Suppr超能文献

氨氯地平和培哚普利对轻至中度高血压患者24小时治疗覆盖率及后续影响的双盲、随机、多中心比较。全科医生研究组。

Double-blind, randomized, multicentre comparison of the effects of amlodipine and perindopril on 24 h therapeutic coverage and beyond in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. General Physicians Investigators' Group.

作者信息

Zannad F, Bernaud C M, Fay R

机构信息

Centre d'Investigation Clinique de Nancy, INSERM-Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Nancy, France.

出版信息

J Hypertens. 1999 Jan;17(1):137-46. doi: 10.1097/00004872-199917010-00020.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the therapeutic coverage and safety of amlodipine and perindopril in patients with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mmHg and < or = 109 mmHg).

DESIGN

A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicentre study.

METHODS

Following a 2-week placebo wash-out period, the patients were randomly allocated to treatment with either amlodipine at 5-10 mg once a day or perindopril at 4-8 mg once a day, for 60 days. Trough: peak ratios were calculated by two different methods (global and individualized approaches) from 24 h ambulatory blood pressure recordings made after the placebo period and after the active treatment period. Residual lowering of blood pressure after single-blind, single-dose omission was also investigated with further 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Safety assessments were made throughout the study.

RESULTS

The placebo-adjusted, global, diastolic blood pressure trough: peak ratio was 0.80 in the amlodipine group (n = 47) and 0.81 in the perindopril group (n = 49) in an intent-to-treat analysis. The corresponding global systolic blood pressure trough: peak ratio was 0.83 for amlodipine and 0.68 for perindopril. Individual trough: peak ratios were non-normally distributed. Mean (+/- SD) individual trough: peak ratios (intent-to-treat analysis) for diatolic blood pressure were 0.50 +/- 0.69 for amlodipine (median 0.42) and 0.15 +/- 3.27 for perindopril (median 0.33). In the per protocol analysis, the corresponding values were 0.50 +/- 0.72 (median 0.34) for amlodipine and 0.01 +/- 3.90 for perindopril (median 0.21). Both treatments produced comparable decreases in clinic systolic and diastolic blood pressure between days 0 and 60. Forty-eight hours after the last dose, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure were lower in amlodipine-treated patients than perindopril-treated patients. Amlodipine and perindopril were generally well tolerated. The most frequently reported adverse event was leg oedema in amlodipine-treated patients (19.1%), and coughing in perindopril-treated patients (14.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results showed no statistically significant difference in trough: peak ratios between amlodipine and perindopril. However, the ambulatory blood pressure trough: peak ratios showed very large variations. Determination of trough: peak ratios by the conventional approach or by an individual approach can yield disparate values. After omitting one dose, a condition imitating noncompliance, blood pressure was more effectively controlled with amlodipine than with perindopril.

摘要

目的

比较氨氯地平和培哚普利对轻至中度高血压患者(舒张压≥90 mmHg且≤109 mmHg)的治疗覆盖范围和安全性。

设计

一项双盲、随机、平行组、多中心研究。

方法

在为期2周的安慰剂洗脱期后,患者被随机分配接受氨氯地平5 - 10 mg每日一次或培哚普利4 - 8 mg每日一次的治疗,为期60天。通过两种不同方法(总体法和个体化法)根据安慰剂期和积极治疗期后的24小时动态血压记录计算谷峰比值。还通过进一步的24小时动态血压监测研究了单盲单剂量停药后的血压残留降低情况。在整个研究过程中进行安全性评估。

结果

在意向性分析中,氨氯地平组(n = 47)安慰剂校正后的总体舒张压谷峰比值为0.80,培哚普利组(n = 49)为0.81。相应的总体收缩压谷峰比值,氨氯地平为0.83,培哚普利为0.68。个体谷峰比值呈非正态分布。氨氯地平组舒张压的平均(±标准差)个体谷峰比值(意向性分析)为0.50±0.69(中位数0.42),培哚普利组为0.15±3.27(中位数0.33)。在符合方案分析中,氨氯地平的相应值为0.50±0.72(中位数0.34),培哚普利为0.01±3.90(中位数0.21)。两种治疗在第0天至第60天期间使诊所收缩压和舒张压产生了相当的下降。最后一剂后48小时,氨氯地平治疗的患者收缩压和舒张压均低于培哚普利治疗的患者。氨氯地平和培哚普利总体耐受性良好。最常报告的不良事件是氨氯地平治疗患者中的腿部水肿(19.1%)和培哚普利治疗患者中的咳嗽(14.3%)。

结论

这些结果显示氨氯地平和培哚普利之间的谷峰比值在统计学上无显著差异。然而,动态血压谷峰比值显示出非常大的变异性。通过传统方法或个体化方法测定谷峰比值可能会得出不同的值。在模拟不依从的单剂量停药后,氨氯地平比培哚普利更有效地控制血压。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验