A Comparative Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Amlodipine and Enalapril when Prescribed as Monotherapy in Patients with Isolated Systolic Hypertension

R. Yadav, Rekha Shah
{"title":"A Comparative Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Amlodipine and Enalapril when Prescribed as Monotherapy in Patients with Isolated Systolic Hypertension","authors":"R. Yadav, Rekha Shah","doi":"10.3126/jonmc.v12i1.56392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Most elderly patients with high blood pressure have isolated systolic hypertension. Enalapril and amlodipine are respectively the most commonly prescribed ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers in Nepal. The goal of the current study was to compare the adverse drug reaction associated with amlodipine and enalapril in the study population as well as to compare the mean blood pressure and pulse rate reductions caused by amlodipine and enalapril in isolated systolic hypertensive patients. \nMaterials and Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was performed on 72 patients of both genders within the age group of 30 to 90 years; with isolated systolic hypertension; attending the out-patients department of Medicine of Nobel Medical College and Teaching Hospital; from December 2022 to February 2023. Mean reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the two treatment groups over the eight-weeks study period was calculated and then compared. Frequencies of patients developing different side effects was also calculated and compared between the two groups. \nResults: Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 16.1% in amlodipine group and by 18.8 % in enalapril group. Enalapril was slightly more efficacious in reducing the systolic blood pressure but such changes were found to be of no significant difference when compared between the two groups. (p > 0.05). The incidence of adverse effect was more in the amlodipine group in comparison to the enalapril group. Dry cough, dizziness, headache and fatigue with enalapril; and headache, peripheral edema, shortness of breath, fatigue, and flushing and dizziness with amlodipine were the common adverse effects. \nConclusion: Both amlodipine and enalapril were equally effective in lowering systolic blood pressure without significantly lowering diastolic blood pressure. They were also generally well tolerated, though amlodipine was slightly more likely to cause side effects.","PeriodicalId":52824,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Nobel Medical College","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Nobel Medical College","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/jonmc.v12i1.56392","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Most elderly patients with high blood pressure have isolated systolic hypertension. Enalapril and amlodipine are respectively the most commonly prescribed ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers in Nepal. The goal of the current study was to compare the adverse drug reaction associated with amlodipine and enalapril in the study population as well as to compare the mean blood pressure and pulse rate reductions caused by amlodipine and enalapril in isolated systolic hypertensive patients. Materials and Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was performed on 72 patients of both genders within the age group of 30 to 90 years; with isolated systolic hypertension; attending the out-patients department of Medicine of Nobel Medical College and Teaching Hospital; from December 2022 to February 2023. Mean reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the two treatment groups over the eight-weeks study period was calculated and then compared. Frequencies of patients developing different side effects was also calculated and compared between the two groups. Results: Systolic blood pressure was reduced by 16.1% in amlodipine group and by 18.8 % in enalapril group. Enalapril was slightly more efficacious in reducing the systolic blood pressure but such changes were found to be of no significant difference when compared between the two groups. (p > 0.05). The incidence of adverse effect was more in the amlodipine group in comparison to the enalapril group. Dry cough, dizziness, headache and fatigue with enalapril; and headache, peripheral edema, shortness of breath, fatigue, and flushing and dizziness with amlodipine were the common adverse effects. Conclusion: Both amlodipine and enalapril were equally effective in lowering systolic blood pressure without significantly lowering diastolic blood pressure. They were also generally well tolerated, though amlodipine was slightly more likely to cause side effects.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
氨氯地平和依那普利单药治疗孤立性收缩性高血压患者的安全性和有效性比较研究
背景:大多数老年高血压患者有孤立性收缩期高血压。依那普利和氨氯地平分别是尼泊尔最常用的ACE抑制剂和钙通道阻滞剂。本研究的目的是比较研究人群中与氨氯地平和依那普利相关的药物不良反应,以及比较氨氯地平和依那普利在孤立性收缩期高血压患者中引起的平均血压和脉搏率降低。材料与方法:对年龄在30 ~ 90岁的72例男女患者进行比较横断面研究;孤立性收缩期高血压;在诺贝尔医学院和教学医院内科门诊部工作;从2022年12月到2023年2月。在8周的研究期间,计算两个治疗组的收缩压和舒张压的平均降低,然后进行比较。还计算并比较了两组患者发生不同副作用的频率。结果:氨氯地平组降压16.1%,依那普利组降压18.8%。依那普利在降低收缩压方面稍显有效,但两组比较无显著差异。(p < 0.05)。氨氯地平组不良反应发生率高于依那普利组。依那普利治疗干咳、头晕、头痛、乏力;头痛、外周水肿、呼吸短促、疲劳、潮红和头晕是氨氯地平的常见不良反应。结论:氨氯地平与依那普利降低收缩压的效果相同,但未显著降低舒张压。它们的耐受性也很好,尽管氨氯地平更容易引起副作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Professional Values among Undergraduate Nursing Students in Nobel Medical College Teaching Hospital Sex Differentiation from Fingerprint Ridge Density A Comparative Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Amlodipine and Enalapril when Prescribed as Monotherapy in Patients with Isolated Systolic Hypertension Outcome of Lung Functions in Covid-19 Patients at a Tertiary Care Center of Eastern Nepal Quality of Life among Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases at Birat Medical College Teaching Hospital
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1