Comparison of the efficacy and safety of azilsartan with that of candesartan cilexetil in Japanese patients with grade I–II essential hypertension: a randomized, double-blind clinical study
Abstract:Azilsartan is a novel angiotensin receptor blocker being developed for hypertension treatment. This 16-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of azilsartan (20–40 mg once daily by forced titration) and its ability to provide 24-h blood pressure (BP) control, with that of candesartan cilexetil (candesartan; 8–12 mg once daily by forced titration) in 622 Japanese patients with grade I–II essential hypertension. Efficacy was evaluated by clinic-measured sitting BP, and … Show more
“…Unlike candesartan which must be orally administered as a prodrug candesartan cilexetil to ensure adequate bioavailability, azilsartan has been shown to be effective in reducing BP when orally administered as either the ester prodrug, azilsartan medoxomil or as the primary compound. [29][30][31] During gastrointestinal absorption, azilsartan medoxidil is rapidly hydrolyzed to azilsartan, the bioactive molecule that selectively and competitively blocks angiotensin induced activation of AT1 receptor in an insurmountable fashion. 32,33 Azilsartan in clinically approved doses as azilsartan medoxomil has been shown to lower 24-hour BP in hypertensive patients significantly more than the maximum approved dose of olmesartan medoxomil, the later being considered by some to be one of the most potent ARBs for lowering BP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 It has been reported that once-daily administration of azilsartan produced a more potent 24-h sustained antihypertensive effect than candesartan in Japanese patients with grade I-II essential hypertension, and it had an equivalent level of safety in a randomized, double-blind, comparative study. 8 It has also been reported that azilsartan provides greater BP reduction than candesartan over the entire 24-h monitoring period, as well as during the specific daytime, night-time, and early morning periods, by analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring records. 9,10 Hence, this study was undertaken to evaluate whether the above-mentioned theoretical benefits actually translate into clinically observable benefits in patients of Grade I-II essential hypertension.…”
INTRODUCTIONEssential hypertension is a common cardiovascular disorder with sustained increase in blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg. The elevated arterial pressure causes pathological changes in the vasculature and hypertrophy of the left ventricle. Hypertension is the principle cause of stroke that is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and its attendant complications like myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death. It is also a major contributor to cardiac failure, renal insufficiency and dissecting aneurysm of aorta.
1Hypertension is an increasingly prevalent chronic condition that is associated with serious morbidity and mortality. It is an important risk factor for the development and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is predicted to become the leading cause of death and disability worldwide by 2020.2 As per the Registrar General of India and Million Death Study investigators (2001)(2002)(2003), CVD was the largest cause of deaths in males (20.3%) as well as females (16.9%) and led to about 2 million deaths annually. In India, 23.10% men and 22.60% women over the age of 25 years suffer from hypertension. Treating systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) to targets that are <140/90 mmHg is ABSTRACT Background: Objectives of the study was to study the effect of Azilsartan 40mg once daily versus Telmisartan 40mg once daily in patients with Grade I-II essential hypertension. Methods: A prospective study was conducted at MGM Medical college and Hospital which included 80 patients in each group with Grade I-II essential hypertension. The sex, age, presenting illness, and family history of the patients were recorded. Investigations such as blood sugar, urine analysis, kidney function test, lipid profile, and ECG were performed before starting the treatment. Any adverse effects during the treatment were noted. Blood pressure was recorded at baseline and during follow-up. One group received Azilsartan 40mg once daily and another group Telmisartan 40mg once daily. Patients were followed-up every week for 5 weeks. Results: Patients receiving Azilsartan 40mg and Telmisartan 40mg showed a significant fall (P <0.05) in systolic (SBP) at the end of fifth week, when compared to baseline and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) significant fall at fourth and fifth week. The difference in fall in SBP and DBP was insignificant between the groups, after first, second and third week (P >0.05). Adverse effects such as Nasopharyngitis, Upper respiratory tract inflammation, Gastroenteritis, headache, dizziness, and fatigue were reported with both drugs. Conclusions: Reduction of blood pressure with Azilsartan and Telmisartan was similar, but fall in blood pressure from baseline was highly significant in both groups.
“…Unlike candesartan which must be orally administered as a prodrug candesartan cilexetil to ensure adequate bioavailability, azilsartan has been shown to be effective in reducing BP when orally administered as either the ester prodrug, azilsartan medoxomil or as the primary compound. [29][30][31] During gastrointestinal absorption, azilsartan medoxidil is rapidly hydrolyzed to azilsartan, the bioactive molecule that selectively and competitively blocks angiotensin induced activation of AT1 receptor in an insurmountable fashion. 32,33 Azilsartan in clinically approved doses as azilsartan medoxomil has been shown to lower 24-hour BP in hypertensive patients significantly more than the maximum approved dose of olmesartan medoxomil, the later being considered by some to be one of the most potent ARBs for lowering BP.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 It has been reported that once-daily administration of azilsartan produced a more potent 24-h sustained antihypertensive effect than candesartan in Japanese patients with grade I-II essential hypertension, and it had an equivalent level of safety in a randomized, double-blind, comparative study. 8 It has also been reported that azilsartan provides greater BP reduction than candesartan over the entire 24-h monitoring period, as well as during the specific daytime, night-time, and early morning periods, by analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring records. 9,10 Hence, this study was undertaken to evaluate whether the above-mentioned theoretical benefits actually translate into clinically observable benefits in patients of Grade I-II essential hypertension.…”
INTRODUCTIONEssential hypertension is a common cardiovascular disorder with sustained increase in blood pressure ≥140/90 mmHg. The elevated arterial pressure causes pathological changes in the vasculature and hypertrophy of the left ventricle. Hypertension is the principle cause of stroke that is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD) and its attendant complications like myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death. It is also a major contributor to cardiac failure, renal insufficiency and dissecting aneurysm of aorta.
1Hypertension is an increasingly prevalent chronic condition that is associated with serious morbidity and mortality. It is an important risk factor for the development and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is predicted to become the leading cause of death and disability worldwide by 2020.2 As per the Registrar General of India and Million Death Study investigators (2001)(2002)(2003), CVD was the largest cause of deaths in males (20.3%) as well as females (16.9%) and led to about 2 million deaths annually. In India, 23.10% men and 22.60% women over the age of 25 years suffer from hypertension. Treating systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) to targets that are <140/90 mmHg is ABSTRACT Background: Objectives of the study was to study the effect of Azilsartan 40mg once daily versus Telmisartan 40mg once daily in patients with Grade I-II essential hypertension. Methods: A prospective study was conducted at MGM Medical college and Hospital which included 80 patients in each group with Grade I-II essential hypertension. The sex, age, presenting illness, and family history of the patients were recorded. Investigations such as blood sugar, urine analysis, kidney function test, lipid profile, and ECG were performed before starting the treatment. Any adverse effects during the treatment were noted. Blood pressure was recorded at baseline and during follow-up. One group received Azilsartan 40mg once daily and another group Telmisartan 40mg once daily. Patients were followed-up every week for 5 weeks. Results: Patients receiving Azilsartan 40mg and Telmisartan 40mg showed a significant fall (P <0.05) in systolic (SBP) at the end of fifth week, when compared to baseline and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) significant fall at fourth and fifth week. The difference in fall in SBP and DBP was insignificant between the groups, after first, second and third week (P >0.05). Adverse effects such as Nasopharyngitis, Upper respiratory tract inflammation, Gastroenteritis, headache, dizziness, and fatigue were reported with both drugs. Conclusions: Reduction of blood pressure with Azilsartan and Telmisartan was similar, but fall in blood pressure from baseline was highly significant in both groups.
“…Unlike candesartan which must be orally administered as a prodrug candesartan cilexetil to ensure adequate bioavailability, azilsartan has been shown to be effective in reducing BP when orally administered as either the ester prodrug, azilsartan medoxomil or as the primary compound. [23][24][25] During gastrointestinal absorption , azilsartan medoxidil is rapidly hydrolyzed to azilsartan, the bioactive molecule that selectively and competitively blocks angiotensin induced activation of AT1 receptor in an insurmountable fashion. 26,27 Azilsartan in clinically approved doses as azilsartan medoxomil has been shown to lower 24-hour BP in hypertensive patients significantly more than the maximum approved dose of olmesartan medoxomil, the later being considered by some to be one of the most potent ARBs for lowering BP.…”
INTRODUCTIONHypertension is a common disorder in adults around the globe and among the most common attributable causes of mortality.1 The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to maintain blood pressure of <140/90mmHg for most people. [2][3][4][5][6][7] The angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been in clinical use since 1995 and known to be effective antihypertensive agent with excellent tolerability profiles. Azilsartan medoximil, a new generation ARB for the treatment of essential hypertension. Azilsartan was discovered through the efforts of scientists from Takeda, a Japanese pharmaceutical company by modifying the tetrazole ring present in candesartan. The chemical structure of azilsartan is very similar to the structure of candesartan and differs only by replacement of candesartan's 5 member tetrazole ring with the oxaoxadiazole ring of azilsartan. This modification makes azilsartan less acidic and more lipophilic than candesartan. Azilsartan was recently approved and has been shown to provide a more potent and sustained antihypertensive effects than other ARBs. Azilsartan medoxomil, ABSTRACT Background: Hypertension has been identified as the leading risk factor for mortality worldwide. It may lead to damage of heart, kidney, brain, vasculature and the other organs results in premature morbidity and death. The angiotensin receptor blockers are effective antihypertensive agent with excellent tolerability profiles. Azilsartan medoximil is a new ARB recently approved for treatment of hypertension. The objective of the study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of once daily treatment of the new angiotensin type1 receptor blocker (ARB) Azilsartan with Olmesartan and Candesartan. Methods: The study was a prospective, randomized open label comparison. Total 411 patients were recruited for the study. Patients were divided into four groups. Group A comprising of 105 patients received azilsartan (40mg), Group B comprising of 106 patients received azilsartan (80mg), Group C comprising of 102 patients received olmesartan (40mg) and Group D comprising of 98 patients received candesartan (12mg). Blood pressure was monitored at base line, after 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 8 weeks of treatment. Results: All groups were well matched in terms of age, weight, clinical findings and laboratory values. All drugs reduced both systolic blood pressure (SBP) and Diastolic blood pressure (DSP) significantly, but the reduction in SBP and DSP with azilsartan (80mg) was significantly greater than other drugs. The difference in BP reduction between azilsartan (40mg) and olmesartan (40mg) were not significant but both azilsartan (40mg) and olmesartan (40mg) were significantly more effective than candesartan(12mg). Conclusions: The study indicates that azilsartan (80mg) is more effective in the control of hypertension than olmesartan and candesartan with similar safety profile.
“…сильнее снижает суточное систолическое артериальное давление (САД) и диа-столическое артериальное давление (ДАД), чем вал-сартан в максимальной дозе 320 мг. В работе Rakugi H, et al азилсартана медоксомил более эффективно снижал офисное и суточное АД, по сравнению с кан-десартаном [12], в исследовании Bönner G, et al [13] целевой уровень АД был достигнут у большего коли-чества пациентов, принимавших азилсартан, чем на фоне длительного приема рамиприла. В некото-рых доклинических исследованиях продемонстриро-ваны дополнительные свойства азилсартана [14].…”
Section: возможности комбинации азилсартана медоксомила и хлорталидонunclassified
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.