A double-blind ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40 mg in comparison with losartan 50 mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension in Taiwanese patients

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

Angiotensin‐receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin‐receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin‐receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6‐12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20‐80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20‐40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160‐320 mg), but not candesartan (8‐16 mg), losartan (50‐100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24‐hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin‐receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.

How to Choose the Optimal Single-Pill Combination of the First-Line Antihypertensive Drugs? The Benefits of Amlodipine and Telmisartan Combination

In patients with arterial hypertension (AH), an extremely important measure of the effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs (AHD) is not only a direct decrease in blood pressure (BP), but also its stable control throughout the 24 hours, preventing excessive morning surge and increased BP variability, which in turn are recognized cardiovascular risk factors. Currently, in the vast majority of hypertensive patients, the main antihypertensive therapy approach is using single-pill combinations (SPC) of AHD. Among the first-line combinations for a wide range of patients with AH and no special clinical conditions is amlodipine/telmisartan SPC. Distinctive features of these drugs, on the one hand, are unique pharmacological properties, consisting in an ultra-long antihypertensive effects, superior to other AHD in their classes; and on the other hand, there is an large body of evidence from numerous clinical trials confirming their high antihypertensive and target-organ protective potential as well as excellent capabilities in cardiovascular risk reduction. To assess the AHD effectiveness extent, several parameters have been proposed, of which the most rational and useful is the smoothness index, calculated using the ambulatory blood pressure monitoring data. Smoothness index describes both the degree of BP reduction and its distribution during the monitoring period. This index inversely associates with the changes in BP variability, and has predictive value in relation to the hypertension-mediated organ damage regression during different antihypertensive regimens. Amlodipine/telmisartan SPC has also been studied in many trials, including comparative ones with other AHD. In these works its direct powerful antihypertensive effect and a pronounced beneficial impact on the smoothness index have been proved, demonstrating stable BP control throughout the 24 hours (especially in the most dangerous morning hours), and also a decrease in BP variability. Therefore, amlodipine/telmisartan SPC can effectively reduce cardiovascular risk and improve prognosis in patients with AH.

Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers as monotherapy as evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are available in different dosages and it is common clinical practice to uptitrate if blood pressure goal is not achieved with the initial dose. Data on the incremental antihypertensive efficacy with uptitration are scarce. It is also unclear if antihypertensive efficacy of losartan is comparable with other ARBs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically reviewed PubMed/EMBASE/Cochrane databases for all randomized clinical trials until December 2012 reporting 24 h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) for most commonly available ARBs in patients with hypertension. Reduction in ABP with ARBs was evaluated at 25% of the maximum (max) dose, 50% of the max dose, and at the max dose. Comparison was made between 24 h BP-lowering effect of losartan 50 and 100 mg and other ARBs at 50% max dose and the max dose, respectively. Sixty-two studies enrolling 15 289 patients (mean age 56 years; 60% men) with a mean duration of 10 weeks were included in the analysis. Overall, the dose-response curve with ARBs was shallow with decrease of 10.3/6.7 (systolic/diastolic), 11.7/7.6, and 13.0/8.3 mmHg with 25% max dose, 50% max dose, and with the max dose of ARBs, respectively. Losartan in the dose of 50 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at 50% max dose by 2.5 mmHg systolic (P < 0.0001) and 1.8 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.0003). Losartan 100 mg lowered ABP less well than other ARBs at max dose by 3.9 mm Hg systolic (P = 0.0002) and 2.2 mmHg diastolic (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

In this comprehensive analysis of the antihypertensive efficacy of ARBs by 24 h ABP, we observed a shallow dose-response curve, and uptitration marginally enhanced the antihypertensive efficacy. Blood pressure reduction with losartan at starting dose and at max dose was consistently inferior to the other ARBs.

A meta-analysis of randomized trials of telmisartan versus losartan for reduction of ambulatory blood pressure

A previous meta-analysis of a few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggests a significant reduction in ambulatory blood pressure (BP) with telmisartan as compared with losartan monotherapy. We performed an updated meta-analysis of RCTs of telmisartan versus losartan therapy for reduction of ambulatory BP in patients with hypertension. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through July 2012 using PubMed and OVID. Eligible studies were RCTs of telmisartan versus valsartan therapy enrolling individuals with hypertension and reporting ambulatory BP as an outcome. For each study, data regarding changes from baseline in ambulatory (24 h, last 6 h, morning, daytime and nighttime) BP in both the telmisartan and losartan groups were used to generate mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Of 34 potentially relevant articles screened initially, 9 reports of RCTs enrolling a total of 2409 patients with hypertension were identified and included. Pooled analysis suggested significant reductions in all of 24-h (MD of systolic/diastolic BP, -2.09/-1.57 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.39/-2.32 to -0.79/-0.82 mm Hg), last 6-h (-2.96/-2.15 mm Hg; -3.80/-2.72 to -2.13/-1.59 mm Hg), morning (-2.71/-2.37 mm Hg; -3.73/-3.33 to -1.69/-1.41 mm Hg), daytime (-1.74/-1.73 mm Hg; -3.27/-2.84 to -0.20/-0.62 mm Hg) and nighttime BP (-2.70/-2.08 mm Hg; -4.07/-3.24 to -1.33/-0.92 mm Hg) among patients randomized to telmisartan versus losartan therapy. In conclusion, telmisartan therapy appears to reduce ambulatory BP more than losartan therapy in patients with hypertension.

What is a preferred angiotensin II receptor blocker-based combination therapy for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with diabetic and non-diabetic renal impairment?

Hypertension has a major associated risk for organ damage and mortality, which is further heightened in patients with prior cardiovascular (CV) events, comorbid diabetes mellitus, microalbuminuria and renal impairment. Given that most patients with hypertension require at least two antihypertensives to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, identifying the most appropriate combination regimen based on individual risk factors and comorbidities is important for risk management. Single-pill combinations (SPCs) containing two or more antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action offer potential advantages over free-drug combinations, including simplification of treatment regimens, convenience and reduced costs. The improved adherence and convenience resulting from SPC use is recognised in updated hypertension guidelines. Despite a wide choice of SPCs for hypertension treatment, clinical evidence from direct head-to-head comparisons to guide selection for individual patients is lacking. However, in patients with evidence of renal disease or at greater risk of developing renal disease, such as those with diabetes mellitus, microalbuminura and high-normal BP or overt hypertension, guidelines recommend renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker-based combination therapy due to superior renoprotective effects compared with other antihypertensive classes. Furthermore, RAS inhibitors attenuate the oedema and renal hyperfiltration associated with calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy, making them a good choice for combination therapy. The occurrence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-induced cough supports the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for RAS blockade rather than ACE inhibitors. In this regard, ARB-based SPCs are available in combination with the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or the calcium CCB, amlodipine. Telmisartan, a long-acting ARB with preferential pharmacodynamic profile compared with several other ARBs, and the only ARB with an indication for the prevention of CV disease progression, is available in two SPC formulations, telmisartan/HCTZ and telmisartan/amlodipine. Clinical studies suggest that in CV high-risk patients and those with evidence of renal disease, the use of an ARB/CCB combination may be preferred to ARB/HCTZ combinations due to superior renoprotective and CV benefits and reduced metabolic side effects in patients with concomitant metabolic disorders. However, selection of the most appropriate antihypertensive combination should be dependent on careful review of the individual patient and appropriate consideration of drug pharmacology.

Telmisartan: a different angiotensin II receptor blocker protecting a different population?

The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET()) showed that the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) telmisartan was as protective as the reference-standard ramipril in a broad cross-section of patients at increased cardiovascular risk, but was better tolerated. Telmisartan has a unique profile among ARBs, with a high affinity for the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, a long duration of receptor binding, a high lipophilicity and a long plasma half life. This leads to sustained and powerful blood pressure lowering when compared with the first marketed ARBs, such as losartan and valsartan. Some pharmacological properties of telmisartan clearly distinguish it from other members of the ARB class and may contribute to the clinical effects seen with telmisartan. A class effect for ARBs cannot be assumed. To date, telmisartan is the only ARB that has been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in at-risk cardiovascular patients.

New standards in hypertension and cardiovascular risk management: focus on telmisartan

Blockade of the renin–angiotensin system is an important approach in managing high blood pressure, and has increasingly been shown to affect cardiovascular disease processes mediated by angiotensin II throughout the cardiovascular and renal continua. Telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) displaying unique pharmacologic properties, including a longer half life than any other ARB, that result in large and sustained reductions of blood pressure. In patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, telmisartan has proved superior to other antihypertensive agents (valsartan, losartan, ramipril, perindopril, and atenolol) in controlling blood pressure particularly towards the end of the dosing interval. There is also clinical evidence that telmisartan reduces left ventricular hypertrophy, reduces arterial stiffness and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and confers renoprotection. The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET^®) study has demonstrated that telmisartan has similar cardiovascular protective effects to ramipril in a large, high-risk patient population but was better tolerated. The powerful and sustained blood pressure control apparent in clinical trials, together with cardiovascular protection and tolerability demonstrated in ONTARGET^® means that telmisartan may be a preferred option for patients with hypertension.

Antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan vs ramipril over the 24-h dosing period, including the critical early morning hours: a pooled analysis of the PRISMA I and II randomized trials

Cardiovascular risk is subject to circadian variation, with peak morning incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke correlating with the early morning blood pressure (BP) surge (EMBPS). Ideally, antihypertensive therapy should maintain control of BP throughout the 24-h dosing cycle. In two sister studies, Prospective, Randomized Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of Micardis vs Ramipril Using ABPM (ambulatory BP monitoring) (PRISMA) I and II, BP control was compared in patients with essential hypertension (24-h mean baseline ambulatory BP approximately 148/93 mm Hg) randomized to the angiotensin receptor blocker, telmisartan (80 mg; n=802), or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril (5 or 10 mg; n=811), both dosed in the morning. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the final 6 h of the 24-h dosing cycle. The adjusted mean treatment differences in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were -5.8/-4.2 mm Hg after 8 weeks and -4.1/-3.0 mm Hg after 14 weeks, in favour of telmisartan (P<0.0001 for all four comparisons). Secondary end point results, including the mean 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, day- and night-time BP and 24-h BP load, also significantly favoured telmisartan (P<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated; adverse events, including cough, were less common with telmisartan. These findings suggest that telmisartan is more effective than ramipril throughout the 24-h period and during the EMBPS; this may be attributable to telmisartan's long duration of effect, which is sustained throughout the 24-h dosing period.

Comparison of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of essential hypertension

Hypertension is a major health problem worldwide, yet remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) are highly effective at reducing blood pressure (BP), exhibit renoprotective properties and have placebo-like tolerability. However, it is unclear whether there are clinical differences in efficacy and tolerability between the available ARBs. A review of published, randomized, comparative clinical trials suggests that differences in BP-lowering efficacy and 24-hour BP control may exist between ARBs, although it appears that there is no evidence for important differences in tolerability between ARBs. Few studies have assessed attainment rates for important combined systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) goals recommended in treatment guidelines. Likewise, few studies have directly compared more than two agents or ARB/hydrochlorothiazide fixed-dose combinations, and most ARBs have not been compared across their full recommended dosage ranges. Overall, there is insufficient weight of evidence to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of the available ARBs. However, newer ARBs (e.g. olmesartan medoxomil and telmisartan) appear to be more effective than older ARBs (e.g. losartan and valsartan) in reducing DBP and/or SBP in some trials. In addition, olmesartan medoxomil treatment regimens resulted in high BP control rates in several trials, but head-to-head trials with other ARBs are required to put these control rates into perspective, especially for SBP control with various agents. The purpose of this review is to present published data from ARB efficacy trials for a comparison of various efficacy parameters among the agents within this drug class.

Review: Cardioprotective effects of telmisartan in uncomplicated and complicated hypertension

The development of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) as a new class of drugs for the management of hypertension has elicited the attention of many clinicians worldwide with the aim of improving blood pressure (BP) control as well as cardiovascular protection.AmongARB telmisartan has been shown to be characterised by an antihypertensive efficacy fully covering the 24-hour period, thereby allowing to antagonise the adverse effects of early morning BP rise on cardiovascular risk. Other specific effects of the drug are represented by its favourable metabolic profile (particularly on insulin sensitivity) and neutral effects on sympathetic cardiovascular function.These properties are coupled with cardioprotective effects, documented by the evidence that the drug: 1) is effective in favouring the regression of cardiac and vascular organ damage, 2) reduces arterial stiffness and improves vascular distensibility and 3) reverses the endothelial dysfunction typical of the hypertensive state particularly when complicated by renal failure, diabetes, obesity or metabolic syndrome. Several of these properties can account for the results of the ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET), documenting the beneficial effects on the drug on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing telmisartan with losartan in the treatment of patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and data regarding the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan compared with losartan on blood pressure (BP) control in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Pertinent studies were selected through extensive searches of PubMed (1966 to 29 December 2007), Embase (1980 to 29 December 2007), and the Cochrane library (29 December 2007). Randomized clinical trials comparing telmisartan with losartan in patients with hypertension were selected using predefined criteria. The main efficacy measures were reduction in diastolic and systolic BP (DBP and SBP), and therapeutic response of DBP and SBP. The pooled estimates were carried out using RevMan version 4.2 software.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 1,832 patients were included in the analysis. Ten trials with 1,792 patients reported reduction in clinic BP; six trials with 1,163 patients reported ambulatory BP reduction; seven trials with 1,675 patients reported therapeutic response of BP. Funnel plots indicated that one trial had true heterogeneity. Use of telmisartan resulted in a significant reduction in clinic DBP (weighted mean difference 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-2.19) and SBP (2.77, 1.90-3.63) when compared with losartan. There was also a significant reduction in 24-h mean ambulatory DBP (2.49, 0.56-4.42) and SBP (2.47, 0.40-4.55) with telmisartan as compared to losartan. There was also a significant increase in therapeutic response of DBP (relative risk (RR) 1.14, 1.04-1.23) and SBP response (1.10, 1.01-1.20) with telmisartan as compared to losartan. Both telmisartan and losartan were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with losartan, telmisartan provides superior control of BP and has no association with increased risk of adverse events.

Antihypertensive activity of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists: a systematic review of studies with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the antihypertensive activity of the angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists (ARB).

METHODS

Studies in which blood pressure (BP) was measured using ambulatory BP monitoring for at least 24 h were collected from MEDLINE. Data for each treatment group, ARB, placebo or the drug used for its comparison were obtained from the selected studies. Only studies with a minimum of quality criteria were selected. The final study group contained 36 publications, with a total of 47 patient cohorts receiving ARB in monotherapy, 10 with placebo, 10 with amlodipine, and five with enalapril. The reduction in clinical and ambulatory BP during 24 h, day, night and the last 4-h period for each of the drugs analysed were calculated and adjusted by age, sex, number of participants and by the initial BP level.

RESULTS

The global antihypertensive activity of ARB differs from that observed with amlodipine in the sense that the magnitude of the reduction in the BP values does not essentially depend on the initial BP values nor on the dose used. When only ARB were considered, the drug used was a determinant for systolic BP reduction, whereas for diastolic BP the influence was on the BP reduction and the duration of the antihypertensive activity. The dose used had a particular influence on the duration of the antihypertensive activity for both systolic and diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Among the ARB, the influence is on duration more than on the magnitude of BP reduction. Dose, therefore, is an important factor in the duration of antihypertensive activity.