Division of Nephrology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA.
Postgrad Med. 2011 Jan;123(1):80-7. doi: 10.3810/pgm.2011.01.2248.
To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of once-daily olmesartan medoxomil (OM) and losartan potassium (LOS) in patients with hypertension.
This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, forced-titration study. After a 3-week placebo run-in, 941 patients were randomized in an 8:1:9 ratio to once-daily treatment with OM (20 mg for 4 weeks, then OM 40 mg for 4 weeks [n = 420]), placebo plus OM (placebo for 2 weeks, then OM 20 mg for 2 weeks and OM 40 mg for 4 weeks [n = 52]), or LOS (50 mg for 4 weeks, then LOS 100 mg for 4 weeks [n = 469]). A subset of 246 patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in trough seated cuff diastolic BP (SeDBP) at week 8. Secondary endpoints were mean changes from baseline in trough SeDBP at week 4 and seated systolic BP (SeSBP) at weeks 4 and 8. Tertiary endpoints included change from baseline in mean 24-hour ambulatory BP at weeks 4 and 8 and percentage of patients achieving seated cuff BP (SeBP) goal of < 140/90 mm Hg and mean 24-hour ambulatory BP target of < 130/80 mm Hg at weeks 4 and 8.
At week 8, least-squares (LS) mean (± standard error) SeDBP reductions from baseline were 9.7 ± 0.5 and 7.1 ± 0.5 mm Hg (treatment difference: -2.5 ± 0.6 mm Hg; P < 0.0001) and LS mean SeSBP reductions were 13.6 ± 0.7 and 9.7 ± 0.7 mm Hg (treatment difference: -3.9 ± 1.0 mm Hg; P = 0.0001) for OM versus LOS, respectively. A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving OM reached SeBP goal of < 140/90 mm Hg at week 8. There was a similar incidence of adverse events with OM and LOS.
Treatment with low- and high-dose OM achieved superior SeBP reductions compared with low- and high-dose LOS, resulting in significantly more patients achieving SeBP goal, with similar tolerability.
评估奥美沙坦酯(OM)与氯沙坦钾(LOS)每日 1 次给药治疗高血压患者的疗效和安全性。
这是一项多中心、前瞻性、随机、双盲、阳性对照、剂量滴定研究。在为期 3 周的安慰剂导入期后,941 例患者按 8:1:9 的比例随机分为每日 1 次接受 OM(20mg 治疗 4 周,然后 40mg 治疗 4 周[420 例])、安慰剂+OM(安慰剂治疗 2 周,然后 20mg 治疗 2 周和 40mg 治疗 4 周[52 例])或 LOS(50mg 治疗 4 周,然后 100mg 治疗 4 周[469 例])。246 例患者进行了动态血压(BP)监测。主要终点为治疗 8 周时谷值坐位袖带舒张压(SeDBP)的平均变化。次要终点为治疗 4 周和 8 周时谷值坐位收缩压(SeSBP)的平均变化。次要终点包括治疗 4 周和 8 周时 24 小时动态 BP 的平均变化,以及治疗 4 周和 8 周时坐位袖带 BP 目标值<140/90mmHg 和 24 小时动态 BP 目标值<130/80mmHg 的患者比例。
治疗 8 周时,最小二乘(LS)均值(±标准误)SeDBP 自基线的降低值分别为 9.7±0.5mmHg 和 7.1±0.5mmHg(治疗差异:-2.5±0.6mmHg;P<0.0001),LS 均值 SeSBP 降低值分别为 13.6±0.7mmHg 和 9.7±0.7mmHg(治疗差异:-3.9±1.0mmHg;P=0.0001)。与 LOS 相比,接受 OM 治疗的患者在治疗 8 周时达到坐位收缩压目标值<140/90mmHg 的比例显著更高。OM 和 LOS 的不良反应发生率相似。
低剂量和高剂量 OM 治疗可显著降低坐位舒张压,与低剂量和高剂量 LOS 相比,显著有更多患者达到坐位舒张压目标值,且耐受性相似。