Department of Internal Medicine, Ospedale L. Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
J Hypertens. 2010 Nov;28(11):2342-50. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e32833e116b.
To compare the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil (O) and the ACE inhibitor ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.
After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1102 treated or untreated elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and/or office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once-daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks doses could be doubled in non-normalized [blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg for nondiabetic and < 130/80 mmHg for diabetic) individuals, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office BPs were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment, whereas 24-h ambulatory BP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks.
In the intention-to-treat population (542 patients O and 539 R) after 12 weeks of treatment baseline-adjusted office SBP and DBP reductions were greater (P < 0.01) with O [17.8 (95% confidence interval: 16.8/18.9) and 9.2 (8.6/9.8) mmHg] than with R [15.7 (14.7/16.8) and 7.7 (7.1/8.3) mmHg]. BP normalization rate was also greater under O (52.6 vs. 46.0% R, P < 0.05). In the subgroup of patients with valid ambulatory BP recording (318 O and 312 R) the reduction in 24-h average BP was larger (P < 0.05) with O [SBP: 11.0 (12.2/9.9) and DBP: 6.5 (7.2/5.8) mmHg] than with R [9.0 (10.2/7.9) and 5.4 (6.1/4.7) mmHg]. The larger blood pressure reduction obtained with O was particularly evident in the last 6 h from the dosing interval; a better homogeneity of the 24-h BP control with O was confirmed by higher smoothness indices. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (3.6 O vs. 3.6% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side effect (14 O vs. 19 R).
In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated BP control, representing a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.
比较血管紧张素Ⅱ拮抗剂奥美沙坦酯(O)和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂雷米普利(R)在老年原发性高血压患者中的疗效和安全性。
在 2 周安慰剂洗脱期后,1102 名未经治疗或接受治疗的 65-89 岁老年高血压患者(诊室坐位舒张压,DBP,90-109mmHg 和/或诊室坐位收缩压,SBP,140-179mmHg)被随机双盲分为 12 周奥美沙坦酯 10mg 或雷米普利 2.5mg 每日一次治疗。在最初 2 周和 6 周后,非正常血压[非糖尿病患者血压(BP)<140/90mmHg,糖尿病患者血压<130/80mmHg]的患者可将剂量加倍,奥美沙坦酯最高剂量为 40mg,雷米普利为 10mg。在随机分组时、治疗 2 周和 6 周后评估诊室血压,治疗 12 周后记录 24 小时动态血压。
在意向治疗人群(542 例奥美沙坦酯患者和 539 例雷米普利患者)中,治疗 12 周后,经基线校正的诊室 SBP 和 DBP 降低幅度更大(P<0.01),奥美沙坦酯组分别为 17.8mmHg(95%可信区间:16.8/18.9)和 9.2mmHg(8.6/9.8),而雷米普利组分别为 15.7mmHg(14.7/16.8)和 7.7mmHg(7.1/8.3)。奥美沙坦酯组的血压正常化率也更高(52.6% vs. 46.0%雷米普利,P<0.05)。在有有效 24 小时动态血压记录的亚组患者(318 例奥美沙坦酯患者和 312 例雷米普利患者)中,24 小时平均 BP 的降低幅度更大(P<0.05),奥美沙坦酯组为 SBP:11.0mmHg(12.2/9.9)和 DBP:6.5mmHg(7.2/5.8),而雷米普利组为 SBP:9.0mmHg(10.2/7.9)和 DBP:5.4mmHg(6.1/4.7)。奥美沙坦酯组的血压降低幅度明显大于雷米普利组,尤其是在最后 6 小时的给药间隔内;奥美沙坦酯组的平滑指数更高,表明 24 小时 BP 控制更均匀。两组患者因药物相关不良事件停药的比例相当(奥美沙坦酯组 3.6% vs. 雷米普利组 3.6%),因不良反应停药的患者数量也相当(奥美沙坦酯组 14 例 vs. 雷米普利组 19 例)。
在老年原发性高血压患者中,奥美沙坦酯可提供有效的、持久的和耐受良好的血压控制,是该年龄组高血压一线治疗药物的一个有用选择。