Current medical research and opinion · 2017
Long-term outcomes of lercanidipine versus other calcium channel blockers in newly diagnosed hypertension: a nationwide cohort study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cheng Kai-Hung, Cheng Kai-Chun, Cheng Kai-Yuan, Yang Yi-Hsin, Lee Chung-Wei, Lai Wen-Ter
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been proved to have beneficial effects on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, especially in stroke. Lercanidipine, a highly lipophilic CCB, lacks data regarding long-term outcomes including: CV, stroke, renal and all-cause mortality. This retrospective cohort study aims to clarify this.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 144,630 newly diagnosed hypertension (HTN) patients (age: 18-65 years) in 2005 from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database were enrolled in this observational study. A pure hypertension population was fetched by excluding all chronic diseases in the Charlson Comorbidities Index. Patients were stratified into the lercanidipine group (n = 1303) and the propensity-score-matched comparative group (nifedipine, amlodipine or felodipine, n = 15,301).
RESULTS: Compared to other CCBs, lercanidipine didn't have a significant difference on the study endpoints. In individual head-to-head comparisons, lercanidipine was shown to be superior to nifedipine in incident stroke with an adjusted HR with 95% CI of 0.526 (0.347-0.797) (p = .0025). The key limitations were that personal variables, such as smoking habits, alcohol intake, body mass index and physical activity and blood pressure profiles were not available in the nationwide registry database.
CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed patients with hypertension, lercanidipine was superior to nifedipine in the six-year period when the analyzed endpoint was stroke.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 144,630 newly diagnosed hypertension (HTN) patients (age: 18-65 years) in 2005 from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database were enrolled in this observational study. A pure hypertension population was fetched by excluding all chronic diseases in the Charlson Comorbidities Index. Patients were stratified into the lercanidipine group (n = 1303) and the propensity-score-matched comparative group (nifedipine, amlodipine or felodipine, n = 15,301).
RESULTS: Compared to other CCBs, lercanidipine didn't have a significant difference on the study endpoints. In individual head-to-head comparisons, lercanidipine was shown to be superior to nifedipine in incident stroke with an adjusted HR with 95% CI of 0.526 (0.347-0.797) (p = .0025). The key limitations were that personal variables, such as smoking habits, alcohol intake, body mass index and physical activity and blood pressure profiles were not available in the nationwide registry database.
CONCLUSION: In newly diagnosed patients with hypertension, lercanidipine was superior to nifedipine in the six-year period when the analyzed endpoint was stroke.