Pessina A C, Boari L, De Dominicis E, Giusti C, Marchesi M, Marelli G, Mattarei M, Mos L, Novo S, Pirrelli A, Santini M, Santonastaso M, Semeraro S, Uslenghi E, Kilama M O
Clinica Medica IV, University of Padua, Italy.
Blood Press. 2001;10(3):176-83. doi: 10.1080/080370501753182406.
The main purpose of this study was to compare efficacy, tolerability and influence on quality of life (QOL) of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (NI) 30-60 mg once a day vs amlodipine (AM) 5-10 mg once a day in elderly patients with mild-moderate hypertension.
This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study. After a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in, patients were randomized to either NI 30 mg or AM 5 mg. Responders continued on the same dosage for 16 additional weeks, while non-responders were titrated to 60 mg NI or 10 mg AM.
Blood pressure was measured by mercury sphygmomanometer and efficacy equivalence of NI and AM tested by covariance analysis. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was the primary efficacy parameter, its baseline value being taken as covariate while centers effect and treatment interaction were included as fixed effects in the analysis model. The secondary efficacy variables systolic blood pressure (SBP) and scores for QOL were analyzed according to the same model.
At the end of the study, overall mean DBPs, calculated as least-square means (LSMEANS), in the "by protocol" population were 87.5 mmHg for NI and 86.7 for AM (difference 0.8 mmHg with 90% CI -1.2 to 2.8 mmHg). In the "by intention to treat" (ITT) population LSMEANS were 87.6 mmHg for NI and 86.4 mmHg for AM (difference 1.2 mmHg with 90% CI -0.6 to 3.1 mmHg). SBP LSMEANS in the "by protocol" population were 147.7 mmHg for NI and 147.3 mmHg for AM (difference 0.3 mmHg, with 90% CI -3.7 to 4.3); corresponding values in the "by ITT" population were 148.0 mmHg for NI and 147.2 for AM (difference 0.8 mmHg, with 90% CI -2.8 to 4.6). Mean values for QOL parameters were not significantly different. A total of 173 episodes of adverse events were documented in 54 patients (26 NI and 28 AM), dropouts were 15 (20% of group) on NI and 21 (28%) on AM.
NI 30-60 mg was shown to be as efficacious and safe as AM 5-10 mg in elderly patients with mild-moderate hypertension. QOL improved compared to baseline with no significant difference between the two drugs, thus confirming a positive class effect for calcium antagonists.
本研究的主要目的是比较硝苯地平胃肠道治疗系统(NI)每日一次30 - 60毫克与氨氯地平(AM)每日一次5 - 10毫克对老年轻中度高血压患者的疗效、耐受性及生活质量(QOL)的影响。
这是一项随机、双盲、平行组、多中心研究。经过2周的单盲安慰剂导入期后,患者被随机分为NI 30毫克组或AM 5毫克组。有反应者继续使用相同剂量再治疗16周,而无反应者则滴定至NI 60毫克或AM 10毫克。
采用汞柱式血压计测量血压,并通过协方差分析检验NI和AM的疗效等效性。舒张压(DBP)是主要疗效参数,其基线值作为协变量,分析模型中纳入中心效应和治疗交互作用作为固定效应。根据相同模型分析次要疗效变量收缩压(SBP)和生活质量评分。
研究结束时,“符合方案”人群中,按最小二乘均值(LSMEANS)计算,NI组的总体平均DBP为87.5 mmHg,AM组为86.7 mmHg(差值0.8 mmHg,90%CI为 -1.2至2.8 mmHg)。在“意向性治疗”(ITT)人群中,NI组的LSMEANS为87.6 mmHg,AM组为86.4 mmHg(差值1.2 mmHg,90%CI为 -0.6至3.1 mmHg)。“符合方案”人群中SBP的LSMEANS,NI组为147.7 mmHg,AM组为147.3 mmHg(差值0.3 mmHg,90%CI为 -3.7至4.3);“ITT”人群中的相应值,NI组为148.0 mmHg,AM组为147.2 mmHg(差值0.8 mmHg,90%CI为 -2.8至4.6)。生活质量参数的平均值无显著差异。共记录到54例患者(NI组26例,AM组28例)发生173次不良事件,NI组有15例(占组内20%)退出,AM组有21例(占组内28%)退出。
在老年轻中度高血压患者中,NI 30 - 60毫克显示出与AM 5 - 10毫克同样有效且安全。与基线相比,生活质量有所改善,两种药物之间无显著差异,从而证实了钙拮抗剂的积极类效应。