Calvo Carlos, Hermida Ramón C, Ayala Diana E, Ruilope Luis M
Hypertension and Vascular Risk Unit, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Santiago de Compostela, Madrid, Spain.
J Hypertens. 2004 Apr;22(4):837-46. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200404000-00028.
This trial investigated and compared the antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan and valsartan, two angiotensin II receptor blockers, used in monotherapy at their maximum recommended dose in hypertensive patients.
We studied 70 subjects (32 men and 38 women) aged 47.6 +/- 12.2 (mean +/- SD) years, with mild to moderate essential hypertension; they were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy with either telmisartan (80 mg) or valsartan (160 mg), in the form of a single daily tablet upon awakening. Blood pressure was measured by ambulatory monitoring every 20 min during the day and every 30 min at night for 48 consecutive hours before and after 3 months of treatment. Physical activity was simultaneously monitored every minute by wrist actigraphy to calculate accurately the diurnal and nocturnal means of blood pressure on a per subject basis.
There was a highly significant blood pressure reduction during the 24 h with both drugs. The blood pressure reduction in the 24-h mean was significantly larger for valsartan 160 mg (18.6 and 12.1 mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively) than for telmisartan 80 mg (10.8 and 8.4 mmHg; P < 0.001 between treatment-groups). There was also a highly significant reduction (P < 0.001) of 6.5 mmHg in the 24-h mean of pulse pressure after valsartan administration only. The trough : peak ratio and the smoothness index were slightly higher in systolic, but similar in diastolic blood pressure, for telmisartan as compared to valsartan.
Despite a shorter half-life, 160 mg/day valsartan was more effective in lowering blood pressure over 24 h than 80 mg/day telmisartan. Furthermore, valsartan was also more effective in lowering arterial pulse pressure, an observation that may have important therapeutic implications, given the mounting evidence that pulse pressure may be a risk factor for future cardiovascular events.
本试验研究并比较了替米沙坦和缬沙坦这两种血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂在高血压患者中以最大推荐剂量单药治疗时的降压疗效。
我们研究了70名年龄在47.6±12.2(均值±标准差)岁的受试者(32名男性和38名女性),患有轻度至中度原发性高血压;他们被随机分配接受替米沙坦(80毫克)或缬沙坦(160毫克)单药治疗,晨起时每日服用一片。在治疗3个月前后,连续48小时通过动态监测每20分钟测量一次白天血压,每30分钟测量一次夜间血压。同时通过手腕活动记录仪每分钟监测一次身体活动,以便准确计算每位受试者的昼夜平均血压。
两种药物在24小时内均使血压显著降低。缬沙坦160毫克组24小时平均血压降低幅度(收缩压和舒张压分别为18.6和12.1毫米汞柱)显著大于替米沙坦80毫克组(10.8和8.4毫米汞柱;治疗组之间P<0.001)。仅服用缬沙坦后,24小时平均脉压也显著降低了6.5毫米汞柱(P<0.001)。与缬沙坦相比,替米沙坦的谷峰比值和平滑指数在收缩压方面略高,但在舒张压方面相似。
尽管缬沙坦半衰期较短,但每天160毫克缬沙坦在24小时内降压效果比每天80毫克替米沙坦更有效。此外,缬沙坦在降低动脉脉压方面也更有效,鉴于越来越多的证据表明脉压可能是未来心血管事件的危险因素,这一观察结果可能具有重要的治疗意义。