| Pharmacotherapeutic groups: Angiotensin II Antagonists. Plain, ATC code: C09CA03 Valsartan is an orally active, potent, and specific angiotensin II (Ang II) receptor antagonist. It acts selectively on the AT1 receptor subtype, which is responsible for the known actions of angiotensin II. The increased plasma levels of Ang II following AT1 receptor blockade with valsartan may stimulate the unblocked AT2 receptor, which appears to counterbalance the effect of the AT1 receptor. Valsartan does not exhibit any partial agonist activity at the AT1 receptor and has much (about 20,000 fold) greater affinity for the AT1 receptor than for the AT2 receptor. Valsartan is not known to bind to or block other hormone receptors or ion channels known to be important in cardiovascular regulation. Valsartan does not inhibit ACE (also known as kininase II) which converts Ang I to Ang II and degrades bradykinin. Since there is no effect on ACE and no potentiation of bradykinin or substance P, angiotensin II antagonists are unlikely to be associated with coughing. In clinical trials where valsartan was compared with an ACE inhibitor, the incidence of dry cough was significantly (P < 0.05) less in patients treated with valsartan than in those treated with an ACE inhibitor (2.6 % versus 7.9 % respectively). In a clinical trial of patients with a history of dry cough during ACE inhibitor therapy, 19.5 % of trial subjects receiving valsartan and 19.0 % of those receiving a thiazide diuretic experienced cough compared to 68.5 % of those treated with an ACE inhibitor (P < 0.05). Recent myocardial infarction The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion trial (VALIANT) was a randomised, controlled, multinational, double-blind study in 14,703 patients with acute myocardial infarction and signs, symptoms or radiological evidence of congestive heart failure and/or evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (manifested as an ejection fraction 40% by radionuclide ventriculography or 35% by echocardiography or ventricular contrast angiography). Patients were randomized within 12 hours to 10 days after the onset of myocardial infarction symptoms to valsartan, captopril, or the combination of both. The mean treatment duration was two years. The primary endpoint was time to all-cause mortality. Valsartan was as effective as captopril in reducing all-cause mortality after myocardial infarction. All-cause mortality was similar in the valsartan (19.9 %), captopril (19.5 %), and valsartan + captopril (19.3 %) groups. Combining valsartan with captopril did not add further benefit over captopril alone. There was no difference between valsartan and captopril in all-cause mortality based on age, gender, race, baseline therapies or underlying disease. Valsartan was also effective in prolonging the time to and reducing cardiovascular mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure, recurrent myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and non-fatal stroke (secondary composite endpoint).The safety profile of valsartan was consistent with the clinical course of patients treated in the post-myocardial infraction setting. Regarding renal function, doubling of serum creatinine was observed in 4.2% of valsartan-treated patients, 4.8 % of valsartan+captopril-treated patients and 3.4% of captopril-treated patients. Discontinuations due to various types of renal dysfunction occurred in 1.1% of valsartan-treated patients, 1.3% in valsartan+captopril patients, and 0.8% of captopril patients. An assessment of renal function should be included in the evaluation of patients post-myocardial infarction. There was no difference in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or morbidity when beta-blockers were administered together with the combination of valsartan + captopril, valsartan alone, or captopril alone. Irrespective of treatment, mortality was lower in the group of patients treated with a beta-blocker, suggesting that the known beta blocker benefit in this population was maintained in this trial.Heart failure Val-HeFT was a randomised, controlled, multinational clinical trial of valsartan compared with placebo on morbidity and mortality in 5,010 NYHA class II (62%), III (36%) and IV (2%) heart failure patients receiving usual therapy with LVEF <40% and left ventricular internal diastolic diameter (LVIDD) >2.9 cm/m2. Baseline therapy included ACE inhibitors (93%), diuretics (86%), digoxin (67%) and beta blockers (36%). The mean duration of follow-up was nearly two years. The mean daily dose of Diovan in Val-HeFT was 254 mg. The study had two primary endpoints: all cause mortality (time to death) and composite mortality and heart failure morbidity (time to first morbid event) defined as death, sudden death with resuscitation, hospitalisation for heart failure, or administration of intravenous inotropic or vasodilator agents for four hours or more without hospitalisation.All cause mortality was similar (p=NS) in the valsartan (19.7%) and placebo (19.4%) groups. The primary benefit was a 27.5% (95% CI: 17 to 37%) reduction in risk for time to first heart failure hospitalisation (13.9% vs. 18.5%). Results appearing to favour placebo (composite mortality and morbidity was 21.9% in placebo vs. 25.4% in valsartan group) were observed for those patients receiving the triple combination of an ACE inhibitor, a beta blocker and valsartan.In a subgroup of patients not receiving an ACE inhibitor (n=366), the morbidity benefits were greatest. In this subgroup all-cause mortality was significantly reduced with valsartan compared to placebo by 33% (95% CI: 6% to 58%) (17.3% valsartan vs. 27.1% placebo) and the composite mortality and morbidity risk was significantly reduced by 44% (24.9% valsartan vs. 42.5% placebo).In patients receiving an ACE inhibitor without a beta-blocker, all cause mortality was similar (p=NS) in the valsartan (21.8%) and placebo (22.5%) groups. Composite mortality and morbidity risk was significantly reduced by 18.3% (95% CI: 8% to 28%) with valsartan compared with placebo (31.0% vs. 36.3%).In the overall Val-HeFT population, valsartan treated patients showed significant improvement in NYHA class, and heart failure signs and symptoms, including dyspnoea, fatigue, oedema and rales compared to placebo. Patients treated with valsartan had a better quality of life as demonstrated by change in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Quality of Life score from baseline at endpoint than placebo. Ejection fraction in valsartan treated patients was significantly increased and LVIDD significantly reduced from baseline at endpoint compared to placebo.Paediatric population Hypertension The antihypertensive effect of valsartan have been evaluated in four randomized, double-blind clinical studies in 561 paediatric patients from 6 to 18 years of age and 165 paediatric patients 1 to 6 years of age. Renal and urinary disorders, and obesity were the most common underlying medical conditions potentially contributing to hypertension in the children enrolled in these studies.Clinical experience in children at or above 6 years of ageIn a clinical study involving 261 hypertensive paediatric patients 6 to 16 years of age, patients who weighed <35 kg received 10, 40 or 80 mg of valsartan tablets daily (low, medium and high doses), and patients who weighed 35 kg received 20, 80, and 160 mg of valsartan tablets daily (low, medium and high doses). At the end of 2 weeks, valsartan reduced both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a dose-dependent manner. Overall, the three dose levels of valsartan (low, medium and high) significantly reduced systolic blood pressure by 8, 10, 12 mm Hg from the baseline, respectively. Patients were re-randomized to either continue receiving the same dose of valsartan or were switched to placebo. In patients who continued to receive the medium and high doses of valsartan, systolic blood pressure at trough was -4 and -7 mm Hg lower than patients who received the placebo treatment. In patients receiving the low dose of valsartan, systolic blood pressure at trough was similar to that of patients who received the placebo treatment. Overall, the dose-dependent antihypertensive effect of valsartan was consistent across all the demographic subgroups.In another clinical study involving 300 hypertensive paediatric patients 6 to 18 years of age, eligible patients were randomized to receive valsartan or enalapril tablets for 12 weeks. Children weighing between 18 kg and <35 kg received valsartan 80 mg or enalapril 10 mg; those between 35 kg and <80 kg received valsartan 160 mg or enalapril 20 mg; those 80 kg received valsartan 320 mg or enalapril 40 mg. Reductions in systolic blood pressure were comparable in patients receiving valsartan (15 mmHg) and enalapril (14 mm Hg) (non-inferiority p-value <0.0001). Consistent results were observed for diastolic blood pressure with reductions of 9.1 mmHg and 8.5 mmHg with valsartan and enalapril, respectively.Clinical experience in children less than 6 years of ageTwo clinical studies were conducted in patients aged 1 to 6 years with 90 and 75 patients, respectively. No children below the age of 1 year were enrolled in these studies. In the first study, the efficacy of valsartan was confirmed compared to placebo but a dose-response could not be demonstrated. In the second study, higher doses of valsartan were associated with greater BP reductions, but the dose response trend did not achieve statistical significance and the treatment difference compared to placebo was not significant. Because of these inconsistencies, valsartan is not recommended in this age group (see section 4.8).The European Medicines Agency has waived the obligation to submit the results of studies with Diovan in all subsets of the paediatric population in heart failure and heart failure after recent myocardial infarction. See section 4.2 for information on paediatric use. | |