↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Combined treatment with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate attenuates atherosclerotic lesion progression in a model of advanced atherosclerosis

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Combined treatment with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate attenuates atherosclerotic lesion progression in a model of advanced atherosclerosis
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s85203
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp Sievers, Lorenz Uhlmann, Sevil Korkmaz-Icöz, Christian Fastner, Florian Bea, Erwin Blessing, Hugo A Katus, Michael R Preusch

Abstract

Besides their blood pressure-lowering effects, olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate exhibit additional anti-inflammatory mechanisms in atherosclerosic disease. Most of the studies investigating the effects of atherosclerosis focused on early atherosclerotic lesions, whereas lesions in human disease, at the time when medical treatment is started, are already well established. Therefore, we set up a model of advanced atherosclerosis and investigated the effects of olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate, and the combination of both on atherosclerotic lesion size and lesion composition. Olmesartan medoxomil (1 mg/kg/day), amlodipine besylate (1.5 mg/kg/day), and the combination of both was added to chow and was fed to apolipoprotein E-deficient (ApoE(-/-)) mice at 25 weeks of age. Mice were sacrificed after 25 weeks of drug administration and perfused with formalin. Innominate arteries were dissected out and paraffin embedded. Serial sections were generated, and lesion sizes and their composition - such as minimal thickness of the fibrous cap, size of the necrotic core, and presence of calcification - were analyzed. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays were used to detect DNA-binding activity of the transcription factor nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-κB) in aortic tissue. Treatment with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate led to a significant reduction in atherosclerotic lesion size in ApoE(-/-) mice (olmesartan medoxomil/amlodipine besylate: 122,277±6,795 μm(2), number [n]=14; versus control: 177,502±10,814 μm(2), n=9; P<0.001). Treatment with amlodipine besylate (n=5) alone did not reach significance. However, a trend toward a decrease in lesion size in the amlodipine besylate-treated animals could be observed. In the histological analysis of atherosclerotic lesion composition, significantly thicker fibrous caps were found in treatment with amlodipine besylate (amlodipine: 5.12±0.26 μm, n=6; versus control: 3.98±0.18 μm, n=10; P<0.01). Furthermore, all sections revealed morphological signs of calcification, but no difference could be detected. Treatment with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate showed no effect on lesion composition. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays of nuclear extracts demonstrated reduced activity of the transcription factor NF-κB when treated with olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate, or their combination, as compared to controls. Combined treatment with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate attenuated atherosclerotic lesion progression, possibly due to anti-inflammatory mechanisms. Our data support the hypothesis that even in advanced atherosclerosis anti-inflammatory treatment, using angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers and calcium channel antagonists of the dihydropyridine type can attenuate atherosclerotic lesion progression.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 7%
Unknown 13 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Professor 2 14%
Researcher 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Computer Science 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,438,425
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,106
of 2,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,889
of 277,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#82
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.