This study aims to detect early changes of kidney in patients with primary hypertension by 3.0 T functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). 26 patients with primary hypertension (hypertension group) and 33 healthy volunteers (control group) underwent conventional and functional magnetic resonance scans, which included blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) MRI, diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We measured renal cortical thickness (CT), parenchymal thickness (PT), and functional values of renal cortex and medulla including R2* value, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and fractional anisotropy (FA) value in each group, and then calculated the cortical/parenchymal thickness ratio (CPR). Compared with those in the control group, CT and CPR in hypertension group were larger (P<0.01), cortical and medullar R2* values increased (P<0.01) whereas medullar FA values decreased (P<0.05). It could be well concluded that noninvasive 3.0 T functional MRI would have important clinical significance in identifying early abnormalities of kidney in hypertension patients.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety Losartan for essential hypertension associated withhyperuricemia. Methods Included randomized controlled trials of Losartan versus Valsartan. Electronic searchconducted in CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library (until 2008, Issue 4), PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese Biomedicine database,Chinese Scientific Journals Full-text Database, and China Journal Full-text Database (until 2008, Issue 10). Two reviewers extracted data independently. RevMan 5.0 software developed by the Cochrane Collaboration was used for Metaanalysis.Results Only 7 trials with 1 136 eligible patients were included in the systematic review. Meta-analysis showedno significant difference in reductions of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and adverse events betweenLosartan and Valsartan groups. However, a significant difference of serum uric acid reduction was observed betweenLosartan and Valsartan group. Losartan play a significant role of decreased serum uric acid levels. Conclusions Based on this systematic review, Losartan is effective and well tolerated in reducing BP and serum uric acid levels. Further large randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials are needed in long-term safety and efficacy and different subgroups of Losartan.
摘要:目的: 比较咪达普利与培哚普利对原发性高血压患者的的降压效果和不良反应。 方法 :将入选的60例1～2级高血压病患者,随机分为2组,咪达普利组,每日晨起口服咪达普利(5～10 mg,1次/d),培哚普利组,每日晨起口服培哚普利(4～8 mg,1次/d)。治疗4周,观察2组治疗前、后的血压,记录不良反应。 结果 :经治疗后咪达普利与培哚普利组血压均明显下降(Plt;0.05),组间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);总不良反应发生率咪达普利组16.8%,培哚普利组20%,而咪达普利组的咳嗽发生率为6.8%,培哚普利组为16.8%。 结论 :咪达普利和培哚普利均能有效降压,二者降压效果相似,但咪达普利的咳嗽发生率较低。Abstract: Objective: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of imidapril versus peridopril in patients with essential hypertension. Methods : Selected 60 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, in which divided two groups by random.They were administered imidapril 5～10 mg once daily or and peridopril 4～8 mg once daily for 4 weeks. During the curative period of 4 weeks, the antihypertensive efficacy and adverse reaction were observed. Results :The blood pressure drecreased prominently in both groups after four weeks treament(Plt;0.05), but there was no significant difference in antihypertensive efficacy between the two groups(P＞0.05). The occurrence of the total adverse reaction in imidapril and peridopril groups was 16.8% and 20%, respectively, while the occurrence of the cough in two groups was 6.8% and 16.8%, respectively. Conclusion :Both imidapril and peridopril exert favourable and similar hepotensive effect, however the cough occurrence of imidapril is lower than that of peridopril.
Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of carvedilol and metoprolol for primary hypertension. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched for relevant studies from inception to December, 2012. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results 7 trials involving 2 243 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the reduction of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate between the carvedilol and metoprolol groups (Pgt;0.05). However, the carvedilol group was superior to the metoprolol group in improving serum triglyceride (MD=0.75, 95%CI 0.45 to 1.04, Plt;0.000 01), serum cholesterol (MD=0.38, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.56, Plt;0.000 1), serum low density lipoprotein (MD=0.59, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.85, Plt;0.000 01), serum high density lipoprotein (MD= –0.09, 95%CI –0.16 to –0.02, P=0.008), and fasting plasma glucose (MD=0.36, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.51, Plt;0.000 01). In addition, the incidence of drug related adverse reaction was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.63, P=0.000 1). Conclusion Based on current evidence, carvedilol tends to have beneficial effects on metabolic parameters and safety profiles, compared with metoprolol.
Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of rosiglitazone in treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with essential hypertension (HBP). Methods Such databases as The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009), PubMed (1970 to May 2010), CBM (1978 to May 2010), CNKI (1996 to May 2010), WanFang Database (1999 to May 2010), VIP (1996 to May 2010), and Google Scholar were searched on computer, and the relevant journals such as Chinese Journal of Diabetes Mellitus were also hand researched to investigate references and collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about rosiglitazone (experimental group) compared with non-rosiglitazone (control group) in treating T2DM with HBP. The data were extracted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers independently, the quality of the included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0, and meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.0 software. Results Among 10 RCTs involving 738 patients, one was in English from Greece, while nine were in Chinese. The average score quality of the included studies was in C level. The results of meta-analyses showed that the experimental group was more effective than the control group in lowering blood pressure levels (SBP: WMD= –17.83 mmHg, 95%CI –27.63 to –8.02; DBP: WMD=–7.81 mmHg, 95%CI –10.18 to –5.44), blood glucose levels (FBG: WMD= –1.66 mmol/L, 95%CI –3.08 to –0.23; PBG: WMD= –2.38 mmol/L, 95%CI – 4.12 to –0.64), triglyceride (TG) levels (WMD= –0.29 mmol/L, 95%CI –0.43 to –0.14), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (WMD= –0.76 mmol/L, 95%CI –1.02 to –0.50), insulin levels (FINS: WMD= –7.06 mU/L, 95%CI –9.47 to –4.65; PINS: WMD= –98.86 mU/L, 95%CI –116.38 to –81.34), glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels (WMD=–0.75%, 95%CI –1.07 to –0.42), and insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR) (WMD= –1.61, 95%CI –2.18 to –1.05); the experimental group was more effective than the control group in increaseing the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (HDL-C) (WMD=0.21 mmol/L, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.30), and insulin sensitivity index (ISI) (WMD=1.64, 95%CI 1.48 to 1.80); the therapeutic effect for hypertension was greater in the experimental group than in the control group (OR=9.35, 95%CI 4.76 to 18.35); there were no significant differences in cholesterol levels (TC) (WMD= –0.22 mmol/L, 95%CI –0.55 to 0.10), body mass index (BMI) (WMD= –0.26 kg/m2, 95%CI –0.86 to 0.33), heart rates (HR) (WMD=0.50 bpm, 95%CI –4.98 to 5.98), and urine albumin excretion (UAE) (WMD= –16.00mg/24h, 95%CI –37.90 to 5.90); additionally, there were also no significant differences in adverse reactions between the two groups, such as edema (OR=3.01, 95%CI 0.62 to 14.54), gastro-intestinal discomfort (OR=1.19, 95%CI 0.63 to 2.24), headache and fatigue (OR=9.79, 95%CI 0.51 to 186.95), and anemia (OR=2.38, 95%CI 0.09 to 59.90). Conclusion To treating patients suffering from T2DM with HBP, the rosiglitazone is much effective than the control group in lowering blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid, reducing insulin resistance and improving β-cell function.
Objective To assess the efficacy, safety, and economy of Total flavones of Hippophae Rhamnoides L. (TFH) for Essential Hypertension. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2009), EMbase (1980 to June 2009), CNKI (1995 to June 2009), and VIP (1989 to June 2009). We also handsearched the relevant journals and conference proceedings. Then we screened the retrieved studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and performed meta-analyses using the Cochrane Collaboration RevMan 5.0 software. Results Only seven trials involving 644 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that TFH had the similar effects to calcium-channel blocker (CCB) (WMD 2.34, 95%CI –0.86 to 5.53) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) (WMD –0.01, 95%CI – 0.97 to 0.95) in decreasing diastolic blood pressure, but TFH plus CCB was superior to CCB in decreasing systolic blood pressure (Plt;0.000 01) and diastolic blood pressure (Plt;0.000 01). TFH was inferior to ACEI in improving left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) (Plt;0.000 01) and inter ventricular septum thickness (IVST) (Plt;0.000 01), but TFH plus CCB was more effective in improving LVPWT (Plt;0.000 01) and IVST (Plt;0.000 01). Moreover, TFH was similar to ACEI in regulating blood β2-microglobulin (WMD –0.57, 95%CI –1.18 to 0.04), creatinine clearance rate (P=0.19), and urinary albumin value in 24 hours (P=0.42). The incidence of adverse effects was significantly lower in the TFH group compared to the ACEI group. Conclusion The evidence available shows that TFH may decrease systolic and diastolic blood
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality and the reliability of the conclusions of systematic reviews (SRs) on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment for essential hypertension. MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to collect the SRs which focused on the TCM for essential hypertension from January 2015 to June 2019. PRISMA statement, AMSTAR 2 tool and GRADE system were respectively applied to evaluate report quality, methodological quality and evidence quality assessment of included outcomes of SRs.ResultsA total of 25 SRs involving 65 outcomes were included. PRISMA evaluation results showed that the quality of 25 SRs reports was good. However, all studies did not report item 5 " Was an ‘a prior’ design provided?”. AMSTAR 2 tool evaluation results showed that the 25 SRs of quality levels were markedly low, where most problems concerned item 2 " If there is ‘a prior’ published in advance”, item 3 " Were reasons about selection of the study designs explained”, item 7 " Were the list of exclude of studies and justify the exclusions provided”, item 10 " Were the sources of funding for the studies reported”, and item 12 " If meta-analysis was performed, whether the author assesses the potential impact of risk of bias”. The results of grading showed that most outcomes were graded as " low” or " very low” quality. The main factors contributing to downgrading evidence quality were limitations, followed by inconsistencies, inaccuracies and publication bias.ConclusionsCurrent evidences shows that the treatment of essential hypertension by TCM has been supported by low quality evidence-based medical evidence. However, the SRs methodology for the treatment of essential hypertension by TCM is generally poor in quality and the standardization still require improvement.
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。