1,721,105 research outputs found
Comparative study of the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine vs. perindopril/amlodipine in peripheral blood pressure after missed dose in type 2 diabetes
No full textComparative study of the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine vs. perindopril/amlodipine in peripheral blood pressure after missed dose in type 2 diabetes
No full textINTRODUCTION:
Combination therapy is needed to control blood pressure (BP) in a large number of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Adherence to treatment is a major clinical problem; therefore, the time duration of the antihypertensive action of a drug determines BP control when a dose is skipped.
OBJECTIVES:
The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/amlodipine combination when a drug dose is missed.
METHODS:
In this noninferiority trial with a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design, 260 patients received either olmesartan 20-40 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg or perindopril 4-8 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg for 24 weeks. The main outcome was the sitting office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 h from last administration.
RESULTS:
The olmesartan/amlodipine combination reached noninferiority criteria in reduction of office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared with the perindopril/amlodipine combination (-11.7 and -10.5 mmHg, respectively). Office SBP and pulse pressure were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 h after the missed dose, observing a trend to greater SBP reduction in the olmesartan/amlodipine group.
CONCLUSIONS:
The combination olmesartan/amlodipine is safe, well tolerated, and as effective as the combination of perindopril/amlodipine in the control of essential hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. A missed dose does not leave the patients unprotected in both treatments; however, a faster control with less dose increment is observed with olmesartan/amlodipine
Blood pressure targets achievement according to 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines in three european excellence centers for hypertension
No full textIntroduction The most recent European guidelines on hypertension rede ned o ce blood pressure (BP) treatment targets according to age strata and cardiovascular (CV) risk pro le. Aim To evaluate proportions of adult outpatients achieving o ce BP treatment targets recommended by current compared to previous hypertension guidelines. Methods We extracted data from medical databases of adult outpatients followed in three excellence centers in hyperten- sion (Rome, Italy; L’Aquila, Italy; Valencia, Spain). O ce BP treatment targets were de ned according to either 2013 ESH/ ESC guidelines (< 140/90 mmHg in non-diabetic individuals aged 18–80 years, < 150/90 mmHg in those aged ≥ 80 years, and < 140/85 mmHg in diabetic individuals), or 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines: (< 130/80 mmHg in individuals aged 18–65 years, < 140/80 mmHg in those aged 65–79 and ≥ 80 years). SCORE risk was assessed in all patients. Results From an overall sample of 14,229 adult subjects, 4049 (28.5%) resulted normotensive individuals, 3088 (21.7%) were untreated and 7092 (49.8%) treated hypertensive outpatients. Treated hypertensives showed signi cantly higher ESC score risk (8.3 ± 13.0% vs. 3.9 ± 8.4%; P < 0.001) and lower systolic/diastolic BP (140.6 ± 18.8/83.9 ± 11.5 vs. 148.3 ± 14.2/94.7 ± 10.1 mmHg; P < 0.001) than untreated hypertensives. Compared to previous guidelines, BP control signi cantly lowered in non-diabetic outpatients (n = 5847) of all age groups [18–65 years: (13.1% vs. 42.9%), 65–79 years (25.8% vs. 42.5%) and ≥ 80 years (29.1% vs. 66.0%); P < 0.001 for all comparisons]; similar reductions were observed in diabetic outpatients (n = 1245) [18–65 years (32.7% vs. 14.8%), 65–79 years (37.3% vs. 24.7%) and ≥ 80 years (47.1% vs. 27.9%); P < 0.001]. Conclusions According to the recommended new o ce BP treatment targets, the proportions of treated uncontrolled hyper- tensive patients substantially increased. These ndings should prompt a tighter application of therapeutic recommendations and, thus, highlight the need for improving hypertension management and control strategies
Comparative study of the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine vs. perindopril/amlodipine in peripheral blood pressure after missed dose in type 2 diabetes
No full textIntroduction: Combination therapy is needed to control blood pressure (BP) in a large number of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Adherence to treatment is a major clinical problem; therefore, the time duration of the antihypertensive action of a drug determines BP control when a dose is skipped. Objectives: The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/amlodipine combination when a drug dose is missed. Methods: In this noninferiority trial with a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design, 260 patients received either olmesartan 20-40 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg or perindopril 4-8 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg for 24 weeks. The main outcome was the sitting office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 h from last administration. Results: The olmesartan/amlodipine combination reached noninferiority criteria in reduction of office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared with the perindopril/amlodipine combination (-11.7 and -10.5 mmHg, respectively). Office SBP and pulse pressure were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 h after the missed dose, observing a trend to greater SBP reduction in the olmesartan/amlodipine group. Conclusions: The combination olmesartan/amlodipine is safe, well tolerated, and as effective as the combination of perindopril/amlodipine in the control of essential hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. A missed dose does not leave the patients unprotected in both treatments; however, a faster control with less dose increment is observed with olmesartan/amlodipine
Microvascular brain damage with aging and hypertension: pathophysiological consideration and clinical implications
No full text
Comparative study of the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine vs. perindopril/amlodipine in peripheral blood pressure after missed dose in type 2 diabetes
No full textINTRODUCTION: Combination therapy is needed to control blood pressure (BP) in a large number of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Adherence to treatment is a major clinical problem; therefore, the time duration of the antihypertensive action of a drug determines BP control when a dose is skipped.
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/amlodipine combination when a drug dose is missed.
METHODS: In this noninferiority trial with a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design, 260 patients received either olmesartan 20-40 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg or perindopril 4-8 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg for 24 weeks. The main outcome was the sitting office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 h from last administration.
RESULTS: The olmesartan/amlodipine combination reached noninferiority criteria in reduction of office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared with the perindopril/amlodipine combination (-11.7 and -10.5 mmHg, respectively). Office SBP and pulse pressure were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 h after the missed dose, observing a trend to greater SBP reduction in the olmesartan/amlodipine group.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination olmesartan/amlodipine is safe, well tolerated, and as effective as the combination of perindopril/amlodipine in the control of essential hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. A missed dose does not leave the patients unprotected in both treatments; however, a faster control with less dose increment is observed with olmesartan/amlodipine
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
