缬沙坦与赖诺普利治疗原发性高血压患者在耐受性、安全性和疗效上的比较

目的 :评价缬沙坦 (valsartan)治疗原发性高血压患者的耐受性、安全性和疗效。　　方法 :146例轻、中度原发性高血压患者采用随机双盲的研究方法分为缬沙坦组 (n=75 )和赖诺普利 (lisinopril)组 (n=71) ,分别接受缬沙坦 80 mg/d或赖诺普利 10 mg/d,4周后血压控制不满意者 (舒张压≥ 90 mm Hg,1mm Hg=0 .133k Pa) ,接受缬沙坦 16 0 mg/d或赖诺普利 2 0 mg/d。　　结果 :缬沙坦与赖诺普利均能有效降低血压。治疗总有效率分别为 6 0 .3%和 6 4.1% ,降压程度及治疗有效率比较统计学无显著性差异 (P>0 .0 5 )。缬沙坦组具有良好的耐受性 ,未见干咳现象 ,而赖诺普利组干咳发生率达 5 .6 %。　　结论 :缬沙坦是治疗轻、中度原发性高血压安全有效的药物。     

Effect of Antihypertensive Therapy on Aortic Distensibility in Patients with Essential Hypertension: Comparison with Trichlormethiazide, Nicardipine and Alacepril

To assess the effect of antihypertensive drugs on aortic distensibility, we evaluated the aortic distensibility of 33 hypertensive patients before and after antihypertensive treatment by using cine magnetic resonance imaging. Thirty three hypertensive patients were divided into three groups and treated for 12 weeks with 2–4 mg trichlormethiazide per day (n = 10), 80 mg nicardipine per day (n = 13) and 50 mg alacepril per day (n = 10). There were no significant differences in mean age and mean blood pressure among the three groups. Cine magnetic resonance was performed at ascending and descending aortic levels. Aortic area was measured at the maximum and minimum frames. The effect of antihypertensive therapy on aortic distensibility was evaluated as the percent change from before treatment to after treatment. There were no significant differences in pulse pressure before and after treatment with trichlormethiazide, nicardipine and alacepril. After treatment with these drugs, mean blood pressure in all groups decreased (trichlormethiazide and nicardipine, P < .01; alacepril, P < .05), (the maximum area - the minimum area) and aortic distensibility in all groups increased significantly (each P < .01). Percent changes in aortic distensibility after treatment were significantly higher with nicardipine (ascending, 346.6 ± 255.9%; descending, 338.8 ± 246.5%, each P < .05) and alacepril (ascending, 369.7 ± 238.8%, P < .05; descending, 306.9 ± 123.3%, P < .01) than with trichlormethiazide (ascending, 146.0 ± 139.6%; descending, 129.3 ± 97.5%). In conclusion, nicardipine and alacepril have a beneficial effect on aortic distensibility.     

缬沙坦与氨氯地平治疗老年原发高血压并糖尿病效果

目的 探究分析缬沙坦与氨氯地平治疗老年原发高血压并糖尿病的临床效果.方法 研究对象的选取时间为2019年1月—2020年1月,186例入选原发高血压合并糖尿病患者均于该院就诊治疗.随机分组,93例参照组患者用药方案为氨氯地平治疗,93例研究组患者用药方案为在参照组基础上应用缬沙坦治疗,分析两组治疗前后血压水平、血糖水平...     

Mono- and Combination Therapy with Felodipine or Enalapril in Elderly Patients with Systolic Hypertension

Using a randomised double-blind crossover design with Latin square allocation of treatments in 20 subjects (7 male, 13 female—ages: 61-87 years) with systolic hypertension, we investigated the efficacy and tolerability of once daily felodipine (extended release) 5-20 mg, enalapril 5-20 mg and their combination compared with placebo in four treatment phases each of 6 weeks duration. During each phase, doses were titrated to achieve a predose clinic supine systolic blood pressure of 140 mmHg or to a predetermined maximum dose. In both the felodipine and combination phases, predose supine and standing systolic and diastolic pressures were significantly reduced compared with the placebo phase (decrease in supine pressure: - 13/ - 5 and - 18/ - 7, respectively). Only predose supine diastolic pressure was significantly reduced (- 3 mmHg) compared to placebo in the enalapril phase. In combination the effects of the two drugs on predose blood pressure were additive. There was a 40-60% increase in reported symptoms in the felodipine and combination phases compared with the placebo and enalapril phases. Thus, in elderly subjects with systolic hypertension, felodipine effectively reduces blood pressure throughout the dose interval but with vasodilator adverse effects. In contrast, enalapril is well tolerated but is less effective in reducing blood pressure throughout the whole dose interval.     

Pharmacotherapy for Essential Hypertension: A Brief Review

Hypertension is one of the leading causes of disability-adjusted life years and mortality, with approximately 15% prevalence worldwide. Most patients with hypertension from low- to high-income countries do not receive treatment. Among those who receive treatment, the majority remain undertreated and do not achieve their blood pressure goals. Therefore, new hypertension guidelines introduce more conscientious treatment strategies to maximize the probability of achieving the new strict blood pressure goals compared with the previous guidelines. Who should receive treatment for hypertension? Which antihypertensive medications have the strongest supporting data? Are generic and more affordable medications as effective as expensive brand medications? What are the different treatment strategies to maximize success in controlling blood pressure? Here, we briefly review pharmacotherapy for hypertension and provide answers to these questions as well as some other common questions regarding treatment of hypertension.     

Randomised,Double-Blind Crossover Comparison of Once-Daily Captopril and Lisinopril in Patients with Mild to Moderate Hypertension - a Community-Based Study: By Hunter Hypertension Research Group,Discipline of Clinical Pharmacology,Newcastle Mater Misericordiae Hospital,Waratah 2298 NSW Australia

Of twenty-five patients with mild to moderate hypertension, recruited and managed in the community, seventeen responded fully to, and completed a randomised cross-over study of, captopril (ceiling dose 100 mg) compared with lisinopril (ceiling dose 40 mg) both given as a single daily dose. Mean supine and standing blood pressures measured at the end of the dose interval were significantly reduced compared to placebo by both compounds at three and six weeks. However, a consistent, significant increase in blood pressure occurred between three and six weeks in both arms of the study despite good and unchanged compliance with a fixed dose of each medication. Both captopril and lisinopril were well tolerated. Drug-related cough was the principal adverse effect.     

A Long-term Follow-up of Patients with Essential Hypertension Treated with Captopril

Abstract Seventy-four patients from four short-term studies of captopril in mild-moderate essential hypertension continued in a cooperative long-term efficacy and tolerance program. The duration of observation is 2–>4 years, the total treatment time being 2434 months. No development of resistance to therapy was observed. The total daily dose of captopril has been gradually decreased and in 20 patients changed from t.i.d. to b.i.d. regime. The drug has been well tolerated and only few and mild side-effects have been observed after the initial titration period. The drop-outs (n=19) were mostly due to non-medical causes (n=14). Except for one case of proteinuria, no laboratory abnormalities were detected and there were no signs of long-term toxicity.     

血管紧张素转换酶基因多态性与原发性高血压之间的关系

目的探讨中国人群中血管紧张素转换酶基因（ＡＣＥ）多态性与原发性高血压之间的关系。方法应用多聚酶链（ＰＣＲ）技术检测ＡＣＥ基因１６含子中２８７ｂｐＤＮＡ片段的插入／缺失（Ｉ／Ｄ）多态性；对７０例原发性高血压患者与４５例正常对照组之间进行比较。结果在原发性高血压组Ｄ等位基因频率（０．５５）高于正常对照组０．４３，但统计学并无意义，在有高血压家族史患者中，Ｄ等位基因频率０．５８高于对照组（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论，表明在有家族史人群中ＡＣＥ基因多态性与原发性高血压具有相关性。     

Effect of Ketoprofen on Blood Pressure, Endocrine and Renal Responses to Chronic Dosing with Captopril in Patients with Essential Hypertension

The effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the blood pressure and renal function of essential hypertensive patients depend on the specific type of NSAID and antihypertensive drug administered. Twelve patients with essential hypertension, aged 35 to 59 years, stabilized (blood pressure less than 140/90 mmHg) with captopril, received ketoprofen (100 mg bid for 7 days) or matching placebo in a randomized double-blind cross-over fashion. A 3-week wash-out period was included between treatment periods. Blood pressure on the first and last days of the placebo treatment period (137± 7(SD)/80±8 and 139±11/81±9 mmHg) was similar to respective values during ketoprofen therapy (136±10/79±7 and 143 ± 10/81 ± 9 mmHg). The mean differences in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, at the end of the treatment periods, between ketoprofen and placebo were 4(95% confidence intervals -5, +13) and 0(-8, +8) mmHg, respectively. Ketoprofen had no effect on 24-h urinary sodium excretion (160 ± 33 and 147 ± 39 mmol/24 h for ketoprofen and placebo, respectively). Ketoprofen was without effect on glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow and filtration fraction. In conclusion, our data suggest that ketoprofen is a safe choice when short-term treatment with a NSAID is indicated in an essential hypertensive patient treated with a converting enzyme inhibitor such as captopril.     

血管紧张素转化酶基因多态性与原发性高血压的关系

目的研究血管紧张素转化酶（ＡＣＥ）基因的插入／缺失（Ｉ／Ｄ）多态性与原发性高血压的关系。方法应用ＰＣＲ的方法分别检测７２例原发性高血压患者和９３例正常血压组的ＡＣＥ基因第１６内含子的Ｉ／Ｄ多态性。结果共得到３种基因型：纯合缺失型（ＤＤ），纯合插入型（Ｉ），杂合型（ＩＤ）。原发性高血压患者Ｄ等位基因的频率（０．６２）高于健康对照组（０．４８）（Ｐ＜０．０５）。结论ＡＣＥ基因的Ｉ／Ｄ多态性可能与原发性高血压有关。     

缬沙坦对原发性高血压病人血管内皮功能的影响

目的探讨缬沙坦对原发性高血压（EH）病人血管内皮功能的影响。方法检测应用缬沙坦治疗前后EH病人血压、血管内皮素-1（ET1）及一氧化氮（NO）的变化，并进行分析。结果应用缬沙坦后。EH病人血压显著下降（P〈0．01）、ET-1明显降低（P〈0．01），NO明显升高（P〈0．01）。结论缬沙坦可有效降压。并能逆转EH病人血管内皮功能紊乱。     

中国汉族人血管紧张素转换酶基因I/D多态性与原发性高血压的关系

目的探讨ＡＣＥ基因Ｉ／Ｄ多态性在中国汉族人群分布规律及与原发性高血压（ＥＨ）的关系。方法取汉族ＥＨ病人１２１例，对照组９５人外周血，提取ＤＮＡ，应用ＰＣＲ技术进行ＡＣＥ基因Ｉ／Ｄ分型。结果在汉族血压正常群体中，ＡＣＥ基因Ｉ／Ｄ多态ＤＤ、ＤＩ、Ｉ基因型频率分别为２２％，４８％和３０％，其Ｄ和Ｉ等位基因频率分别为４６％和５４％。Ｉ／Ｄ多态分布符合Ｈａｒｄｙ－Ｗｅｉｎｂｅｒｇ定律，达到遗传平衡，具有群体代表性。ＥＨ组与正常组相比，基因型和等位基因分布均具有显著统计学差异（Ｐ＜０．０５），ＥＨ组ＤＤ基因型和Ｄ等位基因频率增加。结论汉族ＥＨ发病与ＡＣＥ基因Ｉ／Ｄ多态性相关联，基因型ＤＤ和等位基因Ｄ可能是ＥＨ发病的易患因素     

Quinaprilat-Induced Vasodilatation in Forearm Vasculature of Patients with Essential Hypertension: Comparison with Enalaprilat

The aim of the present study was to assess the possible differences in hemodynamic and neurohumoral responses to local ACE inhibition in the human forearm of patients with essential hypertension with either quinaprilat or enalaprilat. Forearm vascular responses to infusion of quinaprilat or enalaprilat (0.5 g/dL/min) into the brachial artery were studied in 12 male patients with essential hypertension. The experiments were performed in a randomized, double-blind, crossover fashion. Before and during ACE inhibition, the vasoconstrictor response to four cumulative doses of angiotensin I (Ang I) was studied. Forearm blood flow was assessed using venous occlusion plethysmography. Local quinaprilat infusion induced a more rapid (even after 15 minutes; median vasodilation quinaprilat 29% vs. enalaprilat –1%, P > 0.02) and longer lasting forearm vaso-dilation as compared with enalaprilat. After 15 minutes of local ACE inhibition, the vasoconstrictor response to Ang I was completely blocked by both ACE inhibitors. We conclude that in patients with essential hypertension quinaprilat induces a more rapid and longer lasting vasodilatation than enalaprilat. These effects of quinaprilat are possibly related to its higher affinity for vascular ACE. On the other hand, the fact that these effects of quinaprilat were observed despite a similar degree of ACE inhibition as during enalaprilat may suggest that quinaprilat directly stimulates another vasodilatating mechanism.     

缬沙坦与苯那普利治疗老年高血压的对照研究

目的观察比较缬沙坦与苯那普利治疗老年人轻、中度原发性高血压的疗效和安全性。方法选择103例老年高血压患者,随机分为治疗组52例和对照组51例,治疗组给予缬沙坦80～160mg/d,对照组给予苯那普利10～20mg/d,观察两组患者4周和8周的疗效。结果两组患者治疗第2周后平均收缩压、舒张压较治疗前明显降低(P＜0．01),在整个治疗期间血压持续平稳下降；缬沙坦与苯那普利治疗4周降低舒张压总有效率分别为86．4%及84．3%,8周降低舒张压总有效率分别为92．3%及90．2%,两组比较差别无显著性意义(P＞0．05)。结论缬沙坦是一种安全、有效、长效。耐受性好不良反应少的降压药物。     

缬沙坦对原发性高血压患者性功能的影响

目的 评价缬沙坦治疗轻中度高血压的降压疗效，对性功能的影响及安全性。方法 开放，多中心试验设计。对轻中度原发性高血压患者进行缬沙坦治疗前后血压水平、性功能指标的比较，并观察治疗中的不良反应。结果 缬沙坦治疗8周后，坐位收缩压降低19．5mmHg，舒张压降低13．9mmHg，总有效率86．9％。治疗后男女高血压患者性功能指标均有不同程度改善，尤以男性明显。40岁以上中老年患者性功能指数升高更显著。治疗中无体位性低血压和严重不良事件发生。结论 缬沙坦降压疗效确切，不良反应少，可改善性功能，更适用于中老年高血压患者。     

血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂对高血压胰岛素抗性的影响

采用血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂（卡托普利、依那普利、赖诺普利）治疗原发性高血压患者30例。剂量分别为12．5～37．5，5～15，10～30mg／　d，疗程4周，血压从治疗前171／106mmHg降到143／88mmHg。治疗后的血胰岛素水平、血胰岛素／葡萄糖比值均较治疗前明显降低（P＜0．05），显示有明显的改善胰岛素抗性效应。     

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Tolerability of a Low-Dose Combination of Isradipine and Spirapril in the First-Line Treatment of Mild to Moderate Essential Hypertension

To investigate the concept of initiating therapy with low doses of a calcium antagonist and an ACE inhibitor, a fixed combination of isradipine 2.5 mg plus the ACE inhibitor spirapril 3 mg was compared with its components, with the full-dose monotherapies (isradipine 5 mg or spirapril 6 mg), and with placebo. After a 2-week wash out phase in pretreated patients and a subsequent 2-week placebo period, 405 patients with a diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 100 and 114 mmHg were randomly allocated to 12-week once-daily double-blind treatment in one of the six treatment arms. In patients whose blood pressure was not normalized (defined as DBP≤90 mmHg) after 6 weeks of treatment, the dosage of either medication was doubled or, in the placebo group, was switched to the fixed combination. After week 6, the mean reductions from baseline in sitting systolic/diastolic blood pressure 24 hours after dosing (trough) for the fixed combination or the monotherapies isradipine 5 mg, isradipine 2.5 mg, spirapril 6 mg, spirapril 3 mg, and placebo were10.4/8.7, 10.0/9.4, 6.5/6.7, 10.0/8.3, 7.0/5.8, and 2.2/4.7 mmHg, respectively. The blood pressure changes obtained with the low-dose fixed combination were essentially identical to those observed with the full-dose monotherapies, thus showing an additive effect of low-dose isradipine and spirapril. In terms of tolerability, the lowest rate of any adverse events was found in the combination group. In this group, typical adverse events of calcium antagonists, such as headache, flushing, ankle edema, or palpitations, were observed only in 5%, 2%, 1%, and 0%, respectively, dry cough, considered typical for ACE inhibitors, was observed in only 1% of the combination group. In conclusion, the low-dose components isradipine 2.5 mg and spirapril 3 mg were shown to have an additive effect when combined, exerting a blood pressure–lowering effect comparable with the full doses and a trend to a better tolerability profile in comparison with the standard doses. Thus, low-dose combination therapy with these drugs appears to be a rational alternative to conventional monotherapy in the first-line treatment of hypertension. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

老年人高血压呈现Ouabain抵抗现象及非洛地平干预的影响

目的：探讨老年人高血压Ｏｕａｂａｉｎ 抵抗现象机理及钙拮抗剂非洛地平对其影响。方法：４２ 例高血压（ＥＨ）病人, 分为老年ＥＨ 组和非老年ＥＨ组。采用放射免疫分析法测定血浆肾素活性（ＰＲＡ）、血管紧张素Ⅱ（ＡｎｇⅡ）、血浆内源性类地高辛物质（ＥＤＬＳ）浓度、ＥＤＬＳ与红细胞结合率（ＲＢＣ－Ｄ％ ）;测定加哇巴因（ｏｕａｂａｉｎ）后红细胞内［Ｎａ＋ ］ｉ变化,计算出ｏｕａｂａｉｎ 敏感Ｎａ＋ 外流速度常数（ｏＫｏｓ,反映总的Ｎａ＋ 泵活性）;［Ｎａ＋ ］ｉ用火焰光度法测定。ＥＨ组服非洛地平治疗３周后复查。结果：老年ＥＨ组ＲＢＣ－Ｄ％ 、ＰＲＡ、ＡｎｇⅡ明显低于非老年ＥＨ组,血浆ＥＤＬＳ和ｏＫｏｓ 高于非老年ＥＨ 组,Ｎａ＋ 泵活性呈现Ｏｕａｂａｉｎ 抵抗现象。在老年ＥＨ 组中,ＡｎｇⅡ与年龄和ＲＢＣ－Ｄ％ 呈负相关,ＰＲＡ与ＥＤＬＳ呈负相关。降压治疗后,老年ＥＨ病人ＰＲＡ、ＡｎｇⅡ、Ｎａ＋ 泵活性升高,非老年ＥＨ者仅Ｎａ＋ 泵活性升高,ＥＤＬＳ、ＰＲＡ、ＡｎｇⅡ无显著变化。结论：老年ＥＨ 病人ＥＤＬＳ与细胞膜亲合力下降,呈现Ｏｕａｂａｉｎ 抵抗现象,通过影响钠代谢抑制ＰＲＡ、ＡｎｇⅡ分泌。钙拮抗剂非洛地平降压治疗可部分改善这种异常     

血管紧张素转换酶基因多态性与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂疗效的相关性

目的　研究原发性高血压 (EH)患者的血管紧张素转换酶 (ACE)基因多态性与血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂 (ACEI)疗效的相关性。方法　 ( 1)用ACEI对 5 17例EH患者进行为期 6周的降压治疗 ,所用药物为咪达普利或苯那普利。 ( 2 )用聚合酶链反应 (PCR)方法检测患者的ACE基因多态性 ,ACE基因有 3种表现型 :II型、DD型和DI型。 ( 3 )治疗前后及治疗过程中对患者的收缩压、舒张压和心率进行监测。结果　 ( 1)在总共 5 17例患者中 ,ACE基因型为DD者有 13 2人( 2 5 5 % ) ,II者有 13 0人 ( 2 5 2 % ) ,ID者有 2 5 5人 ( 4 9 3 % )。 ( 2 )不同基因型组间的性别、年龄、体重指数及心率等的差异无统计学意义。 ( 3 )在这三组患者中 ,治疗前后收缩压的降幅分别为 ( -14 5± 12 7)mmHg ,( -14 3± 13 1)mmHgand( -14 0± 12 2 )mmHg (P =0 94) ,舒张压的降幅分别为 ( -8 7± 7 4)mmHg ,( -8 7± 7 7)mmHgand ( -8 5± 6 7)mmHg (P =0 96)。结论　本研究没有发现EH患者的ACE基因多态性与ACEI的降压疗效相关 ,据此 ,不能根据EH患者的ACE基因型来指导ACEI的降压治疗