Trial reportCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne1998
The antihypertensive efficacy of losartan and amlodipine assessed with office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Canadian Cozaar Hyzaar Amlodipine Trial Study Group.
Trial report in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of a fixed-dose combination of losartan + HCTZ versus bisoprolol + HCTZ in patients with moderate-to-severe hypertension: results of the 6-month ELIZA trial.Vascular health and risk management · 2013Trial
- Chronobiologically explored effects of Telmisartan.Clinical and experimental hypertension (New York, N.Y. : 1993)Trial
- The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)Trial
- Pharmacologic approaches for the management of symptoms and cardiovascular consequences of obstructive sleep apnea in adults.Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2010Review
- Tautomerism in drug discovery.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2010Article
- Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.Korean circulation journal · 2009Article
- Biomarkers related to aging in human populations.Advances in clinical chemistry · 2008Review
- Cost per millimeter of mercury lowering is a measure of economic value for antihypertensive agents.Current hypertension reports · 2000Review
- Renal artery stenosis as a cause of renal impairment: implications for treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 1999Review
- Amlodipine and losartan: reaction to comparison.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLosartan potassium is a recently marketed angiotensin II receptor antagonist. Previous studies have suggested that its full antihypertensive efficacy may be delayed for up to 12 weeks. The authors compared the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of losartan at 6 and 12 weeks with those of amlodipine besylate, a commonly used calcium antagonist.
methodsThis multicentre, randomized, double-blind clinical trial studied 302 patients with mild or moderate hypertension in 1995. Of the 302, 97 also underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). After a 4-week placebo run-in period, the patients were randomly assigned to group A, B or C for 12 weeks. Those in groups A and B began treatment with losartan at 50mg/d, and those in group C began with amlodipine at 5 mg/d. If the blood pressure remained uncontrolled after 6 weeks, subjects in group A had their losartan dose doubled (to 100 mg/d), those in group B were given hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg/d) in addition to the losartan, which remained at 50 mg/d, and patients in group C had their amlodipine dose doubled (to 10 mg/d).
resultsAt 12 weeks all 3 regimens reduced office-recorded diastolic blood pressure (DBP) with the patient sitting. The mean reduction in group A was 8.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.3 to 10.1) (p < 0.001), in group B 12.5 mm Hg (95% CI 11.0 to 14.0) (p < 0.001) and in group C 12.9 mm Hg (95% CI 11.4 to 14.5) (p < 0.001). Losartan alone lowered sitting DBP to a lesser degree than the other 2 treatments (p < 0.01). In contrast, ABPM readings, whether 24-hour, daytime or nighttime, were not different among the regimens. Comparison of the results at 6 weeks yielded similar findings. Adverse effects were uncommon and were not different among the groups, with the exception of ankle edema, which was more frequent in group C.
interpretationLosartan alone reduces both office and ABPM readings. The observed changes in office-recorded sitting DBP suggest that losartan is less effective than amlodipine or the combination of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide, but ABPM did not confirm this difference. Perhaps changes in office readings measure different attributes of a drug than does ABPM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9757170PMC1229641W2133396795What 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.