Why the study?
Does imidapril improve response to treatment and tolerability compared to nifedipine SR in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension?
Does imidapril improve response to treatment and tolerability compared to nifedipine SR in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension?
Imidapril provides similar antihypertensive efficacy to nifedipine SR but with a significantly better tolerability profile in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.
Imidapril matches nifedipine SR efficacy with fewer adverse withdrawals; extends RCT evidence supporting ACEI preference for tolerability in mild-to-moderate hypertension.
This 12-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study compared efficacy of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor imidapril 5 - 10 mg/day and the calcium channel blocker nifedipine slow-release (SR) formulation 20 - 40 mg twice daily. In total 320 patients aged 18 - 75 years, with mean sitting diastolic blood pressures of 95 - 115 mmHg, were randomized to treatment with imidapril (n = 157) or nifedipine SR (n = 163). Efficacy evaluations were based on the intent-to-treat principle. On study completion, there was no difference between the groups with respect to the primary efficacy variable of response to treatment (imidapril 63.1%; nifedipine SR 61.3%). After 2 weeks' treatment, clinically relevant decreases in blood pressure were observed in both groups, with a trend towards further reductions until study end. Fewer patients in the imidapril-treated group than the nifedipine group withdrew due to adverse events that occurred on treatment with study medication (3.2% versus 16.0%) or experienced adverse events (40.1% versus 49.7%). In addition, fewer adverse events were causally related to imidapril (24.2%) compared with nifedipine SR (41.7%). These results show that imidapril is effective in the treatment of essential hypertension and is better tolerated than nifedipine SR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Does et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: