Wir verwenden standardmäßig essenzielle Cookies (Anmeldung, deine gespeicherten Ziele/Stacks). Mit deiner Erlaubnis aktivieren wir außerdem datenschutzfreundliche Analytik (Vercel Web Analytics, anonyme Ladezeit-Metriken) und Fehler-Replay-Diagnostik (Sentry — DOM-Snapshots nur, wenn ein Fehler auftritt), damit wir Bugs schneller beheben können. Mehr über Cookies erfahren
Tel4.3
Telmisartan – Forschung
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung
53 begutachtete Studien
Was die Evidenz sagt
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung
Die meisten Studien zu Telmisartan sind mechanistisch oder beobachtend statt RCTs, die einen klinischen Effekt messen — betrachte die Ergebnisse als vorläufig.
Die meiste Evidenz stammt aus hochwertigen Meta-Analysen und randomisierten Studien, veröffentlicht 2008–2026 mit einer typischen Studiengröße von 235 Teilnehmenden.
Basierend auf 53 Studien · 11 Meta-Analysen · 38 RCTs · 93,554 Teilnehmende insgesamt
Konfidenz
Hohe Konfidenz
Nach Outcome
Heart, blood pressure & strokeONTARGET zeigte, dass Telmisartan Ramipril bei Hochrisikopatienten hinsichtlich kardiovaskulärem Tod, Herzinfarkt, Schlaganfall und Herzinsuffizienz-bedingter Hospitalisierung nicht unterlegen war · Monate bis Jahre
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung32 Studien
Safety profile
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung10 Studien
Glucose, insulin & metabolicÜber partiellen PPARγ-Agonismus verbessert es Insulinresistenz und Glukose stärker als andere ARBs (ein Surrogatmarker-Effekt) · Wochen bis Monate
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung7 Studien
Kidney & renal health
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung4 Studien
Cholesterol & lipidsONTARGET zeigte, dass Telmisartan Ramipril bei Hochrisikopatienten hinsichtlich kardiovaskulärem Tod, Herzinfarkt, Schlaganfall und Herzinsuffizienz-bedingter Hospitalisierung nicht unterlegen war · Monate bis Jahre
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung3 Studien
Aging & healthspan (emerging)
Zu wenige bewertete Studien1 Studie
Aktives Forschungsgebiet
32 Studien in den letzten 5 Jahren · Neueste Meta-Analyse: 2026
200820172026
1Meta-Analysen=6,780 · very large study2025
Einfach gesagt: Larger RCTs of longer duration with a wider range of participants and a focus on cardiovascular outcomes are needed.
Wang GM, Li LJ, Fan L, Xu M, Tang WL, Wright JM. · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2025)
We reported dichotomous outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and continuous variables as mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI.
There may be little to no difference between renin inhibitors and ARBs in all-cause mortality (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.64; 3 studies, 1932 participants; low-certainty evidence).
Authors' conclusions The available RCT evidence suggests little to no difference between renin inhibitors and ARBs in terms of mortality, SAE, WDAE, adverse events, and blood pressure in people with mild primary hypertension.
Einfach gesagt: The most common adverse event leading to discontinuation was an increase of 20% or more in the serum creatinine level.
Trident Research Group et al. · The New England journal of medicine (2026)
At a median follow-up of 2.5 years, recurrent stroke had occurred in 38 patients (4.6%) in the triple-pill group and 62 (7.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.92; P = 0.02).
The incidence of major cardiovascular events was lower with the triple pill than with placebo (6.6% vs. 9.8%; P = 0.04).
Serious adverse events occurred in 23.2% of the patients in the triple-pill group and 26.0% of those in the placebo group.
Einfach gesagt: Larger and longer-term RCTs are warranted to confirm.
Shubietah A, Elgendy MS, Emara A, Abdul-Hafez HA, Awashra A, Elbably I, Abuelazm M, Mhanna M. · High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension (2026)
Random-effects model to pool mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Compared with control, low-dose GMRx2 significantly reduced office systolic BP at 4-6 weeks (MD -8.84 mmHg, 95% CI [-11.27; -6.46]) and 12 weeks (MD -5.52 mmHg, 95% CI [-6.85; -4.18]).
It also increased the proportion of patients achieving target office BP at 4-6 weeks (66.7% vs. 50.2%, RR 1.20, 95% CI [1.08-1.43]) and 8-12 weeks (75.6% vs. 59.5%, RR 1.15, 95% CI [1.05-1.26]).
Einfach gesagt: Current evidence highlights ongoing uncertainty regarding the efficacy of medical therapies in reducing subthreshold AAA growth rates, rates of referral for surgical repair, or overall mortality.
Lu PYJ et al. · Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery (2026)
However, propranolol (OR = 3.14, 95% CI, 1.34-7.35) and ticagrelor (OR = 5.10, 95% CI, 1.12-23.18) were associated with a higher rate of discontinuation due to adverse events.
Current evidence highlights ongoing uncertainty regarding the efficacy of medical therapies in reducing subthreshold AAA growth rates, rates of referral for surgical repair, or overall mortality.
The absence of statistically significant benefit may reflect underpowered datasets rather than definitive treatment inefficacy.
Einfach gesagt: The certainty of evidence was low for migraine days, moderate for responder rates and high for headache days, with heterogeneity between studies categorized as 'might not be important' and no serious risk of bias.DiscussionThe systematic review and meta-analysis provide robust evidence on the effect of ARBs, particularly candesartan, in prevention of episodic migraine, supporting the rationale for reconsidering its position in international guidelines.Trial RegistrationProspero CRD42023405372.
Riise HS et al. · Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache (2026)
All four studies reported the outcomes migraine days and responder (≥50% reduction of migraine days) rates, and three reported headache days.
The combined effect size for migraine days and headache days were reductions of -1.00 (95% CI: -1.51 to -0.49, p<0.001), and -1.21 (95% CI: -1.62 to -0.81, p<0.001) days per month from baseline respectively.
The odds ratio for being a responder was 2.68 (95% CI: 1.91 to 3.78, p<0.001).
Einfach gesagt: Telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril for major cardiovascular events, but the combination of the two increased adverse events without added benefit.
ONTARGET Investigators, Yusuf, Teo, Pogue, Dyal, Copland · The New England journal of medicine (2008)
ONTARGET randomized 25,620 high-vascular-risk patients to ramipril, telmisartan, or both
Telmisartan was non-inferior (not superior) to the ACE inhibitor ramipril for the composite of CV death, MI, stroke, or HF hospitalization
Counter-evidence: the combination arm caused more hypotension, syncope, and renal dysfunction without added benefit