Literature DB >> 22763801

Efficacy/safety of olmesartan medoxomil versus losartan potassium in naïve versus previously treated subjects with hypertension.

Henry A Punzi1, Andrew Lewin, Wei Li, Kathleen J Chavanu.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A predefined exploratory analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, forced-titration study of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) versus losartan potassium (LOS) in subjects with hypertension not previously or previously treated with antihypertensive medication is reported.
METHODS: The study included a 3-4-week placebo run-in and an 8-week active treatment period: OM (weeks 1-4, OM 20 mg; weeks 5-8, OM 40 mg); placebo + OM (weeks 1-2, placebo; weeks 3-4, OM 20 mg; weeks 5-8, OM 40 mg); and LOS (weeks 1-4, LOS 50 mg; weeks 5-8, LOS 100 mg). Analyses focused on comparison of OM and placebo + OM combined versus LOS. Efficacy endpoints were mean change from baseline in seated cuff diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) at week 8 (primary); seated cuff systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) at weeks 4 and 8, and SeDBP at week 4 (secondary), and BP target achievement (tertiary).
RESULTS: The randomized population (n = 941) had a mean ± SD age of 51.9 ± 9.7 years, 54.5% were male, and 20.1% were naïve to antihypertensive medication. For treatmentnaïve subjects, baseline seated BP (SeBP) (±SD) was 157.4 (±10.9)/101.8 (±4.3) mmHg with OM and 156.3 (±10.8)/101.1 (±3.9) mmHg with LOS, while non-naïve subjects had 158.4 (±10.2)/100.9 (±4.0) mmHg with OM and 158.8 (±10.1)/101.3 (±4.2) mmHg with LOS. OM monotherapy produced significantly greater changes in least-squares mean (±SE) SeDBP compared with LOS in both treatment-naïve (-9.7 [1.0] vs. -6.6 [1.0] mmHg; P = 0.0232 vs. LOS) and non-naïve subjects (-9.6 [0.5] vs. -7.3 [0.5] mmHg; P = 0.0013 vs. LOS). A significantly greater proportion of patients achieved the SeBP goal of <140/90 mmHg with OM compared with LOS in treatment-naïve (34.1% vs. 19.0%, respectively; P = 0.0109) and non-naïve subjects (31.0% vs. 19.6%; P = 0.0008).
CONCLUSION: Overall, OM monotherapy resulted in significantly greater SeBP reductions and greater SeBP goal achievement than LOS, irrespective of previous medication use. Both OM and LOS therapy were well tolerated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22763801     DOI: 10.1007/s12325-012-0029-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Ther        ISSN: 0741-238X            Impact factor:   3.845


  4 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of an angiotensin receptor blocker, olmesartan medoxomil, in older hypertensive patients.

Authors:  Josep Redon; Michael A Weber; Paul-Egbert Reimitz; Ji-Guang Wang
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 3.738

2.  A randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II trial of Allisartan Isoproxil in essential hypertensive population at low-medium risk.

Authors:  Ying Li; Xiao-hui Li; Zhi-jun Huang; Guo-ping Yang; Guo-gang Zhang; Shui-ping Zhao; Ying Guo; Shi-juan Lu; Jian-lin Ma; Fan-bo Meng; Ping Chen; Hong Yuan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Olmesartan is More Effective Than Other Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists in Reducing Proteinuria in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Other Than Diabetic Nephropathy.

Authors:  Takashi Ono; Toru Sanai; Yoshito Miyahara; Ritsuya Noda
Journal:  Curr Ther Res Clin Exp       Date:  2013-06

4.  Is the newest angiotensin-receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ji-Guang Wang; Miao Zhang; Ying-Qing Feng; Chang-Sheng Ma; Tzung-Dau Wang; Zhi-Ming Zhu; Kazuomi Kario
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2021-02-20       Impact factor: 3.738

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.