Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)
The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension.
Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Updated meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure.Clinical drug investigation · 2007Pooled it
- Functional vascular study in hypertensive subjects with type 2 diabetes using losartan or amlodipine.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2014Trial
- Aliskiren alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in Hispanic/Latino patients with systolic blood pressure 160 mm Hg to <180 mm Hg (Aliskiren Alone or in Combination with Hydrochlorothiazide in Patients with Stage 2 Hypertension to Provide Quick Intensive Control of Blood Pressure [ACQUIRE] substudy).Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2012Trial
- Telmisartan and amlodipine single-pill combinations vs amlodipine monotherapy for superior blood pressure lowering and improved tolerability in patients with uncontrolled hypertension: results of the TEAMSTA-5 study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2011Trial
- Epidemiology and management of hypertension in the Hispanic population: a review of the available literature.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2012Review
- Losartan/Hydrochlorothiazide fixed combination versus amlodipine monotherapy in korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension.Korean circulation journal · 2009Article
- Amlodipine and losartan: reaction to comparison.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The calcium channel blocker amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were compared for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Following a 2-week placebo run-in, 440 adults (45-80 years old) were randomized to receive either amlodipine 5 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. Patients who failed to meet the sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) reduction goal of <or=90 mm Hg after 6 weeks had their dose increased to 10 mg amlodipine or had 12.5 mg of HCTZ added to the losartan 50 mg. A total of 42.3% of losartan and 43.6% of amlodipine subjects achieved a diastolic BP of <or=90 mm Hg at initial dose (low dose). Of those who completed treatment at the low dose, 71% of the amlodipine- and 81% of the losartan-treated patients met BP goal. This difference was not statistically significant. Of those who received a dosage adjustment, a significantly greater percentage of amlodipine-treated patients (59%) than losartan/HCTZ-treated patients (42%) reached BP goal at the last visit (p=0.009). Including both high- and low-dose subjects, 63.8% of amlodipine and 55.1% of losartan patients achieved a diastolic BP of <or=90 mm Hg at the last maintenance visit; this difference was not significant (p=0.07). Overall, reductions in mean sitting BP from baseline to the end of treatment were significantly greater in the amlodipine group than in the losartan group for both diastolic BP (-12.6 vs. -10.3 mm Hg; p=0.002) and systolic BP (-16.1 vs. -13.7 mm Hg; p=0.018). Additionally, the response rate was significantly greater after treatment with amlodipine than with losartan in African Americans (62.5% vs. 41.4%; p=0.033) and the other mostly Hispanic patients (67.7% vs. 53.5%; p=0.039). Both treatment groups showed significant reductions from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory BP at the end of treatment, with no difference between them. Adverse events were consistent with the safety profile of each drug. It is concluded that, while both amlodipine and losartan demonstrated a significant benefit for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension, there were greater reductions in most BP measurements following treatment with amlodipine in comparison to losartan with or without HCTZ.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.