Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of levoamlodipine besylate for essential hypertension. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1999 to October 2007), EMBASE (1999 to October 2007), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2007), CNKI (1999 to 2007), Wanfang (1999 to 2007), VIP (1999 to 2007) and CBM (1999 to October 2007). The quality of included studies was critically evaluated. Data analyses were performed with The Cochrane Collaboration’ s RevMan 4.2 software. Results A total of 345 articles were retrieved, but only 17 were finally included. Meta-analyses showed that the effective rate in patients receiving levoamlodipine besylate was significantly higher than that in patients receiving indapamide (RD 0.14, 95%CI 0.06 to 0.22, P=0.0004), while no significant differences were noted between the levoamlodipine besylate group and other control groups. The incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in the levoamlodipine besylate group compared to the indapamide group (RD –0.12, 95%CI –0.21 to –0.03, P=0.01), the amlodipine group (RD –0.06, 95%CI –0.11 to –0.01, P=0.02) and the nitrendipine group (RD –0.27, 95%CI –0.46 to – 0.08, P=0.006). No significant differences were observed between the levoamlodipine besylate group and other control groups. Conclusion Levoamlodipine besylate tends to have better efficacy and safety profiles compared with other antihypertensive drugs. However, most trials included in the review were of poor quality and, so, multi-center large-scale randomized controlled trials of higher quality are needed to confirm this.
【摘要】 目的 探讨阿托伐他汀强化降脂治疗和左旋氨氯地平联用对高血压患者血压的影响。 方法 选择2009年1月-2010年11月住院及门诊原发性高血压合并高脂血症患者196例，均给予左旋氨氯地平和阿托伐他汀治疗8周后，复查血脂，从其中选择血脂正常者120例，随机分为对照组（单用左旋氨氯地平组）和治疗组（继续左旋氨氯地平联用阿托伐他汀），继续治疗20周后的血压情况。 结果 两组治疗20周后，治疗组收缩压和舒张压均较对照组下降明显，组间差异有统计学意义（Plt;0.01），治疗组优于对照组。 结论 高血压合并高脂血症患者，使用左旋氨氯地平降压和阿托伐他汀降脂治疗时，在血脂降至正常后，继续同时左旋氨氯地平降压和阿托伐他汀强化降脂治疗，降压效果优于单用左旋氨氯地平。【Abstract】 Objective To investigate the effects of levamlodipine combined with atorvastatin on blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension. Methods Between January 2009 and November 2010, 196 patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia in the outpatient and inpatient departments of our hospital were given levamlodipine and atorvastatin for 8 weeks, after which 120 patients with normal blood lipid were chosen and randomly divided into the control group (treated only by levamlodipine) and the treatment group (treated by levamlodipine combined with atorvastatin). After 20 weeks of the treatment, we observed their blood pressure. Results After twenty weeks of treatment, the diastolic and systolic pressure was significantly lower in the treatment group than that in the control group (Plt;0.01). Conclusion For patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia who have undergone the treatment by levamlodipine and atorvastatin, after their blood lipid level decreases to normal, the continuous enhanced treatment by the two drugs has a better efficacy compared with the therapy of single levamlodipine in decreasing the blood lipid.
目的:观察辛伐他汀、吡格列酮和苯磺酸左旋氨氯地平联合治疗代谢综合征疗效。方法:76例初诊代谢综合征患者,服用吡格列酮15mg/d、苯磺酸左旋氨氯地平25mg/d、辛伐他汀10mg/d,疗程1个月。观察治疗前后血压、腰围、体重指数、血糖、血胰岛素、血尿酸和血脂水平等变化。结果:患者治疗后血糖、血脂、胰岛素水平、血压均明显降低,差别有统计学意义(Plt;001)。腰围、体重指数略有下降,无统计学意义,血尿酸变化不明显。结论:吡格列酮、辛伐他汀和苯磺酸左旋氨氯地平联合治疗代谢综合征能够改善胰岛素抵抗和代谢异常,疗效可靠、服药简单、依从性好,效价比合理,无不良反应。
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine versus amlodipine, and 2.5 mg S-amlodipine versus 5.0 mg S-amlodipine in treating hypertension.MethodsMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, and VIP databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about S-amlodipine for hypertension till January 2018. Two reviewers independently reviewed the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included RCTs. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.ResultsAll together 16 RCTs involving 3 946 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: (1) S-amlodipine vs. amlodipine: the levels of reduction in intima-media thickness [mean difference (MD)=–0.21 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) (–0.35, –0.07) mm, P=0.003], pulse pressure [MD=–5.90 mm Hg (1 mm Hg=0.133 kPa), 95%CI (–8.57, –3.23) mm Hg, P<0.000 1], systolic pressure [MD=–5.08 mm Hg, 95%CI (–9.61, –0.55) mm Hg, P=0.03], and diastolic pressure [MD=–4.60 mm Hg, 95%CI (–7.82, –1.39) mm Hg, P=0.005] were all higher in the S-amlodipine group than in the amlodipine group, and the incidence of adverse event [relative risk=0.55, 95%CI (0.40, 0.77), P=0.000 4] was lower in the S-amlodipine group. But no significant differences were found in changes of left ventricular posterior wall thickness, heart rate, blood pressure variability between the two groups. (2) 2.5 mg S-amlodipine vs. 5.0 mg S-amlodipine: the levels of reduction in systolic pressure [MD=4.17 mm Hg, 95%CI (2.23, 6.11) mm Hg, P<0.000 1] and diastolic pressure [MD=1.84 mm Hg, 95%CI (1.17, 2.52) mm Hg, P<0.000 01] were higher in the 5.0 mg S-amlodipine group than in the 2.5 mg S-amlodipine group, but no significant difference was found in the incidence of adverse event between the two groups. None of the primary outcomes was analyzed because they were not reported by any one of the included studies.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that S-amlodipine is slightly superior to amlodipine in reducing intima-media thickness which could indirectly reflect the effect of interventions on endpoint outcome measures, blood pressure, pulse pressure, and the incidence of adverse event. 5.0 mg S-amlodipine is slightly superior to 2.5 mg S-amlodipine in reducing blood pressure, though comparable with the latter in the effect on incidence of adverse event. The effect of S-amlodipine on all the primary outcomes is unclear because none of the included studies reported on those. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusions.