BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In hypertensive stroke patients, for the same level of blood pressure control, eprosartan will be more effective than nitrendipine in reducing cerebrovascular and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:A total of 1405 well-defined, high-risk hypertensives with cerebral event during the last 24 months (proven by cerebral computed tomography scan or nuclear magnetic resonance) were randomized to eprosartan or nitrendipine (mean follow-up 2.5 years). Primary end point was the composite of total mortality and all cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all recurrent events. RESULTS: Randomization was successful without significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Blood pressure was reduced to a comparable extent without any significant differences between the 2 groups during the whole study period (150.7/84 mm Hg and 152.0/87.2 mm Hg with eprosartan and nitrendipine therapy to 137.5/80.8 mm Hg and 136.0/80.2 mm Hg, respectively, confirmed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring). Moreover, already after 3 months, normotensive mean values were achieved, and 75.5% reached values <140/90 mm Hg with the eprosartan regimen and 77.7% with the nitrendipine regimen. During follow-up, in total, 461 primary events occurred: 206 eprosartan and 255 nitrendipine (incidence density ratio [IDR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.96; P=0.014). Cardiovascular events were: 77 eprosartan and 101 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02; P=0.06); cerebrovascular events: 102 eprosartan and134 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention (MOSES) study was the first to compare an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist with a calcium antagonist in secondary stroke prevention. In these high-risk hypertensive stroke patients, an early normotensive and comparable blood pressure was achieved. The combined primary end point was significantly lower in the eprosartan group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In hypertensive strokepatients, for the same level of blood pressure control, eprosartan will be more effective than nitrendipine in reducing cerebrovascular and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS: A total of 1405 well-defined, high-risk hypertensives with cerebral event during the last 24 months (proven by cerebral computed tomography scan or nuclear magnetic resonance) were randomized to eprosartan or nitrendipine (mean follow-up 2.5 years). Primary end point was the composite of total mortality and all cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all recurrent events. RESULTS: Randomization was successful without significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Blood pressure was reduced to a comparable extent without any significant differences between the 2 groups during the whole study period (150.7/84 mm Hg and 152.0/87.2 mm Hg with eprosartan and nitrendipine therapy to 137.5/80.8 mm Hg and 136.0/80.2 mm Hg, respectively, confirmed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring). Moreover, already after 3 months, normotensive mean values were achieved, and 75.5% reached values <140/90 mm Hg with the eprosartan regimen and 77.7% with the nitrendipine regimen. During follow-up, in total, 461 primary events occurred: 206 eprosartan and 255 nitrendipine (incidence density ratio [IDR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.96; P=0.014). Cardiovascular events were: 77 eprosartan and 101 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02; P=0.06); cerebrovascular events: 102 eprosartan and134 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention (MOSES) study was the first to compare an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist with a calcium antagonist in secondary stroke prevention. In these high-risk hypertensive strokepatients, an early normotensive and comparable blood pressure was achieved. The combined primary end point was significantly lower in the eprosartan group.
Authors: N A Khan; Finlay A McAlister; Simon W Rabkin; Raj Padwal; Ross D Feldman; Norman Rc Campbell; Lawrence A Leiter; Richard Z Lewanczuk; Ernesto L Schiffrin; Michael D Hill; Malcolm Arnold; Gordon Moe; Tavis S Campbell; Carol Herbert; Alain Milot; James A Stone; Ellen Burgess; B Hemmelgarn; Charlotte Jones; Pierre Larochelle; Richard I Ogilvie; Robyn Houlden; Robert J Herman; Pavel Hamet; George Fodor; George Carruthers; Bruce Culleton; Jacques Dechamplain; George Pylypchuk; Alexander G Logan; Norm Gledhill; Robert Petrella; Sheldon Tobe; Rhian M Touyz Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2006-05-15 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Sigurdur T Sigurdsson; Olaf B Paulson; Arne Høj Nielsen; Svend Strandgaard Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 6.200