The "LOTHAR" study: Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension

34Citations
Citations of this article
23Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The LOTHAR study evaluated medium and long term (one year) efficacy, tolerability and metabolic effects of the fixed combination of amlodipine and losartan compared to amlodipine or losartan alone. METHODS: Brazilian multicenter, randomized, double-blind and comparative trial performed with 198 patients in stage 1 and 2 essential hypertension. RESULTS: The fixed combination has a high antihypertensive efficacy that is sustained in the long term with very low percentage of loss of blood pressure control. This percentage is incidentally lower than that of the two monotherapy comparative regimens. In the long term, more than 60% of the patients treated with the fixed combination remained with DBP ≤ 85 mmHg, and the antihypertensive effect, when assessed by ABPM persisted for 24 hours with a trough-to-peak ratio of 76.7%. The frequency of adverse events was quite low in this group, and the long-term incidence of leg edema was approximately four-fold lower than that observed with amlodipine alone. The fixed combination did not change glucose and lipid metabolism in the medium or in the long term. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, we can say that the combination of amlodipine and losartan - the first fixed combination of a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II receptor blocker available in the pharmaceutical market, is an excellent option for the treatment of a wide range of hypertensive patients.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kohlmann, O., Oigman, W., Mion, D., Rocha, J. C., Mota Gomes, M. A. M., Salgado, N., … Ribeiro, A. B. (2006). The “LOTHAR” study: Evaluation of efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, 86(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0066-782x2006000100007

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free