Antihypertensive Efficacy of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Candesartan Cilexetil in Achieving 24-Hour Blood Pressure Reductions and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Goals
- First Online:
- 67 Downloads
Background: For patients with hypertension, effective 24-hour blood pressure (BP) control is vital to ensure protection against the early morning surge in BP and the associated increased risk of cardiovascular events. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 24-hour antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (20mg once daily) compared with candesartan cilexetil (8mg once daily), with particular emphasis on BP control during the early morning period.
Methods: This is an additional analysis of a previously reported randomised, double-blind study in which 635 patients with mainly mild to moderate hypertension were randomised to 8 weeks of treatment with either olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day or candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/day. Changes from baseline during the last 4 and 2 hours of ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM) after 1, 2 and 8 weeks of treatment were compared between the two groups. In addition, the proportions of patients who achieved various ABPM goals, including those suggested by the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) [<125/80mm Hg] and the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) [<135/80mm Hg], over 24 hours, during the daytime and at the last 4 and 2 hours of ABPM measurement were also compared.
Results: After 8 weeks, significantly greater proportions of patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil 20mg achieved 24-hour and daytime ABPM goals recommended by the guidelines of the ESH/ESC (25.6% and 18.3%, respectively) and JSH (37.5% and 26.6%, respectively) compared with candesartan cilexetil 8mg (24-hour ESH/ESC goal = 14.9%, p < 0.001; 24-hour JSH goal = 26.6%, p = 0.003; daytime ESH/ESC goal = 9.6%, p = 0.002; daytime JSH goal = 16.4%, p = 0.002). During the last 4 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals were significantly greater with olmesartan medoxomil (33.3% and 39.1%, respectively) than with candesartan cilexetil (22.9%, p < 0.001 and 31.6%, p = 0.047, respectively). Similarly, during the last 2 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved these BP goals were either significantly greater (JSH) or approached statistical significance (ESH/ESC) with olmesartan medoxomil (26.9% and 19.9%, respectively) compared with candesartan cilexetil (19.6%, p = 0.028 and 14.3%, p = 0.061, respectively).
Conclusion: Compared with candesartan cilexetil 8mg, greater proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients (20mg) achieved ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals over 24 hours. The superior BP control of olmesartan medoxomil was also reflected in the larger proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals during the early morning surge period. This not only demonstrates that olmesartan medoxomil 20mg provides superior 24-hour BP reduction, but also suggests that olmesartan medoxomil may provide greater protection against the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with the early morning BP surge period.
- 3.World Health Organization. The World Health Report, 2002Google Scholar
- 10.Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 895–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Guidelines Committee, Japanese Society of Hypertension. 2004 Guidelines for the management of hypertension (in Japanese). Life Science Publishing Co., Ltd 2004Google Scholar
- 19.Oparil, S, Williams D, Chrysant SG, et al. Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2001; 3: 283–91, 318Google Scholar
- 20.Arakawa K. Significance of suppressing angiotensin by ARB [in Japanese, with abstract in English]. Progr Med 2004; 24: 1757–62Google Scholar
- 26.ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002; 288: 2981–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290: 2805–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar