BLOOD PRESSURE-LOWERING EFFICACY OF OLMESARTAN RELATIVE TO OTHER ANGIOTENSIN II RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS: AN OVERVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDIES
Abstract
The aim of the present work was to review published studies, investigating the dose-related efficacy on blood pressure (BP) of olmesartan and of other commercially available angiotensin II type I receptor blockers (ARBs). Patient population comprised mild to moderate hypertensive adult patients. We selected studies with comparable design and dose ranges. Dose-effect relationship plots were fitted for diastolic (DBP) and systolic (SBP) BP to the simplified Emax model. We also examined controlled studies of olmesartan vs. other individual ARBs. Our overview was based on 7280 patients, of whom 5769 received an ARB, and 1511 received placebo. Except for losartan, the data fitted correctly to the Emax model, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.77 to 0.99. BP-lowering efficacy defined as Emax was superior with olmesartan, (DBP/SBP, mmHg: -9,0/-12,4) when compared with candesartan (-6,7/-11,3), irbesartan (-6,5/-11,2), and valsartan (-6,3/-8,9). Head-to-head comparisons of olmesartan to each of the other ARBs used at per-label “recommended doses” support the finding of a greater BP-lowering effect of olmesartan. This overview suggests that clinically relevant differences in maximal efficacy, as well as in efficacy of per-label recommended doses can be evidenced among individual ARBs. Olmesartan efficacy was consistently at the highest end of the range of efficacy of ARBs studied.
About the Authors
Faiez Zannad
Division of Hypertension and Preventive Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Hôpital Jeanne d’Arc, France
France
France
Renaud Fay
Division of Hypertension and Preventive Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Hôpital Jeanne d’Arc, France
France
France
References
1. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials // Lancet (2003) 362 1527–1535.
2. Mac Mahon S., Peto R., Cutler J. et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease; part 1, prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias // Lancet (1990) 335 765–774.
3. Staessen J.A., Wang J.G., Thijs L. Cardiovascular prevention and blood pressure reduction: a quantitative overview updated until 1 March 2003 // J. Hypertens. (2003) 2 1055–1076.
4. Egger M., Smith G.D. Meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies // BMJ (1998) 316 61–66.
5. Dahlo¨f B., Devereux R.B., Kjeldsen S.E. et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomized trial against atenolol//Lancet (2002) 359 995–1003.
6. Brunner H.R., Gavras H. Angiotensin blockade for hypertension: a promise fulfilled. Lancet (2002) 359 990–992.
7. Belz G.G. Angiotensin II dose-effect curves and Schild regression plots for characterization of different angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists in clinical pharmacology//Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (2003) 56 3–10.
8. Mancia G. Clinical differences among angiotensin II receptor antagonists // Blood Press. (2001) 2(Suppl.) 19–24.
9. Meredith P.A. Clinical comparative trials of angiotensin II type 1 (AT1)-receptor blockers // Blood Press. (2001) 3(Suppl.) 11–17.
10. Hansson L., Zanchetti A., Carruthers S.G. et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the hypertension optimal treatment (HOT) randomized trial// Lancet (1998) 351 1755– 1762.
11. Elmfeldt D., Olofsson B., Meredith P. The relationships between dose and antihypertensive effect of four AT1-receptor blockers. Differences in potency and efficacy // Blood Press. (2002) 11 293–301.
12. Gradman A.H. AT (1)-receptor blockers: differences that matter // J. Hum. Hypertens. (2002) 16(Suppl. 3) S9–S16.
13. Oparil S., Dyke S., Harris F. et al. The efficacy and safety of valsartan compared with placebo in the treatment of patients with essential hypertension // Clin. Ther. (1996) 18 797–810.
14. Burnier M., Brunner H.R. Angiotensin II receptor antagonists // Lancet (2000) 355 637–645.
15. Hansson L. The relationship between dose and antihypertensive effect for different AT1-receptor blockers // Blood Press. (2001) 10(Suppl. 3) 33–39.
16. Hobbs F.D.R., Irwin P., Rubner J. Evidence-based treatment of hypertension: what’s the role of angiotensin II receptor blockers? // Br. J. Cardiol. (2005) 12 65–70.
17. Brousil J.A., Burke J.M. Olmesartan medoxomil: an angiotensin II-receptor blocker. Clin. Ther. (2003) 25 1041–1055.
18. Whittaker A. A review of olmesartan medoxomil: a new angiotensin II receptor blocker // Br. J. Cardiol. (2005) 12 125–129.
19. Nies A.S. Principles of therapeutics, in: Goodman and Gilman’s. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 10th edn., McGraw-Hill Press, New York, 2001, pp. 45–66.
20. European Medicines Agency – Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. Note for guidance on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment of hypertension, 2004. EMEA. CPMP/EWP/238/95 Rev. 2. London, 23 June.
21. Brunner H.R., Menard J., Waeber B. et al. Treating the individual hypertensive patient: considerations on dose, sequential monotherapy and drug combinations//J. Hypertens. (1990) 8 3–11.
22. Oates J.A., Brown N. Antihypertensive agents and the drug therapy of hypertension, in: Hardman J.G., Limbird L.E. (Eds), Goodman and Gilman’s. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics, 10th edn., McGraw-Hill Press, New York, 2001.
23. Pu¨chler K., Laies P., Stumpe K.O. Blood pressure response, but no adverse event incidence, correlates with dose of angiotensin II antagonist // J. Hypertens. (2001) 19(Suppl. 1) S41–S48.
24. Reif M., White W.B., Fagan T.C. et al. Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with systemic hypertension. Am. J. Cardiol. (1998) 82 961–965.
25. Reeves R.A., Lin C.S., Kassler-Taub K., Pouleur H. Dose-related efficacy of irbesartan for hypertension. An integrated analysis // Hypertension (1998) 31 1311–1316.
26. Gradman A.H., Arcuri K.E., Goldberg A.I. et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel study of various doses of losartan potassium compared with enalapril maleate in patients with essential hypertension // Hypertension (1995) 25 1345–1350.
27. Stumpe K.O., Ludwig M. Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan compared with other antihypertensive drugs // J. Hum. Hypertens. (2002) 16(Suppl. 2) S24–S28.
28. Oparil S., Williams D., Chrysant S., Marbury T., Neutel J. Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension // J. Clin. Hypertens. (2001) 3 283–291, 318.
29. Brunner H.R., Stumpe K.O., Januszewicz A. Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with essential hypertension // Clin. Drug Invest. (2003) 23 419–430.
30. Smith D., Dubiel R., Jones M. Use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess antihypertensive efficacy: a comparison of olmesartan medoxomil, losartan potassium, valsartan and irbesartan // Am. J. Cardiovacs. Drugs (2005) 5 41–50.
31. Norwood D., Branch E., Smith B., Honeywell M. Olmesartan medoxomil for hypertension: a clinical review // Drug Forecast. (2002) 27 611–618.
32. Oparil S. Newly emerging pharmacologic differences in angiotensin II receptor blockers // Am. J. Hypertens. (2000) 13 (Suppl 1) 18S–24S.
33. Stumpe K.O. Olmesartan compared with other angiotensin II receptor antagonists: head-to-head trials // Clin. Ther. (2004) 26(Suppl. A) A33–A37.
34. Julius S., Kjeldsen S., Weber M. et al. for the Value trial group. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomized trial // Lancet (2004) 363 2022–2031.
35. Whelton P.K. Epidemiology and the prevention of hypertension // J. Clin. Hypertens. (2004) 6 636–642.
36. Cook N.R., Cohen J., Hebert P.R., Taylor J.O., Hennekens C.H. Implications of small reductions in diastolic blood pressure for primary prevention // Arch. Intern. Med. (1995) 155 701–709.
37. SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension; final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP) // JAMA (1991) 2645 3255– 3264.
38. Poulter N.R., Wedel H., Dahlo¨f B. et al. Role of blood pressure and other variables in the differential cardiovascular event rates noted in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) // Lancet (2005) 366 907–913.
Review
For citations:
Zannad F., Fay R. BLOOD PRESSURE-LOWERING EFFICACY OF OLMESARTAN RELATIVE TO OTHER ANGIOTENSIN II RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS: AN OVERVIEW OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED STUDIES. Russian Journal of Cardiology. 2010;(4):106-114. (In Russ.)
Views:
606
Email this article 