{"title":"缓释非洛地平与缓释地尔硫卓治疗孤立性收缩期高血压的临床疗效及不良反应比较。","authors":"M S Chern, F C Lin, D Wu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Extended-release felodipine (felodipine ER) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of ISH in Caucasians. However, its pharmacological properties are different from another calcium blocker, diltiazem. Also, the effectiveness, tolerability, and adverse reactions of these two antihypertensive agents for ISH have not been thoroughly assessed in Chinese.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sitting blood pressures (BP), heart rate, body weight, adverse reactions, and serum biochemistry were assessed in 70 patients with isolated systolic hypertension (34 treated with felodipine ER and 36 slow-release diltiazem [diltiazem SR] for 10 weeks). Each patient was given 5 mg of felodipine ER or 90 mg of diltiazem SR once daily and was doubled to twice daily if necessary.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five patients on felodipine ER and four on diltiazem SR withdrew because of intolerable side effects. By ten weeks, 67.6% of the patients responded to a daily dose of 5-10 mg of felodipine ER and 58.3% to a daily dose of 90-180 mg of diltiazem SR. At the end of treatment, felodipine ER lowered the mean BP from 187/83 mmHg at baseline to 149/74 mmHg, whereas diltiazem SR decreased the BP from 185/84 mmHg to 158/78 mmHg (not significant between the two groups). The heart rate did not change significantly in either group. Overall, these two groups of patients had the same rate of adverse reactions (50.0% vs. 50.0%) with similar profiles of the adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Equivalent doses of felodipine ER and diltiazem SR are effective first-line monotherapeutic agents for the treatment of ISH.</p>","PeriodicalId":77066,"journal":{"name":"Changgeng yi xue za zhi","volume":"22 1","pages":"44-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of clinical efficacy and adverse effects between extended-release felodipine and slow-release diltiazem in patients with isolated systolic hypertension.\",\"authors\":\"M S Chern, F C Lin, D Wu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Extended-release felodipine (felodipine ER) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of ISH in Caucasians. However, its pharmacological properties are different from another calcium blocker, diltiazem. Also, the effectiveness, tolerability, and adverse reactions of these two antihypertensive agents for ISH have not been thoroughly assessed in Chinese.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sitting blood pressures (BP), heart rate, body weight, adverse reactions, and serum biochemistry were assessed in 70 patients with isolated systolic hypertension (34 treated with felodipine ER and 36 slow-release diltiazem [diltiazem SR] for 10 weeks). Each patient was given 5 mg of felodipine ER or 90 mg of diltiazem SR once daily and was doubled to twice daily if necessary.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five patients on felodipine ER and four on diltiazem SR withdrew because of intolerable side effects. By ten weeks, 67.6% of the patients responded to a daily dose of 5-10 mg of felodipine ER and 58.3% to a daily dose of 90-180 mg of diltiazem SR. At the end of treatment, felodipine ER lowered the mean BP from 187/83 mmHg at baseline to 149/74 mmHg, whereas diltiazem SR decreased the BP from 185/84 mmHg to 158/78 mmHg (not significant between the two groups). The heart rate did not change significantly in either group. Overall, these two groups of patients had the same rate of adverse reactions (50.0% vs. 50.0%) with similar profiles of the adverse effects.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Equivalent doses of felodipine ER and diltiazem SR are effective first-line monotherapeutic agents for the treatment of ISH.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Changgeng yi xue za zhi\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"44-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Changgeng yi xue za zhi\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Changgeng yi xue za zhi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:孤立性收缩期高血压(ISH)是心血管疾病的危险因素。缓释非洛地平(非洛地平ER)已被证明是有效的治疗白种人ISH。然而,它的药理特性与另一种钙阻滞剂地尔硫卓不同。此外,这两种抗高血压药物治疗ISH的有效性、耐受性和不良反应在中国还没有得到充分的评估。方法:观察70例孤立性收缩期高血压患者的坐位血压(BP)、心率、体重、不良反应及血清生化指标(34例给予非洛地平ER治疗,36例给予缓释地尔硫卓[地尔硫卓SR]治疗,疗程10周)。每位患者给予5mg非洛地平ER或90mg地尔硫卓SR每日一次,必要时加倍至每日两次。结果:非洛地平ER组5例,地尔硫卓SR组4例因副作用难以忍受而退出治疗。10周后,67.6%的患者对每日剂量5-10 mg的非洛地平ER有反应,58.3%的患者对每日剂量90-180 mg的地尔硫卓有反应。治疗结束时,非洛地平ER将平均血压从基线时的187/83 mmHg降至149/74 mmHg,而地尔硫卓SR将血压从185/84 mmHg降至158/78 mmHg(两组间无显著差异)。两组的心率都没有明显变化。总体而言,两组患者不良反应发生率相同(50.0% vs 50.0%),不良反应概况相似。结论:等剂量非洛地平ER和地尔硫卓SR是治疗ISH的有效一线单药。
Comparison of clinical efficacy and adverse effects between extended-release felodipine and slow-release diltiazem in patients with isolated systolic hypertension.
Background: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Extended-release felodipine (felodipine ER) has been shown to be effective in the treatment of ISH in Caucasians. However, its pharmacological properties are different from another calcium blocker, diltiazem. Also, the effectiveness, tolerability, and adverse reactions of these two antihypertensive agents for ISH have not been thoroughly assessed in Chinese.
Methods: Sitting blood pressures (BP), heart rate, body weight, adverse reactions, and serum biochemistry were assessed in 70 patients with isolated systolic hypertension (34 treated with felodipine ER and 36 slow-release diltiazem [diltiazem SR] for 10 weeks). Each patient was given 5 mg of felodipine ER or 90 mg of diltiazem SR once daily and was doubled to twice daily if necessary.
Results: Five patients on felodipine ER and four on diltiazem SR withdrew because of intolerable side effects. By ten weeks, 67.6% of the patients responded to a daily dose of 5-10 mg of felodipine ER and 58.3% to a daily dose of 90-180 mg of diltiazem SR. At the end of treatment, felodipine ER lowered the mean BP from 187/83 mmHg at baseline to 149/74 mmHg, whereas diltiazem SR decreased the BP from 185/84 mmHg to 158/78 mmHg (not significant between the two groups). The heart rate did not change significantly in either group. Overall, these two groups of patients had the same rate of adverse reactions (50.0% vs. 50.0%) with similar profiles of the adverse effects.
Conclusion: Equivalent doses of felodipine ER and diltiazem SR are effective first-line monotherapeutic agents for the treatment of ISH.