抗高血压药对单纯舒张期高血压短期降压疗效的对比研究

目的比较不同类高血压药物在未治疗的单纯舒张期高血压患者中的短期疗效。方法纳入初发单纯舒张期高血压患者104例,年龄40岁～75岁,随机分为四个药物治疗组：①双氢克尿噻组（n=37）：予双氢克尿噻（12.5～25）mg/d;②阿替洛尔组（n=19）：予阿替洛尔（12.5～25）mg/d;③硝苯地平缓释片组（n=27）：予硝苯地平缓释片（20～40）mg/d;④卡托普利组（n=21）：予卡托普利（25～50）mg/d。比较干预4周后的治疗效果差异。结果治疗4周后所有患者舒张压均有明显下降（P＜0.001）,校正年龄、性别、体质指数、腰围、腰臀比、治疗前相应的血压值、血脂、血糖、吸烟、饮酒等传统危险因素后,四组间无统计学差异,但双氢克尿噻和硝苯地平较阿替洛尔和卡托普利降低收缩压的作用更明显（P＜0.05）。结论阿替洛尔和卡托普利对收缩压影响较小,更适合单纯舒张期高血压患者的降压治疗。     

农村地区4种降压药物短期降压疗效与不良反应的对比

目的:探讨农村地区4种抗高血压药物4周治疗降压疗效及不良反应的差异.方法:以社区为基础的随机、双盲临床试验.在河南信阳平桥区入选40～75岁未经治疗的高血压患者3 408例.随机分配到阿替洛尔组(12.5～25 mg/d)594例,双氢克尿噻组(12.5～25 mg/d)891例,硝苯地平缓释剂组(20～40 mg/d)947例,卡托普利组(25～50 mg/d)976例.随访治疗4周后血压和不良反应.结果:治疗4周整体达标率收缩压44.5%,舒张压56.2%.双氢克尿噻组和硝苯地平缓释剂组男、女性收缩压和舒张压达标率均显著优于卡托普利组和阿替洛尔组(均P<0.001).调整年龄、血糖、药物剂量、治疗前血压等因素后,收缩压降压反应在双氢克尿噻组[男(-18.7±1.2)mmHg(1 mmHg=0.133 kPa),女(-21.5±1.9)mmHg]和硝苯地平缓释剂组[男(-20.9±1.3)mmHg,女(-23.1±1.7)mmHg]显著优于阿替洛尔组[男(-11.2±1.5)mmHg,女(-16.6±1.0)mmHg]和卡托普利组[男(-15.7±1.1)mmHg,女(-14.9±1.6)mmHg],P<0.001.卡托普利组舒张压降压反应显著低于其他治疗组(P<0.001).双氢克尿噻组不良反应(4.62%)显著低于阿替洛尔组(11.1%)、硝苯地平缓释剂组(8.03%)和卡托普利组(7.52%)(P<0.001).结论:小剂量双氢克尿噻的收缩压降压反应和达标率相对较高,不良反应发生率低,价格便宜,适合我国农村高血压患者的一线治疗.     

小剂量双氢克尿噻对不同类型高血压疗效的对比研究

目的:观察小剂量双氢克尿噻对中老年(混合型)高血压、单纯收缩期高血压的疗效。方法:中老年高血压患者174例,其中81例为单纯收缩期高血压,93例为(混合型)高血压。服用双氢克尿噻前1日,停用一切降压药物.单用双氢克尿噻12.5mg,每日1次,早餐后顿服,疗程均为6周。每两周随访,观察血压、脉压差、心率、症状及有关副作用表现。结果:双氢克尿噻治疗6周后.中老年单纯收缩期高血压组收缩压非常显著下降(P<0.01),舒张压显著下降(P<0.05);(混合型)高血压治疗组收缩压、舒张压均在第2周非常显著下降(P<0.01),第4周、第6周无继续下降。脉压差单纯收缩期高血压治疗组降低非常明显(P<0.01)。混合性高血压组下降不明显(P>0.05)。结论:小剂量双氢克尿噻对中、老年(混合型)高血压、单纯收缩期高血压均有疗效,对单纯收缩期高压降压效果更显著.更为安全、有效。     

不同联合用药方案治疗老年单纯收缩期高血压的对照研究

目的 比较两种不同抗高血压方案(常规降压药/小剂量常规降压药加硝酸酯类药)治疗老年单纯收缩期高血压(ISH)的降压疗效和安全性.方法 176例轻、中度老年ISH患者,随机分为联合组:给予卡托普利(25 mg),氢氯噻嗪(12.5 mg),单硝酸异山梨酯缓释片(40 mg),晨顿服;常规组:给予卡托普利(25 mg,2次/d),氢氯噻嗪(25 mg,1次/d).比较两组治疗前后(8 w末)的降压疗效及生化指标变化.结果 联合组能显著降低收缩压与脉压,降压疗效联合组、常规组分别为93.18%、74.71%,两组比较差异有显著(P＜0.05).两组心率及生化指标与基线值比较差异不显著(P＞0.05).结论 联合组小剂量三药联用晨服一次,能有效降低轻中度老年ISH患者的血压,降压效果大于双倍剂量常规二药联用,对代谢无明显不良影响.     

硝苯地平联合倍他乐克治疗顽固性高血压临床观察

目的 观察钙离子拮抗剂硝苯地平缓释片联合倍他乐克治疗顽固性高血压的临床疗效.方法 选择我院顽固性高血压患者129例,随机分为两组,观察组76例,对照组53例,观察组患者给予硝苯地平缓释片10mg/次,2次/d,倍他乐克25mg/次,2次/d,对照组单用硝苯地平缓释片20mg/次,2次/d,均观察6周进行疗效评定.结果 两组患者降压疗效及症状改善情况间差异均有显著性意义（P＜0.05）.结论 硝苯地平缓释片与倍他乐克联合降压效果显著、平稳、安全,是顽固性高血压治疗的理想选择.     

卡托普利与硝苯地平联合治疗原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的探讨卡托普利与硝苯地平缓释片联合治疗原发性高血压（EH）的降压效果及安全性。方法74例EH患者随机分为3组,卡托普利组（A组）23例,硝苯地平缓释片组（B组）25例,联合使用卡托普利和硝苯地平缓释片组（C组）26例,对比分析3组的降压效果及不良反应。结果卡托普利组、硝苯地平缓释片组和联合用药组治疗后血压均明显降低,但联合用药组在降收缩压方面疗效较明显。卡托普利组咳嗽发生率高（17.4%）,联合用药组次之（7.7%）。硝苯地平缓释片组心悸、面潮红的发生率高（24%）,联合用药组次之（3.8%）。结论卡托普利联合硝苯地平治疗原发性高血压作用更强、不良反应更少、心血管保护效益更好。     

阿托伐汀联用依那普利对老年单纯收缩期高血压的作用

目的观察阿托伐汀联用依那普利对老年单纯收缩期高血压患者血压的影响。方法老年单纯收缩期高血压78例，血清胆固醇正常。单用依那普利组38例，12I服依那普利10mg／d；联用阿托伐汀组40例，口服依那普利片10mg／d和阿托伐汀20mg／d。观察12周，每2周记录血压1次。结果治疗12周后，两组患者收缩压、舒张压和脉压均较治疗前下降（P〈0．05）；单用依那普利组脉压从治疗前（74±8）mmHg降至（68±6）mmHg；联用阿伐他汀组脉压从治疗前（75±7）mmHg降至（60±6）mmHg；两组间差异有统计学意义（t=5．255，P〈0．01）。结论阿托伐汀联用依那普利有助于改善单纯收缩期高血压老年人脉压，可降低老年心脑血管事件的危险性。     

硝苯地平和卡托普利单用或联用治疗原发性高血压的疗效分析

目的评估国产硝苯地平缓释片、卡托普利片治疗高血压病的效果和费用/效益比。方法18~70岁的原发性高血压门诊患者330例,按就诊顺序随机分为硝苯地平组、卡托普利组和联合用药组,硝苯地平组给予硝苯地平缓释片20mg口服,每天2次;卡托普利组给予卡托普利25mg口服,每天2次;联合用药组给予硝苯地平缓释片20mg和卡托普利25mg口服,每天2次;持续服药8周。结果服药8周时,硝苯地平缓释片总有效率为72.3%,卡托普利总有效率为79.6%,二药合用总有效率为90%。结论国产中效钙拮抗剂硝苯地平缓释片和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂卡托普利有较好的费用/效益比,硝苯地平缓释片、卡托普利联合治疗高血压成本—效果分析最为合理。     

血管紧张素转换酶2基因多态性与抗高血压药物降压反应的相关性研究

目的:探讨血管紧张素转换酶(ACE)2基因多态性与抗高血压药物降压治疗反应的相关性。方法:设计为社区基础的随机、双盲临床试验。入选3408例未治疗高血压患者,随机分配到双氢克尿噻组(891例)、阿替洛尔组(594例)、硝苯地平缓释剂组(947例)和卡托普利组(976例)单药治疗4周,比较治疗前、后血压。选择ACE2基因2个标签单核苷酸多态及ACE基因I/D多态,采用标准的PCR-RFLP技术进行基因分型,抽取部分测序验证。结果:ACE2rs2106809基因型与女性高血压患者卡托普利治疗后舒张压降压反应相关(P=0.003)。多元回归分析调整治疗前血压、年龄,体重指数,空腹血糖及ACEI/D多态后,携带ACE2rs2106809TT+CT基因型的女性高血压患者卡托普利治疗后舒张压下降较CC基因型携带者显著减少3.3mmHg(P=0.019)。协方差分析发现ACE2rs2106809CC和CT+TT基因型间舒张压降压反应差异卡托普利组显著大于其它药物组(P=0.009)。结论:ACE2T等位基因影响女性对卡托普利治疗的舒张压降压反应。     

阿托伐汀联用依那普利对老年单纯收缩期高血压的作用

目的 观察阿托伐汀联用依那普利对老年单纯收缩期高血压患者血压的影响.方法 老年单纯收缩期高血压78例,血清胆固醇正常.单用依那普利组38例,口服依那普利10 mg/d;联用阿托伐汀组40例,口服依那普利片10 mg/d和阿托伐汀20 mg/d.观察12周,每2周记录血压1次.结果 治疗12周后.两组患者收缩压、舒张压和脉压均较治疗前下降(P＜0.05);单用依那普利组脉压从治疗前(74±8)mm Hg降至(68±6)mm Hg;联用阿伐他汀组脉压从治疗前(75±7)mm Hg降至(60±6)mm Hg;两组间差异有统计学意义(t=5.255,P＜0.01).结论 阿托伐汀联用依那普利有助于改善单纯收缩期高血压老年人脉压,可降低老年心脑血管事件的危险性.     

Angiotensin II receptor antagonist telmisartan in isolated systolic hypertension (ARAMIS) study: efficacy and safety of telmisartan 20, 40 or 80 mg versus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or placebo

OBJECTIVE: To identify telmisartan doses that are more effective than placebo and non-inferior to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, and are well tolerated, in lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 2-4-week single-blind placebo run-in was followed by randomization of 1039 patients (age 36-84 years) with ISH [seated SBP 150-179 mmHg and seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 90 mmHg] to once-daily double-blind treatment with telmisartan 20, 40 or 80 mg, HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo. The change in seated trough SBP after 6 weeks compared with baseline was the primary end point. Secondary end points were the percentage achieving the target fall in SBP and the change from baseline in seated trough DBP. Incidence and severity of adverse events and physical examination and laboratory parameters were monitored for the safety evaluation. RESULTS: Baseline demographics in telmisartan 20 mg (n = 206), 40 mg (n = 210), 80 mg (n = 207), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 205) and placebo (n = 211) treatment groups were comparable: (mean +/- SD) age, 63.0 +/- 10.9 years; SBP, 162.9 +/- 8.1 mmHg; and DBP 83.4 +/- 5.0 mmHg. No previous antihypertensive therapy had been received by 66% of the patients. Mean reductions in seated trough SBP (adjusted for baseline and country) were: telmisartan 20 mg, 15.6 mmHg (n = 204); 40 mg, 17.9 mmHg (n = 209); and 80 mg, 16.9 mmHg (n = 205), compared with placebo, 11.4 mmHg (n = 208), and HCTZ 12.5 mg, 15.7 mmHg (n = 204). The target fall in seated trough SBP (< or =140 mmHg or reduction by > or =20 mmHg) was achieved in 46.6% (telmisartan 20 mg), 51.7% (telmisartan 40 mg), 53.9% (telmisartan 80 mg), 27.4% (placebo) and 42.7% (HCTZ 12.5 mg); the response rate was significantly higher for telmisartan 80 mg than for HCTZ 12.5 mg (P = 0.03). All-causality adverse events occurred in 19.9, 17.6 and 20.3% receiving telmisartan 20, 40 and 80 mg, respectively; 20.9% receiving placebo and 22.0% receiving HCTZ 12.5 mg. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: All doses of telmisartan (20-80 mg) were significantly superior to placebo in reducing SBP in patients with ISH and clinically comparable to HCTZ 12.5 mg. Tolerability of telmisartan was similar to that of placebo.     

优化联合治疗老年单纯性收缩期高血压

目的比较卡托普利单药、左旋氨氯地平（施慧达）单药、卡托普利＋左旋氨氯地平、卡托普利＋左旋氨氯地平＋阿托伐他汀四种治疗方案治疗老年单纯性收缩期高血压（ISH）的临床疗效。方法纳入60岁以上ISH患者264例，平均分为4组。卡托普利组：口服卡托普利（12．5～50）mg（bid）。左旋氨氯地平组：晨起顿服左旋氨氯地平2．5mg（qd）。联合治疗组（联合组）：卡托普利（12．5～50）mg（bid）＋左旋氨氯地平2．5mg（qd）。优化联合组（优化组）：在联合治疗组的基础上加用阿托伐他汀10mg（qd）；共治疗12周。并分别比较治疗前、治疗后1周、3周、6周、12周4组血压、血脂水平及心电图变化。结果四组治疗后收缩压均有不同程度的降低，优化组和联合组与卡托普利组、左旋氨氯地平组比较差异具有统计学意义（P≤0．05）。优化组降压、降脂及心肌供血改善尤其显著，且4组治疗前后肝肾功能变化无明显差异。结论左旋氨氯地平联合卡托普利治疗老年ISH安全有效，可改善心肌缺血、降低血脂，联合阿托伐他汀治疗效果更佳。     

Antihypertensive effects of two fixed-dose combinations of losartan and hydrochlorothiazide versus hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in subjects with ambulatory systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of losartan (L) in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) has been demonstrated to reduce blood pressure. However, there are limited data on the effects of L/HCTZ combinations versus HCTZ monotherapies in reducing ambulatory systolic blood pressure. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of these treatment approaches in patients with ambulatory systolic hypertension. METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive L 50 mg (n = 60) or HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 60) for 6 weeks. Patients were then force-titrated to L 50/HCTZ 12.5 mg and to L 100/HCTZ 25 mg or were sham-titrated to HCTZ 12.5 mg and force-titrated to HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. Clinic and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) were measured at baseline and after each 6-week treatment period. RESULTS: We found that L 50 and HCTZ 12.5 induced significant and similar decreases in clinic and ABP. The combinations of L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 provided significantly greater decreases in clinic and ABP than did HCTZ monotherapies. The L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 combinations provided significant additional decreases in systolic/diastolic ABP during daytime (-5.3/-2.0 mm Hg; P <.001 and -5.8/-3.4 mm Hg; P <.001) and the other periods of the 24-h interval compared with the levels achieved by the previous treatment, indicating a clear dose-response relationship. However, increasing the dose of HCTZ from 12.5 mg to 25 mg was not associated with additional ABP reductions. CONCLUSIONS: Combinations of L 50/HCTZ 12.5 and L 100/HCTZ 25 provided greater reductions in clinic and ABP than HCTZ monotherapies, with a clear dose-response relationship with regard to ABP. These results support the use of ABP monitoring when assessing the efficacy of antihypertensive therapies.     

单硝酸异山梨酯对老年人单纯收缩期高血压治疗的影响

目的比较卡托普利和氢氯噻嗪加用或不加用单硝酸异山梨酯两种降压方案治疗老年单纯收缩期高血压(ISH)的降压疗效及安全性。方法 142例轻、中度老年ISH患者,随机分为A组(加用单硝酸异山梨酯组)72例,给予单硝酸异山梨酯缓释片(40 mg)、卡托普利(25 mg)、氢氯噻嗪(12.5 mg),晨顿服;B组(不加用单硝酸异山梨酯组)70例,给予卡托普利(25 mg,2次/d),氢氯噻嗪(25mg/d),均治疗8周。治疗前后测定动态血压、诊室血压、心率及生化指标。结果 A组总有效率在诊室血压为91.67%,在动态血压为86.12%;B组分别为80.01%和74.29%。24 h、白昼和夜间平均收缩压下降A组大于B组;收缩压谷/峰比及平滑指数A组高于B组(谷/峰比:0.73、0.58;平滑指数:0.87、0.62)。两组结果相比差异均有统计学意义(均为P<0.05)。心率及生化指标改变无统计学意义。结论硝酸酯三药联用晨服1次,能24 h平稳降低轻中度老年ISH患者的血压,降压效果大于常规二药联用,且安全性良好。     

Effects of high dose olmesartan medoxomil plus hydrochlorothiazide on blood pressure control in patients with grade 2 and grade 3 hypertension

High dose (40 mg) olmesartan medoxomil (OM) blocks the angiotensin II receptor, significantly reducing blood pressure (BP). Adding hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) to OM increases efficacy, but has not been evaluated in patients inadequately controlled by OM 40 mg. Patients with grade 2 and grade 3 hypertension with inadequately controlled BP (seated diastolic blood pressure [SeDBP] 90-115 mm Hg and seated systolic blood pressure [SeSBP] 140-180 mm Hg, plus ambulatory BP criteria) after 8 weeks of OM 40 mg open-label treatment were randomized to 8 weeks of double-blind treatment with OM/HCTZ 40/25 (n=140), 40/12.5 (n=278), 20/12.5 mg (n=280) or OM 40 mg (n=274). Treatment with OM/HCTZ 40/25 mg and 40/12.5 mg significantly reduced SeDBP (-5.3 and -3.4 mm Hg, respectively), and SeSBP (-7.4 and -5.2 mm Hg, respectively), vs OM 40 mg monotherapy (P<0.0001 for each) in patients inadequately controlled on OM 40 mg alone. OM/HCTZ 40/12.5 mg reduced SeSBP significantly more than OM/HCTZ 20/12.5 mg (-2.6 mm Hg, P=0.0255), and also produced a further reduction in SeDBP vs the lower dose. All treatments were well tolerated, with similar low proportions of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events in all treatment groups. In conclusion, adding HCTZ to OM 40 mg significantly improves BP reductions and target BP rates in harder-to-treat patients and a clear dose-response was observed for efficacy.     

高血压病患者不同治疗依从性对临床终点事件的影响

目的 探讨不同治疗依从件对高血压病患者临床终点事件的影响.方法 选择轻、中度高血压病患者853例,入选患者经安慰剂洗脱2周和氢氯噻嗪(HCTZ)导人6周后随机给予HCTZ12.5 mg/d或HCTZ 12.5 mg/d+螺内酯20 mg/d或HCTZ 12.5 ms/d+卡托普利25 mg 2次/d.根据患者的依从件分为依从组和非依从组.治疗期间每月随访1次,监测血压,记录终点事件,每年进行1次血牛化指标枪测.随访4年.结果 (1)第4年时依从组和非依从组的收缩压与基线值比较分别降低(19.4.±20.6)am Hg(1 mm Hg:0.133 kPa)和(7.3±18.2)mm Hg,舒张压与基线值比较分别降低(10.7±13.5)nun Hg和(3.5±10.2)mm Hg.依从组血压与基线值和非依从组血压比较均降低(P<0.001).(2)第4年时依从组血清尿素氮、肌酐、尿酸水平较基线值升高;血清K、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平较基线值低;两组问血牛化值比较,依从组m清尿素氮、尿酸水平较非依从组高,而血清K、总胆固醇水平较非依从组降低.(3)第4年时依从组发生临床终点事件10例(致死性2例,非致死性8例).非依从组发生临床终点事件28例(致死性7例,非致死性21例).第4年时依从组无事件率高于非依从组(P<0.05).结论 在依从性良好的情况下,以噻嗪类利尿剂作为基础降压药物长期治疗高血压不但能够有效降低患者血压,还能减少高血压病患者临床终点事件的发生.     

A dose escalation trial comparing the combination of diltiazem SR and hydrochlorothiazide with the monotherapies in patients with essential hypertension.

A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled parallel group study comparing various doses of the combination diltiazem SR (DTZ SR)/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with the monotherapies was performed to delineate the optimal antihypertensive dosage of the two drug combinations. The study was carried out in 298 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (stable supine diastolic blood pressure, DBP, greater than or equal to 95 and less than or equal to 110 mmHg). After a single-blind placebo lead-in period lasting 4-6 weeks to establish stable baseline BP, the patients were randomised to receive either placebo (n = 75), HCTZ (n = 76), DTZ SR (n = 72), or the combination of DTZ SR/HCTZ (n = 75). There were three 4-week evaluation periods with forced escalation of therapy as follows: HCTZ (6.25, 6.25, 12.5 mg twice daily), DTZ SR (60, 90, 120 mg twice daily), and the combination of DTZ SR/HCTZ (60/6.25, 90/6.25, 120/12.5 mg twice daily). DTZ SR/HCTZ (120/12.5 mg) produced statistically significantly greater reductions in supine DBP compared with each monotherapy and placebo. The lower doses of DTZ SR/HCTZ (60/6.25 mg and 90/6.25 mg) produced statistically significantly greater supine DBP reductions compared with DTZ SR monotherapy and placebo, but not compared with HCTZ monotherapy. A comparison of reduction in supine DBP between evaluation periods demonstrated a dose-response relationship for the combination therapy in reducing BP over the dosage range studied. Adverse clinical and laboratory events were not significantly different between the therapies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

A home blood pressure monitoring study comparing the antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonist fixed combinations

BACKGROUND: The objective of this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan 80 mg v irbesartan 150 mg when combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg. METHODS: Untreated or uncontrolled hypertensive adults (n = 800) were enrolled by primary care physicians. After a 5-week open-label lead-in phase in which all patients received 12.5 mg HCTZ once daily, subjects whose blood pressure (BP) remained uncontrolled were randomized (n = 464) to valsartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg) or irbesartan/HCTZ (150/12.5 mg) for 8 weeks. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) was performed in the morning and in the evening for 5 days, at baseline, and after 8 weeks. Office BP measurements were obtained at baseline and after 8 weeks. RESULTS: Irbesartan/HCTZ produced greater reductions in average systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) measured by HBPM than valsartan/HCTZ (SBP: -13.0 v -10.6 mm Hg, P = .0094; DBP: -9.5 v -7.4 mm Hg, P = .0007). These differences were more pronounced in the morning (trough) than in the evening. Office BP measurements also showed greater reductions in trough seated SBP and DBP with irbesartan/HCTZ compared with valsartan/HCTZ. Normalization rates observed with HBPM (SBP <135 mm Hg and DBP <85 mm Hg) were significantly greater with irbesartan/HCTZ than with valsartan/HCTZ (50.2 v 33.2%; P = .0003). The overall safety was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The superior BP-lowering potency of the fixed combination irbesartan/HCTZ (150/12.5 mg) over valsartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg), evidenced independently from the investigators by HBPM, supports the use of this technique in trials with prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint designs.     

Systolic blood pressure reduction with olmesartan medoxomil versus nitrendipine in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is high in the elderly, and the objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil with that of nitrendipine in elderly (65-74 years) and very elderly (>/= 75 years) male and female patients with ISH. METHODS: Patients were randomized to 24 weeks of treatment with either olmesartan medoxomil 20 mg daily (n = 256) or nitrendipine 20 mg (n = 126) twice daily, with possible dose increase (to 40 mg daily) and addition of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 or 25 mg daily if required. RESULTS: On the primary endpoint [reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) after 12 weeks of treatment], the two treatments were similar (olmesartan medoxomil, -30.0 mmHg; nitrendipine, -31.4 mmHg). No significant difference between the treatment groups was observed, and non-inferiority of olmesartan medoxomil to nitrendipine was demonstrated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model. Reductions in mean sitting and standing SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) up to week 24 were also similar with both treatments. Blood pressure (BP) goal attainment rates (sitting SBP 相似文献   

Expedited blood pressure control with initial angiotensin II antagonist/diuretic therapy compared with stepped-care therapy in patients with ambulatory systolic hypertension

OBJECTIVES: The present study investigated whether initiating therapy with a combination of losartan (L) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) allows for faster blood pressure (BP) control and fewer medications than the usual stepped-care approach in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension. METHODS: Patients with a mean daytime systolic ambulatory BP (ABP) of 135 mmHg or higher were randomly assigned to receive L 50 mg plus HCTZ 12.5 mg titrated to L 100 mg plus HCTZ 25 mg versus HCTZ 12.5 mg plus atenolol 50 mg. Amlodipine 5 mg was then added, if needed, to achieve a BP goal of less than 130 mmHg. Treatment titration was based on ABP. RESULTS: Significantly more patients randomly assigned to L/HCTZ (63.5%) than stepped-care (37.5%; P=0.008) achieved the primary end point (daytime systolic BP of less than 130 mmHg). Initial L/HCTZ induced significantly greater decreases in ABP during each 24 h period after six weeks of therapy. Although reductions in systolic and diastolic ABP were not statistically different at the end of the study, ABP reduction was significantly greater (P<0.001) with the L/HCTZ-based regimen. Twice as many patients in the L/HCTZ group achieved the goal ABP with no more than two drugs (30.0% versus 14.7%; P=0.03). Moreover, tolerability was significantly better (P=0.006) in the L/HCTZ group, with a 40.0% incidence of adverse events, versus 65.6% in the stepped-care group. CONCLUSION: Initiating antihypertensive therapy with the combination of L/HCTZ in patients with stage 2 or 3 hypertension and ambulatory systolic hypertension reaches a target BP faster in a higher proportion of patients, with fewer adverse events and less need for a third drug regimen than the conventional stepped-care approach.