Combination delapril/manidipine as antihypertensive therapy in high-risk patients

The majority of patients with hypertension, and in particular high-risk patients or those with diabetes mellitus or renal dysfunction, are likely to require combination therapy with at least two antihypertensive agents (from different classes) to achieve their blood pressure (BP) target. The delapril/manidipine fixed-dose combination consists of two antihypertensive agents with different, yet complementary, mechanisms of action. Delapril/manidipine has demonstrated short- and long-term antihypertensive efficacy in a number of clinical studies in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy. Comparative studies have demonstrated that delapril/manidipine is as effective as enalapril/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy, and as effective as irbesartan/HCTZ, losartan/HCTZ, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ, ramipril/HCTZ and valsartan/HCTZ in reducing BP in patients with hypertension and diabetes, or in obese patients with hypertension. Therapy with delapril/manidipine also appears to exert beneficial effects that extend beyond a reduction in BP, including nephroprotective activity and an improvement in fibrinolytic balance, supporting its value as a treatment option in these patient populations at high or very high cardiovascular risk because of the presence of organ damage, diabetes or renal disease.     

A placebo-controlled dose-response study of felodipine extended release in hypertensive patients

This placebo-controlled study assessed antihypertensive effect and tolerability of two dose levels of an extended release (ER) formulation of felodipine (Plendil), given once daily to patients in primary health care. The patients had mild to moderate hypertension and were randomized to receive felodipine ER (FER) 20 mg (n = 50), FER 10 mg (n = 50), or placebo (n = 51) in a 4-week, double-blind, parallel-group multicenter study. After 4 weeks, the 24-h reduction in supine diastolic BP (DBP) was greater (p less than 0.01) in both FER groups (7 +/- 6 and 8 +/- 5 mm Hg) than in the placebo group (4 +/- 6 mm Hg). The 24-h reduction in supine systolic BP (SBP) was greater (p less than 0.01) in the FER 20-mg group (14 +/- 11 mm Hg), but not in the FER 10-mg group, than in the placebo group (8 +/- 11 mm Hg). No significant difference in blood pressure (BP) was found between FER 10 and 20 mg. Heart rate (HR) did not differ between any of the groups, nor did body weight or routine laboratory parameters. During felodipine treatment, 17 patients (12 receiving FER 20 mg) were withdrawn mostly because of vasodilatory side effects such as headache and ankle edema. We conclude that FER 10 mg and 20 mg once daily had an antihypertensive 24-h effect and that FER 10 mg may be more suitable as initial dose.     

Safety and antihypertensive efficacy of carvedilol and atenolol alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide

Carvedilol has been shown to be effective and safe in patients with essential hypertension when given as monotherapy. In this double-blind, randomized, group-comparative study, 2 groups of 59 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension [median supine systolic/diastolic blood pressure at baseline (SBP/DBP), 168/105 mm Hg] were treated with either 25 mg carvedilol once daily (o. d.) or 50 mg atenolol o. d. for 4 weeks. Responders at 4 weeks (DBP, < 90=" mmhg)=" terminated=" the=" study.=" nonresponders=" continued=" the=" study.=" hydrochlorothiazide=" (hctz)=" was=" added=" at=" 25=" mg=" o.=" d.=" for=" a=" further=" 6=" weeks.=" the=" median=" blood=" pressure=" decreased=" under=" monotherapy=" with=" carvedilol=">n = 59) from 167/105 at baseline to 155/94 mmHg after 4 weeks, and in the atenolol group (n=59) it decreased from 168/105 to 162/97 mmHg. The patients who received carvedilol in combination with HCTZ and were evaluated for efficacy (n = 38) showed a decrease in SBP/DBP from 156/97 at the end of monotherapy to 145/88 mmHg after 10 weeks; the combination of atenolol with HCTZ (n = 44) reduced BP from 162/97 to 147/88. Both carvedilol and atenolol were safe when given either alone or in combination with HCTZ. In conclusion, after long-term administration, 25 mg carvedilol o. d. and 50 mg atenolol o. d. significantly reduced both SBP and DBP over 24 h. The addition of HCTZ led to a further increase in antihypertensive efficacy. Combined treatment with carvedilol or atenolol and HCTZ was very well tolerated, without hypotensive events or relevant changes in objective safety parameters.     

Manidipine: a review of its use in hypertension.

Manidipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, which causes systemic vasodilation by inhibiting the voltage-dependent calcium inward currents in smooth muscle cells. The resulting reduction in blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension is maintained over 24 hours. Manidipine 10 to 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks significantly lowered office BP from baseline and compared with placebo, and significantly reduced 24-hour BP compared with placebo in patients with essential hypertension in a well controlled trial. The decline in BP was maintained over 24 hours (trough to peak BP ratios were >50%) without disturbing the circadian BP pattern. BP reductions with therapeutic dosages of manidipine were maintained for up to 1 year in noncomparative trials. The BP-lowering capacity of manidipine 5 to 20 mg/day appears to be similar to that of other calcium antagonists with which it has been compared in randomised double-blind and nonblind trial. In a well controlled short term trial, manidipine 10 mg daily significantly decreased trough sitting BP compared with placebo in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Decreases in BP were maintained for up to 3 years of treatment. The drug (10 or 20 mglday) also significantly lowered sitting BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomised, long term comparative trials. In general, the observed reduction in BP with manidipine was similar to that observed with amlodipine, enalapril or delapril. The effects of manidipine on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) have not been clearly demonstrated in clinical trials in this patient group. BP was also reduced with manidipine in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Manidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most adverse effects related to vasodilation. Commonly reported events included ankle oedema, headache. palpitation. flushing, dizziness, rash and fatigue. Manidipine appears to have less potential for pedal oedema than amlodipine. CONCLUSIONS: Manidipine has shown antihypertensive efficacy and appears to be well tolerated in adult and elderly patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension. The BP-lowering effects of the drug in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance were not associated with any adverse metabolic effects. The effects of manidipine on UAE in this patient group remain unclear. Manidipine provides an additional treatment option for patients for whom dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are appropriate. Manidipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, which causes systemic vasodilation by inhibiting the voltage-dependent calcium inward currents in smooth muscle cells. The resulting reduction in blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension is maintained over 24 hours. Manidipine 10 to 40mg once daily for 4 weeks significantly lowered office BP from baseline and compared with placebo, and significantly reduced 24-hour BP compared with placebo in patients with essential hypertension in a well controlled trial. The decline in BP was maintained over 24 hours (trough to peak BP ratios were >50%) without disturbing the circadian BP pattern. BP reductions with therapeutic dosages of manidipine were maintained for up to 1 year in non-comparative trials. The BP-lowering capacity of manidipine 5 to 20 mg/day appears to be similar to that of other calcium antagonists with which it has been compared in randomised double-blind and nonblind trial. In a well controlled short term trial, manidipine 10 mg daily significantly decreased trough sitting BP compared with placebo in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Decreases in BP were maintained for up to 3 years of treatment. The drug (10 or 20 mg/day) also significantly lowered sitting BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomised, long term comparative trials. In general, the observed reduction in BP with manidipine was similar to that observed with amlodipine, enalapril or delapril. The effects of manidipine on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) have not been clearly demonstrated in clinical trials in this patient group. BP was also reduced with manidipine in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Manidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most adverse effects related to vasodilation. Commonly reported events included ankle oedema, headache. palpitation. flushing, dizziness, rash and fatigue. Manidipine appears to have less potential for pedal oedema than amlodipine. CONCLUSIONS: Manidipine has shown antihypertensive efficacy and appears to be well tolerated in adult and elderly patients with mild or mo     

Efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of long-term treatment with manidipine or amlodipine in patients with essential hypertension

This double-blind, multicenter trial compared antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of manidipine and amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were randomly assigned to 48 weeks of once-daily manidipine, 10-20 mg, or amlodipine, 5-10 mg. Patients who did not respond to treatment after 12 weeks were also given enalapril, 10-20 mg, for the study's duration. The main efficacy end point was equivalence in sitting systolic (SiSBP) and diastolic (SiDBP) blood pressure reduction between the two drugs after 8 weeks (per protocol analysis). An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed in all patients with at least one efficacy determination during treatment. Quality of life was assessed by the "Subjective Symptoms Assessment Profile" (SSA-P) and "General Well-being Schedule" (GWBS), after 12 weeks of treatment. SiSBP reduction after 8 weeks was equivalent for manidipine (15.2 mm Hg, n = 227) and amlodipine (17.0 mm Hg, n = 219). The corresponding figure for SiDBP was 11.3 mm Hg for manidipine and 12.3 mm Hg for amlodipine. In the larger ITT population SiDBP was similarly and significantly reduced by manidipine (from 102 +/- 5 to 88 +/- 9 mm Hg, n = 241) and amlodipine (from 101 +/- 5 to 87 +/- 8 mm Hg, n = 240). Similar results were observed for SiSBP and standing SBP and DBP. Neither drug changed sitting or standing heart rate compared with baseline. SSA-P scores improved with manidipine but not amlodipine. GWBS total and partial scores increased more with manidipine than with amlodipine. Safety profile favored manidipine, which was associated with significantly less ankle edema than was amlodipine. This study shows for the first time that long-term treatment with the long-acting calcium channel blocker manidipine is as effective as treatment with amlodipine, has a better tolerability profile, and induces greater improvement in quality of life than amlodipine.     

Lercanidipine: a review of its use in hypertension

Lercanidipine is a vasoselective dihydropyridine calcium antagonist which causes systemic vasodilation by blocking the influx of calcium ions through L-type calcium channels in cell membranes. It is a highly lipophilic drug and as such has a slower onset and longer duration of action than a number of other calcium antagonists. Preclinical evidence suggests that lercanidipine has antiatherogenic potential and it may also protect against end-organ damage. In well controlled clinical studies, once daily administration of lercanidipine 10 or 20mg effectively reduced blood pressure (BP) compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypertension without affecting heart rate. Response rate (percentage of patients with diastolic BP < or =90mm Hg or reduced by > or =10mm Hg from baseline) ranged from 50 to 66% with lercanidipine 10 mg/day and up to 86% with lercanidipine 20 mg/day. The drug had a long duration of action: clinical measurements for diastolic BP yielded a trough/peak ratio of >0.8 for both lercanidipine dosages in 1 study. Comparative trials, either published in full or as abstracts, found lercanidipine 10mg once daily for > or =4 weeks to be at least as effective as atenolol 50mg once daily, candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/day, captopril 25mg twice daily, enalapril 20 mg/day, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg once daily, irbesartan 150 mg/day and slow release nifedipine 20mg twice daily in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In addition, lercanidipine 20 mg/day was as effective as amlodipine 10 mg/day. Lercanidipine is effective in the treatment of elderly patients (aged 60 to 85 years) with mild to moderate essential hypertension and in those with isolated systolic hypertension. In addition, monotherapy with lercanidipine 20 or 40 mg/day has shown efficacy in patients with severe hypertension, and add-on therapy helped control BP in a large proportion of patients with severe hypertension not responding sufficiently to beta-blockers, diuretics or ACE inhibitors. Unpublished data indicate that the drug reduces blood pressure in patients with type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, without adversely affecting glucose homeostasis. Lercanidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most treatment-related adverse events typical of dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, namely headache, flushing, dizziness and ankle oedema. CONCLUSIONS: Lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated once daily antihypertensive agent in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In addition, the drug may reduce BP when used as monotherapy in patients with severe hypertension or when used adjunctively in patients with resistant hypertension. Importantly, lercanidipine appears to be at least as effective and well tolerated as other commonly used antihypertensive agents. The drug therefore represents a useful therapeutic option in the management of patients with hypertension and will be particularly useful in patients not responding to, or intolerant of, antihypertensive agents from other drug classes.     

A dose-finding, placebo-controlled study on extended-release felodipine once daily in treatment of hypertension

Hypertensive patients received a beta-blocker plus placebo once daily for 4 weeks. If their diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was then 95-115 mm Hg, they were randomized to receive, in addition to the beta-blocker, placebo (n = 36), felodipine-extended release (ER) 10 mg (n = 36), or felodipine-ER 20 mg (n = 37) in a 4-week double-blind parallel-group trial. All medication was administered once daily and, when BP was measured 24 h after the last dose, felodipine-ER 10 mg reduced DBP by 14 +/- 9 mm Hg (mean +/- SD) from a mean of 103 mm Hg and felodipine-ER 20 mg reduced DBP by 18 +/- 9 mm Gg from 101 mm Hg. The reductions in DBP with both doses of felodipine were greater than reductions with placebo (5 +/- 8 mm Hg, from 102 mm Hg--both p less than 0.001). At the end of the study, 21% of patients receiving placebo had a DBP less than or equal to 90 mm Hg. In contrast, 69% of patients receiving felodipine-ER 10 mg and 82% receiving 20 mg attained this level. More than 90% of patients receiving 10 mg felodipine-ER once daily had a reduction in DBP greater than 5 mm Hg 24 h postdose. Felodipine-ER was well tolerated. Felodipine-ER once daily is an effective antihypertensive drug for patients who require therapy in addition to a beta-blocker; the tolerability in this study was good, and a starting dose greater than 10 mg once daily is not indicated.     

Once vs twice daily administration of a fixed combination of captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension: a double-blind crossover study in known responders to a standard combination.

The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, crossover trial was to compare the hypotensive effects of a fixed combination of captopril (C) 50 mg and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg (C 50/HCTZ 25) once daily with those of a fixed combination of C 25 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg (C 25/HCTZ 12.5) twice daily. We studied 199 patients (108 M, 91 F) with mild to moderate essential hypertension whose BP was already controlled by the co-administration of C 25 mg and HCTZ 12.5 mg twice daily. They were randomly assigned to either C 25/HCTZ 12.5 twice daily during the first 6 weeks and C 50/HCTZ 25 once daily during the second 6 weeks or C 50/HCTZ 25 once daily followed by C 25/HCTZ 12.5 twice daily. Both regimens showed comparable efficacy on office diastolic BP (91.6 vs 91.3 mm Hg). Systolic BP was slightly but significantly higher (P = 0.02) with the once daily formulation (141.2 vs 139.1 mm Hg). Fixed combinations once daily and twice daily resulted in identical working ambulatory BP (133.7 +/- 13/83.6 +/- 8 mm Hg vs 132.4 +/- 11/83.3 +/- 7 mm Hg) without affecting heart rate. Adverse events were reported by 16% of patients and cough was the most common occurring in 7%. In conclusion, these results indicate that the fixed combination of C 50/HCTZ 25 given once daily controls office and working BP as well as the fixed combination C 25/HCTZ 12.5 given twice daily in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Lercanidipine : a review of its efficacy in the management of hypertension

Lercanidipine (Zanidip) is a vasoselective dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist that causes systemic vasodilation by blocking the influx of calcium ions through L-type calcium channels in cell membranes. It is a highly lipophilic drug that exhibits a slower onset and longer duration of action than other calcium channel antagonists. Furthermore, lercanidipine may have antiatherogenic activity unrelated to its antihypertensive effect.In two large, nonblind, noncomparative studies involving approximately 16 000 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, systolic blood pressure (BP) [SBP] and diastolic BP (DBP) were significantly reduced after 12 weeks' treatment with lercanidipine 10-20 mg/day. Furthermore, in the largest study, 64% of patients were responders (DBP <90 mm Hg) after 12 weeks of treatment and an additional 32% had their BP normalised (BP <140/90 mm Hg). In comparative trials, lercanidipine 10-20 mg/day was as effective as nifedipine slow release (SR) 20-40 mg twice daily, amlodipine 10 mg/day, felodipine 10-20 mg/day, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30-60 mg once daily or verapamil SR 240 mg/day at reducing SBP and DBP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension after 2-16 weeks of therapy. In addition, 4 weeks of lercanidipine therapy (10 mg/day) was as effective as captopril 25mg twice daily, atenolol 50 mg/day or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day.Lercanidipine 5-30 mg/day effectively decreased BP in elderly patients (aged >60 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension to the same extent as amlodipine 5-10 mg/day, nifedipine GITS 30-60 mg/day or lacidipine 2-4 mg/day after 24-26 weeks of therapy. In addition, a limited number of studies suggest that lercanidipine may have antihypertensive efficacy in patients with severe or resistant hypertension, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and in postmenopausal women with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Lercanidipine is well tolerated, with most treatment-emergent events related to vasodilation. Common adverse events included headache, flushing and peripheral oedema. Importantly, the incidence of vasodilatory oedema was significantly lower in patients receiving lercanidipine than in those receiving some other calcium channel antagonists. CONCLUSION: Once-daily lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive agent in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.     

Serotonergic blockade compared with beta-adrenergic blockade in systemic hypertension: a double-blind comparison of ketanserin with propranolol

The safety and efficacy of ketanserin, a competitive serotonin blocking agent, and propranolol were compared in 33 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 95-115 mm Hg) using a placebo run-in, randomized, double-blind parallel study design. All patients received placebo for 4 weeks, then were randomized to receive increasing doses of either ketanserin (20, 40 mg twice daily) or propranolol (40, 80 mg twice daily) to achieve a goal sitting DBP less than 90 mm Hg. Patients not achieving the goal blood pressure with either drug as monotherapy, received the other drug in combination. At the end of the active monotherapy phase (week 10 of the study), propranolol demonstrated a greater decrease in DBP from baseline, as compared to ketanserin (-7.9 +/- 10.9 mm Hg with propranolol, P less than 0.05; -1.0 +/- 7.2 mm Hg with ketanserin, P = NS). Four out of 16 patients achieved goal response on propranolol, compared to 3/17 for ketanserin. With combination treatment, 9/18 patients reached the goal response; the addition of propranolol to ketanserin in non-responders resulted in further reduction of sitting DBP of -10.3 +/- 6.3 compared to monotherapy (P less than 0.001), while the addition of ketanserin to non-responders produced no significant response in sitting DBP. Propranolol showed a consistent effect in slowing heart rate. Ketanserin displayed less frequent side effects than propranolol. Propranolol used twice daily appears to be more effective than twice daily ketanserin use in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

BP goal achievement in patients with uncontrolled hypertension : results of the treat-to-target post-marketing survey with irbesartan

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Despite the fact that high BP is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, BP goals are achieved in less than 10-30% of hypertensive patients. Irbesartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide has been shown to control BP in >70% of hypertensive patients in clinical trials. We set out to investigate the role in clinical practice of irbesartan in improving BP in uncontrolled hypertensive patients with a particular focus on patients with the metabolic syndrome through analysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance study. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective, post-marketing surveillance study was conducted over 9 months in 14 200 patients aged > or =18 years with previously uncontrolled hypertension (either receiving therapy or newly diagnosed), paying particular attention to a subgroup of patients receiving irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide as first-line combination therapy. BP was measured by a sphygmomanometer. The main outcome measures were systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) reduction, response rate (DBP reduction of > or =10mm Hg or to <90 mm Hg), and BP normalisation (SBP <140 and DBP <90 mm Hg) in patients treated with irbesartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. Analyses per patient subgroup, previous medication and whether treatment was initiated by the treating physician as first-line combination therapy were conducted. The number and nature of adverse events were documented. RESULTS: Use of irbesartan 300 mg/day as monotherapy in previously uncontrolled patients resulted in a significant reduction in SBP/DBP (-26.8/-13.3mm Hg, p < 0.0001), which was comparable to the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome (-26.3/-13.0mm Hg, p < 0.0001 vs baseline). Combination therapy (irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg once daily) lowered BP by -27.9/-14.2mm Hg (p < 0.0001) in previously uncontrolled patients; again the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome achieved a comparable BP reduction (-27.5/-14.1mm Hg, p < 0.0001 vs baseline). Overall, no linear dose-response relationship was observed. Use of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide as first-line combination therapy was effective (BP normalisation rates between 65.7% and 78.6%) and safe. The mean number of antihypertensive tablets taken was reduced and after a mean period of 9 months, 92% of patients were still taking irbesartan therapy. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates that treatment with an irbesartan-based regimen for 9 months results in a strong BP reduction and is feasible as first-line combination therapy. Similar BP reductions were observed in the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome. Compliance with treatment is particularly good, with >90% of patients continuing with treatment after 9 months.     

利压定治疗高血压病的临床研究

目的研究利压定治疗高血压的疗效和安全性。方法采用随机单盲法将108例轻、中度原发性高血压患者分成2组,先服安慰剂2周,然后以疗效肯定的卡托普利为对照组。利压定组10mg     

Candesartan cilexetil plus hydrochlorothiazide combination: a review of its use in hypertension

The combination of candesartan cilexetil [an angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptor antagonist] plus hydrochlorothiazide (a thiazide diuretic), has been used in the treatment of patients with hypertension. The blood pressure (BP) lowering effect of various doses of this combination, administered orally once a day for 4 to 52 weeks, has been demonstrated in clinical trials. These studies showed that combinations of candesartan cilexetil 4 to 16 mg with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 or 25 mg induced significant reductions reductions in systolic (S) BP and diastolic (D) BP from baseline in patients with mild to severe hypertension. Data from clinical trials indicated that reductions in BP induced by candesartan cilexetil 4 to 32 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg combinations were significantly greater than those observed after monotherapy with either drug. Treatment for 8 weeks with candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or candesartan cilexetil 16 mg induced SBP/DBP reductions of 12.0/7.5 mm Hg and 7.5/5.5mm Hg, respectively (p < 0.05 both comparisons). Moreover, data from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study in 1038 patients with mild to moderate hypertension showed that the greatest reductions in SBP/DBP were achieved by candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Significant differences in BP reduction in favour of the combination were observed when hypertensive patients were given candesartan cilexetil 4 or 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy for 8 weeks. Additionally, greater efficacy of the combination compared to monotherapy with either drug was demonstrated by response rates to treatment. Moreover, a fixed combination of candesartan cilexetil 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg demonstrated a greater antihypertensive effect than losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg in two clinical trials. Candesartan cilexetil 8 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg showed a similar antihypertensive effect compared with that of combined lisinopril 10 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination was well tolerated in patients with hypertension. Combined data from placebo-controlled trials showed that most adverse events were uncommon and not serious. Patients receiving combination therapy exhibited, among other adverse events, headache (3.2 vs 5.5% for candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide and placebo, respectively), back pain (3.0 vs 2.4%), dizziness (2.6 vs 1.2%) and respiratory infection (2.5 vs 1.4%). Moreover, 3.3 and 2.7% of patients receiving candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide or placebo, respectively, discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: The combination of candesartan cilexetil and hydrochlorothiazide (AT(1)-receptor antagonist and thiazide diuretic, respectively) is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension. Data from randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials showed that this combination is significantly more efficacious than either agent alone. Moreover, the combination of these two agents showed an excellent adverse event profile. Current data support the use of this combination as an alternative when monotherapy with either agent is not effective, and there are no compelling or specific indications for other drugs. However, data from large clinical trials, evaluating morbidity and mortality outcomes, are needed to determine the precise role of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination in the treatment of patients with hypertension.     

Efficacy and Safety of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Hydrochlorothiazide Compared with Benazepril and Amlodipine Besylate

BACKGROUND: Most patients with stage 2 hypertension require two or more antihypertensive agents in order to achieve the BP goals recommended in current treatment guidelines. Accordingly, combinations of two drugs with different mechanisms of antihypertensive action are widely used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, multicenter 12-week study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a combination of olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with that of benazepril plus amlodipine besylate in patients with stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: Patients were eligible for randomization following a 3- to 4-week placebo run-in period if they had either (i) mean seated DBP>or=90 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg and mean seated SBP>or=160 mm Hg but <200 mm Hg, or (ii) mean seated DBP>or=100 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg. The difference in mean seated SBP measured on two separate visits during the run-in period was required to beor=95 mm Hg and<115 mm Hg or SBP>145 mm Hg and相似文献   

国产坎地沙坦酯与厄贝沙坦治疗原发性轻中度高血压疗效比较

目的探讨国产坎地沙坦酯对原发性轻中度高血压患者的疗效和安全性。方法60例原发性轻中度高血压患者,随机分为坎地沙坦酯和厄贝沙坦组,每组30例,采用双盲双模拟平行对照研究。经过2周的安慰剂清洗期后两组患者分别接受坎地沙坦酯片一日8mg或厄贝沙坦片一日150mg。2周后如果达到预期降压效果,则继续原剂量服药至4周末。如降压效果不理想,加量(坎地沙坦酯一日12mg或厄贝沙坦一日225mg)继续服药2周。观察所有入选患者4周内的血压、不良反应和生化指标变化。结果治疗结束时坎地沙坦酯组收缩压下降15.1%,舒张压下降12.2%;厄贝沙坦组收缩压下降12.6%,舒张压下降9.2%。两组相比无显著差异。两组均未见严重不良反应。结论国产坎地沙坦酯为治疗原发性轻中度高血压安全且有效的药物。     

Clinical Experience with Perindopril in Elderly Hypertensive Patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of perindopril in a subgroup of 3010 elderly (> or =65 years) hypertensive patients, who participated in a large US general practice-based community trial. METHODS: All patients received open-label perindopril 4 mg once a day for 6 weeks. After 6 weeks the dosage was either maintained (group I) or increased to 8 mg/day (group II) based on the physician's assessment of blood pressure (BP) response. Patients were then followed for another 6 weeks for a total study duration of 12 weeks. RESULTS: Demographic and baseline clinical characteristics revealed a higher proportion of women, longer duration of hypertension and higher baseline systolic BP (SBP) among elderly than young (<65 years, n = 7332) hypertensive patients. A clinically relevant BP reduction of similar magnitude was obtained in elderly and young patients with perindopril monotherapy. At week 12, the mean reduction in BP from baseline was 18.4/8.7 mm Hg in the elderly and 17.5/11.3 mm Hg in the young. Elderly patients with hypertension not responding adequately to the 4 mg/day dosage at week 6 had a BP reduction of 6.3/3.6 mm Hg (group II). Up-titration to an 8 mg/day dosage for another 6 weeks gave an additional 8.9/3.5 mm Hg reduction resulting in a total reduction of 15.2/7.1 mm Hg from baseline. A similar magnitude of increase in response to up-titration of perindopril was seen in young patients. BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) on perindopril monotherapy was achieved in 41.4% of elderly and 51.9% of young patients. In both age groups, up-titration to an 8.0 mg/day dosage in group II patients increased BP control by approximately 5-fold at week 12 (28.2% in the elderly and 36.4% in the young). A similar increased response on BP reduction and BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) with up-titration was seen in elderly subgroups of African American and diabetic patients. The 7th Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommended target goal of <130/80 mm Hg was achieved with perindopril monotherapy in 15.6% of hypertensive diabetic patients. Perindopril reduced BP effectively and safely in very elderly (> or =75 years) hypertensive patients. Perindopril was well tolerated in elderly patients including high-risk groups. The incidence of cough (7-10%), the most common symptom, was similar in all age groups. The low incidence of postural hypotension (< or =0.2%) observed in the elderly and very elderly further supports the good tolerance and safety profile of the drug.Data analysis from this study suggests that community physicians, in general, are less aggressive in controlling BP in the elderly and more inclined to treat or control diastolic BP than SBP. CONCLUSION: Perindopril treatment is effective and well tolerated in elderly patients with hypertension.     

Antihypertensive effect of lisinopril assessed by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.

The antihypertensive effect of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril administered in a single dose of 20 mg was evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Twenty-four patients (21 men and 3 women, mean age 52 +/- 6 years) with mild to moderate hypertension were included in the study and randomly assigned to two consecutive treatments with lisinopril 20 mg and placebo, each administered for 4 weeks. On the last day of each treatment, BP was assessed by noninvasive 24-h ABPM. BP was significantly lower after lisinopril than after placebo in a 24-h period (mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) with lisinopril 120 +/- 7 mm Hg and with placebo 135 +/- 9 mm Hg; mean day SBP with lisinopril 125 +/- 3 mm Hg and with placebo 142 +/- 5 mm Hg; mean night SBP with lisinopril 112 +/- 4 mm Hg and with placebo 124 +/- 6 mm Hg; mean 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) with lisinopril 76 +/- 6 mm Hg, and with placebo 87 +/- 8 mm Hg; mean day DBP with lisinopril 80 +/- 3 mm Hg and with placebo 93 +/- 4 mm Hg; mean night DBP with lisinopril 69 +/- 2 mm Hg and with placebo 79 +/- 5 mm Hg, p less than 0.001). Mean 24-h, mean day, and mean night heart rate (HR) did not differ significantly between placebo and lisinopril treatments. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant influence on SBP (p less than 0.001) and DBP (p less than 0.001) throughout the treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A new Ca-antagonist, azelnidipine, reduced blood pressure during exercise without augmentation of sympathetic nervous system in essential hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

This study was carried out to evaluate the effect of a new long-acting calcium-channel antagonist, azelnidipine, on hemodynamic and neural responses to exercise. Ten patients (age, 36-69 years) with mild essential hypertension were enrolled in this study. A randomized, double-blind, crossover treatment of azelnidipine at a dose of 8.0 mg once daily for 4 weeks was performed. After a 4-week placebo period, the patients exercised in a submaximal test by using an ergometer with azelnidipine or placebo treatment. The changes caused by exercise in arterial blood pressure (BP), heart rate, cardiac output (CO), and systemic vascular resistance were evaluated. In addition, the plasma norepinephrine (NE), epinephrine (E), plasma renin activity, and plasma aldosterone concentration were determined at rest, at peak exercise, and at the recovery period. Both the SBP and diastolic (D) BP were decreased at rest by azelnidipine treatment (from 158 +/- 10/97 +/- 7 to 145 +/- 14/90 +/- 9 mm Hg). Azelnidipine significantly decreased both SBP and DBP during exercise (SBP, F = 6.09, p < 0.05, Fi = 0.612, NS; DBP, F = 17.78, p < 0.001, Fi = 0.298, NS). No significant changes in the resting heart rate and CO were observed, and the exercise-induced increase of these parameters was also not affected by azelnidipine. Azelnidipine produced no significant change of the resting plasma NE and E levels and an exercise-induced increase of plasma NE. In conclusion, these results indicate that azelnidipine, different from another dihydropyridine-type calcium channel antagonists, does not produce any changes in the hemodynamic and neurohumoral response to exercise, and it may be beneficial for patients with mild essential hypertension.     

Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of metoprolol and felodipine in comparison with the individual substances in monotherapy. The Swedish/United Kingdom Study Group.

In this double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, the aim was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of a new fixed combination of felodipine and metoprolol with the individual components in monotherapy. After a placebo period of 4 weeks, 159 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension were randomized to extended-release formulations of either felodipine plus metoprolol 10 + 100 mg (FM), felodipine 10 mg (F), or metoprolol 100 mg (M) once daily if supine diastolic blood pressure greater than 95 mm Hg. After 12 weeks of active treatment, the reductions in supine blood pressure (24 h after dosing) were 20/14, 13/10, and 11/8 mm Hg for FM, F, and M, respectively. The difference in change was 7/4 mm Hg (p = 0.004/p = 0.006) and 8/5 mm Hg (p = 0.0002/p less than 0.0001) for the fixed combination and F or M, respectively. Blood pressure control (diastolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg after 12 weeks) was significantly better for the combination than for F and M, i.e., 71%, 49% (p = 0.008), and 34% (p = 0.004), respectively. Adverse experiences were those to be expected from previous studies with felodipine and metoprolol and did not differ in frequency between groups. It can be concluded that a fixed combination of metoprolol and felodipine has a clinically relevant and significantly better blood pressure reduction 24 h postdose than the individual substances in monotherapy, without decreased tolerability.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of manidipine and enalapril in hypertensive diabetic patients

Recent studies showed that in diabetic hypertensive patients, administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors or calcium antagonists can effectively lower blood pressure (BP) and prevent diabetes-related cardiovascular complications with no adverse metabolic effects. We sought to assess the antihypertensive and metabolic effects of the new dihydropyridine calcium antagonist manidipine (M) in patients with diabetes mellitus and essential hypertension as compared with the ACE inhibitor enalapril (E). After 3 weeks of placebo, 101 (62 men; age range, 34-72 years) hypertensives with type II diabetes mellitus were randomized to M 10-20 mg or E 10-20 mg, od, for 24 weeks. At the end of the placebo period and the active-treatment phase, BP was measured with a mercury sphygmomanometer (office, O) and over the 24 h by ambulatory (A) monitoring. ABP recordings were analyzed to obtain 24-h, day (6 a.m. to midnight), and night (midnight to 6 a.m.) average systolic (S) and diastolic (D) BP and heart rate (HR) values. Homogeneity of the antihypertensive effect over the 24 h was assessed by the smoothness index [SI: i.e., the ratio between the average of the 24 hourly BP changes after treatment and the corresponding standard deviation (the higher the SI, the more uniform is the BP control by treatment over the 24 h]. The O SBP and DBP were significantly (p < 0.01) and similarly reduced by M (16 +/- 10 and 13 +/- 6 mm Hg, n = 49) and E (15 +/- 10 and 13 +/- 6 mm Hg, n = 45). The percentage of patients whose O DBP was reduced < or = 85 mm Hg (i.e., the value indicated to be the optimal DBP goal in diabetic hypertensives) was similar for M (37%) and E (40%). The reduction of 24-h BP also was similar between M (n = 38) and E (n = 38) for both drugs (systolic, 6 +/- 11 and 8 +/- 10 mm Hg; diastolic, 5 +/- 8 and 5 +/- 7; NS, M vs. E). The antihypertensive effect was distributed in a similar homogeneous fashion throughout the dosing interval, as shown by the similar SI values (M, 0.6 +/- 1.2 for SBP and 0.6 +/- 0.9 for DBP; E, 0.6 +/- 0.8 for SBP and 0.5 +/- 0.7 for DBP; NS, M vs. E). O and A HR were unchanged by either treatment. Markers of glucose and lipid metabolism and renal function were not significantly modified by treatment both with M and with E. In the diabetic hypertensives, M was as effective and metabolically neutral as the ACE-inhibitor E.