Why the study?
Does a fixed combination of perindopril arginine and indapamide improve blood pressure control compared to perindopril erbumine and indapamide in patients with arterial hypertension and high cardiovascular risk?
Does a fixed combination of perindopril arginine and indapamide improve blood pressure control compared to perindopril erbumine and indapamide in patients with arterial hypertension and high cardiovascular risk?
The original fixed-dose combination of perindopril arginine and indapamide provided superior 24-hour blood pressure profile control and variability normalization compared to the generic perindopril erbumine and indapamide combination in high-risk hypertensive patients.
Perindopril arginine/indapamide may provide better office and ambulatory BP control than erbumine formulation in high-risk HTN; leaves open comparative efficacy pending RCTs.
Objective. The aim of the study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy of fixed combinations of perindopril and indapamide in patients with arterial hypertension (HTN) and high cardiovascular risk. Design and methods. We included 65 patients with 1–2 degree of HTN who had not taken the studied drugs before: either perindopril arginine / indapamide 10 mg + 2,5 mg, n = 35), or indapamide / perindopril erbumine K 2,5 mg + 8 mg, n = 30). Clinical efficacy of antihypertensive therapy was evaluated at three different time points. We assessed objective clinical status, blood biochemistry, office blood pressure (BP), and parameters of daily monitoring of BP (MBP). Results. Perindopril arginine plus indapamide vs indapamide plus perindopril erbumine K after 4 and after 12 weeks shows higher antihypertensive effect regarding office BP and provides significantly better control of the daily BP profile based on the MBP results. Therefore, MBP is required in HTN high-risk patients who take indapamide / perindopril erbuminе K in order to assess the reduction in nighttime BP, independently of achieving target office BP values.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Korennova et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: