比较比索洛尔-氢氯噻嗪复合剂与缬沙坦对原发性高血压24小时动态血压的影响研究

目的:比较比索洛尔-氢氯噻嗪复合剂(Bisoprolol//HCTZ)与缬沙坦(Valsartan)对原发性高血压患者24小时动态血压的影响。方法:44例原发性高血压患者分别随机入组比索洛尔2.5~5 mg/氢氯噻嗪6.25 mg复合剂治疗组和缬沙坦80~160 mg治疗组,用法:1次/d,连续服药16周,每4周对患者进行用药前后24小时动态血压(ABP)进行监测。结果:44例患者入组(男性23例,女性21例)中,23例入组比索洛尔/氢氯噻嗪复合剂治疗组,21例入组缬沙坦治疗组。与治疗前相比,两组的动态血压都有显著的降低,24小时SBP/DBP(-16.9/-10.3 mmHg和-17.7/-10.9 mmHg),白天SBP/DBP分别为(-17.1/-9.4 mmHg和-17.6/-9.8 mmHg),夜晚SBP/DBP分别为(-17.0/-11.5 mmHg和-16.4/-11.6 mmHg)。结论:低剂量组合的比索洛尔和氢氯噻嗪对于原发性高血压患者24小时动态血压的降低有显著效果。     

缬沙坦与氢氯噻嗪治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的临床观察

目的了解缬沙坦/氢氯噻嗪联用与缬沙坦单剂治疗轻、中度原发性高血压(90mmHg(?)坐位舒张压<110mmHg)的疗效。方法共入选102例轻、中度原发性高血压。随机分为两组:治疗组52例,对照组50例。治疗组给予缬沙坦80mg片剂,1次/d,早晨顿服;同时联用氢氯噻嗪12.5mg,2次/d;对照组给予缬沙坦80mg片剂,1次/d;如果4周末时血压控制不满意(舒张压(?) 85mmHg),随后4周的剂量将被分别增加至缬沙坦160mg/氢氯噻嗪12.5mg或缬沙坦160mg。结果治疗8周以后,治疗组与对照组的坐位收缩压分别下降了23.6±11.4mmHg和16.4±10.2mmHg,P<0.001:坐位舒张压下降的幅度分别为15.0±8.4mmHg和10.4±7.8mmHg,P<0.001;治疗组与对照组降低血压的总有效率分别为98.0%和90%;两组比较显效率差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论治疗组与对照组相比,缬沙坦与氢氯噻嗪联用治疗高血压病疗效显著。     

缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗老年轻中度收缩期高血压64例

目的 评估缬沙坦舍用氢氯噻嗪对治疗老年轻中度收缩期高血压的降压疗效及安全性.方法 将128例患者随机均分为2组.对照组单用缬沙坦片40 mg、每日1次口服,根据血压可逐步加量至40 mg、每日2次;联合组以缬沙坦片(用法同对照组)联合氢氯噻嗪12.5 mg、每日2次.两组疗程均为8周,观察治疗前后的随测血压和生化指标.结果 对照组随测血压的降压有效率为73.44%,但与氢氯噻嗪合用后降压总有效率可升至90.62%,且联合用药不良反应轻微.结论 缬沙坦与氢氯噻嗪两药合用治疗老年轻中度收缩期高血压安全、有效.     

缬沙坦-氢氯噻嗪合用治疗高血压早期肾损害的疗效

目的：评价缬沙坦．氢氯噻嗪合用治疗原发性高血压早期肾损害的有效性和安全性。方法：选择64例原发性高血压合并血、尿132微球蛋白增高的患者,采用单盲法随机分成2组：缬沙坦-氢氯噻嗪组32例,服用缬沙坦80mg、氢氯噻嗪12．5mg每日一次;缬沙坦组32例,服用缬沙坦80mg,每日一次,疗程为2个月。治疗前后分别检测患者静态血压和动态血压、血尿素氮、血肌酐、尿α1,微球蛋白、血和尿β2微球蛋白、尿微量白蛋白,比较治疗前后的变化。结果：单用缬沙坦或缬沙坦．氢氯噻嗪合用后,患者SBP、DBP均显著下降,缬沙坦-氢氯噻嗪组降压幅度比缬沙坦组显著（P〈0．01）;两组治疗后血和尿β2-微球蛋白、尿微量白蛋白含量均显著下降（P〈0．01）,缬沙坦-氢氯噻嗪组较缬沙坦组下降更显著（P〈0．01）;两组血肌酐、血尿素氮、尿α1微球蛋白较治疗前也均有下降（P〈0．05）。结论：缬沙坦-氢氯噻嗪合用与缬沙坦单用均能有效降低血压、血和尿β2-微球蛋白、尿微量白蛋白含量,对高血压患者早期肾功能损害有一定保护作用,合用效果优于单用。     

国产和进口缬沙坦治疗原发性高血压疗效比较

目的探讨国产缬沙坦胶囊(Valsartan Capsule,商品名:托平Tuoping)和进口缬沙坦胶囊(商品名:代文Diovan)对轻中度原发性高血压患者的降压疗效及安全性。方法采用互相对照方式。将58例轻中度原发性高血压患者随机分成2组,托平组(80mg,),代文组(80mg1次/d),疗程均4周。每2周随访BP、HR,并记录不良反应。观察服药前、服药后2周和4周的BP、HR变化,进行记录比较。结果经4周治疗,2组血压平均SBP由(153.1±11.6)mmHg分别降至(130.9±10.5)、(130.8±10.8)mmHg;DBP由(96.1±12.6)mmHg分别降至和(81.1±6.9,80.9±7.3)mmHg,2组较服药前均有显著降低(P<0.01),总有效率均为68.97%,2组服药后同期疗效无统计学差异(P>0.05);2组治疗期间均未见明显不良反应。结论托平和代文对轻中度原发性高血压具有相同降压效性,两者同样安全可靠,不良反应少,但托平价格低廉。     

晨起或睡前服用缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪片降压及逆转非杓型高血压的临床比较

目的探讨晨起或睡前应用缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪片对非杓型高血压患者降压及逆转非杓型高血压的效果。方法纳入74例1~2级非杓型高血压患者,随机分为晨起服药组和睡前服药组,分别在晨起或睡前服用缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪片(每片含缬沙坦80 mg及氢氯噻嗪12.5 mg),所有病例治疗前及治疗12周后进行动态血压监测。结果两组患者治疗后全天各时段血压较治疗前均显著降低(P<0.01);治疗后两组间全天及日间平均收缩压、舒张压及血压变异性无显著差异(P>0.05);睡前服药组夜间平均收缩压及舒张压显著低于晨起服药组(P<0.05);治疗12周后睡前服药组夜间血压降幅较晨起服药组更显著(P<0.01);研究结束时,睡前服药组的逆转率显著高于晨起服药组[51%(18/35)vs.8%(3/36),P<0.01]。结论晨起和睡前服用缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪片均能够明显降低非杓型原发性高血压患者全天血压;睡前服药能显著降低夜间血压水平,纠正异常血压节律。     

缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗原发性高血压疗效观察

目的:探讨缬沙坦氢联合氯噻嗪治疗原发性高血压的临床疗效.方法:本组86例患者随机分为治疗组和对照组各43例.治疗组给予缬沙坦80 mg,氢氯噻嗪12.5 mg口服,每天1次;对照组给予缬沙坦80 mg口服,每天1次.2组均持续用药8周.观察2组临床疗效及不良反应情况.结果:治疗组总有效率为88.4％,高于对照组的76.7％,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);治疗组治疗后血压较治疗前下降,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);2组均未见严重不良反应.结论:缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗原发性高血压疗效确切,耐受性良好,不良反应少,可以作为治疗高血压的一线用药.     

缬沙坦联合小剂量氢氯噻嗪治疗社区轻中度高血压病的疗效观察

目的探讨缬沙坦联合小剂量氢氯噻嗪对社区高血压病患者的降压疗效。方法采用随机、平行对照试验,分为观察组和对照组各78例,观察组用缬沙坦80mg联合氢氯噻嗪12.5mg,1次/d口服,对照组单用缬沙坦80mg,1次/d口服,8周为1疗程。治疗4、8周时进行降压疗效的分析。结果治疗组降压显效率与总有效率明显高于对照组（P〈0.01与P〈0.05）;治疗4、8周后观察组与治疗前比差异有显著性P〈0.01、P〈0.05;8周后与对照组比差异有显著性P〈0.01、P〈0.05。结论缬沙坦联合小剂量氢氯噻嗪治疗社区轻中度高血压病明显优于单用缬沙坦。     

缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的依从性观察

目的 探讨缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪治疗轻、中度原发性高血压患者的临床疗效及治疗依从性.方法 将200例轻中度原发性高血压患者随机分入对照组与观察组,每组100例.对照组患者给予缬沙坦口服,观察组患者接受缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪口服,疗程为6个月.比较两组临床疗效、不良反应及治疗依从性.结果 观察组治疗有效率显著高于对照组（93.0% vs.81.0%,P〈0.05）;观察组治疗后3个月及6个月的收缩压（SBP）及舒张压（DBP）均显著优于对照组（P〈0.05）;观察组治疗依从性显著优于对照组（P〈0.05）.结论 与缬沙坦相比,缬沙坦氢氯噻嗪治疗轻、中度原发性高血压患者的临床疗效更为理想,且安全性好,患者治疗依从性高.     

缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗高血压心脏病的临床疗效分析

目的探讨缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗高血压心脏病的临床疗效。方法选取我院治疗的高血压心脏病患者100例。随机分为两组,每组各50例。观察组给予口服缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗;对照组给予口服缬沙坦治疗,观察患者在服药16周之后的收缩压(SBP)与舒张压(DBP)、左室肥厚(LVH)、心电图及心动超声的指标改善情况。结果观察组总有效率(94.0%)明显高于对照组的70.0%(P0.05);两组患者的SBP、DBP、左室高血压及LVH指标与治疗前相比均有所降低,观察组指标降低的幅度显著大于对照组(P0.05)。结论缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗高血压心脏病可以有效缓解心功能,且副作用较小,治疗效果显著,值得推广应用。     

Efficacy and tolerability of valsartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of two combination regimens of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with valsartan monotherapy in patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled with valsartan 80mg once daily. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 708 patients with inadequately controlled blood pressure after 4 weeks' treatment with valsartan 80mg once daily participated in this double-blind comparative trial. Patients were randomly allocated once-daily treatment with valsartan 80mg, valsartan 160mg, valsartan 80mg + HCTZ 12.5mg or valsartan 80mg + HCTZ 25mg for 8 weeks. RESULTS: Statistically significant decreases in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) and mean sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) from baseline were seen in all treatment groups (least squares mean change from baseline SDBP: -5.1mm Hg, -6.2mm Hg, -8.2mm Hg, -10.8mm Hg; SSBP: -3.9mm Hg, -6.5mm Hg, -9.8mm Hg, -16.0mm Hg for valsartan 80mg, valsartan 160mg, HCTZ 12.5mg combination, HCTZ 25mg combination, respectively). A significant difference for mean SDBP, SSBP and responder rates in favour of the combination regimens was observed compared with either valsartan monotherapy. All treatments were well tolerated with the percentage of patients reporting treatment-related adverse experiences at any time ranging from 9.9% (valsartan 160mg) to 21.0% (HCTZ 25mg combination). CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that a combination of valsartan 80mg and HCTZ 12.5mg or 25mg provides an effective and well tolerated treatment in patients who need additional blood pressure control beyond valsartan monotherapy.     

Effects of valsartan versus olmesartan addition to amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide combination in treating stage 2 hypertensive patients

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the effects of valsartan or olmesartan addition to dual therapy with amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the treatment of stage 2 hypertension.

Research design and methods: 180 patients with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 99 and < 110 mm Hg were treated with amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg combination. After 4 weeks, 149 patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled, were randomized to the combination of valsartan 160 mg + amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg or olmesartan 20 mg + amlodipine 5 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg for 4 weeks.

Main outcome measures: At the end of each period, clinical and ambulatory BP measurements were recorded.

Results: Both triple combinations produced greater ambulatory and clinical SBP/DBP reduction than dual therapy. However, mean reduction from baseline in the valsartan + amlodipine + HCTZ-treated patients was significantly greater than in the olmesartan + amlodipine + HCTZ-treated patients. Compared with dual therapy, the add-on effect of valsartan was significantly greater than that of olmesartan, the difference being more evident for nighttime SBP/DBP values (-3.3 (95% CI 0.44 – 3.51)/3.0 (95% CI 0.59 – 3.34) mm Hg, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: The addition of valsartan to amlodipine + HCTZ produced greater BP reduction than the addition of olmesartan.     

Randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison of amlodipine and valsartan in african-americans with hypertension using 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of amlodipine and valsartan in African-American patients with hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover comparison study. SETTING: University-affiliated cardiac center clinic. PATIENTS: Twenty African-Americans (12 men, 8 women), with a history of uncomplicated hypertension (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day or valsartan 80 or 160 mg/day for 8-10 weeks, depending on response. Dosages were titrated to achieve a blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or below. For patients whose blood pressures were not controlled, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day was added to their regimens. Patients then underwent 24-hour ABPM. After an intervening washout period during which baseline blood pressure was reestablished, patients received the other treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Mean +/- SD baseline blood pressure before the two ABPM periods were 155 +/- 12/100 +/- 8 mm Hg and 156 +/- 11/101 +/- 9 mm Hg, respectively. Fifteen (75%) patients achieved goal blood pressure with amlodipine and 14 (70%) with valsartan (p=0.62). Final daily dosages were as follows: amlodipine 5 mg in nine patients, 10 mg in five patients, and 10 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide in six patients; valsartan 80 mg in nine patients, 160 mg in four patients, and 160 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide in seven patients. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was not completed in three patients due to adverse effects: headache and dizziness (one patient each, amlodipine and valsartan) and hyperkalemia (one patient, valsartan). Four patients (20%) in each treatment group had drug-related adverse effects. Results of ABPM including averages for 24-hour, daytime, nighttime, first 4 hours, and last 8 hours, and trough:peak ratios were not significantly different between the amlodipine- and valsartan-based treatments. CONCLUSION: Based on both clinic blood pressure measurements and ABPM data, amlodipine and valsartan produced similar reductions in blood pressure in African-American patients with uncomplicated hypertension.     

缬沙坦治疗轻中度原发性高血压的临床效果与安全性

目的：观察缬沙坦的临床降压效果及其安全性。方法：102例临床确诊为轻、中度高血压病人选，并随机分为缬沙坦组(55人)和氯沙坦组(47人)。前每日晨服缬沙坦80mg，后每日晨服氯沙坦50mg，总治疗时间为8周。期间定期测定血压，并于治疗开始前与服药第8周测定病人的血钾及肝、肾功能。结果：服药第4周、第8周两组血压均较治疗前显降低(P＜0．01)。到第8周末，缬沙坦组与氯沙坦组降压总有效率分别达91％与87％。与治疗开始前比较，第8周末病人的血钾，肝、肾功能无明显改变。结论：缬沙坦和氯沙坦对轻、中度高血压病人有良好的治疗效果，服用安全。     

缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗高血压临床疗效分析

目的比较缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪与单独应用缬沙坦治疗原发性高血压的临床疗效,从而指导临床治疗。方法将本院收治的86例原发性高血压患者随机分为实验组和对照组,实验组患者与对照组患者均给予80mg／d剂量的缬沙坦治疗。实验组在此基础上给予12．5mg／次、2次／d的氢氯噻嗪,治疗8周后,比较两组患者的临床治疗有效率及不良反应的发生率。结果实验组治疗后收缩压、舒张压均显著低于对照组（P〈0．05）,实验组患者治疗后总有效率为90.7％。不良反应发生率为4．7％;对照组患者治疗后总有效率为79．1％,不良反应的发生率为4．7％;实验组总有效率显著高于对照组（P〈0．05）,两组患者的脉压、不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪治疗原发性高血压与单独应用缬沙坦相比,能够显著提高治疗的有效率,且不良反应轻微,安全性较好。     

Angiotensin II antagonism and the heart: valsartan in left ventricular hypertrophy

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) represents an independent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and normalization of left ventricular mass has become a desirable goal of antihypertensive treatment. In a randomized, double-blind study, the angiotensin II (AT1-receptor) antagonist valsartan (Diovan ; 80-160 mg q.d.) was compared with the beta-blocker atenolol (50-100 mg q.d.) over 8 months in previously untreated patients with essential hypertension and LVH. Sixty-nine patients were randomized, of whom 58 were evaluated by echocardiography. After 8 months of treatment in the atenolol group [n = 8 with additional hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ)], initial blood pressure was reduced from 160/103 to 147/92 mm Hg (p < 0.0001). In the valsartan group (n = 9 with HCTZ), blood pressure decreased from 163/101 to 146/90 mm Hg (p < 0.0001). Left ventricular mass index decreased from 127 to 117 g/m2 in the atenolol group and from 127 to 106 g/m2 in the valsartan group. Long-term treatment with valsartan resulted in a significant reduction of LVH in patients with essential hypertension.     

缬沙坦长期治疗原发性高血压病人的安全性和疗效

目的 :评估缬沙坦长期治疗原发性高血压的安全性与疗效。方法 :门诊轻、中度高血压的病人3 2例 (男性 2 3例 ,女性 9例 ,年龄 5 1a±s 9a) ,服用缬沙坦 80mg·d-1,wk 4后血压控制不满意者加量至 1 60mg·d-1,共治疗 2 4wk。结果 :舒张压下降程度在治疗后wk 4,8,1 6,2 4末分别为 :1 .6kPa±0 .9kPa,2 .0kPa± 0 .8kPa,2 .1kPa± 1 .0kPa,1 .8kPa± 0 .8kPa,较治疗前差异均有非常显著意义 (P<0 .0 1 )。wk 4,2 4治疗有效率分别为 78%与 75% (P >0 .0 5 )。未见干咳发生 ,不良反应少 ,耐受性良好。结论 :缬沙坦长期治疗轻、中度原发性高血压安全有效     

Effect on blood pressure control of switching from valsartan monotherapy to losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in Asian patients with hypertension: results of a multicentre open-label trial

ABSTRACT

Study design: An open-label, multicentre study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of a 4-week course of losartan 50?mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg in Asian patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure had previously been treated with but not controlled by valsartan 80?mg.

Methods: A total of 237 eligible patients with mean trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) 95–115?mmHg and a mean trough sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) < 190?mmHg entered the baseline period of treatment with valsartan 80?mg/day for 4 weeks. Those (n = 165) whose SiDBP remained > 90?mmHg and who were not excluded for other reasons were then switched to a single-tablet formulation of losartan 50?mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg combination once daily for a further 4 weeks.

Results: Mean SiDBP (study primary endpoint) at the end of combination therapy was reduced to 86.9 mmHg from 95.2 mmHg. SiSBP (study secondary endpoint) was reduced to 132.6 mmHg from 140.7 mmHg. Mean reductions after switching from valsartan 80?mg to losartan 50?mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg were thus 8.3 and 8.1 mmHg for SiDBP and SiSBP, respectively (?p ≤ 0.001 for both outcomes). The goal of SiDBP ≤ 90 mmHg was attained in 72% of the patients previously not controlled to the same level by valsartan 80?mg/day. Combination therapy with losartan 50?mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg was generally well tolerated. Mean compliance with the losartan 50?mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg combination was > 99%.

Conclusion: These results demonstrate that in Asian patients who do not reach the goal of mean trough SiDBP ≤ 90?mmHg with valsartan monotherapy at 80?mg once-daily, switching to a single-tablet combination of losartan 50?mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg once-daily is well tolerated, provides effective control of blood pressure and is an excellent choice to achieve blood pressure reduction goals.     

厄贝沙坦治疗轻、中度高血压病

目的 :评价国产厄贝沙坦对轻、中度原发性高血压的降压疗效及安全性。方法 :为双盲对照试验。轻、中度原发性高血压病人 40例 (男性 3 2例女性 8例 ,年龄 49a±s 1 0a)随机分为厄贝沙坦组和缬沙坦组各 2 0例 ,分别给予厄贝沙坦 1 5 0mg ,po,qd或缬沙坦 80mg ,po,qd ;2wk后按血压决定维持原剂量或厄贝沙坦增加到 3 0 0mg ,po,qd或缬沙坦增加为 1 60mg,po,qd;总疗程 4wk。结果 :厄贝沙坦治疗 4wk末的总有效率为 75 % ,收缩压下降 (2 .7± 1 .8)kPa,舒张压下降 (1 .5± 0 .8)kPa均P <0 .0 1 ;不良反应的发生率为 5 %。结论 :国产厄贝沙坦治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的短期疗效明显 ,每日服药 1次 ,疗效持久、稳定