4.5 Article

Effective and safe reduction of blood pressure with the combination of amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 160 mg in hypertensive patients not controlled by calcium channel blocker monotherapy

期刊

ADVANCES IN THERAPY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 399-411

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-008-0054-6

关键词

amlodipine; angiotensin II receptor blockers; calcium channel blockers; combination therapy; felodipine; hypertension; valsartan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The addition of an angiotensin II receptor blocker to calcium channel blocker-based antihypertensive therapy may be associated with enhanced efficacy and reduced risk of adverse events. Methods: This 8-week, open-label, single-arm trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of amlodipine and valsartan in patients not responding adequately to treatment with amlodipine or felodipine alone. Patients aged >= 18 years with moderate essential hypertension (defined as mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] >= 160 and < 180 mmHg) were treated for 4 weeks with once-daily amlodipine 5 mg or felodipine 5 mg. At week 4, patients not adequately responding were treated for an additional 4 weeks with once-daily amlodipine 5 mg plus valsartan 160 mg. Of 214 patients treated for 4 weeks with amlodipine 5 mg or felodipine 5 mg, 181 failed to achieve MSSBP <140 mmHg. These non-responders were treated for an additional 4 weeks with amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 160 mg. Results: A clinically and statistically significant additional reduction in MSSBP of 13.1 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.4, 14.7; P<0.0001) and a mean sitting diastolic blood pressure of 5.3 mmHg (95% CI: 4.3, 6.3; P<0.0001) were observed. Of patients treated with amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 160 mg, 51.1% achieved target blood pressure levels (<140/90 mmHg) after 4 weeks. Adverse event rates were low in both treatment phases, and most were mild or moderate in severity. Conclusion: The combination of amlodipine/valsartan was effective and well tolerated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据