苯磺酸氨氯地平联合缬沙坦对长期透析患者高血压的疗效观察

目的：探讨苯磺酸氨氯地平联合缬沙坦对长期透析患者高血压的控制效果及肾保护作用。方法选择90例长期血液透析高血压患者,随机分为两组,各45例,观察组患者予苯磺酸氨氯地平联合缬沙坦治疗,对照组予苯磺酸氨氯地平联合卡维地洛治疗,两组均治疗6个月,观察治疗前后患者收缩压、舒张压改善情况,评价高血压治疗效果。结果两组治疗前收缩压、舒张压比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,治疗3、6个月后两组收缩压及舒张压均明显低于治疗前（P〈0.05）,治疗3个月时两组间血压差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,治疗6个月后观察组血压明显低于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论苯磺酸氨氯地平联合缬沙坦治疗长期透析患者高血压,可有效控制血压,降低患者发生心血管病的风险,值得临床推广使用。     

苯磺酸氨氯地平和硝苯地平缓释片治疗原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的：比较苯磺酸氨氯地平和硝苯地平缓释片对轻、中度原发性高血压的降压疗效及安全性。方法：200例原发性高血压患者随机分成苯磺酸氨氯地平组和硝苯地平缓释片组,疗程8周,观察治疗前后血压变化,判断降压疗效并记录不良反应。结果：两组均能有效降低血压（P〈0.01）,苯磺酸氨氯地平组总有效率为95%,硝苯地平缓释片组总有效率为86%,两者比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。苯磺酸氨氯地平组不良反应（5%）显著低于硝苯地平缓释片组（14%）（P〈0.05）。结论：苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗轻、中度高血压具有较好的降压效果和依从性,不良反应轻微。     

苯磺酸氨氯地平联合替米沙坦应用对老年原发性高血压患者血压晨峰和血压变异性的影响

目的：探讨苯磺酸氨氯地平联合替米沙坦对老年原发性高血压患者血压晨峰及血压变异性的影响.方法：选择2011年3月-2012年3月齐齐哈尔市第一医院收治的老年原发性高血压患者48例,给予苯磺酸氨氯地平（5mg/d）联合替米沙坦（40mg/d）治疗4周.治疗前后分别进行24 h动态血压监测,采用自身对照研究的方法对比分析治疗前后患者血压晨峰及血压变异性的差异.结果：与治疗前比较,老年原发性高血压患者治疗后的24 h平均收缩压、24 h平均舒张压、白昼平均收缩压、白昼平均舒张压、夜间平均收缩压、夜间平均舒张压、血压晨峰、24 h收缩压标准差、24 h舒张压标准差、24 h收缩压变异系数、24 h舒张压变异系数均下降,治疗前后比较差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.治疗后的总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇较治疗前下降,治疗前后比较差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.01）.结论：氨氯地平联合替米沙坦降压治疗可有效降低老年高血压患者的血压晨峰及血压变异性.     

酒石酸美托洛尔片联合苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗原发性高血压并舒张性心力衰竭

目的：探究酒石酸美托洛尔片联合苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗原发性高血压并舒张性心力衰竭患者的疗效。方法：选取2018年12月~2020年1月收治的98例原发性高血压并舒张性心力衰竭患者,按照随机数字表法分为观察组和对照组,各49例。观察组采用苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗,对照组采用酒石酸美托洛尔片+苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗。比较两组临床疗效,治疗前后舒张压、收缩压,心功能（左室舒张末期内径、左室射血分数、二尖瓣血流频谱峰值速度比值）水平。结果：观察组总有效率高于对照组（P＜0.05）;治疗后两组收缩压、舒张压均较治疗前降低,且观察组低于对照组（P＜0.05）;治疗后两组左室舒张末期内径、左室射血分数、二尖瓣血流频谱峰值速度比值均较治疗前改善,且观察组优于对照组（P＜0.05）。结论：原发性高血压并舒张性心力衰竭患者采用酒石酸美托洛尔片联合苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗效果显著,可有效降低血压值,提高心功能。     

苯磺酸氨氯地平联合生物反馈治疗原发性高血压的疗效观察

目的 观察苯磺酸氨氯地平联合生物反馈治疗原发性高血压的临床疗效.方法 选择2008-01-2011-06在我院就诊的中重度原发性高血压患者120例,随机分为苯磺酸氨氯地平组（A组,口服苯磺酸氨氯地平50 mg,1次/d）,苯磺酸氨氯地平联合生物反馈治疗组（B组,口服苯磺酸氨氯地平50 mg,1次/d＋生物反馈治疗）,疗程为4周.比较两组治疗4周后血压控制情况.结果 在原发性高血压患者中B组与A组比较其收缩压与舒张压均有所下降,收缩压下降更明显（P＜0.05）.A组总有效率76.7%,B组总有效率91.7%,差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 原发性高血压患者采用苯磺酸氨氯地平联合生物反馈治疗有效率优于单用苯磺酸氨氯地平,疗效确切、安全,适合临床应用.     

海捷压与苯磺酸氨氯地平对原发性高血压患者肾脏功能的影响

目的比较海捷压和苯磺酸氨氯地平在治疗原发性高血压血压达标的情况下对肾功能的影响。方法选择2008年610月门诊患者中原发性高血压患者50例,分别给于海捷压和苯磺酸氨氯地平降压治疗使血压达标,1年后对血清内生肌酐清除率进行测算,并进行统计学分析。结果海捷亚组治疗前后内生肌酐清除率改变有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,苯磺酸氨氯地平组差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论原发性高血压无明显靶器官损害患者,使用苯磺酸氨氯地平和海捷亚使血压达标情况下,海捷亚对肾脏功能的保护作用要优于苯磺酸氨氯地平。     

苯磺酸氨氯地平联合依那普利治疗原发性高血压疗效观察

目的 评价苯磺酸氨氯地平联合依那普利治疗原发性高血压患者的临床疗效.方法 对80例原发性高血压患者应用苯磺酸氨氯地平联合依那普利治疗.观察8周.于治疗前后观察并记录血压、心律变化及不良反应.结果 治疗8周末,入组患者收缩压、舒张压均较治疗前显著下降(P＜0.01),心律则无显著性变化(P＞0.05);降压总有效率达96...     

中西药配合治疗高血压合并高血糖病

目的探讨高血压合并高血糖应用活血通络方联合阿卡波糖片治疗的临床效果。方法回顾性分析120例高血压合并高血糖患者的临床治疗资料,将其随机分为两组,每组60例,对照组给予阿卡波糖片治疗,观察组患者在对照组治疗基础上给予活血通络方,两组患者持续服药6个月,6个月后对比分析两组患者血压及血糖改善情况。结果两组患者治疗后血压均得到有效的控制,与治疗前相比差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）,其中观察组患者治疗后血压下降幅度大于对照组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。与治疗前相比,两组患者治疗后血糖均得到有效控制,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。与对照组相比,观察组高密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平较高（P〈0.05）,三酰甘油水平下降（P〈0.05）,胰岛素抵抗指数下降显著（P〈0.05）,B细胞功能上升（P〈0.05）,脂联素水平上升（P〈0.05）。结论对高血压合并糖尿病患者应用中西医结合治疗能有效改善患者血压、血糖、血脂水平,提高治愈率。     

动态血压监测评价替米沙坦治疗高血压的临床疗效

目的用24h动态血压监测评价替米沙坦治疗原发性高血压的临床疗效。方法选择70例原发性高血压患者,予以口服替米沙坦片80mg,每天1次,疗程4周,分别于用药前及用药4周后行24h动态血压监测。结果70例患者中显效19例,有效45例,总有效率91.43%;服药4周后与用药前相比24h昼夜平均血压、白天平均血压、夜间平均血压、白天最高血压、夜间最高血压及血压负荷值均明显降低,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论替米沙坦治疗原发性高血压疗效显著。     

苯磺酸氨氯地平片治疗高血压的效果观察

目的 分析苯磺酸氨氯地平片治疗高血压的临床效果。方法 选取2020年1月至2022年12月我院心内科收治的78例高血压患者，遵循随机原则分为对照组和观察组各39例。对照组采用缬沙坦分散片治疗，观察组采用苯磺酸氨氯地平片治疗。对比两组临床效果、不良反应发生情况，对比两组治疗前后血压变化情况。结果 观察组患者临床总有效率为97.43%，高于对照组的71.79%，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。治疗前，两组患者的血压水平比较，差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；治疗后，两组舒张压、收缩压均显著低于治疗前，且观察组低于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。观察组患者不良反应发生率为5.13%，低于对照组的23.08%，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 采用苯磺酸氨氯地平片治疗的临床效果显著，能有效降低患者血压水平，且用药不良反应较少。     

氨氯地平阿托伐他汀钙片治疗高血压合并冠心病的临床效果

目的探讨氨氯地平阿托伐他汀钙片治疗高血压合并冠心病的临床效果。方法将我院收治的164例高血压合并冠心病患者按治疗方式不同分为对照组(82例,硝苯地平缓释片)和观察组(82例,氨氯地平阿托伐他汀钙片)。比较两组的治疗效果。结果治疗后,两组的舒张压、收缩压、TC、TG、LDL-C、CPR、IL-12、ET水平均降低,HDL-C及NO水平均升高,且观察组优于对照组(P<0.05)。结论氨氯地平阿托伐他汀钙片能改善高血压合并冠心病患者的血压、血脂水平,降低血清炎性因子水平,保护血管内皮功能。     

苯磺酸氨氯地平联合贝那普利对腹膜透析患者血压及血压变异性的影响

目的 观察苯磺酸氨氯地平联合贝那普利对腹膜透析患者血压及血压变异性的影响.方法 将165例高血压肾病或肾性高血压腹膜透析患者经过 2 周安慰剂导入期筛选出145例随机分为2组,治疗组80例:给予苯磺酸氨氯地平和贝那普利口服;对照组65例,对照组给予硝苯地平缓释片和贝那普利口服,治疗1月后随访血压24月,每1月随访1次,观察2组治疗前后血压、血压变异性的差异及心血管事件发生情况,包括心力衰竭(根据临床表现判断级NYHAⅡ 以上),急性冠脉综合征(不稳定性心绞痛、急性心肌梗死、心源性猝死).结果 2组治疗前后血压及血压变异性比治疗前明显下降(P ＜0.01),治疗组血压变异性降低幅度比对照组降低幅度大( P＜0.01),两组间血压降低幅度没有显著性差异(P ＞0.05),治疗后治疗组心血管事件发生率低于对照组( P＜0.01),心血管事件死亡率亦低于对照组(P ＜0.01).结论 治疗组和对照组都能有效的控制腹膜透析患者的血压,但治疗组能有效的降低腹膜透析患者的血压变异性,从而降低腹膜透析患者心血管事件发生率及心血管事件死亡率.     

生脉注射液对老年单纯收缩期高血压患者可溶性黏附分子水平的影响

目的观察生脉注射液对老年单纯收缩期高血压患者可溶性细胞间黏附分子-1(sICAM-1)和可溶性P-选择素(sP-sel)水平的影响,探讨生脉注射液治疗原发性高血压的机制。方法采用生脉注射液和苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗45例老年单纯收缩期高血压患者,并取单纯苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗组45例作为对比观察,于治疗前后检测患者血液中sICAM-1和sP-sel水平。结果治疗后两组收缩压均降到140mmHg以下,生脉注射液组下降更为明显;治疗后两组脉压均下降,且生脉注射液治疗组低于单纯苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗组;治疗前生脉注射液治疗组sI-CAM-1和sP-sel水平与单纯苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗组比较差异无统计学意义;治疗后两组sICAM-1和sP-sel均显著降低,但生脉注射液治疗组下降更为明显,与单纯苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗组比较差异有统计学意义。结论生脉注射液结合苯磺酸氨氯地平治疗能降低老年单纯收缩期高血压患者的血压,同时生脉注射液能通过调节黏附分子的表达抑制炎症反应,达到保护和修复血管内皮细胞的目的 。     

Results of a phase III, 8-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial to assess the effects of amlodipine camsylate versus amlodipine besylate in Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Amlodipine besylate has been used in Korea for the treatment of hypertension for >17 years, with well-established efficacy and tolerability. Amlodipine camsylate is a newer formulation developed for generic use. It has been assessed in terms of physical stability and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and been found to be effective in lowering blood pressure in preclinical and Phase I and II trials. However, to date, no studies have compared the clinical effectiveness of amlodipine camsylate and amlodipine besylate in treating hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of amlodipine camsylate compared with amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This Phase III, 8-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in 13 cardiology centers across the Republic of Korea. Male and female Korean patients aged 18 to 75 years having uncomplicated, mild to moderate, essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] 90-<110 mm Hg) and receiving no antihypertensives in the 2 weeks before randomization were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral treatment with amlodipine camsylate or amlodipine besylate. For the first 4 weeks, patients received amlodipine 5 mg QD (morning). After 4 weeks, if either blood pressure was > or =140/ > or =90 mm Hg or SiDBP had not decreased by > or =10 mm Hg from baseline, the dose of amlodipine was increased to 10 mg QD for 4 weeks. Trough blood pressure and heart rate were measured in duplicate with the patient in the sitting position at each clinic visit (baseline [week 0] and weeks 4 and 8 of treatment); mean values were calculated and recorded. At weeks 4 and 8, tolerability was assessed using history taking and laboratory analysis, and compliance was assessed using pill counts. The primary end point was change from baseline in SiDBP at week 8. Secondary end points were change from baseline in sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) at week 8 in the total population and in the subgroup of patients who had previously received antihypertensive treatment versus those who had not. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were enrolled (mean age, 53 years; 105 women, 84 men; mean body weight, 65.8 kg). One patient in the amlodipine camsylate group dropped out of the study at week 0 of treatment (this patient did not use any study medication) and was excluded from the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Thus, 188 patients were treated and included in the ITT analysis (94 patients per treatment group; ITT analysis); 161 patients were included in the perprotocol (PP) analysis (n = 80 for amlodipine camsylate, n = 81 for amlodipine besylate) (14 patients in the amlodipine camsylate group and 13 patients in the amlodipine besylate group were excluded from the PP analysis due to consistent withdrawal or protocol violation). Mean (SD) SiSBP and SiDBP were significantly decreased from baseline in both groups (amlodipine camsylate, from 146.7 [12.3]/96.6 [5.4] to 127.9 [14.8]/83.4 [7.7] mm Hg [both, P < 0.001]; amlodipine besylate, from 146.8 [12.8]/96.7 [5.1] to 128.0 [10.1]/83.8 [7.5] mm Hg [both, P < 0.001]). The differences in SiSBP/SiDBP between the 2 groups at week 8 were not significant. The SiDBP response rates in the subgroups that had and had not been previously treated with antihypertensives were statistically similar (56/69 [81.2%] and 83/92 [90.2%], respectively). The prevalences of clinical adverse events (AEs) were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups (amlodipine camsylate, 27.3 %; amlodipine besylate, 28.7%). The most common AEs were dizziness and dyspnea (both in 3/94 [3.2%] and 1/94 [1.1%] patients who received amlodipine camsylate and amlodipine besylate, respectively). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and tolerability of amlodipine camsylate were not significantly different from those of amlodipine besylate in these Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoximil fixed combination for the treatment of hypertension

National and international guidelines recommend the use of combination drugs as a first-line therapy for persons with stage 2 hypertension (blood pressure >160/100 mmHg). Although hypertension is common (30% of adults in the USA), its control to recommended blood pressure levels of under 140/90 mmHg remains low, at 36.8%. In the past, fixed-drug combinations included a diuretic with another antihypertensive drug. Recently, combinations of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers mostly with dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers have been developed and approved for the treatment of hypertension. One of these, olmesartan medoxomil in combination with amlodipine besylate has been shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of hypertension. In a large, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Combination of Olmesartan medoxomil and Amlodipine besylate in Controlling High blood pressure [COACH]) of 1940 patients, the high-dose combinations of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate 40/10 mg/day reduced the sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 29/19 mmHg from baseline (p < 0.001) and resulted in 54% of patients achieving blood pressure goals. It also decreased the pedal edema induced by amlodipine monotherapy 10 mg/day by 36.1%. This drug combination, besides being effective, is also safe and well tolerated.     

Clinic blood pressure responses to two amlodipine salt formulations, adipate and besylate, in adult Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 8-week comparison

BACKGROUND: The commercially available formulation of amlodipine is conjugated with besylate salt to increase water solubility. Recently, a new amlodipine salt formulation has been developed in which the free base of amlodipine is conjugated with a chemically different salt, adipate. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the antihypertensive effect and tolerability of amlodipine adipate with those of amlodipine besylate in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, parallel-group study in which patients received 8 weeks of treatment with either amlodipine adipate or amlodipine besylate. The primary efficacy variable was noninferiority of the difference in mean changes from baseline in trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 8 weeks of treatment. Secondary efficacy variables included mean changes in DBP, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and response rate (defined as the proportion of patients whose DBP was <90 mm Hg or whose DBP had decreased from baseline by > or =10 mm Hg). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine adipate (n = 106) or amlodipine besylate (n = 105). Study patients were primarily female (54.5%), with a mean (SD) age of 52.2 (9.6) years and a mean body weight of 67.1 (10.2) kg; there were no between-group differences in demographic profiles. After 4 weeks of randomized treatment, 58 (27.5%) patients (29 [27.4%] amlodipine adipate, 29 [27.6%] amlodipine besylate) had not achieved a mean DBP <90 mm Hg, and their dose was doubled. Mean DBP changes at 8 weeks were -15.2 (7.3) mm Hg in the amlodipine adipate group and -14.2 (7.4) mm Hg in the amlodipine besylate group (P = NS). Because the 95% CI for the difference in mean DBP changes between groups (-0.53 to 2.55) was within the prespecified lower limit (-4 mm Hg), amlodipine adipate was considered noninferior to amlodipine besylate. Mean SBP changes were -24.9 (12.1) mm Hg in the amlodipine adipate group and -22.0 (14.7) mm Hg in the amlodipine besylate group (P = NS). The response rates were 92.0% for amlodipine adipate and 95.4% for amlodipine besylate (P = NS). The overall incidence of clinical AEs was 20.8% in the amlodipine adipate group and 25.7% in the amlodipine besylate group (P = NS). Drug-related clinical AEs occurred in 5.7% and 12.4% of patients in the respective treatment groups (P = NS). Serum uric acid levels decreased significantly from base-line in both groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Eight weeks of treatment with amlodipine adipate produced significant reductions from baseline in blood pressure in these patients with mild to moderate hypertension. The efficacy of amlodipine adipate was not inferior to that of amlodipine besylate. Tolerability was comparable between the 2 treatment groups.     

Results of a multicenter, 8-week, parallel-group, randomized,double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine maleate versus amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Recently, amlodipine maleate was developed and tested in preclinical and Phase I clinical trials in Korea. The studies found pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics similar to those of amlodipine besylate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine maleate with those of amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 8-week, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III clinical trial. Eligible patients were Korean, aged 18 to 75 years, had hypertension, and were either taking antihypertensive medications or had a documented sitting diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 109 mm Hg. After a washout period of 2 weeks, patients were randomized to amlodipine maleate or amlodipine besylate for 8 weeks. In both groups, the medications were initiated at 5 mg QD. At day 29, the medication dose was increased to 10 mg QD if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) was > or = 90 mm Hg. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were enrolled. Fifty-seven patients received amlodipine maleate (29 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 49.0 [11.4] years) and 61 received amlodipine besylate (35 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 51.6 [9.4] years). Baseline mean (SD) values for sitting systolic blood pressure and SiDBP were 152.0 (12.2) mm Hg and 98.1 (5.6) mm Hg, respectively, for the amlodipine maleate group and 153.4 (14.0) mm Hg and 98.1 (5.5) mm Hg, respectively, for the amlodipine besylate group. In this population, amlodipine maleate was not inferior to amlodipine besylate: the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in SiDBP was greater than -4 mm Hg. The between-group difference in SiDBP response rate (the proportion of patients who experienced adequate SiDBP reductions) did not reach statistical significance: 85.7% (42/49) for the amlodipine maleate group and 91.8% (45/49) for the amlodipine besylate group. Compliance rates were similar between groups, with mean (SD) compliance rates of 97.4% (2.8%) and 97.1% (3.6%) in the amlodipine maleate and amlodipine besylate groups, respectively. Also, there were no significant differences in the incidences of drug-related clinical and laboratory adverse events; the most common were headache, flushing, facial edema, and paresthesia. CONCLUSION: In this population, the efficacy and tolerability observed with amlodipine maleate were similar to those seen with amlodipine besylate.