左旋氨氯地平联用吲达帕胺治疗老年收缩期高血压临床观察

目的观察左旋氨氯地平联用吲达帕胺对老年人单纯收缩期高血压（ISH）的长效降压效果、持续时间，安全性，耐受程度及副作用。方法选择200例老年ISH患者口服左旋氨氯地平及吲达帕胺治疗，用药8周为1疗程．结果有效193例，无效7例，总有效率96．5％。可有效维持24h的降压作用，昼夜降压差异无显著性，且不影响生理节律变化．原有并发症改善。对肝肾功能、血糖、血脂无影响，无停药反跳现象，无心脑血管意外发生．结论左旋氨氟地平舍用吲达帕胺治疗ISH疗效肯定，作用持久、缓和，安全可靠．     

沙坦类治疗老年高血压病103例

目的：评价氯沙坦，缬沙坦及其联用利尿剂治疗老年人轻、中度高血压病的临床疗效及安全性，方法：选取老年轻，中度高血压病患者（坐位收缩压（SiSBP)140-179mmHg(1mmHg=0.133kPa)，或坐位舒张压（SiDBP)90-109mmHg)，随机分为A，B两组，A组用氯沙坦50mg/d,B组用缬沙坦80mg/d，4周后疗效未达显效者两组均加用氢氯噻嗪（HCT）2．5mg/d，每周由固定医生随诊1次以上，治疗8周后进行总结，治疗前后行心电图，胸部X线，肝肾功能，血脂和血尿酸等检查。结果：4周后A组显效18例，有效15例，总有效率64．7％，B组显效16例，有效15例，总有效率65．9％，全疗程8周结束后，A组显效26例，有效20例，总有效率90．2％，B组显效23例，有效19例，总有效率89．4％，4周的单药治疗及8周的联合治疗结果组间显效率，有效率及总有效率经统计学处理，差别无显著性，P＞0．05，两组8周后与治疗前相比，血压下降幅度明显，差别有显著性，P＜0．001，A组治疗一血尿酸有所下降，P＜0．05，两组治疗中，治疗后与治疗前比较，心率变化差别无显著性，两组不良反应分别为5．9％和6．4％。结论：氯沙坦和缬坦治疗老年轻，中度高血压病降压效果较好，民氢氯噻唪联用则放果更佳，副作用少，氯沙坦50mg/d和缬沙坦80mg/d的降压强度无显著性差异，氯沙坦还有降低尿酸的作用。     

依那普利加小剂量尼群地平治疗高血压疗效观察

目的：观察依那普利加小剂量尼群地平联合治疗1、2级高血压患者的疗效、副作用及其对血糖、血脂、肝肾功能的影响。方法：将1130例1、2级高血压患者随机分为两组：第1组：1级高血压患者单用依那普利5～10mg，每日2次，2级高血压患者单用依那普利10～20mg，每日2次。第2组：1级高血压患者给依那普利5mg加尼群地平5mg，每日2次，2级高血压患者给依那普利10mg加尼群地平5mg，每日2次。两组治疗时间为8周。治疗前后测血糖、血脂及肝肾功能。结果：依那普利加小剂量尼群地平联合降压的总有效率（94．0％），较单独用依那普利的总有效率（70．0％）有显著性差异（P〈0．05），副作用明显减少，且对血糖、血脂及肝肾功能无影响。结论：依那普利加小剂量尼群地平联合治疗1、2级高血压较单用依那普利更有效，副作用少，对血糖、血脂及肝肾功能无影响。     

苯那普利治疗老年人轻、中度高血压疗效观察

目的 :研究苯那普利治疗老年人轻、中度高血压的疗效及其对心率、肝肾功能、电解质、血糖、尿酸及血脂的影响。方法 :45例轻、中度老年人高血压患者每日服用苯那普利 10～ 2 0mg ,部分无效者加服双氢克尿噻 12 5mg d ,疗程 4周 ,治疗前后检测心率、肝肾功能、电解质、血糖、尿酸及血脂。结果 :总有效率 95 6%,血糖明显降低 (P <0 5 ) ,而对心率、肝肾功能、电解质、尿酸及血脂的影响均无统计学意义。结论 :苯那普利能有效控制轻中度老年人高血压患者的血压 ,不影响其心率 ,同时改善糖代谢 ,副作用较少 ,是一种有效、长效、安全的降压药物 ,特别是对伴有心、肝、肾功能不良及糖尿病的老年患者更为适合。     

吲哒帕胺与氢氯噻嗪分别联用氯沙坦治疗高血压伴左室肥厚比较

目的　比较吲哒帕胺 (商品名 :寿比山 )联用氯沙坦 (商品名 :科素亚 )与氢氯噻嗪 (商品名 :双氢克尿噻 )联用氯沙坦长期治疗中、重度高血压的疗效和对左室肥厚 (LVH)、左室舒张功能的影响。方法　 86例高血压伴左室肥厚患者随机分为两组 ,停用降压药 1周。一组用吲哒帕胺 1.5～ 2 .5mg/d联用氯沙坦 5 0～ 10 0mg/d口服治疗 4 8周 ;另一组用氢氯噻嗪 12 .5～ 2 5mg/d联用氯沙坦 5 0～ 10 0mg/d口服治疗 4 8周。 结果　两组血压均显著下降 (P <0 .0 5 ) ,吲哒帕胺联用氯沙坦组和氢氯噻嗪联用氯沙坦组降压总有效率分别为 92 .9% ,90 .0 % (P >0 .0 5 )。两组均可改善LVH及左室舒张功能 (P <0 .0 1) ,但吲哒帕胺联用氯沙坦组改善更明显 ,(P <0 .0 1)。两组不良反应均较少 ,对血脂、血糖代谢的影响吲哒帕胺联用氯沙坦组略优于氢氯噻嗪联用氯沙坦组。结论　吲哒帕胺联用氯沙坦治疗中、重度高血压伴LVH患者的疗效和安全性优于氢氯噻嗪联用氯沙坦 ,是一组适于长程治疗的满意组合     

氯沙坦联用其它抗高血压药治疗原发性高血压60例疗效观察

目的：观察氯沙坦联用其它抗高血压药治疗原发性高血压（高血压）的临床疗效,方法：把120例高血压患者随机分为氯沙坦组60例,口服氯沙坦50mg/d;依那普利组60例,口服依那普利5mg/d。两组用药4周末,降压未达显效者,均联用氢氯噻嗪12．5mg/d 4周,如降压仍未达显效者,再联用氨氯地平5mg/d4周,比较两组治疗前及治疗4周,8周,12周末的血压,心率,症状,体征等情况。结果：氯沙坦组4周,8周,12周末的降压总有效率分别为58％,75％,92％,而依那普利组则分别为62％,78％,95％,两组比较均无显著性意义（P＞0．05）,但氯沙坦组干咳及血尿酸升高发生率明显低于依那普利组（P＜0．05）,结论：氯沙坦和依那普利组的降压效能和不良反应发生率大致相等。但氯沙坦组的干咳和血尿酸升高的发生率较低。     

氨氯地平对高血压病人的血压、左室功能及左室重量的影响

目的 观察氨氯地平时高血压病病人的血压、左心室功能及左心室重量的影响,并与硝苯地平、利尿剂相比较。方法 原发性高血压134例,随机分为三组:①氨氧地平组:56例,服氨氯地平5～10mg,1次/d。②硝苯地平组:42例,履硝苯地平10～20 mg,3次/d。③利尿剂组:36例,服速尿20mg或(和)氨体舒通20mg、双克25 mg,1～2次/d。三组疗程均为6个月。治疗前、后及用药期间每周监测血压、心事及服药反应、治疗前、后进行心脏超声心动图检查。结果 三组均有明显降压作用,并对心脏舒张功能有明显改善作用,对心脏收缩功能无影响。氨氯地平能使左室重量减轻,与治疗前相比有显著性差异(P<0.05),而利尿剂有使左心室重量增加的危险,硝苯地平无影响。结论 氨氯地平是一种理想的降压药,并有逆转左心室肥厚的作用。     

氯沙坦、氨氯地平及二者联用治疗老年高血压232例疗效分析

目的 :探讨氯沙坦、氨氯地平及二者联用治疗老年高血压疗效。方法 :2 3 2例老年高血压病采用单盲、随机方法 ,分为 3组 ,氯沙坦组 78例 ;氨氯地平组 79例 ;氯沙坦联用氨氯地平组 75例。观察降压效果、左室重构效应、血尿酸改变及不良反应。结果 :3组治疗 4周后血压即显著下降 ,治疗 2 4周后氯沙坦组收缩压 /舒张压降低值为 ( 16 49± 2 5 8) /( 13 2 8± 3 0 2 )mmHg ,达标率为 68% ;氨氯地平组收缩压 /舒张压降低值为 ( 2 0 19± 2 2 5 ) /( 10 0 4± 2 46)mmHg ,达标率为 71% ;联合用药组收缩压 /舒张压降低值为 ( 2 4 82± 2 69) /( 16 2 0± 2 63 )mmHg ,达标率为 85 %。联合用药组降压幅度及血压达标率与单一用药组比较差异有显著性 (P <0 0 5 )。 3组治疗前后室间隔、左室重量指数有显著性下降 (P <0 0 5 )。氯沙坦组与联合用药组治疗后血尿酸有非常显著性下降 (P <0 0 1)。无一例因不良反应而退出试验。结论 :小剂量氯沙坦联用氨氯地平治疗老年高血压降压效果佳 ,不良反应少 ,为老年高血压首选治疗方案     

氯沙坦、氨氯地平单独和联用逆转高血压左室肥厚的对比研究

【目的】探讨氯沙坦、氨氯地平单独和联用治疗高血压左室肥厚的临床疗效。【方法】120例高血压左室肥厚患者采用随机方法,分为氯沙坦组40例;氨氯地平组40例;氯沙坦联用氨氯地平组40例。分别给予氯沙坦（100mg／d）、氨氯地平（10mg／d）、氯沙坦（50mg／d）＋氨氯地平（5mg／d）口服,疗程结束前后行偶测血压、24h动态血压监测和多普勒超声心动图检查。【结果】三组偶测血压、24h动态血压监测和超声心动图指标用药后均较用药前显著下降（P〈0．01）;两单用组相比,治疗后各项指标无显著性差异（P〉0．05）;联合用药组降压幅度及超声心动图指标的改善与单一用药组相比,均具有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。且联合用药组不良反应少。【结论】氯沙坦联用氨氯地平治疗高血压左室肥厚效果佳,不良反应少,费用降低,为高血压左室肥厚比较优选的治疗方案。     

阿折地平与氨氯地平对高血压病患者动脉僵硬度与动态脉压的影响

目的:研究阿折地平与氨氯地平对轻中度高血压病患者动脉僵硬度及动态脉压差(APP)的影响.方法:随机双盲双模拟平行对照将76例高血压病患者分为阿折地平组和氨氯地平组,安慰剂期后进入12周试验期,给予阿折地平8 mg或氨氯地平5 mg,每天1次,口服,安慰剂期及试验期结束前行常规生化、动态血压监测、踝-臂脉搏波传导速度(baPWV)测定.结果:(1)与治疗前相比,两组患者坐位及动态血压参数、baPWV及APP均明显降低;(2)12周后两组患者相比,动态血压参数、APP及baPWV均无明显差异.结论:阿折地平与氨氯地平均能有效降低轻中度高血压病患者动脉僵硬度及APP,但两者疗效无明显差异.     

氯沙坦与氨氯地平治疗高血压合并高尿酸血症的疗效比较

[目的】比较氯沙坦与氨氯地平治疗老年高血压合并高尿酸血症患者的疗效。【方法】将2009年5月至2010卑3月期间收治的高血压合并高尿酸血症患者64例，随机分为两组，A组口服氯沙坦50mg／d，B组给予氨氯地平5mg／d，治疗6周。观察患者服药后舒张压、收缩压、血尿酸等指标的变化。【结果】治疗6周后，A组降压总有效率（84．38％，27／32）低于B组（93．75％，30／32）差异有显著性（P〈0．05）；A组血尿酸水平明显下降（P〈0．01），B组尿酸水平无明显变化（P〉0．05）。【结论】氯沙坦适用于高血压合并高尿酸血症的治疗。     

雷公藤多苷联合氯沙坦或氨氯地平治疗肾移植后蛋白尿

背景:蛋白尿和蛋白尿多少是影响移植肾功能存活的独立危险因素,雷公藤多苷或氯沙坦均有降尿蛋白作用.目的:观察雷公藤多苷联合氯沙坦或氨氯地平对治疗肾移植后蛋白尿的临床效果.方法:选择佛山市第一人民医院随访的肾移植后伴轻、中度高血压及蛋白尿患者40例,随机数字表法分为2组,雷公藤多苷+氯沙坦组口服雷公藤多苷0.5 mg/(kg·d),氯沙坦50 mg/d;雷公藤多苷+氨氯地平组口服雷公藤多苷0.5 mg/(kg·d),氨氯地平5 mg/d,要求血压控制在130/80 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)以下,观察治疗6个月,检测血压、肝肾功能、血尿常规,药物浓度,24 h尿蛋白,药物不良反应.结果与结论:40例患者均进入结果分析,患者用药后收缩压、舒张压均显著下降(P < 0.05),治疗6个月后,收缩压、舒张压均降至正常水平(P < 0.01).两组血压下降值、平均动脉压及治疗总有效率差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05).两组患者治疗前后血尿素氮、肌酐和血尿酸差异无显著性意义(P > 0.05).尿蛋白均减少,但差异亦无显著性意义(P > 0.05);环孢素用量较前减少(P < 0.05).提示雷公藤多苷联合氯沙坦或氨氯地平用于肾移植后伴轻、中度高血压伴蛋白尿患者,能平稳降压,减少环孢素用量,减少蛋白尿,保护移植肾肾功能.     

The effect of losartan and amlodipine on serum adiponectin in Japanese adults with essential hypertension

BACKGROUND: Adiponectin, an adipocyte-derived protein, is reduced in patients with hypertension and insulin resistance (IR). Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been reported to improve IR and reduce albuminuria. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of an ARB and a calcium channel blocker on serum adiponectin levels in Japanese patients with hypertension who were treated with losartan or amlodipine for 3 months. METHODS: Patients with essential hypertension (EHT) were randomized to treatment prospectively with losartan (50-100 mg/d) or amlodipine (5-10 mg/d) for 3 months. Patients with renal damage and/or macroproteinuria were excluded. The urine albumin/creatinine ratio, homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) index, adiponectin concentration, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) concentration of each patient were evaluated before and after 3 months of treatment. When the HOMA index exceeded 1.73, a patient was considered to have IR. RESULTS: All 40 participants completed both 3-month treatment periods. Study patients were primarily male (52.5%) with a mean (SD) age of 63.8 (10.6) years and a mean body weight of 60.7 (10.8) kg. Patients with EHT and diabetes mellitus (n = 9) and IR (n = 12) had significantly lower adiponectin concentrations than patients who had EHT without diabetes or IR (n = 19; mean [SD], 7.84 [5.54] vs 12.81 [7.36] microg/mL, P = 0.034; and 6.12 [3.04] vs 12.81 [7.36] microg/mL, P = 0.004, respectively). Adiponectin concentrations correlated negatively with body mass index (r = -0.393; P = 0.012) and HOMA index (r = -0.440; P = 0.005) and positively with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (r = 0.441; P = 0.004) before treatment. Systolic blood pressure was significantly decreased in patients treated with losartan (n = 20; mean [SD], 166 [19] to 140 [15] mm Hg; P < 0.001) or amlodipine (n = 20; 164 [15] to 136 [15] mmHg; P < 0.001), and diastolic blood pressure also was significantly decreased with losartan (93 [14] to 83 [10] mm Hg; P = 0.031) or amlodipine (96 [12] to 82 [10] mm Hg; P < 0.001). Losartan increased adiponectin concentrations (9.56 [6.75] to 10.36 [6.94] microg/mL; P = 0.038), whereas amlodipine had no significant effect (9.67 [6.62] to 10.01 [6.79] microg/mL). The difference in TNF-alpha concentration before and after treatment with losartan and amlodipine did not reach statistical significance (mean [SD], 15.2 [1.4] to 14.8 [1.5] pg/mL; and 14.3 [1.4] to 14.5 [1.7] pg/mL, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this study, Japanese adults with EHT had significant increases in adiponectin after 3 months of treatment with 50 to 100 mg/d of losartan, but not with 5 to 10 mg/d of amlodipine.     

Impact of therapy initiation with amlodipine or losartan on hemodynamic endpoints and JNC-VI blood pressure stage

The relative efficacy of long-acting calcium channel antagonists and angiotensin II receptor blocking agents has been described in clinical trials; however, their effectiveness in an actual practice setting has not been well studied. This study assessed the effectiveness of 2 commonly prescribed antihypertensives, amlodipine and losartan, either as monotherapy or as add-on for patients insufficiently controlled on beta-blocker or diuretic therapy. This was a retrospective, observational study that utilized electronic medical records. Hypertensive patients more than 40 years old who were new users of amlodipine or losartan were included in the study. Patients with congestive heart failure or those using antihypertensives other than diuretics or beta-blockers were excluded. Blood pressure (BP) readings were followed up to 6 months after enrollment. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to assess the impact of amlodipine or losartan therapy on hemodynamic end points and on JNC-VI BP stage. A total of 346 patients met the entry criteria. Of these, 275 (79.5%) amlodipine and 71 (20.5%) were prescribed losartan. Mean changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure were greater for patients receiving amlodipine in univariate and multivariate analyses (reduction of 20/8 and 11/4 mm Hg, respectively; P<0.05). Mean change in pulse pressure trended strongly in favor of amlodipine (11.8 mm Hg vs. 7 mm Hg, P = 0.08). Univariate analysis indicated that amlodipine-treated patients were more likely to move to a better JNC-VI BP stage, where as losartan-treated patients, on average, moved to a worse stage. Amlodipine therapy was superior to losartan therapy among this population of hypertensive patients.     

Comparison of the blood pressure-lowering effects and tolerability of Losartan- and Amlodipine-based regimens in patients with isolated systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND: Elevated systolic blood pressure is a more important risk factor for cardiovascular and renal disease than elevated diastolic blood pressure. Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the predominant form of hypertension in the elderly. Effects of angiotensin II on the vascular wall and endothelium may contribute to development of ISH. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects on trough sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) of a regimen of losartan, a selective angiotensin II-receptor antagonist, and an amlodipine-based regimen in patients with ISH. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study consisted of a 4-week placebo phase and an 18-week active-treatment phase. The losartan-based regimen consisted of losartan 50 mg, increased as needed to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg at week 6 and to losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg at week 12 to achieve a target SiSBP <140 mm Hg. the amlodipine-based regimen consisted of amlodipine 5 mg, increased as needed to amlodipine 10 mg at week 6 and to amlodipine 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg at week 12. The primary efficacy measure was change in trough SiSBP from baseline to week 18. Information on the tolerability of study treatments was collected at each visit, including the investigator's and patient's observations of clinical adverse experiences (CAEs), laboratory adverse experiences, and responses to a symptom questionnaire. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-seven patients (65.6% female) were randomized to treatment, 432 in the losartan group and 425 in the amlodipine group. Their mean age was 67.6 years, and they had a mean duration of hypertension of 6.7 years at baseline. The losartan and amlodipine groups (intent-to-treat population) had baseline mean SiSBP values of 171.2 and 171.9 mm Hg, respectively. At week 18 (the primary end point), the mean change from baseline in SiSBP was -27.4 mm Hg for 426 patients who received losartan and -28.1 mm Hg for 419 patients who received amlodipine (estimated least-square mean difference, 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.0), indicating that losartan's effect on systolic blood pressure was noninferior to that of amlodipine. The proportion of patients who responded (SiSBP <140 mm Hg or a > or =20-mm Hg decrease in SiSBP from baseline) was comparable between groups (73.9% losartan, 75.4% amlodipine). The incidence of CAEs and drug-related CAEs was significantly greater in the amlodipine group (amlodipine, 79.8% and 43.8%, respectively; losartan, 67.8% and 25.5%; P < or = 0.001). In addition, more patients in the amlodipine group discontinued therapy due to a drug-related CAE compared with patients in the losartan group (12.9% vs 4.4%, respectively; P < or = 0.001). Lower-extremity edema was the most common drug-related CAE in the amlodipine group (24.0% amlodipine, 2.5% losartan; P < or = 0.001); dizziness was the most common drug-related CAE in the losartan group (6.0% losartan, 4.0% amlodipine). CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with ISH, losartan and amlodipine produced comparable clinically relevant reductions in SiSBP; however, losartan was better tolerated, as evidenced by fewer CAEs and discontinuations compared with amlodipine. Losartan may be considered for the initial treatment of ISH.     

Effects of losartan and amlodipine on urinary albumin excretion and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with overt nephropathy

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have assessed whether 24-h blood pressure control induced by antihypertensive agents improves macroalbuminuria in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with overt nephropathy. We evaluated the effects of losartan and amlodipine on 24-h blood pressure, autonomic nervous activity, and albuminuria in these patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this open-label, parallel-prospective, randomized study, 44 patients were treated with losartan and 43 with amlodipine for a 12-week titration phase and a maintenance phase for a maximum of 12 weeks. Twenty-four-hour blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion were measured before and during treatment. Simultaneously, power spectral analysis of heart rate was performed to evaluate low frequency (LF) and high frequency (HF) components and LF-to-HF ratios as an index of sympathovagal balance. RESULTS: Losartan decreased (P < 0.001) mean blood pressure from 162/91 to 150/82 mmHg during daytime and from 146/82 to 137/74 mmHg during nighttime (systolic/diastolic). Amlodipine also decreased (P < 0.001) blood pressure from 159/90 to 147/82 mmHg during daytime and from 143/81 to 131/72 mmHg during nighttime. LF and HF components and nighttime-to-daytime ratios for the LF-to-HF ratios did not differ during treatment in two groups, showing no changes in the diurnal autonomic nervous rhythm. Losartan decreased (P < 0.001) 24-h urinary albumin excretion from 810 mg/day (95% CI 780-1,140) to 570 (510-910). Amlodipine, however, did not decrease (P = 0.893) albuminuria (790 mg/day [780-1,170] vs.790 [710-1,260]). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that in type 2 diabetes with overt nephropathy, 24-h blood pressure regulation alone is inadequate to reduce macroalbuminuria and additional effects of losartan are crucial for antiproteinuric action.     

小剂量螺内酯联合氨氯地平对肥胖高血压患者血压和胰岛素抵抗的影响

目的 观察小剂量螺内酯联合氨氯地平治疗对肥胖高血压患者血压和胰岛素抵抗的影响.方法 入选98例肥胖原发性高血压患者,其中50例应用螺内酯20 mg/d+氨氯地平5 mg/d(联合组);48例应用氨氯地平5 mg/d治疗(对照组),治疗24周.测定对照组及联合组治疗前后的体质量指数(BMl)、收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP)、空腹血糖(FPG)、空腹胰岛素(FINS)、服糖后2小时血糖(2 hPG)、服糖后2小时胰岛素(2 hPINs)水平.采用放射免疫法测定血浆醛固酮水平,应用稳态模型评价胰岛素抵抗指数(HOMA-IR).结果 与治疗前比较,治疗24周后对照组和联合组的SBP为,对照组(135.8±9.7)mm Hg vs(146.4±9.4)mmHg,联合组(129.2±7.9)mmHg vs(148.2±10.3)mmHg;DBP为,对照组(86.1±4.9)mmHg vs(98.4±10.4)mmHg,联合组(80.3±5.6)mmHg vs(99.8±10.7)mmHg,均显著下降(P<0.05),但联合组SBP和DBP降低幅度均大于对照组(P<0.05).与治疗前比较,联合组血浆醛固酮水平(122.4±19.7)ng/L vs(162.7±22.5)ng/L和HOMA-IR(5.8±2.0)vs(8.9±2.7)差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而对照组在治疗前后差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 小剂量螺内酯联合氨氯地平治疗可更加有效地降低肥胖高血压患者的血压,并改善胰岛素抵抗,其效果优于单用氨氯地平.     

不同降压药物对老年高血压患者脉搏波速度改善作用的比较

目的：评价替米沙坦、氨氯地平、氢氯噻嗪三种不同类型降压药对轻中度原发性高血压患者肱踝脉搏波速度（baPWV）的影响。方法：135例1～2级原发性高血压患者,随机分为3组：替米沙坦组（40mg／d,n=48）、氨氯地平组（5mg／d,n=45）、氢氯噻嗪组（12．5mg/d,n=42）,治疗4周后,如血压仍高于140／90mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）,剂量加倍,疗程共12周。观察治疗前后血压及脉搏波传导速度的变化。结果：治疗12周后替米沙坦、氨氯地平及氢氯噻嗪组血压均有明显降低（P〈0．05）,但各组间的血压变化差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;替米沙坦组和氨氯地平组baPWV均明显下降（P〈0．05）,而氢氯噻嗪组治疗前后baPWV差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：替米沙坦及氨氯地平均能改善轻中度高血压患者酌动脓掸性日此种作用部分涯千茸隆压以外的颜．制．     

氨氯地平联合贝那普利治疗老年原发性高血压效果观察

目的探讨氨氯地平联合贝那普利治疗老年原发性高血压的效果。方法选择我院住院或门诊明确诊断的老年原发性高血压60例,随机分为观察组与对照组各30例。对照组予氨氯地平治疗。观察组在此基础上加用贝那普利。两组均连续用药8周。观察两组临床疗效。结果两组治疗后舒张压和收缩压均明显下降,与治疗前比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01),治疗后两组间血压比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组总有效率为96.7%,对照组为83.3%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论氨氯地平联合贝那普利治疗老年原发性高血压效果优于氨氯地平单独用药,且不良反应轻微。     

Stereoselective pharmacokinetics of amlodipine in elderly hypertensive patients

Amlodipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist and is widely used for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Amlodipine has two stereoisomers [R(+), S(-)], and only the S(-) isomer exerts vasodilating action. In this preliminary study, amlodipine (5 mg) was given to three elderly hypertensive patients once daily for 10 days. Blood samples were obtained, and serum concentrations of R(+)- and S(-)-amlodipine were measured by a gas chromatographic method. The R(+)/S(-) ratio of plasma amlodipine in these elderly subjects was greater than that reported in young subjects. These results suggest that the influence of aging on the pharmacokinetic profiles might differ between the R(+)- and S(-)-isomers of amlodipine.