Background: This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/allisartan, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, compared with olmesartan in Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Methods: Eligible patients aged 18-75 years (n=1197) with mild to moderate hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg (n=399), sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg (n=399), or olmesartan 20 mg (n=399) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients who completed the 12-week treatment then received another 12-week extended treatment (n=1084) and 28-week prolonged treatment (n=189). The primary end point was a reduction in clinic mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) from baseline with various doses of sacubitril/allisartan versus olmesartan at 12 weeks. Secondary efficacy variables included clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure for the comparison between sacubitril/allisartan and olmesartan at week 12, 24, and 52. Results: Sacubitril/allisartan 240 mg/day provided a greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-group difference: -1.9 mmHg [95% confidence interval -4.2 to 0.4 mmHg], P=0.0007, for non-inferiority). Sacubitril/allisartan 480 mg/day provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than olmesartan at 12 weeks (between-treatment difference: -5.0 mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3 to -2.8 mmHg], P<0.001, for superiority). Greater reductions in 24-h, daytime and nighttime systolic and diastolic blood pressure were also observed with both doses of sacubitril/allisartan compared with olmesartan (P≤0.001 for 480 mg/day). The blood pressure reductions tended to be dose-dependent for sacubitril/allisartan. Sacubitril/allisartan was well tolerated, and no cases of angioedema or death were reported. Conclusions: Sacubitril/allisartan is effective for the treatment of hypertension and well tolerated in Chinese patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: