Cohen J D
Department of Internal Medicine, St. Louis University Health Sciences Center, MI 63104, USA.
Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 1996 May;5(3):214-8. doi: 10.1097/00041552-199605000-00005.
The year 1995 has been an unsettling one in the history of the treatment of hypertension and ischemic heart disease. A fierce debate has sprung up about the safety of calcium antagonists, particularly the dihydropyridine nifedipine. A widely publicized case-control study showed that compared with diuretics and beta-blockers, short-acting calcium antagonists, when used in the treatment of hypertension, were associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction, an effect which appeared to be dose related. A second study focused on clinical trials of nifedipine in patients primarily with acute myocardial ischemia syndromes. The meta-analysis showed an increased risk in the relative mortality rate of 1.16 associated with the use of short-acting nifedipine at doses of 80 mg/day or higher. The mechanisms responsible for these results were also discussed. Both publications were accompanied by editorials, and there were subsequently other commentaries published which pointed out weaknesses in the design, conduct, analysis and interpretation of the studies, and these have also been reviewed. Arising from this controversy, important questions have been raised which need to be addressed. First, are the data valid and are these drugs safe? If not, can the data be extrapolated from short-acting dihydropyridines, to the newer formulations and other sub-classes of calcium antagonists? Second, do these agents reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality? Finally, what are the alternatives to their use and the clinical implications? These studies have raised questions about safety, and there is little evidence to show any actual benefit on the incidence of cardiovascular events. For most patients there are clinically tested and proved therapeutic alternatives, i.e. diuretics and beta-blockers, and therefore the burden of proof must now be on those who primarily recommend the use of calcium antagonists. Recommendations and guidelines for treatment, where the primary goal is to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality must be supported by adequate data.
1995年在高血压和缺血性心脏病治疗史上是动荡不安的一年。关于钙拮抗剂,尤其是二氢吡啶类硝苯地平的安全性,引发了激烈的争论。一项广泛宣传的病例对照研究表明,与利尿剂和β受体阻滞剂相比,短效钙拮抗剂用于治疗高血压时,与更高的心肌梗死风险相关,且这种效应似乎与剂量有关。另一项研究聚焦于硝苯地平在主要患有急性心肌缺血综合征患者中的临床试验。荟萃分析显示,使用剂量为80毫克/天或更高的短效硝苯地平会使相对死亡率增加1.16。还讨论了导致这些结果的机制。这两篇论文都配有社论,随后也发表了其他评论,指出了这些研究在设计、实施、分析和解释方面的弱点,这些也都得到了审视。这场争议引发了一些需要解决的重要问题。首先,数据是否有效,这些药物是否安全?如果不安全,能否将短效二氢吡啶类药物的数据外推至新剂型和其他钙拮抗剂亚类?其次,这些药物能否降低心血管发病率和死亡率?最后,使用这些药物的替代方案是什么以及有哪些临床意义?这些研究引发了关于安全性的问题,而且几乎没有证据表明对心血管事件的发生率有任何实际益处。对于大多数患者来说,有经过临床测试和验证的治疗替代方案,即利尿剂和β受体阻滞剂,因此现在举证的责任必须落在那些主要推荐使用钙拮抗剂的人身上。在主要目标是降低心血管发病率和死亡率的治疗中,建议和指南必须有充分的数据支持。