Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Efficacy of fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by fimasartan monotherapy

  • Moo Yong Rhee
  • , Sang Hong Baek
  • , Weon Kim
  • , Chang Gyu Park
  • , Seung Woo Park
  • , Byung Hee Oh
  • , Sang Hyun Kim
  • , Jae Joong Kim
  • , Joon Han Shin
  • , Byung Su Yoo
  • , Se Joong Rim
  • , Jong Won Ha
  • , Joon Hyung Doh
  • , Youngkeun Ahn
  • , Jei Keon Chae
  • , Jeong Bae Park
  • , Soon Kil Kim
  • , Cheol Ho Kim*
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • Dongguk University
  • The Catholic University of Korea
  • Kyung Hee University
  • Korea University
  • Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan university
  • SMG-SNU Seoul Boramae Medical Center
  • University of Ulsan
  • Ajou University
  • Yonsei University Wonju Severance Christian Hospital
  • Yonsei University
  • Inje University
  • Chonnam National University
  • Dankook University
  • Hanyang University
  • Seoul National University

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: The study reported here compared the blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy of fimasartan alone with that of fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination in patients whose BP goal was not achieved after 4 weeks of treatment with once-daily fimasartan 60 mg. Methods: Patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (siDBP) ≥90 mmHg with 4 weeks of once-daily fimasartan 60 mg were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily fimasartan 60 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or fimasartan 60 mg for 4 weeks. After 4 weeks, the dose was increased from fimasartan 60 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg to fimasartan 120 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or from fimasartan 60 mg to fimasartan 120 mg if siDBP was ≥90 mmHg. Results: Of the 263 randomized patients, 256 patients who had available efficacy data were analyzed. The fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group showed a greater reduction of siDBP compared to the fimasartan treatment group at Week 4 (6.88±8.10 mmHg vs 3.38±7.33, P=0.0008), and the effect persisted at Week 8 (8.67±9.39 mmHg vs 5.02±8.27 mmHg, P=0.0023). Reduction of sitting systolic BP in the fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group was also greater than that in the fimasartan treatment group (at Week 4, 10.50±13.76 mmHg vs 5.75±12.18 mmHg, P=0.0069 and, at Week 8, 13.45±15.15 mmHg vs 6.84±13.57 mmHg, P=0.0007). The proportion of patients who achieved a reduction of siDBP ≥10 mmHg from baseline and/or a mean siDBP <90 mmHg after 4 weeks of treatment was higher in the fimasartan/HCTZ treatment group than in the fimasartan treatment group (53.6% vs 39.8%, P=0.0359). The overall incidence of adverse drug reaction was 11.79% with no significant difference between the treatment groups. Conclusion: The combination treatment of fimasartan and HCTZ achieved better BP control than fimasartan monotherapy, and had comparable safety and tolerance to fimasartan monotherapy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2847-2854
Number of pages8
JournalDrug Design, Development and Therapy
Volume9
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015.06.2

Keywords

  • Angiotensin II type 1 receptor
  • Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor
  • Angiotensin-receptor blocker
  • Antihypertensive
  • Blood pressure
  • Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor

Quacquarelli Symonds(QS) Subject Topics

  • Pharmacy & Pharmacology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy of fimasartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled by fimasartan monotherapy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this