...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical and experimental hypertension: CEH >Prospective direct comparison of antihypertensive effect and safety between high-dose amlodipine or indapamide in hypertensive patients uncontrolled by standard doses of angiotensin receptor blockers and amlodipine
【24h】

Prospective direct comparison of antihypertensive effect and safety between high-dose amlodipine or indapamide in hypertensive patients uncontrolled by standard doses of angiotensin receptor blockers and amlodipine

机译:通过标准剂量血管紧张素受体阻滞剂,高剂量氨氯地平或高剂量氨氯地平或吲达纳米酰胺在高剂量氨氯伐或吲达纳米酰胺的前瞻性比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

ABSTRACT, Objective: When hypertension is uncontrolled by routine treatment with an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) and the calcium channel blocker amlodipine (5 mg), the dose of amlodipine can be increased or a diuretic can be added. We investigated the more effective option in a prospective multicenter open-label study. Methods: Hypertensive patients were recruited if the target blood pressure (BP) in The Japanese Society of Hypertension 2009 guideline could not be achieved with standard-dose ARB therapy and amlodipine (5 mg). Patients: Patients were divided into three groups. Group-1 was switched to a combination of irbesartan (100 mg) and amlodipine (10 mg). Group-2A was changed to a combination of irbesartan (100 mg), amlodipine (5 mg), and indapamide, while Group-2B received a standard-dose ARB and amlodipine (5 mg) plus indapamide. Patients were assigned by their attending physicians and were followed for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the antihypertensive effect of each regimen. Results: Group-1 contained 85 patients, Group-2A had 49 patients, and Group-2B had 4 patients. We only analyzed Group-1 and Group-2A due to the small size of Group-2B. In both groups, systolic BP and diastolic BP were significantly decreased up to 6 months (all p < 0.001). Reduction of systolic BP was greater in Group-1 than Group-2A after 1 month and 6 months (both p < 0.05). Uric acid was increased in Group-2A after 3 months, but not at 6 months. Conclusion: Although both regimens were effective for reducing BP, increasing amlodipine to 10 mg daily controlled hypertension without elevation of serum uric acid
机译:摘要,目的:当通过用血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂(arb)和钙通道阻断剂(5mg)的常规处理不受控制的常规处理时,可以增加氨氯嗪的剂量,或者可以增加利尿剂。我们调查了在预期多中心开放标签研究中更有效的选择。方法:如果日本高血压学会2009年指南的目标血压(BP)无法使用标准剂量ARB治疗和氨氯普对(5mg),则招聘高血压患者。患者:患者分为三组。将Group-1切换到厄贝沙坦(100mg)和氨氯氨脒(10mg)的组合。将Group-2a改为厄贝沙坦(100mg),氨氯地平(5mg)和吲达咪酰胺的组合,而组-2b接受标准剂量arb和氨氯胺(5mg)加吲达咪酰胺。患者由他们的主治医生分配,并随访6个月。主要终点是每个方案的抗高血压作用。结果:1组含有85名患者,第2A族患者49名,2B组有4名患者。由于组2B的尺寸小,我们仅分析了组-1和组2A。在这两组中,收缩性BP和舒张压BP显着降低至6个月(所有P <0.001)。在1个月和6个月后,在-1组-1组中减少了收缩性BP的更大(P <0.05)。 3个月后,尿酸在2A组中增加,但在6个月内增加。结论:虽然这两个方案都有效地减少BP,但增加氨氯地平至10毫克日常控制的高血压,而无需血清尿酸升高

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号