目的:观察非洛地平与吲达帕胺治疗高血压的疗效。方法:将1级、2级高血压患者60例随机分为两组, 非洛地平、吲达帕胺组30例(每日10mg、2.5mg,晚餐后口服), 卡托普利为对照组30例(75mg/d,分3次口服),连续治疗8周。结果:两组之间治疗高血压没有显著性差异,但控制24h血压非洛地平与吲达帕胺更好,同时副作用发生率更低。结论:非洛地平联合吲达帕胺是治疗高血压有效安全的药物。
ObjectiveTo systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of indapamide versus calcium channel blockers (CCBs) for the treatment of hypertension. MethodsDatabases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2011), PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched from inception to Nov. 2011, for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on indapamide versus CCBs for hypertension. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. ResultsIn total, 42 RCTs were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that, the ΔDBP of indapamide was lower than that of felodipine; and the rest were similar between the two groups in the excellent rate, total effective rate, ΔSBP and ΔDBP, without significant difference (excellent rate:RR=1.01, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.09, P=0.90; total effective rate:RR=1.01, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.06, P=0.69; ΔSBP:MD=-1.21, 95%CI-3.00 to 0.59, P=0.19; ΔDBP:MD=-0.87, 95%CI-1.89 to 0.15, P=0.09). However, the incidence of indapamide was lower than those of nifedipine, nimodipine and nitrendipine, with significant differences. ConclusionBased on current clinical evidence, for hypertension, the effectiveness of indapamide is similar to CCBs, but safer than CCBs.