Key result
Olmesartan plus azelnidipine improves blood pressure and pulse rate control over olmesartan plus trichlormethiazide.
Why the study?
Lowering blood pressure to target levels in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients often requires combination therapy, but the comparative effects of ARB with CCB versus ARB with low-dose thiazide on blood pressure and metabolic parameters were unclear.
Does the combination of olmesartan and azelnidipine improve blood pressure and metabolic parameters compared to olmesartan and trichlormethiazide in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients?
RCT (n=39)
Open-label
Does the combination of olmesartan and azelnidipine improve blood pressure and metabolic parameters compared to olmesartan and trichlormethiazide in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients?
In hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, combining an ARB with a calcium channel blocker (azelnidipine) provides better blood pressure control and metabolic outcomes than combining it with a low-dose thiazide diuretic.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Favors ARB/CCB over ARB/thiazide add-on in T2D hypertension; extends RCT evidence on metabolic neutrality.
UNLABELLED: Aims/Introduction: Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARB) are regarded as first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes with hypertension. However, lowering blood pressure to the target level often requires more than one antihypertensive agent as recommended by the guideline. In this open-label, prospective, crossover clinical trial, we compared the effects of combination treatment of ARB with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or with a low-dose thiazide diuretic on blood pressure (BP) and various metabolic parameters in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 39 Japanese type 2 diabetics with hypertension treated with olmesartan (20 mg/day) for at least 8 weeks were recruited to this study. At study entry, treatment was switched to either olmesartan (20 mg/day)/azelnidipine (16 mg/day) or olmesartan (20 mg/day)/trichlormethiazide (1 mg/day) and continued for 12 weeks. Then, the drugs were switched and treatment was continued for another 12 weeks. We measured clinical blood pressure and various metabolic parameters before and at the end of each study arm. RESULTS: Compared with the olmesartan/trichlormethiazide treatment, treatment with olmesartan/azelnidipine achieved superior clinical blood pressure and pulse rate control. In contrast, the treatment with olmesartan/trichlormethiazide resulted in increased HbA1c, serum uric acid and worsening of estimated glomerular filtration rate, though there were no differences in other metabolic parameters including urine 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine, C-reactive protein and adiponectin between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the combination of ARB with azelnidipine is more beneficial with regard to blood pressure control and metabolic outcome than the combination of olmesartan with low dose trichlormethiazide. This trial was registered with UMIN clinical trial registry (no. UMIN000005064). (J Diabetes Invest, doi: 10.1111/j.2040-1124.2011.00135.x, 2011).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yoshii et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Hypertension and type 2 diabetes (n=39). Olmesartan and azelnidipine vs. Olmesartan 20 mg/day and trichlormethiazide 1 mg/day was evaluated on Clinical blood pressure and metabolic parameters. Combination treatment with olmesartan and azelnidipine achieved superior clinical blood pressure and pulse rate control compared to olmesartan and trichlormethiazide.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: