Objective To investigate the antihypertensive effects of continuous airway positive pressure( CPAP) plus antihypertensive drugs on patients with obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome ( OSAHS) and hypertension.Methods 82 OSAHS patients with hypertension were enrolled in this study. They were randomly divided into a CPAP treatment group( 44 patients, treated with antihypertensive drugs and CPAP) , and a control group( 38 patients, treated with antihypertensive drugs only) . All the patients were performed polysomnography and 24-hour blood pressure monitoring before and 12 weeks after the treatment. Results After 12 weeks treatment, except the systolic pressure in night time( nSBP) , all the parameters of 24-hour blood monitoring improved better in the CPAP group than in the control group( all P lt; 0. 05) . The blood pressure dropped to normal in 75. 0% ( 33/44) CPAP patients and in 52. 6% ( 20 /38) control patients. In the CPAP group, 8( 18. 2% ) cases were withdrawn from antihypertensive drugs, 13( 29. 5% )cases required single agents, and 9( 20. 5% ) cases required three agents to achieve blood pressure control.But in the control group, all the patients needed two or more antihypertensive agents, in which 23( 60. 6% )patients needed three agents to achieve blood pressure control. After the treatment, the patients with dipping pattern blood pressure increased from10 to 29( 22. 7% -65. 9% , P lt;0. 05) in the CPAP group, and from10to 14( 26. 3% -36. 8%, P gt;0. 05) in the control group. Conclusions Combination therapy with CPAP and antihypertensive drugs controls blood pressure better than antihypertensive medication only for OSAHS patients with hypertension with fewer types of antihypertensive agents or even withdrawal from antihypertensive medication in some patients.
Objective To evaluate and select essential antihypertensive medicine using evidence-based approaches based on the burden of disease for township health centers located in eastern, central and western regions of China. Methods By means of the approaches, criteria, and workflow set up in the second article of this series, we referred to the recommendations of evidence-based or authority guidelines from inside and outside China, collected relevant evidence from domestic clinical studies, and recommended essential medicine based on evidence-based evaluation. Data were analyzed by Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 and GRADE profiler 3.6 to evaluate quality of evidence. Results (1) Five clinical guidelines on hypertension were included, two of which were evidence-based. (2) Totally there were nine classes and 70 antihypertensive medicines listed in the guidelines. (3) According to WHOEML (2011), NEML (2009), CNF (2010), other guidelines, and the quantity and quality of evidence, we offered a b recommendation for nifedipine, verapamil and enalapril and a weak recommendation for hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, spironolactone, propranolol, metoprolol and amlodipine. We made a recommendation against furosemide and timolol due to the lack of evidence from guidelines. (4) Nine recommended medicines have been marketed with the dosage forms and specifications corresponding to guidelines in China. The prices of metoprolol, amlodipine and enalapril were higher than those of other six (daily cost: metoprolol 3.80 to 7.60 yuan, amlodipine 2.16 to 4.32 yuan, and enalapril 0.86 to 6.88 yuan). As a whole, the prices of recommended antihypertensive medicine were affordable. (5) Results of domestic studies indicated that three bly-recommended medicines (including nifedipine, verapamil and enalapril) were safe, effective, economical and applicable. Conclusion (1) We offer a b recommendation for nifedipine, verapamil and enalapril as antihypertensive medicine and a weak recommendation for hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, spironolactone, propranolol, metoprolol and amlodipine. (2) There is lack of high-quality evidence from relevant domestic studies, especially on long-term safety and pharmacoeconomic evidence. (3) We propose that more studies should be carried out on the safety, efficacy and pharmacoeconomics of six medicines for which we make a weak recommendation to produce high-quality local evidence.