Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Antagonists in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hypertension is a major health problem worldwide, yet remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) are highly effective at reducing blood pressure (BP), exhibit renoprotective properties and have placebo-like tolerability. However, it is unclear whether there are clinical differences in efficacy and tolerability between the available ARBs. A review of published, randomized, comparative clinical trials suggests that differences in BP-lowering efficacy and 24-hour BP control may exist between ARBs, although it appears that there is no evidence for important differences in tolerability between ARBs. Few studies have assessed attainment rates for important combined systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP) goals recommended in treatment guidelines. Likewise, few studies have directly compared more than two agents or ARB/hydrochlorothiazide fixed-dose combinations, and most ARBs have not been compared across their full recommended dosage ranges. Overall, there is insufficient weight of evidence to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn regarding the comparative efficacy of the available ARBs. However, newer ARBs (e.g. olmesartan medoxomil and telmisartan) appear to be more effective than older ARBs (e.g. losartan and valsartan) in reducing DBP and/or SBP in some trials. In addition, olmesartan medoxomil treatment regimens resulted in high BP control rates in several trials, but head-to-head trials with other ARBs are required to put these control rates into perspective, especially for SBP control with various agents. The purpose of this review is to present published data from ARB efficacy trials for a comparison of various efficacy parameters among the agents within this drug class.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, et al. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 2005; 365: 217–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003; 42: 1206–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 2007 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). Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 1462–536

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Whitworth JA. 2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1983–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Neal B, MacMahon S, Chapman N. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet 2000; 356: 1955–64

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hajjar I, Kotchen TA. Trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States, 1988–2000. JAMA 2003; 290: 199–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Unger T. The role of the renin-angiotensin system in the development of cardiovascular disease. Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 3–9A; discussion 10A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Givertz MM. Manipulation of the renin-angiotensin system. Circulation 2001; 104: E14–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mimran A, Ruilope L, Kerwin L, et al. A randomised, double-blind comparison of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist, irbesartan, with the full dose range of enalapril for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1998; 12: 203–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lacourciere Y. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan in patients aged ≥65 years with mild to moderate hypertension. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 1213–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gradman AH, Lewin A, Bowling BT, et al. Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and losartan in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Versus Losartan Efficacy Comparison (CANDLE) Study Group. Heart Dis 1999; 1: 52–7

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vidt DG, White WB, Ridley E, et al. A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II. J Hum Hypertens 2001; 15: 475–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Giles TD, Oparil S, Silfani TN, et al. Comparison of increasing doses of olmesartan medoxomil, losartan potassium, and valsartan in patients with essential hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2007; 9: 187–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, et al. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 861–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 851–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Parving HH, Lehnert H, Brochner-Mortensen J, et al. The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 870–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Viberti G, Wheeldon NM. Microalbuminuria reduction with valsartan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a blood pressure-independent effect. Circulation 2002; 106: 672–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Aranda JM, Conti, CR. Angiotensin II blockade: a therapeutic strategy with wide applications. Clin Cardiol 2003; 26: 500–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Andersson OK, Neldam S. The antihypertensive effect and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, a new generation angiotensin II antagonist, in comparison with losartan. Blood Press 1998; 7: 53–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bakris G, Gradman A, Reif M, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan in comparison to losartan: the CLAIM study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2001; 3: 16–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lacourciere Y, Asmar R. A comparison of the efficacy and duration 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. Candesartan/Losartan study investigators. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 1181–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Manolis AJ, Grossman E, Jelakovic B, et al. Effects of losartan and candesartan monotherapy and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Losartan Trial Investigators. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 1186–203

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Brunner HR, Stumpe KO, Januszewicz A. Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in patients with essential hypertension. Clin Drug Invest 2003; 23: 419–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Oparil S, Williams D, Chrysant SG, et al. Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2001; 3: 283–91, 318

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ball KJ, Williams PA, Stumpe KO. Relative efficacy of an angiotensin II antagonist compared with other antihypertensive agents: olmesartan medoxomil versus antihypertensives. J Hypertens Suppl 2001; 19: S49–56

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Derosa G, Ragonesi PD, Mugellini A, et al. Effects of telmisartan compared with eprosartan on blood pressure control, glucose metabolism and lipid profile in hypertensive, type 2 diabetic patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 12-month study. Hypertens Res 2004; 27: 457–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ding PY, Chu KM, Chiang HT, et al. A double-blind ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily telmisartan 40mg in comparison with losartan 50mg in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension in Taiwanese patients. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2004; 58: 16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee YT, Lee CM, Lin CS, et al. A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan 40–80mg vs losartan 50–100mg in Taiwanese hypertensive patients. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2004; 58: 40–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mallion J, Siche J, Lacourciere Y. ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1999; 13: 657–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Samra SS, Dongre N, Ballary C, et al. Comparison of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of telmisartan with losartan in Indian patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a pilot study. J Indian Med Assoc 2003; 101: 327–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhu JR, Bai J, Cai NS, et al. Efficacy and safety of telmisartan vs losartan in control of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2004; 58: 46–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Calvo C, Hermida RC, Ayala DE, et al. Effects of telmisartan 80mg and valsartan 160mg on ambulatory blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens 2004; 22: 837–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lacourciere Y, Krzesinski JM, White WB, et al. Sustained antihypertensive activity of telmisartan compared with valsartan. Blood Press Monit 2004; 9: 203–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Littlejohn T, Mroczek W, Marbury T, et al. A prospective, randomized, open-label trial comparing telmisartan 80mg with valsartan 80mg in patients with mild to moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Can J Cardiol 2000; 16: 1123–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. White WB, Lacourciere Y, Davidai G. Effects of the angiotensin II receptor blockers telmisartan versus valsartan on the circadian variation of blood pressure: impact on the early morning period. Am J Hypertens 2004; 17: 347–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kassler-Taub K, Littlejohn T, Elliott W, et al. Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Am J Hypertens 1998; 11: 445–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Mancia G, Korlipara K, van Rossum P, et al. An ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the comparative antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and valsartan. Blood Press Monit 2002; 7: 135–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Elliott WJ, Calhoun DA, DeLucca PT, et al. Losartan versus valsartan in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trial. Clin Ther 2001; 23: 1166–79

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Hedner T, Oparil S, Rasmussen K, et al. A comparison of the angiotensin II antagonists valsartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 414–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Monterroso VH, Rodriguez Chavez V, Carbajal ET, et al. Use of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to compare antihypertensive efficacy and safety of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, losartan and valsartan. Losartan Trial Investigators. Adv Ther 2000; 17: 117–31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Smith DH, Dubiel R, Jones M. Use of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess antihypertensive efficacy: a comparison of olmesartan medoxomil, losartan potassium, valsartan, and irbesartan. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2005; 5: 41–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. White WB. Cardiovascular risk and therapeutic intervention for the early morning surge in blood pressure and heart rate. Blood Press Monit 2001; 6: 63–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Destro M, Scabrosetti R, Vanasia A, et al. Comparative efficacy of valsartan and olmesartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Adv Ther 2005; 22: 32–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Basile JN, Chrysant S. The importance of early antihypertensive efficacy: the role of angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy. J Hum Hypertens 2006; 20: 169–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, et al. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 875–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Staessen JA, Thijisq L, Fagard R, et al. Effects of immediate versus delayed antihypertensive therapy on outcome in the Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial. J Hypertens 2004; 22: 847–57

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Weber MA, Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Blood pressure dependent and independent effects of antihypertensive treatment on clinical events in the VALUE Trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 2049–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Brunner HR, Arakawa K. Antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and candesartan cilexetil in achieving 24-hour blood pressure reductions and ambulatory blood pressure goals. Clin Drug Investig 2006; 26: 185–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Ross SD, Akhras KS, Zhang S, et al. Discontinuation of antihypertensive drugs due to adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacotherapy 2001; 21: 940–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Ram CV. Antihypertensive drugs: an overview. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2002; 2: 77–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Campbell M, Sonkodi S, Soucek M, et al. A candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination tablet provides effective blood pressure control in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled on monotherapy. Clin Exp Hypertens 2001; 23: 345–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ohma KP, Milon H, Valnes K. Efficacy and tolerability of a combination tablet of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide in insufficiently controlled primary hypertension: comparison with a combination of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide. Blood Press 2000; 9: 214–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Sachse A, Verboom CN, Jager B. Efficacy of eprosartan in combination with HCTZ in patients with essential hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2002; 16: 169–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Neutel JM, Saunders E, Bakris GL, et al. The efficacy and safety of low- and high-dose fixed combinations of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure on monotherapy: the INCLUSIVE trial. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2005; 7: 578–86

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Raskin P, Guthrie R, Flack J, et al. The long-term antihypertensive activity and tolerability of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide. J Hum Hypertens 1999; 13: 683–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Neutel JM, Franklin SS, Oparil S, et al. Efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy as initial treatment for rapid control of severe hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2006; 8: 850–7; quiz 858-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Salerno CM, Demopoulos L, Mukherjee R, et al. Combination angiotensin receptor blocker/hydrochlorothiazide as initial therapy in the treatment of patients with severe hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2004; 6: 614–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Naidoo DP, Sareli P, Marin F, et al. Increased efficacy and tolerability with losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and therapy-related symptoms receiving two monotherapies. Adv Ther 1999; 16: 187–99

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Chrysant SG, Weber MA, Wang AC, et al. Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide. Am J Hypertens 2004; 17: 252–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Neutel JM, Smith DH, Weber MA, et al. Use of an olmesartan medoxomil-based treatment algorithm for hypertension control. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2004; 6: 168–74

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Neutel JM, Smith DH, Silfani TN, et al. Effects of a structured treatment algorithm on blood pressure goal rates in both stage 1 and stage 2 hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2006; 20: 255–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Izzo Jr JL, Neutel JM, Silfani T, et al. Efficacy and safety of treating stage 2 systolic hypertension with olmesartan and olmesartan/HCTZ: results of an open-label titration study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2007; 9: 36–44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Izzo Jr JL, Neutel JM, Silfani T, et al. Titration of HCTZ to 50mg daily in individuals with stage 2 systolic hypertension pretreated with an angiotensin receptor blocker. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2007; 9: 45–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Lacourciere Y, Tytus R, O’Keefe D, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients uncontrolled with telmisartan monotherapy. J Hum Hypertens 2001; 15: 763–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Neutel JM, Littlejohn TW, Chrysant SG, et al. Telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide in comparison with losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in managing patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Hypertens Res 2005; 28: 555–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Mallion JM, Carretta R, Trenkwalder P, et al. Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide is effective in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by valsartan monotherapy. Blood Press Suppl 2003; 1: 36–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bobrie G, Delonca J, Moulin C, et al. A home blood pressure monitoring study comparing the antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonist fixed combinations. Am J Hypertens 2005; 18: 1482–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Kohlmann Jr O, Oigman W, Mion Jr D, et al. The ‘LOTHAR’ study: evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension. Arq Bras Cardiol 2006; 86: 39–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Philipp T, Smith TR, Glazer R, et al. Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther 2007; 29: 563–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Chrysant SG, Melino M, Karki S, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial study evaluating the efficacy and safety of co-administration of amlodipine besylate plus olmesartan medoxomil compared to monotherapy in patients with mild to severe hypertension [abstract]. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2007; 9: 486

    Google Scholar 

  72. Burnier M. Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers. Circulation 2001; 103: 904–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Mire DE, Silfani TN, Pugsley MK. A review of the structural and functional features of olmesartan medoxomil, an angiotensin receptor blocker. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2005; 46: 585–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Le MT, Pugsley MK, Vauquelin G, et al. Molecular characterisation of the interactions between olmesartan and telmisartan and the human angiotensin II ATI receptor. Br J Pharmacol 2007; 151: 952–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Cohn JN, Tognoni G. A randomized trial of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1667–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, et al. Effects of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. Lancet 2003; 362: 759–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Ram CV. Angiotensin receptor blockers and diuretics as combination therapy: clinical implications. Am J Hypertens 2004; 17: 277–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Chrysant SG, Melino M, Karki S, et al. The combination of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate in controlling high blood pressure: COACH, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week factorial efficacy and safety study. Clin Ther 2008; 30: 587–604

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this article was supported by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. We thank Alan J. Klopp, PhD, (Wolters Kluwer Health Medical Communications) for providing editorial assistance in the preparation of this review. The author has received speakers’ bureau honoraria from Forest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Sanofi, BMS, Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim for presentations on angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (including olmesartan medoxomil).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Integrium, 14351 Myford Road, Tustin, California, 92780, USA

    David H. G. Smith

Authors
  1. David H. G. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David H. G. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, D.H.G. Comparison of Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Antagonists in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension. Drugs 68, 1207–1225 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200868090-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200868090-00003

Keywords

Search

Navigation