Abstract:We investigate the change of the management of treated hypertensive patients with or without diabetes in Japan using the data in 2003 and the data in 2005-2006. Physicians treated hypertensive patients more aggressively and evaluated their patients' blood pressure (BP) control more strictly in 2005-2006 than in 2003. However, physicians' assessment of BP control might be still insufficient and the BP control status of patients with diabetes was still poorer than that of non-diabetes patients even in 2005-2006.… Show more
This phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of nifedipine controlled-release (CR) 40 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) and once daily (q.d.) in 325 Japanese patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled with nifedipine CR 40 mg q.d. (ClinicalTrials.gov record: NCT01287260). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in trough seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 8 weeks. Nifedipine CR 40 mg b.i.d. showed significantly greater reductions in trough seated DBP (-7.7±0.6 mm Hg vs. -3.6±0.6 mm Hg) and trough seated systolic blood pressure (BP) (-11.1±0.9 mm Hg vs. -3.7±0.9 mm Hg) after 8 weeks of treatment compared with nifedipine CR 40 mg q.d. (both P<0.0001). At week 8, BP target achievement and responder rates were higher with nifedipine CR 40 mg b.i.d. (21.5% and 42.4% vs. 10.3% and 19.5%, respectively). Adverse events considered related to the study drug were reported in 9.0 and 9.7% of patients receiving nifedipine CR 40 mg b.i.d. and q.d., respectively. The frequency of drug-related adverse events commonly reported with nifedipine CR (headache, hot flush, palpitations, peripheral edema, hypotension, dizziness, tachycardia) was low and the results were similar between the treatment groups. In conclusion, a higher dose of nifedipine CR was associated with greater efficacy and a safety profile similar to that of the currently approved dose (40 mg q.d.) in Japanese patients with essential hypertension, and it may offer a valuable treatment choice for patients who do not achieve target BP levels with standard treatment.
This phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the efficacy and safety of nifedipine controlled-release (CR) 40 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) and once daily (q.d.) in 325 Japanese patients with essential hypertension uncontrolled with nifedipine CR 40 mg q.d. (ClinicalTrials.gov record: NCT01287260). The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in trough seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 8 weeks. Nifedipine CR 40 mg b.i.d. showed significantly greater reductions in trough seated DBP (-7.7±0.6 mm Hg vs. -3.6±0.6 mm Hg) and trough seated systolic blood pressure (BP) (-11.1±0.9 mm Hg vs. -3.7±0.9 mm Hg) after 8 weeks of treatment compared with nifedipine CR 40 mg q.d. (both P<0.0001). At week 8, BP target achievement and responder rates were higher with nifedipine CR 40 mg b.i.d. (21.5% and 42.4% vs. 10.3% and 19.5%, respectively). Adverse events considered related to the study drug were reported in 9.0 and 9.7% of patients receiving nifedipine CR 40 mg b.i.d. and q.d., respectively. The frequency of drug-related adverse events commonly reported with nifedipine CR (headache, hot flush, palpitations, peripheral edema, hypotension, dizziness, tachycardia) was low and the results were similar between the treatment groups. In conclusion, a higher dose of nifedipine CR was associated with greater efficacy and a safety profile similar to that of the currently approved dose (40 mg q.d.) in Japanese patients with essential hypertension, and it may offer a valuable treatment choice for patients who do not achieve target BP levels with standard treatment.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the frequency of outpatient visits and hypertension control as determined from health insurance records. This 9-year cohort study in Japan was based on 518 participants with hypertension who underwent health checkups in 2004. Participants were aged 35-56 years and none had a history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease. All were covered by the same employee health insurer. Mean annual outpatient visit days at a hospital/clinic during the 9-year period were classified within four quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4). Uncontrolled hypertension was defined as a systolic blood pressure (BP) ⩾140 mm Hg and a diastolic BP ⩾90 mm Hg. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension in groups Q1, Q2 and Q3 vs. Q4. The median (25th-75th percentile) annual outpatient visit days was 9.4 (4.0-15.5). Uncontrolled hypertension was observed in 62.4% of the participants in 2013. The multivariable-adjusted ORs and 95% CIs for uncontrolled hypertension in Q1, Q2 and Q3 vs. Q4 were 4.03 (2.28-7.12), 1.67 (0.99-2.81) and 1.44 (0.86-2.41), respectively. Uncontrolled hypertension increased significantly as the number of outpatient visits decreased (P for trend <0.001). This tendency was maintained when participants taking antihypertensive agents at baseline were excluded. Our study showed an inverse relationship between outpatient visit frequency and uncontrolled hypertension.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.