Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil in achieving 24-hour blood pressure reductions and ambulatory blood pressure goals

Background. For patients with hypertension, effective 24-hour blood pressure (BP) control is vital to ensure protection against the early morning surge in BP and the associated increased risk of cardiovascular events. The aim of this analysis was to assess the 24-hour antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg once daily) compared with candesartan cilexetil (8 mg once daily), with particular emphasis on BP control during the early morning period.
Methods. This is an additional analysis of a previously reported randomised, double-blind study in which 635 patients with mainly mild to moderate hypertension were randomised to 8 weeks of treatment with either olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg/day or candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/day. Changes from baseline during the last 4 and 2 hours of ambulatory BP measurement (ABPM) after 1, 2 and 8 weeks of treatment were compared between the two groups. In addition, the proportions of patients who achieved various ABPM goals, including those suggested by the European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) [<125/80 mm Hg] and the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) [<135/80 mm Hg], over 24 hours, during the daytime and at the last 4 and 2 hours of ABPM measurement were also compared.
Results. After 8 weeks, significantly greater proportions of patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg achieved 24-hour and daytime ABPM goals recommended by the guidelines of the ESH/ESC (25,6 % and 18,3 %, respectively) and JSH (37,5 % and 26,6 %, respectively) compared with candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (24-hour ESH/ESC goal 14,9 %, p<0,001; 24-hour JSH goal 26,6 %, p=0,003; daytime ESH/ESC goal 9,6 %, p=0,002; daytime JSH goal 16,4 %, p=0,002). During the last 4 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals were significantly greater with olmesartan medoxomil (33,3 % and 39,1 %, respectively) than with candesartan cilexetil (22,9 %, p<0,001 and 31,6 %, p=0,047, respectively). Similarly, during the last 2 hours of 24-hour ABPM, the proportions of patients who achieved these BP goals were either significantly greater (JSH) or approached statistical significance (ESH/ESC) with olmesartan medoxomil (26,9 % and 19,9 %, respectively), compared with candesartan cilexetil (19,6 %, p=0,028 and 14,3 %, p=0,061, respectively).
Conclusion. Compared with candesartan cilexetil 8 mg, greater proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients (20 mg) achieved ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals over 24 hours. The superior BP control of olmesartan medoxomil was also reflected in the larger proportions of olmesartan medoxomil-treated patients who achieved the ESH/ESC and JSH ABPM goals during the early morning surge period. This not only demonstrates that olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg provides superior 24-hour BP reduction, but also suggests that olmesartan medoxomil may provide greater protection against the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with the early morning BP surge period.

1. Ezzatl M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al. Selected major risk factors andglobaland regional burdenof disease. Lancet 2002; 360: 1347-60.

2. Kannel WB. Blood pressure as a cardiovascular risk factor: preventionand treatment, JAMA 1996; 275: 1571-6.

3. World Health Organization. The WorldHealth Report, 2002.

4. White WB.Circadian variation of bloodpressure: clinical relevance and implicationsfor cardiovascularchronothcrapeutics. Blood Press Monit 1997; 2: 47-51.

5. Millar-CraigMW, CN Bishop, Raftery EB. Circadian variation of blood-pressure. Lancet 1978; I: 795-7.

6. Anwar YA, White WB. Chronotherapeutics for cardiovascular disease. Drugs 1998; 55: 631-43.

7. White WB. Cardiovascularrisk and therapeuticintervention for the early morningsurge inblood pressureand heart rate. Blood Press Monit 2001; 6: 63-72.

8. Neul B, MacMahon S, ChapmanN. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calciumantagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomlsed trials. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet 2000; 356: 1955-64.

9. UKPDS. Tight bloodpressurecontroland risk of macrovascular and microvascularcomplications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. BMJ 1998; 317: 703-13.

10. , DahlofB, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflurnethlazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac OutcomesTrinl-Blood PressureLoweringArm (ASCOT. BPLA): a multicentre randornised controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 895-906.

11. European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology. 2003 European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the managementof arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1011-53.

12. Guidelines Committee. Japanese Society of Hypertension. 2004 Guidelines for the managementof hypertension (in Japanese). Life Science Publishing Co., Ltd 2004.

13. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. 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: 2560-72.

14. McGrath BP. Is white-coat hypertension innocent? [Letter]. Lancet 1996; 348: 630 IS.

15. Clement DL, De Buyzerc ML, De Bacquer DA, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory blood-pressure recordings inpatients with treated hypertension. N Engl J Med2003; 348: 2407-15.

16. Staessen JA. Thijs L, Fagard R, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk using conventionalvs ambulatoryblood pressure in older patients with systolic hypertension, Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. JAMA J999; 282: 539-46.

17. Maneia G, Parati G. Office compared with ambulatory blood pressure ln assesslug responseto antihypertensive treatment: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens 2004; 22: 435-45.

18. Brunner HR, Stumpe KO, Januszewicz A. Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan eilexetil assessedby 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with essential hypertension. Clin Drug Invest 2003; 23: 419-30.

19. Oparil S, Williams D, Chrysant SG, et al. Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartanin the control of essential hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2001; 3: 283-91, 318.

20. Arakawa K. Significance of suppressing angiotensin by ARB [in Japanese, with abstract in English]. Progr Med 2004; 24: 1757-62.

21. Muller JE, Stone PH, Turi ZG, et al. Circadian variation in the frequency of onset of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1985; 313: 1315-22.

22. Wllllch SN, Levy D, Rocco MD, et al. Circadian variation in the incidence of sudden cardiac death in the Framingham Heart Study population. Am J Cardio11987; 60: 801-6.

23. Smith DH, Dubiel R, Jones M. Useof 24-houl’ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess antihypertensive efficacy: a comparison of olmesartan medoxomil, losartanpotassium, valsartnn, and irbesnrtan. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2005; 5: 41-50.

24. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomlsed trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755-62.

25. Weber MA, Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatmenton clinical events in the VALUE trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 2049-51.

26. ALLHATO fficersand Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to anglotensin-converting enzymeinhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive lind Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002; 288: 2981-97.

27. Dahlof B, Devereux RH, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995-1003.

28. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. Acalcium antagonistvsa non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease, The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (IN VEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290: 2805-16.

29. Singer GM, Izhar M, Black HR. Goal-oriented hypertension management: translating clinical trials to practice. Hypertension 2002; 40: 464-9