DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20173733

Comparative study of efficacy and adverse effects profile of azilsartan, olmesartan and candesartan in the control of essential hypertension

Zaki A. Zaman, Hemant Kr. Sinha

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.


Keywords


Azilsartan, Candesartan, Essential hypertension, Olmesartan

Full Text:

PDF

References


Data from the National Health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES). National centre for health statistics. Health, United States; 2013:34.

Coubian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR. The seventh report of joint National Committee on prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of high blood pressure. JAMA. 2003;289:2560-723.

James PA, Oparil S, Carter BL, Cushman WC, Dennison-Himmelfarb C, Handler J, et al. Evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: Report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA. 2014 Feb;311(5):507-20.

Weber MA, Schiffrin EL, White WB, Mann S, Lindholm LH, Kenerson JG, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of hypertension in the community. The J of Cli Hyp. 2014 Jan;16(1):14-26.

Mancia G, Fagard R, Narkiewicz K, Redon J, Zanchetti A, Böhm M, et al. ESH/ESC guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Blood pressure. 2013 Aug 1;22(4):193-278.

Dasgupta K, Quinn RR, Zarnke KB, Rabi DM, Ravani P, Daskalopoulou SS, et al. The 2014 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension. Canadian Journal of Cardiology. 2014 May;30(5):485-501.

American Diabetic Association. Standard of medicinel in diabetes and hypertension. Diabetes care. 2013;36:19-25.

Hübner R, Högemann AM, Sunzel M, Riddell JG. Pharmacokinetics of candesartan after single and repeated doses of candesartan cilexetil in young and elderly healthy volunteers. J of Human Hyp. 1997 Sep 2;11.

Scott LJ, Mc Corn PL. Olmesartan medoximil. A review of its use in the management of hypertension. Drugs. 2008;68:1239-72.

Kassler-Taub K, Littlejohn T, Elliott W, Ruddy T, Adler E. Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan, in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Ame J of hyp. 1998 Apr;11(4):445-53.

Hedner T, Oparil S. A comparison of angiotensin antagonists Valsartan and Losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 1992;12:414-7.

Millan JH, Siche JP. ABPM comparison of the hypertensive profile of the selective angiotensin-2 receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients of mild to moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 1999;13:657-64.

Diament M, Idema RN. The use of Fourier analysis in the calculation of trough and peak ratio from ambulatory blood pressure measurement J Hum Hypertens. 1998;12:61-7.

Andersen OK, Neldam S. The antihypertensive effects and tolarebility of Candesartan Cilexetil. A new angiotensin-2 receptor antagonist, in comparison with losartan. Blood Press. 1998;7:53-50.

Oparil S, Guthrie R, Lewin AJ, Marbury T, Reilly K, Triscari J, et al. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan. Clinical therapeutics. 1998 May;20(3):398-409.

Ram CV. Angiotensin receptor blockers: Current status and future prospects. Am J Med. 2008;12:656-63.

Furukawa Y, Kishimoto S, Nishikawa K, inventors. Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd, Osaka, Japan, assignee. US Patent. Hypotensive imidazole-5-acetic acid derivatives. 1982 October 20;355:040.

Furukawa Y, Kishimoto S, Nishikawa K, inventors. Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., Osaka, Japan, assignee. US Patent 4. Hypotensive imidazole derivatives. 1982 July 20;340:598.

Duncia JV, Chiu AT, Carini DJ, Gregory GB, Johnson AL, Price WA, et al. The discovery of potent nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonists: a new class of potent antihypertensives. Journal of medicinal chemistry. 1990 May;33(5):1312-29.

Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America. Edarbi prescribing information. 2011.

Kohara Y, Imamiya E, Kubo K, Wada T, Inada Y, Naka T. A new class of angiotensin II receptor antagonists with a novel acidic bioisostere. Bioorganic Medicinal Chemistry Letters. 1995;5(17):1903-8.

Kohara Y, Kubo K, Imamiya E, Wada T, Inada Y, Naka T. Synthesis and angiotensin II receptor antagonistic activities of benzimidazole derivatives bearing acidic heterocycles as novel tetrazole bioisosteres. J Med Chem. 1996;39(26):5228-35.

Rakugi H, Enya K, Sugiura K, Ikeda Y. 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. Hypertens Res.; 2012.

Naka T, Kubo K. A new class of diacidic nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonists: candesartan cilexetil. Curr Pharm Des. 1999;5(6):453-72.

Baker WL, White WB. Azilsartan medoxomil: A new angiotensin II receptor antagonist for treatment of hypertension. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(12):1506-15

Ojima M, Igata H, Tanaka M, Sakamoto H, Kuroita T, Kohara Y, et al. In vitro antagonistic properties of a new angiotensin type 1 receptor blocker, azilsartan, in receptor binding and function studies. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2011 Mar 1;336(3):801-8.

Kusumoto K, Igata H, Ojima M, Tsuboi A, Imanishi M, Yamaguchi F, et al. Antihypertensive, insulin-sensitising and renoprotective effects of a novel, potent and long-acting angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, azilsartan medoxomil, in rat and dog models. European journal of pharmacology. 2011 Nov 1;669(1):84-93.

Zannad F, Fay R. Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of olmesartan relative to other angiotensin II receptor antagonists: an overview of randomized controlled studies. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2007;21(2):181-90.

Sica D, White WB, Weber MA, Bakris GL, Perez A, Cao C, et al. Comparison of the novel angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension. 2011 Jul 1;13(7):467-72.

White WB, Weber MA, Sica D, Bakris GL, Perez A, Cao C, et al. Effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil versus olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension. Hypertension. 2011;57(3):413-20.

Bakris GL, Sica D, Weber M, White WB, Roberts A, Perez A, et al. The comparative effects of azilsartan medoxomil and olmesartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension. 2011 Feb 1;13(2):81-8.

Zaiken K, Cheng JW. Azilsartan medoxomil: a new angiotensin receptor blocker. Clin Ther. 2011;33(11):1577-89.

Mazzolai L, Burnier M. Comparative safety and tolerabilityof angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Drug Saf. 1999;21:23-33.

Lacourciere Y, Asmar R. A comparison of the efficacy andduration of action of candesartan cilexetil and losartan as assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure after a missed dose, in truly hypertensive patients. A placebo-controlled, forced titration study. Am J Hypertens. 1999;12:1181-7.