左氨氯地平联合卡托普利治疗高血压疗效与安全性分析

目的 探讨左氨氯地平联合卡托普利治疗中度原发性高血压的临床效果与安全性.方法 以中度原发性高血压患者60例为研究对象,随机双盲分为左氨氯地平联合卡托普利缓释片组(观察组)、左氨氯地平组(对照组).患者在给药前经历2周的药物洗脱期.两组每天分别给予左氨氯地平、左氨氯地平联合卡托普利缓释片,给药4周后,平均坐位舒张压(SeDBP)≥90 mm Hg的患者加大给药剂量.比较两组的降压效果.结果 经过8周治疗后,观察组和对照组的SBP和DBP均显著下降,观察组SBP和DBP改善优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).两组SBP、DBP的动态血压谷/峰(T/P)值均＞50％,SI均大于1.结论 同剂量下,左氨氯地平联合卡托普利治疗中度高血压优于单用左氨氯地平.     

氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片对高血压合并冠心病的治疗效果评价

目的分析高血压合并冠心病采用氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片治疗的效果。方法 52例高血压合并冠心病患者,随机分为实验组及对照组,各26例。实验组患者采用氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片治疗,对照组患者采用氨氯地平治疗。比较两组患者的血压情况,血脂指标[总胆固醇(TC)、甘油三酯(TG)、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)],治疗效果。结果治疗后,实验组患者的舒张压为(82.19±2.37)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),收缩压为(125.37±3.12)mm Hg;对照组患者的舒张压为(88.34±2.11)mm Hg,收缩压为(133.64±2.89)mm Hg。实验组患者的舒张压及收缩压均低于对照组,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后,观察组患者的TC、TG、LDL-C、HDL-C水平均优于对照组,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组总有效率96.15%高于对照组的76.92%,差异具有统计学意义(χ~2=4.1270, P<0.05)。结论高血压合并冠心病采用氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片治疗,效果理想,值得临床推荐。     

氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片治疗高血压合并冠心病的效果观察

目的观察高血压合并冠心病患者应用氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片治疗的临床效果。方法90例高血压合并冠心病患者,根据入院时间先后顺序分为对照组和观察组,每组45例。对照组采用氨氯地平治疗,观察组采用氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片治疗。比较两组患者的临床疗效及治疗前后血压、Hcy水平变化。结果治疗前,两组舒张压、收缩压及同型半胱氨酸(Hcy)水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后,观察组舒张压(70.17±5.34)mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133 kPa)、收缩压(120.35±8.50)mm Hg及Hcy(8.74±1.58)μmol/L均低于对照组的(84.04±5.10)mm Hg、(137.47±10.24)mm Hg、(13.58±1.46)μmol/L,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组治疗总有效率为91.11%,高于对照组的75.56%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论氨氯地平联合阿托伐他汀钙片治疗高血压合并冠心病的临床效果较为理想,在临床中推行的可行性较大。     

缬沙坦氨氯地平片治疗高血压的效果分析

目的观察缬沙坦氨氯地平片治疗高血压的临床疗效。方法72例高血压患者,随机分为对照组和实验组,各36例。对照组采用苯磺酸氨氯地平片治疗,实验组采用缬沙坦氨氯地平片治疗。比较两组患者的治疗效果、24 h血压变化情况、血脂水平。结果实验组患者给药1个疗程后24 h平均收缩压为(138.73±2.35)mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133 kPa),对照组患者给药1个疗程后24 h平均收缩压为(145.13±2.36)mm Hg;实验组患者给药1个疗程后24 h平均舒张压为(78.78±3.31)mm Hg,对照组患者给药1个疗程后24 h平均舒张压为(82.03±3.32)mm Hg;实验组患者给药1个疗程后24 h平均收缩压及舒张压均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组患者给药1个疗程后总胆固醇、甘油三酯明显低于对照组,高密度脂蛋白胆固醇明显高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。实验组患者持续给药2个疗程后总有效率97.22%高于对照组的80.56%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论高血压患者采用缬沙坦氨氯地平片治疗效果显著,可有效改善机体血脂代谢,降压效果好。     

厄贝沙坦治疗高血压的临床效果分析

目的探讨厄贝沙坦治疗高血压的临床效果。方法80例高血压患者,随机分为对照组和观察组,各40例。对照组给予常规降压药物进行治疗,观察组在对照组基础上联合厄贝沙坦治疗。比较两组患者治疗前与治疗后6个月的舒张压、收缩压、血尿酸水平,不良反应发生情况。结果治疗前,两组患者的舒张压、收缩压、血尿酸水平比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后6个月,观察组患者的舒张压(132.7±1.3)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),收缩压(72.4±6.1)mm Hg,血尿酸(379.3±67.9)μmol/L均低于对照组的(144.6±1.4)mm Hg、(76.9±5.6)mm Hg、(383.2±70.4)μmol/L,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组患者的不良反应发生率为22.50%,低于对照组的50.00%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论将厄贝沙坦用于治疗高血压患者,可以有效改善患者的血压状况,降低不良反应的发生率,值得推广应用。     

氨氯地平联合氯沙坦钾氢氯噻嗪治疗难治性高血压患者的效果及对动脉粥样硬化的影响观察

目的 观察氨氯地平联合氯沙坦钾氢氯噻嗪治疗难治性高血压患者的效果及对动脉粥样硬化的影响。方法 60例难治性高血压患者,以电脑随机法分成对照组(30例)及观察组(30例)。对照组应用氨氯地平开展治疗,观察组应用氨氯地平联合氯沙坦钾氢氯噻嗪开展治疗。对比两组治疗前后临床症状积分、血压水平、血管内皮功能、动脉粥样硬化情况以及预后质量。结果 两组治疗后头痛、眩晕、胸闷积分较本组治疗前均降低,且观察组治疗后头痛积分(1.47±0.52)分、眩晕积分(1.54±0.63)分、胸闷积分(1.27±0.30)分较对照组的(2.43±0.69)、(2.33±0.81)、(2.14±0.48)分均更低(P<0.05)。两组治疗后24 h收缩压、24 h舒张压及平均动脉压水平较本组治疗前均降低,且观察组治疗后24 h收缩压(121.50±17.39)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)、24 h舒张压(85.71±9.51)mm Hg及平均动脉压(108.87±5.15)mm Hg较对照组的(136.11±18.04)、(97.00±11.70)、(123.60±6.74)mm Hg均更低...     

左旋氨氯地平与氨氯地平治疗320例高血压合并心绞痛的疗效对比分析

目的对左旋氨氯地平与氨氯地平在高血压合并心绞痛患者中的治疗效果进行比较。方法选取我2011年8月至2014年8月我院内科病房320例高血压合并心绞痛患者,将所有患者分为两组,对照组患者采用氨氯地平治疗,观察组患者采用左旋氨氯地平治疗,对两组患者的治疗情况进行比较。结果对照组患者平均舒张压为(97±5.4)mm Hg,观察组为(85±8.2)mm Hg,两组比较P<0.05;对照组患者平均收缩压为(158±7.6)mm Hg,观察组为(131±7.6)mm Hg,两组比较P<0.05。观察组患者无不良病例发生。结论左旋氨氯地平在治疗中具有更高的安全性,是一种有效的治疗方式。     

吲达帕胺、氨氯地平联合治疗高血压合并冠心病的疗效观察

目的 探讨对高血压合并冠心病患者应用吲达帕胺联合氨氯地平治疗的效果。方法 52例高血压合并冠心病患者为研究对象,按照随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组,各26例。对照组采用硝苯地平控释片治疗,观察组采用吲达帕胺联合氨氯地平治疗。比较两组患者治疗前后血压、血脂改善情况及治疗效果。结果 治疗前,两组患者的甘油三酯、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后,两组患者的甘油三酯、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平均较本组治疗前改善,且观察组改善程度优于对照组,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗前,两组患者的收缩压、舒张压水平比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后,两组患者的收缩压、舒张压水平均较本组治疗前降低,且观察组患者的收缩压、舒张压水平分别为(122.4±10.2)、(82.5±8.7)mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa),均低于的对照组(137.3±11.3)、(95.1±9.2)mm Hg,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。观察组总有效率为92.31%,高于对照组的69.23%,差异具有统计学意义(χ^2=4.457, P<0.05)。结论 吲达帕胺联合氨氯地平治疗高血压合并冠心病可改善患者症状,改善血压、血脂水平,值得临床应用。     

贝那普利与氨氯地平或吲哒帕胺联合治疗原发性高血压64例

目的比较贝那普利单用和其与氨氯地平或吲哒帕胺联用治疗轻、中度原发性高血压的疗效。方法64例轻、中度高血压患者,均单用贝那普利(一日1次10mg),4周后随机分为2组,分别与氨氯地平(一日1次5mg)或吲哒帕胺(一日1次2.5mg)联用4周。结果贝那普利单用4周后,患者坐位血压和24小时动态血压均下降(P<0.05或P<0.01),收缩压和舒张压的谷峰比(T/P)为0.82和0.86。与贝那普利单用相比,联用氨氯地平或吲哒帕胺4周,患者坐位血压降低的总有效率从49%增加为89%和91%;动态血压显示联合用药降压作用显著增强。结论贝那普利具有较强且持久的降压作用,与氨氯地平或吲哒帕胺联用可增强降压作用。     

左旋氨氯地平联合替米沙坦治疗老年糖尿病肾病合并高血压的疗效分析

目的探讨左旋氨氯地平联合替米沙坦治疗老年糖尿病肾病合并高血压患者的临床疗效和安全性。方法以收治的118例老年2型糖尿病肾病合并高血压患者为研究对象,随机分为观察组和对照组,各59例,对照组给予左旋氨氯地平治疗,观察组给予左旋氨氯地平联合替米沙坦治疗。比较两组患者肾功能、血压及不良反应的差异。结果治疗后,观察组24 h尿微白蛋白排泄率(UAER)为(73.8±10.8)μg/min、血肌酐(Scr)为(67.4±5.9)μmol/L,显著低于同期对照组(86.2±11.4)μg/min、(78.2±6.6)μmol/L,组间比较差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗后,观察组收缩压(SBP)为(129.4±5.7)mm Hg、舒张压(DBP)为(79.2±4.1)mm Hg,显著低于同期对照组(139.6±6.3)mm Hg、(86.3±4.8)mm Hg,组间差异均具统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组不良反应发生率为6.8%,稍低于对照组的10.2%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论左旋氨氯地平联合替米沙坦治疗老年糖尿病肾病合并高血压的临床效果显著,其可有效改善肾功能,降低血压水平,同时副作用也较少。     

氨氯地平联用依那普利治疗老年高血压病疗效评价

目的观察氨氯地平与依那普利单用及联合应用治疗老年原发性高血压患者的临床疗效.方法100例老年高血压病患者随机分为2组.(1)氨氯地平组(n=50)口服氨氯地平 5 mg,每日1次;(2)依那普利组(n=50)口服依那普利 10 mg,每日1次.两组用药 2 wk后,降压未达显效者,氨氯地平组联用依那普利 10 mg,每日1次;依那普利组联用氨氯地平 5 mg,每日1次,再观察 2 wk.比较两组治疗前、后2、4 wk 血压情况.结果氨氯地平组2、4 wk 的降压总有效率分别为62%、94%;依那普利组2、4 wk 的降压总有效率分别为60%、96%,两组组内比较P＜0.01,组间比较无统计学意义(P>0.05).两组均有轻度不良反应.结论氨氯地平或依那普利单用治疗老年原发性高血压有效,两药联用可提高降压效果.在单一用药基础上加药,药物时序不同对疗效影响不大.     

苯磺酸氨氯地平叶酸片治疗H型高血压疗效观察

目的 观察苯磺酸氨氯地平叶酸片对伴有同型半胱氨酸(Hcy)升高的轻、中度原发性高血压病人降血压同时降低血浆Hcy作用的有效性.方法 选择符合标准的120例Ⅰ级、Ⅱ级原发性H型高血压病人,按苯磺酸氨氯地平叶酸片不同剂量采用随机数字表法分为3组:A组:5 mg/0.4 mg苯磺酸氨氯地平叶酸片 40例;B组:5 mg/0.8 mg苯磺酸氨氯地平叶酸片40例;C组:5 mg苯磺酸氨氯地平片40例.均每天1次,口服,连续服用8周.在入组前测量所有病人的血压、血浆Hcy、血清叶酸,并在治疗第2、4、6、8周进行随访,记录血压、血浆Hcy、心率,并记录不良事件.结果 最终一共115例病人进入随机试验,A、B、C组降压同时降Hcy的有效率分别为23.08%、26.32%、5.26%.A、B组有效性均优于C组.结论 苯磺酸氨氯地平叶酸片对于伴血浆Hcy升高的原发性轻、中度高血压病人有效.     

缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)治疗老年蛋白尿临床疗效观察

目的 研究缬沙坦氨氯地平(倍博特)治疗老年蛋白尿的临床疗效.方法 选取我院120例老年蛋白尿异常患者为研究对象,抽签随机分为A、B、C三组,三组均为40例,A组采取氨氯地平片治疗,5 mg/d;B组给予缬沙坦80 mg/d;C组给予缬沙坦氨氯地平(80 mg:5mg)/d;三组均治疗6个月,于治疗前、治疗3月及治疗6月后观察两组血压指标变化及治疗前后尿蛋白水平差异.结果 用药前三组SBP及DBP比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),治疗3月后三组SBP及DBP与治疗前比较均降低,C组SBP、DBP显著低于A、B组,治疗6月后C组血压指标显著低于A、B组,而A、B组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);B、C三组治疗前Pro、BUN、 SCr比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05),治疗后三组Pro、BUN、SCr均降低,且C组治疗后Pro、BUN、SCr均显著低于A、B组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 缬沙坦氨氯地平治疗老年蛋白尿较单一应用缬沙坦或氨氯地平疗效更为显著,可改善尿蛋白水平、血压等指标,具有较高的临床应用价值.     

Evaluation of the Dose-Response Relationship of Amlodipine and Losartan Combination in Patients with Essential Hypertension

Background

Despite recommendations for more intensive treatment and the availability of several effective treatments, hypertension remains uncontrolled in many patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the dose-response relationship and assess the efficacy and safety of amlodipine or losartan monotherapy and amlodipine camsylate/losartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension.

Methods

This was an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, factorial design, phase II, multicenter study conducted in outpatient hospital clinics among adult patients aged 18?C75 years with essential hypertension. At screening, patients received placebo for 2?C4 weeks. Eligible patients (n = 320) were randomized to one of eight treatment groups: amlodipine 5 mg or 10 mg, losartan 50 mg or 100 mg, amlodipine camsylate/losartan 5mg/50mg, 5mg/100mg, 10mg/50mg, or 10mg/100mg.

Main Outcome Measures

The assumption of strict superiority was estimated using the mean change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 8 weeks. Safety was monitored through physical examinations, vital signs, laboratory test results, ECG, and adverse events.

Results

The reduction in DBP at 8 weeks was significantly greater in patients treated with the combination therapies compared with the respective monotherapies for all specified comparisons except amlodipine camsylate/losartan 10mg/100mg versus amlodipine 10mg. The incidence of adverse events in the group of patients treated with the amlodipine camsylate/losartan 10mg/50mg combination tended to be higher than for any other group (27.9%, 12/43); however, the effect was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Combination amlodipine camsylate/losartan (5mg/50mg, 5mg/100mg and 10mg/50mg) resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with amlodipine or losartan monotherapy, and was determined to be generally safe and tolerable in patients with essential hypertension.

Clinical Trial Registration

Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00942344.     

Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index in the evaluation of 24-h blood pressure control in hypertension: a comparative study between valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to measure the time-effect profiles of a once-daily administered valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine on blood pressure using various indices derived from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. METHODS: Of the 310 randomized outpatients with uncomplicated mild-to-moderate primary hypertension, 259 (133 on valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, 126 on amlodipine) were eligible for analysis. After a 2-week placebo wash-out period, the patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either valsartan 80 mg once daily (o.d.) or amlodipine 5 mg o.d. for 4 weeks; in the case of an unsatisfactory blood pressure response, the treatments could be respectively changed to the fixed combination of valsartan 80 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. for a further 8 weeks. The trough:peak ratio (global and individualized approaches) and smoothness index (i.e., the ratio between the average of the 24-hourly BP changes after treatment and the corresponding standard deviation) were calculated from 24-h ambulatory blood pressure recordings made after the placebo period and after 4 weeks and 12 weeks of active treatment. RESULTS: Both regimens effectively lowered systolic and diastolic ambulatory pressures after 4 weeks and 12 weeks (all P<0.001) but, among the responders, the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination had a greater antihypertensive effect during the night-time hours after 12 weeks (P=0.03/0.02). In the responders, the placebo-adjusted, mean trough:peak ratios were 0.76/0.74 in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group (n = 111) and 0.66/0.62 in the amlodipine group (n = 101). The corresponding global trough:peak ratios were 0.61/0.57 for the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and 0.56/0.56 for amlodipine. However, the between-group differences in individual or global trough:peak ratios were not significant. The smoothness index was slightly, but insignificantly, greater for valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide than for amlodipine in the responders and the groups as a whole. CONCLUSION: Valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine were equally effective in reducing ambulatory BP, but the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination led to more homogeneous BP control during the inter-dosing interval. Trough:peak ratio and smoothness index did not reflect this finding accurately.     

伊贝沙坦与氨氯地平降压疗效比较及对血清游离脂肪酸的影响

目的:探讨伊贝沙坦和氨氯地平对原发性高血压的疗效及对血清游离脂肪酸(FFA)的影响。方法:采用随机对照法,将符合原发性高血压诊断的120例患者分为2组各60例,试验组给予伊贝沙坦150 mg,qd;对照组给予氨氯地平5 mg,qd。2组均分别在治疗4、8周后,观察降压效果和血清游离脂肪酸的改变。结果:治疗4周后2组有效率分别为83.3%和66.7%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗8周后,2组有效率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗8周前、后,试验组的FFA水平与对照组比较显著降低(P<0.05)。结论:与氨氯地平相比较,伊贝沙坦短期的降压治疗有更好的效果,且能够降低患者血清的FFA,是一种较理想的降压药。     

厄贝沙坦联合氨氯地平治疗高血压肾病的疗效观察

目的:观察厄贝沙坦联合氨氯地平治疗高血压肾病的临床疗效。方法:将我院诊断为高血压肾病的患者300例,随机B1:组1:。1分3组为均3治组疗:A4组周口,观服察厄治贝疗沙前坦后1530组m患g,者qd收;B缩组压口、服舒氨张氯压地、尿平素5氮mg、,血qd肌;C酐组、2采4h用尿厄蛋贝白沙定坦量联治合疗氨效氯果地。平结治果疗:,治用疗法后用3量组同患A者、收缩压、舒张压和24h尿蛋白定量均明显降低(P<0.05);与A、B组比较,C组降低更为显著(P<0.01)。3组均未见严重不良反应发生。结论:厄贝沙坦联合氨氯地平治疗高血压肾病疗效及安全性较好,可有效控制血压及降低24h尿蛋白。     

辛伐他汀联合氨氯地平治疗对血压变异性的影响分析

目的:观察辛伐他汀联合氨氯地平对高血压患者血压变异性的影响。方法:100例原发性高血压患者随机分为治疗组和对照组(各50例),两组均给予氨氯地平2.5mg/d治疗,治疗组在此基础上加用辛伐他汀20mg/d。治疗12周后,比较两组治疗前后血脂变化,并进行24h动态血压监测,比较两组治疗前后血压平均值、血压变异性的变化。结果:治疗组12周后较治疗前相比,血总胆固醇、三酰甘油、低密度脂蛋白明显降低,高密度脂蛋白升高;治疗组12周后与治疗前比较,动态血压平均值、血压变异性均显著下降,24h平均收缩压、白昼平均收缩压、夜间平均收缩压、24h收缩压变异性、白昼收缩压变异性、白昼舒张压变异性、夜间收缩压变异性较对照组降低。结论:辛伐他汀联合氨氯地平可有效降压,调节血脂,并可显著改善原发性高血压患者的血压变异性。     

A comparison of amlodipine with enalapril in the treatment of moderate/severe hypertension.

1. The safety and efficacy of amlodipine vs enalapril as monotherapy was evaluated in patients with moderate/severe hypertension (supine DBP 105-125 mm Hg, SBP 140-220 mm Hg). 2. After 2 weeks placebo treatment 31 patients were randomised by the technique of minimisation in an observer-blind study to receive once daily treatment with either amlodipine (15 patients) 5-10 mg, or enalapril (16 patients) 5-20 mg for 8 weeks. The study design concluded with 2 weeks placebo treatment. In addition to clinic measurements, home blood pressure monitoring (Copal UA-251) was performed during the study. 3. Clinic supine systolic blood pressure was reduced from 177 to 152 mm Hg (amlodipine) and 183 to 169 mm Hg (enalapril) (95% CI for the intergroup difference -22.1, 0.3, P = 0.06) after 8 weeks treatment. 4. Clinic supine diastolic blood pressure was reduced from 110 to 93 mm Hg (amlodipine) and 109-102 mm Hg (enalapril) (95% CI for the intergroup difference -17.7, -2.7, P < 0.01) after 8 weeks treatment. 5. Home blood pressure recordings confirmed these reductions in blood pressure. Although the reduction in blood pressure was greater for the amlodipine treated group, the differences between treatments were not statistically significant. 6. Both drugs were reasonably well tolerated. The adverse events occurring most frequently in the amlodipine group were headache (5), peripheral oedema (3), upper respiratory infection (3) and anxiety (2). The adverse events occurring most frequently in the enalapril treated patients were headache (6), dizziness (3) and upper respiratory infection (2).     

氯沙坦治疗原发性高血压病的疗效及对昼夜血压的影响

目的：评价氯沙坦（Losartan,Los）治疗高血压病的疗效及安全性。方法：90例原发性高血压病患者随机分为氯沙坦组和氯氯地平组各45例,分别给予氯沙坦50－100mg/d,po和氨氯地平5－10mg/d,po,疗程均为8wk,疗程结束前后行24小时动脉血压监测。结果：2组用药后24h动态血压监测指标均较用药前有显著下降（P＜0．01）,治疗后2组间各项指标差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）。结论：氯沙坦50－100mg/d治疗轻、中度原发性高血压病疗效确切,耐受性好,其作用与氨氯地平相似。