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:

Comparison of the efficacy of candesartan and losartan: a meta-analysis of trials in the treatment of hypertension

Journal of Human Hypertension volume 24, pages 525–531 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

Informed by the findings from prospective observational studies and randomized outcome trials, guidelines for the management of hypertension acknowledge that the benefit of treatment can be attributed largely to blood pressure (BP) reduction. Therefore, quantification of differential BP lowering of different agents within classes of anti-hypertensives is of practical importance. The objective of this analysis was to compare the efficacy of candesartan and losartan with respect to reduction in systolic and diastolic BP (SBP and DBP). A systematic literature search of databases from 1980 to 1 October 2008 identified 13 studies in which candesartan and losartan were compared in randomized trials in hypertensive patients. Data from 4066 patients were included in the analysis using a random effect model. Mean changes in SBP and DBP were compared for each drug alone and after stratification for dose and for combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). On the basis of all the data, the weighted mean difference favoured candesartan—3.22 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16, 4.29) for SBP and 2.21 mm Hg (95% CI 1.34, 3.07) for DBP. These findings were consistent when analyses according to dose and combination with HCTZ were carried out. Thus, it can be concluded that at currently recommended doses, candesartan is more effective than losartan in lowering BP.

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
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, Hebert P, Fiebach NH, Eberlein KA et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease: part 2. Short-term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet 1990; 335: 827–838.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of different regimens to lower blood pressure on major cardiovascular events in older and younger adults: meta-analysis of randomised trials. Br Med J 2008; 336: 1121–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Kramer H, Banegas JR, Giampaoli S, Joffres MR et al. Hypertension treatment and control in five European countries, Canada, and the United States. Hypertension 2004; 43: 10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G et al. Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension. European Society of Cardiology. 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2007; 25 (6): 1105–1108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Conlin PR, Spence JD, Williams B, Ribeiro AB, Saito I, Benedict C et al. Angiotensin II antagonists for hypertension: are there differences in efficacy? Am J Hypertens 2000; 13: 418–426.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elmfeldt D, Olofsson B, Meredith P . The relationships between dose and antihypertensive effect of four AT1-receptor blockers. Differences in potency and efficacy. Blood Press 2002; 11: 293–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Goa KL, Wagstaff AJ . Losartan potassium: a review of its pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and tolerability in the management of hypertension. Drugs 1996; 51 (5): 820–845.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Easthope SE, Jarvis B . Candesartan cilexetil: an update of its use in essential hypertension. Drugs 2002; 62 (8): 1253–1287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vauquelin G, Fierens F, Van Liefde I . Long-lasting angiotensin type 1 receptor binding and protection by candesartan: comparison with other biphenyl-tetrazole sartans. J Hypertens 2006; 24 (1): S23–S30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Belz GG, Fuchs B, Malerczyk C, Magin SG, Roll S, Mutschler E . Inhibition of angiotensin II pressor response and ex vivo angiotensin II radioligand binding by candesartan cilexetil and losartan in healthy human volunteers. J Hum Hypertens 1997; vf11 (Suppl 2): S45–S47.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Review Manager (RevMan). [Computer program]. Version 5.0 The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration: Copenhagen, 2008.

  12. DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–188.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Andersson OK, Neldam S . The antihypertensive effect and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, a new generation angiotensin II antagonist, in comparison with losartan. Blood Press 1998; 7: 53–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baguet J-P, Nisse-Durgeat S, Mouret S, Asmar R, Mallion J-M . A placebo-controlled comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, 8 mg, and losartan, 50 mg, as monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension, using 36-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60: 391–398.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bakris G, Gradman A, Reif M, Wofford M, Munger M, Harris S et al. Antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan in comparison to losartan: the CLAIM study. J Clin Hypertens 2001; 3: 16–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gradman AH, Lewin A, Bowling BT, Tonkon M, Deedwania PC, Kezer AE et al. Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and losartan in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Versus Losartan Efficacy Comparison (CANDLE) Study Group. Heart Dis 1999; 1: 52–57.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koenig W . Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of combination tablets containing candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide or losartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with moderate to severe hypertension. Results of the CARLOS-Study. Clin Drug Investig 2000; 19: 239–246.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Koh KK, Han SH, Chung WJ, Ahn JY, Jin DK, Kim HS et al. Comparison of effects of losartan, irbesartan, and candesartan on flow-mediated brachial artery dilation and on inflammatory and thrombolytic markers in patients with systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 2004; 93: 1432–1435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lacourciere Y, Asmar R . A comparison of the efficacy and duration of action of candesartan cilexetil and losartan as assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure after a missed dose, in truly hypertensive patients: a placebo-controlled, forced titration study. Candesartan/Losartan study investigators. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 1181–1187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Manolis AJ, Grossman E, Jelakovic B, Jacovides A, Bernhardi DC, Cabrera WJ et al. Effects of losartan and candesartan monotherapy and losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension Losartan Trial Investigators. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 1186–1203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsuda H, Hayashi K, Homma K, Yoshioka K, Kanda T, Takamatsu I et al. Differing anti-proteinuric action of candesartan and losartan in chronic renal disease. Hypertens Res Clin Exp 2003; 26: 875–880.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nishimura T, Hashimoto J, Ohkubo T, Kikuya M, Metoki H, Asayama K et al. Efficacy and duration of action of the four selective angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor blockers, losartan, candesartan, valsartan and telmisartan, in patients with essential hypertension determined by home blood pressure measurements. Clin Exp Hypertens 2005; 27: 477–489.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ohman KP, Milon H, Valnes K . Efficacy and tolerability of a combination tablet of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide in insufficiently controlled primary hypertension—comparison with a combination of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide. Blood Press 2000; 9: 214–220.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rayner BL, Trinder YA, Baines D, Isaacs S, Opie LH . Effect of losartan versus candesartan on uric acid, renal function, and fibrinogen in patients with hypertension and hyperuricemia associated with diuretics. Am J Hypertens 2006; 19: 208–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vidt DG, White WB, Ridley E, Rahman M, Harris S, Vendetti J et al. A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II. J Hum Hypertens 2001; 15: 475–480.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002; 360: 1903–1913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prospective Studies Collaboration. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data from one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002; 360: 1903–1913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ . Use of blood pressure lowering drugs in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: meta-analysis of 147 randomised trials in the context of expectations from prospective epidemiological studies. Br Med J 2009; 338: b1665.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Wald DS, Law M, Morris JK, Bestwick JP, Wald NJ . Combination therapy versus monotherapy in reducing blood pressure: meta-analysis on 11 000 participants from 42 trials. Am J Med 2009; 122: 290–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995–1003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Olofsson B et al. The Study On Cognition And Prognosis In The Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 875–886.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Meredith PA, Murray LS, McMurray JJV . A putative placebo comparison of the SCOPE and LIFE trials. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst 2004; 5 (2): 59–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kjeldsen SE, Stålhammar J, Hasvold P, Bodegard J, Olsson U, Russell D et al. Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2010; 24: 263–273.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine & Therapeutics, Division of Cardiovascular & Medical Sciences, Gardiner Institute, Western Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland, UK

    P A Meredith, L S Murray & G T McInnes

Authors
  1. P A Meredith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L S Murray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G T McInnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P A Meredith.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The analyses presented were supported by a grant from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, which carried no restrictions regarding the publication of the analysis. Peter Meredith and Gordon McInnes have received honoraria for consultancy, advisory board attendance and speaker fees from a number of pharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, MSD, Pfizer and Takeda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meredith, P., Murray, L. & McInnes, G. Comparison of the efficacy of candesartan and losartan: a meta-analysis of trials in the treatment of hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 24, 525–531 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2009.99

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2009.99

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links