Clinical and Experimental Aspects of Olmesartan Medoxomil,a New Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonist

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.     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Use of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess blood pressure control: a comparison of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate

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.     

Systolic blood pressure reduction with olmesartan medoxomil versus nitrendipine in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is high in the elderly, and the objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil with that of nitrendipine in elderly (65-74 years) and very elderly (>/= 75 years) male and female patients with ISH. METHODS: Patients were randomized to 24 weeks of treatment with either olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg daily (n = 256) or nitrendipine 20 mg (n = 126) twice daily, with possible dose increase (to 40 mg daily) and addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 or 25 mg daily if required. RESULTS: On the primary endpoint [reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) after 12 weeks of treatment], the two treatments were similar (olmesartan medoxomil, -30.0 mmHg; nitrendipine, -31.4 mmHg). No significant difference between the treatment groups was observed, and non-inferiority of olmesartan medoxomil to nitrendipine was demonstrated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Reductions in mean sitting and standing SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) up to week 24 were also similar with both treatments. Blood pressure (BP) goal attainment rates (sitting SBP 相似文献   

Long-term efficacy and safety of triple-combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate and hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:149–157. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Most patients with hypertension require combination therapy in order to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. This 40‐week open‐label extension of the 12‐week double‐blind Tri ple Therapy With Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hyperten si ve Patient s Study (TRINITY) evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple‐combination treatments with olmesartan medoxomil, amlodipine besylate, and hydrochlorothiazide (OM/AML/HCTZ) in 2112 participants with moderate to severe hypertension. Following 2 weeks of initial treatment with OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 12.5 mg, participants not achieving BP goal were titrated to OM 40/AML 5/HCTZ 25 mg or OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 12.5 mg on a randomized basis. At week 16, participants who did not achieve BP goal were further titrated to OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg. At the end of the study, 44.5% to 79.8% of participants reached BP goal and the mean BP decreased from 168.6/100.7 mm Hg (baseline BP at randomization) to 125.0 to 136.8 mm Hg/77.8 to 82.5 mm Hg, depending on treatment. Long‐term treatment with OM/AML/HCTZ was well tolerated and effective with no new safety concerns.     

Efficacy and safety of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with severe hypertension

This 12-week, open-label, multicenter study assessed the efficacy and safety of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents, in the treatment of patients with severe systemic hypertension. Treatment began with once-daily losartan/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg. The dose was increased to 100/25 mg, if required, to achieve blood pressure (BP) control (sitting diastolic BP <95 mm Hg); felodipine (extended release) and/or atenolol could be added if target sitting diastolic BP was not achieved with losartan/HCTZ alone. Mean sitting systolic BP of the 131 patients enrolled was 165.3 mm Hg at baseline and 139.8 mm Hg at final visit (reduction -25.4 mm Hg; p < or =0.01). Mean sitting diastolic BP was 111.9 mm Hg at baseline and 93.6 mm Hg at final visit (reduction -18.4 mm Hg; p < or =0.01). After 2 weeks of treatment, 63.8% of patients (83 of 130) were taking losartan/HCTZ 50/12.5 mg alone. By the final visit, one third of patients (35.1%; 46/131) were still only taking losartan/HCTZ. Most patients (48.1%; 63 of 131) were taking losartan/HCTZ 100/25 mg plus felodipine (extended release) at the final visit. Losartan/HCTZ was well tolerated. Drug-related adverse experiences occurred in 30 patients (22.9%). Only 2 patients (1.5%) had a serious adverse experience; 6 patients (4.6%) discontinued the drug because of an adverse experience. In conclusion, losartan/ HCTZ, alone or as part of a regimen with other standard antihypertensive agents, is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of patients with severe hypertension.     

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil compared with amlodipine for mild-to-moderate hypertension

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.     

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

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

奥美沙坦酯与缬沙坦对原发性高血压患者血压晨峰的影响

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

The new oral angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil: a concise overview

The new orally active angiotensin II (A II) type-1 receptor antagonist olmesartan medoxomil is a prodrug, which is rapidly converted in vivo to the active metabolite, olmesartan. The pharmacology, antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and/or the pharmacologically active metabolite, olmesartan, have been evaluated in both non-clinical and clinical models. Orally administered olmesartan medoxomil is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and converted during absorption to olmesartan, which is subsequently excreted without further metabolism. Peak plasma concentrations of olmesartan occur 1-3 h after administration, after which concentrations decrease with an elimination half-life of 10-15 h. The absolute bioavailability of olmesartan from olmesartan medoxomil tablets is 28.6%. In a single-dose crossover study in 16 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension receiving a sodium-restricted diet, statistically significant lowering of mean 24-h blood pressure was seen at doses of 10-80 mg. Evaluation of 14 phase II/III studies has confirmed the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil in over 3500 patients who received the drug for up to 2 years. Frequencies of adverse events during treatment with olmesartan medoxomil and placebo are similar, with no evidence of a dose response. There are no clinically significant effects on laboratory parameters, and the drug-interaction potential of olmesartan medoxomil is low. Current indications are that olmesartan medoxomil is a true once-daily, orally active A II antagonist with good antihypertensive efficacy and a favourable adverse-event profile. Clinical pharmaco- dynamic and efficacy studies support a usual dose of 20 mg once daily, increasing to 40 mg if needed.     

奥美沙坦酯和氨氯地平联合治疗原发性高血压的研究

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。     

Adding hydrochlorothiazide to olmesartan dose dependently improves 24-h blood pressure and response rates in mild-to-moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE: To test whether adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (12.5 or 25 mg) to olmesartan 20 mg improves 24-h blood pressure in patients whose conventional diastolic blood pressure is inadequately controlled by olmesartan monotherapy. PATIENTS: Male and female patients > or = 18 years with mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 100-115 mmHg, mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) greater than 150 mmHg, mean 24-h DBP of at least 84 mmHg, and at least 30% of DBP daytime readings > 90 mmHg. INTERVENTIONS: Four weeks of single-blind treatment with olmesartan 20 mg once daily, followed in non-responders by 8 weeks of randomized double-blind treatment with placebo or HCTZ (12.5 or 25 mg) once-daily, added to olmesartan. RESULTS: HCTZ 25 mg added to olmesartan 20 mg decreased mean daytime DBP significantly more (P = 0.0012) than placebo added to olmesartan 20 mg. Compared to olmesartan monotherapy, mean 24-h DBP and SBP were significantly reduced by combination therapy with olmesartan/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (-1.9 mmHg, P = 0.0167 and -3.9 mmHg, P = 0.0018, respectively) and 20/25 mg (-3.7 and -7.4 mmHg respectively, P < 0.0001 for both). Mean 24-h DBP and SBP and mean night-time SBP reductions were significantly greater for HCTZ 25 mg than for HCTZ 12.5 mg. Response rates (mean daytime DBP assessed by ambulatory blood pressure measurement < or = 85 mmHg) approximately doubled following the addition of HCTZ (12.5 mg = 57.6% and 25 mg = 69.5%). CONCLUSION: Combination of olmesartan 20 mg with HCTZ provides significantly better 24-h blood pressure reduction than olmesartan monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Moreover, increasing the dose of HCTZ from 12.5 to 25 mg is a reasonable step to reach better daytime and night-time blood pressure control.     

Telemonitoring of blood pressure self measurement in the OLMETEL study

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.     

Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension

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.     

Effects of a structured treatment algorithm on blood pressure goal rates in both stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension

This study analysed the efficacy of an angiotensin receptor blocker-based treatment algorithm for achieving goal blood pressure (BP) in patients with stage 1 (systolic BP (SBP) 140-159 mmHg or diastolic BP (DBP) 90-99 mmHg) or stage 2 (SBP > or = 160 mmHg or DBP > or = 100 mmHg) hypertension. In this 24-week, open-label, multicentre study, patients followed a six-step algorithm until goal BP (< or = 130/85 mmHg) was attained. Initially, olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day was administered for 4 weeks. The regimen was modified every 4 weeks until goal BP was attained: increase olmesartan medoxomil to 40 mg/day; add hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg/day; increase HCTZ to 25 mg/day; add amlodipine besylate 5 mg/day; increase amlodipine besylate to 10 mg/day. In patients with stage 1 hypertension, 80% (63/79) and 56% (44/79) achieved BP goals of < or = 140/90 mmHg and < or = 130/85 mmHg, respectively, with olmesartan medoxomil monotherapy (94% (74/79) and 89% (70/79) with olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ double therapy, and 96% (76/79) and 98% (77/79) with addition of amlodipine besylate (triple therapy)). Mean SBP/DBP reductions were 16.7/11.6, 24.8/15.8, and 26.4/16.5 mmHg for mono-, double-, and triple-therapy, respectively. In patients with stage 2 hypertension, 42% (42/100) and 19% (19/100) achieved BP goals of < or = 140/90 mmHg and < or = 130/85 mmHg, respectively, with monotherapy (75% (75/100) and 54% (54/100) with double therapy, and 90% (90/100) and 81% (81/100) with triple-therapy). Mean SBP/DBP reductions in stage 2 patients were 18.4/10.0, 32.7/16.3, and 39.1/19.4 mmHg for mono-, double, and triple therapy, respectively. Overall, most patients with stage 1 or stage 2 hypertension achieved goal BP.     

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

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

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

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。