18 mmHg, P=0.0069 and, at Week 8, 13.45±15.15 mmHg vs 6.84±13.57 mmHg, P=0.0007). The proportion of patients who achieved a reduction of siDBP ≥10 mmHg from baseline and/or a mean siDBP <90 mmHg after 4 weeks of treatment was higher in the fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group than in the fimasartan treatment group (53.6% vs 39.8%, P=0.0359). The overall incidence of adverse drug reaction was 11.79% with no significant difference between the treatment groups.. The combination treatment of fimasartan and HCTZ achieved better BP control than fimasartan monotherapy, and had comparable safety and tolerance to fimasartan monotherapy.

Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Female; Humans; Hydrochlorothiazide; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome

The standard 60-mg dose of fimasartan, a newly developed selective angiotensin II receptor blocker, is effective and safe for use in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of low-dose (30 mg) fimasartan and placebo or valsartan (80 mg) for 8 weeks in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.. In this randomized trial, 293 patients (219 men; mean age, 54.24 [9.77] years) with mild to moderate hypertension were enrolled. After randomization to receive 30-mg fimasartan (n = 115), placebo (n = 117), or 80-mg valsartan (n = 61), the treatment dose was kept constant without dose escalation for 8 weeks. The primary end point was improvement in sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) from baseline to 8 weeks that was compared between treatments with low-dose fimasartan and placebo. The secondary end point was the overall efficacy and safety of low-dose fimasartan compared with that of placebo or valsartan.. At week 8, SiDBP changed by -9.93 (8.86) mm Hg in the fimasartan group and by -2.08 (9.47) mm Hg in the placebo group, which indicated significant antihypertensive efficacy (P < 0.0001). Efficacy was shown at week 4 as measured by SiDBP (-9.96 [7.73] vs -2.27 [7.85] mm Hg; P < 0.0001) or sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) (-16.18 [14.44] vs -1.95 [13.48] mmHg; P < 0.0001) and at week 8 as determined by SiSBP (-15.35 [16.63] vs -2.30 [14.91] mm Hg; P < 0.0001). The fimasartan group exhibited more potent antihypertensive efficacy than the valsartan group both at week 4 (SiDBP, -9.96 [7.73] vs -6.53 [9.58] mm Hg [P = 0.0123]; SiSBP, -16.18 [14.4] vs -7.65 [12.89] mm Hg [P = 0.0002]) and at week 8 (SiDBP, -9.93 [8.86] vs -5.47 [8.96] mm Hg [P = 0.0021]; SiSBP, -15.35 [16.63] vs -7.49 [13.68] mm Hg [P = 0.0021]). Most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild (89 of 95), and there were no serious TEAEs. The incidence of TEAEs was 19.1% in the fimasartan group, 22.6% in the placebo group, and 13.6% in the valsartan group, with no significant differences.. Low-dose fimasartan (30 mg) was well tolerated during the study period with no significant TEAEs. Low-dose fimasartan had an effective blood pressure-lowering effect that was greater than that of 80-mg valsartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01672476.

Topics: Adult; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome; Valsartan

Fimasartan, a selective angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, was approved in Korea for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate hypertension.. The aim of this study was to evaluate the 24-hour blood pressure (BP) profiles before and after 8-week treatment with fimasartan and to compare them with those of valsartan.. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted using ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Korean patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were enrolled and randomly received once-daily oral fimasartan 60 or 120 mg or valsartan 80 mg for 8 weeks. ABPM was performed before and after 8-week treatment, and clinic BP was also measured. Based on ABPM data, trough-to-peak ratio and smoothness index were derived. Tolerability was monitored throughout the study.. Ninety-two patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 54.1 [8.2] years; weight, 67.9 [10.2] kg). After 8 weeks, 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic BPs (SBP and DBP, respectively) were significantly decreased in all 3 treatment groups (range: SBP, -9.2 to -15.6 mm Hg; DBP, -5.0 to -10.7 mm Hg; P <0.0001-<0.05). The global trough-to-peak ratios of ambulatory DBP in the fimasartan groups were 0.74 (60 mg/d) and 0.81 (120 mg/d)--45.1% and 58.8% higher, respectively, than the ratio of 0.51 in the valsartan group. Fimasartan 60 mg/d was associated with 53.5% (SBP) and 68.3% (DBP) greater smoothness index scores compared with those with valsartan 80 mg/d (SBP, 1.52 vs. 0.99; DBP, 1.38 vs. 0.82). The decrease in clinic-measured DBP was significantly greater in the fimasartan 60-mg/d group compared with that in the valsartan 80-mg/d group (-14.0 vs -8.7 mm Hg; P = 0.0380). Fimasartan was well tolerated; headache was the most common adverse event.. Once-daily fimasartan effectively maintained a BP-reduction profile over the full 24-hour dosing interval; this profile was comparable to or slightly better than that of once-daily valsartan. Fimasartan was well tolerated; headache was the most common adverse event.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Double-Blind Method; Drug Administration Schedule; Essential Hypertension; Female; Headache; Humans; Hypertension; Korea; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Republic of Korea; Tetrazoles; Valine; Valsartan; Young Adult

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is an effective and well tolerated first-line antihypertensive drug. Fimasartan is a newly developed ARB that has not been compared with other ARBs with regard to its efficacy and tolerability.. The goal of this study was to determine the noninferiority of fimasartan to losartan with regard to its efficacy and tolerability in adult Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.. This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, dose escalation, Phase III, noninferiority clinical trial. Patients aged 18 to 70 years with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to receive either fimasartan 60/120 mg daily or losartan 50/100 mg daily with optional titration. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability were evaluated for 12 weeks. The primary end point was noninferiority of improvement in mean siDBP from baseline to week 12 for fimasartan compared with losartan. The incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were evaluated to assess their tolerability. In addition, some patients whose blood pressure reached goal levels participated in a 24-week extension study for additional assessment of tolerability and efficacy.. Five hundred six patients were randomly allocated to receive fimasartan (n = 256) or losartan (n = 250). There was no significant difference in baseline demographic characteristics between the 2 treatment groups (fimasartan-treated group-mean age, 53.96 [8.79] years; mean weight, 70.58 [11.73] kg; male, 68.02%; losartan-treated group-mean age, 53.58 [9.61] years; mean weight, 69.80 [11.08] kg; male, 70.17%). At week 12, siDBP was significantly decreased from baseline in both groups (-11.26 [7.53] mm Hg in the fimasartan group and -8.56 [7.72] mm Hg in the losartan group [P < 0.0001]). The between-group difference was 2.70 mm Hg (P = 0.0002), and the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI (1.27 mm Hg) was higher than the prespecified noninferiority margin (-2.5 mm Hg). The incidence of ADRs were 7.84% and 10.40% in the fimasartan and losartan groups, respectively (χ(2) test, P = 0.3181). The efficacy of fimasartan was maintained over 24 weeks, and its tolerability was comparable with losartan in the extension study.. In this study with eligible adult Korean patients who had mild-to-moderate hypertension, the reduction of siDBP after 12 weeks of treatment with fimasartan 60/120 mg was noninferior to that of losartan 50/100 mg. By post hoc comparison, between-group differences in siDBP were significant in favor of fimasartan, suggesting superiority to losartan. There was no statistically significant difference in tolerability between the groups. This efficacy and tolerability were maintained throughout the additional 12-week extension study.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Losartan; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Republic of Korea; Severity of Illness Index; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

Fimasartan is a selective angiotensin II receptor blocker developed for once-daily dosing.. To meet the regulatory requirements for approval of an antihypertensive treatment in Korea, this pair of studies was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan, to determine its dose-response relationship and minimum effective dose, and to characterize its blood pressure (BP)-reduction profile over the dosing interval.. These 2 Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, and dose-response studies enrolled male or nonchildbearing female Korean patients aged 18 to 65 years (study 1) or 18 to 70 years (study 2) with essential hypertension (sitting diastolic BP [DBP] 95-<115 mm Hg [study 1] or 90-<110 mm Hg [study 2]). Patients were randomly assigned to receive fimasartan 20, 60, 120, or 180 mg (study 1) or 20, 60, 120, or 240 mg (study 2) or placebo in the same ratio, once daily for 4 weeks (study 1) or 8 weeks (study 2). Clinic BP was measured at trough, and change from baseline in DBP at week 4 (study 1) or 8 (study 2) was the primary efficacy end point. In study 1, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was conducted. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed using a structured questionnaire, laboratory testing, physical examination, and ECG readings.. Totals of 61 and 195 patients participated in studies 1 and 2, respectively (68% male; mean age, 50.1 and 55.1 years; DBP, 98.7 and 103.6 mm Hg; systolic BP, 147.0 and 158.1 mm Hg), of whom 52 (85.2%) and 169 (86.7%) completed each study. Data from ABPM were obtained from 45 patients (73.8%), and safety profile was evaluated in 225 participants. Four-week treatment with fimasartan 180 mg once daily was associated with a significantly greater mean reduction in DBP compared with placebo in study 1 (-16.4 vs -5.5 mm Hg; P = 0.022). In study 2, fimasartan 60, 120, and 240 mg once daily were associated with significantly greater reductions in DBP after 8 weeks of treatment compared with placebo (-14.4, -14.1, and -12.7 vs -5.8 mm Hg, respectively; P < 0.0001-< 0.005). Fimasartan 60 mg once daily was the minimum effective dose, and the dose-response relationship was flat at doses >60 mg once daily. BP reduction was maintained over the full 24-hour dosing interval (trough-to-peak ratios: 0.41-0.98). The proportions of patients who experienced TEAEs were comparable among the treatment groups in both studies, with headache (9.8%) and dizziness (4.4%) being most commonly reported. No serious AEs were reported.. Once-daily oral administration of fimasartan was well tolerated and efficacious in reducing BP in these hypertensive Korean patient populations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00937651 and NCT00923611.

Topics: Administration, Oral; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Korea; Male; Middle Aged; Placebos; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

The goal of this study was to evaluate the concurrent control rate of hypertension and dyslipidemia by fimasartan and rosuvastatin in patients who were concomitantly prescribed both drugs.. This single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted in 536 patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia who were taking fimasartan and rosuvastatin together for at least 12 weeks. Patients were enrolled from October 2016 to March 2018 at a tertiary hospital in the Republic of Korea. The primary end point was the concurrent control rate of blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg) and LDL-C. As a secondary end point, the target blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg was adopted in all patients or in high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. Target LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels followed the domestic guidelines. Correlation between blood pressure control and lipid profile was also evaluated. All parameters were assessed in a clinic by board-certified physicians.. Of the total 536 patients, 69% (n = 368) had very high (n = 308) or high (n = 60) cardiovascular risk, with an average age of 65 years; 57% were male. When the target blood pressure was set at 140/90 mm Hg, the proportion of patients meeting the targeting LDL-C level was 40.3% (95% CI, 36.2-44.5; P < 0.001). When applied to the revised blood pressure criteria targeting 130/80 mm Hg, the concurrent control rate dropped by one half to 20.3% (95% CI, 17.2-24.0; P < 0.001). To apply the new blood pressure criteria, more intensive management is mandatory in patients with high or very high cardiovascular risk. There was no positive correlation between the controlled rate of hypertension and dyslipidemia.. Fimasartan and rosuvastatin were shown to have effects on target diseases, but there was no synergistic effect when administered in combination. The higher the cardiovascular risk of the patients, the lower the rate of concurrent control when fimasartan and rosuvastatin were administered simultaneously. More active treatment is therefore required in high-risk patients.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Anticholesteremic Agents; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Cholesterol, LDL; Cross-Sectional Studies; Drug Therapy, Combination; Dyslipidemias; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended for treating patients with hypertension. However, comparative safety and efficacy of ARB use in elderly patients have not been well established. This study was designed to determine the efficacy of fimasartan, an ARB, in hypertensive elderly patients by measuring clinic and home blood pressures (BPs) and evaluating safety compared to nonelderly patients.. In the K-MetS study, a nationwide prospective observational study of hypertensive patients on fimasartan, elderly patients (60 years and older) who were treated for 1 year with fimasartan were recruited. BP was evaluated in clinic and at home.. Of the 6 399 enrolled patients, 2 363 were elderly (46.9% males, mean age 67.3 ± 5.7 years). Fimasartan reduced systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP) in clinic from 144.1 ± 17.3 to 127.7 ± 12.9 mmHg and from 85.1 ± 10.4 to 76.8 ± 8.4 mmHg, respectively, (all p<0.0001) in 1 year. Similar results were found in home BPs. These BP changes were consistent with those in nonelderly patients. However, pulse pressure, a better predictor of cardiovascular events in the elderly, decreased more in elderly than in nonelderly patients by -8.2 ± 0.3 in elderly and -7.0 ± 0.2 mmHg (p<0.0001), respectively, after adjustment for confounding factors. Adverse events were reported in 1.6% of elderly hypertensives, independent of dose, which was consistent with results in nonelderly patients.. Fimasartan resulted in better pulse pressure reduction with similar BP reduction efficacy and safety in hypertensive elderly patients compared with nonelderly patients.

Topics: Aged; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

To study the effects of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on insulin secretion in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.. A total of 41 patients were enrolled in this open-label, active comparator-controlled, crossover study. After a 2-week run-in period with amlodipine, the participants were assigned to receive either fimasartan (60-120 mg daily) or amlodipine (5-10 mg daily) for 16 weeks. Thereafter, they were treated with the other drug for another 16 weeks. Physical examinations and laboratory tests were performed before and after each treatment.. Blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) values were similar with each treatment. Fimasartan treatment significantly increased median (range) homeostatic assessment of β-cell function values (49.9 [22.5-174.4] vs 46.9 [15.6-148.0]), area under the curve of insulin during OGTT (27 284 [9501-94 525] vs 26 818 [8112-76 704] pmol/L × min), insulinogenic index at 60 minutes (19.7 [3.0-131.2] vs 15.0 [2.4-103.8] pmol/mmol) and at 120 minutes (19.1 [1.9-85.5] vs 12.6 [-4.3-178.8] pmol/mmol) compared with those with amlodipine (all P < .05); however, acute insulin response and insulin resistance indices were similar for both agents.. Compared with amlodipine, fimasartan increased late-phase glucose-stimulated insulin secretion in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. This finding suggests that ARBs would be more beneficial in such patients compared with other classes of anti-hypertensives.

Topics: Aged; Amlodipine; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Cross-Over Studies; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Glucose; Glucose Tolerance Test; Humans; Hypertension; Insulin; Insulin Resistance; Insulin Secretion; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used for patients with hypertension, and fimasartan is a recently approved ARBs. Fimasartan can cause headache, dizziness, itching, and coughing. There have been several reports of hepatotoxicity in ARBs. However, there have not yet been published reports of the hepatotoxicity of fimasartan.. A 73-year-old man with hypertension experienced liver injury after fimasartan administration. He had a previous history of taking 3 types of ARBs each for more than 2 years before taking fimasartan, and there were no side effects on ARBs except for fimasartan.. Other factors that could cause liver injury were excluded in diagnostic tests, and fimasartan was suspected to be the causative agent.. Fimasartan was immediately discontinued and the patient was managed with supportive care via hepatotonics.. The liver injury due to fimasartan was confirmed by histology and accidental redosing.. We emphasize that liver function should be monitored during fimasartan administration because fimasartan may cause hepatotoxicity in patients who have no side effects with other types of ARBs. And fimasartan-induced liver injury may appear later than other ARBs.

Topics: Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

The angiotensin receptor antagonist fimasartan lowered blood pressure (BP) in a previous large population study. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether fimasartan treatment for 3 months affects clinical and home BP variability in addition to reducing BP.. The study enrolled 1,396 patients (mean age 56.2±10.0 years; males 53.6%) with mild-to-moderate hypertension who had a complete set of home BP measurements (morning and evening) and metabolic risk evaluation. During the 3 months of study, fimasartan alone was used to control BP at a daily dose of 30-120 mg. Clinical and home BP measurements were performed before and after the 3-month treatment. BP variability included beat-to-beat variability (clinical) and day-to-day variability (home).. Fimasartan reduced BP after 3 months of treatment. The average reduction of clinical systolic BP (c-SBP) was 15.08±18.36 mmHg (P<0.0001), and the average reduction of morning home SBP (m-SBP) was 11.49±19.33 mmHg (P<0.0001). Beat-to-beat variability as standard deviation (SD) of c-SBP was reduced from 4.56±3.22 to 4.24±3.11 mmHg (P=0.0026). Day-to-day variability as SD of m-SBP was reduced from 7.92±6.74 to 6.95±4.97 mmHg (P<0.0001). Multiple regression analysis revealed an independent association between the change in the SD of c-SBP and the change in c-SBP (P=0.0268) and, similarly, between the change in the SD of m-SBP and the change in m-SBP (P=0.0258), after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and change in mean BP.. This study indicated that 3 months of fimasartan treatment reduced day-to-day BP variability independent of BP reduction in patients with hypertension.

Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Humans; Hypertension; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles

Angiotensin receptor blockers may be an appropriate first-line agent for postmenopausal women with hypertension because the activation of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is suggested as one possible mechanism of postmenopausal hypertension. However, there are few studies substantiating this effect. This study aimed to investigate clinic and home blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of fimasartan, a new angiotensin receptor blocker, in postmenopausal women with hypertension.Among patients with hypertension enrolled in K-Mets Study, 1373 women with fimasartan as a first antihypertensive drug and 3-months follow-up data were selected. They were divided into 2 groups; premenopausal women (pre-MPW; n = 382, 45.3 ± 4.6 years) and postmenopausal women (post-MPW; n = 991, 60.9 ± 8.2 years).Baseline clinic systolic BP was not different (pre-MPW; 152.9 ± 15.2 vs. post-MPW; 152.8 ± 13.5 mm Hg), but diastolic BP was lower in post-MPW (pre-MPW; 95.7 ± 9.4 vs. post-MPW; 91.9 ± 9.4 mm Hg, P <0.001). After 3-month treatment, clinic BP declined effectively without significant differences between 2 groups (Δsystolic/diastolic BP: pre-MPW; -25.7 ± 17.7/-14.2 ± 11.3 vs. post-MPW; -25.7 ± 16.3/-13.1 ± 10.9 mm Hg). Home morning and evening systolic BP decreased similarly in both groups (Δmorning/evening systolic BP: pre-MPW; -21.3 ± 17.9/-23.1 ± 15.8 vs. post-MPW; -20.4 ± 17.3/-20.2 ± 19.2 mm Hg). Fimasartan also significantly decreased the standard deviations of home morning and evening systolic BP of pre-MPW and post-MPW.Fimasartan was a similarly effective BP lowering agent in both post-MPW and pre-MPW with hypertension, and it also decreased day-to-day BP variability.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Ambulatory Care Facilities; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Female; Hospitals, University; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Postmenopause; Prospective Studies; Pulse; Pyrimidines; Republic of Korea; Tetrazoles

Previous epidemiological studies have suggested that uric acid is an independent risk factor for incident hypertension, whereas few studies have evaluated the effect of hyperuricemia on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. We investigated whether hyperuricemia predicts uncontrolled hypertension through a large-scale prospective cohort study with hypertensive patients treated with fimasartan in the Republic of Korea (the Kanarb-Metabolic Syndrome study).Of the 10,601 hypertensive patients who were recruited from 582 private clinics and 11 university hospitals at baseline, 7725 completed the follow-up after 3 months of fimasartan medication, and 6506 were included in the analysis after excluding those with missing values. We estimated the risk of uncontrolled hypertension after 3 months (≥130/80 mm Hg in those with diabetes or chronic renal failure and ≥140/90 mm Hg in the remaining patients) related with baseline hyperuricemia (serum uric acid ≥7 mg/dL in males ≥6 mg/dL in females) using multiple logistic regression models.Hyperuricemia increased the risk of uncontrolled hypertension after 3 months of fimasartan medication (odds ratio, 1.247; 95% confidence interval, 1.063-1.462). Males in the highest quartile of uric acid level were at a 1.322 (95% confidence interval, 1.053-1.660) times higher risk of uncontrolled hypertension in reference to the lowest quartile; the same analyses in females were not significant. Patients without metabolic syndrome had significantly higher odds of uncontrolled hypertension with hyperuricemia (odds ratio, 1.328; 95% confidence interval, 1.007-1.751).Hyperuricemia predicted uncontrolled hypertension even after 3 months of fimasartan treatment in hypertensive patients.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Biphenyl Compounds; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Hyperuricemia; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Republic of Korea; Risk Factors; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) play a key role in hypertension therapy. Recently, fimasartan, the ninth ARB, was developed, but its safety and efficacy have not been well established.. The objective of this study was to determine whether age, sex, concomitant disease, and current antihypertensive medications affect the safety and efficacy of fimasartan in patients with arterial hypertension.. This was a large-scale, open-label observational study to determine the safety and efficacy of fimasartan in patients with hypertension. Patients who were treated for more than 2 months with fimasartan (60 or 120 mg, once daily) were recruited, and the data were systematically collected using electronic case report forms. Written informed consent forms were obtained from all patients.. A total of 14,151 patients (50.7 % males; mean age 59 ± 12 years) were evaluated, of whom 37.9 % were never treated with fimasartan, 53.5 % were switched to fimasartan, and 8.5 % had fimasartan added to their treatment. Overall, fimasartan reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) from 145.4 ± 18.1 to 126.8 ± 12.6 mmHg and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 88.7 ± 11.8 to 79.0 ± 8.7 mmHg (all p < 0.001). The pulse rate decreased from 74.4 ± 10.3 to 71.9 ± 9.2 beats/min in comparison with before treatment (p < 0.001). The reductions were similar between sexes, age groups, and patients with and without co-morbidities, and were not dependent on prior or concomitant treatment with other antihypertensive drugs. Adverse events were reported in 3.31 % (treatment-emergent) and 2.35 % (drug-related) of patients; there were no dose differences for adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (1.55 %) and headache (0.52 %); other adverse events were rare. The responder rate (DBP to <90 mmHg or a reduction of ≥10 mmHg) and the goal rate (combined SBP/DBP <140/90 mmHg) were 85.0 and 75.6 %, respectively. Global drug compliance was rated as excellent, very good, good, and poor in 68.1, 26.9, 3.4, and 1.7 % of patients, respectively.. The safety, efficacy, and compliance of fimasartan were found to be excellent in a large patient population that included patients potentially at higher risk for adverse events.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Dizziness; Female; Headache; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tetrazoles; Treatment Outcome

The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of fimasartan (BR-A-657), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, between healthy young (19 - 45 years) and older (≥ 65 years) male subjects.. To assess the effect of age on PK and safety, fimasartan was administered as a single 240 mg tablet to 12 young and 10 older male subjects, followed by serial blood sampling over 48 h. Plasma concentrations of fimasartan were analyzed using validated HPLC-MS/MS. Clinical and laboratory adverse events were assessed.. After oral administration of 240 mg fimasartan, the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(0→∞)) was 2899.0 ng/ml/h in the older, which was significantly greater than in young subjects (1767.4 ng/ml/h; p = 0.03). The geometric mean AUC(0→∞) was 69.4% higher in older than in young subjects. The maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), time to reach C(max) and elimination half-life for fimasartan did not differ significantly between the older and young groups. Importantly, fimasartan was well tolerated during this study.. While some PK parameters were statistically different between the two groups, the effect of age on the PK was modest (e.g., AUC increase < twofold in older subjects).

Topics: Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Area Under Curve; Biphenyl Compounds; Half-Life; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pyrimidines; Tablets; Tetrazoles; Young Adult