Trial reportJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2011
Comparison of the novel angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil vs valsartan by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
Trial report in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00591578 (A Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel-Group Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of TAK-491 With Valsartan in Subjects With Essential Hypertension), which is not on this map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 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.
A Double-Blind, Randomized, Parallel-Group Study to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of TAK-491 With Valsartan in Subjects With Essential Hypertension
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis of Azilsartan Medoxomil Compared to Other Anti-hypertensives Efficacy in Lowering Blood Pressure Amongst Mild to Moderate Hypertensive Patients.Advances in therapy · 2024Pooled it
- 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
- Trial
- A randomized titrate-to-target study comparing fixed-dose combinations of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone with olmesartan and hydrochlorothiazide in stage-2 systolic hypertension.Journal of hypertension · 2018Trial
- Evaluation of the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil in African-American patients with hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Trial
- The Impact of Azilsartan Medoxomil Treatment (Capsule Formulation) at Doses Ranging From 10 to 80 mg: Significant, Rapid Reductions in Clinic Diastolic and Systolic Blood Pressure.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Trial
- Azilsartan in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension Using Clinic and Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2017Trial
- Effects of Age, Sex, and Race on the Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Single and Multiple Doses of Azilsartan Medoxomil in Healthy Subjects.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2016Trial
- Effects of azilsartan medoxomil compared with olmesartan and valsartan on ambulatory and clinic blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes and prediabetes.Journal of hypertension · 2016Trial
- Safety and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil in subjects with essential hypertension: a one-year, phase 3, open-label study.Clinical and experimental hypertension (New York, N.Y. : 1993) · 2016Trial
- Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of azilsartan medoxomil with or without chlorthalidone during and after 8 months of treatment for hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2015Trial
- Rationale, study design, and implementation of the ACS1 study: effect of azilsartan on circadian and sleep blood pressure as compared with amlodipine.Blood pressure monitoring · 2014Trial
- Effects of combining azilsartan medoxomil with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension.Blood pressure monitoring · 2014Trial
- Antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril.Journal of human hypertension · 2013Trial
- EARLY Treatment with azilsartan compared to ACE-inhibitors in anti-hypertensive therapy--rationale and design of the EARLY hypertension registry.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2013Trial
- Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of the fixed-dose combination of azilsartan medoxomil and chlorthalidone: a factorial study.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2012Trial
- Effect of Azilsartan on clinical blood pressure reduction compared to other angiotensin receptor blockers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- 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
- Gastroprotective Effect of Azilsartan Through Ameliorating Oxidative Stress, Inflammation, and Restoring Hydroxyproline, and Gastrin Levels in Ethanol-Induced Gastric Ulcer.Journal of inflammation research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M) is a unique angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) under development for the treatment of hypertension. To compare this ARB with another in the class, the authors studied the effects of AZL-M and valsartan (VAL) in 984 patients with primary hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study using ambulatory and clinic blood pressure (BP) measurements. The primary end point was change from baseline in 24-hour mean ambulatory systolic BP following 24 weeks of treatment. Hierarchical analysis testing for noninferiority was followed by superiority testing of AZL-M (80 mg then 40 mg) vs VAL. The mean age of participants was 58 years, 52% were men, and 15% were black. Baseline 24-hour mean systolic BP was similar (approximately 145.6 mm Hg) in each group. AZL-M 40 mg and 80 mg lowered 24-hour mean systolic BP (-14.9 mm Hg and -15.3 mm Hg, respectively) more than VAL 320 mg (-11.3 mm Hg; P<.001 for 40-mg and 80-mg comparisons vs VAL). Clinic systolic BP reductions were consistent with the ambulatory results (-14.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 40 mg and -16.9 mm Hg for AZL-M 80 mg vs -11.6 mm Hg for VAL; P=.015 and P<.001, respectively). The reductions in 24-hour mean and clinic diastolic BPs were also greater with both doses of AZL-M than with VAL (P≤.001 for all comparisons). Small, reversible changes in serum creatinine occurred more often with AZL-M than with VAL; otherwise, safety and tolerability parameters were similar among the three groups. These data demonstrate that AZL-M across the effective dose range had superior efficacy to VAL at its maximal recommended dose without any meaningful increase in adverse events. These findings suggest that AZL-M could provide higher rates of hypertension control compared with other ARBs in the class.
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.