Massie B M, Lacourcière Y, Viskoper R, Woittiez A, Kobrin I
University of California, San Francisco, USA.
Am J Cardiol. 1997 Aug 21;80(4B):27C-33C. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(97)00567-5.
This paper summarizes the results of 4 double-blind studies of antihypertensive therapy in which mibefradil was compared with other commonly used calcium antagonists (diltiazem CD, amlodipine, nifedipine SR, and nifedipine GITS) at the recommended dose range. A total of 640 patients were included, with 361 randomized to mibefradil, 98 to diltiazem CD, 119 to amlodipine, 71 to nifedipine SR, and 36 to nifedipine GITS. Trials included an active treatment phase of 6 or 12 weeks in duration. Compared with diltiazem CD or nifedipine SR, mibefradil demonstrated statistically significant greater efficacy. Decreases in sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) after treatment with mibefradil 100 mg once daily were 14.0 +/- 7.8 mm Hg compared with 9.5 +/- 7.5 mm Hg with diltiazem CD 360 mg once daily (p = 0.001), and 12.8 +/- 8.4 mm Hg compared with 8.1 +/- 19.2 mm Hg with nifedipine SR 40 mg twice daily (p = 0.014). Patients on mibefradil also had higher normalization (SDBP reduced to < or = 90 mm Hg) and response (SDBP reduction > or = 10 mm Hg or normalization) rates than did those on diltiazem CD or nifedipine SR. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar among these 3 compounds, but the number of premature withdrawals due to adverse events was greater with both comparators than with mibefradil. Treatment with 100 mg mibefradil or 10 mg amlodipine once daily resulted in statistically significant decreases from baseline in SDBP of 11.5 +/- 8.2 mm Hg and 13.2 +/- 7.9 mm Hg, respectively, which were statistically equivalent. However, patients treated with amlodipine had a considerably greater incidence of leg edema than did those treated with mibefradil (33.6% vs 4.2%, respectively). Similarly, 100 mg mibefradil was equivalent in efficacy to 60 mg nifedipine GITS once daily, but patients on mibefradil experienced fewer vasodilatory related adverse events. In summary, mibefradil demonstrated superior efficacy to diltiazem CD and nifedipine SR and equivalent efficacy to amlodipine and nifedipine GITS in the treatment of hypertension.
本文总结了4项抗高血压治疗双盲研究的结果,这些研究在推荐剂量范围内将米贝拉地尔与其他常用钙拮抗剂(缓释地尔硫䓬、氨氯地平、缓释硝苯地平、控释硝苯地平)进行了比较。总共纳入了640例患者,其中361例随机分配至米贝拉地尔组,98例至缓释地尔硫䓬组,119例至氨氯地平组,71例至缓释硝苯地平组,36例至控释硝苯地平组。试验包括为期6周或12周的积极治疗阶段。与缓释地尔硫䓬或缓释硝苯地平相比,米贝拉地尔显示出统计学上显著更高的疗效。每日一次服用100 mg米贝拉地尔治疗后,坐位舒张压(SDBP)下降14.0±7.8 mmHg,而每日一次服用360 mg缓释地尔硫䓬后下降9.5±7.5 mmHg(p = 0.001);与每日两次服用40 mg缓释硝苯地平后下降8.1±19.2 mmHg相比,每日一次服用100 mg米贝拉地尔下降12.8±8.4 mmHg(p = 0.014)。服用米贝拉地尔的患者也比服用缓释地尔硫䓬或缓释硝苯地平的患者具有更高的血压正常化(SDBP降至≤90 mmHg)和反应(SDBP降低≥10 mmHg或正常化)率。这3种化合物的不良事件总体发生率相似,但两种对照药物因不良事件导致的提前停药人数均多于米贝拉地尔。每日一次服用100 mg米贝拉地尔或10 mg氨氯地平治疗后,SDBP较基线分别显著下降11.5±8.2 mmHg和13.2±7.9 mmHg,二者在统计学上相当。然而,服用氨氯地平的患者腿部水肿发生率明显高于服用米贝拉地尔的患者(分别为33.6%和4.2%)。同样,每日一次服用100 mg米贝拉地尔与每日一次服用60 mg控释硝苯地平疗效相当,但服用米贝拉地尔的患者血管舒张相关不良事件较少。总之,在高血压治疗中,米贝拉地尔显示出优于缓释地尔硫䓬和缓释硝苯地平的疗效,与氨氯地平和控释硝苯地平疗效相当。