4.3 Article

Comparison of long-term safety of fixed-dose combinations azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone vs olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION
Volume 19, Issue 9, Pages 874-883

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jch.13009

Keywords

angiotensin receptor blocker; azilsartan; chlorthalidone; diuretic; fixed-dose combination

Funding

  1. Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This 52-week, randomized, open-label study evaluated long-term safety/tolerability of fixed-dose combination azilsartan medoxomil/chlorthalidone (AZL-M/CLD) vs fixed-dose combination olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (OLM/HCTZ) in patients with essential hypertension (stage 2; clinic systolic blood pressure 160-190mm Hg). Initial AZL-M/CLD 40/12.5mg/d (n=418) or OLM/HCTZ 20/12.5mg/d (n=419) could be uptitrated during weeks 4 to 52 (AZL-M/CLD to 80/25mg; OLM/HCTZ to 40/25mg [United States] or 20/25mg [Europe]) to meet blood pressure targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events/serious adverse events occurred in 78.5%/5.7% of patients taking AZL-M/CLD vs 76.4%/6.2% taking OLM/HCTZ. The most frequent adverse events were dizziness (16.3% vs 12.6%), blood creatinine increase (21.5% vs 8.6%), headache (7.4% vs 11.0%), and nasopharyngitis (12.2% vs 11.5%). Hypokalemia was uncommon (1.0% vs 0.7%). Greater blood pressure reductions with AZL-M/CLD by week 2 were maintained throughout the study, despite less uptitration (32.3% vs 48.9% with OLM/HCTZ). Fixed-dose combination AZL-M/CLD showed an encouraging benefit-risk profile when used per standard clinical practice in a titrate-to-target strategy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available