Antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan vs ramipril over the 24-h dosing period, including the critical early morning hours : a pooled analysis of the PRISMA I and II randomized trials
Cardiovascular risk is subject to circadian variation, with peak morning incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke correlating with the early morning blood pressure (BP) surge (EMBPS). Ideally, antihypertensive therapy should maintain control of BP throughout the 24-h dosing cycle. In two sister studies, Prospective, Randomized Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of Micardis vs Ramipril Using ABPM (ambulatory BP monitoring) (PRISMA) I and II, BP control was compared in patients with essential hypertension (24-h mean baseline ambulatory BP approximately 148/93 mm Hg) randomized to the angiotensin receptor blocker, telmisartan (80 mg; n=802), or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril (5 or 10 mg; n=811), both dosed in the morning. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the final 6 h of the 24-h dosing cycle. The adjusted mean treatment differences in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were -5.8/-4.2 mm Hg after 8 weeks and -4.1/-3.0 mm Hg after 14 weeks, in favour of telmisartan (P<0.0001 for all four comparisons). Secondary end point results, including the mean 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, day- and night-time BP and 24-h BP load, also significantly favoured telmisartan (P<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated; adverse events, including cough, were less common with telmisartan. These findings suggest that telmisartan is more effective than ramipril throughout the 24-h period and during the EMBPS; this may be attributable to telmisartan's long duration of effect, which is sustained throughout the 24-h dosing period.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2009 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2009 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:23 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of human hypertension - 23(2009), 9 vom: 19. Sept., Seite 610-9 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Williams, B [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 23.11.2009 Date Revised 01.12.2018 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1038/jhh.2009.4 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM186511353 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM186511353 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231223174325.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231223s2009 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1038/jhh.2009.4 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0622.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM186511353 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)19225530 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Williams, B |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan vs ramipril over the 24-h dosing period, including the critical early morning hours |b a pooled analysis of the PRISMA I and II randomized trials |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2009 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 23.11.2009 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 01.12.2018 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a Cardiovascular risk is subject to circadian variation, with peak morning incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke correlating with the early morning blood pressure (BP) surge (EMBPS). Ideally, antihypertensive therapy should maintain control of BP throughout the 24-h dosing cycle. In two sister studies, Prospective, Randomized Investigation of the Safety and efficacy of Micardis vs Ramipril Using ABPM (ambulatory BP monitoring) (PRISMA) I and II, BP control was compared in patients with essential hypertension (24-h mean baseline ambulatory BP approximately 148/93 mm Hg) randomized to the angiotensin receptor blocker, telmisartan (80 mg; n=802), or the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril (5 or 10 mg; n=811), both dosed in the morning. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) during the final 6 h of the 24-h dosing cycle. The adjusted mean treatment differences in the last 6-h mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were -5.8/-4.2 mm Hg after 8 weeks and -4.1/-3.0 mm Hg after 14 weeks, in favour of telmisartan (P<0.0001 for all four comparisons). Secondary end point results, including the mean 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, day- and night-time BP and 24-h BP load, also significantly favoured telmisartan (P<0.0001). Both treatments were well tolerated; adverse events, including cough, were less common with telmisartan. These findings suggest that telmisartan is more effective than ramipril throughout the 24-h period and during the EMBPS; this may be attributable to telmisartan's long duration of effect, which is sustained throughout the 24-h dosing period | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Comparative Study | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Randomized Controlled Trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Benzimidazoles |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Benzoates |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Ramipril |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a L35JN3I7SJ |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Telmisartan |2 NLM | |
| 650 | 7 | |a U5SYW473RQ |2 NLM | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lacourcière, Y |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schumacher, H |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gosse, P |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Neutel, J M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of human hypertension |d 1996 |g 23(2009), 9 vom: 19. Sept., Seite 610-9 |w (DE-627)NLM012646121 |x 1476-5527 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:23 |g year:2009 |g number:9 |g day:19 |g month:09 |g pages:610-9 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2009.4 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 23 |j 2009 |e 9 |b 19 |c 09 |h 610-9 | ||