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:

Telmisartan vs losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension—a randomised ABPM study

Abstract

The objective of this prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-end point parallel-group, multicentre study was to show that telmisartan 80 mg is not inferior to a fixed-dose combination of losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. The criterion for noninferiority was a treatment difference of 3.0 mmHg in the reduction of 24-h mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from the end of the 4-week placebo washout period to the end of the 6-week active treatment period. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the mean reduction in 24-h DBP was 8.3±6.7 mmHg among telmisartan-treated patients (n=332) and 10.3±6.3 mmHg among losartan/HCTZ-treated patients (n=350). The mean adjusted difference in 24-h DBP between the two treatment groups was 1.9 mmHg, allowing rejection of the a priori null hypothesis of a treatment difference of >3 mmHg. The reduction in mean 24-h systolic blood pressure was 13.2±10.2 mmHg with telmisartan and 17.1±10.3 mmHg with losartan/HCTZ. Both drugs provided effective control over the 24-h dosing interval. Analyses of morning (0600–1159) ambulatory blood pressure monitoring DBP means and trough cuff DBP confirmed the noninferiority hypothesis of the protocol for telmisartan 80 mg vs losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg. The reductions in office blood pressures measured at trough in patients treated with telmisartan were −16.3/−9.6 and −18.5/−11.1 mmHg in the patients treated with losartan/HCTZ (difference −2.4/−1.2 mmHg). There were no differences between the side-effect profiles of the two treatments.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hansson L et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755–1762.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2413–2446.

  3. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998; 317: 703–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Burt VL et al. Trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the adult US population. Data from the Health Examination Surveys, 1960 to 1991. Hypertension 1995; 26: 60–69.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Marques-Vidal P, Tuomilehto J . Hypertension awareness, treatment and control in the community: is the ‘rule of halves’ still valid? J Hum Hypertens 1997; 11: 213–220.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Neutel JM, Smith DHG . Familial aspects of the hypertension syndrome. J Cardiovasc Risk 1997; 4: 243–249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Neutel JM et al. Low dose combination therapy as first line treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: the efficacy and safety of bisoprolol/HCTZ versus amlodipine, enalapril, and placebo. Cardiovasc Rev Rep 1996; 71: 33–45.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Neutel JM, Smith DHG . Dose response and antihypertensive efficacy of the AT1 receptor antagonist telmisartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Adv Ther 1998; 15: 206–217.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Neutel JM et al. Comparison of telmisartan with lisinopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am J Ther 1999; 6: 161–166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mallion JM et al. ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1999; 13: 657–664.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lacourcière Y et al. A comparison of the efficacies and duration of action of the angiotensin II receptor blocker telmisartan to amlodipine. Blood Press Monit 1998; 3: 295–302.

    Google Scholar 

  12. White WB et al. Comparison of effects of controlled onset extended release verapamil at bedtime and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on arising on early morning blood pressure, heart rate and heart rate-blood pressure product. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81: 424–431.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Smith DHG et al. Prospective, Randomized, Open-label, Blinded Endpoint (PROBE) designed trials yield the same results as traditional double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with respect to ambulatory blood pressure measurements. J Hypertens 2002; submitted.

  14. Cook NR et al. Implications of small reductions in diastolic blood pressure for primary prevention. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 701–709.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Psaty BM et al. Association between blood pressure level and the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and total mortality: the cardiovascular health study. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 1183–1192.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sharpe M, Jarvis B, Goa KL . Telmisartan: a review of its use in hypertension. Drugs 2001; 61: 1501–1529.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Burnier M, Maillard M . The comparative pharmacology of angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Blood Press 2001; 10 (Suppl 1): 6–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Neutel JM et al. Antihypertensive effects of beta-blockers administered once daily: 24-hour measurements. Am Heart J 1990; 120: 166–171.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Neutel JM . Application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in differentiating between antihypertensive agents. Am J Med 1993; 94: 181–187.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Neutel JM et al. Long-term efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan as monotherapy and in combination with other antihypertensive medications. Blood Press 2002; 11: 302–309.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the following members of the OTELLOH Study Group: J Breidthardt, H Dobritz, B Becker, H Benduhn, D Meyer-Carlstädt, G Weber, A Reinhardt-Feyerabend, K Weyland, C Herrmann, L Rehn, R Hendricks, M Deters, S Kempinski, F Freytag, R Schmidt, C Klein, RE Kolloch, and R Braun from Germany; P Vioriot, P Cavare, L Herlet, J-L Lambolez, J C Laroche, F Roung, F Royer, D Seigneur, G Meridjen, F Albesa, CA Sournia, P Archaud, M Chay, P-G Diss, JP Grazzini, P-L Llorens, B Perrin, M Pieretti, R Riviere, F Ronot, J Samat, J-L Saunier, P Vial, C Vincey, M Wong Chi Man, C Paulet, V Caries, AC Marty, M Hergue, JL Julien, JM Lacroix, C Faugere, F Marsaud, P Viant, P Jallon, J Arouze, F Belzunce, G Chabrat, J Dufour, H Marino and M Salvi from France; I Bierens, H Ferguson, JHH Overbeek, ACJ Schlösser, CP Buiks, J Veerman, JG Smilde, JLM Koch, FAAM Vermetten, JTJ Dams, I Tramarko, JCTM Vermeulen, AWHM Lutkie, H Prak, RE Pieters, PDN Coenen, F De Ruiter, AME Drost, H Habets, JP Van der Krogt, JH Bonarius, AMJ Sijstermanns and JAM Fransen from the Netherlands; G McInnes, TM MacDonald, JS McLay and P Jackson from Great Britain; J Lier, TP Andersen, P Walle, G Woie and Å Woie from Norway; J Viljoen, C Tucker, LG Herbst, DP Myburgh and J Engelbrecht from South Africa; R Antikainen, P Järvinen, P Saloranta, TK Halonen, M Jääskivi and TT Valle from Finland; M Rishøj, M Gliese, S Neldam, E Hansen and JO Reichardt from Denmark; E Poch, JR Gonzalez-Juanatey, J Olivan, J Mora and M Luque from Spain; and F Coucke, DL Clement, V Conraads, C Brohet, Dr Van Overschelde, and JC Stoléar from Belgium.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J M Neutel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neutel, J., Kolloch, R., Plouin, P. et al. Telmisartan vs losartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension—a randomised ABPM study. J Hum Hypertens 17, 569–575 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001592

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jhh.1001592

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links