Drug design, development and therapy · 2026
Efficacy and Safety of Telmisartan 20 mg/S-Amlodipine 2.5 mg versus Telmisartan 40 mg in Patients with Hypertension, Inadequately Controlled on Telmisartan 20 mg Monotherapy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Phase 3 Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеМногоцентровое исследованиеКлиническое исследование III фазыСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Youn Jong-Chan, Kim Eui-Soon, Park Tae Ho, Lee Young Soo, Hong Soon Jun, Hwang Jin-Yong, Han Jung-Kyu, Son Jung-Woo, Lee Chan Joo, Choi Jung Hyun, Kwon Sung Uk, Kim Seok Yeon, Park Hwan-Cheol, Choi Seung-Hyuk
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This 8-week, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of low-dose combination of telmisartan 20 mg/S-amlodipine 2.5 mg (T20/SA2.5) versus telmisartan 40 mg (T40) monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on T20.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a 4-week run-in period with T20 (baseline), patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) were randomized (1:1) to T20/SA2.5 or T40 for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) from baseline to week 8. Secondary endpoints included changes in MSSBP and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) at weeks 4 and 8, BP control rate, response rate (≥20 mmHg reduction in MSSBP and ≥10 mmHg in MSDBP), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: Overall, 108 patients were randomized. At week 8, least squares (LS) mean (standard error [SE]) reduction in MSSBP from baseline was greater with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (-16.97 [2.06] mmHg vs. -7.42 [2.04] mmHg; P<0.001). LS mean (SE) reductions in MSDBP at week 8 were also greater with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (-7.98 [1.17] mmHg vs. -4.01 [1.15] mmHg; P=0.006). The BP control rate was significantly higher with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (53.70% vs. 29.63%; P=0.010); the response rate was numerically higher with T20/SA2.5 (12.96% vs. 5.56%; P=0.182). The incidence of TEAEs was lower with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (9.26% vs. 20.37%, P=0.104); most events were mild.
CONCLUSION: T20/SA2.5 demonstrated superior BP-lowering efficacy and favorable tolerability compared with T40 in patients inadequately controlled on T20, supporting the value of early low-dose combination therapy.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a 4-week run-in period with T20 (baseline), patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) were randomized (1:1) to T20/SA2.5 or T40 for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) from baseline to week 8. Secondary endpoints included changes in MSSBP and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) at weeks 4 and 8, BP control rate, response rate (≥20 mmHg reduction in MSSBP and ≥10 mmHg in MSDBP), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).
RESULTS: Overall, 108 patients were randomized. At week 8, least squares (LS) mean (standard error [SE]) reduction in MSSBP from baseline was greater with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (-16.97 [2.06] mmHg vs. -7.42 [2.04] mmHg; P<0.001). LS mean (SE) reductions in MSDBP at week 8 were also greater with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (-7.98 [1.17] mmHg vs. -4.01 [1.15] mmHg; P=0.006). The BP control rate was significantly higher with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (53.70% vs. 29.63%; P=0.010); the response rate was numerically higher with T20/SA2.5 (12.96% vs. 5.56%; P=0.182). The incidence of TEAEs was lower with T20/SA2.5 than with T40 (9.26% vs. 20.37%, P=0.104); most events were mild.
CONCLUSION: T20/SA2.5 demonstrated superior BP-lowering efficacy and favorable tolerability compared with T40 in patients inadequately controlled on T20, supporting the value of early low-dose combination therapy.