Literature DB >> 2092965

Clinical aspects of antihypertensive therapy with urapidil. Comparison with hydrochlorothiazide.

A Distler1, R Haerlin, G Hilgenstock, J Passfall.   

Abstract

To define the efficacy and tolerability of urapidil as a monotherapy in ambulatory patients with hypertension, we compared urapidil with a standard first-line antihypertensive agent, hydrochlorothiazide (HCT), in a multicentre general practice trial. The study was an 8-week double-blind randomised parallel-group comparison, with a 3-week pretreatment phase (1 week of gradual reduction of antihypertensive agents, 2 weeks of placebo). Blood pressure and heart rate were monitored using an automatic device (boso-digital S II), in the morning after the last intake of medication in the evening before. The dosages of urapidil used were 30mg, 60mg or 90mg twice daily; the dosages of HCT were 12.5 mg/day or 12.5 or 25mg twice daily. If necessary, dosage adjustments were performed every 2 weeks. Data from 165 patients could be evaluated (urapidil, n = 78; HCT, n = 87). Sitting blood pressure was reduced significantly, by 9.4/7.1 mm Hg with urapidil and by 20.7/11.2 mm Hg by HCT. The effect of HCT on systolic (p less than 0.001) and diastolic (p less than 0.05) blood pressure was significantly more pronounced than that of urapidil. The response rates (diastolic blood pressure decreased to less than or equal to 90mm Hg or by greater than or equal to 10mm Hg) were 36% of patients with urapidil and 56% with HCT. Heart rate was not significantly affected by either treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2092965     DOI: 10.2165/00003495-199000404-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Drugs        ISSN: 0012-6667            Impact factor:   9.546


  11 in total

1.  [Antihypertensive effect and tolerance to urapidil. Comparison with nifedipine in a multicenter double-blind study].

Authors:  K O Stumpe; P Feldhaus; R Haerlin
Journal:  Fortschr Med       Date:  1989-01-15

2.  Double-blind comparison of urapidil and prazosin in the treatment of patients with essential hypertension.

Authors:  Y Kaneko
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Comparison between the effects of urapidil and methyldopa on left ventricular hypertrophy and haemodynamics in humans.

Authors:  C A Feldstein; A O Olivieri; R P Sabarís
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 9.546

4.  Our appropriate concern about hypokalemia.

Authors:  N M Kaplan
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 4.965

5.  Comparison of urapidil and atenolol in hypertension.

Authors:  E Török; M Wagner; M Podmaniczky
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 9.546

6.  Testing for homogeneity. I. The binomial and multinomial distributions.

Authors:  R F Potthoff; M Whittinghill
Journal:  Biometrika       Date:  1966-06       Impact factor: 2.445

Review 7.  Pharmacologic profile of urapidil.

Authors:  P A van Zwieten
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1989-08-15       Impact factor: 2.778

8.  Untreated mild hypertension. A report by the Management Committee of the Australian Therapeutic Trial in Mild Hypertension.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1982-01-23       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Comparison of the antihypertensive effect of urapidil and metoprolol in hypertension.

Authors:  G Leonetti; C Mazzola; S Boni; E Guffanti; A Meani; A Zanchetti
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.953

Review 10.  Status of risk factors and their consideration in antihypertensive therapy.

Authors:  W B Kannel
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  1987-01-23       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Urapidil. A reappraisal of its use in the management of hypertension.

Authors:  M Dooley; K L Goa
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 9.546

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.