A double-blind ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40 mg in comparison with losartan 50 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension in Taiwanese patients

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was used to compare the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40 mg and once-daily losartan 50 mg in Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study. The initial 2-week placebo run-in phase was followed by randomisation to treatment with telmisartan 40 mg (n = 31) or losartan 50 mg (n = 30) for 6 weeks. The reduction in 18- to 24-h mean (SE) ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline was significantly greater with telmisartan 40 mg (-12.1 +/- 1.6 mmHg, p = 0.036) than with losartan 50 mg (-7.0 +/- 1.8 mmHg). The reduction in 18- to 24-h mean (SE) ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline was also greater with telmisartan 40 mg (-16.0 +/- 2.4 mmHg) than with losartan 50 mg (-11.8 +/- 2.7 mmHg), but did not achieve statistical significance. Telmisartan was well tolerated; no serious adverse events occurred.     

A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40-80 mg vs. losartan 50-100 mg in Taiwanese hypertensive patients

A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, dose-titration study was conducted to determine the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40-80 mg once daily compared with losartan 50-100 mg once daily in 180 Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. After an initial 2-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomised in a double-blind, double-dummy fashion to receive either telmisartan 40 mg or losartan 50 mg. If blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] <90 mmHg or > or = 10 mmHg reduction in DBP) was achieved after 4 weeks, the dose was maintained for the second 4 weeks of the active treatment phase; if not, the dose was doubled to telmisartan 80 mg or losartan 100 mg, respectively, for the second 4 weeks of double-blind treatment. Telmisartan 40-80 mg (n = 86) was as effective as losartan 50-100 mg (n = 90) in reducing trough seated DBP (11.1 vs. 8.7 mmHg, p = 0.144), and was significantly more effective than losartan in reducing trough seated systolic blood pressure (SBP) (22.1 vs. 16.5 mmHg, p = 0.032) and standing SBP (21.0 vs. 16.3 mmHg, p = 0.033). Significantly fewer patients treated with telmisartan than those treated with losartan required uptitration after 4 weeks' treatment (32.6% vs. 61.5%, p = 0.001). Both telmisartan and losartan were well tolerated.     

Efficacy and safety of telmisartan vs. losartan in control of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of telmisartan with those of losartan after 8 weeks' treatment. In total, 330 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] <180 mmHg; diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-109 mmHg) were randomly assigned to receive once-daily treatment with telmisartan 40 mg (n = 164) or losartan 50 mg (n = 166). After 4 weeks' treatment, if a patient's DBP was > or = 90 mmHg, the dose was increased to telmisartan 80 mg or losartan 100 mg, respectively. The results show that mean trough seated blood pressure was reduced significantly more in the telmisartan group than that in the losartan group (SBP 12.5 mmHg vs. 9.4 mmHg, p = 0.037; DBP 10.9 mmHg vs. 9.3 mmHg, p = 0.030). The overall DBP response rate (reduction from baseline in mean seated DBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or a mean seated DBP <90 mmHg) at the end of the study in the telmisartan group was higher than that in losartan group (70.1% vs. 58.7%, p = 0.020). At both the low and high doses, the DBP response rates for telmisartan were significantly higher than those for losartan (telmisartan 40 mg vs. losartan 50 mg: 46.3% vs. 32.5%, p = 0.010; telmisartan 80 mg vs. losartan 100 mg: 79.3% vs. 65.3%, p = 0.008). Adverse events with the two treatments were comparable (telmisartan vs. losartan 23.2% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.952). Most events were mild in intensity and abated within 72 h. Thus, telmisartan 40 mg or 80 mg administered once daily can reduce SBP and DBP effectively and safely.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg once daily vs. atenolol 50 mg once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

The objective of this open-label, parallel-group comparative study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of once-daily treatment for 8 weeks with telmisartan 80 mg in comparison with atenolol 50 mg on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (morning supine SBP 141-199 mmHg, DBP 95-114 mmHg). A total of 58 patients were enrolled. The comparability of the two treatment groups was statistically documented at the beginning of the study. Telmisartan was more effective than atenolol, with a decrease in SBP of 21.7 mmHg vs. 11.8 mmHg (p = 0.03) and a non-significant decrease in DBP of 14.7 mmHg vs. 10.1 mmHg. The safety profiles of both drugs were very similar; both drugs were well tolerated. In conclusion, once-daily telmisartan 80 mg is more effective than once-daily atenolol 50 mg in lowering SBP with no negative chronotropism. Furthermore, telmisartan was as well tolerated as atenolol in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in adults.     

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg vs. enalapril 10 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, double-blind study in Taiwanese patients

The purpose of this randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40 mg once daily vs. enalapril 10 mg once daily in 147 Taiwanese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-109 mmHg). After 6 weeks' treatment, telmisartan produced a significantly greater reduction from baseline in the primary endpoint of trough seated DBP compared with enalapril 10 mg (11.7 vs. 8.7 mmHg, respectively; p = 0.02). Numerically greater reductions compared with baseline in seated systolic blood pressure (SBP), standing DBP, and standing SBP were achieved with telmisartan compared with enalapril. Also, numerically greater proportions of patients achieved blood pressure control (DBP/systolic blood pressure [SBP] <90/140 mmHg) and responded to treatment (reduction from baseline in trough seated DBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment DBP <90 mmHg; reduction from baseline in trough seated SBP > or = 10 mmHg and/or post-treatment SBP <140 mmHg) with telmisartan 40 mg compared with enalapril 10 mg. Although both treatments were well tolerated, the incidence of cough was markedly lower with telmisartan 40 mg (8.5%) than with enalapril 10 mg (18.4%) in this population of Taiwanese hypertensive patients.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg once daily compared with enalapril 20 mg once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of a multicentre study

The efficacy and safety of once-daily telmisartan 80 mg vs. once-daily enalapril 20 mg in the treatment of essential hypertension were evaluated in a multicentre, single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. In total, 68 patients (49 females, 19 males) with mild-to-moderate hypertension, defined as morning supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) 141-149 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-114 mmHg, were enrolled. After a 4-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with telmisartan or enalapril administered once daily in the morning for 8 weeks. No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of patients in either group. Both SBP and DBP were decreased in both treatment groups, but the reductions were statistically different in favour of telmisartan (SBP, p = 0.013; DBP, p = 0.002). The incidence of adverse effects was lower in the telmisartan group, with the absence of cough. In conclusion, telmisartan is more effective and better tolerated than enalapril for the treatment of hypertension and has the advantage that it does not cause cough.     

Valsartan vs. other angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension: a meta‐analytical approach

Objective: To compare the efficacy of valsartan in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction with other angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in essential hypertension. Methods: Systematic literature search of databases between October 1997 and May 2008. Meta‐analysis of short‐term, double‐blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for treatment of adult hypertension (DBP: 90–115 mmHg). Random‐effects meta‐regression adjusting for baseline blood pressure (BP) was used to analyse the data. Mean change in SBP and DBP was estimated for each individual drug and dose combination. Results: In all, 31 RCTs (n = 13,110 patients) were included in the analysis. Six studies include trial arms with candesartan, six irbesartan, 13 losartan, two olmesartan, five telmisartan and 12 valsartan. The weighted average reduction in mean SBP and DBP for valsartan 160 mg was ?15.32 mmHg (95% CI: ?17.09, ?13.63) and ?11.3 mmHg (95% CI: ?12.15, ?10.52) and for 320 mg was ?15.85 mmHg (95% CI: ?17.60, ?14.12) and ?11.97 mmHg (95% CI: ?12.81, ?11.16); these are statistically significantly greater reductions compared with losartan 100 mg, which was ?12.01 mmHg (95% CI: ?13.78, ?10.25) and ?9.37 mmHg (95% CI: ?10.18, ?8.54) for SBP and DBP respectively. There is evidence that valsartan 160 mg reduces SBP and DBP more than irbesartan 150 mg and reduced DBP more than candesartan 16 mg. No other statistically significant difference in efficacy is demonstrated. Conclusion: Valsartan administered at 160 or 320 mg is more effective at lowering BP than losartan 100 mg and shows comparable efficacy to other ARBs in patients with essential hypertension.     

Differential time effect profiles of amlodipine, as compared to valsartan, revealed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, self blood pressure measurements and dose omission protocol

Amlodipine and valsartan are once-daily antihypertensive agents. To date, no comparison between these agents given as monotherapies was reported. This study was aimed to evaluate the therapeutic coverage and safety of amlodipine and valsartan in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, comparative study. After a 4-week placebo wash-out period, 246 outpatients with office diastolic blood pressure 95 < or = DBP < or =110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 180 mmHg, in addition to a mean daytime SBP and/or DBP > 135/85 mmHg on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), were randomly allocated to once-daily amlodipine 5-10 mg or valsartan 40-80 mg, for 12 weeks. In a subgroup of patients, 48-h ABPM were performed at the end of the treatment period. Dose omission was simulated by a single-blind placebo dosing. The primary efficacy end-point was the 24-h trough office BP after 12 weeks of active therapy. The reductions in 24-h trough BP were more pronounced in amlodipine compared with valsartan group as well in office [SBP: -17.8 +/- 10.9 vs. -14.6 +/- 11.2, P = 0.025, DBP: -12.7 +/- 7.2 vs. -10.9 +/- 7.8 mmHg, P = 0.06) as in ambulatory BP (SBP/DBP: -13.0 +/- 13.7/-10.8 +/- 9.1 vs. -7.2 +/- 19.4/-4.9 +/- 13.4 mmHg, P < 0.05). Forty-eight hours after the last active dose, the slope of the morning BP surge (4-9 h) was less steep with amlodipine vs. valsartan [DBP (P < 0.04), SBP (n.s.)]. Ankle edema were more often reported in amlodipine group. These results suggest a superior BP lowering and a longer duration of action with amlodipine compared with valsartan.     

The efficacy of telmisartan compared with perindopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension

In this study, efficacy of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker telmisartan given as monotherapy was compared with that of perindopril monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 2-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 60 patients were randomised to double-blind, once-daily treatment with telmisartan 80 mg or perindopril 4 mg for 6 weeks. Clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and clinical laboratory evaluation were performed at the end of the placebo run-in and active treatment phases. Both telmisartan and perindopril significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced clinic systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) compared with baseline values. Also, both drugs significantly (p < 0.0001) reduced 24-h mean ambulatory SBP and DBP compared with baseline. Comparison of the mean hourly antihypertensive activities showed that the reduction in mean ambulatory DBP for the last 8 h of the dosing interval was significantly greater (p < 0.05) in telmisartan-treated patients. A 24-h mean DBP of <85 mmHg was observed in 66.6% of the telmisartan-treated patients but in only 46.6% of the perindopril-treated patients (p < 0.05). It is concluded that telmisartan and perindopril both produce significant reductions in clinic SBP and DBP, but the mean reduction in ambulatory DBP during the last 8 h of the dosing interval is greater in patients treated with telmisartan.     

Perindopril/Hydrochlorothiazide Combination in Hypertensive Patients Unresponsive to Hydrochlorothiazide Alone: A Double-Blind, Multicenter Study

This study evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of perindopril erbumine, a long-acting ACE inhibitor, added to continuing hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) therapy in hypertensive patients (DBP of 95 to 114 mmHg) whose blood pressure did not normalize (supine DBP <90 mmHg) with HCTZ therapy alone. In this multicenter study, 252 patients received HCTZ 25 mg/day for 4 weeks; the 208 whose blood pressure did not normalize entered a 12-week, double-blind segment. These patients continued to receive HCTZ and were randomly assigned to perindopril (2, 4, or 8 mg) or placebo once daily. Mean supine SBP/DBP reductions from baseline for all HCTZ plus perindopril groups were significantly (p less-than-or-equal 0.05) greater than for HCTZ plus placebo. At the start of double-blind treatment, mean supine SBP/DBP readings were 146.1/97.0, 145.4/98.2 and 146.4/98.2 mmHg for the HCTZ plus perindopril 2-, 4-, and 8-mg groups, respectively, and 143.9/96.9 mmHg for HCTZ plus placebo group. At the final visit, mean reductions in supine SBP/DBP were 10.3/6.7, 9.6/8.0, and 9.3/6.3 mmHg for HCTZ plus perindopril 2, 4, and 8 mg, respectively, and 1.6/2.0 mmHg for HCTZ plus placebo. Significantly (p less-than-or-equal 0.05) more HCTZ plus perindopril patients (53.2%) than HCTZ plus placebo patients (24.5%) achieved an adequate response to therapy (supine DBP <90 mmHg or decrease by >10 mmHg). Incidences of adverse experiences were similar among treatment groups. There were no reports of first-dose hypotension. In patients unresponsive to HCTZ alone, the addition of perindopril at doses of 2--8 mg once daily provided safe and effective blood pressure reduction with no added side-effect liability.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of losartan (50-100 mg) with the T-type calcium channel blocker mibefradil (50-100 mg) in mild to moderate hypertension

The objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan and mibefradil. 324 outpatients (57 +/- 9.2 years) with mild to moderate hypertension were randomly allocated in a double-blind fashion to receive 50 mg of losartan or mibefradil once daily p.o. for 6 weeks after 2 weeks of placebo run-in. Titration was then forced to 100 mg of losartan or mibefradil for an additional 6 weeks. Patients were assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change in predose sitting diastolic (SDBP) and systolic (SSBP) blood pressure at 12 weeks. Secondary variables included change in mean 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure and comparison of safety and tolerability. Both treatments lowered SSBP and SDBP at 6 and 12 weeks (week 6: mibefradil -14/-9 mm Hg; losartan -12/-7 mm Hg) (P <0.001). The primary objective, a difference between treatments in reduction of SSBP and SDBP at week 12 could be demonstrated (mibefradil -22/-16 mm Hg; losartan -16/-10 mm Hg) (P=0.003 and P=0.001, respectively). Twenty-four-hour SBP and 24-hour DBP were reduced (P<0.001) within each treatment group at weeks 6 and 12. The secondary objective, a difference between treatments in reduction of 24-hour blood pressure at week 12 could be demonstrated (P<0.001). Twenty-four-hour heart rate was lowered in the mibefradil group at weeks 6 and 12 (P < 0.001). Responder rates at 6 and 12 weeks were 56.2% and 78.5% for mibefradil versus 56.1% and 55.3% for losartan (P = 0.001). Both treatments were equally well tolerated. This study demonstrates that 50 mg losartan is comparably effective to 50 mg mibefradil in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension with 100 mg mibefradil being more potent than losartan.     

Candesartan cilexetil: an angiotensin II receptor blocker

OBJECTIVE: To summarize and critique the medical literature on candesartan cilexetil, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE searches (January 1966-January 1999) and manufacturer prescribing literature were used to identify articles on candesartan cilexetil. Bibliographies were also reviewed for germane articles. STUDY SELECTION: Study and review articles describing the chemistry, human pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, placebo-controlled trials, comparative trials, and clinical application of candesartan cilexetil based on the published literature and premarketing clinical trials were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION: All literature on the use of candesartan cilexetil for treating hypertension and congestive heart failure were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: ARBs are a new class of drugs with increasing use in treating hypertension. Studies are ongoing to determine the role of these agents in preventing remodeling after myocardial infarction and in patients with congestive heart failure. Candesartan cilexetil is among the newest drugs in the class that includes losartan, irbesartan, and valsartan. Candesartan cilexetil has more than 1000 times more affinity for the angiotensin II, type AT1 receptor ARBs, and the binding affinity and competitive angiotensin II receptor antagonism is stronger than that of losartan. Clinical studies in patients with hypertension have demonstrated that candesartan cilexetil, in doses of 4-16 mg, is more effective in reducing sitting diastolic blood pressure than are placebo and losartan 50 mg. Candesartan cilexetil has demonstrated reductions in blood pressure comparable to those of enalapril, with the rate of adverse events greater in the enalapril group. Dosage adjustments are not necessary in elderly patients or in patients with mild hepatic or renal dysfunction. In diabetic patients, blood glucose, hemoglobinA1c, and serum lipids are not affected. The clinical studies demonstrated that the adverse effect profile of candesartan cilexetil was similar to that of placebo and there were no dose-dependent adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Candesartan cilexetil provides an alternative antihypertensive therapy that is well tolerated and effective in reducing blood pressure in a wide range of patients. Due to its greater binding affinity to the angiotensin II receptor, candesartan cilexetil appears to have a longer antihypertensive effect than losartan. This may be advantageous in decreasing morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, although further studies are required to validate this potential advantage.     

Efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan plus HCTZ compared with losartan plus HCTZ in patients with essential hypertension

Telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, is an effective once-daily antihypertensive agent available either alone or in fixed-dose combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). This multicentre, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) study assessed the efficacy and safety of six weeks' treatment with telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 199) and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 200) versus losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 198) in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. During the last six hours of the dosing interval, telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg reduced mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) to a greater extent than losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (treatment differences 1.8 mmHg [p < 0.05] and 2.5 mmHg [p < 0.001], respectively). Telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg also lowered mean 24-hour DBP by 2.3 mmHg more than losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (p < 0.001). Telmisartan 40 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg and telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg produced greater reductions in ambulatory systolic blood pressure versus losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg of 2.5 mmHg and 3.4 mmHg, respectively, during the last six hours of the dosing interval (p < 0.05), and of 2.1 mmHg and 3.4 mmHg, respectively, over the entire 24-hour dosing interval (p < 0.05). All treatments were well tolerated.     

Comparison of fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide 40/12.5 mg and 80/12.5 mg and a fixed-dose combination of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide 50/12.5 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertension: pooled analysis of two multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) trials

BACKGROUND: High incidences of cardiovascular events coincide with a surge in blood pressure (BP) that occurs in the early morning hours at the time of arousal. Thus, control of BP at this time of day, using oral fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) as required, is important in reducing cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy in the early morning hours and tolerability of oral FDCs of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (40/12.5 mg [T40/H12.5] and 80/12.5 mg [T80/H12.5]) versus a low-dose FDC of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (L50/H12.5). METHODS: Data from 2 similarly designed prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point (PROBE) studies were pooled and analyzed. The studies were conducted at 72 centers across the United States, and 70 centers in Canada, Europe (9 countries), and the Philippines. Adult male and female patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic BP [DBP], > or =85 mm Hg; seated cuff DBP, 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to receive T40/H12.5, L50/H12.5, or T80/H12.5, QD (morning) for 6 weeks. Antihypertensive efficacy was assessed using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) and cuff sphygmomanometry at trough, performed at baseline and on completion of active treatment. The primary end point was the reduction from baseline in mean ambulatory DBP over the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. Secondary end points included other ABPM- and clinic-derived changes in DBP and systolic BP (SBP), and control and response rates (SBP response defined as 24-hour mean SBP <130 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP response defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg or reduction from baseline > or =10 mm Hg; DBP control defined as 24-hour mean DBP <85 mm Hg). Tolerability was assessed using patient interview, spontaneous reporting, and clinical evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 1402 patients were enrolled(876 men, 525 women; mean [SD] age, 53.1 [9.9] years) (T40/H12.5, n = 517; L50/H12.5, n = 518; and T80/H12.5, n = 367). With T40/H12.5, the mean reduction in last-6-hour mean ambulatory DBP was 1.8 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-11.3 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001), and with T80/H12.5, the mean reduction was 2.6 mm Hg greater compared with that achieved with L50/H12.5 (-12.0 [0.4] vs -9.4 [0.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). Analysis of secondary end points found that greater BP reduction occurred with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5. ABPM SBP control and response rates were similar between the 3 groups, but the ABPM DBP control and response rates were significantly higher with T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (46.6% vs 34.0% [P < 0.002] and 69.4% vs 55.0% [P < 0.001], respectively). Clinic SBP and DBP control and response rates were higher with T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 compared with L50/H12.5 (SBP response, 80.4% and 80.8% vs 68.5% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP response, 66.1% and 67.4% vs 54.4% [both, P < 0.001]; DBP control, 56.5% and 56.4% vs 44.1% [both, P < 0.001] ). The 2 most commonly recorded adverse events (AEs) were headache (T40/H12.5, 2.9%; L50/H12.5, 3.3%; and T80/H12.5, 3.0%) and dizziness (1.2%, 2.1%, and 3.0%, respectively). Most AEs were mild to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pooled analysis of2 PROBE studies in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension suggest that T40/H12.5 and T80/H12.5 conferred greater DBP and SBP control compared with low-dose L50/H12.5, including during the last 6 hours of the dosing interval. All 3 treatments were well tolerated.     

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of olmesartan relative to other angiotensin II receptor antagonists: an overview of randomized controlled studies

The aim of the present work was to review published studies investigating the dose-related efficacy on blood pressure (BP) of olmesartan and of other commercially available angiotensin II type I receptor blockers (ARBs). Patient population comprises mild to moderate hypertensive adult patients. We selected studies with comparable design and dose ranges. Dose-effect relationship plots were fitted for diastolic (DBP) and systolic (SBP) BP to the simplified E(max) model. We also examined controlled studies of olmesartan vs. other individual ARBs. Our overview was based on 7280 patients, of which 5769 received an ARB and 1511 received placebo. Except for losartan, the data fitted correctly to the E(max) model, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.77 to 0.99. BP-lowering efficacy defined as E(max) was superior with olmesartan, (DBP/SBP mmHg: -9.0/-12.4) when compared with candesartan (-6.7/-11.3), irbesartan (-6.5/-11.2) and valsartan (-6.3/-8.9). Head-to-head comparisons of olmesartan to each of the other ARBs used at per-label 'recommended doses', support the finding of a greater BP-lowering effect of olmesartan. This overview suggests that clinically relevant differences in maximal efficacy, as well as in efficacy of per-label recommended doses can be evidenced among individual ARBs. Olmesartan efficacy was consistently at the highest end of the range of efficacy of ARBs studied.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of amlodipine and losartan after two 'missed' doses in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

We compared the effects of amlodipine (5-10 mg, n=94) and losartan (50-100 mg, n=94) on the lowering of blood pressure (BP) at steady state and after two missed doses, as well as on tolerability. This was a randomized, double-blind study of 12 weeks of active treatment followed by 2 days of placebo treatment. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and office BP measurements were performed at baseline, week 12 and after the 2-day drug holiday. After 12 weeks, amlodipine was significantly more effective than losartan in reducing both 24-h systolic blood pressure (SBP) (-18.0 versus -10.8 mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (-10.6 versus -8.0 mmHg). While mean SBP and DBP for both treatments increased comparably during the drug holiday, BP values remained significantly lower than baseline for both treatments. The superior BP-lowering effect of amlodipine compared with losartan was maintained during the drug holiday.     

The adjunctive effect of telmisartan in patients with hypertension uncontrolled on current antihypertensive therapy

This prospective, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre study assessed the adjunctive effect of telmisartan monotherapy versus placebo in controlling blood pressure during the last six hours of the 24-hour dosing period. After a two-week run-in phase, 375 patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled on existing therapy were randomised to either placebo or telmisartan (40 mg uptitrated to 80 mg after four weeks, if needed) for eight weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was conducted at randomisation (baseline) and treatment end. The change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) over the last six hours (primary endpoint) was significantly greater with telmisartan than placebo (adjusted mean treatment difference in favour of telmisartan: -3.7 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.5, -1.9 mmHg, p < or = 0.001, n = 350), as was the reduction in 24-hour DBP (adjusted mean treatment difference: -5.0 mmHg, 95% CI -6.5, -3.5 mmHg, p < or = 0.001). Telmisartan also reduced mean systolic blood pressure significantly more than placebo over the last six hours and the entire 24-hour dosing interval. Responder rates (ABPM DBP, seated DBP, and overall [seated SBP/DBP]) at 8 weeks were significantly higher with telmisartan than with placebo (p < or = 0.01). All treatments were well tolerated. When added to existing antihypertensive regimens, telmisartan offers additional effectiveness while maintaining placebo-like tolerability.     

A comparison of initial treatment with losartan/HCTZ versus losartan monotherapy in chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and losartan monotherapy as initial treatment were compared in a double-blind trial in Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Patients were randomised to initial treatment with either losartan/HCTZ (50 mg/12.5 mg) or losartan alone (50 mg). The doses were doubled after four weeks if diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP)was >90 mmHg. Both losartan/HCTZ and losartan alone significantly reduced SiDBP and SiSBP from baseline at the first measurement at 4 weeks (-10.1/-15.3 and -6.1/-6.9 mmHg, respectively; p<0.001) and at 8 weeks (-13.1/-18.5 and -8.7/-10.9 mmHg; p<0.001). The reductions with losartan/HCTZ were significantly greater than with losartan alone at weeks 4 and 8 (p<0.001). Both regimens were similarly well tolerated. In conclusion, initial therapy with losartan/HCTZ is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and produces a greater reduction in blood pressure than losartan alone.     

Equal Efficacy and Improved Tolerability with 50 mg Controlled-Release Metoprolol Compared with 100 mg Conventional Metoprolol in Hypertensive Patients

The clinical efficacy and tolerability of 50 mg of a new controlled-release formulation of metoprolol (metoprolol CR) was compared with that of a double dose (100 mg) of conventional immediate-release metoprolol tablets in 64 hypertensives in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. At the end of a 6-week placebo run-in period and after each of two 8-week active treatment periods, 3-min bicycle exercise tests were performed at 25, 1.3, and 5 h after dose intake. Twenty-five hours after dose the mean supine SBP/DBP on metoprolol CR 50 mg was 147/95 mm Hg and on conventional metoprolol 100 mg 148/94 mm Hg, respectively. The percentage of responders (DBP less-than-or-equal 90 mm Hg or reduction in DBP greater-than-or-equal 10 mm Hg) was 45% on both regimens. At 25 h after dose, exercise heart rate was lower on 50 mg metoprolol CR (136 versus 140 beats min(minus sign1); p < 0.001) than on 100 mg conventional metoprolol, whereas the opposite was found at 1.3 h (131 versus 107 beats min(minus sign1); p < 0.001) and at 5 h (131 versus 113 beats min(minus sign1); p < 0.001). In agreement with the more even plasma metoprolol concentration and exercise heart rate, the patients perceived less fatigue during exercise on 50 mg metoprolol CR at 1.3 h after dose, the approximate time of maximum plasma concentration for 100 mg conventional metoprolol. The total number of adverse events recorded on metoprolol CR 50 mg and conventional metoprolol 100 mg were 62 and 103, respectively (p < 0.01). Thus, this study has demonstrated that the new controlled-release formulation of metoprolol has made it possible to halve the dose of metoprolol and yet achieve the same blood pressure control as well as greater beta(1)-blockade at the end of 24-h dosing intervals. Corresponding to lower peak plasma metoprolol concentrations, perceived fatigue and overall tolerability was improved on metoprolol CR 50 mg compared to conventional metoprolol 100 mg.     

A twelve-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, noninferiority trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of imidapril and candesartan in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: the Iberian Multicenter Imidapril Study on Hypertension (IMISH)

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the annhypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor imidapril and the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist candesartan in mild to moderate essential hypertension. METHODS: The trial was conducted at 8 centers across Portugal and Spain (the Iberian Multicenter Imidapril Study on Hypertension [IMISH] Study Group). Patients aged between 30 and 70 years with essential hypertension were eligible. Following a 2- to 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomly assigned to receive imidapril at doses of up to 20 mg/d, or candesartan at doses up to 16 mg/d, once daily in a double-blind, parallel-group design with a 12-week active-treatment period. To achieve the target systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) of <140/<90 mm Hg, imidapril was titrated from 5 to 20 mg/d and candesartan was titrated from 4 to 16 mg/d. The main end point was the change from baseline in sitting blood pressure (BP) at trough. Secondary end points were response rate, evaluation of SBP and DBP throughout the study, and change of SBP and DBP in subgroup of patients with moderate hypertension, as well as incidence and severity of adverse events related to treatment reported throughout the study. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis consisted of 122 patients (imidapril group, 60 patients; 32 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 54.7 [9.2] years; white race, 59 [99.2%], Hispanic race, 1 [0.8%]; mean [SD] weight, 80.1 [12.8] kg; candesartan group, 62 patients; 36 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 53.9 [9.9] years; white race, 62 [100%]; mean [SD] weight, 77.6 [14.1] kg). In the imidapril group, the mean (SD) SBP and DBP were, respectively, 155.7 (10.2) and 96.7 (4.7) mm Hg at baseline and 139.4 (11.9) and 86.9 (7.6) mm Hg at the end of the 12-week treatment period (visit 5); SBP had decreased significantly from baseline, by 10.5% (mean [SD] Delta, -16.3 [12.3] mm Hg [95% CI, -19.5 to -13.1; P < 0.001]) and DBP had decreased significantly, by 10.1% (mean [SD] A, -9.8 [7.8] mm Hg [95% CI, -11.8 to -7.8; P < 0.001]). In the candesartan group, the mean (SD) SBP and DBP values were, respectively, 158.4 [11.2] and 98.3 [4.1] mm Hg at baseline and 139.8 [12.5] and 87.6 7.5] mm Hg at 12 weeks, corresponding to decreases of 11.7% in SBP (mean [SD] A, -18.6 [12.8] mm Hg [95% CI, -21.9 to -15.4; P < 0.001]) and 10.9% in DBP (mean [SD] A, -10.7 [7.3] mm Hg [95% CI, -12.5 to -8.8; P < 0.001]). Response rates were 78.3% (47/60) with imidapril and 69.4% (43/62) with candesartan, and BP normalization (<140/<90 mm Hg) was achieved in 55.0% (33/60) of patients with imidapril and 45.2% (28/62) of patients with candesartan. The incidences of adverse events were similar between groups. Most (73.9%) adverse events were mild in intensity. A serious adverse event (severe anxiety) was reported in the candesartan group and led to study discontinuation. No cases of dry cough or hypotension were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that imidapril once daily at doses up to 20 mg and candesartan once daily at doses up to 16 mg were effective in this population of mildly to moderately hypertensive patients. Both treatments were well tolerated.