乐卡地平治疗轻中度原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的 评价乐卡地平治疗轻中度原发性高血压的疗效及安全性.方法 将89例轻中度原发性高血压患者随机分为两组.治疗组予乐卡地平10 mg/d,对照组予氨氯地平10 mg/d.两组均治疗8周,2周洗脱期末和治疗期末所有患者都进行24 h ABPM检查,评估药物安全性和有效性.结果 治疗组与对照组有效率分别为72.0%和77.1%;24 hABPM结果显示服乐卡地平和氨氯地平的患者24 h血压均明显降低,且保持正常的日夜节律,两组的降压达峰时间约6 h,降低日间血压和夜间血压的疗效相当;副反应发生率约5.3%,主要表现为头痛、踝部水肿、头晕、心悸等,程度较轻.结论 乐卡地平明显降低收缩压和舒张压持续24 h,降压疗效与氨氯地平相当.     

乐卡地平与氨氯地平治疗老年原发性高血压的比较

目的以氨氯地平作对照,观察乐卡地平的降压疗效.方法选择Ⅰ～Ⅱ级老年高血压患者46例,经停用降血压药1周后,随机分成A组(23例)口服乐卡地平10mg/d;B组(23例)口服氨氯地平5mg/d,连续治疗4周,观察血压、心率、血糖、血脂、肝肾功能、不良反应等指标.结果(1)乐卡地平与氨氯地平降压作用明显(P＜0.05),对偶测血压、脉压有下降作用(P＜0.05),两组之间降压疗效无明显差异(P＞0.05);(2)用药前后心率均无明显差异(P＞0.05);(3)两组生化指标治疗前后无明显差异(P＞0.05),患者耐受性好,不良反应较少.结论乐卡地平是治疗～Ⅱ级高血压的有效而安全的药物,是适合老年高血压患者降压治疗的药物.     

乐卡地平与氨氯地平治疗老年原发性高血压的比较

目的：以氨氯地平作对照，观察乐卡地平的降压疗效。方法：选择Ⅰ-Ⅱ级老年高血压患者46例，经停用降血压药1周后，随机分成A组（23例）；口服乐卡地平10mg/d；B组（23例）；口服氯氯地平5mg/d，连续治疗4周，观察血压、心率、血糖，血脂、肝肾功能，不良反应等指标。结果：（1）乐卡地平与氨氯地平降压作用明显（P＜0．05），对偶测血压，脉压有下降作用（P＜0．05），两组之间降压疗效无明显差异（P＞0．05）；（2）用药前后心率无明显差异（P＜0．05）；（3）两组生化指标治疗前后无明显差异（P＞0．05）。患者耐受性好，不良反应较少。结论：乐卡地平是治疗Ⅰ-Ⅱ级高血压的有效而安全的药物，是适合老年高血压患者降压治疗的药物。     

缬沙坦/氨氯地平复方片剂对单药控制不良的轻中度高血压患者的疗效观察

目的 评价缬沙坦(80 mg)/氨氯地平(5 mg)复方片剂(复方片剂)治疗经氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg控制不良的轻、中度原发性高血压患者疗效和安全性.方法 采用多中心、双盲、双模拟、随机、活性药物对照、平行试验方法进行两项临床研究.在两项研究中对经1～4周洗脱期的轻、中度原发性高血压患者[坐位舒张压≥95 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)且<110 mm Hg]分别采用单药氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg治疗4周,在单药导入结束后,坐位舒张压仍然≥90mm Hg且<110 mm Hg的患者随机进入复方片剂组或继续原有的单药治疗,共8周.其间,在治疗4周和试验结束时评估药物的安全性及有效性.结果 治疗结束时,复方片剂组平均坐位收缩压/平均坐位舒张压下降幅度较氨氯地平单药治疗组多4.4mm Hg/3 mm Hg(P<0.0001);较缬沙坦80 mg组多6.4 mm Hg/4.2 mm Hg(P<0.0001).两项研究中复方片剂组的血压控制率(血压<140/90 mmHg)分别为71.0%及71.2%,显著优于氨氯地平或缬沙坦单药治疗组,不良事件发生率与单药治疗组相当.结论 复方片剂组的血压控制率显著优于其两种成分(氨氯地平5 mg或缬沙坦80 mg)单药的治疗,且具有良好的安全性和耐受性.     

动态血压监测评价贝尼地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的　应用动态血压监测 (ABPM )的方法评价贝尼地平治疗原发性高血压的降压疗效、谷 /峰比值及不良反应。方法　采用开放的方法 ,2 0例研究对象经 2周洗脱期 ,服用贝尼地平 4mg/d一次 ,2周末坐位舒张压 (SeDBP)≥ 90mmHg者加量至贝尼地平 8mg/d一次 ,继续服用 6周。于洗脱期末及治疗 8周末各行ABPM和实验室检查一次。结果　ABPM显示 8周末 2 4h、日间、夜间收缩压 (SBP/DBP)较洗脱期末分别下降 (9.4± 5 .4 / 6 .2± 4 .1)mmHg、(10 7± 6 .7/ 6 8± 3 8)mmHg、(6 9± 9 0 / 5 1± 7 7)mmHg。降压T/P值SBP为 5 8% ,DBP为 5 9%。无严重不良反应。 结论　贝尼地平 4～ 8mg/d一次为疗效确切的降压药物。     

氨氯地平和依那普利对老年纯收缩期高血压患者动态血压的影响

目的　比较氨氯地平和依那普利对老年纯收缩期高血压患者的 2 4h动态血压的影响。方法　将 6 0例轻中度纯收缩期高血压老年患者随机分为两组 ,每组 30例。分别选用氨氯地平片 5mg和依那普利片 10mg ,每日一次 ,共 4周。用药前后进行 2 4h动态血压监测。结果　两组药物治疗第 4周末 2 4h动态血压发现 ,2 4h平均收缩压、脉压、舒张压、平均动脉压均较服药前明显降低 ,统计学上有显著性差异。氨氯地平组治疗后总体收缩压和舒张压分别下降 17.0 3± 8.5 5mmHg和 4 .83± 4 .82mmHg ;平均动脉压下降了 8.86± 4 .76mmHg ,依那普利组治疗后总体收缩压和舒张压分别下降 14 .30± 7.2 6mmHg和 5 .97± 2 .87mmHg ,平均动脉压下降了 8.74± 3.0 7mmHg ,组间比较收缩压下降幅度无差异 (P =0 .187) ,脉压下降幅度有统计学意义 (P =0 .0 0 5 )。氨氯地平组脉压差下降幅度大于依那普利组 (16 .97± 14 .0 6mmHg比 8.33± 7.84mmHg ,P =0 .0 0 5 ) ,两药对舒张压的影响组间比较无统计学差异。两组有效率相似 (76 .7%比 73.3% ,P =0 .76 6 ) ,达标率的差异无统计学意义 (6 6 .7%比 5 6 .7% ,P =0 .4 2 6 )。氨氯地平组发生胫前水肿 2例 ,依那普利组咳嗽 5例。结论　氨氯地平与依那普利对老年纯收缩期高血压均有效 ,尤其     

国产西尼地平片治疗轻中度原发性高血压

目的观察国产西尼地平治疗轻中度原发性高血压的疗效与安全性。方法采用多中心、随机、双盲双模拟、平行对照的方法,选择门诊轻、中度原发性高血压患者234例,分别给予西尼地平片或氨氯地平片治疗8周,观察其对血压、心率、心电图及实验室检查的影响。结果两组治疗后血压明显下降,与治疗前比较有显著性差异(P<0.01)。西尼地平组平均坐位收缩压及舒张压分别下降(17.9±10.0)和(14.9±5.3)mmHg,氨氯地平组分别下降(19.6±9.6)和(14.9±6.3)mmHg。显效和总有效率试验组分别为85.1%和92.5%,对照组分别为78.0%和87.2%。两药对心率均无明显影响,试验组治疗前后心率分别为74.7和75.2次/min,对照组治疗前后心率分别为75.1和74.7次/min。试验组和对照组不良反应发生率分别为9.7%和8.6%,两组之间无统计学差异。较为常见的是头痛、头胀,面红、潮热和下肢水肿,均较轻微。动态血压监测显示西尼地平收缩压和舒张压的T/P比值分别为0.69和0.65。结论国产西尼地平片治疗轻、中度原发性高血压安全、有效,可作为长效制剂使用。     

动态血压监测评价贝尼地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的应用动态血压监测(ABPM)的方法评价贝尼地平治疗原发性高血压的降压疗效、谷/峰比值及不良反应.方法采用开放的方法,20例研究对象经2周洗脱期,服用贝尼地平4mg/d一次,2周末坐位舒张压(SeDBP)≥90 mmHg者加量至贝尼地平8 mg/d一次,继续服用6周.于洗脱期末及治疗8周末各行ABPM和实验室检查一次.结果ABPM显示8周末24 h、日间、夜间收缩压(SBP/DBP)较洗脱期末分别下降(9.4±5.4/6.2±4.1)mmHg、(10.7±6.7/6.8±3.8)mmHg、(6.9±9.0/5.1±7.7)mmHg.降压T/P值SBP为58%,DBP为59%.无严重不良反应.结论贝尼地平4～8 mg/d一次为疗效确切的降压药物.     

乐卡地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的：通过临床和动态血压监测评估每日一次乐卡地平的降压效果。方法：选择轻～中度原发性高血压患者为研究对象，口服乐卡地平10mg，每日1次，效果不明显时改为每日20mg，观察八周。用药前、后分别以常规血压和动态血压观察24h平均收缩压和舒张压，白昼平均收缩压和舒张压，夜间平均收缩压和舒张压及心率的变化，并观察血糖、血脂、血尿酸及血肌酐的变化，同时观察药物副作用。结果：偶测血压及动态血压均较前下降显著（P〈0．05）。心率较前无变化（P〉0．05）、血糖、血脂较前无变化（P〉0．05），血尿酸及血肌酐下降明显（P〈0．05）。结论：乐卡地平每日服用一次能有效控制轻～中度原发性高血压患者24h血压，并具有很好的耐受性。     

卡维地洛治疗轻中度高血压疗效观察

目的评价第三代新型β受体阻滞剂卡维地洛治疗轻、中度高血压患者的疗效和安全性。方法采用随机、单盲、氨氯地平对照方法,86例患者按1∶1随机分入卡维地洛组或氨氯地平组,每天一次口服卡维地洛10mg或氨氯地平5mg,每周复查血压1次,如未达降压标准(≥140/90mmHg,1mmHg=0.133kPa)者,则每周递增卡维地洛10mg,最大为50mg/d;或氨氯地平增加至10mg,共治疗8周。结果8周末,两组患者坐位平均收缩压和舒张压均较前有显著下降(P<0.01),两组的降压总有效率分别为79.0%和76.7%,(P>0.05),卡维地洛与氨氯地平SBP的T/P值分别为(62.1±4.5)%、(64.6±4.9)%(t=0.44,P>0.05);DBP的T/P值分别为(71.4±5.3)%、(69.6±6.8)%(t=0.73,P>0.05)。心率变化,卡维地洛组用药后虽有下降趋势,但无显著统计学改变,氨氯地平组心率无明显变化。副作用发生率分别为11.6%和18.6%,主要表现为头昏、头痛、睡眠差、水肿,程度较轻。结论卡维地洛控制血压的疗效和耐受性与氨氯地平相似,每天一次服药能平稳控制高血压患者24h血压。     

Combination therapy of amlodipine/benazepril versus monotherapy of amlodipine in a practice-based setting

BACKGROUND: Community-based studies are conducted to determine the degree to which therapeutic interventions will succeed in real world settings. This large practice-based clinical trial assessed the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril, compared with amlodipine monotherapy, in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. METHODS: Hypertensive patients currently taking amlodipine were selected based on one of two criteria: inadequate blood pressure (BP) control on amlodipine (diastolic BP [DBP] > or = 90 mm Hg; group 1), or inability to tolerate amlodipine (DBP < or = 90 mm Hg, but with edema; group 2). Eligible patients were switched from 5 or 10 mg of amlodipine to 5/10 mg or 5/20 mg of amlodipine/benazepril for 4 weeks. In group 1 (n = 6410), primary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting DBP. A secondary efficacy outcome was change in mean sitting systolic BP (SBP). In group 2 (n = 1502), primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients whose edema improved during therapy with amlodipine/benazepril when compared with amlodipine monotherapy. RESULTS: In group 1, mean sitting DBP declined from 96.5 mm Hg at baseline to 84.9 mm Hg at week 4, a mean reduction of 11.5 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI] -11.8 to -11.3 mm Hg; P < .001). From baseline to week 4, mean sitting SBP declined from 152.9 mm Hg to 137.3 mm Hg, a mean reduction of 15.6 mm Hg (95% CI -16.0 to -15.2 mm Hg; P < .001). In group 2, 85% (95% CI 83%-87%) experienced some improvement in edema compared with baseline levels. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive agent amlodipine/benazepril was safe and effective for patients who experienced either inadequate BP control or edema with amlodipine monotherapy.     

Antihypertensive efficacy of the oral direct renin inhibitor aliskiren as add-on therapy in patients not responding to amlodipine monotherapy

This study investigated the addition of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren to amlodipine in patients with mild to moderate hypertension that was inadequately controlled with amlodipine alone. Following once-daily treatment with amlodipine 5 mg for 4 weeks, patients whose hypertension responded inadequately to therapy (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90-109 mm Hg) (n=545) were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with amlodipine 5 mg plus aliskiren 150 mg, amlodipine 5 mg, or amlodipine 10 mg. At the study's end, mean systolic blood pressure and DBP reductions with the combination of aliskiren 150 mg and amlodipine 5 mg (11.0/8.5 mm Hg) were significantly greater (P<.0001) than with amlodipine 5 mg (5.0/4.8 mm Hg)--the comparator group--but similar to amlodipine 10 mg (9.6/8.0 mm Hg). All treatments were well tolerated. Edema occurred more frequently with amlodipine 10 mg (11.2%) than with combination therapy (2.1%) or amlodipine 5 mg (3.4%). In conclusion, aliskiren 150 mg plus amlodipine 5 mg shows similar but not better blood pressure-lowering efficacy when compared with amlodipine 10 mg in patients not completely responsive to amlodipine 5 mg; less edema was noted with combination therapy.     

贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂与贝那普利单药治疗轻中度高血压的多中心随机双盲平行对照研究

目的 评价贝那普利/氨氯地平复方片剂与贝那普利片单药治疗轻、中度高血压患者的有效性和安全性.方法 本研究为多中心、随机、双盲、平行对照研究.356例原发性高血压患者经2周洗脱期后,再给予4周贝那普利片10 mg单药治疗,220例平均坐位舒张压(SeDBP)仍≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa)的患者随机分为贝那普利(10 mg)/氨氯地平(5 mg)固定剂量复方片剂组(复方制剂组,1片/d,n=113)和贝那普利片单药组(单药治疗组,20 mg/d,n=107),治疗4周末两组诊室SeDBP≥90 mmHg者剂量加倍.SeDBP＜90 mm Hg者续服原剂量,共随机双盲治疗8周.以总有效率和SeDBP下降差值作为主要疗效指标.其中74例患者(复方片剂组38例,单药组36例)完成了24 h动态血压监测,并作为降压疗效的评价指标.结果 随机、双盲治疗8周末,复方片剂组SeDBP下降值为(11.7±6.8)mm Hg、达目的 血压占65.7%、总有效率为88.5%;单药治疗组SeDBP下降值为(7.7±6.9)mm Hg、达目的 血压占35.5%、总有效率为65.5%.两组组间比较差异均有统计学意义(P＜0.001).24 h动态血压监测结果,复方制剂组和单药组的舒张压/收缩压(DBP/SBP)的谷/峰比率(T/P)分别为83.1%/76.0%和85.8%/79.5%(P＜0.05).复方制剂组与单药治疗组的不良反应发生率分别为16.8%和35.5%(P＜0.01).结论 贝那普利/氨氯地平复方制剂治疗原发性高血压患者的降压疗效明显优于贝那普利单药治疗,且有良好的耐受性.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg once-daily therapy, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with mild and moderate hypertension, and to evaluate the 24 h antihypertensive efficacy and the duration of action by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring Methods In a multicenter, randomized,double-blind, parallel controlled trial, 356 cases of hypertensive patients after 2 weeks wash-out, and then given 4 weeks of benazepril 10 mg monotherapy, 220 patients with mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP)remained ≥90 mm Hg(1 mm Hg = 0. 133 kPa)were randomly divided into benazepril 10 mg/amlodipine 5 mg(BZ10/AML5)fixed-dose combination therapy group(once a day, n = 113), and benazepril monotherapy group(daily 20 mg, n = 107). In the two groups the patients with SeDBP≥90 mm Hg were doubled the dosage of the initial regimen at the end of 4-week treatment for additional 4 weeks , and the patients with SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg remained the initial regimen for additional 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the improvement of SeDBP at the end of 8-week treatment. There were 74 patients(the combination therapy group n = 38, monotherapy therapy group n = 36)completed the 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring which was included in the final efficacy analysis. Results The randomized, doubleblind treatment for 8 weeks, the mean value of SeDBP reduction, the reaching target blood pressure rate and total successful response rate to the treatment(a SeDBP ＜ 90 mm Hg or a decrease of 10 mm Hg or more from baseline)were(11.7 ± 6.8)mm Hg, 65.7% and 88.5% in the combination therapy group,respectively, and were(7.7 ±6. 9)mm Hg, 35.5% and 65.5% in the monotherapy group, respectively.There were statistically significant difference between the combination therapy and the monotherapy groups in all the 3 indexs(P ＜ 0. 001). The fixed combination significantly reduced systolic blood pressure(SBP)and diastolic blood pressure(DBP)values throughout the 24 h. The trough to peak ratios of DBP/SBP in the fixed compound of benazepril/amlodipine(10 mg/5 mg)and benazepril(20 mg)alone were 83. 1%/76. 0% and 85.8%/79. 5%, respectively. Adverse events rates were 16. 8% in the combination therapy group and 35.5% in the monotherapy group(P ＜ 0. 001). Conclusions The combination therapy with benazepril/amlodipine was superior to benazepril monotherapy and was well tolerated in patients with essential hypertension and allowing a satisfactory BP control for 24 hours.     

Effect of valsartan addition to amlodipine on ankle oedema and subcutaneous tissue pressure in hypertensive patients

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of valsartan addition to amlodipine on ankle foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP), two objective measures of ankle oedema. After a 4-week placebo period, 80 grade 1-2 hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure (DBP)>90 mm Hg and <110 systolic blood pressure (SBP)>140 mm Hg) were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg or valsartan 160 mg or amlodipine 10 mg plus valsartan 160 mg for 6 weeks according to an open-label, blinded end point, crossover design. At the end of the placebo period and of each treatment period, blood pressure, AFV and PSTP were evaluated. AFV was measured using the principle of water displacement. PSTP was assessed connecting the subcutaneous pretibial interstitial environment with a water manometer. Both amlodipine and valsartan monotherapy significantly reduced SBP (-16.9 and -14.5 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01 vs baseline), and DBP (-12.9 and -10.2 mm Hg, respectively, P<0.01 vs baseline) but the reduction was greater with the combination (-22.9 mm Hg for SBP, P<0.01 vs monotherapy; -16.8 mm Hg for DBP, P<0.01 vs monotherapy). Amlodipine monotherapy significantly increased both AFV (+23%, P<0.01 vs baseline) and PSTP (+75.5%, P<0.001 vs baseline) whereas valsartan monotherapy did not influence them. As compared to amlodipine alone, the combination produced a less marked increase in AFV (+6.8%, P<0.01 vs amlodipine) and PSTP (+23.2%, P<0.001 vs amlodipine). Ankle oedema was clinically evident in 24 patients with amlodipine and in six patients with the combination. These results suggest that angiotensin receptor blockers partially counteract the microcirculatory changes responsible for calcium channel blockers induced oedema formation.     

Lercanidipine, enalapril and their combination in the treatment of elderly hypertensive patients: placebo-controlled, randomized, crossover study with four ABPM

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-way balanced design crossover study included hypertensive patients aged 60-85 years with mean office-measured sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) 160-179 mm Hg and daytime SBP > or =135 mm Hg. After a 2-week run-in period, during which previous medications were discontinued, each patient received the following four treatments in randomized order for 4 weeks each: lercanidipine 10 mg (L), enalapril 20 mg (E), lercanidipine 10 mg plus enalapril 20 mg (L/E) and placebo (P). At the end of each treatment period, office trough blood pressure (BP) was measured and a 24-h Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) was performed. Seventy-five patients (mean age 66 years, office BP 168/92 mm Hg, daytime SBP 151 mm Hg) were randomized and 62 completed the study with four valid post-baseline ABPMs. The administration of P, L, E and L/E was associated with a mean 24-h SBP of 144, 137, 133 and 127 mm Hg, respectively. All active treatments significantly reduced the mean 24-h SBP in comparison with placebo, but L/E was significantly more effective than L and E alone. Similarly, office SBP was significantly more reduced with L/E (-16.9 mm Hg) than with L (-5.0 mm Hg) or E (-5.9 mm Hg). A BP <140/90 mm Hg was recorded in 18% of patients with L, 19% with E and 45% with L/E. Two patients on P and two on L/E were withdrawn from the study due to adverse events. In conclusion, combination therapy with L/E has additive antihypertensive effects on both ambulatory and office BP in elderly patients and is well tolerated.     

比索洛尔/氢氯噻嗪复方片治疗中国轻中度原发性高血压的临床疗效和安全性研究

目的采用24小时动态血压监测观察比索洛尔／氢氯噻嗪复方片(Lodoz)治疗90例中国轻、中度高血压患者的降压效果和安全性。方法选择90例收缩压<180 mm Hg(1 mm Hg= 0．133 kPa),舒张压95-109 mm Hg的轻、中度高血压患者,口服Lodoz(2．5 mg/6．25 mg)共4周或Lodoz(5 mg／6．25 mg)8周,用24小时动态血压监测评价治疗4周、8周后动态血压变化及安全性。结果(1)4周和8周末诊室收缩压/舒张压分别降低(14．89±10．99)／(10．37±7．35)mm Hg和(19．40±10．55)／(13．31±7．77)mm Hg,全天、日间、夜间的24小时动态平均血压均明显降低,差异有统计学意义(P均<0．05)。4周和8周末的总有效率分别为59．3％和69．8％。(2)Lodoz(2．5 mg／6．25 mg)对收缩压和舒张压的谷／峰比值(T／P比值)分别为91．5％和94．4％,降压平滑指数(SI)为9．07／6．48;Lodoz(5 mg／6．25 mg)对收缩压和舒张压的T／P比值为79．9％和80．5％,SI为4．17／4．47。(3)Lodoz可能有使“非勺型”血压转变为“勺型”血压的趋势。(4)不良反应主要有血尿酸升高、头晕、头痛、腹泻、口干、肢端发凉、蚁行感,均为轻度。结论Lodoz能够持续、平稳、有效地降低24小时血压,且安全性良好。     

Quantification of leg oedema in postmenopausal hypertensive patients treated with lercanidipine or amlodipine

OBJECTIVE: Of the study was to compare the leg oedema-forming potential of two different dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in postmenopausal women. DESIGN: A total of 92 postmenopausal hypertensive patients [systolic blood pressure (SBP) 150-179 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 95-109 mmHg were randomized to receive a 4-week treatment with either 10 mg/day lercanidipine (n = 48) or 5 mg/day amlodipine (n = 44), with force-titration to 20 and 10 mg/day, respectively for an additional 4 weeks. METHODS: Leg volume was measured by water displacement volumetry, patients were questioned for symptoms and a physical examination was performed to detect the presence of oedema. RESULTS: A total of 77 patients completed the study, without a major protocol violation and were included in the primary analysis. Leg volume increase from baseline was significantly higher in the amlodipine than in the lercanidipine group (60.4 +/- 8.6 versus 5.3 +/- 8.1 ml; P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with evidence of oedema on physical examination (33.3 versus 9.8%, P = 0.011) and with symptoms of leg swelling (63.9 versus 22%, P < 0.001) and leg heaviness (47.2 versus 12.2%, P < 0.001) was also greater with amlodipine compared with lercanidipine. A positive correlation was found between leg volume and sign or symptoms of oedema (P < 0.001). Both drugs reduced SBP and DBP, with no significant differences between treatments. No correlation was found between leg volume changes from baseline and the antihypertensive effect of either drug. CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal females with mild to moderate hypertension the oedema formation of Lercanidipine was significantly less than that of Amlodipine, despite no significant differences in the antihypertensive effect.     

Evaluation of Blood Pressure Reduction Response and Responder Characteristics to Fixed‐Dose Combination Treatment of Amlodipine and Losartan: A Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trials

Data from four clinical trials compared reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) among patients treated with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs 5/100 mg and amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg and 10 mg. Response rate was assessed as reduction in SBP or DBP (>20/10 mm Hg) and proportion of patients achieving SBP <140 mm Hg or DBP <90 mm Hg. Patients were grouped into quartiles based on baseline SBP and DBP. Mean SBP and DBP were reduced in amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg (n=182) and amlodipine/losartan 5/100 mg (n=95) users across all baseline quartiles. Patients using amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg had significantly greater SBP and DBP reductions vs amlodipine 5 mg (P=.001 and P=.02, respectively). Amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg users had significantly greater SBP reduction vs amlodipine 10 mg (SBP P=.02; DBP P=not significant). The odds of responding to therapy were significantly greater with amlodipine/losartan 5/50 mg vs amlodipine 5 mg (odds ratio, 5.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.42–25.5) and were similar vs amlodipine 10 mg (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.017–9.51). These results support the use of combination therapy early in the treatment of hypertension.     

依普利酮与氯沙坦对轻中度原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度及中心动脉压的影响

目的探讨依普利酮与氯沙坦对收缩压及舒张压均增高的双期轻中度原发性高血压患者动脉僵硬度及中心动脉压(CAP)的影响。方法随机、双盲、双模拟、阳性药物平行对照设计,将84例轻中度原发性高血压患者[舒张压90～<110mm Hg(1mm Hg=0.133kPa)且收缩压140～<180mm Hg]分为依普利酮组和氯沙坦组,每组各42例,经服用安慰剂2周后进入12周的试验期,分别给予依普利酮50mg或氯沙坦50mg,口服1次/d,复诊1次/2周,4周后如舒张压≥90mm Hg,则改为依普利酮100mg分2次口服或氯沙坦100mg,口服1次/d。安慰剂治疗2周后及12周试验期结束前分别进行肝肾功能、电解质、血糖、血脂、血常规、尿常规、动态血压监测、臂踝脉搏波传导速度(baPWV)和CAP的测定。结果依普利酮组高血压患者完成试验37例,失访5例,氯沙坦组完成试验40例,失访2例;与治疗前相比,依普利酮组及氯沙坦组患者坐位收缩压及舒张压、动态血压参数、baPWV及CAP均明显降低;治疗12周末,两组患者的坐位收缩压及舒张压下降幅度差异无统计学意义[(18.3±8.6)比(21.4±9.4),(14.0±5.3)比(15.1±6.6)mm Hg,均P>0.05];依普利酮组的24h平均收缩压及平均舒张压、昼平均收缩压及平均舒张压、夜平均收缩压及平均舒张压、baPWV、CAP及总的不良事件发生率,与氯沙坦组相比差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。结论依普利酮与氯沙坦均能明显降低轻中度收缩压及舒张压均增高的双期原发性高血压患者的动脉僵硬度及中心动脉压。