Boonbaichaiyapruck Sarana, Mekwiwatanawong Wirunsiri, Srisala Kanuengnit, Amnueypol Montawatt, Keesukphan Prasit
Cardiology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, 270 Rama-6 Road, Ratchatewi District, 10400 Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, 270 Rama-6 Road, Ratchatewi District, 10400 Bangkok, Thailand.
ASEAN Heart J. 2015;23(1):3. doi: 10.7603/s40602-015-0003-y.
Angiotensin Receptor Blockades (ARB) is becoming a first line drug for essential Hypertension for many types of patient. Losartan is the prototype of ARB due to its vast clinical trials. Home Blood pressure monitoring can provide accurate evaluation of certain drug effect on blood pressure with small number of patient samples. Local production of medicine has made the Medicine readily available and could bring about clinical improvement. Our hypothesis was that Thai population with essential hypertension responded quite well to Losartan and Generic Losartan was not inferior to Original- Losartan.
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety in BP reduction by Losartan in certain Thai population and to compare these parameters between Generic Losartan and Original-Losartan using both office and HBPM method.
After a two-week run-in period when they would learn to use HBPM device and their blood pressure were still recorded to be higher than 140/90 by office BP or 135/85 by HBPM with or without previous medical regimen, 24 patients were randomized to receive either Generic Losartan or Original-Losartan for 6 weeks. Then they would cross over to receive the alternative and were followed again at 6 weeks. HBPM was performed in the morning and in the evening for 5 days, at baseline, and after 6 & 12 weeks. Office BP measurements were obtained at baseline and after 6 & 12 weeks.
One patient in each group dropped out from the study. 22 patients with average age of 54 and averaged office BP 154/88 completed the 12 weeks study. By office BP, SBP was reduced by 27±14.2 at week 6 and 28±15.1 mmHg at week 12. By HBPM, SBP dropped by 17±10.8 at week 6 and by 18±9. at week12. At the end of 12 weeks 68% (15/22) of patients had Office BP <140/90 and 64% (14/22) of patients had HBPM <135/85. There was no significant difference of BP reduction at week 6 between Original-xLosartan and Generic Losartan group. After crossover the BP reduction was maintained in both groups. The percentage of patient whose Office BP <140/90 or HBPM <135/85 were not different among the two Losartan groups. There was no serious adverse side effect.
Using both office BP and HBPM this group of Thai patient with essential hypertension responded well to Losartan and Generic Losartan.
血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)正成为许多类型患者原发性高血压的一线用药。由于大量的临床试验,氯沙坦是ARB的原型药物。家庭血压监测可以用少量患者样本准确评估某些药物对血压的影响。药品的本地生产使药物易于获取,并可能带来临床改善。我们的假设是,患有原发性高血压的泰国人群对氯沙坦反应良好,且通用氯沙坦并不逊于原研氯沙坦。
评估氯沙坦对特定泰国人群降低血压的有效性和安全性,并使用诊室血压和家庭血压监测方法比较通用氯沙坦和原研氯沙坦之间的这些参数。
在为期两周的导入期内,患者学习使用家庭血压监测设备,在此期间,无论之前是否接受过药物治疗,通过诊室血压测量其血压仍高于140/90,或通过家庭血压监测高于135/85。24名患者被随机分为两组,分别接受通用氯沙坦或原研氯沙坦治疗6周。然后他们交叉接受另一种药物,并在6周后再次进行随访。在基线期、6周和12周后,于早晨和晚上进行5天的家庭血压监测。在基线期、6周和12周后测量诊室血压。
每组各有一名患者退出研究。22名平均年龄54岁、平均诊室血压为154/88的患者完成了12周的研究。通过诊室血压测量,收缩压在第6周时降低了27±14.2 mmHg,在第12周时降低了28±15.1 mmHg。通过家庭血压监测,收缩压在第6周时下降了17±10.8 mmHg,在第12周时下降了18±9 mmHg。在12周结束时,68%(15/22)的患者诊室血压<140/90,64%(14/22)的患者家庭血压监测<135/85。原研氯沙坦组和通用氯沙坦组在第6周时血压降低幅度无显著差异。交叉治疗后,两组的血压降低幅度均得以维持。在两个氯沙坦组中,诊室血压<140/90或家庭血压监测<135/85的患者百分比无差异。未出现严重不良反应。
通过诊室血压和家庭血压监测,这组患有原发性高血压的泰国患者对氯沙坦和通用氯沙坦反应良好。