Trial reportJournal of hypertension2016
Effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared with olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.
Trial report in Journal of hypertension, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of azilsartan medoxomil in the treatment of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Antihypertensive effect of azilsartan versus olmesartan in patients with essential hypertension: a meta-analysis.Irish journal of medical science · 2019Pooled it
- Long-term efficacy and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide in chronic kidney disease.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2018Trial
- Combination Therapy Is Superior to Sequential Monotherapy for the Initial Treatment of Hypertension: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2017Trial
- Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Trial
- A Prospective Study of Azilsartan Medoxomil in the Treatment of Patients with Essential Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes in Asia.International journal of hypertension · 2022Article
- Angiotensin Type 1 Receptor Blockers in Heart Failure.Current drug targets · 2020Review
- Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Amlodipine in Asian Hypertensive Patients.International journal of hypertension · 2019Article
- Blood pressure control in type 2 diabetic patients.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2017Review
- Depressor and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Metabolic and/or Hypertensive Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized, Prospective Study (DIAMOND Study).Journal of clinical medicine research · 2016Article
- Azilsartan as a Potent Antihypertensive Drug with Possible Pleiotropic Cardiometabolic Effects: A Review Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2016Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Azilsartan Medoxomil and Telmisartan in Hypertensive Patients: A Randomized, Assessor-Blinded Study.Saudi journal of medicine & medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAngiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are preferred antihypertensive therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a potent ARB for the treatment of stages 1-2 hypertension. We compared the efficacy, safety, and metabolic effects of AZL-M to both valsartan (VAL) and olmesartan (OLM), separately in patients with impaired fasting glucose (prediabetes mellitus) and T2DM.
methodsA pooled analysis of 3821 patients from three separate randomized placebo-controlled trials comparing the effects of AZL-M (40 and 80 mg), OLM (40 mg), VAL (320 mg), and placebo on changes in ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) among patients with hypertension and prediabetes mellitus or T2DM was performed. Two analysis pools were created to facilitate comparisons: Pool A included patients who received placebo, AZL-M or OLM and Pool B included those who received AZL-M or VAL. Within each pool, patients were stratified by glycemic subgroups (normoglycemic, prediabetes mellitus, or T2DM) based on hemoglobin A1c values. Changes from baseline in both 24-h and clinic SBP were the primary efficacy assessments.
resultsBaseline 24-h mean SBPs were approximately 145 and 146 mmHg in the prediabetes mellitus and T2DM subgroups, respectively; corresponding clinic SBPs were approximately 158 and 159 mmHg. Baseline hemoglobin A1c values for each subgroup (both pools) were normoglycemic, 5.3%; prediabetes mellitus, 6.0%; and T2DM, 6.9%. Changes from baseline in 24-h or clinic SBP were significantly greater with AZL-M, 80 mg compared with either OLM 40 mg or VAL 320 mg in all subgroups in each pool. Safety and tolerability were similar among the active treatment and placebo subgroups.
conclusionThese analyses indicate that AZL-M, 80 mg/day lowers SBP by a greater magnitude than OLM or VAL at maximally approved doses in patients with prediabetes mellitus and T2DM. These findings have important clinical implications for this high-risk patient group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.