Efficacy and tolerability of a combination tablet of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide in insufficiently controlled primary hypertension--comparison with a combination of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide

This randomized, double-blind study compared the antihypertensive effect, safety and tolerability of a candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide (candesartan/HCT; 16/12.5 mg) combination tablet with that of a losartan/HCT (50/12.5 mg) combination tablet in patients with mild-to-moderate primary hypertension insufficiently controlled on previous monotherapy. Men and women, aged 20-80 years, with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 90 and < or = 110 mmHg and sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) < or = 200 mmHg during treatment with any kind of antihypertensive monotherapy for at least 4 weeks were randomized to candesartan/HCT or losartan/HCT once daily for 12 weeks. All BP measurements were performed 24 h after previous dose. Mean values and standard deviations (SD) or confidence intervals (CI) are given. A total of 340 patients were enrolled, of whom 299 (144 women and 155 men, mean age 59.5 [10.5] years) were randomized to candesartan/HCT (n = 151) or losartan/HCT (n = 148). BPs at randomization were 159.5 (15.4)/98.4 (5.8)mmHg and 160.5 (16.1)/98.5 (5.4)mmHg, respectively. There was a greater reduction in BP with candesartan/HCT than with losartan/HCT: DBP -10.4 (-11.8; -8.9) vs -7.8 (-9.3; -6.3) mmHg, difference between treatments -2.6 (-4.7; -0.5) mmHg (p = 0.016); SBP -19.4 (-22.1; -16.7) vs - 13.7 (-16.5; - 10.9) mmHg, difference between treatments -5.7 (-9.6; -1.8) mmHg (p = 0.004). The proportion of patients achieving a DBP < or = 90 mmHg was greater in the candesartan/HCT group: 60.9 (53.1; 68.7) vs 49.3 (41.3; 57.4)% (p = 0.044). There were 12 withdrawals in the candesartan/HCT group, of which 8 were due to adverse events, and 17 and 12, respectively in the losartan/HCT group. We conclude that the combination of candesartan and HCT reduces BP effectively and is well tolerated. BP was normalized in 61% of these patients who had insufficient response to previous monotherapy. The reduction in BP and the proportion of patients with normalized BP were greater with the candesartan/HCT 16/12.5 mg combination than with the losartan/ HCT 50/12.5 mg combination.     

The Antihypertensive Effect and Tolerability of Candesartan Cilexetil, a New Generation Angiotensin II Antagonist, in Comparison with Losartan

This multicentre study compared the antihypertensive effect and tolerability of the novel angiotensin II antagonist candesartan cilexetil with those of losartan and placebo. Men and women aged 20-80 years, with primary hypertension and sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-114 mm Hg after a 4-week placebo run-in period, were randomized to once daily double-blind treatment with candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (n = 82), candesartan cilexetil 16 mg (n = 84), losartan 50 mg (n = 83) or placebo (n = 85) for 8 weeks. Blood pressure was measured 6 and 24 h after dose, i.e. at peak and trough. Differences between treatments were analysed by analysis of covariance, and the primary effect variable was reduction in trough sitting DBP. Compared with placebo treatment, trough DBP was significantly reduced by a mean (95% CI) of 8.9 (6.0; 11.8) mm Hg with 8 mg and 10.3 (7.4; 13.2) mm Hg with 16 mg candesartan cilexetil. The 8 mg dose was as effective as losartan 50 mg, while 16 mg candesartan cilexetil was significantly more effective, with a difference between treatments of 3.7 (0.8; 6.7) mm Hg (p = 0.013). The placebo corrected trough/peak ratio was 0.9-1.1 with candesartan cilexetil and 0.7 with losartan. Candesartan cilexetil was similarly well tolerated as placebo. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil 8 mg or 16 mg once daily is an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment. Candesartan cilexetil 16 mg is significantly more effective than losartan 50 mg once daily.     

Cost-effectiveness of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension: an economic evaluation for Sweden

Irbesartan, an angiotensin-II inhibitor, has been shown to be an effective antihypertensive agent in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of irbesartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in Swedish health-care setting by predicting clinical events and life years based upon observed reductions in blood pressure in clinical trials. The cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment with irbesartan compared with placebo and to other selected angiotensin-II inhibitors (losartan, valsartan, candesartan) in combination with HCTZ was estimated using a Markov model. The incidence of cardiovascular disease was obtained from the Swedish inpatient registry, whereas the risk reductions associated with antihypertensive therapy were taken from the medical literature. Costs for antihypertensive therapy and for treatment of cardiovascular events were included, and the health effects were measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The study was conducted from a health-care payer perspective. For a 55-year-old male, irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg was a dominant strategy (better health effects at lower costs) when compared with losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and valsartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg, and the cost-effectiveness ratio compared with placebo was 3500 euros per QALY gained. In moderate-to-severe hypertension, irbesartan was cost-effective compared with losartan, whereas the results compared with candesartan were mixed. High-dose combination therapy of irbesartan was also found to be cost-effective compared with low-dose combination therapy. The results from the model indicate that irbesartan provides a cost-effective antihypertensive treatment strategy compared with both placebo, and to valsartan and losartan.     

Platelet aggregability in patients with hypertension treated with angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers

AIM: Cardiovascular events associated with hypertension often involve thrombosis. Increased platelet activity is one of the risk factors of cardiovascular diseases. Antithrombotic properties of antihypertensive agents are not fully characterized. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used for the treatment of hypertension. Some ARBs can provoke antiaggregatory effects on platelets in vitro. Whether ARBs can inhibit platelet aggregation was tested in hypertensive patients in vivo. METHODS: Platelet aggregation was assessed by the highly sensitive particle counting method using laser-light scattering. RESULTS: Large platelet aggregation induced by adenosine diphosphate (ADP, 3 microM) was 2.6+/-0.4 (x10(7)) (SE) in hypertensive patients treated with losartan (72+/-3 years old, n=10) while it was 3.9+/-0.6 in hypertensive patients treated with candesartan (70+/-5 years old, n=6; p=0.056). Large platelet aggregation induced by thromboxane A2 receptor agonist, U46619 (10 microM), was 2.8+/-0.5 (x10(7)) in hypertensive patients treated with losartan while it was 5.1+/-0.9 in hypertensive patients treated with candesartan (p=0.033). Clinical characteristics including the control of blood pressure did not differ between the two groups (losartan 136+/-5/73+/-3 mmHg vs. candesartan 135+/-4/76+/-5). CONCLUSION: Thus, losartan may have the possibility to inhibit platelet activation in patients with hypertension independent of blood pressure reduction. Antiaggregatory properties may be independent of angiotensin II type 1 receptor or of antihypertensive actions. The favorable effects of losartan on reduction of adverse cardiovascular events among hypertensive patients may be at least partly mediated by inhibition of platelet activation.     

The relationships between dose and antihypertensive effect of four AT1-receptor blockers. Differences in potency and efficacy

The relationships between dose and antihypertensive effect of the first four available AT 1 -receptor blockers, i.e. losartan, valsartan, irbesartan and candesartan, were assessed based on data obtained from the FDA's evaluation reports of the respective New Drug Application files. All available randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies in adult men and women with mild to moderate primary diastolic hypertension were included, provided that the reduction in trough (24 h post-dose) supine or sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) had been assessed using the intention-to-treat approach. All studies had an initial single-blind placebo run-in period followed by at least 4 weeks double-blind treatment. The selected studies were included in a meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship for each drug. The dose-response relationship was estimated by fitting the placebo-adjusted, weighted mean reductions in DBP for each dose of the drug to an E max model. The E max (maximal effect at an infinitely large dose) for the reduction in DBP, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals in brackets, were found to be 5.6 (3.6-7.5) mmHg for losartan, 5.8 (5.0-6.6) mmHg for valsartan, 6.9 (5.9-7.9) mmHg for irbesartan and 7.5 (6.1-8.9) mmHg for candesartan ( p = 0.014, candesartan vs valsartan). In conclusion, this investigation demonstrates that candesartan can reduce DBP significantly more than valsartan, and is supportive of previous head-to-head comparisons, which have proven candesartan to have a greater antihypertensive effect than losartan at recommended doses. Thus, differences in efficacy between different AT 1 -receptor blockers do exist, and should have implications for the choice of AT 1 -receptor blocker when treating patients with hypertension, considering the importance of good blood pressure control.     

A new approach to assessing antihypertensive therapy: effect of treatment on pulse pressure. Candesartan cilexetil in Hypertension Ambulatory Measurement of Blood Pressure (CHAMP) Study Investigators

BACKGROUND: A high pulse pressure is an independent cardiovascular risk factor. It has therefore been suggested that antihypertensive treatment should not only reduce systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), but should also decrease pulse pressure (SBP minus DBP). In a previous analysis, we showed that two angiotensin II type 1 (AT1)-receptor blockers, candesartan cilexetil and losartan, differed in their effects in reducing SBP and DBP. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of candesartan cilexetil and losartan according to a new approach--their effect on pulse pressure--and to describe the dose-effect relationship for SBP, DBP and pulse pressure, in a placebo-controlled study. METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 268 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were allocated randomly to groups to receive placebo, candesartan cilexetil (8 mg once daily) or losartan (50 mg once daily), for 4 weeks. The doses were then doubled to 16 and 100 mg, respectively, for the final 4 weeks of the study. Clinic blood pressure was measured 24 and 48 h after each dose of drug or placebo, and ambulatory blood pressure was monitored from 0 to 36 h after each dose, at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Candesartan cilexetil decreased ambulatory pulse pressure significantly (P < 0.05) more than did losartan during both daytime and night-time, and over the 24 h period after the previous dose. A different dose-effect relationship on SBP, DBP and pulse pressure was observed. The duration of action of candesartan cilexetil was greater than that of losartan. After a missed dose (i.e. approximately 24-36 h after the previous dose), mean ambulatory pulse pressure values after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment with candesartan cilexetil were lower than those observed with losartan (P < 0.005). Clinic pulse pressure measurements were consistent with these ambulatory measurements. CONCLUSIONS: AT1 -receptor blockers differ both in their ability to reduce pulse pressure and in their duration of effect, candesartan cilexetil having a greater and more sustained effect than losartan. Different dose-effect relationships on SBP, DBP or pulse pressure were observed. Further prospective studies based on pulse pressure are needed to analyse the mechanism of reduction of pulse pressure and to determine its prognostic value.     

Antihypertensive Efficacy of Candesartan in Comparison to Losartan: The CLAIM Study

An 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, forced-titration study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan vs. losartan in 654 hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg from 72 sites throughout the U.S. Eligible patients were randomized to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily, or losartan 50 mg once daily. Two weeks following randomization, patients doubled the respective doses of their angiotensin receptor blockers for an additional 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered trough systolic/diastolic blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (13.3/10.9 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 9.8/8.7 mm Hg with losartan; p < 0.001). At the same period, candesartan cilexetil also lowered peak blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (15.2 to 11.6 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 12.6 to 10.1 mm Hg with losartan; p < 0.05). There were statistically significantly ( p < 0.05) higher proportions of responders and controlled patients in the candesartan cilexetil group (62.4% and 56.0%, respectively) than in the losartan group (54.0% and 46.9%, respectively). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; 1.8% in the candesartan cilexetil group and 1.6% in the losartan group withdrew because of adverse events. In conclusion, this forced-titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure when both are administered once daily at maximum doses. Both drugs were well tolerated.     

A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II.

An 8-week, multicentre (72 sites in the US), double-blind, randomised, parallel group, forced titration study compared the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil and losartan. A total of 611 patients with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 114 mm Hg) were randomised initially to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. After 2 weeks of randomised treatment, the doses of candesartan cilexetil and losartan were doubled to 32 mg and 100 mg once daily and continued respectively for 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered the blood pressure (BP) at 24 h (trough), 6 h (peak) and 48 h post dose to a significantly greater extent (P < 0.05) than losartan: candesartan cilexetil lowered trough BP by 13.4/10.5 mm Hg, peak BP by 15.5/12.9 mm Hg and 48-h BP by 10.5/9.9 mm Hg compared to a reduction of trough BP by 10.1/9.1 mm Hg, peak BP by 12.0/9.5 mm Hg, and 48-h BP by 5.9/7.0 mm Hg by losartan. The responder and control rates were numerically higher in the candesartan cilexetil group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance; the responder rates were 58.8% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 52.1% for the losartan group and control rates were 49.0% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 44.6% for the losartan group. Overall, both treatment regimens were well tolerated. A total of 15 of the 611 (2.5%) patients withdrew from the study due to an adverse event, including nine (2.9%) in the candesartan cilexetil group and six (2.0%) in the losartan group. In conclusion, this forced titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective in lowering BP than losartan when compared at once daily maximum doses.     

Mortality in participants and non-participants of a multifactorial prevention study of cardiovascular diseases: a 28 year follow up of the Helsinki Businessmen Study.

OBJECTIVE--To investigate pretrial risk factors and long term mortality (1964-1992) in participants and non-participants of a multifactorial primary prevention trial. DESIGN--A prospective study among 3313 initially healthy businessmen. During the 1960s (1964 onwards), 3490 healthy male business executives born between 1919 and 1934 participated in voluntary health checks at the Institute of Occupational Health in Helsinki. From that period cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors were available in 3313 men. In the beginning of the 1970s these men were invited to join a multifactorial primary prevention trial of CVD. Six groups were formed: (I) healthy participants in a high risk intervention group (n = 612), and (II) their randomised control group (n = 610); (III) a non-participant low risk group (n = 593); (IV) an excluded group with signs of CVD (n = 563); (V) a refused group (n = 867); and (VI) dead (n = 68). Groups I and II participated in the five year prevention trial which started in 1974. Other groups were followed up through registers, with no personal contact. MEASUREMENTS--Cardiovascular risk factors during the 1960s. Mortality follow up using national registers up to 31 December, 1992. MAIN RESULTS--Baseline risk factors were lowest in the low risk group, highest in the excluded group, intermediate and comparable in other groups. Eighteen-year (1974-1992) mortality (per 1000) was 79.3, 106.6, 155.2, 179.9, and 259.3 in the low risk, control, intervention, refused, and excluded groups, respectively (P < 0.001). In the whole population of 3313 men, the 28-year (1964-1992) total (n = 577) and coronary deaths (n = 199) were significantly predicted by smoking, blood pressure, and cholesterol; cancer deaths (n = 163) by smoking only; and violent deaths (n = 83) by none of the risk factors. One-hour postload glucose was significantly associated with total mortality in the intervention group only. When the intervention and control groups were included in the same model, the effect of group on total mortality tended to be dependent on the 1 h blood glucose value (P = 0.06 for the group by 1 h glucose interaction term). CONCLUSION--The traditional risk factors (smoking, blood pressure, and cholesterol) are significantly associated with 28-year mortality in this high social class population with previous health education. Conversely, a "clustering" of low risk factors predicted low total, coronary, and cancer mortality. The findings on 1 h blood glucose suggest that factors related to glucose tolerance explain in part the excess mortality in the intervention group compared with the control group.     

Pharmacologic properties of candesartan cilexetil--possible mechanisms of long-acting antihypertensive action

Candesartan cilexetil has shown potent and long-lasting antihypertensive effects in clinical trials and in several animal models of hypertension. In spontaneously hypertensive rats, the duration of the antihypertensive effect of candesartan cilexetil was compared to those of losartan, valsartan, eprosartan, and irbesartan at the same degree of maximal blood pressure reduction. A single oral dose of candesartan cilexetil at 0.3 mg/kg reduced maximal blood pressure by about 25 mm Hg, and the antihypertensive effect of candesartan cilexetil lasted the longest, continuing for more than 1 week, without an effect on circadian rhythm. In a rabbit aortic preparation, candesartan, active form of candesartan cilexetil, decreased the maximal contractile response of angiotensin II. This inhibitory mode was different from that of other angiotensin II-receptor antagonists, and showed a shift to the right in the angiotensin II-induced contraction curve and/or a small depression of the maximal response. In kinetic studies using bovine adrenal cortical membrane and tritiated candesartan, both receptor association and dissociation were found to be slow. The dissociation rate of tritiated candesartan binding (t1/2 = 66 min) was five times slower than that of radiolabelled angiotensin II binding (t1/2 = 12 min). The insurmountable inhibition of candesartan in vascular contraction is the result of its tight binding and slow dissociation from angiotensin II AT1 receptors. These characteristics are related to the potency and long duration of action in candesartan cilexetil.     

Two-year changes in blood pressure and subsequent risk of cardiovascular disease in men

BACKGROUND-It is unclear whether, given a current blood pressure level, the previous 2-year change in blood pressure adds important predictive information for cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS AND RESULTS-We conducted a prospective cohort study of 11 150 middle-aged and older men reporting blood pressure in the Physicians' Health Study. These men had no history of CVD or antihypertensive medication use through the time of the 2-year follow-up questionnaire; after this time, follow-up for the current study began. A total of 905 incident cases of CVD (705 cases of coronary heart disease and 200 cases of stroke) occurred during a median follow-up of 10.8 years. After controlling for current blood pressure and other coronary risk factors, we found that previous 2-year changes in systolic blood pressure were not associated with the risk of CVD. A similar lack of association was found for individual end points of coronary heart disease and stroke. However, previous 2-year changes in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) may be inversely associated with the risk of CVD (linear trend, P=0.049) independent of coronary risk factors and current DBP. In subgroup analyses, previous 2-year blood pressure changes only added information in leaner men (body mass index <24.39 kg/m(2)). CONCLUSIONS-In this normotensive population of men, the prior 2-year change in DBP, but not systolic blood pressure, may add information to current levels in relation to the risk of CVD. Clinicians may need to consider the previous pattern of DBP change when considering the risk associated with the current DBP level. These data require confirmation in other studies in which blood pressure is measured.     

Switching from ACE inhibitors,beta-blockers,calcium antagonists or diuretics to candesartan improves efficacy and tolerability

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of candesartan in patients previously treated with, but displaying adverse reactions to, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, calcium antagonists or thiazide diuretics. METHODS: 968 mild to moderate essential hypertensive patients (aged 18-74 years) entered an 8-week treatment period with candesartan 8 or 16 mg according to a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group design. After the first 4 weeks of treatment, candesartan was doubled in 33.6% of patients taking the 8-mg dose, in whom blood pressure was > 140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Sitting diastolic and systolic blood pressures were significantly reduced (mean and 95% confidence interval) after 4 [3.7 (3.2-4.2)/8.9 (8.0-9.9) mmHg; n = 930] and even more after 8 [5.8 (5.4-6.3)/12.1 (11.1-13.0) mmHg; n = 890] weeks of treatment. The rate of improvement in the tolerability profile (success) was always greater than the rate of failure (93.3 vs 6.7% at the end of treatment). Adverse reactions amounted to 1125 at baseline, 129 at 4 weeks and 46 at 8 weeks of treatment. Adverse events to candesartan were reported in 2.7% of patients. Efficacy and safety were similar when data were analyzed taking into account the type of previous antihypertensive treatment. CONCLUSION: Candesartan is an effective and safe alternative to common antihypertensive drugs when they are not tolerated by patients.     

Effect of indomethacin on blood pressure lowering by captopril and losartan in hypertensive patients

NSAIDs are known to attenuate the effects of some antihypertensive medications. It is not known whether the new class of angiotensin II receptor antagonists is similarly affected. We conducted a multicenter study assessing the effect of indomethacin on the antihypertensive effects of losartan and captopril. After 4 weeks of placebo washout, hypertensive patients received 6 weeks of active antihypertensive therapy with either 50 mg losartan once daily (n=111) or 25 mg captopril twice daily for 1 week, which was increased to 50 mg twice daily for 5 weeks (n=105). This was followed by 1 week of concomitant therapy with indomethacin (75 mg daily). The primary outcome measure was the change in mean 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure after the addition of indomethacin. Both captopril and losartan significantly lowered ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (losartan -5.3 mm Hg, P:<0.001; captopril -5.6 mm Hg, P:<0.001) after 6 weeks of therapy. Indomethacin significantly attenuated the 24-hour ambulatory diastolic blood pressure for both losartan (2.2 mm Hg, P:<0.05) and captopril (2.7 mm Hg, P:<0.001) and also attenuated the effect of captopril on trough sitting diastolic blood pressure. Changes in daytime diastolic blood pressure (7:00 AM to 11:00 PM) were similar to the 24-hour response in both groups. Nighttime diastolic blood pressure (11:01 PM to 6:59 AM) was significantly attenuated in captopril-treated patients (2.0 mm Hg, P:<0.05), but losartan was unaffected (0.4 mm Hg). Thus, concurrent treatment with indomethacin similarly attenuates the 24-hour antihypertensive response to losartan and captopril.     

AT(1)-receptor blockers: differences that matter

The available angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1))-receptor blockers differ markedly in their pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy. Losartan shifts the dose-response curve for angiotensin II to the right without affecting the maximal response; this antagonism can be overcome by increasing concentrations of angiotensin II and thus losartan acts as a surmountable antagonist. By contrast, other agents suppress the maximal response to angiotensin II to varying extents; this can not be overcome by increasing angiotensin concentrations and hence these agents are insurmountable antagonists. Receptor binding studies have shown that candesartan has the highest affinity for the AT(1)-receptor, followed by irbesartan, valsartan and losartan, and that candesartan dissociates from the receptor more slowly than other antagonists. A meta-analysis using an E(Max) model has shown that differences in receptor binding activity are reflected in differences in maximal antihypertensive effect, and this finding is supported by the results of comparative clinical trials. Moreover, the prolonged binding of candesartan to the receptor is reflected in a longer duration of action, compared with losartan; the antihypertensive effect of candesartan persists for 48 h after dosing, compared with approximately 24 h with losartan. Candesartan thus offers extended therapeutic coverage, an important consideration since a majority of patients miss occasional doses of antihypertensive medication. There is currently no evidence that differences in receptor binding between AT(1)-receptor blockers translate into differences in tolerability. In summary, therefore, pharmacological differences between AT(1)-receptor blockers are reflected in clinically important differences in maximal antihypertensive effect, response rate, and duration of action.     

Comparison of the AT1-receptor blocker, candesartan cilexetil, and the ACE inhibitor, lisinopril, in fixed combination with low dose hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients

AIM: To compare candesartan cilexetil and lisinopril in fixed combination with hydrochlorothiazide with respect to antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability. METHODS: This was a double-blind (double-dummy), randomised, parallel group comparison in patients with a mean sitting diastolic blood pressure 95-115 mm Hg on prior antihypertensive monotherapy. Treatments were candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide 8/12.5 mg once daily (n = 237) and lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg once daily (n = 116) for 26 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change in trough sitting diastolic blood pressure. RESULTS: Changes in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure did not differ significantly between the groups (mean difference 0.5 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval -1.6, 2.7, P = 0.20). No significant differences between the groups was found for other haemodynamic variables (sitting systolic blood pressure, standing blood pressure, sitting/erect heart rate, and proportion of responders and controlled patients). Both drugs were well tolerated but the proportion of patients with at least one adverse event was significantly greater in the lisinopril group (80% vs 69%, P = 0.020). The proportion of patients spontaneously reporting cough (23.1% vs 4.6%) and discontinuing therapy due to adverse events (12.0% vs 5.9%) was also higher in the lisinopril group compared with the candesartan cilexetil group. CONCLUSIONS: The fixed combinations of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide 8/12.5 mg and lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg once daily are equally effective as antihypertensive agents. The fixed combination containing candesartan cilexetil is better tolerated than that containing lisinopril.     

Influence of AT1 receptor blockade on blood pressure,renal haemodynamics and hormonal responses to intravenous angiotensin II infusion in hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to investigate blood pressure, renal haemodynamics, hormone secretion and the responses to angiotensin II infusion during candesartan cilexetil (candesartan), losartan potassium (losartan) and valsartan treatment in patients with essential hypertension. In this double-blind, randomized, crossover study, 24 patients (mean blood pressure of 163/97 mmHg), received candesartan 16 mg, losartan 50 mg and valsartan 80 mg once daily (o.d.) for 4 weeks after a placebo run-in period. At the end of each period, angiotensin II (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 ng/min/kg) was infused 24 h after the previous drug administration. Each dose of angiotensin II was infused for 45 min. Before infusion and at the end of each infusion step, blood pressure and renal haemodynamics were assessed and plasma renin activity and plasma concentrations of angiotensin II and aldosterone were measured. During treatment with candesartan, resting mean arterial pressure (mean ±SEM, 106 ±2 mmHg) was significantly decreased compared with treatment with losartan (110 ±2 mmHg) and valsartan (109 ±2 mmHg). Candesartan inhibited the angiotensin II induced increase in filtration fraction (0.8 ±0.4%) significantly more than losartan (1.5 ±0.4%) and valsartan (1.6 ±0.4%) and reduced the increase in aldosterone secretion (17 ±5 pg/ml/) significantly more than losartan (74 ±17 pg/ml/) and valsartan (82 ±19 pg/ml/). In conclusion, candesartan 16 mg o.d. reduced resting blood pressure significantly more than losartan 50 mg o.d. and valsartan 80 mg o.d. Candesartan almost completely inhibited the exogenous angiotensin II induced renal vasoconstriction, effectively inhibited the increase in filtration fraction and significantly blunted aldosterone secretion compared with losartan and valsartan, indicating a more effective AT 1 receptor blockade with candesartan.     

The influence of chronic antihypertensive treatment on the central pressor response in SHR.

We examined the influence of chronic antihypertensive treatment on the central pressor response in SHR. Adult male SHR were divided into 5 groups, i.e., those receiving 1) enalapril (Enal: 25 mg/kg/day in drinking water, n=12); 2) losartan (Los: 40 mg/kg/day, n=11); 3) candesartan (Cand: 4 mg/kg/day, n=12); 4) hydralazine+hydrochlorothiazide (H&H: 50+7.5 mg/kg/day, n=9); 5) vehicle (Control: n=9). At 4 weeks of treatment, hypertonic saline (0.25, 0.5 M) was intracerebroventricularly (i.c.v.) injected into conscious rats. Plasma catecholamines were measured before and after i.c.v. injection. On completion of the experiment, heart weight was measured, and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) activity of the cerebrum was determined. All antihypertensive drugs elicited comparable reductions in systolic blood pressure, while heart rate was significantly higher in the H&H group than in the other groups during treatment. Pressor response to i.c.v. hypertonic saline (0.5 M) was significantly smaller in the Enal (12 +/- 3 mmHg) and Cand (11 +/- 2 mmHg) groups than in the Los (22 +/- 2 mmHg), H&H (16 +/- 2 mmHg), and Control (29 +/- 5 mmHg) groups. Plasma catecholamines did not differ among the groups. Heart weight was lowest in the Enal group, followed by the Los and Cand groups. ACE activity of the cerebrum was significantly decreased in the Enal group. The results suggest that chronic treatment with various antihypertensive drugs differentially alters the central pressor response in SHR, and enalapril and candesartan are effective in attenuating this response.     

Achievement of cardiovascular risk factor targets according to sex and previous history of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: A population-based study

AimsThe main objective was to assess, using real-practice primary care records, the degree of control of cardiovascular risk factor targets. Records were stratified by the presence of previous history or cardiovascular disease (CVD), and sex differences in the fulfillment profile were analyzed.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional population-based study conducted in Spain. Type 2 diabetes patients over 20 years old (n = 32,638) were identified from primary care electronic health records, and the following information was extracted: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), LDL and HDL cholesterol levels, triglycerides, BMI and smoking history.ResultsPatients with CVD had worse control of HbA1c than patients without it, (HbA1c < 7% 56.9% vs. 61.2%) but better control of BP (<130/80: 43.5% vs 38.2%) and lipids. In the group without prior CVD history, women had worse control of HbA1c, LDL, HDL, BMI and triglycerides and better control of blood pressure and smoking. These differences were maintained or accentuated in the group with previous CVD.ConclusionsWomen had poorer control of CV risk factors in both groups, and the sex-gap is accentuated in patients with previous CVD.     

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interactions of candesartan cilexetil and losartan.

BACKGROUND: The variability of the blood pressure response to blockade of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor is influenced by renin status and pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interactions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interactions of two doses of an ester prodrug of a noncompetitive angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist, candesartan cilexetil, at 8 and 16 mg, with those of the reference angiotenisn II type 1 receptor blocker, losartan, at the standard dose (50 mg), in a human model that controls renin status. DESIGN AND METHODS: In a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study, we compared the effects on renin and mean blood pressure over 24 h of single oral doses of candesartan cilexetil at 8 and 16 mg and losartan at 50 mg in 16 sodium-depleted normotensive subjects. RESULTS: The area under the curve (0-24 h) for plasma active renin did not differ significantly between 8 mg candesartan cilexetil and 50 mg losartan, but was significantly higher for 16 than for 8 mg candesartan cilexetil or for 50 mg losartan. The area under the curve (0-24 h) for the fall in mean blood pressure with 16 mg candesartan cilexetil (-197 +/- 96 mmHg/h) was significantly greater than that for placebo (-112 +/- 81 mmHg/h; P< 0.05) but the difference was not statistically significant compared with either 8 mg candesartan cilexetil (-158 +/- 95 mmHg/h) or 50 mg losartan (-144 +/- 66 mmHg/h). The area under the curve (0-24 h) for the fall in mean blood pressure did not significantly differ between 8 mg candesartan cilexetil, 50 mg losartan and placebo. The area under the curve (0-24 h) for plasma active renin was significantly correlated to that for plasma levels of the active metabolite of losartan, EXP 3174 (r = 0.65, n = 16, P< 0.01). No such correlation was detected for each single dose of candesartan cilexetil but a dose-response relationship was present when both doses were combined. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacodynamic effects of a single oral dose of 16 mg candesartan cilexetil are greater than those of 50 mg losartan and 8 mg candesartan cilexetil. The variability in the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interaction is less pronounced for candesartan than for EXP 3174, which could result in reduced variability of the blood pressure effects in patients.     

Stroke prevention with the angiotensin II type 1-receptor blocker candesartan in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension: the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE)

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) candesartan can reduce the risk of stroke in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). BACKGROUND: Isolated systolic hypertension is the predominant form of hypertension in the elderly, and stroke is the most common cardiovascular (CV) complication. METHODS: In the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE), 4,964 patients age 70 to 89 years were randomly assigned to double-blind candesartan or placebo with open-label antihypertensive therapy (mostly thiazide diuretics) added as needed to control blood pressure. Of the 4,964 patients, 1,518 had ISH (systolic blood pressure >160 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg). The present study is a predefined subgroup analysis of outcome results in the ISH patients. RESULTS: Of the ISH patients, 754 were randomized to the candesartan group and 764 to the control group. Over the study period, blood pressure was reduced by 22/6 mm Hg in the candesartan group and by 20/5 mm Hg in the control group (difference between treatments 2/1 mm Hg; p = 0.101 and 0.064). A total of 20 fatal/non-fatal strokes occurred in the candesartan group (7.2/1,000 patient-years) and 35 in the control group (12.5/1,000 patient-years); relative risk (RR) was 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 1.00), that is, a RR reduction of 42% (p = 0.050 unadjusted, p = 0.049 adjusted for baseline risk). There were no marked or statistically significant differences between the treatment groups in other CV end points or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with ISH, antihypertensive treatment based on the ARB candesartan resulted in a significant 42% RR reduction in stroke in comparison with other antihypertensive treatment, despite little difference in blood pressure reduction.