Blood pressure control in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension switched from nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30 mg to nifedipine GITS 20 mg

BACKGROUND: Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) is a once-daily formulation of nifedipine that provides sustained plasma nifedipine concentrations throughout the 24-hour dosing interval. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to determine if adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension whose blood pressure had been controlled for > or = 3 months with nifedipine GITS 30 mg could be successfully switched to a 20-mg daily dose with continued antihypertensive efficacy. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study. Patients entered a 1-week run-in period during which they continued to receive their usual antihypertensive medication, including nifedipine GITS 30 mg. After baseline assessment, patients entered a 6-week treatment period during which they were randomly assigned to receive nifedipine GITS 30 or 20 mg. Men and women were eligible to participate if they were > or = 55 years of age, had received a diagnosis of mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-114 mm Hg), and had exhibited good blood pressure control (sitting DBP < or = 90 mm Hg) while taking nifedipine GITS 30 mg once daily for > or = 3 months. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), DBP, and heart rate were recorded at baseline and after 1, 3, and 6 weeks of treatment. Adverse events were reported by patients. The responder rate was defined as the percentage of patients whose sitting DBP was < 95 mm Hg at the final study assessment. Results were based on the intent-to-treat analyses, which included data for all patients who received > or = 1 dose and had 1 postbaseline blood pressure assessment. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients entered the 1-week run-in period; 71 patients (94.7%) were randomized to treatment. Twenty-four patients received nifedipine GITS 30 mg for 43.0 +/- 3.3 days, and 47 patients received nifedipine GITS 20 mg for 42.5 +/- 6.7 days. Both groups exhibited a sustained decrease in blood pressure throughout the study; minor variations were not statistically significant. End-point SBP and DBP for the 30- and 20-mg groups were 135.5 +/- 9.8/81.7 +/- 5.4 mm Hg and 138.6 +/- 11.8/82.9 +/- 7.6 mm Hg, respectively. Changes from baseline in end-point SBP and DBP did not differ significantly between groups. At the end of treatment, goal DBP (< 95 mm Hg) was achieved by 24 of 24 patients (100%) receiving the 30-mg dose and 45 of 47 patients (95.7%) receiving the 20-mg dose. Blood pressure control (sitting DBP < 90 mm Hg) was achieved by 21 of 24 (87.5%) patients in the 30-mg group and 35 of 47 (74.5%) patients in the 20-mg group. The most commonly reported adverse event was headache; 2 patients discontinued the study because of adverse events. Overall, 9 of 24 patients (37.5%) in the 30-mg group and 14 of 47 patients (29.8%) in the 20-mg group experienced > or = 1 treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Patients whose mild to moderate essential hypertension is controlled with nifedipine GITS 30 mg once daily may be able to switch to 20 mg once daily with continued antihypertensive efficacy. In addition to safety and economic advantages, such a switch may be a reasonable alternative in patients with lower body weight or as an adjunct to existing antihypertensive therapy.     

Nitrendipine once daily compared with nicardipine in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension

Twenty-four patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomly assigned to 42 days of treatment with 20 mg of nitrendipine once daily or 20 mg of nicardipine thrice daily. In the nitrendipine-treated and nicardipine-treated patients, respectively, mean resting blood pressure decreased from 163 +/- 12 and 161 +/- 11 mmHg at baseline to 152 +/- 12 and 146 +/- 9 mmHg at six weeks (P less than 0.001). Blood pressures were reduced after one day of treatment, followed by an attenuation of the drug effect. In both treatment groups, blood pressures after cycloergometric, isometric, and cold-pressure tests were significantly lower at six weeks than at baseline; at six weeks, blood pressures were also significantly reduced two hours after drug administration, compared with those at or just before drug administration. It is concluded that nitrendipine taken once daily is safe and effective in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension.     

Slow-release verapamil 240 mg and treatment of mild to moderate hypertension

The study was carried out in association with medical practitioners who were responsible for observing the patients. Its aim was to determine the effective dosage of slow release verapamil (V) in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension and to compare plasma concentrations of V with blood pressure effects. The study comprised a 2-week placebo period and a 3-month active treatment period with V, during which patients were examined, 20-24 h after last intake of V, at the end of the first (D30) and of the third (D90) month of treatment. Active treatment started with 240 mg of V (once a day); at D-30 if diastolic blood pressure (DBP) remained above 90 mmHg the dosage of V was increased to 480 mg (t.d.s.). At each examination blood pressure, body weight and heart rate were registered, electrocardiogram and routine biochemical tests were carried out; plasma concentration of V was measured at D30 for every patient and at D90 for those receiving 480 mg. of V. Thirty patients (11 men and 19 women) aged from 29 to 80 years (mean : 61.7) took part in the study. Treatment needed to be stopped in one patient; results are based on the other 29. At D30 systolic blood pressure (SBP) fell from 179.4 +/- 5.9 to 156.2 +/- 5,5 mmHg and DBP from 101.3 +/- 1.8 to 88.3 +/- 3 mmHg; DPB became normal (less than 90 mmHg) in 23 subjects.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Loratadine (SCH29851) 40 mg once daily versus terfenadine 60 mg twice daily in the treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis

Seventy patients received loratadine 40 mg once daily, terfenadine 60 mg twice daily, or placebo in a 14-day, double-blind, randomized study. Four nasal and four non-nasal symptoms associated with allergic rhinitis were evaluated. At the endpoint (the last evaluable visit), the mean total scores of combined nasal and non-nasal symptoms decreased (improved) from the baseline by 51.8% and 55.7% with loratadine and terfenadine, respectively, but increased (worsened) by 6.1% with placebo. There was a significant difference between both the loratadine and terfenadine treatment groups and the placebo group (P = 0.001) but not between the active medication groups (P = 0.608). Overall therapeutic response was good or excellent in 14 of the 23 patients given loratadine, in 18 of the 24 given terfenadine and in none of the 23 given placebo. The difference between each active medication group and the placebo group was significant (P less than or equal to 0.01) but there was no significant difference between the two active treatment groups (P greater than 0.35). No loratadine patient had any adverse side-effects. Sedating effects occurred in one terfenadine patient, headache in one placebo patient and two terfenadine patients (one terfenadine patient with severe headache discontinued treatment), and dyspepsia in two placebo patients. No anti-cholinergic effects occurred in this study. Loratadine 40 mg once daily was effective and safe in the relief of symptoms of allergic rhinitis.     

A comparative clinical trial of duodenal ulcer healing with two regimens of cimetidine: 800 mg once nightly and 400 mg twice daily

The efficacy and safety of two dosage regimens of cimetidine were compared in a single-blind study of 50 adults with endoscopically proven duodenal ulcers. Patients were randomly allocated to receive 800 mg cimetidine taken once nightly or 400 mg cimetidine taken twice daily for 4 weeks. Following 4 weeks' treatment patients again underwent endoscopy and, if healing was incomplete, they received a further 4 weeks' treatment. At 4 weeks, healing occurred in 21/25 (84%) patients on the once-daily regimen and in 15/25 (60%) patients treated twice daily (P less than 0.05). Cumulative healing rates after 8 weeks' treatment were 92% and 96%, respectively. Symptomatic improvement was obtained to the same degree with both regimens. No adverse effects were recorded and laboratory values remained normal during both treatments. The results indicate that cimetidine given as one dose each night was superior to the twice-daily regimen.     

Clinical efficacy and safety of telmisartan 80 mg once daily compared with enalapril 20 mg once daily in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: results of a multicentre study

The efficacy and safety of once-daily telmisartan 80 mg vs. once-daily enalapril 20 mg in the treatment of essential hypertension were evaluated in a multicentre, single-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial. In total, 68 patients (49 females, 19 males) with mild-to-moderate hypertension, defined as morning supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) 141-149 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-114 mmHg, were enrolled. After a 4-week placebo run-in phase, patients were randomly assigned to treatment with telmisartan or enalapril administered once daily in the morning for 8 weeks. No statistically significant differences were found in the baseline characteristics of patients in either group. Both SBP and DBP were decreased in both treatment groups, but the reductions were statistically different in favour of telmisartan (SBP, p = 0.013; DBP, p = 0.002). The incidence of adverse effects was lower in the telmisartan group, with the absence of cough. In conclusion, telmisartan is more effective and better tolerated than enalapril for the treatment of hypertension and has the advantage that it does not cause cough.     

A comparison of nisoldipine ER and amlodipine for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension

This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine extended release (10-40 mg) and amlodipine (2.5-10 mg) in 161 patients. The primary end point was a between-treatment comparison of change from baseline to week 8 in mean office diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The least squares mean reductions in systolic (S)BP/DBP (+/- standard error) for nisoldipine and amlodipine were -11.7/-9.3 +/- 1.4/0.8 and -14.3/-12.0 +/- 1.4/0.8 mmHg, respectively. The DBP treatment difference was 2.7 mmHg (90% confidence interval: 1.1 to 4.3 mmHg; p = 0.005). Tolerability profiles were similar between treatments. The drug acquisition cost per mmHg DBP reduction was 40% lower with nisoldipine; an acquisition cost analysis revealed that amlodipine was 80% more expensive than nisoldipine for treating hypertension. In summary, nisoldipine and amlodipine provide clinically equivalent antihypertensive efficacy; however, nisoldipine is more economical than amlodipine.     

A double-blind, randomized study assessing the equivalence of valacyclovir 1000 mg once daily versus 500 mg twice daily in the episodic treatment of recurrent genital herpes. Genival Study Group

Valaciclovir is a prodrug of acyclovir with more favourable bioavailability. Twice daily oral administration of valacyclovir is recommended in patients with genital herpes. A double-blind, randomized, controlled, multicriteria equivalence trial was conducted to determine whether od treatment with valacyclovir 1000 mg is as effective as bd treatment with 500 mg in patients with recurrent genital herpes. A total of 922 immunocompetent outpatients were treated with either regimen for 5 days; treatment was self-initiated at the first symptoms of the next recurrence. The principal outcome measures were the percentage of lesions healed at day 6, time to healing, time to cessation of pain, discomfort or itching, the percentage of abortive episodes and safety. Equivalence was assessed by comparison of 80% confidence limits for each measure; the two regimens were regarded as equivalent if the lower confidence limit was higher than a pre-determined equivalence limit calculated to show a maximum 10% inferiority of valacyclovir 1000 mg od against valaciclovir 500 mg bd. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that the two treatments were equivalent for each outcome measure. Hence, it is concluded that valacyclovir 1000 mg od is as effective as 500 mg bd. as self-initiated therapy in patients with recurrent genital herpes.     

A comparison of tazarotene 0.1% gel once daily plus mometasone furoate 0.1% cream once daily versus calcipotriene 0.005% ointment twice daily in the treatment of plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND: Both tazarotene (a retinoid prodrug) and calcipotriene (a synthetic analog of vitamin D3) are effective in the treatment of plaque psoriasis, but no reports in the literature directly compare the efficacy and tolerability of these 2 drugs. Tazarotene is commonly used in conjunction with a topical corticosteroid. In this study, tazarotene was used with mometasone furoate (a synthetic corticosteroid), and the 2-drug regimen was compared with calcipotriene monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and tolerability of tazarotene 0.1% gel once daily plus mometasone furoate 0.1% cream once daily with those of calcipotriene 0.005% ointment twice daily in the treatment of plaque psoriasis. METHODS: In this multicenter, investigator-blinded, parallel-group study, adult patients with chronic, stable plaque psoriasis affecting 5% to 20% of their body surface area were randomly allocated to receive up to 8 weeks of treatment with either tazarotene 0.1% gel once daily (in the evening) plus mometasone furoate 0.1% cream once daily (in the morning) or calcipotriene 0.005% ointment twice daily. Patients were assessed at baseline and at weeks 2, 4, and 8 of treatment. Patients who demonstrated complete clearance of plaque psoriasis after 2 or 4 weeks of treatment and those whose psoriasis had improved > or = 50% after 8 weeks of treatment entered a 12-week posttreatment follow-up phase during which they applied only moisturizer. Patients were reassessed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of posttreatment follow-up. Physician-rated measures of efficacy included global improvement, plaque elevation, scaling, erythema, and percentage of body surface area involvement. Patient-rated assessments included efficacy of study treatment compared with previous therapies, comfort of treated skin, outlook for long-term control of psoriasis, and overall impression of treatment. RESULTS: Of 120 patients with moderate to severe psoriasis enrolled from 3 centers, 106 (88%) completed the study. No significant differences in baseline clinical variables were observed between the 2 groups. Twenty-seven patients (45%) in the tazarotene plus cortico-steroid group achieved marked improvement (> or = 75% global improvement) after 2 weeks of treatment compared with 15 patients (26%) in the calcipotriene group (P < or = 0.05). Between-group comparisons of the percentage of patients achieving complete or almost complete clearance (> or = 90% global improvement) did not reach statistical significance at any time point. When compared with the calcipotriene regimen, the tazarotene plus corticosteroid regimen resulted in significantly greater efficacy on trunk lesions in reducing plaque elevation (at the end of treatment and at week 4 of the posttreatment phase, P < or = 0.05), scaling (week 4 of treatment and week 4 of the posttreatment phase, P < or = 0.05), erythema (week 4 of treatment and at the end of treatment, P < or = 0.05), and percentage of body surface area involvement (weeks 2 and 4 of treatment, P < or = 0.01). In addition, the tazarotene plus corticosteroid regimen was significantly more effective in reducing the percentage of body surface area involvement in upper limb lesions (weeks 2 [P < or = 0.05] and 4 [P < or = 0.01] of treatment). Forty-two of 55 patients (76%) in the tazarotene plus corticosteroid group rated their medication as more or much more effective than previous therapies compared with 30 of 52 patients (58%) in the calcipotriene group (P < or = 0.05). Although adverse events (burning, pruritus, irritation, and erythema) occurred in a significantly greater proportion of patients who received tazarotene plus corticosteroid than in those who received calcipotriene (P < or = 0.05), 47 of 55 patients (85%) in both groups rated the comfort of their treated skin as "somewhat comfortable" or better and both groups had similar discontinuation rates due to treatment-related adverse events (3% and 5%, respectively). CONCL     

Efficacy and safety of alfuzosin 10 mg once daily in the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disorder in ageing men. Patients with BPH often present with bothersome irritative and obstructive lower urinary tract symptoms -- urgency, frequency, nocturia, feeling of insufficient bladder emptying and weak or intermittent flow. alpha(1)-Blockers are the most frequently prescribed oral medications for the first-line treatment of the symptoms associated with BPH. Alfuzosin is a uroselective alpha(1)-blocker that relaxes the smooth muscle of the bladder neck and prostate gland to alleviate BPH symptoms. A pooled analysis of three phase III trials confirmed that treatment with alfuzosin 10 mg q.d. significantly improves the peak urinary flow rate and symptom severity compared with placebo treatment. Unlike some other alpha(1)-blockers, alfuzosin 10 mg q.d. is associated with a low incidence of sexual and vasodilatory side effects. Based on the clinical trials reviewed, alfuzosin 10 mg q.d. is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for the urinary symptoms associated with BPH.     

Clinical and bacteriological efficacy and safety of 5 and 7 day regimens of telithromycin once daily compared with a 10 day regimen of clarithromycin twice daily in patients with mild to moderate community-acquired pneumonia

OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to investigate the potential equivalence in clinical efficacy and assess safety of a 5 or 7 day regimen of oral telithromycin (800 mg once daily) and a 10 day regimen of oral clarithromycin (500 mg twice daily) in treating community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Bacteriological efficacy was also compared. METHODS: This was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. Patients with mild to moderate CAP received telithromycin 800 mg once a day for 5 (n=193) or 7 (n=195) days or clarithromycin 500 mg twice a day for 10 days (n=187). In these groups, 159, 161 and 146 patients, respectively, completed the study. RESULTS: At the post-therapy/test-of-cure evaluation, clinical cure rates (per-protocol clinical population) were 89.3% (5 days) and 88.8% (7 days) for telithromycin, and 91.8% for clarithromycin 10 days. Satisfactory bacteriological outcome rates (per-protocol bacteriological population) were 87.7% and 80.0% for 5 and 7 days of telithromycin, respectively, and 83.3% for 10 days of clarithromycin. Bacteriological eradication rates in the respective treatment groups were, for Streptococcus pneumoniae, 95.8% (23/24), 96.7% (29/30) and 88.5% (23/26); for Haemophilus influenzae, 88.0% (22/25), 84.0% (21/25) and 88.2% (15/17) and for Moraxella catarrhalis, 1/1, 4/5 and 3/4. Both telithromycin regimens demonstrated clinical efficacy against pneumococcal bacteraemia (19/19), atypical pathogens (9/9) and erythromycin-resistant S. pneumoniae isolates (5/5). Most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in intensity with most commonly reported adverse events involving the gastrointestinal system. CONCLUSIONS: Telithromycin 800 mg administered once a day for 5 or 7 days was as effective and safe as clarithromycin 500 mg administered twice a day for 10 days in treating patients with CAP caused by common respiratory pathogens, including macrolide-resistant isolates, and pneumococcal bacteraemia.     

Antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily in treatment-naive patients with essential hypertension: A 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study

Background: Dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are largely employed for the treatment of hypertension, coronary heart disease, and heart failure.Objective: The aim of our study was to compare the antihypertensive effect of the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists barnidipine and amlodipine.Methods: This was a 24-week, randomized, open-label, pilot study. Consecutive treatment-naive patients with grade I or II essential hypertension (office sitting systolic blood pressure [BP] of 140-179 mm Hg and diastolic BP of 90-109 mm Hg) were enrolled. The primary end points were the effect of treatment with either barnidipine 10 mg or amlodipine 5 mg once daily on office and ambulatory BP, left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and markers of cardiac damage, serum procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide, and plasma amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide concentrations. Patients were assessed at enrollment, and 12 and 24 weeks. During each visit, the prevalence of adverse events (AEs) was also monitored using spontaneous reporting, patient interview, and physical examination, the relationship to study drug being determined by the investigators. Compliance with treatment was assessed at each study visit by counting returned tablets.Results: Thirty eligible patients (20 men, 10 women; mean [SD] age, 47 [12] years) were included in the study; all patients completed the 24 weeks of study treatment. Twelve weeks after randomization, 6 patients in the amlodipine group had their dose doubled to 10 mg due to inadequate BP control. Mean BP reductions at study end were not significantly different between the barnidipine and amlodipine groups (office BP, −10.3/−9.4 vs −16.6/−9.1 mm Hg; ambulatory BP, 9.4/6.4 vs 8.1/5.1 mm Hg). Reductions in LVMI and markers of cardiac damage were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Significantly more patients in the amlodipine group reported drug-related AEs compared with those in the barnidipine group (9 [60%] vs 2 [13%]; P < 0.05).Conclusion: In this small sample of treatment-naive hypertensive patients, the antihypertensive effect of barnidipine 10 mg once daily was not significantly different from that of amlodipine 5 to 10 mg once daily.     

氯沙坦治疗轻中度原发性高血压病的临床研究：附57例报告

目的：探讨氯沙坦治疗轻、中度原发性高血压病的临床疗效。方法：１１３例原发性高血压患者随机分为两组,氯沙坦组（治疗组,５７例）：５０￣１００ｍｇ／ｄ口服,疗程半年;依那普利组（对照组,５６例）：５￣１５ｍｇ／ｄ口服,疗程半年。治疗前后做动态血压监测,肝、肾功能,血糖等检查,测定血浆肾素活性（ＰＲＡ）、血管紧张素Ⅱ（ＡｎｇⅡ）、醛固酮、内皮素等。结果：治疗组降压总有效率为７２％（４１例）;降压幅度（ｋ     

A double-blind comparison of perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide-amiloride in mild to moderate essential hypertension

The aim of this 3-month double-blind multicenter trial was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of the ACE inhibitor perindopril with those of a diuretic combination. After 1 month of receiving placebo, 165 patients with essential hypertension were randomised to perindopril 4 mg (n = 82) or to 50 mg hydrochlorothiazide + 5 mg amiloride (n = 83). The patients were treated for 3 months with monthly assessments, "uncontrolled" patients (DBP greater than 90 mm Hg) had their dosage doubled and then, if necessary, atenolol 50 mg was added. At the end of the 3-month study, mean decreases in supine and standing systolic and diastolic blood pressures were similar in both groups. In the perindopril group, BP control was obtained in 56% of the patients with the 4 mg dosage and required an increase to 8 mg alone in 16% and with atenolol in 5%. The corresponding percentages in the diuretic group were 48, 23 and 13%. The overall percentage of "controlled" patients was similar in the 2 groups, respectively 78 and 84%. The nature and incidence of complaints were comparable in the 2 groups. Adverse laboratory changes were more frequent in the diuretic group: decrease in blood sodium (140.5 vs 139.1 mmol/l; P less than 0.01), potassium (4.2 vs 3.9 mmol/l; P less than 0.01) with 10 patients having significant hypokalemia, increase in blood urea, triglycerides and uric acid. By contrast, a transient increase in blood potassium with a decrease in triglycerides was observed in the perindopril group.     

Enalapril and lisinopril in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension

Hypertensive patients were randomly assigned to receive 5 mg of enalapril (n = 50) or 10 mg of lisinopril (n = 47) daily. During a four-week titration period, the doses were increased weekly to a maximum of 40 mg once daily until the treatment goal of diastolic blood pressure (BP) of less than 90 mmHg was reached; treatment was then continued for four weeks. Systolic and diastolic BP declined significantly in the two treatment groups, from 147/98 mmHg in both the enalapril and lisinopril groups to 126/82 and 122/81 mmHg, respectively, at the end of treatment. During the first week of treatment, the goal of diastolic BP of less than 90 mmHg was reached by 40% of the enalapril group and 62% of the lisinopril group; by the end of the titration period, 98% and 96%, respectively, had achieved the BP goal. Few side effects were reported and there were no abnormal laboratory findings during treatment. It is concluded that once-daily administration of enalapril or lisinopril was generally effective and well-tolerated in the management of mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension.     

A 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group comparison of timolol-LA once daily and timolol maleate ophthalmic solution twice daily in the treatment of adults with glaucoma or ocular hypertension

BACKGROUND: Timolol maleate, a nonselective beta-adrenoceptor antagonist applied topically to the eye as a solution, is well known for its ocular hypotensive efficacy. A gellan formulation of timolol maleate is given once daily and has been shown to be as effective as timolol maleate solution, but is associated with ocular symptoms that may limit its utility. A new timolol maleate solution has been formulated that contains potassium sorbate (timolol-LA [TLA; Istalol(R)]) to enhance the ocular bioavailability of timolol instilled into the eye, as well as half the benzalkonium chloride preservative found in timolol maleate. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this trial was to assess the ocular hypotensive efficacy and safety profile of TLA 0.5% solution once daily with those of timolol maleate ophthalmic solution (TIM) 0.5% twice daily in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted at 21 participating private practices across the United States. Patients aged > or =18 years with OAG or OHT in 1 or both eyes and an unmedicated intraocular pressure (IOP) of > or =22 mm Hg were randomized to receive either TLA once daily or TIM twice daily bilaterally for 12 months. The primary outcome measure was IOP (95% CIs) on treatment difference at each visit (ie, equivalence analysis). The safety profile was assessed based on biomicroscopic and ophthalmoscopic examination and patient symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients (203 women, 129 men; mean [SEM] age, 64.6 [11.8] years [range, 29-92 years]) entered the study. Of these, 290 patients (87.3%) completed it. At none of the visits did the 95% CIs for between-treatment comparisons exceed 1.5 mm Hg and, at most of the visits, these intervals did not exceed 1.0 mm Hg. Mean baseline IOP was approximately 25 mm Hg in both groups. IOP was reduced at all posttreatment visits to 18 to 19 mm Hg at peak and to approximately 19 to 20 mm Hg at trough drug level in both treatment groups. Mean reductions from baseline were 6 to 7 mm Hg at peak and 5 to 6 mm Hg at trough (25.5%-28.7% and 20.8%-24.7%, respectively). Seventeen patients (5.1%) withdrew due to adverse events (AEs) (10 patients [6.0%] and 7 patients [4.2%] in the TLA and TIM groups, respectively). Based on biomicroscopic and ophthalmoscopic examination and volunteered symptoms, the safety profile was similar between the 2 treatments, except for burning and stinging on instillation, with an incidence of 41.6% in the TLA group and 22.9% in the TIM group (P = 0.001). Nearly all cases of burning and stinging were mild (94.2% [65 events] with TLA and 90.0% [36 events] with TIM), and none of the patients discontinued treatment due to this AE. Conclusions: TLA solution, a nonselective beta-adrenoceptor antagonist, given once daily in the morning, was found to be statistically equivalent in ocular hypotensive efficacy (as defined a priori) compared with TIM, given twice daily, and with an acceptable safety profile in this study population of adult patients.     

国产厄贝沙坦治疗轻、中度高血压的Meta分析

[摘要] 目的：分析评价国产厄贝沙坦治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的有效性和安全性。方法：以氯沙坦为对照药，运用Meta分析方法，对5个采用随机盲法对照的独立临床试验结果进行定量合成分析。结果：厄贝沙坦组降压有效率略优于氯沙坦组的降压有效率，但差异无统计学意义，合并效应量OR为1.44，其95％CI为（0.99,2.10），P＝0.06。在降低心率上，厄贝沙坦组合并效应量WMD为-0.13，其95％CI为（-1.84,1.58），P=0.88，可认为厄贝沙坦组治疗前后心率变化无统计学意义。氯沙坦组得到，合并效应量WMD为1.77，其95％CI为（0.11,3.43），可以认为氯沙坦组治疗后心率比治疗前心率略有降低。敏感性分析后，两组心率治疗前后均无显著差异。两组间不良反应率无显著差异（P＝0.99）。厄贝沙坦组主要不良反应为头晕、头痛、恶心、干呵。结论：厄贝沙坦对轻、中度原发性高血压降压效果显著，是一种安全有效的抗高血压药物。     

Comparison of a fixed-dose combination of 40 mg telmisartan plus 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide with 40 mg telmisartan in the control of mild to moderate hypertension

This study investigated whether a fixed-dose combination of 40 mg of the angiotensin II antagonist telmisartan plus 12.5 mg of the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) was superior to 40 mg telmisartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension who failed to respond adequately to 40 mg telmisartan monotherapy. One hundred forty-six patients were withdrawn before randomization. Nonresponders (n = 327) were double blind and randomized to 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ (n = 160) or 40 mg telmisartan (n = 167). After 8 weeks of treatment, 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ lowered diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by an additional 3.5 mm Hg (P <.01) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 7.4 mm Hg (P <.01) compared with 40 mg telmisartan. Most of the additional effect of the combination was seen after 4 weeks of treatment. At week 8, blood pressure was normalized (SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP <90 mm Hg) in 51.6% of patients on 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ compared with 23.5% on 40 mg telmisartan (P <.05). The combination of 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ normalized DBP in 64.8% of patients, whereas 40 mg telmisartan normalized DBP in 40.1% (P <.05). SBP decreased by > or =10 mm Hg from baseline in 63.5% of patients receiving the fixed-dose combination compared with 42.6% of those receiving 40 mg telmisartan (P <.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. Adverse events were predominantly mild, transient, and considered unrelated to therapy. These findings indicate that a fixed-dose combination of 40 mg telmisartan + 12.5 mg HCTZ is clinically and statistically superior to 40 mg telmisartan in patients with mild to moderate hypertension failing to respond to 40 mg telmisartan alone.