miscellaneous clinical trials results

ARBs versus control
Suzuki, 2008	ARBs (valsartan, candesartan, and losartan) versus no ARBs	patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease on dialysis	open
candesartan versus amlodipine
CASE-J, 2008	candesartan-based regimen versus amlodipine-based regimen	high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients	open (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 years	single-blind Japan
E-COST-R, 2005	candesartan versus conventional treatment	hypertensive subjects 60 to 75 years old with non-diabetic chronic renal insufficiency	open
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 hypertension	open Follow-up duration: 4.2 y (median) Japan
candesartan versus hydrochlorothiazide
ALPINE, 2003	candesartan versus hydrochlorothiazide	newly detected hypertensives	double-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 Hg	double-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 > 24	double-blind Follow-up duration: 3.7 y (mean) 15 countries
irbesartan versus amlodipine
IDNT (irbesartan 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 (irbesartan vs pbo), 2001	Irbesartan 300mg/d (target 135/85) versus placebo	hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes	double-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 microalbuminuria	double-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 nephropathy	double-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 dysfunction	double-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 mellitus	double-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 inhibitors	double 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 stroke	double 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 damage	double 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 events	Double blind Follow-up duration: 4.2 y (mean) 31 countries