Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with severe systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators

Safety and tolerability of fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide for rapid control of severe hypertension

This prospective, double-blind, multicenter trial compared the safety and tolerability of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed-dose combination therapy with irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension (seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) >or=110 mm Hg, mean BP 172/113 mm Hg at baseline). Patients were randomized 2:1 to 7 weeks' irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg to 300/25 mg (n = 468) or irbesartan 150 mg to 300 mg (n = 227). The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) was similar with combination and monotherapy (11.3% and 10.1%), and most AEs were mild-to-moderate. The combined incidence of prespecified AEs was lower with irbesartan/HCTZ than with irbesartan (8.8% vs. 11.5%). There were no treatment-related serious AEs or deaths. At week 5, more patients achieved SeDBP < 90 mm Hg compared to irbesartan (47% vs. 33%; P = 0.0005). Despite more rapid and aggressive BP lowering, initial fixed-dose irbesartan/HCTZ demonstrated a comparable AE profile to irbesartan monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension.

Candesartan: widening indications for this angiotensin II receptor blocker?

Candesartan cilexetil is one of a number of drugs of the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) class. Their principal mode of action involves competitive blockade of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, thereby modulating the activity of the rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy has been proven to be well tolerated and effective in the management of hypertension, chronic heart failure with left ventricular dysfunction and the prevention and progression of diabetic renal disease. Candesartan is a highly potent, long-acting and selective angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker. It was launched in 1998 for the treatment of hypertension. Its use has increased dramatically, with recently published data suggesting benefit in the treatment of stroke, heart failure, diabetic renal disease and most recently in preventing the development of or delaying the progression of diabetic retinopathy. In this article we review the literature on the use of ARB drugs in general before focusing on candesartan.

A comparison of the tolerability of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension

Patients with severe hypertension (>180/110 mm Hg) require large blood pressure (BP) reductions to reach recommended treatment goals (<140/90 mm Hg) and usually require combination therapy to do so. This 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy of the novel direct renin inhibitor aliskiren with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with severe hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP)>or=105 mm Hg and <120 mm Hg). In all, 183 patients were randomized (2:1) to aliskiren 150 mg (n=125) or lisinopril 20 mg (n=58) with dose titration (to aliskiren 300 mg or lisinopril 40 mg) and subsequent addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) if additional BP control was required. Aliskiren-based treatment (ALI) was similar to lisinopril-based treatment (LIS) with respect to the proportion of patients reporting an adverse event (AE; ALI 32.8%; LIS 29.3%) or discontinuing treatment due to AEs (ALI 3.2%; LIS 3.4%). The most frequently reported AEs in both groups were headache, nasopharyngitis and dizziness. At end point, ALI showed similar mean reductions from baseline to LIS in msDBP (ALI -18.5 mm Hg vs LIS -20.1 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 1.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.0, 4.4)) and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (ALI -20.0 mm Hg vs LIS -22.3 mm Hg; mean treatment difference 2.8 mm Hg (95% CI -1.7, 7.4)). Responder rates (msDBP<90 mm Hg and/or reduction from baseline>or=10 mm Hg) were 81.5% with ALI and 87.9% with LIS. Approximately half of patients required the addition of HCTZ to achieve BP control (ALI 53.6%; LIS 44.8%). In conclusion, ALI alone, or in combination with HCTZ, exhibits similar tolerability and antihypertensive efficacy to LIS alone, or in combination with HCTZ, in patients with severe hypertension.

Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in African‐American Patients With Hypertension

African-American patients with hypertension are less responsive to blockers of the renin-angiotensin system than white patients. The relative efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers and the extent of cross-resistance to these agents has not been studied. Fifty-one African-American patients with stage 1-2 hypertension were randomly assigned to enalapril or candesartan cilexetil for 8 weeks and then crossed over to the other treatment. Nonresponders to enalapril and candesartan used a combination of the two. Of the 51 patients randomized (average age 61.2+/-9 years, blood pressure 148/100 mm Hg, heart rate 74 bpm, and body weight 92.8 kg), 44 completed the study. At Week 8, systolic blood pressure (SBP) was reduced by 4.8 mm Hg with enalapril and by 4.7 mm Hg with candesartan (p=NS), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was reduced by 4.4 mm Hg and 5.6 mm Hg, respectively (p<0.04). Of these 44 patients, 11 (25%) responded to enalapril by SBP criteria and 19 (43%) by DBP criteria. Seven patients (16%) responded by both SBP and DBP criteria, and 21 patients (48%) were nonresponders. With candesartan, 13 patients (29%) responded by SBP criteria, 20 (45%) by DBP criteria and 12 (27%) by both SBP and DBP criteria (p<0.04, compared with enalapril). Only six patients (14%) responded to both enalapril and candesartan by both SBP and DBP criteria. Of the 18 nonresponders to either enalapril or candesartan, the combination of the two had minimal additional effect. Significant changes in plasma-renin activity and angiotensin II levels were noted only with the high dose of each drug. In this small group of patients, treatment with candesartan resulted in slightly higher response and control rates than enalapril, more than 40% of patients who responded to enalapril did not respond to candesartan and vice versa, and in nonresponders, a combination of candesartan and enalapril offered little additional antihypertensive effect.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers in congestive heart failure

The benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF) are well-established. A newer class of medications, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), may be a suitable replacement for ACE inhibitors as a result of a more complete inhibition of angiotensin II and better tolerability among patients. To examine the current literature on the efficacy and safety of ARBs in the setting of CHF, a Medline search was conducted of the English language literature for the years 1987 to 2005. Clinical trials that reported data on cardiac outcomes were reviewed. The earlier trials were direct ARB to ACE inhibitor comparisons (ELITE I and ELITE II). These studies indicated that ARBs do not confer an improvement in cardiac outcomes over ACE inhibitors. RESOLVD, Val-HeFT, and the 3 separate trials of the CHARM program investigated the addition of an ARB to standard therapy. The RESOLVD trial showed no significant differences in clinical events among ACE inhibitor, ARB, and their combination. Although no mortality benefit was evident in the Val-HeFT trial, a substantial reduction in CHF rehospitalizations was reported among patients who were not receiving ACE inhibitor therapy. The CHARM-Overall program demonstrated a significant benefit in cardiovascular death and hospital admissions for CHF with the addition of ARB to standard therapy, a benefit that was more pronounced in patients with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction. In the setting of CHF, rates of cardiac outcomes do not differ substantially between ARBs and ACE inhibitors. However, their combination may improve outcomes for patients with CHF.

A large scale study of angiotensin II inhibition therapy in an elderly population: the CHANCE study

This 8-week, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of candesartan cilexetil (CC, 8-16 mg) in elderly (>65 years) hypertensive patients. Patients (n=3013) received CC 8 mg during 8 weeks which eventually doubled to CC 16 mg at week 4 if blood pressure remained uncontrolled (> or = 140/90 mmHg). At week 8, 65.5% of patients were normalized (BP < 140/90 mmHg). Mean changes at week 8 were -25.8, -13.2, and -12.7 mmHg for systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressure, respectively. Age, sex, and diabetic status did not influence the antihypertensive effect of CC. 68% of the patients treated with, but uncontrolled or intolerant of, prior antihypertensive treatment were normalized by CC 8-16 mg. In summary, CC 8-16 mg once daily was effective and well tolerated in the management of arterial hypertension in elderly subjects.

Fixed combination of candesartan with hydrochlorothiazide in patients with severe primary hypertension

OBJECTIVE

The new guidelines for treatment of hypertension by the JNC VII in 2003 permit the initial use of a combination therapy, if blood pressure has to be lowered more than 20/10 mmHg. The aim of this investigation was to document the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy with candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide in severe hypertension.

METHODS

116 patients freshly diagnosed as having severe primary hypertension (Grade III) and untreated for this condition were enrolled. The study was performed without a placebo control group for ethical reasons. Thus, all patients were treated for 6 weeks with 16 mg candesartan cilexetil plus 12.5mg hydrochlorothiazide daily after forced titration with 8 and 16 mg candesartan cilexetil each for <or= 2 weeks. Sitting trough BP was measured always with the same device in the morning after 15 min at rest, and the median of three measurements was used for analysis. Safety parameters included alanyl aminotransferase (ALAT), aspartyl aminotransferase (ASAT), creatinine, urea, BUN and electrolytes.

RESULTS

The mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP at the end was 38.1/29.4 mmHg. 90.1% of patients were considered to be responders, while 39.6% of patients treated became normotensive (< 140/< 90 mmHg). No drug-related adverse events or changes in laboratory parameters were reported.

CONCLUSION

Although this was an open-label, single-group study, on the basis of efficacy and safety, the combination therapy appears to offer a promising treatment for patients with severe primary hypertension.

Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) Trial of Cardiovascular Events in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients: Rationale, Design, and Methods

Hypertension continues to be a major public health issue in the world. To combat this problem, many anti-hypertensive drugs have been developed and proven effective at controlling blood pressure in the last half century. In recent decades, antihypertensive drugs have been shown to have cardiovascular benefits beyond the reduction of blood pressure, and the focus has shifted to clarification of these effects. Angiotensin II receptor antagonists and calcium channel blockers are the most widely used antihypertensive drugs in Japan. However, these two classes of drugs have not yet been compared with respect to their efficacy for treating cardiovascular events. The Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial described herein is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, 2-arm parallel group comparison with a response-dependent dose titration and blinded assessment of endpoints in high-risk hypertensive patients treated with either an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (candesartan cilexetil) or a third-generation calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besilate). The eligibility criteria in this study were 1) age between 20 and 85 years; 2) systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 140 mmHg in those below 70 years of age or > or = 160 mmHg in those above 70 years of age or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 90 mmHg on two consecutive measurements at clinic; and 3) at least one of the following high risk factors for cardiovascular events: a) SBP > or = 2180 mmHg or DBP > or = 110 mmHg on two consecutive visits, b) type 2 diabetes mellitus (fasting blood glucose > or = 126 mg/dl, casual blood glucose > or = 200 mg/dl, HbA1c > or = 6.5%, 2 h blood glucose on 75 g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) > or = 200 mg/dl, or current treatment with hypoglycemic therapy), c) history of cerebral hemorrhage, cerebral infarction, or transient ischemic attack until 6 months prior to the screening, d) left ventricular hypertrophy on either echocardiography or ECG, angina pectoris, or history of myocardial infarction until 6 months prior to screening, e) proteinuria or serum creatinine > or = 1.3 mg/dl, and f) symptoms of arteriosclerotic artery obstruction. The therapeutic goals of blood pressure control were set as follows: SBP < 130 mmHg and DBP < 85 mmHg for patients below 60 years of age, SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 60s, SBP < 150 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 70s, and SBP < 160 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg for those in their 80s. A total of 3,200 patients, equally allocated to each of the two treatment arms, were required based on a two-sided alpha level 0.05 and 90% power. The CASE-J is also the first study to employ the newly developed Automatic Bar Code Data-Capturing/Allocation, Booking & Trial Coding, Data Management (ABCD) system for data collection and management. Enrollment of patients started in September 2001 and ended in December 2002. Follow-up data will be collected every 6 months until December 2005. The CASE-J trial will provide important evidence on the comparative effectiveness of candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine besilate on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among Japanese. In addition, the use of the ABCD system is expected to contribute to the development of more efficient data management systems for large-scale clinical trials.

Treatment of hypertension with an angiotensin II-receptor antagonist compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: a review of clinical studies of telmisartan and enalapril

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II (ATII)-receptor antagonists suppress the effects of ATII and are effective antihypertensive agents. However, the use of ACE inhibitors is sometimes associated with intolerable side effects (eg, cough, angioedema), and patients may develop a compensatory rise in ATII levels. ATII-receptor antagonists have tolerability profiles similar to that of placebo and inhibit the effects of ATII more completely by blocking the AT1 receptor.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes clinical studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of the ATII-receptor antagonist telmisartan with the ACE inhibitor enalapril in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing telmisartan with enalapril in patients with primary hypertension were identified through a PubMed search of the English-language literature from 1998 through 2001 and from bibliographic data provided by the manufacturer of telmisartan.

RESULTS

In 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (total number of patients, 647), telmisartan 40 or 80 mg/d was at least as effective as enalapril 20 mg/d for lowering blood pressure (BP) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. An open-label, titration-to-response study involving 86 patients with severe hypertension found that telmisartan 80 to 160 mg/d was as efficacious as enalapril 20 to 40 mg/d. The antihypertensive effects of telmisartan 20 to 80 mg/d and enalapril 5 to 20 mg/d were comparable in 278 elderly patients (age > or = 65 years) with mild to moderate hypertension enrolled in a 26-week, double-blind, dose-titration study. A double-blind, titration-to-response study in 71 patients with moderate renal impairment and mild to moderate hypertension found equivalent reductions in BP with telmisartan 40 to 80 mg/d and enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d without any clinically relevant decline in renal function. Telmisartan tended to be better tolerated than enalapril in this study, with fewer patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (8.9% vs 26.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the literature included in this review, telmisartan and enalapril produced comparable reductions in BP in a broad range of patients with hypertension. Telmisartan appeared to have a better tolerability profile.

Combination therapy with AT(1)-receptor blockers

Although current hypertension management guidelines recommend increasingly stringent blood pressure targets, these targets are seldom achieved in clinical practice. Even in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, monotherapy is only effective in approximately 50-70% of patients, and thus there is a clear need for combination therapy if stringent blood pressure targets are to be achieved. Drugs used in combination therapy should satisfy a number of prerequisites, including complementary mechanisms of action, enhanced efficacy in combination, and maintained (or improved) tolerability. Evidence is accumulating that combination therapy with an AT(1)-receptor blocker and a diuretic represents a rational and effective treatment option. In clinical trials, the combination of candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide, 12.5 mg, has been shown to be more effective in lowering blood pressure than either agent alone. Furthermore, this combination has been shown to reduce blood pressure to a greater extent, and control blood pressure in a higher proportion of patients, than the combination of losartan, 50 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide, 12.5 mg, both when used instead of or in addition to previous antihypertensive therapy. The placebo-like tolerability of AT(1)-receptor blockers was maintained when these drugs were used in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. The combination of candesartan and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist has also been shown to be more effective than either component alone. Furthermore, in the Candesartan and Lisinopril Microalbuminuria (CALM) Study, the combination of candesartan and lisinopril reduced blood pressure to a greater extent than either agent alone, and tended to have a greater effect on microalbuminuria.

Candesartan cilexetil plus hydrochlorothiazide combination: a review of its use in hypertension

The combination of candesartan cilexetil [an angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonist] plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic), has been used in the treatment of patients with hypertension. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of various doses of this combination, administered orally once a day for 4 to 52 weeks, has been demonstrated in clinical trials. These studies showed that combinations of candesartan cilexetil 4 to 16 mg with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg induced significant reductions reductions in systolic (S) BP and diastolic (D) BP from baseline in patients with mild to severe hypertension. Data from clinical trials indicated that reductions in BP induced by candesartan cilexetil 4 to 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combinations were significantly greater than those observed after monotherapy with either drug. Treatment for 8 weeks with candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or candesartan cilexetil 16 mg induced SBP/DBP reductions of 12.0/7.5 mm Hg and 7.5/5.5mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.05 both comparisons). Moreover, data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study in 1038 patients with mild to moderate hypertension showed that the greatest reductions in SBP/DBP were achieved by candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Significant differences in BP reduction in favour of the combination were observed when hypertensive patients were given candesartan cilexetil 4 or 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy for 8 weeks. Additionally, greater efficacy of the combination compared to monotherapy with either drug was demonstrated by response rates to treatment. Moreover, a fixed combination of candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg demonstrated a greater antihypertensive effect than losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in two clinical trials. Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg showed a similar antihypertensive effect compared with that of combined lisinopril 10 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination was well tolerated in patients with hypertension. Combined data from placebo-controlled trials showed that most adverse events were uncommon and not serious. Patients receiving combination therapy exhibited, among other adverse events, headache (3.2 vs 5.5% for candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and placebo, respectively), back pain (3.0 vs 2.4%), dizziness (2.6 vs 1.2%) and respiratory infection (2.5 vs 1.4%). Moreover, 3.3 and 2.7% of patients receiving candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide or placebo, respectively, discontinued treatment because of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The combination of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide (AT(1)-receptor antagonist and thiazide diuretic, respectively) is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension. Data from randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that this combination is significantly more efficacious than either agent alone. Moreover, the combination of these two agents showed an excellent adverse event profile. Current data support the use of this combination as an alternative when monotherapy with either agent is not effective, and there are no compelling or specific indications for other drugs. However, data from large clinical trials, evaluating morbidity and mortality outcomes, are needed to determine the precise role of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination in the treatment of patients with hypertension.

Efficacy of angiotensin II receptor antagonists in preventing headache: a systematic overview and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine whether angiotensin II receptor antagonists prevent headaches.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for studies in which participants were randomly assigned to an angiotensin II receptor antagonist or placebo. We also contacted experts and manually reviewed all references to identify additional articles. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the studies. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. We estimated the pooled relative risk (RR) for headache using the random-effects model and examined dose response using random-effects Bayesian logistic regression.

RESULTS

Data from 27 studies involving 12,110 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of headache was about one third lower in patients taking an angiotensin II receptor antagonist than in those taking placebo (RR = 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.76; the test of heterogeneity was negative, P = 0.2). The odds ratio for having a headache per unit dose of the reference drug losartan was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.93).

CONCLUSION

Angiotensin II receptor antagonists appear to be effective in preventing headaches, but the mechanism of this benefit and the types of headaches that are prevented are not known. Randomized trials are warranted.

A CANDESARTAN CILEXETIL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE COMBINATION TABLET PROVIDES EFFECTIVE BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL IN HYPERTENSIVE PATIENTS INADEQUATELY CONTROLLED ON MONOTHERAPY

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel-group study, a combination tablet of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 16/12.5 mg once daily, reduced sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) significantly more (p = 0.037) than candesartan cilexetil/placebo, 16 mg once daily, in patients with mild to moderate primary hypertension (n = 328) who had not reached target blood pressure with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg once daily. At the end of the 8-week double-blind treatment period, the adjusted mean reductions in sitting DBP, 24 h post dose, were 7.5 mm Hg in the candesartan cilexetil/HCTZ treatment group and 5.5 mm Hg in the candesartan cilexetil/placebo treatment group, corresponding to an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 2.0 mm Hg in favour of candesartan cilexetil/HCTZ (95% CI 0.1-3.8 mm Hg, p = 0.037). The adjusted mean reductions in sitting systolic blood pressure, 24 h post dose, were 12.0 mm Hg and 7.5 mm Hg, respectively, corresponding to an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 4.5 mm Hg (95% CI 1.1-8.0, p = 0.01). Consistent with the placebo-like tolerability of candesartan cilexetil reported in other studies, both treatments were very well tolerated, with a similar pattern and low frequency of adverse events in both treatment groups.

Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine in patients with mild systemic hypertension. Comparison of Candesartan and Amlodipine for Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy (CASTLE) Study Investigators

The comparative antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan cilexetil and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine were evaluated in an 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, forced-titration study in 251 adult patients (45% women, 16% black) with mild hypertension (stage 1). Following a 4- to 5-week placebo run-in period, patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 90 to 99 mm Hg received candesartan cilexetil 16 mg (n = 123) or amlodipine 5 mg (n = 128) once daily. After 4 weeks of double-blind treatment, patients were uptitrated to candesartan cilexetil 32 mg or amlodipine 10 mg once daily. There were no significant differences between the candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine regimens for reducing BP; mean systolic BP/diastolic BP reductions were -15.2/-10.2 mm Hg versus -15.4/-11.3 mm Hg, respectively (p = 0.88/0.25). Overall, 79% of patients on candesartan cilexetil and 87% of those on amlodipine were controlled (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg). A total of 3.3% of patients on candesartan cilexetil discontinued treatment, compared with 9.4% of patients on amlodipine, including 2.4% versus 4.7% for adverse events and 0% versus 1.6% for peripheral edema, respectively. Peripheral edema, the prespecified primary tolerability end point, occurred with significantly greater frequency in patients on amlodipine (22.1%; mild 8.7%, moderate 11.8%, severe 1.6%) versus patients on candesartan cilexetil (8.9%; mild 8.1%, moderate 0.8%) (p = 0.005). Candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine are both highly effective in controlling BP in patients with mild hypertension. Candesartan cilexetil offers a significant tolerability advantage with respect to less risk of developing peripheral edema.