Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2003 Jan-Feb;5(1):17-23.
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-6175.2003.01416.x.

The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

The effects of amlodipine compared to losartan in patients with mild to moderately severe hypertension

Robert A Phillips et al. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2003 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

The calcium channel blocker amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor blocker losartan, with or without hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), were compared for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension in a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial. Following a 2-week placebo run-in, 440 adults (45-80 years old) were randomized to receive either amlodipine 5 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. Patients who failed to meet the sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) reduction goal of <or=90 mm Hg after 6 weeks had their dose increased to 10 mg amlodipine or had 12.5 mg of HCTZ added to the losartan 50 mg. A total of 42.3% of losartan and 43.6% of amlodipine subjects achieved a diastolic BP of <or=90 mm Hg at initial dose (low dose). Of those who completed treatment at the low dose, 71% of the amlodipine- and 81% of the losartan-treated patients met BP goal. This difference was not statistically significant. Of those who received a dosage adjustment, a significantly greater percentage of amlodipine-treated patients (59%) than losartan/HCTZ-treated patients (42%) reached BP goal at the last visit (p=0.009). Including both high- and low-dose subjects, 63.8% of amlodipine and 55.1% of losartan patients achieved a diastolic BP of <or=90 mm Hg at the last maintenance visit; this difference was not significant (p=0.07). Overall, reductions in mean sitting BP from baseline to the end of treatment were significantly greater in the amlodipine group than in the losartan group for both diastolic BP (-12.6 vs. -10.3 mm Hg; p=0.002) and systolic BP (-16.1 vs. -13.7 mm Hg; p=0.018). Additionally, the response rate was significantly greater after treatment with amlodipine than with losartan in African Americans (62.5% vs. 41.4%; p=0.033) and the other mostly Hispanic patients (67.7% vs. 53.5%; p=0.039). Both treatment groups showed significant reductions from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory BP at the end of treatment, with no difference between them. Adverse events were consistent with the safety profile of each drug. It is concluded that, while both amlodipine and losartan demonstrated a significant benefit for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension, there were greater reductions in most BP measurements following treatment with amlodipine in comparison to losartan with or without HCTZ.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • Amlodipine and losartan: reaction to comparison.
    Gleim G, Smith RD. Gleim G, et al. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2003 Nov-Dec;5(6):423-4; author reply 424. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7176.2003.tb00003.x. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2003. PMID: 14688500 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. Whelton PK. Epidemiology of Hypertension. Lancet. 1994;344:101–106. - PubMed
    1. McMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease, part I: prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet. 1990;335:765–774. - PubMed
    1. Collins R, Petro R, MacMahon S, et al. Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease, part II: short‐term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomized clinical trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet. 1990;335:827–838. - PubMed
    1. Whelton PK, Perneger TV, Klag MJ, et al. Epidemiology of blood pressure‐related renal disease. J Hypertens. 1992;10(suppl 7):S77–S84. - PubMed
    1. Stamler J, Stamler R, Neaton JD. Blood pressure, systolic and diastolic and cardiovascular risks: U. S. population data. Arch Intern Med. 1993;153:598–615. - PubMed

MeSH terms