Docamed
   

angiotensin-receptor blockers in miscellaneous for all type of patients, clinical trials results

ARBs versus control
Suzuki, 2008
ARBs (valsartan, candesartan, and losartan)
versus
no ARBs
patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease on dialysisopen
candesartan versus amlodipine
CASE-J, 2008
candesartan-based regimen
versus
amlodipine-based regimen
high-risk Japanese hypertensive patientsopen (blinded assessment)
Follow-up duration: 3.2 years
Japan
candesartan versus control
Takahashi, 2006
candesartan
versus
control
patients on chronic haemodialysis in stable condition and with no clinical evidence of cardiac disorders open
Follow-up duration: 19.4 months
candesartan versus conventional treatment
E-COST, 2005
candesartan, 2 to 12 mg daily
versus
conventional antihypertensive drugs other than angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or ARBs
Japanese essential hypertensive subjects (sitting blood pressure 140-180/90-110 mmHg) aged 35-79 yearssingle-blind
Japan
E-COST-R, 2005
candesartan
versus
conventional treatment
hypertensive subjects 60 to 75 years old with non-diabetic chronic renal insufficiencyopen
HIJ-CREATE, 2009
angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy
versus
non-angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy
patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and hypertensionopen
Follow-up duration: 4.2 y (median)
Japan
candesartan versus hydrochlorothiazide
ALPINE, 2003
candesartan
versus
hydrochlorothiazide
newly detected hypertensivesdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Sweden
candesartan versus placebo
TROPHY, 2006
NCT00227318
candesartan during 2y followed by 2y of placebo
versus
placebo
subjects with repeated measurements of systolic pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg and diastolic pressure of 89 mm Hg or lower, or systolic pressure of 139 mm Hg or lower and diastolic pressure of 85 to 89 mm Hgdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 4y
USA
SCOPE, 2003
candesartan, 8–16 mg once daily (target 160/90)
versus
placebo
patients aged 70–89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160– 179 mmHg, and/or diastolic blood pressure 90–99 mmHg, and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score > 24double-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.7 y (mean)
15 countries
irbesartan versus amlodipine
IDNT (vs amlodipine), 2001
Irbesartan 300mg/d (with a target of 135/85)
versus
amlodipine 10mg/d (with a target of 135/85)
hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2·6y
worldwide
irbesartan versus placebo
IDNT (vs placebo), 2001
Irbesartan 300mg/d (target 135/85)
versus
placebo
hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetesdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.6 y
worldwide
IRMA 2, 2001
irbesartan 150 mg daily or 300 mg daily
versus
placebo
hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuriadouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
multinational
LCZ696 versus placebo
Ruilope, 2010
LCZ696 for 8 weeks
versus
placebo
patients with mild to moderate hypertension double blind
Follow-up duration: 8 weeks
18 countries
losartan versus atenolol
LIFE, 2002
losartan
versus
atenolol
patients aged 55–80 years, with previously treated or untreated hypertension (sitting blood pressure 160–200/95–115 mm Hg) and ECG signs of LVH.Double blind
Follow-up duration: 4.8 y (mean)
USA, Europe
losartan versus placebo
RENAAL, 2001
lLosartan 50 to 100 mg once daily
versus
placebo
patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.4 years
olmesartan versus placebo
ROADMAP, 2010
NCT00185159
olmesartan at 40 mg/day
versus
placebo
patients with diabetes and at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor, but no evidence of renal dysfunctiondouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.2 y
Europe (19 countries)
ORIENT,
NCT00141453
olmesartan
versus
placebo
patients with diabetic Nephropathy and overt proteinuria secondary to type 2 diabetes mellitusdouble-blind
Japan, Hong Kong
olmesartan 40 mg versus olmesartan 20 mg plus a calcium-channel blocker
OSCAR, 2011
NCT00134160
high-dose olmesartan 40 mg per day
versus
20-mg/day olmesartan comined with standard dose of amlodipine or azelnidipine
high-risk elderly Japanese hypertension patients
Japan
telmisartan versus enalapril
DETAIL, 2004
telmisartan 80 mg daily
versus
enalapril 20 mg daily
subjects with type 2 diabetes and early nephropathy double-blind
Follow-up duration: 5 year
telmisartan versus placebo
TRANSCEND, 2008
NCT00153101
telmisartan 80 mg/day
versus
placebo
high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitorsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: median 56 months (IQR 51-64)
40 countries
PROPHESS, 2008
NCT00153062
telmisartan 80 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients who recently had an ischemic strokedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2.5 y
35 countries
telmisartan versus ramipril
ONTARGET (telmisartan alone), 2008
NCT00153101
telmisartan 80mg daily
versus
ramipril 10 mg daily
patients patients with coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damagedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4.7y
40 countries
telmisartan + ramipril versus ramipril
ONTARGET (association vs ramipril), 2008
NCT00153101
telmisartan 80mg + ramipril 10mg daily
versus
ramipril 10 mg daily
patients patients with coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage double blind
Follow-up duration: 4.7y
40 countries
telmisartan + ramipril versus telmisartan
ONTARGET (association vs telmisartan), 2008
NCT00153101
telmisartan 80mg + ramipril 10mg daily
versus
telmisartan 80 mg daily
patients patients with coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage double blind
Follow-up duration: 4.7y
40 countries
valsartan versus amlodipine
VALUE, 2004
NCT00129233
valsartan based regimen
versus
amlodipine based regimen
patients, aged 50 years or older with treated or untreated hypertension and high risk of cardiac eventsDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4.2 y (mean)
31 countries

  Filter



  Options


in first

in second