Literature DB >> 9757170

The antihypertensive efficacy of losartan and amlodipine assessed with office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Canadian Cozaar Hyzaar Amlodipine Trial Study Group.

T W Wilson1, Y Lacourcière, C C Barnes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Losartan potassium is a recently marketed angiotensin II receptor antagonist. Previous studies have suggested that its full antihypertensive efficacy may be delayed for up to 12 weeks. The authors compared the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of losartan at 6 and 12 weeks with those of amlodipine besylate, a commonly used calcium antagonist.
METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind clinical trial studied 302 patients with mild or moderate hypertension in 1995. Of the 302, 97 also underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). After a 4-week placebo run-in period, the patients were randomly assigned to group A, B or C for 12 weeks. Those in groups A and B began treatment with losartan at 50mg/d, and those in group C began with amlodipine at 5 mg/d. If the blood pressure remained uncontrolled after 6 weeks, subjects in group A had their losartan dose doubled (to 100 mg/d), those in group B were given hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg/d) in addition to the losartan, which remained at 50 mg/d, and patients in group C had their amlodipine dose doubled (to 10 mg/d).
RESULTS: At 12 weeks all 3 regimens reduced office-recorded diastolic blood pressure (DBP) with the patient sitting. The mean reduction in group A was 8.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3 to 10.1) (p < 0.001), in group B 12.5 mm Hg (95% CI 11.0 to 14.0) (p < 0.001) and in group C 12.9 mm Hg (95% CI 11.4 to 14.5) (p < 0.001). Losartan alone lowered sitting DBP to a lesser degree than the other 2 treatments (p < 0.01). In contrast, ABPM readings, whether 24-hour, daytime or nighttime, were not different among the regimens. Comparison of the results at 6 weeks yielded similar findings. Adverse effects were uncommon and were not different among the groups, with the exception of ankle edema, which was more frequent in group C.
INTERPRETATION: Losartan alone reduces both office and ABPM readings. The observed changes in office-recorded sitting DBP suggest that losartan is less effective than amlodipine or the combination of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide, but ABPM did not confirm this difference. Perhaps changes in office readings measure different attributes of a drug than does ABPM.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9757170      PMCID: PMC1229641     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  CMAJ        ISSN: 0820-3946            Impact factor:   8.262


  22 in total

1.  Aspects of quality of life on treatment with felodipine.

Authors:  E Dimenäs; M A Wallander; K Svärdsudd; I Wiklund
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 2.  Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in the evaluation of drug efficacy.

Authors:  E O'Brien; K O'Malley; J Cox; A Stanton
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 4.749

3.  The effect of hypotensive drugs on the quality of life.

Authors:  S J Jachuck; H Brierley; S Jachuck; P M Willcox
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1982-02

4.  Assessing duration of antihypertensive effects with whole-day blood pressure monitoring.

Authors:  D G Cheung; J L Gasster; M A Weber
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1989-09

5.  Economics in hypertension management: cost and quality trade-offs.

Authors:  W B Stason
Journal:  J Hypertens Suppl       Date:  1987-02

6.  Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE)

Authors:  B Pitt; R Segal; F A Martinez; G Meurers; A J Cowley; I Thomas; P C Deedwania; D E Ney; D B Snavely; P I Chang
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1997-03-15       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Final results. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group.

Authors:  J D Neaton; R H Grimm; R J Prineas; J Stamler; G A Grandits; P J Elmer; J A Cutler; J M Flack; J A Schoenberger; R McDonald
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-08-11       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 8.  Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy: discrepancies between office and ambulatory recorded blood pressure.

Authors:  B Waeber; B Rutschmann; J Nüssberger; H R Brunner
Journal:  J Hypertens Suppl       Date:  1991-12

9.  Superiority of nonpharmacologic therapy compared to propranolol and placebo in men with mild hypertension: a randomized, prospective trial.

Authors:  J B Kostis; R C Rosen; E Brondolo; L Taska; D E Smith; A C Wilson
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 4.749

Review 10.  Epidemiology and prevention of blood pressure-related renal disease.

Authors:  P K Whelton; T V Perneger; F L Brancati; M J Klag
Journal:  J Hypertens Suppl       Date:  1992-12
View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Renal artery stenosis as a cause of renal impairment: implications for treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure.

Authors:  J E Scoble
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 2.  Cost per millimeter of mercury lowering is a measure of economic value for antihypertensive agents.

Authors:  R S Chen; P Lapuerta
Journal:  Curr Hypertens Rep       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 5.369

3.  Tautomerism in drug discovery.

Authors:  Alan R Katritzky; C Dennis Hall; Bahaa El-Dien M El-Gendy; Bogdan Draghici
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 4.  Biomarkers related to aging in human populations.

Authors:  Eileen Crimmins; Sarinnapha Vasunilashorn; Jung Ki Kim; Dawn Alley
Journal:  Adv Clin Chem       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 5.394

5.  Chronobiologically explored effects of Telmisartan.

Authors:  Pavel Prikryl; Germaine Cornélissen; Jiri Neubauer; Pavel Prikryl; Zdenek Karpisek; Yoshihiko Watanabe; Kuniaki Otsuka; Franz Halberg
Journal:  Clin Exp Hypertens       Date:  2005 Feb-Apr       Impact factor: 1.749

Review 6.  Pharmacologic approaches for the management of symptoms and cardiovascular consequences of obstructive sleep apnea in adults.

Authors:  John M Dopp; Barbara J Morgan
Journal:  Sleep Breath       Date:  2010-06-28       Impact factor: 2.816

7.  Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

Authors:  Jin-Wook Chung; Hae-Young Lee; Cheol-Ho Kim; In-Whan Seung; Yung-Woo Shin; Myung-Ho Jeong; Myeong-Chan Cho; Byung-Hee Oh
Journal:  Korean Circ J       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 3.243

8.  Amlodipine and losartan: reaction to comparison.

Authors:  Gilbert Gleim; Ronald D Smith
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  Comparative effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of losartan + HCTZ versus bisoprolol + HCTZ in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension: results of the 6-month ELIZA trial.

Authors:  G D Radchenko; Y M Sirenko; S M Kushnir; O O Torbas; A S Dobrokhod
Journal:  Vasc Health Risk Manag       Date:  2013-09-27

10.  The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension.

Authors:  Robert A Phillips; Robert A Kloner; Richard H Grimm; Myron Weinberger
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.738

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.