共 43 条
Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate systolic and diastolic essential hypertension
被引:13
作者:
Mallion, Jean-Michel
[1
]
Omboni, Stefano
[2
]
Barton, John
[3
]
van Mieghem, Walter
[4
]
Narkiewicz, Krzysztof
[5
]
Panzer, Peter-Klaus
Garcia Puig, Juan
[6
]
Stefanadis, Christodoulos
[7
]
Zweiker, Robert
[8
]
机构:
[1] CHU Grenoble, F-38043 Grenoble 09, France
[2] Italian Inst Telemed, Varese, Italy
[3] Portiuncula Hosp, Cardiac Res Dept, Galway, Ballinasloe Co, Ireland
[4] Ziekenhuis Oost Limburg Campus St Jan, Genk, Belgium
[5] Med Univ Gdansk, Dept Hypertens & Diabetol, Hypertens Unit, Gdansk, Poland
[6] Hosp Univ La Paz, Internal Med & Hypertens Unit, Madrid, Spain
[7] Ippokratio Hosp, Dept Cardiol, Athens, Greece
[8] Leopold Auenbrugger Univ, Sch Med, Graz, Austria
来源:
关键词:
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring;
essential hypertension;
elderly;
olmesartan;
ramipril;
office blood pressure;
BLOOD-PRESSURE REDUCTION;
DOUBLE-BLIND;
OLDER PATIENTS;
GLOBAL BURDEN;
TOLERABILITY;
MEDOXOMIL;
TRIAL;
AMLODIPINE;
VALSARTAN;
ADULTS;
D O I:
10.3109/08037051.2010.532332
中图分类号:
R6 [外科学];
学科分类号:
1002 ;
100210 ;
摘要:
Objective. To compare the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (O) and ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension. Methods. After a 2-week placebo washout, 351 elderly hypertensive patients aged 65-89 years (office sitting diastolic blood pressure, DBP, 90-109 mmHg and office sitting systolic blood pressure, SBP, 140-179 mmHg) were randomized double-blind to 12-week treatment with O 10 mg or R 2.5 mg once daily. After the first 2 and 6 weeks, doses could be doubled in non-normalized (blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg for non-diabetic and < 130/80 mmHg for diabetic) subjects, up to 40 mg for 0 and 10 mg for R. Office blood pressures were assessed at randomization, after 2, 6 and 12 weeks of treatment; 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. Results. At week 12, in the intention-to-treat population (170 patients O and 175 R) the rate of normalized subjects was significantly larger in the O group (38.8% vs 26.3% R; p = 0.013). Baseline-adjusted mean sitting office blood pressure reduction at final visit was not significantly greater under O [SBP: 16.6 (95% confidence interval 14.0/19.2) mmHg vs 13.0 (10.4/15.6) mmHg R, p = 0.206; DBP: 11.8 (10.3/13.3) mmHg vs 10.5 (9.0/12.0) mmHg, p = 0.351]. In the subgroup of patients with valid ABP recordings (38 O and 47 R), the reduction in 24-h average blood pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) larger with O [SBP: 8.9 (9.8/8.1) and DBP: 5.7 (6.3/5.1) mmHg] than with R [6.7 (7.9/5.6) and 4.4 (5.1/3.7) mmHg]. The superiority of O was particularly evident in the last 4 h from the dosing interval. The proportion of patients with drug-related adverse events was comparable in the two groups (4.0% O vs 4.5% R), as well as the number of patients discontinuing study drug because of a side-effect (8 0 vs 7 R). Conclusions. In elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension, O provides an effective, prolonged and well tolerated blood pressure control, with significantly better blood pressure normalization than R and represents a useful option among first-line drug treatments of hypertension in this age group.
引用
收藏
页码:3 / 11
页数:9
相关论文