gms | German Medical Science

27. Wissenschaftlicher Kongress der Deutschen Hochdruckliga

Deutsche Liga zur Bekämpfung des hohen Blutdrucks – Deutsche Hypertonie Gesellschaft e. V.

26. bis 29.11.2003, Bonn

Amlodipine versus candesartan cilexetil in hypertensives: office and home measurement data

Amlodipin versus candesartancilexetil bei Hypertonikern: Daten fuer Praxisblutdruck und Selbstmessung

Meeting Abstract (Hypertonie 2003)

  • presenting/speaker P. Trenkwalder - Klinikum Starnberg, Pfizer (Starnberg, Karlsruhe, D)
  • E. Regourd - Klinikum Starnberg, Pfizer (Starnberg, Karlsruhe, D)
  • B. Kluth-Pepper - Klinikum Starnberg, Pfizer (Starnberg, Karlsruhe, D)
  • N. Sauerbrey-Wullkopf - Klinikum Starnberg, Pfizer (Starnberg, Karlsruhe, D)

Hypertonie 2003. 27. Wissenschaftlicher Kongress der Deutschen Hochdruckliga. Bonn, 26.-29.11.2003. Düsseldorf, Köln: German Medical Science; 2004. Doc03hochP18

Die elektronische Version dieses Artikels ist vollständig und ist verfügbar unter: http://www.egms.de/de/meetings/hoch2003/03hoch118.shtml

Veröffentlicht: 11. November 2004

© 2004 Trenkwalder et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open Access-Artikel und steht unter den Creative Commons Lizenzbedingungen (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.de). Er darf vervielf&aauml;ltigt, verbreitet und &oauml;ffentlich zug&aauml;nglich gemacht werden, vorausgesetzt dass Autor und Quelle genannt werden.


Gliederung

Text

Objective

To evaluate antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability and metabolic effects of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine (AML) versus the AT1 receptor antagonist candesartan cilexetil (CAN) in patients with essential hypertension.

Design and Methods

Multicenter, multicountry, double-blind, parallel group study of 12-weeks active treatment followed by 4 drug free days. Patients were randomised with office SBP 140-199 mmHg and office DBP 95-114 mmHg. The initial once daily dose of AML 5mg and CAN 8mg was doubled at week 6 if office DBP was not controlled. Sitting office BP was measured every 2 weeks with an automatic device (OMRON 705CP). Home blood pressure was measured 5 times daily during the study. Blood samples were drawn before and after 12 weeks of treatment for various lab tests.

Results

A total of 326 patients were randomised (mean age 54 years, 55% male). 40.1% of AML patients were titrated to AML 10mg and 42.7% of CAN patients were titrated to CAN 16mg. After 12 weeks active therapy mean office BP was reduced by 24.4mmHg/14.9mmHg with AML and by 22.3/14.8mmHg with CAN. AML patients reached in 46.9% SBP/DBP control (i.e.<140/90mmHg) and CAN patients reached in 44.4% SBP/DBP control. Office heart rate was lowered by both drugs (-3.8 beats/min by AML and -5.9 beats/min by CAN). There was an increase in office BP during the 4-day drug free period of 9.1/5.0mmHg with AML and 8.3/4.6mmHg with CAN. Mean reductions from baseline in home BP for AML and CAN were 10.7/7.4mmHg and 8.6/4.9mmHg, respectively. Plasma fibrinogen was unaffected by CAN (+1.4mg/dl) but decreased with AML (-21.1mg/dl). A total of 47.9% of patients on AML and 39.1% on CAN reported adverse events.

Conclusions

Both monotherapies were very effective in lowering office BP after 12 weeks of treatment. There was a trend for better home BP reduction with AML. The overall frequency of adverse events was comparable, the decrease in fibrinogen with AML needs further confirmation.