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 During felodipine treatment, 17 patients (12 receiving FER 20 mg) were withdrawn mostly because of vasodilatory side effects such as headache and ankle edema.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.     

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.     

A randomized,comparative study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of losartan-low dose chlorthalidone (6.25 mg) combination with losartan-hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg) combination in Indian patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

Objective: The relationship of blood pressure (BP) to cardiovascular risk is linear, positive, and continuous. Lowering elevated BP reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. The primary objective of this randomized, multicenter, comparative, 3-month, open-label study was to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of losartan/chlorthalidone versus losartan/hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Methods: A total of 137 eligible patients underwent a 2-week placebo washout period, following which 131 patients were randomized to losartan (L) 25mg/chlorthalidone (C) 6.25 mg (66/131) or to losartan 25 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (H) 12.5 mg (65/131) at three centers. Patients not responding after 4 weeks of therapy were escalated to losartan 25 mg/chlorthalidone 12.5 mg and losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, respectively. Results: Both treatment groups were similar with respect to demography and baseline characteristics. Altogether, 120 patients completed the study. After 4 weeks of therapy, both treatments showed a significant fall from baseline in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (L/C: -20.17/-10.30; L/H: -17.63/-10.20). Both treatments were similar with respect to mean fall in SBP (p = 0.258), DBP (p = 0.934) and response rate (p = 0.769). Both step-up therapies were similar with respect to mean fall in SBP (p = 0.418), DBP (p = 0.389) from baseline and response rate (p = 0.769). All reported adverse events were of mild-to-moderate intensity, except for two serious AEs that occurred in patients who received L/H. Conclusions: The losartan/low-dose chlorthalidone (6.25 mg) combination is as effective as the widely used losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in lowering BP and is well tolerated, thus providing a useful therapeutic option for treating mild-to-moderate 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)     

The effects of KT3-671, a new angiotensin II (AT 1) receptor blocker in mild to moderate hypertension

AIMS: To compare the antihypertensive effect, and tolerability and safety of once daily doses of KT3-671 with that of placebo in patients with mild to moderate uncomplicated essential hypertension. METHODS: A randomised, multicentre, double blind, parallel-group comparison of KT3-671 with placebo. Hypertensive patients [Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM), mean daytime DBP > 90 mmHg, Office sitting mean DBP 95-114 after a 7-28 day washout period] entered a 2-week, single blind, run-in phase. Patients eligible for the double-blind phase were randomised to receive KT3-671 40 mg, 80 mg, 160 mg or placebo once daily over 4 weeks. The primary end-point was trough mean sitting office DBP. The study had 90% power to detect a 5 mmHg change between treatments and placebo at the 5% level of significance. The secondary end-points were 24 hour, daytime and night time mean ABPM. RESULTS: Office DBP was significantly lower with KT3-671 40 mg but not the other 2 dosage groups (-3.2; 95% CL -6.1 : -0.3 P < 0.03). Office SBP was significantly reduced with all dosage groups (40 mg -5.9, 95% CL -11 : -0.9; 80 mg -4.9, 95% CL -9.9 : 0.1 and 160 mg -5.7, 95% CL -10.8 : -0.7 P < 0.05). All doses of KT3-671 reduced systolic and diastolic ABPM. The number of patients with treatment related adverse events were comparable to placebo (38.8% KT3-671 vs 32.8% placebo). There was some evidence of a dose-response relationship with fall in nocturnal ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Oral KT3-671 was well tolerated. KT3-671 reduced office systolic BP at all doses and diastolic BP at some of the doses. Due to greater precision and power, the falls in mean ambulatory systolic and diastolic pressure were all significantly lower than placebo.     

Use of 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring to Assess Antihypertensive Efficacy

INTRODUCTION: Goal rates, the percentage of patients with hypertension achieving recommended SBP/DBP, are a clinically important assessment of an antihypertensive agent's efficacy. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) allows accurate assessment of a patient's hypertension and risk for cardiovascular events, and provides the most accurate measure of an antihypertensive agent's efficacy throughout a 24-hour dosing interval. METHODS: A 12-week (4-week single-blind placebo run-in phase followed by an 8-week double-blind active treatment phase) randomized, parallel-group study reported that the recommended starting dose of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker; ARB) olmesartan medoxomil (Benicar(trade mark)) 20 mg/day was more effective than starting doses of losartan potassium (Cozaar) 50 mg/day, valsartan (Diovan) 80 mg/day, or irbesartan (Avapro) 150 mg/day in reducing cuff DBP in patients with essential hypertension. The present report includes analyses of secondary efficacy variables from this 12-week trial. RESULTS: The mean reduction in blood pressure from baseline to week 8 (end of treatment) was significantly greater with olmesartan medoxomil than with valsartan for all ABPM times analyzed (24 hours, daytime, night-time, and last 2 and 4 hours of monitoring). Statistical significance was reached for comparisons of olmesartan medoxomil with losartan potassium for a majority of times analyzed and with irbesartan for SBP in the last 4 hours of monitoring. Goal rates for accepted critical ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) values of <130/80 mm Hg for mean 24-hour ABP, <135/85 mm Hg for mean daytime ABP, and <120/75 mm Hg for mean night-time ABP were significantly greater for patients receiving olmesartan medoxomil than for those receiving losartan potassium or valsartan. Goal rates were numerically superior, but not statistically significant, to those achieved with irbesartan. Compared with losartan potassium or valsartan recipients, a significantly higher percentage of patients treated with olmesartan medoxomil achieved the 24-hour ABP goal of <130/85 mm Hg. The last 2 and 4 hours of ABPM indicated that olmesartan medoxomil maintained larger mean decreases in blood pressure through the morning surge. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: ABP goal rates are a meaningful measure of antihypertensive efficacy. The effects on mean change from baseline in ABP and ABP goal rates after 8 weeks of treatment were numerically better, but not statistically significant, for olmesartan medoxomil than for irbesartan. However, olmesartan medoxomil was significantly more effective than losartan potassium or valsartan.     

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   

Effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on blood pressure in nondiabetic patients with mild to moderate hypertension

The effect of sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, on ambulatory blood pressure was assessed in nondiabetic patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-period crossover study. Nineteen patients on stable treatment with antihypertensive agent(s) received sitagliptin 100 mg b.i.d., 50 mg b.i.d., or placebo for 5 days, with at least a 7-day washout interval between periods. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure, including systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure, were monitored on days 1 and 5. Relative to placebo on day 1, the mean difference in 24-hour systolic blood pressure was -0.9 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -2.9 to 1.1; P = .46) with sitagliptin 50 mg b.i.d. and -2.8 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -4.9 to -0.8; P < .05) with 100 mg b.i.d. On day 5, the mean difference in 24-hour systolic blood pressure was -2.0 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -3.5 to -0.4; P < .05) with 50 mg b.i.d. and -2.2 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -3.7 to -0.6; P < .05) with 100 mg b.i.d. relative to placebo. For 24-hour diastolic blood pressure, there were no between-group differences in mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure on day 1. On day 5, sitagliptin 50 mg and 100 mg b.i.d significantly (P < .05) lowered mean 24-hour diastolic blood pressure by -1.8 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -2.8 to -0.8) and -1.6 mm Hg (90% confidence interval: -2.6 to -0.7), respectively, relative to placebo. Sitagliptin produced small but statistically significant reductions of 2 mm Hg to 3 mm Hg in 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements acutely (day 1) and at steady state (day 5), and was generally well tolerated in nondiabetic patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Twenty-four-hour intragastric acidity: 300 mg ranitidine b.d., 20 mg omeprazole o.m., 40 mg omeprazole o.m. vs. placebo

Background: There is considerable controversy about the degree of acid suppression that is optimal for the treatment of peptic disorders. Aim: To compare the effects of three different regimens that are reported to strongly inhibit acid secretion. Methods: Intragastric 24-hour pH monitoring was performed in 11 healthy subjects in a randomized, multiple, cross-over, double-blind study. Each subject received four dose regimens, each for 2 weeks, in a random order. The regimens were: 300 mg ranitidine b.d., 20 mg omeprazole o.m., 40 mg omeprazole o.m., and placebo. Results: The decrease in gastric acidity during the daytime and during the total 24-hour period by all three treatments was significantly greater than after placebo: a significant difference in acid inhibition was found between ranitidine and 40 mg omeprazole, but not between ranitidine and 20 mg omeprazole, nor between the two doses of omeprazole. During the night-time the decrease in gastric acidity by all three treatments was significantly greater than after placebo: no difference was seen between the two doses of omeprazole and ranitidine. For the time of pH greater than 3 we found no statistical difference between the various acid decreasing regimens. The pH remained significantly longer above 4 after ranitidine and the two doses of omeprazole compared with placebo, and also longer above 4 after 40 mg omeprazole compared with ranitidine, but not after 20 mg omeprazole compared with ranitidine, nor after the two different doses of omeprazole. Conclusions: Dosing with 300 mg ranitidine b.d., 20 mg omeprazole or 40 mg omeprazole is superior in gastric acid inhibition compared with placebo, when measured using 24-hour pH monitoring.     

Antihypertensive effect of carteolol in thiazide-treated hypertensive subjects

The antihypertensive effect of carteolol, a new potent nonselective beta-adrenergic antagonist, was investigated in a double-blind, parallel study of 35 patients with mild-to-moderate, essential hypertension whose blood pressures were not adequately controlled with a diuretic. Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo, carteolol 5 mg, or carteolol 20 mg once a day in addition to hydrochlorothiazide 50 mg for six weeks. Thirty-four patients completed the study: 11 patients received placebo (group 1), 12 patients received carteolol 5 mg (group 2), and 11 patients received carteolol 20 mg (group 3). After six weeks of treatment, the two groups that received carteolol had significant reductions in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure from baseline in both the supine and standing positions. In group 2, mean SBP decreases for supine and standing positions were 11 +/- 2.1 and 11 +/- 1.9 mm Hg, respectively (P less than .01) and 8 +/- 1.2 and 9 +/- 1.3 mm Hg, respectively, for DBP (P less than .01); whereas in group 3, values were 8 +/- 2.8 and 12 +/- 3.0 mm Hg for SBP, in 5 +/- 1.9 and 9 +/- 3.1 mm Hg, respectively, for DBP (P less than .01). The hypotensive effect was associated with slight but significant decreases in heart rate (P less than .01 in group 2 and P less than .05 in group 3). Reductions in SBP and DBP with the 20-mg dose were not significantly different from those with the 5-mg dose.2+ moderate hypertension.     

Azilsartan medoxomil: a review of its use in hypertension

Azilsartan medoxomil (Edarbi?; Ipreziv?) is an orally administered angiotensin II receptor type 1 antagonist (blocker) used in the treatment of adults with essential hypertension. This article reviews data on the clinical efficacy and tolerability of azilsartan medoxomil in adults with essential hypertension and provides a summary of its pharmacological properties. Azilsartan medoxomil is a prodrug that undergoes rapid hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract after oral administration to the bioactive moiety azilsartan, before systemic absorption. Azilsartan medoxomil produces antihypertensive effects by selectively blocking the binding of angiotensin II to the angiotensin type 1 (AT(1)) receptor, thereby antagonizing the pressor response activity of angiotensin II. In vitro, azilsartan produced greater and more sustained AT(1) receptor binding/blockade activity than several comparator angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Azilsartan medoxomil reduces blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive adults. In addition, the drug has been shown to have pleiotropic effects (i.e. effects beyond AT(1) receptor blockade). In adults with essential hypertension, azilsartan medoxomil 20, 40 or 80?mg effectively reduced BP over a 24-hour period with once-daily administration in three major, randomized, controlled trials in which the primary endpoints were changes from baseline in 24-hour mean systolic BP (SBP) at week 6 (two trials) or week 24, assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). In the two 6-week trials, azilsartan medoxomil showed dose-dependent efficacy over all evaluated dosages and was more effective than placebo in lowering SBP. At the maximum approved dosage of 80?mg once daily, azilsartan medoxomil was significantly more effective than maximum dosages of olmesartan medoxomil (40?mg once daily) or valsartan (320?mg once daily), based on primary endpoint assessments. Mean reductions in clinic measurements of SBP and diastolic BP (DBP) measurements were also generally greater with azilsartan medoxomil 80?mg once daily than with the comparator drugs in these 6-week studies. Over a longer treatment period of 24 weeks, azilsartan medoxomil showed sustained BP-lowering efficacy, with the reduction in 24-hour mean SBP at week 24 significantly greater with azilsartan medoxomil 40 or 80?mg once daily than with valsartan 320?mg once daily. Mean reductions from baseline in mean clinic SBP and DBP as well as DBP by ABPM were also significantly greater with azilsartan medoxomil 40 or 80?mg once daily than with valsartan. Azilsartan medoxomil was generally well tolerated, with a tolerability profile similar to that of placebo in the 6-week trials. Across the three major trials, headache and dizziness were among the most common adverse events. Overall, rates of treatment discontinuation as a result of adverse events were low in the 6-week and 24-week trials. In conclusion, once-daily azilsartan medoxomil effectively lowers BP in adults with essential hypertension and has shown better antihypertensive efficacy than maximum therapeutic dosages of olmesartan medoxomil or valsartan in major trials of up to 24 weeks' duration. Azilsartan medoxomil is generally well tolerated and the low rates of discontinuation due to adverse events suggest that patients are likely to persist with long-term treatment. Azilsartan medoxomil is therefore a useful and attractive new option for lowering BP in patients with essential hypertension, particularly for those not able to tolerate other antihypertensive drugs. Further studies are required to evaluate the effects of azilsartan medoxomil on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.     

A Randomized,Controlled Trial Comparing Diltiazem,Hydrochlorothiazide, and Their Combination in the Therapy of Essential Hypertension

Study Objectives . To compare the efficacy of combination therapy with sustained-release diltiazem and hydrochlorothiazide (DTZ SR-HCTZ) with that of monotherapy with DTZ SR, HCTZ, or placebo in the treatment of essential hypertension; and to determine whether the addition of a diuretic to diltiazem at apparent optimum doses of each agent significantly enhances their antihypertensive effects. Design . Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial with a 6-week treatment phase. Setting . Private and university-based clinics. Patients and Participants . Subjects of either sex, ranging in age from 18–70 years, with a diagnosis of stable essential hypertension made from two consecutive weekly mean supine diastolic blood pressure (DBP) readings of 95 mm Hg or above to 110 mm Hg or less that varied 7 mm Hg or less after 4–6 weeks in the baseline phase. Of the patients enrolled, 298 met the inclusion criteria. Interventions . Combination therapy with DTZ SR-HCTZ 120 mg-12.5 mg, or monotherapy with DTZ SR 120 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo was administered twice daily. Measurements and Main Results . Combination therapy with DTZ SR-HCTZ lowered both supine DBP and SBP significantly (p<0.005) more than either single agent. The combination also lowered DBP and SBP significantly more than either monotherapy. During a 12-hour in-clinic monitoring period spanning a dosing interval, both the combination and DTZ SR therapies maintained efficacy, whereas the antihypertensive effects of HCTZ dissipated after 8 hours. Treatment-related adverse events for the combination and HCTZ were similar but slightly greater than those for DTZ SR and placebo. Conclusions . The addition of a diuretic to sustained-release diltiazem produced an enhanced antihypertensive effect compared with monotherapy with either individual agent.     

Efficacy and safety of spirapril,a new ace-inhibitor,in elderly hypertensive patients

Objective: To compare the safety, efficacy, tolerability and duration of the antihypertensive effect of an ACE-inhibitor spirapril 3 mg or 6 mg in elderly (≥ 60 y) hypertensive patients in a multicentre, observational, double-blind randomised study. Methods: After a four-week placebo period, 39 patients were randomised to six weeks of treatment with spirapril 3 mg and 47 patients with spirapril 6 mg. Results: In the sitting position the mean (SD) decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 12(15) mmHg (95% confidence interval 7 to 17 mmHg) and in dia- stolic blood pressure (DBP) 10(7) mmHg (8 to 12 mmHg) in the 3-mg group and 10(13) mmHg (6 to 14 mmHg) and 9(7) mmHg (7 to 11 mmHg), respectively, in the 6-mg group (P < 0.001 compared to placebo period in both groups). Spirapril 3mg and 6 mg produced DBP ≤ 90 mmHg or a fall ≥ 10 mmHg in 53% and 51% of the patients, respectively. DBP was ≤ 90 mmHg in 36% and SBP ≤ 160 mmHg in 67% of the patients taking 3 mg and in 26% and 63% of the patients taking 6 mg spirapril. The most commonly reported adverse effects were cough (13–17%), dizziness, headache and insomnia. A trend to a more frequent adverse effects was observed in patients receiving spirapril 6 mg. Spirapril was both cholesterol- and glucose-neutral. Conclusion: According to our study, spirapril 3mg seems to be a suitable starting dose for the treatment of hypertension in the elderly patients. Received: 8 August 1995/Accepted in revised form: 7 November 1995     

Efficacy and Tolerability of Amlodipine in the General Practice Treatment of Essential Hypertension in an Asian Multinational Population

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of once-daily amlodipine (Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Inc.) alone or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs in an Asian population with essential hypertension. PATIENTS: An open study was undertaken in 165 male and 158 female patients with uncomplicated hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 115mm Hg). Patients were recruited from 41 general practices in seven Asian countries and received amlodipine 5mg daily for 4 weeks and then 10mg once daily for a further 4 weeks if the target diastolic blood pressure of /=10mm Hg had not been achieved. This one-step dose-adjustment period was followed by a 4-week maintenance period on a constant dose. Amlodipine was the sole medication in 284 patients and was added to other antihypertensive drugs in 39 patients uncontrolled on previous medication. RESULTS: 263 patients, including 131 males, were evaluated for efficacy at the final treatment visit. 166 (63%) patients achieved the target reduction in diastolic blood pressure with amlodipine 5mg once daily, while 84 patients achieved the target reduction with 10mg once daily. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure reductions were similar irrespective of gender or age, and there were no significant changes in resting heart rate in any subgroup. In 68 patients who underwent ambulatory monitoring, the systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced by once-daily amlodipine throughout the 24-hour period without change in the intrinsic circadian pattern. Amlodipine was well tolerated in all patient subgroups; adverse events accounted for less than 1% of treatment discontinuations, and there were no hospitalisations or deaths during the study. Investigators rated both the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine as excellent or good in 93% of patients. CONCLUSION: In 263 Asian patients with uncomplicated essential hypertension treated in general practice, once-daily amlodipine in a dose of 5 or 10mg provided significant antihypertensive efficacy either as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs while maintaining a favourable tolerability profile regardless of gender or age.     

Antihypertensive therapy with once-daily administration of terazosin, a new alpha 1-adrenergic-receptor blocker

The antihypertensive activity of terazosin, an investigational alpha 1-adrenergic-receptor blocker, and its effect on blood lipids were compared with placebo in a double-blind study. After a 3-week placebo baseline period, patients were randomized to receive terazosin (n = 22) or placebo (n = 16). The dose of terazosin was titrated over 2 weeks to a maintenance dosage of 10 mg once daily for 4 weeks. Antihypertensive efficacy was assessed: (1) at the end of the 24-hour dosing interval by comparing the average blood pressure (BP) after 3 and 4 weeks of maintenance therapy to the average BP after 2 and 3 weeks of placebo therapy, and (2) for 3 hours after drug ingestion at the final visit in comparison to the predose BP at that visit. At the end of the 24-hour dosing interval, 10 mg of terazosin reduced the mean supine systolic BP from 155.6 to 152.2 mm Hg and mean supine diastolic BP from 101.9 to 99.0 mm Hg (p less than 0.05). During the 3 hours after drug ingestion, mean supine systolic and diastolic pressures decreased maximally from 151.8 to 142.7 mm Hg (p less than 0.05) and from 99.5 to 91.0 mm Hg (p less than 0.05) respectively. No supine BP reduction differed significantly from the placebo response. During terazosin therapy there was a nonsignificant increase in mean body weight of 1.4 +/- 2.9 kg and no change in blood lipids. Thus the drug demonstrated greater antihypertensive activity 1-3 hours after ingestion than at the end of the 24-hour dosing interval.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Antihypertensive Effect and Tolerability of Perindopril in Indian Hypertensive and Type 2 Diabetic Patients: 1-Year Randomised, Double-Blind, Parallel Study vs Atenolol

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the antihypertensive effect and acceptability of a perindopril-based group with that of an atenolol-based group in Indian hypertensive type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: 100 ambulant patients aged between 35 and 69 years were recruited into this monocentric, randomised, double-blind study in two parallel groups for 1 year after a 1-month washout period on placebo. The setting was a tertiary care institution. PATIENTS: All patients had stable, essential hypertension between 95mm Hg and 115mm Hg, type 2 diabetes with glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1C)) <12%, and albuminuria between 300mg and 3.5g/24 hours. There were 50 patients per treatment group and two patient population groups were studied, intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP). The former constituted all patients, whilst the latter included those without major protocol deviation and who completed the 12-month study. INTERVENTIONS: The study drugs were perindopril 4 to 8mg once daily or atenolol 50 to 100mg once daily. In each group therapeutic adjustment was planned by doubling the dose and then by the addition of hydrochlorothiazide 25mg daily. Nifedipine 30 to 60mg daily was subsequently added if the desired drop in blood pressure was not obtained. The ITT group was analysed by Student's t-test, and a 2-way analysis of variance was performed for the PP population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A comparison of the control of hypertension, biochemical abnormalities, blood sugar and adverse effects was performed in the atenolol group versus the perindopril group. RESULTS: On single-dose therapy after 1 month 17 patients (60%) had normal blood pressure [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 相似文献   

硝苯地平缓释片、马来酸依那普利片和富马酸比索洛尔片对Ⅰ级高血压患者24 h血压的影响

目的：比较国产硝苯地平缓释片、马来酸依那普利片和富马酸比索洛尔片对Ⅰ级高血压患者的降压效果。方法：182例患者随机分为3组：硝苯地平缓释片组（20 mg,62例）、依那普利组（5 mg,60例）与比索洛尔组（5 mg,60例）,经过2周安慰剂导入期进入临床观察阶段,观察期4周。每组药物均为每日一次服用,并进行24 h动态心电、动态血压同时监测。结果：3种药物均能显著降低血压,硝苯地平缓释片、依那普利和比索洛尔组与治疗前相比,分别降低了（10±13）mm Hg,（19±11）mm Hg和（7±18）mm Hg;比索洛尔组降低24 h平均收缩压及白天平均舒张压的幅度大于硝苯地平缓释片组和依那普利组。结论：3种降压药每日一次服用,对Ⅰ级高血压患者均有明显降压疗效,且比索洛尔组疗效优于硝苯地平缓释片组及依那普利组。     

Effect of three months’ treatment with irbesartan on blood and pulse pressure of hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients: open,observational study in 31 793 patients

ABSTRACT

Objectives: In hypertensive diabetics the cardiovascular risk is substantially increased. Therefore, an effective reduction of both blood pressure and pulse pressure is of particular importance for these patients. The aim of the prospective observational study in hypertensive type 2 diabetics was to assess the effect of a switch from the previous antihypertensive therapy to the angiotensin-II-receptor antagonist irbesartan (alone or in combination with HCTZ) on the reduction of blood pressure and pulse pressure, the reduction of diabetic nephropathy (microalbuminuria), and tolerability.

Methods: 8714 general practitioners included 31?793 type 2 diabetics aged at least 18 years in an open observational study. After inclusion in to the study the patients received irbesartan 300?mg as monotherapy or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg (HCTZ). Main outcome measures for efficacy were the reduction of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures, reduction of pulse pressure, and blood pressure responder (reduction in DBP ≥ 10 mmHg or diastolic < 90 mmHg), diastolic normalization (DBP < 90 mmHg) and overall normalization rates (SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg) after 3 months. Further outcome measures included the reduction of microalbuminuria or proteinuria, and adverse events (AEs) as a measure of tolerability.

Results: Thirty-eight per cent of patients received irbesartan 300?mg and 61% irbesartan in combination with HCTZ. Mean systolic blood pressure was reduced by 22.5?mmHg, diastolic blood pressure by 10.7?mmHg (baseline values: 160.2 and 93.2?mmHg). Pulse pressure fell on average by 11.6?mmHg. 83.4% of the patients were responders, with an overall normalization rate of 42.7% (SBP < 140?mmHg and DBP < 90?mmHg), respectively 73.8% (DBP < 90?mmHg). The antihypertensive benefit was achieved irrespective of the previous medication. Mean albuminuria decreased by about 27.7?mg/L. Only 0.3% of patients experienced adverse events.

Conclusions: In type 2 diabetics with hypertension and either uncontrolled or no previous antihypertensive therapy a change to treatment with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ for 3 months resulted in a distinct reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressures, with concomitant effective reductions of pulse pressure and microalbuminuria.     

Treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension with calcium channel blockers: a multicentre comparison of once-daily nifedipine GITS with once-daily amlodipine

SUMMARY

Background: Hypertension is one of the most important causes of cardiovascular disease, and treatment of hypertension leads to a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Although calcium channel blockers are regarded as an important part of the therapeutic armamentarium against cardiovascular diseases, and are among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive medications, concern has been aroused about these drugs, particularly the short-acting dihydropyridine derivatives. However, the value of nifedipine GITS (Adalat-Crono), the long-acting dihydropyridine, is in need of being re-established.

Objective:To compare the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of once-daily nifedipine and amlodipine treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

Design: Randomised multicentre trial with an open comparison of treatments for 12 weeks, with a preceding placebo run-in period of 2 weeks (patients on beta-blockers at the time of enrolment entered a mandatory 2-week wash-out period before being allowed in the placebo run-in period; this wash-out period was one week for patients using any antihypertensive medication other than beta-blockers).

Setting: Nine centres (all university hospitals) in Turkey.

Patients: 155 patients with essential hypertension (diastolicblood pressure 95-109?mmHg).

Interventions: Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 30mg nifedipine GITS (n?=?76; (Adalat-Crono tablets), or 5mg amlodipine (n?=?79; Norvasc* 5-mg tablets), either administered once daily, as a morning dose, or if the blood pressure was not below 140/90?mmHg, or the reduction in diastolic blood pressure was lower than 10?mmHg after a treatment period of 6 weeks, the dose was increased (Step 2) to 60?mg once daily in the nifedipine group, or 10?mg once daily in the amlodipine group.

Main efficacy parameter: Diastolic blood pressure at trough after 12 weeks of active compound therapy adjusted to baseline.

Results: After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.1 and 81.9?mmHg, in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively (p?=?0.436). The mean decrease in systolic blood pressure (28.5?±?11.9 and 28.2?±?11.2?mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively) and the mean decrease in diastolic blood pressure (16.4?±?7.0 and 17.5?±?6.9?mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively), as well as the responder rates (88.1% and 92.1%, in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively) were comparable at the end of the study. No significant differences between groups were detected in the efficacy parameters assessed in this study. Both drugs were well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events was 7.9% in the nifedipine group and 10.1% in the amlodipine group. However, more patients discontinued treatment prematurely in the amlodipine group (13 patients; 19.7%), than in the nifedipine group (four patients; 5.6%).

Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated that once-daily nifedipine in GITS formulation and amlodipine are comparably safe and effective treatment options in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertensi on.     

厄贝沙坦单用及合用治疗轻、中度原发性高血压60例

目的 :比较国产厄贝沙坦单用以及与非洛地平或雷米普利合用对轻、中度原发性高血压的降压疗效。方法 :6 0例轻、中度高血压病人 ,经 2wk安慰剂导入期后 ,单服厄贝沙坦 15 0mg ,qd。 4wk后随机分 2组 ,分别联合服用非洛地平 5mg ,qd ,或雷米普利 5mg ,qd ,均为 4wk。治疗前及治疗后 4wk和 8wk行 2 4h动态血压监测 ,并测治疗前后坐位血压。结果 :厄贝沙坦单用 4wk后 ,坐位血压和2 4h动态血压均下降 (P <0 .0 5或P <0 .0 1) ,收缩压和舒张压的谷峰比值为 0 .82和 0 .86。厄贝沙坦与非洛地平或雷米普利合用 4wk后 ,坐位血压总有效率从 4 0 %增加为 89%和 70 % ;动态血压显示联合用药降压作用较明显。结论 :厄贝沙坦单用有长效的降压作用 ,与非洛地平或雷米普利联合用药有叠加降压作用