Azilsartan medoxomil plus chlorthalidone reduces blood pressure more effectively than olmesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in stage 2 systolic hypertension

Azilsartan medoxomil, an effective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, is a new treatment for hypertension that is also being developed in fixed-dose combinations with chlorthalidone, a potent, long-acting thiazide-like diuretic. We compared once-daily fixed-dose combinations of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone force titrated to a high dose of either 40/25 mg or 80/25 mg with a fixed-dose combination of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil plus the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide force titrated to 40/25 mg. The design was a randomized, 3-arm, double-blind, 12-week study of 1071 participants with baseline clinic systolic blood pressure 160 to 190 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure ≤119 mm Hg. Patients had a mean age of 57 years; 59% were men, 73% were white, and 22% were black. At baseline, mean clinic blood pressure was 165/96 mm Hg and 24-hour mean blood pressure was 150/88 mm Hg. Changes in clinic (primary end point) and ambulatory systolic blood pressures at week 12 were significantly greater in both azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone arms than in the olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide arm (P<0.001). Changes in clinic systolic blood pressure (mean±SE) were -42.5±0.8, -44.0±0.8, and -37.1±0.8 mm Hg, respectively. Changes in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure were -33.9±0.8, -36.3±0.8, and -27.5±0.8 mm Hg, respectively. Adverse events leading to permanent drug discontinuation occurred in 7.9%, 14.5%, and 7.1% of the groups given azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone 40/25 mg, azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone 80/25 mg, and olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/25 mg, respectively. This large, forced-titration study has demonstrated superior antihypertensive efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone fixed-dose combinations compared with the maximum approved dose of olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide.     

The comparative effects of azilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure

The current study assesses the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the investigational angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), compared with placebo and the ARB olmesartan medoxomil (OLM-M). This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study assessed change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) following 6 weeks of treatment. Patients with primary hypertension (n=1275) and baseline 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic pressure ≥ 130 mm Hg and ≤ 170 mm Hg were studied; 142 received placebo and the remainder received 20 mg, 40 mg, or 80 mg AZL-M or 40 mg OLM-M. Mean age of participants was 58 ± 11 years, baseline mean 24-hour SBP was 146 mm Hg. Dose-dependent reductions in 24-hour mean SBP at study end occurred in all AZL-M groups. Reduction in 24-hour mean SBP was greater with AZL-M 80 mg than OLM-M 40 mg by 2.1 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -4.0 to -0.1; P=.038), while AZL-M 40 mg was noninferior to OLM-M 40 mg. The side effect profiles of both ARBs were similar to placebo. AZL-M is well tolerated and more efficacious at its maximal dose than the highest dose of OLM-M.     

Azilsartan in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension Using Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements

This was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind dose-ranging study. Hypertensive adults (n=555) received one of five doses of azilsartan (AZL; 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40 mg), olmesartan medoxomil (OLM) 20 mg, or placebo once daily. The primary endpoint was change in trough clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at week 8. Compared with placebo, all AZL doses (except 2.5 mg) provided statistically and clinically significant reductions in DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) based on both clinic blood pressure (BP) and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). AZL 40 mg was statistically superior vs OLM. Clinic BP was associated with a pronounced placebo effect (−6 mm Hg), whereas this was negligible with ABPM (±0.5 mm Hg). Adverse event frequency was similar in the AZL and placebo groups. Based on these and other findings, subsequent trials investigated the commercial AZL medoxomil tablet at doses 20 to 80 mg/d using 24-hour ABPM.     

Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, the authors compared the antihypertensive efficacy of once-daily treatment with the new angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan (20 mg) with recommended starting doses of losartan (50 mg), valsartan (80 mg), and irbesartan (150 mg) in 588 patients with a cuff diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of ≥100 and ≥115 mm Hg and a mean daytime DBP of ≥90 mm Hg and <120 mm Hg, as measured by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Cuff and ambulatory blood pressures were monitored at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment. All groups were predominantly white and approximately 62% male, and their mean age was approximately 52 years. In all groups, mean baseline DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were approximately 104 and 157 mm Hg, respectively. The reduction of sitting cuff DBP with olmesartan (11.5 mm Hg), the primary efficacy variable of this study, was significantly greater than with losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan (8.2, 7.9, and 9.9 mm Hg, respectively). Reductions of cuff SBP with the four ARBs ranged from 8.4–11.3 mm Hg and were not significantly different. The reduction in mean 24-hour DBP with olmesartan (8.5 mm Hg) was significantly greater than reductions with losartan and valsartan (6.2 and 5.6 mm Hg, respectively) and showed a trend toward significance when compared to the reduction in DBP with irbesartan (7.4 mm Hg; p=0.087). The reduction in mean 24-hour SBP with olmesartan (12.5 mm Hg) was significantly greater than the reductions with losartan and valsartan (9.0 and 8.1 mm Hg, respectively) and equivalent to the reduction with irbesartan (11.3 mm Hg). All drugs were well tolerated. The authors conclude that olmesartan, at its starting dose, is more effective than the starting doses of the other ARBs tested in reducing cuff DBP in patients with essential hypertension.     

Azilsartan: a newly approved angiotensin II receptor blocker

Hypertension is a common chronic disease that leads to significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Blood pressure control is essential to prevent end-organ complications, such as stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, or kidney disease. Azilsartan is the eighth angiotensin II receptor blocker approved for the management of hypertension, alone or in combination with other agents. At the approved dosage, it reduces systolic blood pressure by 12 to 15 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure by 7 to 8 mm Hg. A higher dose of azilsartan (80 mg) was superior to valsartan 320 mg or olmesartan 40 mg in lowering systolic blood pressure in short-term studies. Additional blood pressure reduction is expected when azilsartan is used adjunctively with a diuretic. However, the effects of azilsartan on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality are still lacking. Azilsartan is well tolerated; the most common side effects are headache and diarrhea. No cases of hyperkalemia have been reported in 6-week clinical trials. Worsening of renal function and hypotension should be monitored, particularly in those with baseline risk factors. It is unknown whether azilsartan would join angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and other angiotensin receptor blockers as the preferred hypertensive agents for end-organ protection. At this time, azilsartan should be considered as an alternative agent for mild-to-moderate hypertension, or as an adjunctive therapy when preferred agents fail to maintain optimal blood pressure control. It is also an option for those patients who have contraindications or cannot tolerate other antihypertensive agents, including dry cough induced by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.     

Antihypertensive Efficacy of Olmesartan Medoxomil, a New Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist, as Assessed by Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements

Olmesartan medoxomil is a new angiotensin II receptor blocker. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil was assessed in 334 patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension. Patients were randomized to receive placebo; 5, 20, or 80 mg olmesartan medoxomil q.d.; or 2.5, 10, or 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil b.i.d. Ambulatory and cuff blood pressure were measured prior to and after 8 weeks of treatment. Treatment with olmesartan medoxomil resulted in a significant placebo-adjusted reduction of mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure of 9.6 mm Hg, 12.2 mm Hg, and 10.6 mm Hg in the 5-, 20-, and 80-mg q.d. groups, respectively. Corresponding reductions in mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure were 14.5 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg, and 15.4 mm Hg. Similar reductions of diastolic and systolic blood pressure were seen with b.i.d. dosing. The diastolic trough-to-peak ratios of the q.d. doses of olmesartan medoxomil ranged from 57%–70%, indicating 24-hour effectiveness. The safety profile of olmesartan medoxomil was similar to that of placebo. Olmesartan medoxomil appears to be a safe and effective once-a-day treatment for hypertension.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil,a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist,as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure measurements

Olmesartan medoxomil is a new angiotensin II receptor blocker. In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil was assessed in 334 patients with moderate to severe essential hypertension. Patients were randomized to receive placebo; 5, 20, or 80 mg olmesartan medoxomil q.d.; or 2.5, 10, or 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil b.i.d. Ambulatory and cuff blood pressure were measured prior to and after 8 weeks of treatment. Treatment with olmesartan medoxomil resulted in a significant placebo-adjusted reduction of mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure of 9.6 mm Hg, 12.2 mm Hg, and 10.6 mm Hg in the 5-, 20-, and 80-mg q.d. groups, respectively. Corresponding reductions in mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure were 14.5 mm Hg, 16.5 mm Hg, and 15.4 mm Hg. Similar reductions of diastolic and systolic blood pressure were seen with b.i.d. dosing. The diastolic trough-to-peak ratios of the q.d. doses of olmesartan medoxomil ranged from 57%-70%, indicating 24-hour effectiveness. The safety profile of olmesartan medoxomil was similar to that of placebo. Olmesartan medoxomil appears to be a safe and effective once-a-day treatment for hypertension.     

奥美沙坦酯与缬沙坦对原发性高血压患者血压晨峰的影响

目的比较奥美沙坦酯和缬沙坦治疗高血压患者血压晨峰的疗效。方法选择我院76例原发性高血压患者随机分为2组,分别接受奥美沙坦酯20-40mg／d或缬沙坦80-160mg／d治疗,共8周,观察服药前及服药后清晨血压变化。结果奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组治疗后晨峰血压均有明显下降,与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组晨峰血压下降的幅度分别为：／kSBP（10．22±0．35）mmHg、（5．63±0．21）mmHg;△DBP（7．71±0．29）mmHg、（3．55±0．14）mmHg,奥美沙坦酯组血压晨峰下降幅度高于缬沙坦组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论奥美沙坦酯和缬沙坦均可以有效地控制原发性高血压患者血压晨蜂现象,奥美沙坦酯优于缬沙坦。     

Comparison of increasing doses of olmesartan medoxomil, losartan potassium, and valsartan in patients with essential hypertension

This 12-week, randomized, double-blind, forced-titration study compared the efficacy of 3 angiotensin receptor blockers. Patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg, losartan potassium 50 mg, valsartan 80 mg, or placebo once daily. At week 4, doses were titrated to 40, 100, and 160 mg once daily for olmesartan, losartan, and valsartan, respectively. At week 8, losartan was increased to 50 mg twice daily and valsartan increased to 320 mg once daily (olmesartan remained at 40 mg once daily). The primary end point was mean change from baseline in seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at week 8. All 3 medications significantly reduced mean SeDBP from baseline compared with placebo at weeks 4, 8, and 12 (P<.001). At week 8, olmesartan reduced mean SeDBP more than losartan (P<.001); more patients in the olmesartan medoxomil group achieved a blood pressure goal of <140/90 mm Hg (P<.001). Olmesartan did not reduce mean SeDBP significantly compared with valsartan, although more patients attained blood pressure goal with olmesartan (P=.031). At week 12, all agents lowered blood pressure equivalently.     

Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide

BACKGROUND: Most patients with hypertension require more than one agent to control blood pressure (BP). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, factorial design study. After a placebo run-in period, eligible patients (n = 502) with a baseline mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) of 100 to 115 mm Hg were randomized to one of 12 groups: placebo, olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy (10, 20, or 40 mg/day, HCTZ monotherapy (12.5 or 25 mg/day), or one of six groups of olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy. The primary endpoint was the change in mean trough SeDBP from baseline at week 8. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine whether at least one combination produced a larger reduction in SeDBP at week 8 than the individual corresponding component doses, but did not compare BP reductions with different combination doses. RESULTS: Olmesartan medoxomil plus HCTZ produced greater reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) at week 8 than did monotherapy with either component. All olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combinations significantly reduced SeDBP and SeSBP compared with placebo in a dose-dependent manner. Reductions from baseline in mean trough SeSBP/SeDBP were 3.3/8.2 mm Hg, 20.1/16.4 mm Hg, and 26.8/21.9 mm Hg with placebo, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg, and olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ 40/25 mg, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ combination therapy produced BP reductions of up to 26.8/21.9 mm Hg and was well tolerated.     

A review of olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy: antihypertensive efficacy similar to that of other angiotensin II receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide combinations?

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been available in the United States since 1995. These agents have demonstrated antihypertensive efficacy at least similar to that of agents from other antihypertensive classes. Recent large-scale, randomized, controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that ARBs offer cardiovascular and renal protective benefits independent of their effects on systemic blood pressure (BP), which make them valuable as first-line antihypertensive agents, especially in high-risk patients. However, as is the case with other antihypertensive classes, monotherapy with the first-available ARBs (losartan potassium, valsartan, and irbesartan) may not provide sufficient BP reduction to achieve currently recommended BP goals in many patients. The diuretic hydrochlorothiazide is frequently added to enhance the ability of ARBs to lower BP. Several head-to-head comparison studies have shown differences in antihypertensive efficacy among the available ARBs. The newest ARB, olmesartan medoxomil, was recently compared with losartan potassium, irbesartan, and valsartan in a prospective, head-to-head, randomized trial. In this study, olmesartan medoxomil demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in diastolic BP, the primary end point, compared with the other three ARBs. Further, a review of the absolute reductions in diastolic BP achieved with olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy appears comparable to that of previously available ARBs when they are used in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. These comparisons may have important clinical implications regarding the optimal choice of first-line antihypertensive therapy.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of azilsartan with that of candesartan cilexetil in Japanese patients with grade I-II essential hypertension: a randomized, double-blind clinical study

Azilsartan is a novel angiotensin receptor blocker being developed for hypertension treatment. This 16-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of azilsartan (20-40 mg once daily by forced titration) and its ability to provide 24-h blood pressure (BP) control, with that of candesartan cilexetil (candesartan; 8-12 mg once daily by forced titration) in 622 Japanese patients with grade I-II essential hypertension. Efficacy was evaluated by clinic-measured sitting BP, and by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) at week 14. Participants (mean age: 57 years, 61% males) had a mean baseline sitting BP of 159.8/100.4 mm Hg. The mean change from baseline in sitting diastolic BP at week 16 (primary endpoint) was -12.4 mm Hg in the azilsartan group and -9.8 mm Hg in the candesartan group, demonstrating a statistically significant greater reduction with azilsartan vs. candesartan (difference: -2.6 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.08 to -1.22 mm Hg, P=0.0003). The week 16 (secondary endpoint) mean change from baseline in sitting systolic BP was -21.8 mm Hg and -17.5 mm Hg, respectively, a significant decrease with azilsartan vs. candesartan (difference: -4.4 mm Hg, 95% CI: -6.53 to -2.20 mm Hg, P<0.0001). On ABPM, the week 14 mean changes from baseline in diastolic and systolic BP were also significantly greater with azilsartan over a 24-h period, and during the daytime, night-time and early morning. Safety and tolerability were similar among the two groups. These data demonstrate that once-daily azilsartan provides a more potent 24-h sustained antihypertensive effect than that of candesartan but with equivalent safety.     

Management of hypertension in patients with diabetes using an amlodipine-, olmesartan medoxomil-, and hydrochlorothiazide-based titration regimen

The safety and efficacy of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based titration regimen was assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, 207 patients received amlodipine 5 mg and were uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 5/20, 5/40, and 10/40 mg and then amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 and 25 mg in a step-wise manner at 3-week intervals if the seated blood pressure (BP) remained ≥120/70 mm Hg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP after 12 weeks of treatment. The baseline mean ± SD seated cuff systolic/diastolic BP was 158.8 ± 13.1/89.1 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the mean ± SD 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was 144.4 ± 11.7/81.6 ± 9.8 mm Hg. At week 12, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was -19.9 ± 0.8/-11.2 ± 0.5 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), and 70% of patients had achieved a 24-hour ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mm Hg. At the end of 18 weeks of active treatment in patients uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM seated BP was -28.0 ± 1.5/-13.7 ± 1.0 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), with 62% of patients reaching the guideline-recommended seated BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 19.3% of patients. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (6%), dizziness (3%), and hypotension (2%). In conclusion, this amlodipine/OM-based titration regimen was well tolerated and effectively lowered BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.     

24-hour efficacy and safety of Triple-Combination Therapy With Olmesartan, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide: the TRINITY ambulatory blood pressure substudy

This 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, 4-arm study in 440 patients with moderate to severe hypertension compared ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) responses with a triple-combination regimen (olmesartan medoxomil [OM] 40 mg, amlodipine besylate [AML] 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide [HCTZ] 25 mg) and its component dual-combination regimens at similar doses. At week 12, the triple combination resulted in a greater reduction in mean 24-hour systolic and diastolic blood pressure (-30.3/-18.0 mm Hg) compared with the 3 dual-combination regimens (OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg: -23.5/-13.9, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg: -23.9/-14.5, and AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg: -18.5 mm Hg/-10.7 mm Hg; P<.0001 each). Greater efficacy was also found during daytime and nighttime hours and during the last 6, 4, or 2 hours of the dosing interval. The authors conclude that the triple combination of OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg demonstrated superior efficacy and sustained reductions in ABP compared with its dual-combination components.     

Effects of angiotensin receptor blockers on ambulatory plasma Renin activity in healthy, normal subjects during unrestricted sodium intake

BACKGROUND: Plasma renin activity (PRA), measured under controlled conditions, is a marker of the degree and persistence of renin-angiotensin system blockade. METHODS: Two similarly designed five-way crossover studies evaluated angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor blockade-induced changes in PRA in quietly seated, ambulatory volunteers who were ingesting uncontrolled diets. At weekly intervals, PRA was measured during the 24 h after administration of placebo, olmesartan medoxomil (20 or 40 mg), or valsartan (80 or 160 mg) (Study CS866-445), or placebo, olmesartan medoxomil (40 mg), valsartan (160 or 320 mg), or irbesartan (300 mg) (Study CS866-448). The primary end point was change in PRA relative to placebo from predose to 24 h postdose (DeltaPRA24). RESULTS: In the 20 subjects who completed each study, there was a direct relationship between baseline PRA and DeltaPRA24 for all doses. Subjects with low PRA (<0.65 ng/mL/h) exhibited very low absolute increases in PRA. The DeltaPRA(24) increased significantly with olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg (P<.01) and 40 mg (P<.001) and valsartan 160 mg (P<.05) but not with valsartan 80 mg. In the second study (in which baseline PRA was lower), DeltaPRA24 increased with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg (P<.0001), valsartan 320 mg (P<.01), and irbesartan 300 mg (P<.01) but not with valsartan 160 mg. The DeltaPRA24 was greatest with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg and was dose-related for olmesartan medoxomil but not for valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: The greater DeltaPRA24 with olmesartan medoxomil 40 mg indicates a more prolonged AT1 receptor blockade than with valsartan 80, 160, or 320 mg or irbesartan 300 mg. A routine, clinic ambulatory PRA level can be used as a biochemical marker of the persistence and degree of AT1 receptor blockade in subjects without suppressed PRA levels.     

Comparison of the effects of aliskiren/valsartan in combination versus valsartan alone in patients with Stage 2 hypertension

The extent to which the combination of a renin inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) lowers clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) versus an ARB alone in stage 2 hypertension is not well known. Hence, we performed an 8-week, randomized, double-blind study in 451 patients with stage 2 hypertension to compare the efficacy of the combination of aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg versus valsartan 320 mg. The primary endpoint was change in seated systolic BP from baseline to week 8 analyzed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population using the last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) approach; patients completing the entire treatment period (per-protocol completers) were similarly analyzed. For the predefined primary analysis, systolic BP reductions for aliskiren/valsartan (n = 230) and valsartan (n = 217) were ?22.1 and ?20.5 mm Hg, respectively (P = .295). In per-protocol completers, aliskiren/valsartan (n = 201) lowered BP significantly greater than valsartan (n = 196); ?23.7 mm Hg versus ?20.3 mm Hg, respectively (P = .028). Although limited by a small sample size (n = 76) using ambulatory BP monitoring, aliskiren/valsartan lowered the 24-hour BP significantly more than valsartan alone (?14.6/?9.0 mm Hg versus ?5.9/?4.2 mm Hg; P < .01). Safety and tolerability were similar for the two treatment groups. These data demonstrate the importance of multiple modalities to assess BP changes in clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies, particularly in stage 2 hypertension.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers in combination with hydrochlorothiazide: a review of the factorial-design studies

Most hypertensive patients require more than one drug for adequate blood pressure (BP) control. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends starting treatment with a thiazide diuretic or, when BP is >20/10 mm Hg above goal or in patients with diabetes, using two different antihypertensive agents. Searches of Medline, EMBASE, and BIOSIS databases identified four similarly designed, randomized, factorial studies comparing various doses of angiotensin II receptor blockers with hydrochlorothiazide as monotherapy and in combination. The methodology and results of these studies were compared. The primary efficacy end point in these studies was a decrease from baseline in mean diastolic BP after 8 weeks of therapy. All currently available angiotensin I receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide combinations evaluated (irbesartan, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, and valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide) produced significant systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions. Olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide 40 mg/25 mg provided the largest mean reduction in absolute and placebo-corrected systolic BP/diastolic BP. For all angiotensin II receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide combinations evaluated, > or =63% of patients achieved a diastolic BP response (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg or > or =10-mm Hg reduction). In conclusion, the combination of an angiotensin II receptor blocker and hydrochlorothiazide produces more substantial BP responses than monotherapy with either component.     

Is the newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Angiotensin‐receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin‐receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin‐receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6‐12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20‐80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20‐40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160‐320 mg), but not candesartan (8‐16 mg), losartan (50‐100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24‐hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin‐receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.     

Blood pressure outcomes in patients receiving angiotensin II receptor blockers in primary care: a comparative effectiveness analysis from electronic medical record data

The authors examined the comparative effectiveness of 4 angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension using a large electronic medical record database. Analysis of covariance and logistic multivariate regression models were used to estimate the blood pressure (BP) outcomes of 73,012 patients during 13 months of treatment with olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan. Results were adjusted by baseline BP, starting dose, year, age, sex, race, body mass index, comorbid conditions, and concomitant medications of patients. All ARBs led to sustained reductions in BP, but with significant differences in the magnitude of BP reduction. Raw mean systolic BP/diastolic BP reductions with losartan, valsartan, irbesartan, and olmesartan were 9.3/4.9 mm Hg, 10.4/5.6 mm Hg, 10.1/5.3 mm Hg, and 12.4/6.8 mm Hg, respectively. Adjusting for all covariates, the overall BP reductions with olmesartan were 1.88/0.86 mm Hg, 1.21/0.52 mm Hg, and 0.89/0.51 mm Hg greater than for losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan, respectively, and mean differences were higher for monotherapy: 2.43/1.16 mm Hg; 2.18/0.93 mm Hg; 1.44/0.91 mm Hg, respectively (all P values <.0001). Adjusted odds ratios of the JNC 7 goal attainment for losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan compared with olmesartan were 0.76, 0.86, and 0.91 (P<.05). Differences were also found in subpopulations: African Americans, diabetics, and obese/overweight patients but not all of these reached statistical significance. A broad choice of ARBs may be required to get patients to treatment goals.     

Combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium channel blocker with HCTZ vs the maximal recommended dose of an ARB with HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension: the exforge as compared to losartan treatment in stage 2 systolic hypertension (EXALT) study

This study compared the efficacy and safety of combination angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium-channel blocker (CCB) with hydrochlorothiazide (valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ 160/5/2mg) vs maximal available combination doses of an ARB with HCTZ (losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg) in the management of stage 2 hypertension. After 1 to 2 weeks of antihypertensive drug washout, patients with a mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) of ≥ 160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg were randomized to valsartan/amlodipine 160/5 mg (n = 241) or losartan 100 mg (n = 247). At week 3, HCTZ 25 mg was added to both treatments. The primary end point, reduction in MSSBP from baseline to week 6, was significantly greater in the valsartan/amlodipine group than in the losartan group (least-squares [LS] mean change, -31.8 mm Hg vs -26.4 mm Hg; P<.001). Additional reductions occurred after titrating to 320/10/25 mg at week 6 in the valsartan/amlodipine group and switching from losartan/HCTZ to valsartan/amlodipine/HCTZ (week 6, 160/5/25 mg; week 9, 320/10/25 mg) in the losartan group. Achievement of blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg also favored the valsartan/amlodipine group. Dizziness was the only adverse event reported in >5% of patients (5.4% valsartan/amlodipine group, 3.6% losartan group). Moderate doses of an ARB/CCB combination with HCTZ reduced blood pressure more effectively than the maximal dose of an ARB with HCTZ.