Literature DB >> 17535053

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with essential hypertension.

Hans R Brunner1, Klaus O Stumpe, Andrzej Januszewicz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil with that of candesartan cilexetil after 1, 2 and 8 weeks of treatment. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study conducted at 44 centres in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. PATIENTS: 643 patients (aged 19-86 years) with mainly mild-to-moderate essential hypertension received active double-blind treatment.
INTERVENTIONS: Following a 2-week placebo run-in, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive olmesartan medoxomil 20mg (n = 319) or candesartan cilexetil 8mg (n = 324) once daily for 8 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes from baseline in daytime, 24-hour and night-time diastolic (DBP) and systolic (SBP) blood pressures assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and changes from baseline in sitting cuff DBP and SBP.
RESULTS: Mean decreases from baseline in daytime DBP by ABPM at weeks 1, 2 and 8 were 6.7, 8.4 and 9.3mm Hg, respectively, in the olmesartan medoxomil group compared with 5.3, 6.0 and 7.8mm Hg, respectively, in the candesartan cilexetil group. The between-group differences were significantly in favour of olmesartan medoxomil at all three timepoints (p </= 0.0126). Significant differences in favour of olmesartan medoxomil were also observed for mean 24-hour DBP and for mean daytime and 24-hour SBP by ABPM. Decreases from baseline in sitting cuff BP at trough were similar in the two groups (15-16mm Hg for DBP and 21mm Hg for SBP). Both treatments were well tolerated.
CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil reduced daytime and 24-hour DBP and SBP, assessed by ABPM, more effectively than candesartan cilexetil at the doses tested. The majority of the treatment effect in both groups was seen after only 1 or 2 weeks of dosing, when the between-group differences were already statistically significant.

Entities:  

Year:  2003        PMID: 17535053     DOI: 10.2165/00044011-200323070-00001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Drug Investig        ISSN: 1173-2563            Impact factor:   2.859


  34 in total

1.  1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. Guidelines Subcommittee.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 4.844

2.  Predicting cardiovascular risk using conventional vs ambulatory blood pressure in older patients with systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators.

Authors:  J A Staessen; L Thijs; R Fagard; E T O'Brien; D Clement; P W de Leeuw; G Mancia; C Nachev; P Palatini; G Parati; J Tuomilehto; J Webster
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-08-11       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Evidence-based health policy--lessons from the Global Burden of Disease Study.

Authors:  C J Murray; A D Lopez
Journal:  Science       Date:  1996-11-01       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 4.  Comparative safety and tolerability of angiotensin II receptor antagonists.

Authors:  L Mazzolai; M Burnier
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.606

5.  The pharmacokinetic and metabolic profile of olmesartan medoxomil limits the risk of clinically relevant drug interaction.

Authors:  P Laeis; K Püchler; W Kirch
Journal:  J Hypertens Suppl       Date:  2001-06

Review 6.  Angiotensin II receptor antagonists.

Authors:  M Burnier; H R Brunner
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-02-19       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Blood Pressure Monitoring. Task force III: Target-organ damage, morbidity and mortality.

Authors:  P Verdecchia; D Clement; R Fagard; P Palatini; G Parati
Journal:  Blood Press Monit       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 1.444

Review 8.  Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

Authors:  K O Stumpe; M Ludwig
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 3.012

9.  Ambulatory blood pressure is superior to clinic blood pressure in predicting treatment-induced regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. SAMPLE Study Group. Study on Ambulatory Monitoring of Blood Pressure and Lisinopril Evaluation.

Authors:  G Mancia; A Zanchetti; E Agabiti-Rosei; G Benemio; R De Cesaris; R Fogari; A Pessina; C Porcellati; A Rappelli; A Salvetti; B Trimarco; E Agebiti-Rosei; A Pessino
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1997-03-18       Impact factor: 29.690

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

Authors:  S Oparil; D Williams; S G Chrysant; T C Marbury; J Neutel
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.738

View more
  30 in total

1.  Population pharmacokinetics of olmesartan following oral administration of its prodrug, olmesartan medoxomil: in healthy volunteers and hypertensive patients.

Authors:  Kazutaka Yoshihara; Yuying Gao; Hiroshi Shiga; D Russell Wada; Masafumi Hisaoka
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 6.447

2.  Patient Cases: 1. A Patient with Apparent Compliance.

Authors:  Pantelis A Sarafidis
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2015-07-15

3.  Antihypertensive response to combination of olmesartan and amlodipine does not depend on method and time of drug administration.

Authors:  Francesco Rozza; Valentina Trimarco; Raffaele Izzo; Mario Santoro; Maria Virginia Manzi; Marina Marino; Gianfranco Di Renzo; Bruno Trimarco
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2013-05-09

4.  Safety and tolerability of an olmesartan medoxomil-based regimen in patients with stage 1 hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Authors:  Steven G Chrysant
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.859

5.  HONEST to clarify association between home blood pressure and cardiovascular events under antihypertensive medication.

Authors:  K Kario
Journal:  J Hum Hypertens       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 3.012

Review 6.  Do we need more than just powerful blood pressure reductions? New paradigms in end-organ protection.

Authors:  Domenico Galzerano; Cristina Capogrosso; Sara Di Michele; Emanuele Bobbio; Paola Paparello; Carlo Gaudio
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2010-08-09

7.  Reduction of Cardiovascular Risk through Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Antagonism : Focus on Olmesartan Medoxomil.

Authors:  Enrico Agabiti Rosei
Journal:  High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev       Date:  2013-01-22

Review 8.  Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers as monotherapy as evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Harikrishna Makani; Sripal Bangalore; Azhar Supariwala; Jorge Romero; Edgar Argulian; Franz H Messerli
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Olmesartan medoxomil in elderly patients with essential or isolated systolic hypertension : efficacy and safety data from clinical trials.

Authors:  Anthony M Heagerty; Jean-Michel Mallion
Journal:  Drugs Aging       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.923

10.  Olmesartan clinical trial in Okinawan patients under OKIDS (OCTOPUS) study: design and methods.

Authors:  Kunitoshi Iseki; Kiyoyuki Tokuyama; Yoshiki Shiohira; Akira Higa; Hiroshi Hirano; Shigeki Toma; Kentaro Kohagura; Shinichiro Ueda
Journal:  Clin Exp Nephrol       Date:  2008-12-20       Impact factor: 2.801

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.