ABSTRACT
Objective To explore the impact of amlodipine ,enalapril ,telmisartan and metoprolol on the blood pressure variability (BPV) in the patients with essential hypertension(EH) .Methods 120 patients with EH were divided into the amlodipine ,enala-pril ,telmisartan and metoprolol groups with 30 cases in each group .The ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM ) was adopt-ed and BPV before treatment and after 8-week treatment was observed .Results The anti-hypertensive effect of amlodipine and telmisartan was more obvious ,and the anti-hypertensive effect of metoprolol on the diastolic blood pressure was significant ,but the anti-hypertensive effect of enalapril was unobvious .Amlodipine and telmisartan lowered BPV at most time .Amlodipine mainly re-duced the daytime diastolic BPV ,while telmisartan reduced the night BPV significantly ;metoprolol and enalapril increased the day-time systolic BPV and decreased the nighttime BPV in 24 h BPV .Conclusion Amlodipine ,enalapril ,telmisartan and metoprolol can reduce the blood pressure in the patients with EH ,but their influences on BPV have difference .The impact of different anti-hyper-tensive drugs on BPV is inconsistent with the anti-hypertensive effect .
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of piperacillin-sulbactam (PIP-SBT) and piperacillin-tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) in the treatment of bacterial respiratory and urinary tract infections. A randomised, single-blind, controlled clinical trial was performed. Differences in clinical efficacy, bacteriology and safety between the two groups were subjected to statistical analysis, including intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. A total of 215 cases were enrolled, with 203 complete cases (99 PIP-SBT, 104 PIP-TAZ). A total of 209 cases (103 PIP-SBT, 106 PIP-TAZ) were included in the ITT analysis and a total of 212 cases (104 PIP-SBT, 108 PIP-TAZ) were included in the safety analysis. Overall efficacy rates of PIP-SBT and PIP-TAZ were 93.2% and 93.4%, respectively. Overall bacterial eradication rates of the two groups were 95% and 97.59%, respectively. Among the PIP-SBT group, eight patients (7.69%) had adverse events, including four probable drug-related events. Among the PIP-TAZ group, nine patients (8.33%) had adverse events, including one definitely drug-related and four probable drug-related events. All differences between the two groups were insignificant. PIP-SBT could be a suitable replacement for PIP-TAZ in the therapy of community-acquired respiratory and urinary tract infections caused by beta-lactamase-producing bacterial isolates.
