Bobrie Guillaume, Delonca Jean, Moulin Cyril, Giacomino Alain, Postel-Vinay Nicolas, Asmar Roland
Department of Hypertension Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
Am J Hypertens. 2005 Nov;18(11):1482-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.06.009.
The objective of this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan 80 mg v irbesartan 150 mg when combined with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg.
Untreated or uncontrolled hypertensive adults (n = 800) were enrolled by primary care physicians. After a 5-week open-label lead-in phase in which all patients received 12.5 mg HCTZ once daily, subjects whose blood pressure (BP) remained uncontrolled were randomized (n = 464) to valsartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg) or irbesartan/HCTZ (150/12.5 mg) for 8 weeks. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) was performed in the morning and in the evening for 5 days, at baseline, and after 8 weeks. Office BP measurements were obtained at baseline and after 8 weeks.
Irbesartan/HCTZ produced greater reductions in average systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) measured by HBPM than valsartan/HCTZ (SBP: -13.0 v -10.6 mm Hg, P = .0094; DBP: -9.5 v -7.4 mm Hg, P = .0007). These differences were more pronounced in the morning (trough) than in the evening. Office BP measurements also showed greater reductions in trough seated SBP and DBP with irbesartan/HCTZ compared with valsartan/HCTZ. Normalization rates observed with HBPM (SBP <135 mm Hg and DBP <85 mm Hg) were significantly greater with irbesartan/HCTZ than with valsartan/HCTZ (50.2 v 33.2%; P = .0003). The overall safety was similar in the two groups.
The superior BP-lowering potency of the fixed combination irbesartan/HCTZ (150/12.5 mg) over valsartan/HCTZ (80/12.5 mg), evidenced independently from the investigators by HBPM, supports the use of this technique in trials with prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint designs.
这项前瞻性、随机、开放标签、终点设盲研究的目的是比较缬沙坦80毫克与厄贝沙坦150毫克联合氢氯噻嗪(HCTZ)12.5毫克时的降压疗效。
初级保健医生招募未治疗或血压控制不佳的成年高血压患者(n = 800)。在为期5周的开放标签导入期,所有患者每天服用一次12.5毫克HCTZ,血压(BP)仍未得到控制的受试者被随机分组(n = 464),接受缬沙坦/HCTZ(80/12.5毫克)或厄贝沙坦/HCTZ(150/12.5毫克)治疗8周。在基线期以及8周后,早晚各进行5天的家庭血压监测(HBPM)。在基线期和8周后测量诊室血压。
通过HBPM测量,厄贝沙坦/HCTZ降低平均收缩压(SBP)和舒张压(DBP)的幅度大于缬沙坦/HCTZ(SBP:-13.0对-10.6毫米汞柱,P = 0.0094;DBP:-9.5对-7.4毫米汞柱,P = 0.0007)。这些差异在早晨(谷值)比晚上更明显。诊室血压测量也显示,与缬沙坦/HCTZ相比,厄贝沙坦/HCTZ降低谷值坐位SBP和DBP的幅度更大。通过HBPM观察到的血压正常化率(SBP <135毫米汞柱且DBP <85毫米汞柱),厄贝沙坦/HCTZ显著高于缬沙坦/HCTZ(50.2%对33.2%;P = 0.0003)。两组的总体安全性相似。
固定复方制剂厄贝沙坦/HCTZ(150/12.5毫克)比缬沙坦/HCTZ(80/12.5毫克)具有更强的降压效力,这由HBPM独立于研究人员证实,支持在具有前瞻性、随机、开放标签、终点设盲设计的试验中使用该制剂。