Why the study?
Does cilnidipine improve blood pressure, heart rate, and proteinuria compared to amlodipine in patients with hypertension and chronic kidney disease?
Does cilnidipine improve blood pressure, heart rate, and proteinuria compared to amlodipine in patients with hypertension and chronic kidney disease?
Cilnidipine and amlodipine provide similar blood pressure and proteinuria reduction in patients with hypertension and chronic kidney disease, but cilnidipine has a more favorable effect on heart rate.
Positions cilnidipine as a viable alternative to amlodipine in hypertension with chronic kidney disease.
Background: Hypertension is the most prevalent cardiovascular disease and the relevant data suggest that the burden, risk factors and co-morbidities associated with the essential hypertension is increasing with every passing day. It is one of the major chronic diseases resulting in high mortality and morbidity in today’s world. Aim: The aim of the study was to compare effects of cilnidipine and amlodipine on the blood pressure (BP), heart rate and proteinuria among patients of hypertension with chronic kidney disease.Methods: 100 patients were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups Group A and Group B (50 each). Group A: Patients received Cilnidipine (5-10mg/day). Group B: Patients received amlodipine (5-10mg/day).Results: No significant difference in SBP, DBP, MBP and proteinuria while comparing both the groups of patients taking cilnidipine and amlodipine at baseline i.e. 0 to 12 week, 12 to 24 weeks and 0 to 24 weeks. Cilnidipine caused decrease in HR 0 to 12 week (p value 0.001), 12 to 24 weeks (p value 0.001) and 0 to 24 weeks (p value 0.0001). Amlodipine had increased heart rate from baseline to 12 weeks (p value 0.0001), 12 to 24 weeks (p value 0.051) and 0 to 24 weeks (p value 0.001). No significant difference was seen in any biochemical readings.Conclusions: There was a significant change in all the parameters including BP, heart rate, proteinuria and other biochemical tests when they compared within the group but no significant difference while comparing both the groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bala et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: