Assmann I, Lehrl S, Burkard G, Strösser W
Klinik für Innere Medizin, Abteilung Kardiologie, Klinikum Erfurt GmbH, Erfurt.
Arzneimittelforschung. 1996 Sep;46(9):868-74.
The present study was carried out to investigate exercise test results and the outcome of the quality of life after administration of trapidil (CAS 15421-84-8, Rocornal) or nifedipine (CAS 21829-25-4) to patients with coronary heart disease. The characteristics of the life quality in combination with the results of exercise test are considered of great importance for selecting medical treatment in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. However, little information is available on how this first evaluation may be used to select the best pharmacological approach in individual patients. In this prospective multicentre study, 144 patients with stable angina were enrolled in 6 centres. Due to protocol violations and drop-outs 116 patients were evaluated for tolerability; 101 patients were evaluated for efficacy. After baseline evaluation, consisting of an exercise test and a questioning investigating patients' anginal symptoms and several psychometric testings, the patients were randomly allocated to double-blind treatment for 12 weeks with either trapidil, 200 mg t.i.d. or nifedipine, 10 mg t.i.d. according to a parallel group design. After 6 and 12 weeks exercise tests and psychometric testings were repeated. Both trapidil and nifedipine prolonged exercise tolerance (trapidil 39.2% vs. nifedipine 33.3%) or increased the total exercise over baseline levels (trapidil 57.8% vs. nifedipine 61.2%). Using Mann-Whitney U-test the SB-S-rating scale and the physician's assessment revealed a comparable improvement of life quality (trapidil 69.4% vs. nifedipine 80.0%) under both treatments. In addition patient questioning showed a significant reduction in angina attacks and in nitroglycerin consumption. None of the characteristics of anginal symptoms or exercise test gave evidence for a significant difference between nifedipine and trapidil. Both drugs demonstrated similar safety profiles (adverse events (AEs) 12.7% for trapidil and 11.1% for nifedipine); four patients of the trapidil group and one of the nifedipine group discontinued the clinical trial because of AEs. The results of a baseline exercise test and rating questionnaires may offer useful information for selecting medical treatment in stable angina pectoris.
本研究旨在调查冠心病患者服用曲匹地尔(CAS 15421-84-8,乐可安)或硝苯地平(CAS 21829-25-4)后的运动试验结果及生活质量变化。对于慢性稳定型心绞痛患者,结合运动试验结果考量生活质量特征对于选择治疗方法极为重要。然而,关于如何利用这一初步评估为个体患者选择最佳药物治疗方案的信息却很少。在这项前瞻性多中心研究中,6个中心共纳入了144例稳定型心绞痛患者。由于违反方案和退出研究,116例患者接受了耐受性评估;101例患者接受了疗效评估。在进行包括运动试验、询问患者心绞痛症状及多项心理测试的基线评估后,患者按照平行组设计被随机分配接受为期12周的双盲治疗,分别服用曲匹地尔(200 mg,每日3次)或硝苯地平(10 mg,每日3次)。在6周和12周时重复进行运动试验和心理测试。曲匹地尔和硝苯地平均延长了运动耐量(曲匹地尔为39.2%,硝苯地平为33.3%)或使总运动量高于基线水平(曲匹地尔为57.8%,硝苯地平为61.2%)。使用曼-惠特尼U检验,SB-S评分量表和医生评估显示两种治疗下生活质量改善程度相当(曲匹地尔为69.4%,硝苯地平为80.0%)。此外,患者询问显示心绞痛发作次数和硝酸甘油消耗量显著减少。心绞痛症状或运动试验的各项特征均未显示硝苯地平和曲匹地尔之间存在显著差异。两种药物的安全性相似(曲匹地尔组不良事件发生率为12.7%,硝苯地平组为11.1%);曲匹地尔组有4例患者、硝苯地平组有1例患者因不良事件退出临床试验。基线运动试验和评分问卷的结果可为稳定型心绞痛的治疗选择提供有用信息。