...
首页> 外文期刊>Vascular Health and Risk Management >Triple combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide vs dual combination therapy with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide for stage 2 hypertensive patients
【24h】

Triple combination therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide vs dual combination therapy with amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide for stage 2 hypertensive patients

机译:氨氯地平,缬沙坦和氢氯噻嗪的三联疗法与氨氯地平和氢氯噻嗪的二联疗法治疗2期高血压患者

获取原文
           

摘要

Objective: This post hoc analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of triple therapy with amlodipine/valsartan+hydrochlorothiazide (Aml/Val+HCTZ) vs dual therapy with Aml+HCTZ in stage 2 hypertensive patients. Methods: The analysis included patients from an eight-week, multicenter, double-blind study, randomized to Aml/Val 10/160 mg or Aml 10 mg groups, who received add-on HCTZ 12.5 mg at week 4 if mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) was >130 mmHg. Results: Of the patients receiving Aml/Val+HCTZ and Aml+HCTZ, 98% (N = 133/136) and 96% (N = 200/208) completed the study, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar across groups (Caucasians, 80.2%; diabetics, 14.8%; age, 58.6 years [28.2% ≥ 65 years]; body mass index, 31 kg/m2; mean sitting blood pressure (msBP), 171.5/95.5 mmHg [18% msSBP ≥ 180 mmHg]). Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater msBP reductions from baseline to week 8 than Aml+HCTZ (30.5/13.8 vs 24.3/8.3 mmHg, P < 0.0001). The incremental msBP reduction (week 4 to 8) with HCTZ added to Aml/Val was greater than when added to Aml (6.9/3.5 vs 3.1/1.0 mmHg, P < 0.01). Treatments were well tolerated with similar overall incidence of adverse events (Aml/Val+HCTZ: 33.8%, Aml+HCTZ: 33.2%). Conclusion: Aml/Val+HCTZ provided significantly greater BP reductions than Aml+HCTZ in patients with stage 2 hypertension. Aml/Val+HCTZ triple therapy may be a suitable option for patients requiring more than two agents to reach target BP.
机译:目的:这项事后分析评估了氨氯地平/缬沙坦+氢氯噻嗪(Aml / Val + HCTZ)三联疗法与Aml + HCTZ双重疗法在2期高血压患者中的疗效和安全性。方法:该分析包括来自八周,多中心,双盲研究的患者,这些患者被随机分为Aml / Val 10/160 mg或Aml 10 mg组,如果他们的平均坐位收缩期血液在第4周接受HCTZ 12.5 mg压力(msSBP)> 130 mmHg。结果:在接受Aml / Val + HCTZ和Aml + HCTZ的患者中,分别完成了98%(N = 133/136)和96%(N = 200/208)的研究。各组的基线特征相似(高加索人为80.2%;糖尿病人为14.8%;年龄为58.6岁[28.2%≥65岁];体重指数为31 kg / m 2 ;平均坐着血压(msBP),171.5 / 95.5 mmHg [18%msSBP≥180 mmHg])。从基线到第8周,Aml / Val + HCTZ提供的msBP降低幅度明显大于Aml + HCTZ(30.5 / 13.8对24.3 / 8.3 mmHg,P <0.0001)。将HCTZ加入Aml / Val中的msBP增量减少(第4至8周)大于加入Aml / Val中(6.9 / 3.5 vs 3.1 / 1.0 mmHg,P <0.01)。治疗耐受性良好,不良事件的总发生率相似(Aml / Val + HCTZ:33.8%,Aml + HCTZ:33.2%)。结论:在2期高血压患者中,Aml / Val + HCTZ提供的BP降低明显大于Aml + HCTZ。对于需要两种以上药物才能达到目标BP的患者,Aml / Val + HCTZ三联疗法可能是合适的选择。

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