Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial

John B. Kostis, Milton Packer, Henry R. Black, Roland Schmieder, David Henry, Elliott Levy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

397 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Recent reports suggest that existing antihypertensive agents may not have sufficient efficacy to control blood pressure (BP) in many patients. Omapatrilat, an agent under development, has been shown to have significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than existing agents, but may also carry increased risk of angioedema. We compared the efficacy and safety of omapatrilat to a representative angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril. Methods: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week trial in 25,302 patients with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension conducted in 3298 office-based sites in 12 countries. Subjects were randomized to omapatrilat 10 mg or enalapril 5 mg as initial therapy for hypertension (group 1, n = 9292), replacement for existing antihypertensive therapy (group 2, n =11,224), or in addition to existing antihypertensive therapy (group 3, n = 4751). Study drug was force-titrated at week 2 and electively titrated at weeks 4 and 6 to a maximum of omapatrilat 80 mg or enalapril 40 mg once daily. At weeks 8 and 16, adjunctive antihypertensive medications were added electively to achieve target BP. Results: Omapatrilat reduced systolic BP 3.6 mm Hg more than enalapril at week 8, and was associated with less use of adjunctive antihypertensive therapy by week 24 (19% v 27%; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Subjects randomized to omapatrilat were more likely to reach BP target, regardless of demographics or comorbid conditions and whether omapatrilat was used as initial therapy, replacement for existing therapy, or in addition to existing therapy. Angioedema was more frequent with omapatrilat than enalapril (2.17% v 0.68%). Two omapatrilat-treated subjects experienced angioedema with airway compromise, which was successfully treated. Conclusions: Omapatrilat provided broadly superior antihypertensive efficacy when used in a setting resembling clinical practice. Angioedema was more common than with enalapril but life-threatening angioedema was rare. The risk-benefit profile for omapatrilat in clinical use therefore appears likely to be favorable in appropriate patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)103-111
Number of pages9
JournalAmerican Journal of Hypertension
Volume17
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2004

Fingerprint

Enalapril
Hypertension
Antihypertensive Agents
Angioedema
Blood Pressure
Therapeutics
Group Psychotherapy
omapatrilat
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
Demography

Keywords

  • Angioedema
  • Hypertension
  • Omapatrilat

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension : The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial. / Kostis, John B.; Packer, Milton; Black, Henry R.; Schmieder, Roland; Henry, David; Levy, Elliott.

In: American Journal of Hypertension, Vol. 17, No. 2, 02.2004, p. 103-111.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kostis, John B. ; Packer, Milton ; Black, Henry R. ; Schmieder, Roland ; Henry, David ; Levy, Elliott. / Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension : The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial. In: American Journal of Hypertension. 2004 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 103-111.
@article{279aedb1d5494b7bb6bc9aaa0ba8a3f4,
title = "Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial",
abstract = "Background: Recent reports suggest that existing antihypertensive agents may not have sufficient efficacy to control blood pressure (BP) in many patients. Omapatrilat, an agent under development, has been shown to have significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than existing agents, but may also carry increased risk of angioedema. We compared the efficacy and safety of omapatrilat to a representative angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril. Methods: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week trial in 25,302 patients with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension conducted in 3298 office-based sites in 12 countries. Subjects were randomized to omapatrilat 10 mg or enalapril 5 mg as initial therapy for hypertension (group 1, n = 9292), replacement for existing antihypertensive therapy (group 2, n =11,224), or in addition to existing antihypertensive therapy (group 3, n = 4751). Study drug was force-titrated at week 2 and electively titrated at weeks 4 and 6 to a maximum of omapatrilat 80 mg or enalapril 40 mg once daily. At weeks 8 and 16, adjunctive antihypertensive medications were added electively to achieve target BP. Results: Omapatrilat reduced systolic BP 3.6 mm Hg more than enalapril at week 8, and was associated with less use of adjunctive antihypertensive therapy by week 24 (19{\%} v 27{\%}; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Subjects randomized to omapatrilat were more likely to reach BP target, regardless of demographics or comorbid conditions and whether omapatrilat was used as initial therapy, replacement for existing therapy, or in addition to existing therapy. Angioedema was more frequent with omapatrilat than enalapril (2.17{\%} v 0.68{\%}). Two omapatrilat-treated subjects experienced angioedema with airway compromise, which was successfully treated. Conclusions: Omapatrilat provided broadly superior antihypertensive efficacy when used in a setting resembling clinical practice. Angioedema was more common than with enalapril but life-threatening angioedema was rare. The risk-benefit profile for omapatrilat in clinical use therefore appears likely to be favorable in appropriate patients.",
keywords = "Angioedema, Hypertension, Omapatrilat",
author = "Kostis, {John B.} and Milton Packer and Black, {Henry R.} and Roland Schmieder and David Henry and Elliott Levy",
year = "2004",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjhyper.2003.09.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "103--111",
journal = "Journal of clinical hypertension",
issn = "0895-7061",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Omapatrilat and enalapril in patients with hypertension

T2 - The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial

AU - Kostis, John B.

AU - Packer, Milton

AU - Black, Henry R.

AU - Schmieder, Roland

AU - Henry, David

AU - Levy, Elliott

PY - 2004/2

Y1 - 2004/2

N2 - Background: Recent reports suggest that existing antihypertensive agents may not have sufficient efficacy to control blood pressure (BP) in many patients. Omapatrilat, an agent under development, has been shown to have significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than existing agents, but may also carry increased risk of angioedema. We compared the efficacy and safety of omapatrilat to a representative angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril. Methods: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week trial in 25,302 patients with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension conducted in 3298 office-based sites in 12 countries. Subjects were randomized to omapatrilat 10 mg or enalapril 5 mg as initial therapy for hypertension (group 1, n = 9292), replacement for existing antihypertensive therapy (group 2, n =11,224), or in addition to existing antihypertensive therapy (group 3, n = 4751). Study drug was force-titrated at week 2 and electively titrated at weeks 4 and 6 to a maximum of omapatrilat 80 mg or enalapril 40 mg once daily. At weeks 8 and 16, adjunctive antihypertensive medications were added electively to achieve target BP. Results: Omapatrilat reduced systolic BP 3.6 mm Hg more than enalapril at week 8, and was associated with less use of adjunctive antihypertensive therapy by week 24 (19% v 27%; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Subjects randomized to omapatrilat were more likely to reach BP target, regardless of demographics or comorbid conditions and whether omapatrilat was used as initial therapy, replacement for existing therapy, or in addition to existing therapy. Angioedema was more frequent with omapatrilat than enalapril (2.17% v 0.68%). Two omapatrilat-treated subjects experienced angioedema with airway compromise, which was successfully treated. Conclusions: Omapatrilat provided broadly superior antihypertensive efficacy when used in a setting resembling clinical practice. Angioedema was more common than with enalapril but life-threatening angioedema was rare. The risk-benefit profile for omapatrilat in clinical use therefore appears likely to be favorable in appropriate patients.

AB - Background: Recent reports suggest that existing antihypertensive agents may not have sufficient efficacy to control blood pressure (BP) in many patients. Omapatrilat, an agent under development, has been shown to have significantly greater antihypertensive efficacy than existing agents, but may also carry increased risk of angioedema. We compared the efficacy and safety of omapatrilat to a representative angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril. Methods: The Omapatrilat Cardiovascular Treatment vs. Enalapril (OCTAVE) trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, 24-week trial in 25,302 patients with untreated or uncontrolled hypertension conducted in 3298 office-based sites in 12 countries. Subjects were randomized to omapatrilat 10 mg or enalapril 5 mg as initial therapy for hypertension (group 1, n = 9292), replacement for existing antihypertensive therapy (group 2, n =11,224), or in addition to existing antihypertensive therapy (group 3, n = 4751). Study drug was force-titrated at week 2 and electively titrated at weeks 4 and 6 to a maximum of omapatrilat 80 mg or enalapril 40 mg once daily. At weeks 8 and 16, adjunctive antihypertensive medications were added electively to achieve target BP. Results: Omapatrilat reduced systolic BP 3.6 mm Hg more than enalapril at week 8, and was associated with less use of adjunctive antihypertensive therapy by week 24 (19% v 27%; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Subjects randomized to omapatrilat were more likely to reach BP target, regardless of demographics or comorbid conditions and whether omapatrilat was used as initial therapy, replacement for existing therapy, or in addition to existing therapy. Angioedema was more frequent with omapatrilat than enalapril (2.17% v 0.68%). Two omapatrilat-treated subjects experienced angioedema with airway compromise, which was successfully treated. Conclusions: Omapatrilat provided broadly superior antihypertensive efficacy when used in a setting resembling clinical practice. Angioedema was more common than with enalapril but life-threatening angioedema was rare. The risk-benefit profile for omapatrilat in clinical use therefore appears likely to be favorable in appropriate patients.

KW - Angioedema

KW - Hypertension

KW - Omapatrilat

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=1642452758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=1642452758&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2003.09.014

DO - 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2003.09.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 14751650

AN - SCOPUS:1642452758

VL - 17

SP - 103

EP - 111

JO - Journal of clinical hypertension

JF - Journal of clinical hypertension

SN - 0895-7061

IS - 2

ER -