首页> 外文期刊>Advances in therapy. >Ambulatory monitoring of systolic hypertension in the elderly: Eprosartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (INSIST trial).
【24h】

Ambulatory monitoring of systolic hypertension in the elderly: Eprosartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with losartan/hydrochlorothiazide (INSIST trial).

机译:老年收缩期高血压的动态监测:依普沙坦/氢氯噻嗪与氯沙坦/氢氯噻嗪的比较(INSIST试验)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

INTRODUCTION: Systolic hypertension is very common in the elderly and is strongly associated with the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. The control of systolic hypertension is difficult and most patients require combination antihypertensive therapy. Few data are available regarding the efficacy of angiotensin II receptor antagonists on systolic hypertension of the elderly. The aim of this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study was to assess the efficacy of eprosartan 600 mg in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg in comparison with losartan 50 mg in combination with HCTZ 12.5 mg, in reducing blood pressure in elderly patients with grade 2 systolic hypertension who did not optimally respond to eprosartan or losartan monotherapy. METHODS: After a 3-week placebo wash-out, 155 patients with an Office trough sitting systolic blood pressure (Office sitSBP) >or=160 mmHg and <180 mmHg were randomized to eprosartan 600 mg (n=78) or losartan 50 mg (n=77) once daily for 6 weeks. In patients not optimally responding to monotherapy (Office sitSBP>or=130 mmHg) 12.5 mg HCTZ was added as fixed combination once daily for 6 weeks. A 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed at the end of wash-out and at the end of the fixed-combination period. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between eprosartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ on the primary endpoint (24-hour ABPM SBP) with an adjusted mean difference between treatments of 3.1 mmHg (95% CI: -0.32-6.59). However, the mean 24-hour ABPM SBP significantly decreased by 16.7 mmHg with eprosartan/HCTZ and 20.3 mmHg with losartan/HCTZ (P<0.001 vs. baseline). The mean Office sitSBP significantly decreased by 28.7 mmHg and 29.6 mmHg respectively, with eprosartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ (P<0.001 vs.baseline and vs. monotherapy). CONCLUSION: In this study, eprosartan/HCTZ did not demonstrate to be superior to losartan/HCTZ in reducing ABPM systolic hypertension in the elderly.
机译:简介:收缩期高血压在老年人中非常常见,并且与心血管和脑血管事件的风险密切相关。控制收缩期高血压很困难,大多数患者需要联合降压治疗。关于血管紧张素II受体拮抗剂对老年人收缩期高血压的疗效,尚无可用数据。这项双盲,双模拟,随机,平行组,多中心研究的目的是评估依普罗沙坦600毫克联合氢氯噻嗪(HCTZ)12.5毫克与氯沙坦50毫克联合HCTZ 12.5毫克的疗效,用于降低对依普罗沙坦或氯沙坦单一疗法没有最佳反应的老年2级收缩期高血压患者的血压。方法:在3周的安慰剂冲洗后,将155例办公室低谷坐位收缩压(Office sitSBP)>或= 160 mmHg和<180 mmHg的患者随机分为依普罗沙坦600 mg(n = 78)或氯沙坦50 mg (n = 77)每天一次,持续6周。在对单药治疗无效的患者中(办公室SitSBP>或= 130 mmHg),以固定组合的形式每天添加12.5 mg HCTZ,持续6周。在冲洗结束时和固定结合期结束时进行24小时动态血压监测(ABPM)。结果:依普罗沙坦/ HCTZ和氯沙坦/ HCTZ在主要终点(24小时ABPM SBP)之间未发现统计学上的显着差异,治疗之间的调整后平均差异为3.1 mmHg(95%CI:-0.32-6.59)。然而,依普罗沙坦/ HCTZ组的平均24小时ABPM SBP显着降低了16.7 mmHg,氯沙坦/ HCTZ组的平均24小时ABPM SBP显着降低了20.3 mmHg(P <0.001 vs.基线)。依普罗沙坦/ HCTZ和氯沙坦/ HCTZ的平均Office sitSBP分别显着降低了28.7 mmHg和29.6 mmHg(与基线治疗和单药治疗相比,P <0.001)。结论:在这项研究中,依普罗沙坦/ HCTZ在降低老年人ABPM收缩期高血压方面未显示优于氯沙坦/ HCTZ。

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