Skip to main content
Log in

Updated Meta-Analytical Approach to the Efficacy of Antihypertensive Drugs in Reducing Blood Pressure

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical Drug Investigation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and objective:

Despite advances in the treatment of hypertension, control rates continue to be suboptimal in both Europe and the US. Strategies that improve hypertension control are therefore urgently needed. This study aimed to assess the relative efficacies of various antihypertensive drugs commonly used in France in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) by using a meta-analytical approach. This update of a previously published meta-analytical approach extends the number of drugs evaluated from 13 to 19.

Methods:

A total of 80 randomised, controlled trials published between 1973 and 2007 involving 10 818 patients were selected for inclusion in the meta-analytical approach. Data were examined for 19 drugs, and 16 drugs were included in the analysis: hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide sustained-release (SR), atenolol, amlodipine, lercanidipine, manidipine, enalapril, ramipril, trandolapril, candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, valsartan and aliskiren. Weighted average reductions in SBP and DBP over a period of 8–12 weeks were calculated for each drug from information on both the mean and the variability in BP reduction. No trials evaluating furosemide, spironolactone or cicletanine satisfied the inclusion criteria for this analysis.

Results:

The average weighted reductions in SBP over 8–12 weeks were most marked with diuretics, and in particular indapamide SR 1.5 mg/day (mean change from baseline −22.2mm Hg), which reduced SBP to a greater extent than any of the other drugs evaluated (at any dosage considered). Average weighted reductions in DBP were generally similar with all classes of antihypertensives and ranged from −11.4mm Hg with the β-adrenoceptor blocker atenolol and calcium channel antagonists to −10.3mm Hg with the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists.

Conclusions:

This new analysis supports the results of the earlier investigation, in that indapamide SR 1.5 mg/day appeared to be the most effective drug for producing significant reductions in SBP within 8–12 weeks, which is an essential element in optimising cardiovascular prevention among hypertensive patients. The clinical application of these results should take into consideration all the limitations discussed in this analysis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Hajjar I, Kotchen JM, Kotchen TA. Hypertension: trends in prevalence, incidence, and control. Annu Rev Public Health 2006; 27: 465–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wolf-Maier K, Cooper RS, Banegas JR, et al. Hypertension prevalence and blood pressure levels in 6 European countries, Canada, and the United States. JAMA 2003 May 14; 289(18): 2363–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003 May 21; 289(19): 2560–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang YR, Alexander GC, Stafford RS. Outpatient hypertension treatment, treatment intensification, and control in Western Europe and the United States. Arch Intern Med 2007 Jan 22; 167(2): 141–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bramlage P, Thoenes M, Kirch W, et al. Clinical practice and recent recommendations in hypertension management: reporting a gap in a global survey of 1259 primary care physicians in 17 countries. Curr Med Res Opin 2007 Apr; 23(4): 783–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 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 Jun; 25(6): 1105–87

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baguet JP, Robitail S, Boyer L, et al. A meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2005; 5(2): 131–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Douglas JG, Bakris GL, Epstein M, et al. Management of high blood pressure in African Americans: consensus statement of the Hypertension in African Americans Working Group of the International Society on Hypertension in Blacks. Arch Intern Med 2003 Mar 10; 163(5): 525–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cucherat M. Méta-analyse des essais thérapeutiques. Paris: Masson; 1997

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996 Feb; 17(1): 1–12

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Giles TD, Robinson TD. Effects of olmesartan medoxomil on systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure in the management of hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2004 Aug; 17(8): 690–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chrysant SG, Marbury TC, Silfani TN. Use of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring to assess blood pressure control: a comparison of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate. Blood Press Monit 2006 Jun; 11(3): 135–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Oparil S, Williams D, Chrysant SG, et al. Comparative efficacy of olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, and irbesartan in the control of essential hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2001 Sep–Oct; 3(5): 283–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fabia MJ, Abdilla N, Oltra R, et al. Antihypertensive activity of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists: a systematic review of studies with 24h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens 2007 Jul; 25(7): 1327–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Conlin PR, Spence JD, Williams B, et al. Angiotensin II antagonists for hypertension: are there differences in efficacy? Am J Hypertens 2000 Apr; 13(4 Pt 1): 418–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Management of adults with essential hypertension: 2005 update -guidelines. J Mal Vasc 2006 Feb; 31(1): 16–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mancia G, Bombelli M, Lanzarotti A, et al. Systolic vs diastolic blood pressure control in the hypertensive patients of the PAMELA population (Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate E Loro Associazioni). Arch Intern Med 2002 Mar 11; 162(5): 582–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. London GM. Efficacy of indapamide 1.5 mg, sustained release, in the lowering of systolic blood pressure. J Hum Hypertens 2004 Dec; 18Suppl. 2: S9–S14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Emeriau JP, Knauf H, Pujadas JO, et al. A comparison of indapamide SR 1.5mg with both amlodipine 5mg and hydrochlorothiazide 25mg in elderly hypertensive patients: a randomized double-blind controlled study. J Hypertens 2001 Feb; 19(2): 343–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Carlberg B, Samuelsson O, Lindholm LH. Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice? Lancet 2004 Nov 6-12; 364(9446): 1684–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet 2004 Jun 19; 363(9426): 2022–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Turnbull F. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet 2003 Nov 8; 362(9395): 1527–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Psaty BM, Lumley T, Furberg CD, et al. Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. JAMA 2003 May 21; 289(19): 2534–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Frei M, Kuster L, Gardosch von Krosigk PP, et al. Moxonidine and hydrochlorothiazide in combination: a synergistic antihypertensive effect. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1994; 24Suppl. 1: S25–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hegner G, Faust G, Freytag F, et al. Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy and safety compared to hydrochlorothiazide. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52(3): 173–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lacourciere Y, Poirier L, Lefebvre J, et al. Antihypertensive effects of amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in elderly patients with ambulatory hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1995 Dec; 8(12 Pt 1): 1154–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Dey HM, Soufer R, Hoffer P, et al. Comparison of nifedipine GITS and hydrochlorothiazide in the management of elderly patients with stage I–III diastolic hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1996 Jun; 9(6): 598–606

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Reisin E, Weir MR, Falkner B, et al. Lisinopril versus hydrochlorothiazide in obese hypertensive patients: a multicenter placebo-controlled trial. Treatment in Obese Patients With Hypertension (TROPHY) Study Group. Hypertension 1997 Jul; 30(1 Pt 1): 140–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Fariello R, Dal Palu C, Pessina A, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy of urapidil versus hydrochlorothiazide alone in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension and of their combination in nonresponders to monotherapy. Drugs 1990; 40Suppl. 4: 60–2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuo SW, Pei D, Hung YJ, et al. Effect of indapamide SR in the treatment of hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Am J Hypertens 2003 Aug; 16(8): 623–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Guez D, Mallion JM, Degaute JP, et al. Treatment of hypertension with indapamide 1.5mg sustained-release form: synthesis of results [in French]. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 1996 Sep; 89Spec No 4: 17–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Fogari R, Preti P, Derosa G, et al. Effect of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan or atenolol on sexual activity and plasma testosterone in hypertensive men. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002 Jun; 58(3): 177–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Pesant Y, Marc-Aurele J, Bielmann P, et al. Metabolic and antihypertensive effects of nebivolol and atenolol in normometabolic patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am J Ther 1999 May; 6(3): 137–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Cleophas TJ, vd Mey N, Meulen J, et al. Quality of life before and during antihypertensive treatment: a comparative study of celiprolol and atenolol. Am J Ther 1997 Apr; 4(4): 117–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Os I, Hotnes T, Dollerup J, et al. Comparison of the combination of enalapril and a very low dose of hydrochlorothiazide with atenolol in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Scandinavian Study Group. Am J Hypertens 1997 Aug; 10(8): 899–904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Campelo M, Polonia J, Serrao P, et al. Evaluation of the sympathetic nervous system using heart rate variability and plasma hormones in hypertensive patients treated with cilazapril and atenolol. Cardiology 1996 Sep–Oct; 87(5): 402–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Armentano RL, Graf S, Ramirez AJ, et al. Mechanical vs intrinsic components in the improvement of brachial arterial compliance: comparison of the effects of atenolol versus ramipril in hypertensive patients. Medicina (B Aires) 2001; 61(5 Pt 1): 535–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Webb DJ, Hutcheson MJ, Robertson MP, et al. A comparison of atenolol and long-acting trimazosin in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Scott Med J 1985 Apr; 30(2): 106–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Beevers DG, Blackwood RA, Garnham S, et al. Comparison of lisinopril versus atenolol for mild to moderate essential hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1991 Jan 1; 67(1): 59–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Dallocchio M, Gosse P, Fillastre JP, et al. Rilmenidine, a new antihypertensive agent in the first line treatment of essential arterial hypertension: multicenter double-blind study versus atenolol [in French]. Presse Med 1991 Aug 31–Sep 7; 20(27): 1265–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Rorive G, Creytens G, Ruhwiedel M, et al. Comparative study of the efficacy and tolerance of perindopril, a new converting enzyme inhibitor and of atenolol, a beta blocker [in French]. Rev Med Liege 1990 Feb 1; 45(2): 62–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Baez MA, Garg DC, Jallad NS, et al. Antihypertensive effect of doxazosin in hypertensive patients: comparison with atenolol. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1986; 21Suppl. 1: 63S–7S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Stumpe KO, Haworth D, Hoglund C, et al. Comparison of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist irbesartan with atenolol for treatment of hypertension. Blood Press 1998 Jan; 7(1): 31–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Lijnen P, Fagard R, Staessen J, et al. Short-term double-blind comparison of doxazosin and atenolol in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988 Oct; 12(4): 461–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dahlof B, Keller SE, Makris L, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of losartan potassium and atenolol in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1995 Jun; 8(6): 578–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. von zur Muhlen B, Kahan T, Hagg A, et al. Treatment with irbesartan or atenolol improves endothelial function in essential hypertension. J Hypertens 2001 Oct; 19(10): 1813–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kurland L, Melhus H, Karlsson J, et al. Aldosterone synthase (CYP11B2) -344 C/T polymorphism is related to antihypertensive response: results from the Swedish Irbesartan Left Ventricular Hypertrophy Investigation versus Atenolol (SILVHIA) trial. Am J Hypertens 2002 May; 15(5): 389–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hakamaki T, Lehtonen A. Metabolic effects of spirapril and atenolol: results from a randomized, long-term study. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997 Jun; 35(6): 227–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Elijovich F, Laffer CL, Schiffrin EL. The effects of atenolol and zofenopril on plasma atrial natriuretic peptide are due to their interactions with target organ damage of essential hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens 1997 May; 11(5): 313–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Corea L, Cardoni O, Fogari R, et al. Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: a comparative study of the efficacy and safety against amlodipine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996 Sep; 60(3): 341–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Leonetti G. Effects of nilvadipine and amlodipine in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: a double blind, prospective, randomised clinical trial. Curr Med Res Opin 2005 Jun; 21(6): 951–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Martina B, Weinbacher M, Drewe J, et al. Effects of losartan titrated to losartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine on blood pressure and peripheral capillary microcirculation in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1998 Jul; 12(7): 473–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Zidek W, Spiecker C, Knaup G, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of nifedipine coat-core versus amlodipine in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Hypertension Study Group. Clin Ther 1995 Jul–Aug; 17(4): 686–700

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Zanchetti A, Omboni S, La Commare P, et al. Efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of long-term treatment with manidipine or amlodipine in patients with essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2001 Oct; 38(4): 642–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Delies C, Klingbeil AU, Schneider MP, et al. Direct comparison of the effects of valsartan and amlodipine on renal hemodynamics in human essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2003 Dec; 16(12): 1030–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Dahlof B, Lindholm LH, Carney S, et al. Main results of the losartan versus amlodipine (LOA) study on drug tolerability and psychological general well-being. LOA Study Group. J Hypertens 1997 Nov; 15(11): 1327–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Fernandez-Andrade C, Russo D, Iversen B, et al. Comparison of losartan and amlodipine in renally impaired hypertensive patients. Kidney Int Suppl 1998 Dec; 68: S120–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Phillips RA, Kloner RA, Grimm Jr RH, et al. The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2003 Jan–Feb; 5(1): 17–23

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Kloner RA, Weinberger M, Pool JL, et al. Comparative effects of candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine in patients with mild systemic hypertension: Comparison of Candesartan and Amlodipine for Safety, Tolerability and Efficacy (CASTLE) Study Investigators. Am J Cardiol 2001 Mar 15; 87(6): 727–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Grimm Jr RH, Black H, Rowen R, et al. Amlodipine versus chlorthalidone versus placebo in the treatment of stage I isolated systolic hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2002 Jan; 15(1 Pt 1): 31–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Oparil S, Barr E, Elkins M, et al. Efficacy, tolerability, and effects on quality of life of losartan, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, versus amlodipine, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with essential hypertension. Clin Ther 1996 Jul–Aug; 18(4): 608–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Zannad F, Bernaud CM, Fay R. Double-blind, randomized, multicentre comparison of the effects of amlodipine and perindopril on 24h therapeutic coverage and beyond in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. General Physicians Investigators’ Group. J Hypertens 1999 Jan; 17(1): 137–46

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Palatini P, Malacco E, Di SS, et al. Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index in the evaluation of 24-h blood pressure control in hypertension: a comparative study between valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002 Jan; 57(11): 765–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pandita-Gunawardena ND, Clarke SE. Amlodipine lowers blood pressure without affecting cerebral blood flow as measured by single photon emission computed tomography in elderly hypertensive subjects. Age Ageing 1999 Sep; 28(5): 451–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Rajzer M, Klocek M, Kawecka-Jaszcz K. Effect of amlodipine, quinapril, and losartan on pulse wave velocity and plasma collagen markers in patients with mild-to-moderate arterial hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2003 Jun; 16(6): 439–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Mohler ER, 3rd, Herrington D, et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing the effects of amlodipine besylate/ benazepril HCl vs amlodipine on endothelial function and blood pressure. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2006 Oct; 8(10): 692–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Romito R, Pansini MI, Perticone F, et al. Comparative effect of lercanidipine, felodipine, and nifedipine GITS on blood pressure and heart rate in patients with mild to moderate arterial hypertension: the Lercanidipine in Adults (LEAD) study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2003 Jul–Aug; 5(4): 249–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Nielsen S, Dollerup J, Nielsen B, et al. Losartan reduces albuminuria in patients with essential hypertension: an enalapril controlled 3 months study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997; 12Suppl. 2: 19–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Holwerda NJ, Fogari R, Angeli P, et al. Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy and safety compared with placebo and enalapril. J Hypertens 1996 Sep; 14(9): 1147–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Martina B, Lorz W, Frach B, et al. The effects of mibefradil and enalapril on 24-hour blood pressure control and left ventricular mass in patients with mild to moderate hypertension: double-blind, randomized trial. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1999 Apr; 33(4): 647–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Zannad F, Vaur L, Dutrey-Dupagne C, et al. Antihypertensive effects of trandolapril and nitrendipine in the elderly: a controlled trial with special emphasis on time effect profiles. J Hum Hypertens 1996 Jan; 10(1): 51–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. 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 Jan; 7(1): 53–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Reif M, White WB, Fagan TC, et al. Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators. Am J Cardiol 1998 Oct 15; 82(8): 961–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Manolis AJ, Grossman E, Jelakovic B, 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 Oct; 22(10): 1186–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. McInnes GT, O’Kane KP, Jonker J, et al. The efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil in an elderly hypertensive population. J Hum Hypertens 1997 Sep; 11Suppl. 2: S75–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Zuschke CA, Keys I, Munger MA, et al. Candesartan cilexetil: comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily administration for systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators. Clin Ther 1999 Mar; 21(3): 464–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Kassler-Taub K, Littlejohn T, Elliott W, et al. Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan, in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/ Losartan Study Investigators. Am J Hypertens 1998 Apr; 11(4 Pt 1): 445–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Coca A, Calvo C, Garcia-Puig J, et al. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan and enalapril in adults with mild to moderate essential hypertension, as assessed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: the MAPAVEL Study (Monitorizacion Ambulatoria Presion Arterial APROVEL). Clin Ther 2002 Jan; 24(1): 126–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Chiou KR, Chen CH, Ding PY, et al. Randomized, double-blind comparison of irbesartan and enalapril for treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi (Taipei) 2000 May; 63(5): 368–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Lacourciere Y. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan in patients aged ≥65 years with mild to moderate hypertension. Clin Ther 2000 Oct; 22(10): 1213–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Chan JC, Critchley JA, Tomlinson B, et al. Antihypertensive and anti-albuminuric effects of losartan potassium and felodipine in Chinese elderly hypertensive patients with or without non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Am J Nephrol 1997; 17(1): 72–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Sakata K, Yoshida H, Obayashi K, et al. Effects of losartan and its combination with quinapril on the cardiac sympathetic nervous system and neurohormonal status in essential hypertension. J Hypertens 2002 Jan; 20(1): 103–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Chanudet X, De Champvallins M. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of low-dose perindopril/indapamide combination compared with losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension. Int J Clin Pract 2001 May; 55(4): 233–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Samra SS, Dongre N, Ballary C, et al. Comparison of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of telmisartan with losartan in Indian patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a pilot study. J Indian Med Assoc 2003 May; 101(5): 327–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Conlin PR, Elkins M, Liss C, et al. A study of losartan, alone or with hydrochlorothiazide, vs nifedipine GITS in elderly patients with diastolic hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1998 Oct; 12(10): 693–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Chan P, Tomlinson B, Huang TY, et al. Double-blind comparison of losartan, lisinopril, and metolazone in elderly hypertensive patients with previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced cough. J Clin Pharmacol 1997 Mar; 37(3): 253–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. Oparil S, Guthrie R, Lewin AJ, et al. An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Clin Ther 1998 May–Jun; 20(3): 398–409

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Hung MJ, Lin FC, Cherng WJ, et al. Comparison of antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of losartan and extended-release felodipine in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Formos Med Assoc 1999 Jun; 98(6): 403–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Chung O, Hinder M, Sharma AM, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of losartan (50–100 mg) with the T-type calcium channel blocker mibefradil (50–100 mg) in mild to moderate hypertension. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2000 Jan–Feb; 14(1): 31–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Roca-Cusachs A, Oigman W, Lepe L, et al. A randomized, double-blind comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of once-daily losartan compared to twice-daily captopril in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Acta Cardiol 1997; 52(6): 495–506

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  91. Vidt DG, White WB, Ridley E, et al. A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II. J Hum Hypertens 2001 Jul; 15(7): 475–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Bakris G, Gradman A, Reif M, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan in comparison to losartan: the CLAIM study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2001 Jan–Feb; 3(1): 16–21

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. White WB, Sica DA, Calhoun D, et al. Preventing increases in early-morning blood pressure, heart rate, and the rate-pressure product with controlled onset extended release verapamil at bedtime versus enalapril, losartan, and placebo on arising. Am Heart J 2002 Oct; 144(4): 657–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Li Y, Liu G, Jiang B, et al. A comparison of initial treatment with losartan/HCTZ versus losartan monotherapy in Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Int J Clin Pract 2003 Oct; 57(8): 673–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Zhu JR, Bai J, Cai NS, et al. Efficacy and safety of telmisartan vs. losartan in control of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 2004 Dec; (145): 46-9

  96. White WB, Lacourciere Y, Davidai G. Effects of the angiotensin II receptor blockers telmisartan versus valsartan on the circadian variation of blood pressure: impact on the early morning period. Am J Hypertens 2004 Apr; 17(4): 347–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Neutel J, Weber M, Pool J, et al. Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist: antihypertensive effects over 24 hours. Clin Ther 1997 May–Jun; 19(3): 447–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  98. Pool JL, Schmieder RE, Azizi M, et al. Aliskiren, an orally effective renin inhibitor, provides antihypertensive efficacy alone and in combination with valsartan. Am J Hypertens 2007 Jan; 20(1): 11–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this manuscript was supported by a grant from Les Laboratoires Servier. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. P. Baguet.

Appendices

Appendix 1 (Table V)

Table 5
figure Tab5figure Tab5figure Tab5figure Tab5

Appendix 1: Characteristics of the studies analysed for potential inclusion in the meta-analysis

Appendix 2 (Table VI)

Table 6
figure Tab6

Appendix 2: New trial data and reasons for inclusion/exclusion in the meta-analysis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baguet, J.P., Legallicier, B., Auquier, P. et al. Updated Meta-Analytical Approach to the Efficacy of Antihypertensive Drugs in Reducing Blood Pressure. Clin. Drug Investig. 27, 735–753 (2007). https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200727110-00001

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00044011-200727110-00001

Keywords

Navigation