Clinical therapeutics · 2009
Results of a meta-analysis comparing the tolerability of lercanidipine and other dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Makarounas-Kirchmann Kelly, Glover-Koudounas Sophie, Ferrari Paolo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Results from clinical studies suggest that the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) lercanidipine may be associated with a lower incidence of peripheral edema than are older dihydro-pyridine CCBs.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the relative risk (RR) of dihydropyridine CCB-specific adverse events with lercanidipine versus the older dihydro-pyridine CCBs (first generation: amlodipine, felodipine, and nifedipine), and versus the other lipophilic dihy-dropyridine CCBs (second generation: lacidipine and manidipine).
METHODS: A systematic literature search (all years through August 11, 2008) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for English-language reports of single- or double-blind RCTs of > or = 4 weeks' duration that compared the tolerability of lercanidipine with other dihydropyridine CCBs in participants with mild (140-159/90-99 mm Hg) to moderate (160-179/100-109 mm Hg) hypertension.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs (6 used first-generation drugs, and 4 used second-generation drugs) met the criteria for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes for lowering blood pressure did not differ statistically between lercanid-ipine and either generation of medications. Compared with the first generation, lercanidipine was associated with a reduced risk of peripheral edema (52/742 with lercanidipine vs 88/627 with first generation; RR = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62]), but not flushing or headache. The frequency of peripheral edema, flushing, and headache did not differ statistically between lercanidi-pine and the second-generation drugs. Study participants were less likely to withdraw from the RCTs because of peripheral edema (RR = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.47]) or any adverse event (RR = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]) when treated with lercanidipine rather than a drug from the first generation, but not when treated with lercanidipine rather than second-generation drugs.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, lercanidipine was associated with a lower risk of peripheral edema and a lower risk of treatment withdrawal because of peripheral edema than were the first-generation, but not the second-generation, dihydropyridine CCBs.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the relative risk (RR) of dihydropyridine CCB-specific adverse events with lercanidipine versus the older dihydro-pyridine CCBs (first generation: amlodipine, felodipine, and nifedipine), and versus the other lipophilic dihy-dropyridine CCBs (second generation: lacidipine and manidipine).
METHODS: A systematic literature search (all years through August 11, 2008) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for English-language reports of single- or double-blind RCTs of > or = 4 weeks' duration that compared the tolerability of lercanidipine with other dihydropyridine CCBs in participants with mild (140-159/90-99 mm Hg) to moderate (160-179/100-109 mm Hg) hypertension.
RESULTS: Eight RCTs (6 used first-generation drugs, and 4 used second-generation drugs) met the criteria for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes for lowering blood pressure did not differ statistically between lercanid-ipine and either generation of medications. Compared with the first generation, lercanidipine was associated with a reduced risk of peripheral edema (52/742 with lercanidipine vs 88/627 with first generation; RR = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62]), but not flushing or headache. The frequency of peripheral edema, flushing, and headache did not differ statistically between lercanidi-pine and the second-generation drugs. Study participants were less likely to withdraw from the RCTs because of peripheral edema (RR = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.47]) or any adverse event (RR = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]) when treated with lercanidipine rather than a drug from the first generation, but not when treated with lercanidipine rather than second-generation drugs.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, lercanidipine was associated with a lower risk of peripheral edema and a lower risk of treatment withdrawal because of peripheral edema than were the first-generation, but not the second-generation, dihydropyridine CCBs.