Lercanidipine Vs Lacidipine in Isolated Systolic Hypertension
Journal of Human Hypertension (2003) 17, 799–806 & 2003 Nature Publishing Group All rights reserved 0950-9240/03 $25.00 www.nature.com/jhh ORIGINAL ARTICLE Lercanidipine vs lacidipine in isolated systolic hypertension M Millar-Craig1, B Shaffu2, A Greenough3, L Mitchell3 and C McDonald3 1Department of Cardiology, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, London Road, Derby, UK; 2Station Road Surgery, 152 Station Road, Wigston, Leicester, UK; 3Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited, Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, UK This randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel blood pressure was À0.81 (À4.45, 2.84) mmHg. These group, multicentre study compared the efficacy and confidence intervals were within the limits specified for tolerability of lercanidipine with lacidipine. Elderly equivalence, that is, (À5, 5) mmHg. Ambulatory blood patients with isolated systolic hypertension (supine pressure monitoring showed that the antihypertensive blood pressure X160/o95 mmHg) were enrolled and effects of both drugs lasted for the full 24-h dosing underwent a placebo run-in period of 14–27 days before period and followed a circadian pattern. Both treatments random allocation to lercanidipine tablets 10 mg once were well tolerated with a low incidence of adverse drug daily (n ¼ 111) or lacidipine tablets 2 mg once daily reactions and a low withdrawal rate. Significantly fewer (n ¼ 111) for the assessment period (112–160 days). patients withdrew from treatment with lercanidipine Titration to lercanidipine 20 mg once daily (two 10 mg (P ¼ 0.015). Neither treatment had any clinically signifi- tablets) or lacidipine 4 mg once daily (two 2 mg tablets) cant effect on pulse rate or cardiac conduction.
[Show full text]