+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparison of the novel angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

      Journal of Clinical Hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)

      Age Factors, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, administration & dosage, adverse effects, pharmacokinetics, Benzimidazoles, Biological Availability, Blood Pressure, drug effects, Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Drug Monitoring, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions, classification, physiopathology, Female, Humans, Hypertension, diagnosis, drug therapy, epidemiology, Male, Middle Aged, Oxadiazoles, Sex Factors, Tetrazoles, Treatment Outcome, Valine, analogs & derivatives

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a unique angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) under development for the treatment of hypertension. To compare this ARB with another in the class, the authors studied the effects of AZL-M and valsartan (VAL) in 984 patients with primary hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study using ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements. The primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP following 24 weeks of treatment. Hierarchical analysis testing for noninferiority was followed by superiority testing of AZL-M (80 mg then 40 mg) vs VAL. The mean age of participants was 58 years, 52% were men, and 15% were black. Baseline 24-hour mean systolic BP was similar (approximately 145.6 mm Hg) in each group. AZL-M 40 mg and 80 mg lowered 24-hour mean systolic BP (-14.9 mm Hg and -15.3 mm Hg, respectively) more than VAL 320 mg (-11.3 mm Hg; P<.001 for 40-mg and 80-mg comparisons vs VAL). Clinic systolic BP reductions were consistent with the ambulatory results (-14.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 40 mg and -16.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 80 mg vs -11.6 mm Hg for VAL; P=.015 and P<.001, respectively). The reductions in 24-hour mean and clinic diastolic BPs were also greater with both doses of AZL-M than with VAL (P≤.001 for all comparisons). Small, reversible changes in serum creatinine occurred more often with AZL-M than with VAL; otherwise, safety and tolerability parameters were similar among the three groups. These data demonstrate that AZL-M across the effective dose range had superior efficacy to VAL at its maximal recommended dose without any meaningful increase in adverse events. These findings suggest that AZL-M could provide higher rates of hypertension control compared with other ARBs in the class. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

          Related collections

          Author and article information



          Comment on this article