Key result
A review of 42 studies involving over 7,400 patients evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine compared to racemic amlodipine for the treatment of hypertension and angina.
Why the study?
Does S-amlodipine improve efficacy and safety in hypertension and angina compared to racemic amlodipine?
Does S-amlodipine improve efficacy and safety in hypertension and angina compared to racemic amlodipine?
S-amlodipine is presented as an effective and safe alternative to racemic amlodipine for the management of hypertension and angina based on a review of 42 studies.
May guide amlodipine enantiomer selection in hypertension; extends prior RCTs via systematic review of 42 studies.
Calcium channel blockers are among the first-line drugs for treatment of hypertension (HTN). S-amlodipine (S-AM), an S-enantiomer of amlodipine, is available in India and in other countries like China, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, and Nepal. Being clinically researched for nearly two decades, we performed in-depth review of S-AM. This review discusses clinical evidence from total 42 studies (26 randomized controlled trials, 14 observational studies, and 2 meta-analyses) corroborating over 7400 patients treated with S-AM. Efficacy and safety of S-AM in HTN in comparison to racemic amlodipine, used as monotherapy and in combination with other antihypertensives, efficacy in angina, and pleiotropic benefits with S-AM, are discussed in this review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dalal et al. (2018) conducted a review in Hypertension (HTN) and angina (n=7,400). S-amlodipine vs. Racemic amlodipine was evaluated. A review of 42 studies involving over 7,400 patients evaluated the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine compared to racemic amlodipine for the treatment of hypertension and angina.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: