Karch F E, Pordy R, Benz J R, Carr A, Lunde N M, Marbury T, Tarro J N
University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, New York.
Clin Ther. 1997 Nov-Dec;19(6):1368-78. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(97)80011-2.
In a previous forced-titration trial, mibefradil 100 mg QD was as effective as amlodipine 10 mg QD in reducing sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP), and it produced significantly less leg edema than did amlodipine 10 mg QD. The present multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel-design trial was performed to assess the reproducibility of these results using a flexible-titration design. Following a 4-week, single-masked, placebo run-in period, 296 patients with a trough SDBP of between 95 and 114 mm Hg (21 to 27 hours postdose) were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with mibefradil 50 mg (n = 146) or amlodipine 5 mg (n = 150). In patients whose trough SDBP was greater than 90 mm Hg after 4 or 8 weeks of double-masked therapy, the dosage was titrated upward to mibefradil 100 mg or amlodipine 10 mg for the remainder of the 12-week active treatment period. A greater proportion of amlodipine-treated patients (65%) than of mibefradil-treated patients (54%) required titration to the higher dose. Despite this difference, statistically equivalent reductions in trough SDBP were observed after 12 weeks of treatment with 50 to 100 mg of mibefradil QD (-11.7 +/- 6.4 mm Hg) and 5 to 10 mg of amlodipine QD (-11.9 +/- 6.9 mm Hg). SDBP was normalized to < or = 90 mm Hg at week 12 in 66% of patients treated with mibefradil and 65% of those receiving amlodipine. The tolerability profile of mibefradil was superior to that of amlodipine, with significantly fewer patients (P = 0.009) reporting leg edema after mibefradil treatment (7%) than after amlodipine treatment (17%). The results of this study confirm those of the previous trial. Once-daily treatment with mibefradil 50 to 100 mg for 12 weeks was as effective as 12 weeks of once-daily treatment with amlodipine 5 to 10 mg in reducing SDBP and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of leg edema.
在之前的强制滴定试验中,米贝拉地尔每日100毫克在降低坐位舒张压(SDBP)方面与氨氯地平每日10毫克效果相当,且其引起的腿部水肿明显少于氨氯地平每日10毫克。本多中心、双盲、随机、平行设计试验旨在采用灵活滴定设计评估这些结果的可重复性。经过4周单盲安慰剂导入期后,296例谷值SDBP在95至114毫米汞柱(给药后21至27小时)的患者被随机分为接受米贝拉地尔50毫克每日一次治疗组(n = 146)或氨氯地平5毫克每日一次治疗组(n = 150)。在双盲治疗4周或8周后谷值SDBP大于90毫米汞柱的患者中,在12周活性治疗期的剩余时间内将剂量上调至米贝拉地尔100毫克或氨氯地平10毫克。需要滴定至更高剂量的氨氯地平治疗患者比例(65%)高于米贝拉地尔治疗患者比例(54%)。尽管存在这一差异,但在使用每日50至100毫克米贝拉地尔(-11.7±6.4毫米汞柱)和每日5至10毫克氨氯地平(-11.9±6.9毫米汞柱)治疗12周后,观察到谷值SDBP的降低在统计学上相当。在接受米贝拉地尔治疗的患者中,66%在第12周时SDBP正常化至≤90毫米汞柱,接受氨氯地平治疗的患者中这一比例为65%。米贝拉地尔的耐受性优于氨氯地平,报告腿部水肿的患者在米贝拉地尔治疗后(7%)明显少于氨氯地平治疗后(17%)(P = 0.009)。本研究结果证实了之前试验的结果。每日一次使用50至100毫克米贝拉地尔治疗12周在降低SDBP方面与每日一次使用5至10毫克氨氯地平治疗12周效果相当,且腿部水肿发生率显著更低。