Suppr超能文献

漏服剂量后降压疗效的持续性:氨氯地平和硝苯地平胃肠道治疗系统的比较

Persistence of antihypertensive efficacy after missed doses: comparison of amlodipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system.

作者信息

Elliott Henry L, Elawad Mamoun, Wilkinson Robert, Singh Shyam P

机构信息

Western Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.

出版信息

J Hypertens. 2002 Feb;20(2):333-8. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200202000-00025.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

In this randomized, double-blind, crossover study, the antihypertensive efficacy of amlodipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) was compared following missed doses. Design and methods In a randomized crossover design, 42 patients were randomized to receive amlodipine (5-10 mg) or the GITS formulation of nifedipine (nifedipine GITS) (30-60 mg) once daily for 12 weeks, then vice versa. During weeks 8, 10 and 12 of each treatment period, compliance failures were simulated by patients missing 0, 1 or 2 doses of their medication, and ambulatory systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure measurements were obtained.

RESULTS

Following steady-state treatment (i.e. 'perfect compliance'), there was no difference between amlodipine and nifedipine GITS in SBP (140.1 versus 134.2 mmHg) or DBP (84.0 versus 85.8 mmHg) at 0-24 h post-dose. When compliance was not perfect, i.e. when one or two doses were missed, DBP was maintained at a significantly lower level with amlodipine compared with nifedipine GITS at 24-48 h post-dose (83.1 versus 86.4 mmHg, P = 0.005) and at 48-72 h post-dose (84.2 versus 89.7 mmHg, P < 0.001). Plasma concentrations of amlodipine were better maintained than those of nifedipine GITS. At 72 h post-dose, the plasma concentration of amlodipine was 61% (17.0 +/- 11.2 ng/ml) compared with < 25% (28.3 +/- 49.9 ng/ml) for nifedipine GITS.

CONCLUSION

During short periods of non-compliance, antihypertensive efficacy remains more predictable with amlodipine than with nifedipine GITS.

摘要

目的

在这项随机、双盲、交叉研究中,比较了漏服剂量后氨氯地平和硝苯地平胃肠道治疗系统(GITS)的降压疗效。设计与方法 采用随机交叉设计,42例患者随机接受氨氯地平(5 - 10毫克)或硝苯地平GITS制剂(30 - 60毫克),每日一次,共12周,然后交叉用药。在每个治疗期的第8、10和12周,通过患者漏服0、1或2剂药物来模拟依从性失败,并测量动态收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)。

结果

在稳态治疗(即“完美依从性”)后,氨氯地平和硝苯地平GITS在给药后0 - 24小时的SBP(140.1对134.2毫米汞柱)或DBP(84.0对85.8毫米汞柱)方面无差异。当依从性不完美时,即漏服一剂或两剂时,与硝苯地平GITS相比,氨氯地平在给药后24 - 48小时(83.1对86.4毫米汞柱,P = 0.005)和48 - 72小时(84.2对89.7毫米汞柱,P < 0.001)时能使DBP维持在显著更低水平。氨氯地平的血浆浓度比硝苯地平GITS维持得更好。给药后72小时,氨氯地平的血浆浓度为61%(17.0±11.2纳克/毫升),而硝苯地平GITS < 25%(28.3±49.9纳克/毫升)。

结论

在短期不依从期间,氨氯地平的降压疗效比硝苯地平GITS更具可预测性。

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