Efficacy and safety of aranidipine enteric-coated tablets compared with amlodipine in Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled clinical trial.

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled study, conducted in Chinese patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. After a 2-week washout period, 236 eligible patients were randomly to receive aranidipine 5-10 mg/d (n = 118) or amlodipine 5-10 mg/d (n = 118) for 10 weeks. The blood pressure and heart rate were evaluated in outpatient clinics, and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed in 24 patients in each group. The blood pressure was significantly decreased in both groups. Compared with amlodipine, the patients who received aranidipine had less response in blood pressure (P < 0.01). The trough/peak ratios of diastolic blood pressure in aranidipine and amlodipine groups were 0.57 ± 0.20 and 0.68 ± 0.19, respectively (P = 0.119). Adverse events occurred at 11.86% and 7.63% in the aranidipine and amlodipine groups, respectively (P = 0.348). Headache was observed at an incidence of >3.0% in both groups, and the serum glucose and lipid profile had no significant change in the amlodipine group. In conclusion, once-daily administration of aranidipine (5-10 mg) effectively controlled blood pressure, and the short-term treatment might result in it being less effective than amlodipine. It had a stable action over 24-hour period, and the mechanism of that is not yet clear. Aranidipine had a good safety similar to that of amlodipine.

[Comparison of benazepril monotherapy to amlodipine plus benazepril in the treatment of patients with mild and moderate hypertension: a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled study].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg once-daily therapy, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with mild and moderate hypertension, and to evaluate the 24 h antihypertensive efficacy and the duration of action by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel controlled trial, 356 cases of hypertensive patients after 2 weeks wash-out, and then given 4 weeks of benazepril 10 mg monotherapy, 220 patients with mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) remained ≥ 90 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) were randomly divided into benazepril 10 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (BZ10/AML5) fixed-dose combination therapy group (once a day, n = 113), and benazepril monotherapy group (daily 20 mg, n = 107). In the two groups the patients with SeDBP ≥ 90 mm Hg were doubled the dosage of the initial regimen at the end of 4-week treatment for additional 4 weeks, and the patients with SeDBP < 90 mm Hg remained the initial regimen for additional 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the improvement of SeDBP at the end of 8-week treatment. There were 74 patients (the combination therapy group n = 38, monotherapy therapy group n = 36) completed the 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring which was included in the final efficacy analysis. RESULTS: The randomized, double-blind treatment for 8 weeks, the mean value of SeDBP reduction, the reaching target blood pressure rate and total successful response rate to the treatment (a SeDBP < 90 mm Hg or a decrease of 10 mm Hg or more from baseline) were (11.7 ± 6.8) mm Hg, 65.7% and 88.5% in the combination therapy group, respectively, and were (7.7 ± 6.9) mm Hg, 35.5% and 65.5% in the monotherapy group, respectively. There were statistically significant difference between the combination therapy and the monotherapy groups in all the 3 indexs (P < 0.001). The fixed combination significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) values throughout the 24 h. The trough to peak ratios of DBP/SBP in the fixed compound of benazepril/amlodipine (10 mg/5 mg) and benazepril (20 mg) alone were 83.1%/76.0% and 85.8%/79.5%, respectively. Adverse events rates were 16.8% in the combination therapy group and 35.5% in the monotherapy group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy with benazepril/amlodipine was superior to benazepril monotherapy and was well tolerated in patients with essential hypertension and allowing a satisfactory BP control for 24 hours.

[Efficacy of monotherapy with 15 antihypertensive agents in treating essential hypertension assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of the monotherapy of 15 agents in treating essential hypertension. METHODS: After 2-week wash-out, a total of 370 patients with seated diastolic blood pressure 95-114 mmHg and seated systolic blood pressure < 180 mmHg were randomized to different therapeutic groups. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed before medication and at the end of 8 weeks. RESULT: All the agents significantly reduced the 24 hour mean blood pressures after treatment except doxazosin, terazosin, and torasemide. CONCLUSION: The result suggested that the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers and long-acting calcium antagonists were effective in treating essential hypertension, while the low-dose doxazosin, terazosin and torasemide can be used for combination therapy but not for monotherapy.

[Prognostic value of N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic peptide on admission in patients with chronic heart failure].

OBJECTIVE: Heart failure is responsible for a huge burden in hospital care. Our goal was to evaluate the value of N-terminal-pro-brain natriuretic peptide (Nt-proBNP) on predicting death or hospital readmission after hospital discharge in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). METHODS: From March 2003 to April 2005, 135 consecutive patients (97 male and 38 female, mean age 60.7 years +/- 13.1 years) with chronic heart failure [dilated cardiomyopathy (44%) and coronary heart disease (35%)] were included in this study. Plasma concentrations of the Nt-proBNP were measured by ELISA on admission. All patients received conventional therapy and were followed up for 24 months. The primary end point was death or readmission. RESULTS: (1) During the follow up period (640 days +/- 100 days), 11 patients died and 39 patients rehospitalized, the median Nt-proBNP level on admission was significantly higher in patients died during the follow up period (5908 ng/L) than that of rehospitalized patients (2768 ng/L, P = 0.038). Plasma Nt-proBNP level on admission were significantly higher in primary end point group (n = 50, 2947 ng/L) than that in non-primary end point group (n = 85, 917 ng/L, P < 0.01). (2) Variables associated with an increased hazard of death and/or rehospitalization were Nt-proBNP and NYHA degree when analyzed by logistic regression models. Increased Log Nt-proBNP was the strongest independent predictor of an adverse outcome of CHF (odds ratio 13.8, 95% confidence interval 2.29 to 2.78, P < 0.01). (3) Area under the curve for Nt-proBNP in evaluating prognosis of CHF patients was 0.885 (positive predictive value 88.5%, negative predictive value 11.5%). CONCLUSION: Nt-proBNP level on admission is a strong predictor of rehospitalization and death within 24 months after hospital discharge in patients with chronic heart failure.