Comparison of the novel angiotensin ii receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

Journal of Clinical Hypertension

Volumn 13, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 467-472

  Sica, Domenic ^a   White, William B ^b   Weber, Michael A ^c   Bakris, George L ^d   Perez, Alfonso ^e   Cao, Charlie ^e   Handley, Alison ^e   Kupfer, Stuart ^e  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c SUNY DOWNSTATE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^e TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; AZILSARTAN MEDOXOMIL; CREATININE; PLACEBO; VALSARTAN;

ADULT; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY; ARTHRALGIA; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING; BLOOD PRESSURE REGULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CREATINE KINASE BLOOD LEVEL; CREATININE BLOOD LEVEL; CREATININE CLEARANCE; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; DIZZINESS; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG DOSE TITRATION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG FATALITY; DRUG INDUCED HEADACHE; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERABILITY; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; FATIGUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPERKALEMIA; HYPERTENSION; LIVER ENZYME BLOOD LEVEL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; POTASSIUM BLOOD LEVEL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECOMMENDED DRUG DOSE; RHINOPHARYNGITIS; SIDE EFFECT; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; URINARY TRACT INFECTION;

AGE FACTORS; AGED; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; BENZIMIDAZOLES; BIOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY; BLOOD PRESSURE; BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING, AMBULATORY; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG TOXICITY; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OXADIAZOLES; SEX FACTORS; TETRAZOLES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALINE;

EID: 79960449344     PISSN: 15246175     EISSN: 17517176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00482.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Czernichow S, Zanchetti A, Turnbull F, et al; on behalf of the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists Collaboration. The effects of blood pressure reduction and of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events according to baseline blood pressure: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Hypertens. 2011;29:4-16.
2. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al; HOT Study Group. 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.
3. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Cushman WC, et al. for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure and the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on prevention, detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289:2560-2572.
4. Rosendorff C, Black HR, Cannon CP, et al; for the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research, the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention. Treatment of hypertension in the prevention and management of ischemic heart disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research and the Councils on Clinical Cardiology and Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation. 2007;115:2761-2788.
5. Heran BS, Wong MM, Heran IK, et al. Blood pressure lowering efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD003822.
6. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. BMJ. 2009;338:b1665.
7. McGill JB, Reilly PA. Telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide versus telmisartan or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Clin Ther. 2001;23:833-850.
8. Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al. for the LIFE Study Group. 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.
9. Weber MA, Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE trial. Lancet. 2004;363:2049-2051.
10. Cohn JN, Tognoni G; for the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial Investigators. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001;345:1667-1675.
11. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al. for the RENAAL Study Investigators. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:861-869.
12. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001;345:851-860.
13. Global Investigator's Brochure: TAK-491 Azilsartan Medoxomil, Edition 6.0. Deerfield, IL: Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc.; 2009.
14. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L, et al. Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measurement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension. 2005;46:156-161.
15. Smith DH. Comparison of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists in the treatment of essential hypertension. Drugs. 2008;68:1207-1225.
16. Vidt DG, White WB, Ridley E, et al; for the CLAIM Study Investigators. A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II. J Hum Hypertens. 2001;15:475-480.
17. Mallion J, Siche J, Lacourcière Y. ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 1999;13:657-664.
18. Kassler-Taub K, Littlejohn T, Elliott W, et al. Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Am J Hypertens. 1998;11(4 Pt 1):445-453.
19. Smith DH, Cramer MJ, Neutel JM, et al. Comparison of telmisartan versus losartan: meta-analysis of titration-to-response studies. Blood Press Monit. 2003;8:111-117.
20. Ojima M, Igata H, Tanaka M, et al. In vitro antagonistic properties of a new angiotensin type 1 receptor blocker, azilsartan, in receptor binding and function studies. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2011;336:801-808.
21. Bakris GL, Sica D, Weber M, et al. The comparative effects of azilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:81-88.
22. White WB, Weber MA, Sica D, et al. Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension. Hypertension. 2011;57:413-420.
23. Schoolwerth A, Sica DA, Ballermann BJ, et al. for the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease and the Council for High Blood Pressure Research of the American Heart Association. Renal considerations in angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapy: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease and the Council for High Blood Pressure Research of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001;104:1985-1991.