Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with essential hypertension.

To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil with that of candesartan cilexetil after 1, 2 and 8 weeks of treatment. Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study conducted at 44 centres in Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic. 643 patients (aged 19-86 years) with mainly mild-to-moderate essential hypertension received active double-blind treatment. Following a 2-week placebo run-in, eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive olmesartan medoxomil 20mg (n = 319) or candesartan cilexetil 8mg (n = 324) once daily for 8 weeks. Changes from baseline in daytime, 24-hour and night-time diastolic (DBP) and systolic (SBP) blood pressures assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), and changes from baseline in sitting cuff DBP and SBP. Mean decreases from baseline in daytime DBP by ABPM at weeks 1, 2 and 8 were 6.7, 8.4 and 9.3mm Hg, respectively, in the olmesartan medoxomil group compared with 5.3, 6.0 and 7.8mm Hg, respectively, in the candesartan cilexetil group. The between-group differences were significantly in favour of olmesartan medoxomil at all three timepoints (p </= 0.0126). Significant differences in favour of olmesartan medoxomil were also observed for mean 24-hour DBP and for mean daytime and 24-hour SBP by ABPM. Decreases from baseline in sitting cuff BP at trough were similar in the two groups (15-16mm Hg for DBP and 21mm Hg for SBP). Both treatments were well tolerated. Olmesartan medoxomil reduced daytime and 24-hour DBP and SBP, assessed by ABPM, more effectively than candesartan cilexetil at the doses tested. The majority of the treatment effect in both groups was seen after only 1 or 2 weeks of dosing, when the between-group differences were already statistically significant

Effect of irbesartan versus atenolol on left ventricular mass and voltage: results of the Cardio Vascular Irbesartan Project

Regression of hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is associated with improved prognosis. The aim of this trial was to compare the effects of irbesartan versus atenolol on LVH in subjects with essential hypertension. Because electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters of LVH carry disparate prognostic information, both methods were applied in this trial. In the randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial CardioVascular Irbesartan Project, 240 patients with essential hypertension were treated with irbesartan or atenolol for 18 months. Voltage criteria used for LVH were Sokolow index, Cornell index, Cornell voltage x QRS duration product and Lewis index. In parallel, left ventricular mass (LVM) was determined by 2-dimensional guided M-mode echocardiography. After 6 and 18 months, reductions of LVM and voltage criteria for LVH were only found in subjects treated with irbesartan. However, a reduction of LVM was only detectable in subjects within the highest quartile of baseline LVM but not overall. In contrast, reductions of voltage criteria for LVH were detectable after 6 and 18 months even within commonly used normal limits. In conclusion, treatment of hypertension with irbesartan resulted in a significant reduction in the voltage criteria for LVH, although an effect on LVM was only seen in subjects with high baseline LVM. In contrast, atenolol did not lead to reductions in electrocardiographic or echocardiographic parameters of LVH. Because voltage criteria for LVH have been shown to predict cardiovascular outcome independently from LVM, we suggest that both methods should be used to accurately assess the benefits of antihypertensive treatment