Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: the ESPORT study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin II antagonist olmesartan medoxomil (O) and the ACE inhibitor ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.

METHODS

After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1102 treated or untreated elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and/or office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once-daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks doses could be doubled in non-normalized [blood pressure (BP) < 140/90 mmHg for nondiabetic and < 130/80 mmHg for diabetic) individuals, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office BPs were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment, whereas 24-h ambulatory BP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat population (542 patients O and 539 R) after 12 weeks of treatment baseline-adjusted office SBP and DBP reductions were greater (P < 0.01) with O [17.8 (95% confidence interval: 16.8/18.9) and 9.2 (8.6/9.8) mmHg] than with R [15.7 (14.7/16.8) and 7.7 (7.1/8.3) mmHg]. BP normalization rate was also greater under O (52.6 vs. 46.0% R, P < 0.05). In the subgroup of patients with valid ambulatory BP recording (318 O and 312 R) the reduction in 24-h average BP was larger (P < 0.05) with O [SBP: 11.0 (12.2/9.9) and DBP: 6.5 (7.2/5.8) mmHg] than with R [9.0 (10.2/7.9) and 5.4 (6.1/4.7) mmHg]. The larger blood pressure reduction obtained with O was particularly evident in the last 6 h from the dosing interval; a better homogeneity of the 24-h BP control with O was confirmed by higher smoothness indices. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (3.6 O vs. 3.6% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side effect (14 O vs. 19 R).

CONCLUSION

In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated BP control, representing a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate systolic and diastolic essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (O) and ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.

METHODS

After a 2-week placebo washout, 351 elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks, doses could be doubled in non-normalized (blood pressure <140/90 mmHg for non-diabetic and <130/80 mmHg for diabetic) subjects, up to 40 mg for O and 10 mg for R. Office blood pressures were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment; 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 12, in the intention-to-treat population (170 patients O and 175 R) the rate of normalized subjects was significantly larger in the O group (38.8% vs 26.3% R; p = 0.013). Baseline-adjusted mean sitting office blood pressure reduction at final visit was not significantly greater under O [SBP: 16.6 (95% confidence interval 14.0/19.2) mmHg vs 13.0 (10.4/15.6) mmHg R, p = 0.206; DBP: 11.8 (10.3/13.3) mmHg vs 10.5 (9.0/12.0) mmHg, p = 0.351]. In the subgroup of patients with valid ABP recordings (38 O and 47 R), the reduction in 24-h average blood pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) larger with O [SBP: 8.9 (9.8/8.1) and DBP: 5.7 (6.3/5.1) mmHg] than with R [6.7 (7.9/5.6) and 4.4 (5.1/3.7) mmHg]. The superiority of O was particularly evident in the last 4 h from the dosing interval. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (4.0% O vs 4.5% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side-effect (8 O vs 7 R).

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension, O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated blood pressure control, with significantly better blood pressure normalization than R and represents a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.

Office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure control by treatment in general practice: the 'Monitoraggio della pressione ARteriosa nella medicina TErritoriale' study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend that blood pressure (BP) should be lowered in hypertensive patients to prevent cardiovascular accidents. Management of antihypertensive treatment by general practitioners is usually based on office measurements, which may not allow an assessment of BP control over 24 h, which requires ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to be implemented. This is rarely done in general practice, and limited information is available on the consistency between the evaluations of the response to treatment provided by office measurement and by ABPM in this setting.

AIM

To assess concordance between office BP measurements and ABPM-based estimates of hypertension control in a general practice setting.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Prospective, comparative between techniques.

SETTING

General practice.

METHODS

Seventy-eight general practices, representative of all Italian regions, participated in this study by recruiting sequential hypertensive adults on stabilized treatment, who were subdivided into even groups with office BP, respectively, controlled or noncontrolled by treatment. In each individual, ABPM was applied by the general practitioner after appropriate training, and 24-h ABP values were defined as controlled or not according to current guidelines. Concordance between office and ABPM evaluation of BP control was assessed with kappa statistics. Positive and negative predictive values of office measurement versus ABPM were estimated.

RESULTS

Between July 2005 and November 2006, 190 general practitioners recruited 2059 hypertensive patients based on office BP measurements; in 1728 patients, a 24-h ABPM was performed, yielding 1524 recordings considered as valid for further analysis. The agreement between the assessment of BP control by office measurement and by ABPM was poor (kappa = 0.120), with office measurements showing a satisfactory positive predictive value (0.842) and a poor negative predictive value (0.278); the situation was worse in patients with three or more among the following features: male sex, age of at least 65 years, alcohol consumption, diabetes, and obesity (negative predictive value = 0.149).

CONCLUSION

In general practice, the agreement between assessment of BP control by treatment provided by office and ambulatory BP measurements is better in patients of 'uncontrolled' office BP than in 'controlled' office BP patients. This emphasizes the need for the larger use of out-of-office BP monitoring in a general practice setting, in particular, in patients considered as 'controlled' during consultation.