DrugLib.com — Drug Information Portal

Rx drug information, pharmaceutical research, clinical trials, news, and more



Efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life of losartan, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, versus amlodipine, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with essential hypertension.

Author(s): Oparil S, Barr E, Elkins M, Liss C, Vrecenak A, Edelman J

Affiliation(s): University of Alabama at Birmingham, 35294, USA.

Publication date & source: 1996-07, Clin Ther., 18(4):608-25.

Publication type: Clinical Trial; Multicenter Study; Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomized, double-masked, parallel-group, multicenter clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life associated with treatment regimens including the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan, with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) added as needed, with regimens including the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine with HCTZ added as needed. The trial included patients whose sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) measurements were between 95 and 114 mm Hg, inclusive, at placebo baseline. Patients were randomized to receive either losartan or amlodipine in a double-masked, double-dummy fashion. A 4-week placebo washout period was followed by a 12-week active treatment period. Patients in the losartan arm (n = 97) were initially given 50 mg of oral (PO) losartan once a day (QD); the medication could be titrated to 50-mg losartan/ 12.5-mg HCTZ PO QD after 4 weeks, followed by 50-mg losartan plus 25-mg HCTZ PO QD after 8 weeks as necessary. Patients in the amlodipine group (n = 93) received 5-mg amlodipine PO QD, which could be titrated to 10 mg PO QD after 4 weeks, followed by 10 mg plus 25-mg HCTZ PO QD after 8 weeks. Medication was titrated upward as necessary to achieve trough SiDBP < 90 mm Hg. Efficacy, tolerability, and quality-of-life scores were assessed after 12 weeks of therapy with each regimen. Trough SiDBP reductions after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of therapy were clinically comparable (losartan group: 7.3, 10.4, and 11.1 mm Hg, respectively; amlodipine group: 7.9, 11.2, and 11.8 mm Hg, respectively). Similar reductions in systolic blood pressure were also seen for both treatment groups. The percentage of patients reaching goal SiDBP (defined as trough SiDBP < 90 mm Hg or SiDBP > or = 90 mm Hg with a > or = 10 mm Hg drop from placebo baseline) was comparable for the two groups, with 68% of patients in the losartan group and 71% of patients in the amlodipine group reaching goal. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group had drug-related adverse experiences (27% vs 13%). In particular, drug-related edema was more common in patients receiving the amlodipine regimen than in those receiving the losartan regimen (11% vs 1%). Patients in the amlodipine arm reported significantly more bother due to edema, regardless of whether edema was present at baseline, than did patients in the losartan arm (12% vs 2%), although overall quality of life was not different in the two treatment groups. This study demonstrates that a regimen of losartan with HCTZ added as needed, when compared with a regimen of amlodipine with HCTZ added as needed, provides comparable efficacy and superior tolerability and less bother to patients with respect to edema.

Page last updated: 2006-01-31

-- advertisement -- The American Red Cross
 
Home | About Us | Contact Us | Site usage policy | Privacy policy

All Rights reserved - Copyright DrugLib.com, 2006-2017