Key result
Telmisartan was as protective as the reference-standard ramipril in patients at increased cardiovascular risk, but was better tolerated.
Why the study?
Does telmisartan provide unique cardiovascular protection in at-risk patients compared to other ARBs or ramipril?
Does telmisartan provide unique cardiovascular protection in at-risk patients compared to other ARBs or ramipril?
Telmisartan's unique pharmacological profile, including high lipophilicity and long half-life, may explain its proven efficacy in reducing cardiovascular risk in at-risk patients, distinguishing it from other ARBs.
Telmisartan may match ramipril protection with better tolerability; leaves open its distinct ARB profile in high-risk patients.
The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET()) showed that the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) telmisartan was as protective as the reference-standard ramipril in a broad cross-section of patients at increased cardiovascular risk, but was better tolerated. Telmisartan has a unique profile among ARBs, with a high affinity for the angiotensin II type 1 receptor, a long duration of receptor binding, a high lipophilicity and a long plasma half life. This leads to sustained and powerful blood pressure lowering when compared with the first marketed ARBs, such as losartan and valsartan. Some pharmacological properties of telmisartan clearly distinguish it from other members of the ARB class and may contribute to the clinical effects seen with telmisartan. A class effect for ARBs cannot be assumed. To date, telmisartan is the only ARB that has been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in at-risk cardiovascular patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michel Burnier (2009) conducted a review in Increased cardiovascular risk. Telmisartan vs. Ramipril was evaluated on Cardiovascular risk. Telmisartan was as protective as the reference-standard ramipril in patients at increased cardiovascular risk, but was better tolerated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: