依普利酮与氯沙坦对轻中度高血压病患者动脉僵硬度及胰岛素生长因子-1的影响

目的:探讨依普利酮与氯沙坦对轻中度原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度及胰岛素生长因子-1(IGF-1)的影响。方法:将84例轻中度原发性高血压患者分为依普利酮组和氯沙坦组(各42例),分别口服依普利酮50mg或氯沙坦50mg每天1次,每2周复诊1次,治疗前及治疗后12周进行肝肾功能、电解质、血糖、血脂、血常规、尿常规、动态血压监测、臂-踝脉搏波传导速度(baPWV)和血浆IGF-1的测定。结果:两组治疗12周末血压明显下降(P<0.05),组间血压降幅差异无统计学意义。两组治疗前后一般项目及生化指标差异无统计学意义。两组24h平均收缩压及平均舒张压、昼平均收缩压及昼平均舒张压、夜平均收缩压及夜平均舒张压、baPWV及IGF-1较治疗前明显下降(P<0.05),组间差异无统计学意义。结论:依普利酮与氯沙坦均能明显降低轻中度原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度和IGF-1水平,但两者改善程度无差异。     

依普利酮治疗轻中度高血压疗效和安全性的临床研究

比较依普利酮50 mg或100 mg与氯沙坦50 mg或100 mg每天一次治疗轻中度高血压的疗效和安全性。随机、双盲、双模拟平行对照设计,将84例轻中度高血压(90 mm Hg≤舒张压<110 mm Hg)患者分为依普利酮组和氯沙坦组。依普利酮50mg或100 mg每天一次口服治疗轻中度高血压安全有效,其降压疗效与氯沙坦相似。     

依普利酮治疗轻中度高血压疗效和安全性的临床研究

比较依普利酮50 mg或100 mg与氯沙坦50 mg或100 mg每天一次治疗轻中度高血压的疗效和安全性。随机、双盲、双模拟平行对照设计,将84例轻中度高血压(90 mm Hg≤舒张压<110 mm Hg)患者分为依普利酮组和氯沙坦组。依普利酮50mg或100 mg每天一次口服治疗轻中度高血压安全有效,其降压疗效与氯沙坦相似。     

依普利酮治疗轻中度原发性高血压疗效观察

目的观察依普利酮治疗轻中度原发性高血压的临床疗效。方法将45例轻中度高血压病人,随机分为氯沙坦组(22例)、依普利酮组(23例)。氯沙坦组和依普利酮组采用双盲双模拟、阳性药物平行对照的方法,分别接受氯沙坦和依普利酮治疗,治疗4周后,若血压未达标,药物剂量加倍后继续治疗4周;若血压达标,维持原剂量继续治疗4周。结果治疗8周后与治疗前比较,氯沙坦组平均坐位舒张压下降(11.33±1.09)mmH g,依普利酮组平均坐位舒张压下降(13.02±1.40)mmH g,两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论依普利酮与氯沙坦都能够有效降低高血压病人的平均坐位收缩压和舒张压。     

替米沙坦治疗轻中度高血压的临床疗效和安全性--多中心随机对照临床试验

目的：（1）比较替米沙坦40mg或80mg与氯沙坦50mg或100mg每天一次口服治疗轻中度高血压的疗效和安全性；（2）评价替米沙坦40mg每天一次口服治疗轻中度高血压的24h降压效果及谷／峰比值。方法：（1）多中心、随机、双盲、双模拟平行分组试验。330例轻中度高血压（95mm Hg≤舒张压＜110mm Hg，收缩压＜180mm Hg,1mm Hg=0.133kPa)患被随机分入替米沙坦组（164例）和氯沙坦组（166例），分别每天一次口服替米沙坦40mg或氯沙坦50mg。4周后如坐位舒张压≥90mm Hg，则改为替米沙坦80mg或氯沙坦100mg每天一次口服。（2）开放试验。同样条件的20例患服用替米沙坦40mg共6周，于替米沙坦治疗前后各进行24h动态血压监测。结果：（1）治疗8周末，替米沙坦组的坐位收缩压及舒张压下降幅度大于氯沙坦组（12．5mm Hg vs 9.4mm Hg,P=0.037及10.9mm Hg vs 9.3mm Hg,P=0.030);(2)替米沙坦降低轻中度高血压的总有效率高于氯沙坦（70．1％ vs 58.7%,P=0.020);(3)替米沙坦级瑟氯沙坦组的不良事件发生率相似（23．2％ vs 22.9%,P=0.952);(4)替米沙坦40mg每天一次口服，其收缩压的谷／峰比值为66．5％，舒张压的谷／峰比值为76．8％；24h平均血压下降10．2／7．8mm Hg，用药末6h的平均血压下降10.0/9.2mm Hg。结论：（1）替米沙坦40mg或80mg每天一次口服治疗轻中度高血压安全有效；（2）替米沙坦适合每天一次服用，其降压作用可维持24h。     

有氧运动对轻中度原发性高血压患者血压的影响

目的探讨有氧运动对轻中度原发性高血压患者血压的影响。方法选择2010年10月—2011年12月我院收治的轻中度原发性高血压患者20例,均进行12周的有氧运动,观察有氧运动前后患者血压、睡眠不足所占比例及焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分的变化。结果有氧运动12周后,患者收缩压为(138±7)mm Hg,舒张压为(83±7)mm Hg,低于有氧运动前的(149±8)mm Hg、(95±7)mm Hg(P0.05);治疗后睡眠不足者所占比例和SAS评分均低于治疗前(P0.05)。结论有氧运动对轻中度原发性高血压患者血压具有调节作用,且能改善患者生活质量,可以作为部分轻中度原发性高血压患者尤其是早期患者单独选用的干预方法。     

缬沙坦对高血压患者动态的动脉硬化指数及脉搏波传导速度的影响

目的 研究缬沙坦对高血压患者动态的动脉硬化指数(AASI)及肱踝脉搏波传导速度(baPWV)的影响.方法 选择18例原发性高血压患者(1、2级),入选患者早晨7～9点一次服用缬沙坦80 mg/d进行降压,治疗2周后,不论血压高低,只要患者能耐受均将缬沙坦增至160 mg/d继续治疗8周.所有入选患者,治疗前后均进行门诊血压及24 h动态血压测量,进行空腹血糖和血脂检查及baPWV测定.并根据24 h动态血压计算AASI.结果 与治疗前比较,缬沙坦可降低高血压患者的收缩压[(133±9)mm Hg比(146±10) mm Hg,P＜0.01]、舒张压[(84±8)mm Hg比(93±8)mm Hg,P＜0.01)]及脉压,并降低高血压患者baPWV水平[(1385±132)cm/s比(1450±142) cm/s,P=0.014],AASI较治疗前也有所降低(0.31±0.14比0.34±0.14,P=0.330).结论 缬沙坦160mg/d在降低血压同时,可减慢baPWV,轻度改善动脉弹性功能.     

贝那普利联合硝苯地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的观察贝那普利联合硝苯地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效。方法选取2013年12月~2015年6月我院收治的原发性高血压患者143例作为研究对象,按照随机抽取的方式将其分为研究组72例与对照组71例。研究组患者给予贝那普利联合硝苯地平进行治疗;对照组患者仅给予硝苯地平进行治疗。观察并比较两组患者疗效、治疗前后血压变化情况。结果研究组总有效率为94.4%显著高于对照组的83.1%,贝那普利联合硝苯地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效优于单纯硝苯地平,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);治疗前,研究组与对照组收缩压分别为(157.2±3.2)mm Hg、(156.9±3.4)mm Hg,舒张压分别为(97.4±4.3)mm Hg、(97.6±4.5)mm Hg,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);治疗后,研究组与对照组收缩压分别为(131.7±5.8)mm Hg、(139.6±5.9)mm Hg,舒张压分别为(81.9±3.7)mm Hg、(88.5±4.1)mm Hg,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论贝那普利、硝苯地平均是常见的降压药,二者联合应用治疗原发性高血压的疗效优于单纯使用硝苯地平,值得临床推广应用。     

氯沙坦与贝那普利联合治疗肾实质性高血压的疗效评价

目的评价肾实质性高血压患者运用贝那普利联合氯沙坦治疗的疗效。方法选取我院2014年2月~2016年5月收治的肾实质性高血压患者80例作为研究对象,按随机数字法,将其分为实验组和对照组,各40例。实验组采用贝那普利联合氯沙坦治疗,对照组单用贝那普利治疗,比较两组患者的血压、24 h内蛋白尿、血肌酐及不良反应发生率。结果实验组舒张压为(83.16±5.33)mm Hg,收缩压为(132.61±5.14)mm Hg,24 h内蛋白尿为(94.26±10.53)mg,血肌酐为(94.27±5.31)μmol/L,不良反应发生率为7.5%,明显优于对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论贝那普利联合氯沙坦治疗肾实质性高血压疗效确切,患者血压、24 h内蛋白尿以及血肌酐能够得到极大改善,不良反应发生率较低,临床应用价值极高。     

依普利酮与氯沙坦治疗高血压的疗效及安全性比较

目的 比较依普利酮及氯沙坦治疗高血压的疗效及安全性.方法 入选患者80例,随机分为依普利酮组和氯沙坦组,各40例.分别予依普利酮片50mg、氯沙坦钾片50mg,1次/d,口服,疗程12周.治疗前及疗程结束后主要检测多项生化指标、24h动态血压、记录不良反应.结果 与治疗前比较,两组血压明显下降,差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.05);两组比较,依普利酮与氯沙坦在降低血压幅度上的差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).两组生化指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 依普利酮与氯沙坦,1次/d,服用50 mg均能有效控制轻、中度高血压患者的血压,安全性及依从性好.     

Efficacy and tolerability of eplerenone and losartan in hypertensive black and white patients

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of monotherapy with the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone in both black and white patients with hypertension. BACKGROUND: Essential hypertension and cardiovascular-renal-target organ damage is more prevalent in black than white adults in the U.S. METHODS: Black (n = 348) and white (n = 203) patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension were randomized to double-blind treatment with eplerenone 50 mg, the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan 50 mg, or placebo once daily. Doses were increased if blood pressure remained uncontrolled. The primary end point was change in mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 16 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Adjusted mean changes from baseline in DBP were -5.3 +/- 0.7, -10.3 +/- 0.7, and -6.9 +/- 0.6 mm Hg in the placebo, eplerenone-treated, and losartan-treated groups, respectively (mean +/- SE, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. placebo, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. losartan). In black patients, DBP decreased by -4.8 +/- 1.0, -10.2 +/- 0.9, and -6.0 +/- 0.9 mm Hg for the placebo, eplerenone-treated, and losartan-treated groups, respectively (mean +/- SE, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. placebo, p < 0.001 eplerenone vs. losartan), whereas in white patients, DBP decreased by -6.4 +/- 1.0, -11.1 +/- 1.1, and -8.4 +/- 1.0 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.001 eplerenone vs. placebo, p = 0.068 for eplerenone vs. losartan). For reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP), eplerenone was superior to placebo and losartan in all patients combined and in black patients, and was superior to placebo in white patients. Eplerenone was as effective as losartan in reducing SBP and DBP in the high renin patient, but more effective than losartan in the low renin patient. Similarly, eplerenone was at least as effective as losartan in patients with differing baseline levels of aldosterone. Both eplerenone and losartan were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The antihypertensive effect of eplerenone was equal in black and white patients and was superior to losartan in black patients.     

老老年人群动态血压参数与动脉僵硬度的相关性

目的探讨老老年人群动态血压参数与动脉僵硬度的相关性。方法筛选年龄≥80岁的老老年人238例,以血压≥160/95 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)为标准,分为高血压组(134例)和对照组(104例),并进行臂-踝脉搏传导速度(baPWV)和24 h动态血压监测。用Pearson分析动态血压各参数与动脉僵硬度的相关性。结果高血压组baPWV高于对照组(P<0.05)。高血压组偶测收缩压,24 h、昼间和夜间收缩压、舒张压、脉压,收缩压负荷及舒张压负荷均高于对照组.夜间收缩压下降率、舒张压下降率低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05,P<0.01)。baPWV与偶测血压;24 h收缩压、舒张压、脉压;昼间收缩压、舒张压、脉压、心率;夜间收缩压、舒张压、脉压;收缩压负荷、舒张压负荷呈正相关(P<0.05,P<0.01),而与夜间收缩压下降率呈负相关(P<0.01)。结论高血压是老老年人群动脉僵硬度增加的一个重要因素,动脉僵硬度与动态血压、脉压、心率及血压负荷相关。     

有氧踏车运动对老年单纯收缩期高血压患者大动脉弹性的影响杨志伟 徐佳 董波 曾令忠 沈丹萍作者单位：湖南省老年医院 心血管内科 410016

目的 探讨有氧踏车运动对老年单纯收缩期高血压（ISH）患者大动脉弹性的影响.方法 选取2012年1～12月期间我院收治的老年ISH患者102例,随机分为2组.A组（52例）给予常规治疗;B组（50例）在常规治疗基础上进行有氧踏车运动,每周3次,每次30 min.疗程均为20周.检测试验前后收缩压、舒张压、高敏C反应蛋白（hs-CRP）、低密度脂蛋白（LDL）和脉搏波传导速度（baPWV）.结果 20周干预后,与治疗前比较,两组收缩压[（145.76±11.52）mm Hg比（165.54±13.87）mm Hg,（141.16±7.69）mm Hg比（162.81±13.26）mm Hg]、舒张压[（65.87±7.20）mm Hg比（72.71±8.16）mm Hg,（67.98±8.21）mm Hg比（71.48±9.18）mmHg]均明显下降,baPWV[（1641.46±119.38）mm/s比（1690.71±124.65）mm/s,（1593.76±112.21）mm/s比（1671.48±138.72）mm/s]减慢,P均＜0.05.与A组对比,B组的收缩压[（141.16±7.69）mm Hg比（145.76±11.52）mmHg]、baPWV[（1593.76±112.21）mm/s比（1641.46±119.38）mm/s]下降更明显,P均＜0.05.结论 有氧踏车运动能够改善老年ISH患者的动脉僵硬度,并有助于其血压的降低.     

Comparison of telmisartan versus losartan: meta-analysis of titration-to-response studies

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of telmisartan and losartan to reduce mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval in a prospectively planned meta-analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) data from two independent studies. METHODS: Data were from two independent randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, titration-to-response studies conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (seated cuff DBP 95-109 mmHg, 24-h mean ambulatory DBP >or=85 mmHg). After a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients received once-daily telmisartan 40 mg or losartan 50 mg, with up-titration after 4 weeks to telmisartan 80 mg or losartan 100 mg, respectively, if seated trough cuff DBP >or=90 mmHg. Blood pressures were recorded using ABPM immediately before randomization and after 8 weeks of active treatment. In addition, seated trough cuff blood pressures were measured at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of active treatment. RESULTS: Titration to the higher dose was required in 60.1% of telmisartan patients and 69.5% of losartan patients (P=0.01). Reductions from baseline in the last 6 h mean ambulatory DBP with telmisartan and losartan were 6.6+/-0.4 and 5.1+/-0.4 mmHg, respectively (P<0.01, adjusted for baseline and study); the effects were homogeneous across the two studies. During the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval, telmisartan produced greater reductions in each of the observed hourly mean ambulatory DBP values. Telmisartan-induced reductions were also greater for the majority of the observed hourly mean ambulatory DBP values over the entire 24-h dosing interval. Reductions from baseline in the last 6 h adjusted mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) for telmisartan and losartan were 9.9+/-0.6 and 7.8+/-0.6 mmHg, respectively (P=0.01). The 24-h profiles of ambulatory SBP hourly mean reductions were similar to those for DBP. Both telmisartan and losartan were found to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 40/80 mg is superior to losartan 50/100 mg in controlling DBP and SBP during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval.     

ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability profiles of the selective AT1 receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan were compared with placebo in a 6-week, multinational, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study of 223 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, defined as clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >/=95 and /=140 and /=85 mm Hg. After a 4-week single-blind placebo run-in, eligible patients were randomised to receive telmisartan 40 mg, telmisartan 80 mg, losartan 50 mg, or placebo. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) after 6 weeks of double-blind therapy showed that all active treatments produced significant (P < 0.01) reductions from baseline in 24-h mean SBP and DBP compared with placebo. During the 18-to-24 h period after dosing, the reductions in SBP/DBP with telmisartan 40 mg (10.7/6.8 mm Hg) and 80 mg (12.2/7. 1 mm Hg) were each significantly (P <0.05) greater than those observed for losartan 50 mg (6.0/3.7 mm Hg), and losartan was no better than placebo. Also for the 24-h mean blood pressure, telmisartan 40 mg and 80 mg were significantly (P< 0.05) better than losartan 50 mg. Compared with losartan, telmisartan 80 mg produced significantly (P < 0.05) greater reductions in both SBP and DBP during all monitored periods of the 24-h period, while telmisartan 40 mg produced significantly greater reductions in SBP and DBP in the night-time period (10.01 pm to 5.59 am) (P < 0.05) and in DBP in the morning period (6.00 am to 11.59 am) (P < 0.05). All treatments were comparably well tolerated. Telmisartan 40 mg and 80 mg once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension, producing sustained 24-h blood pressure control which compared favourably with losartan.     

美托洛尔合用依那普利对新发青年高血压的疗效

目的 利用动态血压检测评价酒石酸美托洛尔合用马来酸依那普利治疗青年新发高血压的疗效.方法 78例入选患者服用酒石酸美托洛尔12.5 mg,每日2次,马来酸依那普利5 mg,每日1次,并逐渐加量至诊室血压达标或最大量美托洛尔150 mg/d、马来酸依那普利20 mg/d,服用3周.治疗前、后进行动态血压检测.结果 治疗前24 h平均SBP为（162.4±9.8）mm Hg,DBP为（94.2±7.5）mm Hg,治疗后SBP为（128.3±5.8）mm Hg,DBP为（73.2±6.1）mm Hg,均显著降低（P＜0.01）,夜间血压下降率明显增加（P＜0.01）,总有效率97.43%.结论 对新发青年高血压,酒石酸美托洛尔联合马来酸依那普利能达到24 h平稳降压.     

二甲双胍在伴高胰岛素血症原发性高血压人群中降血压作用探讨

目的 探讨二甲双胍单独或与福辛普利联合治疗原发性高血压的可能性.方法 140例伴高胰岛素血症的非糖尿病原发性高血压患者被随机分到二甲双胍组(68例)和福辛普利组(72例),分别以二甲双胍500 mg,3次/d和福辛普利10 mg,1次/d治疗,疗程8周.观察两组治疗前后血压、胰岛素敏感性变化.在治疗4周时收缩压(SBP)≥140 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)和(或)舒张压(DBP)≥90 min Hg者,给予上述两种药物联合治疗.结果 (1)二甲双胍组和福辛普利组在治疗4周后SBP分别下降(13.0±1.2)mm Hg和(15.4±1.4)mm Hg,DBP分别下降(9.0±1.0)mm Hg和(10.4±1.1)mm Hg;在治疗8周后SBP分别下降(17.8±1.5)mm Hg和(20.9±1.5)mm Hg,DBP分别下降(13.2±0.9)mm Hg和(15.3±1.1)mm Hg,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组联合用药率均为54%.(2)与基线比较,空腹、糖负荷后0.5、2 h胰岛素、胰岛素曲线下面积在二甲双胍组于治疗4周和8周后明显下降;在福辛普利组于治疗8周后明显下降(P<0.05).胰岛素敏感性指数在二甲双胍组于治疗4周后明显高于福辛普利组(P<0.05),在治疗8周后两组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 在伴高胰岛素血症的原发性高血压人群中,二甲双胍与福辛普利有类似的降压效应和良好的协同作用.     

动态血压评价替米沙坦、氯沙坦治疗轻、中度高血压的临床疗效

目的　比较选择性血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂替米沙坦、氯沙坦治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的疗效及安全性。方法　对 77例原发性高血压患者分成两组 ,分别予以替米沙坦 80mg,氯沙坦 5 0mg ,每日一次 ,6周后观察动态血压 (ABPM)评价降压效果。结果　替米沙坦和氯沙坦两组 2 4小时平均动态收缩压 (SBP)、舒张压 (DBP)均明显降低 ,替米沙坦 80mg的降压效果比氯沙坦 5 0mg更好 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,特别是在给药间期的最后 4～ 6小时 ,SBP/DBP替米沙坦降低了12 .3± 14 /7.2± 0 .9mmHg ,氯沙坦降低了 6.0± 1.6/3 .8± 0 .9mmHg(P <0 .0 5 )。结论　替米沙坦 80mg每日用药一次 ,可以保持正常的血压昼夜节律 ,提供 2 4小时血压控制的效果     

氯沙坦对糖尿病合并原发性高血压患者内皮细胞功能的影响

目的观察血管紧张素Ⅱ受体拮抗剂氯沙坦对糖尿病合并高血压患者内皮细胞功能及其分泌因子的影响。方法入选48例糖尿病合并1～2级高血压患者,给予氯沙坦50mg／d治疗4周,如血压未得到控制[收缩压≥140mmHg和（或）舒张压≥90mmHg],将药物剂量加倍继续治疗4周。采取静脉血测定治疗前、后血浆降钙素基因相关肽（CGRP）、一氧化氮（NO）、前列环素（PGI2）、内皮素（ET）、血管紧张素Ⅱ（AngⅡ）水平及血压的变化。结果31例治疗2周末血压降至正常,收缩压（162．3±23．8）mmHg比（131．5±17．3）mmHg（P〈0．05）,舒张压（106．4±14．9）mmHg比（85．3±13．5）mmHg（P〈0．01）,其后血压稳定。治疗4周后血浆CGRP和PGI2显著升高,分别为（117．3±19．5）ng／L比（164．2±23．1）ng／L（P〈0．01）和（116．6±69．1）pg／ml比（223．5±84．9）pg／ml（P〈0．01）;血浆AngⅡ水平显著降低[（539．8±226．2）pg／ml比（441．3±161．1）pg／ml,P〈0．05]。其余17例治疗4周后,因收缩压或舒张压未降至正常水平,药量加倍再治疗4周,血压显著下降,收缩压（167．2±21．7）mmHg比（144．2±13．5）mmHg,P〈0．05,舒张压（112．7±13．7）mmHg比（96.3±12．1）mmHg,P〈0．01;血浆CGRP水平显著升高[（112．7±13．7）ng／L比（171．6±37．1）ng／L,P〈0．05],和健康人水平[（178．1±34．7）ng／L]差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论氯沙坦是一种安全有效的降压药物,同时可以改善糖尿病合并高血压患者血管内皮细胞功能。     

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

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