Suppr超能文献

钙通道阻滞剂在心血管疾病中的安全性和有效性现状:基于100项研究的批判性分析

Current status of safety and efficacy of calcium channel blockers in cardiovascular diseases: a critical analysis based on 100 studies.

作者信息

Opie L H, Yusuf S, Kübler W

机构信息

University of Cape Town, South Africa.

出版信息

Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2000 Sep-Oct;43(2):171-96. doi: 10.1053/pcad.2000.7010.

Abstract

Recently, serious concerns have been expressed about the long-term safety of the calcium channel blockers (CCBs) as a group. Safety and efficacy are, however, ultimately linked to each other; therefore both must be evaluated especially in the therapy of angina and hypertension, the main clinical indications for CCBs. The structural, functional, and pharmacokinetic heterogeneity of CCBs means that the efficacy and dangers of one subclass, such as the short-acting dihydropyridines (DHPs), in one situation, such as unstable angina, do not necessarily apply in other clinical situations. One hundred studies are reviewed according to their methods of data collection: case series, case control, cohort, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and meta-analyses. Large, well-designed RCTs and the meta-analyses based on these trials remain the gold standard. Observational studies, though potentially less reliable sources of information because of selection bias, may nevertheless produce hypotheses that must then be tested in RCTs. Regarding safety, both observational studies and RCTs suggest that adverse effects of CCBs may be linked to short-acting agents, specifically short-acting nifedipine. Two good studies favor the safety of verapamil, even in short-acting form. Incomplete but increasing overall evidence favors the safety of longer-acting DHPs. Heart failure remains a class contraindication to the use of all CCBs, with some exceptions. Regarding efficacy, there are positive results of RCTs with CCBs in 2 specific clinical situations, namely, verapamil in postinfarct protection in the absence of pre-existing heart failure, and 2 outcome studies on hypertension with longer acting DHPs. These results cannot automatically be applied to other clinical situations and to other CCBs. For example, there is no evidence for the safety or efficacy of DHPs used without beta blockers in postinfarct patients. In diabetic hypertensives, 2 relatively large RCTs show that the blood pressure can be reduced by DHP-based therapy in diabetics, with a reduction in hard end points. To achieve current blood pressure goals, combination therapy is almost always necessary, and in diabetics there is strong evidence that 1 essential component should be an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. The future aim with CCBs must be to obtain a large database gathered from RCTs, which will give the same certainty about efficacy and safety that already holds for use of the diuretics in hypertension, beta-blockers in postmyocardial infarction patients, and the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure.

摘要

最近,人们对钙通道阻滞剂(CCB)作为一类药物的长期安全性表达了严重关切。然而,安全性和有效性最终是相互关联的;因此,在CCB的主要临床适应症——心绞痛和高血压的治疗中,两者都必须进行评估。CCB在结构、功能和药代动力学方面的异质性意味着,某一亚类药物(如短效二氢吡啶类药物[DHP])在某一临床情况(如不稳定型心绞痛)下的疗效和风险,不一定适用于其他临床情况。根据数据收集方法对100项研究进行了综述:病例系列研究、病例对照研究、队列研究、随机对照试验(RCT)和荟萃分析。大型、设计良好的RCT以及基于这些试验的荟萃分析仍然是金标准。观察性研究虽然由于选择偏倚可能是潜在的不太可靠的信息来源,但仍可能产生必须在RCT中进行检验的假设。关于安全性,观察性研究和RCT均表明,CCB的不良反应可能与短效制剂有关,特别是短效硝苯地平。两项高质量研究支持维拉帕米的安全性,即使是短效剂型。总体证据虽不完整但不断增加,支持长效DHP的安全性。心力衰竭仍然是所有CCB使用的类禁忌证,但有一些例外情况。关于有效性,在两种特定临床情况下,CCB进行RCT取得了阳性结果,即在不存在既往心力衰竭的情况下,维拉帕米用于心肌梗死后保护,以及两项关于长效DHP治疗高血压的结局研究。这些结果不能自动应用于其他临床情况和其他CCB。例如,没有证据表明心肌梗死后患者在未使用β受体阻滞剂的情况下使用DHP的安全性或有效性。在糖尿病高血压患者中,两项相对较大的RCT表明,基于DHP的治疗可降低糖尿病患者的血压,并减少硬性终点事件。为了实现当前的血压目标,联合治疗几乎总是必要的,并且在糖尿病患者中,有强有力的证据表明一个基本组成部分应该是血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂。CCB未来的目标必须是获得一个从RCT收集的大型数据库,这将为其有效性和安全性提供与高血压中使用利尿剂、心肌梗死后患者使用β受体阻滞剂以及心力衰竭中使用血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂相同的确定性。

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