Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily dosing of valsartan in patients with chronic stable heart failure

5Citations
Citations of this article
57Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The safety of once-daily (qd) dosing of valsartan in heart failure (HF) patients is not known. Hypothesis: This 10-week, double-blind trial examined the relative safety and efficacy of valsartan administered qd versus twice-daily (bid). Methods: HF patients (NYHA class II-III) receiving diuretics (87%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (98%), beta-blockers (92%), aldosterone antagonists (25%), or digoxin (32%) were randomized to valsartan 40 mg bid (n = 60) or 80 mg qd (n = 55) and titrated to a maximum dose of 320 mg/day; doubling the dose every 2 weeks. Clinical and biochemical parameters were measured at Weeks 2, 4, 6, and 10. Results: The average dose of valsartan at the end of study was 245 mg in the bid group vs 256 mg in the qd group (P = NS). Similar proportions of patients tolerated qd vs bid dosing (bid 67% vs qd 68%). Outcome measures including reduction in blood pressure, incidence of hypotension, renal impairment, orthostatic dizziness or fatigue, changes in serum K+, creatinine, cystatin-C, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were similar between the 2 groups at all time-points. Brain natriuretic peptide levels decreased and plasma renin activity increased from baseline by the same amount in both groups at all time-points. Conclusion: Valsartan administered qd has a similar safety and tolerability profile with comparable 24-hour RAAS blockade, as assessed by increases in PRA, as bid dosing in patients with moderate to severe (NYHA class II-III) heart failure. © 2010 Anand et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Anand, I. S., Deswal, A., Kereiakes, D. J., Purkayastha, D., & Zappe, D. H. (2010). Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily dosing of valsartan in patients with chronic stable heart failure. Vascular Health and Risk Management, 6(1), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.2147/vhrm.s11090

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