Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan compared with other antihypertensive drugs

An Erratum to this article was published on 01 December 2003

Abstract

The therapeutic profile of olmesartan medoxomil, which is a recently developed angiotensin II (A II) receptor blocker, has been compared with four commonly used antihypertensive therapeutic drugs (atenolol, captopril, felodipine and losartan) in five separate multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase III trials. The trials were designed to compare the efficacy of individually optimised dosages of olmesartan medoxomil and the comparator agent. The primary efficacy variable in all trials was the mean change from baseline to week 12 in trough mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Olmesartan medoxomil (10–20 mg once daily (o.d.)) showed similar efficacy to atenolol (50–100 mg o.d.), both in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and, when given together with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg o.d., in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension. Olmesartan medoxomil (20–40 mg o.d.) was also similar in efficacy to felodipine (5–10 mg o.d.) in reducing BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Compared with captopril (12.5–50 mg twice daily (b.i.d.)) and losartan (50–100 mg o.d.), in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, olmesartan medoxomil (5–20 mg o.d. and 10–20 mg o.d., respectively) was significantly superior in terms of lowering DBP from baseline to week 12. In terms of the secondary efficacy variable, which was mean change from baseline to week 12 in trough mean sitting systolic BP, olmesartan showed significant superiority to atenolol, captopril and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. In the longer term, compared with losartan, a lower percentage of olmesartan-treated patients required concomitant HCTZ after 12 weeks of therapy. Olmesartan was well tolerated in all studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Püchler K, Laeis P, Stumpe KO . Blood pressure response, but not adverse event incidence, correlates with dose of angiotensin II antagonist J Hypertens 2001 19 (Suppl 1): S41–S48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Thurman PA . Angiotensin II antagonism and the heart: valsartan in left ventricular hypertrophy Cardiology 1999 91 (Suppl 1): 3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Birkenhager WH, de Leeuw PW . Non-peptide angiotensin type I receptor antagonists in the treatment of hypertension J Hypertens 1999 17: 873–881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallagher M . Angiotensin II antagonists lead the way in hypertension management Inpharm 1998 1143: 13–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Leeuw PW . How do angiotensin II receptor antagonists affect blood pressure? Am J Cardiol 1999 84: 5K–6K

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Mazzolai L, Burnier M . Comparative safety and tolerability of angiotensin II receptor antagonists Drug Safety 1999 21: 23–33

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brunner H . The new oral angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil: a concise overview J Hum Hypertens 2002 16 (Suppl 2): S13–S16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Laeis P, Püchler K, Kirch W . The pharmacokinetic and metabolic profile of olmesartan medoxomil limits the risk of clinically relevant drug interactions J Hypertens 2001 19 (Suppl 1): S21–S32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ball KJ, Williams PA, Stumpe KO . Relative efficacy of an angiotensin II antagonist compared with other antihypertensive agents. Olmesartan medoxomil versus antihypertensives J Hypertens 2001 19 (Suppl 1): S49–S56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Oparil S . Comparative antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan: comparison with other angiotensin II receptor antagonists J Hum Hypertens 2002 16 (Suppl 2): S17–S23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Oparil S et al. Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension J Clin Hypertens 2001 3: 283–291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Flack JM et al. Blood pressure and mortality among men with prior myocardial infarction: Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group Circulation 1995 92: 2437–2445

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Neutel JM . Safety and efficacy of angiotensin II receptor antagonists Am J Cardiol 1999 84: 13K–17K

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K O Stumpe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stumpe, K., Ludwig, M. Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan compared with other antihypertensive drugs. J Hum Hypertens 16 (Suppl 2), S24–S28 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001395

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001395

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links