...
首页> 外文期刊>International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics >Blood pressure reduction and tolerability of amlodipine versus nifedipine retard in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a randomized 1-year clinical trial.
【24h】

Blood pressure reduction and tolerability of amlodipine versus nifedipine retard in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a randomized 1-year clinical trial.

机译:中国2型糖尿病和高血压患者氨氯地平与硝苯地平延缓血压的降低和耐受性:一项为期1年的随机临床试验。

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

OBJECTIVE: In this 1-year clinical study, we compared the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and nifedipine retard in 64 Chinese Type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: There were 25 (39.1%) men and 39 (60.9%) women with mean age 60.7+/-9.9 years. Thirty-four patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 5 mg daily and 30 to receive nifedipine retard 20 mg twice daily. The daily dose of amlodipine and nifedipine retard was increased from 5 mg to 10 mg daily and 20 mg to 40 mg twice daily, respectively, if sitting BP > 140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the 64 patients, 9 dropped out early because they experienced adverse effects related to the drugs. If all treatment-related adverse effects were taken into account, 6 (19.4%) patients were from the amlodipine group and 14 (53.8%) from the nifedipine group (p = 0.011). After 1 year, 48 patients finished the study, 28 were on amlodipine and 20 were on nifedipine retard. Of the 28 patients from the amlodipine group, 11 (39.3%) required additional antihypertensive agents. Of the 20 patients from the nifedipine group, 5 (25%, p value: NS, comparing the 2 groups) required additional antihypertensive agents. Both groups showed similar and significant reduction in blood pressure from Week 6 to Week 52. CONCLUSION: Both amlodipine and nifedipine retard are relatively safe and useful in the treatment of hypertension in Chinese Type 2 diabetic patients. Nifedipine retard, when compared to amlodipine, showed significantly more adverse effects and these may hamper long-term compliance.
机译:目的:在这项为期一年的临床研究中,我们比较了氨氯地平和硝苯地平延缓治疗64例中国2型糖尿病高血压患者的疗效和耐受性。受试者和方法:平均年龄为60.7 +/- 9.9岁的男性为25(39.1%),女性为39(60.9%)。三十四名患者被随机分配接受氨氯地平每天5 mg,30名接受硝苯地平延迟20 mg每天两次。如果坐位BP> 140/90 mmHg,氨氯地平和硝苯地平延缓剂的日剂量分别从每天5 mg增加到10 mg,从每天20 mg增加到40 mg,两次。结果:64例患者中,有9例因与药物相关的不良反应而提前退出。如果考虑到所有与治疗相关的不良反应,氨氯地平组的患者为6(19.4%),硝苯地平组的患者为14(53.8%)(p = 0.011)。一年后,有48名患者完成了研究,其中28例使用氨氯地平,而20例使用硝苯地平。在氨氯地平组的28例患者中,有11例(39.3%)需要额外的降压药。在硝苯地平组的20例患者中,有5例(25%,p值:NS,两组比较)需要其他降压药。从第6周到第52周,两组患者的血压均出现相似且显着的降低。结论:氨氯地平和硝苯地平延缓治疗中国2型糖尿病患者相对安全且有用。与氨氯地平相比,硝苯地平缓释剂显示出更多的不良反应,并且这些不良反应可能会阻碍长期依从性。

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