Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine tablets and losartan tablets in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 16, pages 605–610 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

A double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, multicentre study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine with losartan. Patients with mild to moderate hypertension (supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95–115 mm Hg) were enrolled and underwent a placebo run-in period of 14–30 days before random allocation to lercanidipine tablets 10 mg once-daily (n = 234) or losartan tablets 50 mg once-daily (n = 231) during the assessment period (approximately 16 weeks). Titration to lercanidipine 20 mg once-daily (two 10 mg tablets) or losartan 100 mg once-daily (two 50 mg tablets) was allowed after 8 weeks, if necessary. At the end of the study, 71% of patients who received lercanidipine tablets had achieved normalised DBP (ie, ⩽90 mm Hg) and 81% had responded to treatment (ie, DBP ⩽90 mm Hg or a decrease in DBP ⩾10 mm Hg). The corresponding numbers in the losartan tablets group were 65% and 78%, respectively. In those patients who required dose titration, there was evidence of a greater response with lercanidipine tablets than with losartan tablets. Both treatments were well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse drug reactions and a low withdrawal rate. In conclusion, the antihypertensive effects of lercanidipine tablets were comparable with those of losartan tablets; both treatments gave a high response rate for an antihypertensive monotherapy and were very well tolerated.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ramsay LE et al. Guidelines for management of hypertension: report of the third working party of the British Hypertension Society J Hum Hypertens 1999; 13: 569–592

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Circo A . Active dose findings for lercanidipine in a double-blind, placebo-controlled design inpatients with mild to moderate hypertension J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl 2): S21–S25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barbagallo M, Barbagallo-Sangiorgi G . Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in monotherapy in elderlypatients with isolated systolic hypertension Aging (Milano) 2000; 12: 375–379

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Herbette LG, Vecchiarelli M, Leonardi A . Lercanidipine: short plasma half-life, long duration of action. A molecular model to rationalize its pharmacokinetic properties J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl 1): S19–S24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Morisco C, Trimarco B . Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in comparison to and in combination with atenolol inpatients with mild to moderate hypertension in a double-blind controlled study J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl 2): S26–S30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Notarbartolo A, Rengo F, Scafidi V, Acanfora D . Long-term effects of lercanidipine on the lipoprotein and apolipoprotein profile ofpatients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension Cur Therapeut Res Clin Exper 1999; 60: 228–236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Barbagallo Sangiorgi G, Putignano E, Calcara L, Barbagallo M . Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine versus captopril inpatients with mild to moderate hypertension in a double-blind controlled study J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl 2): S36–S39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Policicchio D, Magliocca R, Malliani A . Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine inpatients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: a comparative study with slow-release nifedipine J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl 2): S31–S35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goa KL, Wagstaff AJ . Losartan potassium: a review of its pharmacology, clinical efficacy and tolerability in the management of hypertension Drugs 1996; 51: 820–845

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chan JC et al. Randomised, double-blind, parallel group study of the antihypertensive efficacy and safety to losartan potassium compared with felodipine in elderlypatients with mild to moderate hypertension J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9: 765–771

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cafiero M, Giasi M . Long-term (12-month) treatment with lercanidipine inpatients with mild to moderate hypertension J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl 2): S45–S49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Circo A . Active dose findings for lercanidipine in a double-blind, placebo-controlled design inpatients with mild to moderate hypertension J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl 2): S21–S25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hedner T et al. A comparison of the angiotensin II antagonists valsartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 414–417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Borghi C et al. The use of lercanidipine can improve the individual tolerability to dihydropyridine calcium blockers in hypertensivepatients [abstract]. Tenth European Meeting on Hypertension; 2000 May 29–Jun 3; Göteborg, Sweden J Hypertens 2000; 18 (Suppl): S155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kumar P, Clarke M (eds). Clinical Medicine 4th edition Harcourt Brace and Company: London 1998

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aranda P et al. Therapeutic efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine versus candesartan, alone or in combination, in mild–moderate essential hypertensives [abstract] J Hypertens 2000; 18 (Suppl 2): S152

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sànchez A et al. Comparative evaluation of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine and irbesartan [abstract] 4th European Meeting on Calcium Antagonists 1999; 27–29 Oct, Amsterdam

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited. The authors would like to acknowledge the work of the other investigators in this study and the help of Mrs T Roberts, Mrs C O'Brien, Dr C McDonald, and Dr A Greenough for their help in preparing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Spring House Surgery, Bolton, Lancashire, UK

    I G V James

  2. Tal-y-bont Surgery, Pontardulias, Swansea, UK

    A Jones

  3. Cwmfelin Medical Centre, Swansea, UK

    P Davies

Authors
  1. I G V James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to I G V James.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

James, I., Jones, A. & Davies, P. A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine tablets and losartan tablets in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 16, 605–610 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001430

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001430

Keywords

Search

Advanced search

Quick links