Research Article| Volume 38, ISSUE 6, P1485-1497, June 2016

Download started.


A Randomized, Double-blind, Candesartan-controlled, Parallel Group Comparison Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Antihypertensive Efficacy and Safety of Fimasartan in Patients with Mild to Moderate Essential Hypertension



      A new antihypertensive drug that selectively blocks angiotensin II receptor type 1, fimasartan, has a potent and rapidly acting antihypertensive effect. We investigated the antihypertensive effects of fimasartan 60 and 120 mg and its safety in comparison to 8 mg of candesartan.


      This clinical trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active comparator, and parallel group study. Three hundred sixty-two individuals were screened, and 290 patients aged 19 to 75 years with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [DBP], 90–110 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to 60 to 120 mg/d of fimasartan or 8 mg/d of candesartan after a 2-week placebo run-in period. Treatments were administered for 12 weeks without dosage adjustment. The primary end point was the differences in DBP changes at week 12.


      After 12 weeks of treatment, DBP and systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased significantly in all 3 groups. The decrease in DBP at week 12 was larger but not statistically significant in the fimasartan 60 mg compared with the candesartan 8 mg group with a mean (SD) difference of 1.72 (8.32) mm Hg (95% CI, −0.71 to 4.15 mm Hg; P = 0.17). The lower margin of the CI (−0.71 mm Hg) exceeded the noninferiority margin (−3.5 mm Hg). The DBP-lowering effect of fimasartan 120 mg was also nonsignificantly larger than candesartan 8 mg (difference, 1.58 [8.27] mm Hg; P = 0.20). The decrease in SBP was also nonsignificantly larger in the fimasartan 60 mg group compared with the candesartan 8 mg group (difference, 3.50 [12.63] mm Hg; P = .06). The SBP-lowering effect of fimasartan 120 mg was statistically larger than candesartan 8 mg (difference, 4.98 [13.99] mm Hg; P = .02). Response rate (DBP <90 mm Hg or DBP lowering >10 mm Hg at week 12) was also nonsignificantly greater in both fimasartan groups (Fimasartan 60 mg, 81%; fimasartan 120 mg, 72%; candesartan 8 mg, 71%). The safety profile of the fimasartan 60 mg and 120 mg was similar to candesartan 8 mg, with a slightly higher, but statistically not significant, incidence of hepatic enzyme elevation in fimasartan 120 mg.


      The antihypertensive effect of fimasartan, a newly available angiotensin II receptor type 1 blocker, is comparable, although not superior, to candesartan with a good safety profile. identifier: NCT01135212.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Therapeutics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • WHO
        World Health Organization, World Health Statistics 2012.
        World Health Organization, Geneva2012 (Accessed June, 2015)
        • Burt V.L.
        • Whelton P.
        • Roccella E.J.
        • et al.
        Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991.
        Hypertension. 1995; 25: 305-313
        • Neal B.
        • MacMahon S.
        • Chapman N.
        Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood pressure lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration.
        Lancet. 2000; 356: 1955-1964
        • Burnier M.
        • Brunner H.R.
        Angiotensin II receptor antagonists.
        Lancet. 2000; 355: 637-645
        • Mazzolai L.
        • Burnier M.
        Comparative safety and tolerability of angiotensin II receptor antagonists.
        Drug Saf. 1999; 21: 23-33
        • Weir M.R.
        Effects of renin-angiotensin system inhibition on end-organ protection: can we do better?.
        Clin Ther. 2007; 29: 1803-1824
        • Chrysant S.G.
        Angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of the cardiovascular disease continuum.
        Clin Ther. 2008; 30: 2181-2190
        • Dickstein K.
        ELITE II and Val-HeFT are different trials: together what do they tell us?.
        Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med. 2001; 2: 240-243
        • Cohn J.N.
        • Tognoni G.
        A randomized trial of the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan in chronic heart failure.
        N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 1667-1675
        • McMurray J.J.
        • Ostergren J.
        • Swedberg K.
        • et al.
        Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial.
        Lancet. 2003; 362: 767-771
        • Pitt B.
        • Segal R.
        • Martinez F.A.
        • et al.
        Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE).
        Lancet. 1997; 349: 747-752
        • Dickstein K.
        • Kjekshus J.
        Effects of losartan and captopril on mortality and morbidity in high-risk patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL randomised trial. Optimal Trial in Myocardial Infarction with Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan.
        Lancet. 2002; 360: 752-760
        • Fogari R.
        • Derosa G.
        • Ferrari I.
        • et al.
        Effect of valsartan and ramipril on atrial fibrillation recurrence and P-wave dispersion in hypertensive patients with recurrent symptomatic lone atrial fibrillation.
        Am J Hypertens. 2008; 21: 1034-1039
        • Fogari R.
        • Zoppi A.
        • Mugellini A.
        • et al.
        Comparative evaluation of effect of valsartan/amlodipine and atenolol/amlodipine combinations on atrial fibrillation recurrence in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
        J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2008; 51: 217-222
        • Brenner B.M.
        • Cooper M.E.
        • de Zeeuw D.
        • et al.
        Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.
        N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 861-869
        • Chi Y.H.
        • Lee J.H.
        • Kim J.H.
        • et al.
        Pharmacological characterization of BR-A-657, a highly potent nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist.
        Biol Pharm Bull. 2013; 36: 1208-1215
        • Chi Y.H.
        • Lee H.
        • Paik S.H.
        • et al.
        Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of fimasartan following single and repeated oral administration in the fasted and fed states in healthy subjects.
        Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2011; 11: 335-346
        • Lee H.
        • Yang H.M.
        • Lee H.Y.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and tolerability of once-daily oral fimasartan 20 to 240 mg/d in Korean patients with hypertension: findings from two Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.
        Clin Ther. 2012; 34: 1273-1289
        • Lee H.
        • Kim K.S.
        • Chae S.C.
        • et al.
        Ambulatory blood pressure response to once-daily fimasartan: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double- blind, active-comparator, parallel-group study in Korean patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.
        Clin Ther. 2013; 35: 1337-1349
        • Lee S.E.
        • Kim Y.J.
        • Lee H.Y.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and tolerability of fimasartan, a new angiotensin receptor blocker, compared with losartan (50/100 mg): a 12-week, phase III, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose escalation clinical trial with an optional 12-week extension phase in adult Korean patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.
        Clin Ther. 2012; 34: 552-568
        • Andersson O.K.
        • Neldam S.
        The antihypertensive effect and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, a new generation angiotensin II antagonist, in comparison with losartan.
        Blood Press. 1998; 7: 53-59
        • Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products
        Points to consider on switching between superiority and non- inferiority.
        Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001; (CPMP, EMEA)
      1. CDC Health Disparities and Inequalities Report—United States, 2013, Assessed June, 2015.

        • Joffres M.
        • Falaschetti E.
        • Gillespie C.
        • et al.
        Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in national surveys from England, the USA and Canada, and correlation with stroke and ischaemic heart disease mortality: a cross-sectional study.
        BMJ Open. 2013; 3: e003423
        • Lacourciere Y.
        • Asmar R.
        A comparison of the efficacy and duration of action of candesartan cilexetil and losartan as assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure after a missed dose, in truly hypertensive patients: a placebo controlled, forced titration study. Candesartan/Losartan Study investigators.
        Am J Hypertens. 1999; 12: 1181-1187
        • Hedner T.
        • Oparil S.
        • Rasmussen K.
        • et al.
        A comparison of the angiotensin II antagonists valsartan and losartan in the treatment of essential hypertension.
        Am J Hypertens. 1999; 12: 414-417
        • Kassler-Taub K.
        • Littlejohn T.
        • Elliott W.
        • et al.
        Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators.
        Am J Hypertens. 1998; 11: 445-453
        • Oparil S.
        • Guthrie R.
        • Lewin A.J.
        • et al.
        An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators.
        Clin Ther. 1998; 20: 398-409
        • Mallion J.
        • Siche J.
        • Lacourciere Y.
        ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.
        J Hum Hypertens. 1999; 13: 657-664
        • Nixon R.M.
        • Muller E.
        • Lowy A.
        • Falvey H.
        Valsartan vs. other angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analytical approach.
        Int J Clin Pract. 2009; 63: 766-775
        • Conlin P.R.
        • Spence J.D.
        • Williams B.
        • et al.
        Angiotensin II antagonists for hypertension: are there differences in efficacy?.
        Am J Hypertens. 2000; 13: 418-426
        • Forclaz A.
        • Maillard M.
        • Nussberger J.
        • et al.
        Angiotensin II receptor blockade: is there truly a benefit of adding an ACE inhibitor?.
        Hypertension. 2003; 41: 31-36
        • McClellan K.J.
        • Balfour J.A.
        Drugs. 1998; 55: 713-718
        • Song J.C.
        • White C.M.
        Pharmacologic pharmacokinetic, and therapeutic differences among angiotensin II receptor antagonists.
        Pharmacotherapy. 2000; 20: 130-139
        • Gradman A.H.
        • Arcuri K.E.
        • Goldberg A.I.
        • et al.
        A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel study of various doses of losartan potassium compared with enalapril maleate in patients with essential hypertension.
        Hypertension. 1995; 25: 1345-1350
        • Ikeda L.S.
        • Harm S.C.
        • Arcuri K.E.
        • et al.
        Comparative antihypertensive effects of losartan 50 mg and losartan 50 mg titrated to 100 mg in patients with essential hypertension.
        Blood Press. 1997; 6: 35-43
        • Smith D.
        • Neutel J.
        • Morgenstern P.
        Once-daily telmisartan compared with enalapril in the treatment of hypertension.
        Adv Ther. 1998; 15: 229-240