Medicine · 2020
A phase 3 double-blind randomized (CONSORT-compliant) study of azilsartan medoxomil compared to valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension.
Клиническое исследование III фазыСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное 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.
Wu Jiahui, Du Xin, Lv Qiang, Li Zhanquan, Zheng Zeqi, Xia Yong, Tang Chengchun, Yao Zhuhua, Zhang Jun, Long Mingzhi, Hisada Michie, Wu Jingtao, Zhou Wei, Ma Changsheng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), an angiotensin II receptor blocker, has a well-characterized efficacy and safety profile in patients with hypertension. AZL-M is approved for use in over 40 countries globally; however, it is not yet approved in China. Therefore, a phase 3 registration study to assess the efficacy (antihypertensive effect), safety, and tolerability of AZL-M compared with valsartan in Chinese patients with essential hypertension was undertaken.
METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 8-week phase 3 study compared AZL-M with valsartan in Chinese patients aged ≥18 years with essential hypertension. Endpoints included change from baseline to week 8 in trough sitting clinic systolic blood pressure (scSBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring parameters.
RESULTS: Overall, 612 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; 57.5% male) were randomized to AZL-M 80 mg (n = 209), AZL-M 40 mg (n = 199), or valsartan 160 mg (n = 204). Baseline mean scSBP was similar in all groups (157.9-158.5 mm Hg). The mean reduction in trough scSBP from baseline to week 8 was significantly greater with AZL-M 80 mg than with valsartan (-24.2 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .010), and noninferior with AZL-M 40 mg versus valsartan (-22.5 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .184). Mean reduction in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (n = 257) was significantly greater with both AZL-M 80 mg (-17.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and AZL-M 40 mg (-14.7 mm Hg; P = .014) than with valsartan (-9.4 mm Hg). Treatment-emergent adverse events had similar incidence (52.8%-56.5%) across the treatment groups and were generally mild or moderate. Dizziness was the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (AZL-M 80 mg, 1.9%; AZL-M 40 mg, 1.5%; valsartan, 1.0%). The safety and tolerability of AZL-M were comparable with valsartan.
CONCLUSIONS: AZL-M was noninferior to valsartan at the 40-mg dose and superior to valsartan at the 80-mg dose in reducing trough scSBP, and showed acceptable safety-consistent with the AZL-M safety profile in other populations-in Chinese adults with hypertension.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02480764.
METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 8-week phase 3 study compared AZL-M with valsartan in Chinese patients aged ≥18 years with essential hypertension. Endpoints included change from baseline to week 8 in trough sitting clinic systolic blood pressure (scSBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring parameters.
RESULTS: Overall, 612 patients (mean age, 57.1 years; 57.5% male) were randomized to AZL-M 80 mg (n = 209), AZL-M 40 mg (n = 199), or valsartan 160 mg (n = 204). Baseline mean scSBP was similar in all groups (157.9-158.5 mm Hg). The mean reduction in trough scSBP from baseline to week 8 was significantly greater with AZL-M 80 mg than with valsartan (-24.2 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .010), and noninferior with AZL-M 40 mg versus valsartan (-22.5 vs -20.6 mm Hg; P = .184). Mean reduction in 24-hour mean systolic blood pressure (n = 257) was significantly greater with both AZL-M 80 mg (-17.0 mm Hg; P < .001) and AZL-M 40 mg (-14.7 mm Hg; P = .014) than with valsartan (-9.4 mm Hg). Treatment-emergent adverse events had similar incidence (52.8%-56.5%) across the treatment groups and were generally mild or moderate. Dizziness was the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events (AZL-M 80 mg, 1.9%; AZL-M 40 mg, 1.5%; valsartan, 1.0%). The safety and tolerability of AZL-M were comparable with valsartan.
CONCLUSIONS: AZL-M was noninferior to valsartan at the 40-mg dose and superior to valsartan at the 80-mg dose in reducing trough scSBP, and showed acceptable safety-consistent with the AZL-M safety profile in other populations-in Chinese adults with hypertension.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02480764.