English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A single-center, prospective double-blind randomized trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of the calcium channel blocker nisoldipine in a sustained release coat-core formulation (CC), titrated from 10 mg to 40 mg daily, with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, titrated from 10 to 40 mg daily, in the treatment of black South African patients with severe hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] between 115 and 140 mm Hg, confirmed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring). Treatment target was a sitting DBP &lt; 95 mm Hg by the 9th week of treatment. This was followed by a 4-month open phase using nisoldipine CC 10 to 60 mg daily. Ninety-six patients had complete data at baseline, and at the end of the double-blind and open phases, and were included in this analysis. In both groups, all patients required titration up to the maximal dose of double-blind medication. Monotherapy with nisoldipine CC, but not enalapril, significantly reduced both sitting and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Twenty-four-hour BP in the nisoldipine CC group decreased from 179+/-14 / 118+/-7 to 144+/-16 / 94+/-10 mm Hg (P &lt; .0001) versus 181+/-13 / 117+/-5 to 171+/-17 / 110+/-11 mm Hg in the enalapril group (P = ns). The profound decrease in blood pressure achieved with nisoldipine CC was accompanied by a significant reduction in left ventricular [LV] mass index, observed after only 2 months of treatment (from 146+/-40 to 129+/-35 g/m2, P = .05). In contrast, enalapril had no effect on LV mass (from 139+/-36 to 142+/-50 g/m2, P = NS). The antihypertensive effect of nisoldipine CC was further demonstrated in the open phase, during which 24-h BP decreased from 180+/-14 / 118+/-6 mm Hg (at baseline) to 142+/-16 / 92+/-10 mm Hg at the end of the 16-week open phase (P &lt; .0001). This effect was sustained with trough-to-peak ratio of 74% for systolic and 67% for diastolic BP, with further regression in LV mass. Reduction in 24-h systolic BP to &lt; 135 mm Hg was associated with a greater degree of regression of LV mass index in patients treated with nisoldipine CC. The incidence of adverse events in both groups was low and both nisoldipine CC and enalapril were well tolerated. The incidence of significant ventricular arrhythmia was also low and did not change with treatment. In conclusion, our findings suggest that nisoldipine CC administered once daily could be considered as a suitable first-line antihypertensive agent in black patients with severe hypertension, based on its profound and sustained blood-pressure-lowering effect, associated with significant regression of left ventricular mass and its low side effect profile.

Antihypertensive monotherapy with nisoldipine CC is superior to enalapril in black patients with severe hypertension