Comparison of the efficacy of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in African American patients with hypertension

Archives of Internal Medicine

Volumn 158, Issue 18, 1998, Pages 2029-2034

  Hall, W Dallas ^a,e   Reed, James W ^b,e   Flack, John M ^c,d   Yunis, Carla ^d   Preisser, John ^d  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d WAKE FOREST SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e Bayer Cardiovascular Advisory Board

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE BESYLATE; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; DIHYDROPYRIDINE; NIFEDIPINE;

ADULT; AGED; AMBULATORY CARE; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE ACTIVITY; ARTICLE; BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG TOLERANCE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; TREATMENT PLANNING;

ADULT; AFRICAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; AGED; AMLODIPINE; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; BLOOD PRESSURE; BODY WEIGHT; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; FEMALE; HEART RATE; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NIFEDIPINE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0032511775     PISSN: 00039926     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.158.18.2029     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al. Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991. Hypertension. 1995;25:305-313.
2. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI). The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:2414-2446.
3. Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Cushman WC, et al. Single-drug therapy for hypertension in men: a comparison of six antihypertensive agents with placebo [revised figures appeared in Am J Hypertens. 1995;8:189-192]. N Engl J Med. 1993;328: 914-921.
4. M'Buyamba-Kabangu JR, Lepira B, Fagard R, et al. Relative potency of a beta-blocking and a calcium entry blocking agent as antihypertensive drugs in black patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1986;29:523-527.
5. Massie BM. Demographic considerations in the selection of antihypertensive therapy. Am J Cardiol. 1987;60(suppl):121I-126I.
6. Saunders E, Weir MR, Kong WK, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of a β-blocker, a calcium channel blocker, and a converting enzyme inhibitor in hypertensive blacks. Arch Intern Med. 1990;150:1707-1713.
7. Zing W, Ferguson RK, Vlasses PH. Calcium antagonists in elderly and black hypertensive patients: therapeutic controversies. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:2154-2162.
8. Materson BJ. Calcium channel blockers: is it time to split the lump? Am J Hypertens. 1995;8:325-329.
9. Perloff D, Grim C, Flack J, et al. Human blood pressure determination by sphygmomanometry. Circulation. 1993;88:2460-2470.
10. Glasser SP, Ripa SR, Allenby KS, Schwartz LA, Commins BM, Jungerwirth S, on behalf of the Nifedipine Study Group. The efficacy and safety of once-daily nifedipine administered without food: the coat-core formulation compared with the gastrointestinal therapeutic system formulation in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Clin Ther. 1995;17:296-312.
11. Glasser SP, Jain A, Allenby KS, et al. The efficacy and safety of once-daily nifedipine: the coat-core formulation compared with the gastrointestinal therapeutic system formulation in patients with mild-to-moderate diastolic hypertension. Clin Ther. 1995;17:12-29.
12. Zidek W, Spiecker C, Knaup G, Steindl L, Breuer H-W, on behalf of the Hypertension Study Group. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of nifedipine coat-core versus amlodipine in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther. 1995;17:686-700.
13. Byyny RL, Shannon T, Schwartz LA, Rotolo C, Jungerwirth S, for the Hypertension Study Group. Efficacy and safety of nifedipine coat-core versus amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension: comparison of 24-hour mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 1997;2:77-84.
14. Lorimer AR, Anderson JA, Laher MS, et al. Double-blind comparison of amlodipine and nifedipine retard in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 1994;8:65-68.
15. Zidek W, Spiecker C, Knaup G, Steindl L, Breuer H-WM. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of nifedipine coat-core versus amlodipine in the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther. 1995;17:686-700.
16. Detry JM, Block P, DeBacker G, Degaute JP. Patient compliance and therapeutic coverage: comparison of amlodipine and slow release nifedipine in the treatment of hypertension: The Belgian Collaborative Study Group [published correction appears in Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;48:314]. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;47:477-481.
17. Bremner AD, Fell PJ, Hosie J, James IGV, Saul PA, Taylor SH. Early side-effects of antihypertensive therapy: comparison of amlodipine and nifedipine retard. J Hum Hypertens. 1993;7:79-81.
18. Granberry MC, Gardner SF, Schneider EF, Carter IR. Comparison of two formulations of nifedipine during 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Pharmacotherapy. 1996;16:932-936.
19. Simons WR, Rizzo JA, Stoddard M, Smith ME. The costs and effects of switching calcium channel blockers: evidence from Medicaid claims data [published correction appears in Clin Ther. 1995;17:348-351]. Clin Ther. 1995;17:154-173.