Jean-Michel Mallion, Stefano Omboni, John Barton, Walter Van Mieghem, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Peter-Klaus Panzer, Juan García Puig, Christodoulos Stefanadis, Robert Zweiker
{"title":"奥美沙坦和雷米普利在老年轻至中度收缩期和舒张期原发性高血压患者中的降压疗效和安全性。","authors":"Jean-Michel Mallion, Stefano Omboni, John Barton, Walter Van Mieghem, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Peter-Klaus Panzer, Juan García Puig, Christodoulos Stefanadis, Robert Zweiker","doi":"10.3109/08037051.2010.532332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (O) and ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 O 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 O vs 7 R).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":8974,"journal":{"name":"Blood pressure. Supplement","volume":"1 ","pages":"3-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/08037051.2010.532332","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate systolic and diastolic essential hypertension.\",\"authors\":\"Jean-Michel Mallion, Stefano Omboni, John Barton, Walter Van Mieghem, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Peter-Klaus Panzer, Juan García Puig, Christodoulos Stefanadis, Robert Zweiker\",\"doi\":\"10.3109/08037051.2010.532332\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil (O) and ramipril (R) in elderly patients with essential arterial hypertension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 O 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 O vs 7 R).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Blood pressure. Supplement\",\"volume\":\"1 \",\"pages\":\"3-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/08037051.2010.532332\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Blood pressure. Supplement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3109/08037051.2010.532332\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2010/11/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood pressure. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/08037051.2010.532332","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2010/11/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21
摘要
目的:比较奥美沙坦美多索米(O)与雷米普利(R)治疗老年原发性动脉高血压的疗效和安全性。方法:在2周的安慰剂洗脱期后,351例65-89岁的老年高血压患者(坐位舒张压,DBP, 90-109 mmHg,坐位收缩压,SBP, 140-179 mmHg)随机双盲治疗12周,每天一次O 10 mg或R 2.5 mg。结果:在第12周,在意向治疗人群(170例0组和175例R组)中,0组正常化受试者的比例显著大于0组(38.8% vs 26.3% R;P = 0.013)。经基线调整后的最后一次就诊时平均坐办公室血压下降在0 [SBP]下没有显著增加:16.6(95%可信区间14.0/19.2)mmHg vs 13.0 (10.4/15.6) mmHg R, p = 0.206;舒张压:11.8 (10.3/13.3)mmHg vs 10.5 (9.0/12.0) mmHg, p = 0.351]。在有有效ABP记录(38 O和47 R)的患者亚组中,O组[收缩压:8.9(9.8/8.1)和舒张压:5.7 (6.3/5.1)mmHg]比R组[6.7(7.9/5.6)和4.4 (5.1/3.7)mmHg]的24小时平均血压降低幅度显著(p < 0.01)。在给药间隔的最后4小时,O的优势尤为明显。两组发生药物相关不良事件的患者比例相当(4.0% 0% R对4.5% R),因副作用而停止研究药物的患者数量也相当(80% R对7r)。在老年原发性动脉高血压患者中,O提供了有效、持久和耐受性良好的血压控制,其血压正常化明显优于R,是该年龄组高血压一线药物治疗中有用的选择。
Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan and ramipril in elderly patients with mild to moderate systolic and diastolic essential hypertension.
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 O 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 O 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.