fimasartan and Stroke

Higher blood pressure variability (BPV) is associated with poor functional outcome and mortality in acute stroke. This randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on BPV between fimasartan and valsartan (Boryung Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Eighty patients were randomly assigned to receive either valsartan or fimasartan after 7 days of acute ischemic stroke onset, for duration of 8 weeks. Of them, 62 patients completed the study [valsartan (n=31), fimasartan (n=31)]. We measured BP for 24 hours using ambulatory BP monitoring device before and after 8 weeks of starting BP medication. We calculated several indexes such as standard deviation (SD), weighted 24-hour BP with SD (wSD), coefficient of variation (CV), and average real variability (ARV) to assess BPV and to compare indexes of BPV between 2 drugs. SD values of systolic BP in daytime, nighttime, and 24 h period (15.55±4.02 versus 20.55±8.77,

Topics: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Brain Ischemia; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Prospective Studies; Pyrimidines; Republic of Korea; Stroke; Tetrazoles; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Valsartan

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 the most recently developed, potent, and long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). However, data are limited regarding treatment effects of fimasartan in patients with heart failure.. Between 2010 and 2016, patients who underwent coronary revascularization for myocardial infarction (MI) with heart failure and prescription of ARB at hospital discharge were enrolled from the Korean nationwide medical insurance data. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (candesartan, valsartan, losartan, telmisartan, olmesartan, and irbesartan). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke.. Of 2,802 eligible patients, fimasartan was prescribed to 124 patients (4.4%). During a median follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range, 1.0-3.9), 613 events of the primary outcome occurred. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between patients receiving fimasartan and those receiving other ARBs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-1.45). Compared with patients receiving other ARBs, those receiving fimasartan had comparable incidence of all-cause death (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.30-1.63), recurrent MI (adjusted HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.49-3.34), hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.27-1.84), and stroke (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.18-1.96).. In this nationwide cohort, fimasartan, compared with other ARBs, had comparable treatment effects for a composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, hospitalization for heart failure, and stroke in patients with heart failure after MI.

Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Stroke; Treatment Outcome