Comparative efficacy and safety of combination aliskiren/amlodipine and amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension

Initial multiple drug therapy for hypertension achieves greater and quicker reductions and higher blood pressure (BP) control rates than monotherapy. This 8-week, prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of the initial combination of aliskiren/amlodipine with amlodipine monotherapy in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension. After a 1- to 4-week washout, patients received aliskiren/amlodipine 150/5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week and then were force-titrated to aliskiren/amlodipine 300/10 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for 7 weeks. At week 8, greater reductions in mean sitting systolic BP were obtained with aliskiren/amlodipine (n = 220) than with amlodipine (n = 223) (least squares mean change [standard error of the mean], -34.1 [1.14] mm Hg vs -28.9 [1.12] mm Hg; P<.001). Ambulatory and central BP measures were consistent with clinic BP findings, although these were conducted in a small subset of patients (n = 94 in ambulatory BP monitoring substudy and n = 136 for central BP). More patients achieved goal BP (<140/90 mm Hg) with aliskiren/amlodipine than with amlodipine at week 8 (57.3% vs 48.0%; P = .051). Both treatment groups had similar adverse event rates (35.0% and 32.7%, respectively). The most common adverse events were peripheral edema (7.7% with aliskiren/amlodipine and 9.0% with amlodipine), headache, fatigue, and nausea. The combination of aliskiren/amlodipine reduced peripheral, ambulatory, and central BP more than amlodipine alone with similar tolerability in African Americans with stage 2 hypertension.     

Comparison of aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy and amlodipine monotherapy in patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patients with stage 2 hypertension and diabetes are at high cardiovascular risk and require large blood pressure (BP) reductions to reach treatment goals. This randomized double-blind study compared aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination therapy with amlodipine monotherapy in 860 patients with mean sitting systolic BP (msSBP) ≥160 mm Hg to <200 mm Hg and type 2 diabetes. Patients received either once-daily aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 1 week then force-titrated to double the doses for 7 weeks. Baseline BP was 167.7/91.4 mm Hg. At week 8 end point, aliskiren/HCTZ provided significantly greater reductions in msSBP than amlodipine (28.8 mm Hg vs 26.2 mm Hg; P<.05). Mean sitting diastolic BP reductions were similar with aliskiren/HCTZ (9.9 mm Hg) and amlodipine (9.0 mm Hg). Achievement of BP control (<130/80 mm Hg) was significantly greater with aliskiren/HCTZ (23.2%) than amlodipine (13.8%; P<.0001). Aliskiren/HCTZ provides substantial msSBP reductions and greater BP control rates than amlodipine, and offers an attractive treatment option for patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus.     

Comparison of aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy with hydrochlorothiazide monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension: results of the ACTION study

Patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension require sizable blood pressure (BP) reductions to achieve recommended targets. This randomized double-blind study compared a single-pill combination of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren and hydrochlorothiazide (aliskiren/HCTZ) with HCTZ monotherapy in older patients (older than 55 years) with systolic BP ≥160 mm Hg and <200 mm Hg. After a 1- to 4-week washout, 451 patients were randomized to once-daily aliskiren/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg or HCTZ 12.5 mg for 1 week, and then double the doses for 7 weeks. Overall baseline BP was 168.8/91.4 mm Hg. At week 4 (primary) end point, aliskiren/HCTZ provided significantly greater BP reductions from baseline than HCTZ monotherapy (29.6/9.3 mm Hg vs 22.3/6.8 mm Hg) and resulted in a greater proportion of patients achieving BP goal of <140/90 mm Hg (51.1% vs 33.3%). Aliskiren/HCTZ therapy provides substantial BP reductions and may thus be a useful treatment option for older patients with stage 2 hypertension.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure response to combination valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in stage 2 hypertension by ethnicity: the EVALUATE study

Several studies reported racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure (BP) response to antihypertensive monotherapy. In a 10-week study of stage 2 hypertension, 320/25 mg valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) reduced ambulatory BP (ABP) significantly more effectively than 10/25 mg amlodipine/HCTZ. Results (post hoc analysis) are described in Caucasians (n=256), African Americans (n=79), and Hispanics (n=86). Compared with clinic-measured BP (no significant treatment-group differences in ethnic subgroups), least-squares mean reductions from baseline to week 10 in mean ambulatory systolic BP (MASBP) and mean ambulatory diastolic BP (MADBP) favored valsartan/HCTZ over amlodipine/HCTZ in Caucasians (-21.9/-12.7 mm Hg vs -17.6/-9.5 mm Hg; P=.0004/P<.0001). No treatment-group differences in MASBP/MADBP were observed in African Americans (-17.3/-10.6 vs -17.9/-9.5; P=.76/P=.40) or Hispanics (-17.9/-9.7 vs -14.2/-7.2; P=.20/P=.17). Based on ABP monitoring, valsartan/HCTZ is more effective than amlodipine/HCTZ in lowering ABP in Caucasians. In African Americans and Hispanics, both regimens are similarly effective.     

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose losartan/hydrochlorothiazide/amlodipine combination versus losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in Japanese patients with essential hypertension

Abstract

Japanese patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension received single-blind losartan 50?mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg (L50/H12.5) for 8 weeks. Patients whose blood pressure (BP) remained uncontrolled were randomized double-blind to fixed-dose losartan 50?mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5?mg/amlodipine 5?mg (L50/H12.5/A5) or L50/H12.5 for 8 weeks followed by open-label L50/H12.5/A5 for 44 weeks. Adverse events were assessed. After 8 weeks, diastolic and systolic BP were reduced significantly more with L50/H12.5/A5 versus L50/H12.5 (both p?<?0.001). Mean changes in diastolic and systolic BP were sustained for 44 weeks. L50/H12.5/A5 was well-tolerated and improved BP significantly versus L50/H12.5 in Japanese patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01299376.     

Efficacy of combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride for lowering systolic blood pressure in stage 2 hypertension

The Systolic Evaluation of Lotrel Efficacy and Comparative Therapies (SELECT) study compared daily treatment with combination amlodipine besylate/benazepril hydrochloride 5/20 mg, amlodipine besylate 5 mg, and benazepril hydrochloride 20 mg in 505 patients aged 55 years of age or older with stage 2 hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] > or =160 and < or =200 mm Hg and diastolic BP > or =60 and < or =100 mm Hg). BP and pulse pressure were assessed by conventional office BP measurements and 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. In this analysis, combination therapy was associated with significantly greater reductions in mean 24-hour BP, pulse pressure, and mean ambulatory BP during various time intervals compared with either monotherapy in the intent-to-treat population, in those with isolated and predominantly systolic hypertension, and in dippers and nondippers. Adverse event rates were low and similar in all treatment groups. This study demonstrated that combination therapy is superior to monotherapy in older patients with stage 2 systolic hypertension and is well tolerated.     

Differential effects of strict blood pressure lowering by losartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy and high-dose amlodipine monotherapy on microalbuminuria: the ALPHABET study

We investigated the effects of losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combination therapy and high-dose amlodipine monotherapy on BP measurements and target organ protection. In this open-label multicenter trial, hypertensive patients were randomly allocated to receive losartan 50 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 4 weeks, and the treatments were changed to combination of losartan 50 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for a further 4 weeks. A total of 91 hypertensive patients (age 63.6 years), 47 in the losartan/HCTZ group and 44 in amlodipine group, were enrolled. After 8 weeks, the clinic BP, home BP, and 24-hour ambulatory BP were successfully controlled to the same level in both treatment groups (P < .001). Furthermore, both groups showed the same degree of BP reduction in the 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime (P < .001). B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) also significantly decreased to the same level in both groups, whereas the reduction of urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) was greater in the losartan/HCTZ group than in the high-dose amlodipine group (–47.6% vs 2.4%, P < .001). Losartan/HCTZ combination and high-dose amlodipine have similar effects on clinic, home, and ambulatory BP control and BNP reduction, whereas losartan/HCTZ has superior effect on UACR reduction when compared with high-dose amlodipine.     

Comparison of morning vs bedtime administration of the combination of valsartan/amlodipine on nocturnal brachial and central blood pressure in patients with hypertension

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of morning and bedtime administration of valsartan/amlodipine combination therapy (80/5 mg) on nocturnal brachial and central blood pressure (BP) measured by ambulatory BP monitoring in patients with hypertension. This was a 16‐week prospective, multicenter, randomized, open‐label, crossover, noninferiority clinical trial. Patients underwent 24‐hour ambulatory BP monitoring at randomization, at switching, and at the end of the study. Twenty‐three patients (mean age, 68.0 years) were studied. The difference in nocturnal brachial systolic BP between the morning and bedtime administrations of combination valsartan/amlodipine was −3.2 mm Hg, and the two‐sided 95% confidence interval ranged from −6.8 to 0.4 mm Hg. The difference in nocturnal central systolic BP was −4.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, −7.6 to −0.4 mm Hg). The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval was below the margin of 3.0 mm Hg in both nocturnal brachial and central systolic BP, confirming the noninferiority of morning administration to the bedtime administration of valsartan/amlodipine combination therapy.     

Efficacy and safety of amlodipine/valsartan compared with amlodipine monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension: a randomized,double-blind,multicenter study: the EX-EFFeCTS Study

Achieving blood pressure (BP) targets in stage 2 hypertension usually requires two or more drugs, which should be selected from different classes. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine/valsartan with amlodipine in patients with stage 2 hypertension. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 8-week study, 646 patients with stage 2 hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥160 mm Hg) received amlodipine/valsartan 5/160 mg or amlodipine 5 mg for 2 weeks, prior to being force-titrated to amlodipine/valsartan 10/160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg, respectively, for a further 6 weeks. Hydrochlorothiazide could be added at Week 4 if MSSBP was ≥130 mm Hg. At endpoint Week 4, reductions in MSSBP were significantly greater in patients receiving amlodipine/valsartan than in those receiving amlodipine (30.1 mm Hg vs. 23.5 mm Hg; P < .0001). Likewise, MSSBP reductions in patients with baseline MSSBP ≥180 mm Hg were also greater for amlodipine/valsartan at Week 4 (40.1 mm Hg vs. 31.7 mm Hg for amlodipine; P = .0018). Differences favoring amlodipine/valsartan were also seen for BP control. Amlodipine/valsartan was generally well tolerated. These findings support the rationale for combining agents with complementary mechanisms of action, such as amlodipine and valsartan, in the management of stage 2 hypertension.     

缬沙坦联合氨氯地平或氢氯噻嗪对老年高血压患者血压变异性的影响

目的 观察比较缬沙坦分别联合氨氯地平或氢氯噻嗪对老年高血压患者血压及其变异性的影响.方法 选取138例老年高血压患者,随机分为两组,A组70例给予口服缬沙坦80 mg联合氨氯地平5mg qd;B组68例给予口服缬沙坦80 mg联合氢氯噻嗪12.5 mg qd.分别在治疗前、治疗8w时进行24 h动态血压监测,观察24 h、白天与夜间收缩压变异性(systolic blood pressure variability,SBPV)和舒张压变异性(diastolic blood pressure variability,DBPV);24h、白天与夜间平均收缩压(systolic blood pressure,SBP)和平均舒张压(diastolic blood pressure,DBP).结果 与治疗前比较治疗后第8周A组与B组24 h、白天、夜间SBP、DBP、SBPV均下降(P＜0.05),A组下降幅度均大于B组(P＜0.05).A组治疗8w后,DBPV均有下降(分别地,P＜0.05),而B组无变化,组间比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 缬沙坦联合氨氯地平或氢氯噻嗪治疗均能有效控制老年高血压患者的血压,但缬沙坦联合氨氯地平具有更佳的血压达标率和更低的血压变异性.     

Initial angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/calcium channel blocker combination therapy achieves superior blood pressure control compared with calcium channel blocker monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension

BACKGROUND: The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure recommends initial combination therapy for patients whose blood pressure (BP) is >20/10 mm Hg above goal. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy versus that of monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension, who by definition meet the JNC 7 recommendation for initial combination antihypertensive therapy. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, 12-week study randomized 364 patients with stage 2 hypertension to fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl (5/20 mg/d titrated to 10/20 mg/d) or amlodipine besylate monotherapy (5 mg/d titrated to 10 mg/d). RESULTS: Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy (74.2%) compared with those randomized to monotherapy (53.9%; P <.0001) achieved the primary end point (reductions in systolic BP > or =25 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was <180 mm Hg, or > or =32 mm Hg, if baseline systolic BP was > or =180 mm Hg). Significantly more patients randomized to combination therapy compared with monotherapy attained BP goals of <140/90 mm Hg (61.0% v 43.3%; P =.0007) and < or =130/85 mm Hg (35.7% v 19.1%; P =.0004). Among patients with baseline systolic BP > or =180 mm Hg, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater reductions in systolic BP compared with monotherapy (-42.3 v -30.4 mm Hg; P =.001). More than 90% of patients in each group were titrated to the higher dose. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy was well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater BP reductions and attainment of BP goals compared with monotherapy in patients with stage 2 hypertension. This evidence supports the recommendation of combination therapy as first-line treatment in stage 2 hypertension.     

24-Hour ambulatory blood pressure control with triple-therapy amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with moderate to severe hypertension

To determine the effectiveness and safety of once-daily combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide for reducing ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in patients with moderate to severe hypertension, a multicenter, double-blind study was performed (N=2271) that included ABP monitoring in a 283-patient subset. After a single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg), valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (320/25?mg), amlodipine/valsartan (10/320?mg) or amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (10/25?mg) each morning for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments included change from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP). Statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions from baseline in all these parameters occurred in all treatment groups (P<0.0001, all comparisons versus baseline). At week 8, least squares mean reductions from baseline in 24-h, daytime and night time mean ambulatory SBP/DBP were 30.3/19.7, 31.2/20.5 and 28.0/17.8?mm?Hg, respectively, with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide; corresponding reductions with dual therapies ranged from 18.8-24.1/11.7-15.5, 19.0-25.1/12.0-16.0 and 18.3-22.6/11.1-14.3?mm?Hg (P≤0.01, all comparisons of triple versus dual therapy). Treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide maintained full 24-h effectiveness, including during the morning hours; all hourly mean ambulatory SBP and mean ambulatory DBP measurements were ≤130/85?mm?Hg at end point. Amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy was well tolerated. Once-daily treatment with amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (10/320/25?mg) reduces ABP to a significantly greater extent than component-based dual therapy and maintains its effectiveness over the entire 24-h dosing period.     

A candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide combination tablet provides effective blood pressure control in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled on monotherapy

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, parallel-group study, a combination tablet of candesartan cilexetil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), 16/12.5 mg once daily, reduced sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) significantly more (p = 0.037) than candesartan cilexetil/placebo, 16 mg once daily, in patients with mild to moderate primary hypertension (n = 328) who had not reached target blood pressure with candesartan cilexetil, 16 mg once daily. At the end of the 8-week double-blind treatment period, the adjusted mean reductions in sitting DBP, 24 h post dose, were 7.5 mm Hg in the candesartan cilexetil/HCTZ treatment group and 5.5 mm Hg in the candesartan cilexetil/placebo treatment group, corresponding to an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 2.0 mm Hg in favour of candesartan cilexetil/HCTZ (95% CI 0.1-3.8 mm Hg, p = 0.037). The adjusted mean reductions in sitting systolic blood pressure, 24 h post dose, were 12.0 mm Hg and 7.5 mm Hg, respectively, corresponding to an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 4.5 mm Hg (95% CI 1.1-8.0, p = 0.01). Consistent with the placebo-like tolerability of candesartan cilexetil reported in other studies, both treatments were very well tolerated, with a similar pattern and low frequency of adverse events in both treatment groups.     

Changes in biomarkers and 24 hours blood pressure in hypertensive African Americans with the metabolic syndrome: Comparison of amlodipine/olmesartan versus hydrochlorothiazide/losartan

We evaluated the efficacy of amlodipine and olmesartan (A/O; Azor) versus losartan and hydrochlorothiazide (L/H; Hyzaar), on changes in serum and urine biomarkers of inflammation and oxidation, neutrophil reactive oxygen species generation, and changes in systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and heart rate as measured with 24 hours ambulatory BP monitoring in a high-risk, hypertensive African-American population with the metabolic syndrome. Sixty-six African-American subjects with Stage 1 and 2 hypertension and characteristics of the metabolic syndrome were treated in open-label, active comparator fashion for 20 weeks. After 14 weeks of therapy, treatment with A/O had a significant effect on reducing the production of reactive oxygen series, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, F₂ isoprostane, myeloperoxidase, and homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance while L/H treatment only significantly lowered levels of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance. Treatment with A/O showed a trend of a more immediate and sustained systolic and diastolic BP-lowering, as well as night time BP reduction. In addition to a trend toward lower blood pressure, treatment with A/O in comparison with L/H has superior efficacy in reducing reactive oxygen species generation and production of inflammatory and oxidative biomarkers in a hypertensive African-American population with features of the metabolic syndrome.     

The efficacy and safety of low- and high-dose fixed combinations of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in patients with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure on monotherapy: the INCLUSIVE trial

This multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-arm study determined the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combinations in patients (n=1005), aged 18 years and older, with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 140-159 mm Hg (130-159 mm Hg for type 2 diabetes mellitus) after at least 4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. Treatment was sequential: placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). Enrolled patients (n=844) were aged 57.3+/-11.2 years; 52% were women, 23% were African American, and 14% were Hispanic. Thirty percent had type 2 diabetes mellitus, 46% had metabolic syndrome, and baseline blood pressure was 154.0+/-10.3/91.3+/-8.8 mm Hg. The mean change in SBP from placebo end to the primary end point, Week 18 (intent-to-treat population, n=736) was -21.5+/-14.3 mm Hg (p<0.001). The mean change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was -10.4+/-8.7 mm Hg (p<0.001). The mean Week 18 SBP/DBP was 132.9+/-13.8/81.1+/-9.7 mm Hg. Overall, 77% (95% confidence interval, 74%-80%) of patients achieved SBP goal (<140 mm Hg; <130 mm Hg for type 2 diabetes mellitus); 83% (95% confidence interval, 80%-86%) achieved DBP goal (<90 mm Hg; <80 mm Hg for type 2 diabetes mellitus); and 69% (95% confidence interval, 66%-72%) achieved dual SBP/DBP goal. Treatments were well tolerated. This irbesartan/HCTZ treatment regimen achieved SBP goals in more than 75% of patients uncontrolled on monotherapy.     

A multicenter, randomized double-blind study of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination versus amlodipine in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

OBJECTIVE : To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a once-daily fixed valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) combination and amlodipine in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. SUBJECTS AND SETTING : In this multicentre, double-blind, randomized, comparative trial, 690 patients with sitting systolic blood pressure (BP) > or = 160 mmHg and sitting diastolic BP > or = 95 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo wash-out period were randomized to valsartan-based treatment (n = 342) or amlodipine (n = 348). METHODS : The patients received valsartan 80 mg 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 + HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. or amlodipine 10 mg o.d. for a further 8 weeks. RESULTS : Both treatment approaches decreased systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure to the same extent. The rate of responders to treatment at the end of fourth week (before up-titration) was 57.4% among the valsartan-treated patients and 61.9% among the amlodipine-treated patients (ns). At the end of the study, the rate of responders was not significantly different between the two groups (74.9 versus 72.1%). Valsartan-based treatment had a slightly lower incidence of adverse events (1.5 versus 5.5%; P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS : The results of this trial demonstrate that the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination and amlodipine are equally effective in lowering BP, and that the combination is better tolerated.     

Double-blind comparison of amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with mild to moderate hypertension

In the final analysis of this study at Week 26,26% of the patients randomized to receive amlodipine attained blood pressure control with amlodipine alone compared with 33% of the patients allocated to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Neither amlodipine nor HCTZ produced clinically significant changes in pulse rate or in the electrocardiogram. Amlodipine treatment did not appear to produce clinically significant changes in blood lipids; HCTZ, however, produced an increase in total plasma cholesterol (Δ22.9 ± 8.6 mg/dl). The incidence of side effects and the rate of patient withdrawal in the amlodipine and HCTZ groups were comparable. As expected, HCTZ therapy caused well-recognized biochemical alterations in cholesterol and potassium levels, whereas amlodipine was metabolically neutral.     

贝那普利联合氨氯地平或氢氯噻嗪对老年高血压患者动态血压及其平滑指数的影响

目的对比贝那普利＋氨氯地平（氨氯地平组）及贝那普利＋氢氯噻嗪（氢氯噻嗪组）对老年高血压患者动态血压及其平滑指数的影响。方法选择120例老年高血压患者随机分为氨氯地平组和氢氯噻嗪组,所有病人均于治疗前及治疗6月后行动态血压检查,记录24h平均收缩压（24hSBP）及24h平均舒张压（24hDBP）、计算治疗后24h收缩压及舒张压平滑指数（SISBP和SIDSP）及谷峰比值（T／P值）,比较2组病人治疗前后动态血压及其平滑指数、T／P值的变化。结果治疗后病人血压均得到有效控制,氨氯地平组SISBP及SIDBP明显高于氢氯噻嗪组（P〈0．01或P〈0．05）,差异有统计学意义,而2组之间24hSBP及24hDBP及T／P值无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。结论氨氯地平组较氢氯噻嗪组能更平稳地降低血压,并且明显提高血压的SI。     

Effect of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide vs lisinopril/hydrochlorothiazide combination on ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of telmisartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) vs lisinopril/HCTZ combination on ambulatory blood pressure and cognitive function in elderly hypertensive patients. A total of 160 patients, 76 men and 84 women, aged 61-75 years, with sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP)>90 mmHg and <110 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP)>140 mmHg were randomized to receive temisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. or lisinopril 20 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg o.d. for 24 weeks, according to a prospective, open-label, blinded end point, parallel-group design. At the end of a 2-week wash-out period and after 12 and 24 weeks of active treatment, 24-h noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed and cognitive function was evaluated through six different tests (verbal fluency, Boston naming test, word-list memory, word-list recall, word-list recognition and Trails B). Both treatments significantly reduced ambulatory BP. However, the telmisartan/HCTZ combination produced a greater reduction in 24-h, day-time and night time ABPM values. Lisinopril/HCTZ did not induce significant changes in any of the cognitive function test scores at any time of the study, whereas at both 12 and 24 weeks telmisartan/HCTZ significantly improved the word-list memory score (+17.1 and +15.7%, respectively, P<0.05 vs baseline), the word-list recall score (+13.5 and +16.9%, P<0.05) and the Trails B score (-33 and -30.5%, P<0.05). These results suggest that in elderly hypertensive patients treatment with telmisartan/HCTZ produces a slightly greater reduction in ambulatory BP than lisinopril/HCTZ combination and, unlike this latter, improves some of the components of cognitive function, particularly episodic memory and visuospatial abilities.