共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 7 毫秒
1.
Neutel J Elliott WJ Izzo J Chen CL Masonson H 《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》2002,4(5):325-331
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. 相似文献
2.
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. 相似文献
3.
Bakris GL Sica D Weber M White WB Roberts A Perez A Cao C Kupfer S 《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》2011,13(2):81-88
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. 相似文献
4.
Azilsartan medoxomil is an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) being developed for hypertension treatment. To compare this ARB with others in the class, we studied the effects of 2 doses of azilsartan medoxomil, with valsartan 320 mg and olmesartan medoxomil (olmesartan) 40 mg, in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring and clinic BP measurements. The primary efficacy end point was the change from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic BP. Hierarchical analysis testing for superiority over placebo was followed by noninferiority analysis and then superiority testing of azilsartan medoxomil (80 mg and then 40 mg) versus the comparator ARBs. For 1291 randomized patients, mean age was 56 years, 54% were men, and baseline 24-hour mean systolic BP was 145 mm Hg. Azilsartan medoxomil at 80 mg had superior efficacy to both valsartan at 320 mg and olmesartan at 40 mg: placebo-adjusted 24-hour systolic BP was lowered (-14.3 mm Hg) more than 320 mg of valsartan (-10.0 mm Hg; P<0.001) and 40 mg of olmesartan (-11.7 mm Hg; P=0.009). Azilsartan medoxomil at 40 mg was noninferior to 40 mg of olmesartan (difference: -1.4 mm Hg [95% CI: -3.3 to 0.5]). For clinic systolic BP, both doses of azilsartan medoxomil were superior to the comparator ARBs. Safety and tolerability were similar among the placebo and 4 active treatments. These data demonstrate that azilsartan medoxomil at its maximal dose has superior efficacy to both olmesartan and valsartan at their maximal, approved doses without increasing adverse events. Azilsartan medoxomil could provide higher rates of hypertension control within the ARB class. 相似文献
5.
Azilsartan in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension Using Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements
下载免费PDF全文
![点击此处可从《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》网站下载免费的PDF全文](/ch/ext_images/free.gif)
Alfonso Perez MD Charlie Cao PhD 《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》2017,19(1):82-89
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. 相似文献
6.
Cushman WC Bakris GL White WB Weber MA Sica D Roberts A Lloyd E Kupfer S 《Hypertension》2012,60(2):310-318
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. 相似文献
7.
OBJECTIVE: Olmesartan medoxomil is an angiotensin II receptor blocker with similar antihypertensive efficacy as the calcium channel blocker amlodipine besylate in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. In addition to a drug's ability to lower blood pressure, the effectiveness of the agent in enabling patients to achieve specific blood pressure targets is an important clinical consideration. This secondary analysis of a randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil with that of amlodipine besylate in achieving ambulatory blood pressure goals among patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. METHODS: Following a 4-week placebo run-in, 440 study participants aged >or=18 years were randomized to olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg/day), amlodipine besylate (5 mg/day), or placebo for 8 weeks. The proportion of participants achieving specific systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure goal levels was calculated by dividing the number of participants who had achieved a particular blood pressure goal by the total number of patients in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, a mean 24-h ambulatory blood pressure of <130/80 or <130/85 mmHg was achieved by significantly more participants in the olmesartan medoxomil group (18.1 and 30.4%, respectively) than in the amlodipine besylate (7.0 and 14.0%, respectively) or placebo (1.9% for both) groups. The target daytime ambulatory blood pressure of <135/85 mmHg was achieved by more participants in the olmesartan medoxomil group than in the amlodipine besylate group (15.8 vs. 5.8%, respectively; P<0.01). CONCLUSION: In a previous publication of the same study, we demonstrated that starting doses of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate produced similar mean reductions in blood pressure. In this subanalysis of the blood pressure data from that primary publication, however, olmesartan medoxomil therapy was shown to result in a greater proportion of patients achieving specific ambulatory blood pressure goals than therapy with amlodipine besylate. As blood pressure goal attainment may be of more direct clinical relevance than numerical blood pressure lowering, the achievement of blood pressure goals should be a key efficacy parameter assessed in clinical trials of antihypertensive medications. 相似文献
8.
Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil compared with amlodipine for mild-to-moderate hypertension 总被引:5,自引:0,他引:5
The antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil has been shown to compare favourably with that of other antihypertensive agents. This randomized, double-blind study compared the antihypertensive efficacy of the starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil with that of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine besylate (amlodipine) in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Following a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 440 subjects aged >/=18 years were randomized to the starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg/day), amlodipine (5 mg/day), or placebo for 8 weeks. Subjects were evaluated by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and by seated cuff blood pressure (BP) measurements at trough. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by ABPM at Week 8. Secondary end points included change from baseline in mean 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 8 weeks, change from baseline in mean seated trough cuff DBP and SBP measurements, and response and control rates for DBP <90 and <85 mmHg. Control rates for SBP <140 and <130 mmHg were also calculated. Olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine produced significantly greater reductions in ambulatory and seated DBP and SBP compared with placebo. Mean reductions in ambulatory and seated BP were similar between the two active agents; however, in the olmesartan medoxomil group, significantly more patients achieved the SBP goal of <130 mmHg and the DBP goal of <85 mmHg. Both drugs were well tolerated at the recommended starting dose. Although amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of oedema, this did not reach statistical significance. Olmesartan medoxomil is an effective antihypertensive agent, with BP-lowering efficacy at the starting dose similar to that of amlodipine, and is associated with more patients achieving the rigorous BP goals of SBP <130 mmHg and DBP <85 mmHg. 相似文献
9.
奥美沙坦酯和氨氯地平联合治疗原发性高血压的研究 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
目的:观察奥美沙坦酯和氨氯地平联合治疗控制血压的疗效和安全性。方法:70例2、3级高血压病患者随机接受奥美沙坦酯20 mg与氨氯地平5 mg联合治疗或缬沙坦80 mg与氨氯地平5 mg联合治疗,1次/d,总疗程8周。结果:奥美沙坦酯组和缬沙坦组治疗后血压下降幅度分别为(24.5±9.5/16.0±6.8)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)和(24.3±9.2/15.7±6.6)mm Hg,2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。奥美沙坦酯与氨氯地平和缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合治疗组降压总有效率分别为91.4%和88.6%,2组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。2组不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:2、3级高血压病治疗,奥美沙坦酯与氨氯地平和缬沙坦与氨氯地平联合治疗疗效和不良反应均类似。 相似文献
10.
Ram CV Sachson R Littlejohn T Qian C Shojaee A Stoakes KA Neutel JM 《The American journal of cardiology》2011,(9):1346-1352
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. 相似文献
11.
目的通过与进口奥美沙坦酯比较,评价国产奥美沙坦酯治疗轻中度原发性高血压患者的疗效和安全性。方法采用随机、双盲、双模拟、阳性对照、多中心临床试验方法。入选轻中度原发性高血压患者222例,按11比例随机分为试验组110例和对照组112例,分别接受国产或进口奥美沙坦酯20mg口服治疗。4周后如诊室坐位血压<140/90mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133kPa)则维持原剂量;血压未达标者加量至国产奥美沙坦酯40mg+安慰剂2片,或进口奥美沙坦酯40mg+安慰剂2片,服药至8周末。在基线和第8周时分别进行24h动态血压监测,观察治疗前后血压变化。结果与基线比较,治疗4周后,试验组与对照组诊室坐位血压平均降幅分别为(20.24±13.13)/(15.03±6.79)mm Hg vs(18.66±10.41)/(14.24±5.90)mm Hg;8周后分别为(22.50±11.61)/(16.57±6.33)mm Hg vs(21.78±11.24)/(16.08±6.02)mm Hg,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗8周后,试验组与对照组24h血压平均降幅分别为(8.8±3.0)/(10.8±2.8)mm Hg vs(8.9±4.0)/(9.2±4.2)mm Hg,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论轻中度原发性高血压患者服用国产奥美沙坦酯治疗能有效、安全地降低血压,其降压幅度及平稳性与进口奥美沙坦酯相似。 相似文献
12.
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。 相似文献
13.
Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension 总被引:7,自引:0,他引:7
Oparil S Williams D Chrysant SG Marbury TC Neutel J 《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》2001,3(5):283-318
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. 相似文献
14.
奥美沙坦酯与氯沙坦钾治疗中国轻、中度原发性高血压患者8周的疗效与安全性比较 总被引:2,自引:0,他引:2
Zhu JR Cai NS Fan WH Zhu DL He B Wu ZG Ke YN Guo JX Ma H Huang J Li XL Chen YZ 《中华心血管病杂志》2006,34(10):877-881
目的 通过与氯沙坦钾比较评价奥美沙坦酯治疗轻、中度原发性高血压患者的疗效和安全性。方法采用随机、双盲、双模拟、阳性对照、平行分组、多中心临床试验方法。共入选287例轻、中度原发性高血压患者,按照1:1的比例随机分组,分别接受奥美沙坦酯20mg或氯沙坦钾50mg,每天1次口服治疗。在用药4周后对患者进行血压评价,如果患者舒张压(DBP)仍≥90mmHg(1mmHg=0.133kPa),则试验药物剂量加倍,直至8周试验结束;治疗4周后DBP〈90mmHg的患者则维持原剂量继续治疗至第8周。结果(1)治疗4周后,奥美沙坦酯组坐位DBP谷值平均下降11.72mmHg,氯沙坦钾组平均下降9.23mmHg,两组间比较P=0.004。(2)治疗8周后,奥美沙坦酯组坐位DBP谷值平均下降12.94mmHg,氯沙坦钾组平均下降11.01mmHg,两组间比较P=0.035。(3)治疗4周后,奥美沙坦酯组有效数为81例(65.3%),氯沙坦钾组有效数为68例(52.7%),两组间比较P=0.028;治疗8周后,两组有效病例数和有效率相当,P〉0.05。(4)治疗8周后,24h动态血压监测显示,奥美沙坦酯组DBP和SBP的个体和总体谷/峰比值均高于氯沙坦钾组,奥美沙坦酯在24h内的作用持续时间比氯沙坦钾组长。(5)奥美沙坦酯组和氯沙坦钾组发生的与试验药物有关的不良事件的发生率分别为10.5%和13.9%,P〉0.05。结论奥美沙坦酯每日口服20~40mg能够有效、安全地治疗高血压。与氯沙坦钾每日口服50-100mg相比,奥美沙坦酯的降压效果优于氯沙坦钾。 相似文献
15.
Olmesartan medoxomil is a new orally active angiotensin II (Ang II) type 1 receptor antagonist. It is a prodrug and is rapidly de‐esterified during absorption to form olmesartan, the active metabolite. Olmesartan is a potent, competitive and selective Ang II type 1 receptor antagonist. Olmesartan is not metabolized by the cytochrome P‐450 and has a dual route of elimination, by kidneys and liver. In patients with essential hypertension olmesartan medoxomil administered once daily at doses of 10–80 mg dose‐dependently reduced diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Troughto‐peak ratios for both DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) were above 50%. At the recommended once‐daily starting doses, olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg) was more effective than losartan (50 mg), valsartan (80 mg) or irbesartan (150 mg) in reducing cuff DBP in patients with essential hypertension. The results of cuff SBP and mean 24‐h DBP and SBP were similar to those of cuff DBP measurement. In mild‐to‐moderate hypertensive patients the recommended starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil was as effective as that of amlodipine besylate (5 mg/day) in reducing both cuff and 24‐h blood pressure. In lowering DBP olmesartan medoxomil, at 10–20 mg/day, was as effective as atenolol at 50–100 mg/day. In mild‐to‐moderate hypertensive patients, olmesartan medoxomil, at 5–20 mg once daily, was more effective than captopril at 12.5–50 mg twice daily. At 20–40 mg once daily olmesartan medoxomil was as effective as felodipine, at 5–10 mg once daily. Olmesartan medoxomil has minimal adverse effects with no clinically important drug interactions. Animal studies have shown that olmesartan medoxomil provides a wide range of organ protection. Olmesartan medoxomil ameliorated atherosclerosis in hyperlipidemic animals and ameliorated cardiac remodeling and improved survival in rats with myocardial infarction. Olmesartan medoxomil has renoprotective effects in a remnant kidney model and type 2 diabetes models. Future investigation should reveal whether these beneficial effects of olmesartan medoxomil are applicable to human diseases. 相似文献
16.
Comparison of increasing doses of olmesartan medoxomil, losartan potassium, and valsartan in patients with essential hypertension 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
Giles TD Oparil S Silfani TN Wang A Walker JF 《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》2007,9(3):187-195
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. 相似文献
17.
Izzo JL Chrysant SG Kereiakes DJ Littlejohn Iii T Oparil S Melino M Lee J Fernandez V Heyrman R 《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》2011,13(12):873-880
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. 相似文献
18.
Neutel JM Smith DH Weber MA Wang AC Masonson HN 《Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)》2004,6(4):168-399
Hypertension guidelines recommend a steppedcare approach that starts with titration of the initial agent followed by the addition of other agents, as necessary, to achieve goal blood pressure. This study assessed the effectiveness of an antihypertensive treatment algorithm with olmesartan medoxomil as the initial agent. This was a 24-week, open-label trial in patients (N=201) with mean seated diastolic blood pressure of 90–109 mm Hg. Following placebo run-in, all patients received olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/d for 4 weeks. At subsequent 4-week intervals, the regimen was modified in patients with blood pressure >130/85 mm Hg: up-titration of olmesartan medoxomil to 40 mg/d; addition of hydrochlo-rothiazide 12.5 mg/d; up-titration of hydrochlo-rothiazide to 25 mg/d; addition of amlodipine besylate 5 mg/d; and up-titration of amlodipine besylate to 10 mg/d. Patients who achieved blood pressure ≤130/85 mm Hg at any point exited the study with no further follow-up. At Week 24, reductions in blood pressure from baseline were 33.7/18.2 mm Hg. Altogether, 87.7% of patients reached the goal blood pressure of ≤130/85 mm Hg and 93.3% achieved a blood pressure of ≤140/90 mm Hg. Thus, an antihypertensive algorithm with olmesartan medoxomil as the initial agent controlled blood pressure in the majority of patients, but with >60% of patients also requiring the use of a thiazide diuretic or a thiazide and a calcium channel blocker. 相似文献
19.
Mengden T Ewald S Kaufmann S vor dem Esche J Uen S Vetter H 《Blood pressure monitoring》2004,9(6):321-325
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring in previous uncontrolled hypertensives treated with olmesartan medoxomil in a clinical practice setting. METHODS: Patients (n = 53) with untreated, uncontrolled or insufficiently treated hypertension were selected by physicians to receive olmesartan medoxomil 10-40 mg/day for 12 weeks. Office BP values were determined by a physician at baseline and after 12 weeks' treatment; BP self-measurement (BPSM) was conducted throughout the 12-week treatment period using a TensioPhone TP2 telemonitoring device; BP values were stored and automatically downloaded to a remote service centre via standard telephone lines. RESULTS: Olmesartan medoxomil produced statistically significant reductions from baseline in both systolic and diastolic office BP and BPSM values. In contrast to office BP, telemonitoring of BPSM allowed the early identification of responders (e.g., after 2-3 weeks' treatment). Blood pressure reduction with olmesartan medoxomil was greater for office BP than for BPSM values. Normalization of BP was achieved in 64.2% of the patients using office BP measurement compared with 36.4% using BPSM. Blood pressure self-measurement showed no significant difference between morning and evening BP measurements or between the morning : evening BP ratio at baseline and after nine weeks of olmesartan medoxomil treatment. Compliance and tolerability were good or very good in most patients. CONCLUSION: In a 'real-life' clinical practice setting, telemonitoring of BPSM was an effective technique that was partially affected by patient non-compliance. Olmesartan medoxomil provided effective and reliable BP-lowering, which was maintained throughout the 24-hour period. 相似文献
20.
BACKGROUND: In this analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) in hypertensive patients. METHODS: Data from seven randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, 6- to 12-week efficacy trials of olmesartan 20 mg and 40 mg/day were analyzed to determine changes in trough seated SBP and PP within three cohorts: 1) total cohort (n = 1777); 2) subjects with a wide PP: that is, those with a baseline PP >55 mm Hg (n = 917); and 3) a subpopulation of patients with a wide PP and age > or = 65 years (n = 296). Statistical comparisons used least squares mean values. RESULTS: In the total cohort, olmesartan 20 and 40 mg/day resulted in mean reductions in SBP of 15.1 and 17.6 mm Hg, respectively (P < .001 v placebo). In the wide PP cohort, olmesartan resulted in mean reductions in SBP of 17.7 and 22.0 mm Hg and mean reductions in PP of 7.4 Hg and 8.8 mm Hg for the groups receiving 20 and 40 mg/day, respectively (P < .001 v placebo). In the cohort with wide PP and age > or = 65 years, olmesartan 20 and 40 mg/day produced mean reductions in SBP of 21.8 and 22.5 mm Hg, and PP of 6.7 and 7.6 mm Hg, respectively (P < .05 v placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan significantly reduces SBP and PP, and these reductions are more pronounced in patients with a wide baseline PP. In patients with a wide baseline PP and age > or = 65 years, the population at greatest risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, olmesartan reduces PP to an extent similar to that in patients <65 years of age. 相似文献