Table 5.
Blood Pressure Reductions in Randomized Controlled Trials of Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists and Amlodipine in Combination versus Component Monotherapy
| Study and Year | Duration (weeks) | Drug | Dosage (mg) | Sample size (n) | Mean baseline blood pressure (mmHg) | Mean BP reductions from baseline (mmHg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLMESARTAN (OLM)/AMLODIPINE (AML) versus component therapy | ||||||
| Chrysant et al 2008 (72) | 8 | OLM+AML | 10+5 | 163 | 166/102 | 24¶/14¶ (vs both AML 5 and OLM 10) |
| OLM+AML | 10+10 | 162 | 163/101 | 25¶/16¶ (vs both AML 10 and OLM 10) | ||
| OLM+AML | 20+5 | 161 | 164/102 | 24¶/14¶ (vs both AML 5 and OLM 20) | ||
| OLM+AML | 20+10 | 160 | 164/101 | 29¶/17¶ (vs both AML 10 and OLM 20) | ||
| OLM+AML | 40+5 | 162 | 162/101 | 25¶/16¶ (vs both AML 5 and OLM 40) | ||
| OLM+AML | 40+10 | 162 | 166/102 | 30¶/19¶ (vs both AML 10 and OLM 40) | ||
| OLM | 10 | 161 | 163/102 | 12/8 | ||
| OLM | 20 | 161 | 164/102 | 14/9 | ||
| OLM | 40 | 162 | 163/101 | 16/10 | ||
| AML | 5 | 161 | 163/102 | 15/9 | ||
| AML | 10 | 163 | 164/102 | 20/13 | ||
| VALSARTAN (VAL)/AMLODIPINE (AML) versus component therapy | ||||||
| Philipp et al 2007 Study Group 1 (73) |
8 | VAL+AML | 40+5 | 125 | 153/99 | 20¶/15¶ (vs both AML 5 and VAL 40) |
| VAL+AML | 80+5 | 128 | 153/99 | 21¶/15¶ (vs both AML 5 and VAL 80) | ||
| VAL+AML | 160+5 | 127 | 153/99 | 20¶/14¶ (vs both AML 5 and VAL 160) | ||
| VAL+AML | 320+5 | 127 | 153/99 | 23¶/16¶ (vs both AML 5 and VAL 320) | ||
| VAL+AML | 40+2.5 | 129 | 153/100 | 16¶/11 (vs both AML 2.5 and VAL 40) | ||
| VAL+AML | 80+2.5 | 130 | 152/100 | 17¶/13¶ (vs both AML 2.5 and VAL 80) | ||
| VAL+AML | 160+2.5 | 127 | 152/99 | 17¶/13¶ (vs both AML 2.5 and VAL 160)§ | ||
| VAL+AML | 320+2.5 | 129 | 152/99 | 18¶/14¶ (vs AML 2.5 only) | ||
| VAL | 40 | 127 | 154/99 | 12/10 | ||
| VAL | 80 | 124 | 153/99 | 13/10 | ||
| VAL | 160 | 128 | 152/99 | 15/11 | ||
| VAL | 320 | 128 | 155/99 | 16/13 | ||
| AML | 2.5 | 126 | 154/100 | 12/9 | ||
| AML | 5 | 128 | 153/99 | 15/12 | ||
| Philipp et al 2007 Study Group 2(73) |
8 | VAL+AML | 160+10 | 209 | 157/99 | 28¶/18¶ (vs both AML 10 and VAL 160) |
| VAL+AML | 320+10 | 210 | 157/99 | 28/¶19¶ (vs both AML 10 and VAL 320) | ||
| VAL | 160 | 207 | 156/99 | 20/13 | ||
| VAL | 320 | 208 | 158/99 | 2013 | ||
| AML | 10 | 207 | 156/99 | 24/16 | ||
| Flack et al 2009 (FLACK) € Ω (74) | 8 | VAL+AML | 160/320+5/10 | 286 | 170/99 | 33¶/14¶ (vs AML 10 only) |
| AML | 5/10 | 286 | 171/98 | 27/11 | ||
| TELMISARTAN (TEL)/AMLODIPINE (AML) versus component therapy | ||||||
| Neutel et al 2012 (75) | 8 | TEL+AML | 80/10 | 421 | 185/103 | 48¶/19¶ (vs both AML 10 and TEL 80) |
| TEL | 80 | 217 | 186/103 | 37/14 | ||
| AML | 10 | 220 | 185/103 | 43/16 | ||
| LOSARTAN (LOS)/AMLODIPINE (AML) versus component therapy | ||||||
| Hong et al 2012 (76)δ | 8 | LOS+AML | 100+5 | 70 | 142/98 | 13¶/12¶ (vs LOS 100) |
| LOS | 100 | 72 | 141/97 | 3/3 | ||
| CANDESARTAN (CAN)/AMLODIPINE (AML) versus component therapy | ||||||
| Rakugi et al 2012 (77) | 12 | CAN+AML | 8+5 | 101 | 152/95 | 27¶/16¶ (vs both AML 5 and CAN 8) |
| CAN+AML | 8+2.5 | 36 | 152/96 | 20/12 | ||
| CAN+AML | 4+5 | 36 | 155/97 | 27/17 | ||
| CAN+AML | 4+2.5 | 35 | 153/96 | 16/10 | ||
| CAN | 8 | 100 | 155/97 | 14/8 | ||
| AML | 5 | 100 | 153/96 | 20/11 | ||
¶
statistically significant versus component monotherapy
€
Forced titration
Ω
African-American patients
δ
Korean patients
§
statistically significant for SBP reduction versus AML monotherapy alone and DBP reduction for both component monotherapies
CAN – Candesartan. EPR – Eprosartan. OLM – Olmesartan. LOS – Losartan. IRB – Irbesartan. VAL – Valsartan. TEL – Telmisartan. AZL – Azilsartan. AML - Amlodipine