OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of a new angiotensin II antagonist, valsartan, with a reference therapy, amlodipine. METHODS:One hundred sixty-eight adult outpatients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomly allocated in double-blind fashion and equal number to receive 80 mg valsartan or 5 mg amlodipine for 12 weeks. After 8 weeks of therapy, in patients whose blood pressure remained uncontrolled, 5 mg amlodipine was added to the initial therapy. Patients were assessed at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure at 8 weeks. Secondary variables included change in sitting systolic blood pressure and responder rates. RESULTS: Both valsartan and amlodipine were effective at lowering blood pressure at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Similar decreases were observed in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between the groups for any variable analyzed. For the primary variable the difference was 0.5 mm Hg in favor of valsartan (p = 0.68; 95% confidence interval, -2.7 to 1.7). Responder rates at 8 weeks were 66.7% for valsartan and 60.2% for amlodipine (p = 0.39). Both treatments were well tolerated. The incidence of drug-related dependent edema was somewhat higher in the amlodipine group, particularly at a dose of 10 mg per day (2.4% for 80 mg valsartan; 3.6% for 5 mg amlodipine; 0% for valsartan plus 5 mg amlodipine; 14.3% for 10 mg amlodipine). CONCLUSIONS: The data show that valsartan is at least as effective as amlodipine in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. The results also show valsartan to be well tolerated and suggest that it is not associated with side effects characteristic of this comparator class, dihydropyridine calcium antagonists.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of a new angiotensin II antagonist, valsartan, with a reference therapy, amlodipine. METHODS: One hundred sixty-eight adult outpatients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomly allocated in double-blind fashion and equal number to receive 80 mg valsartan or 5 mg amlodipine for 12 weeks. After 8 weeks of therapy, in patients whose blood pressure remained uncontrolled, 5 mg amlodipine was added to the initial therapy. Patients were assessed at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure at 8 weeks. Secondary variables included change in sitting systolic blood pressure and responder rates. RESULTS: Both valsartan and amlodipine were effective at lowering blood pressure at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Similar decreases were observed in both groups, with no statistically significant differences between the groups for any variable analyzed. For the primary variable the difference was 0.5 mm Hg in favor of valsartan (p = 0.68; 95% confidence interval, -2.7 to 1.7). Responder rates at 8 weeks were 66.7% for valsartan and 60.2% for amlodipine (p = 0.39). Both treatments were well tolerated. The incidence of drug-related dependent edema was somewhat higher in the amlodipine group, particularly at a dose of 10 mg per day (2.4% for 80 mg valsartan; 3.6% for 5 mg amlodipine; 0% for valsartan plus 5 mg amlodipine; 14.3% for 10 mg amlodipine). CONCLUSIONS: The data show that valsartan is at least as effective as amlodipine in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. The results also show valsartan to be well tolerated and suggest that it is not associated with side effects characteristic of this comparator class, dihydropyridine calcium antagonists.