Cited by 40Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesMedication Adherence and ComplianceCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Quality of life and calcium channel blockade with nifedipine GITS versus amlodipine in hypertensive patients in Spain

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Compliance with hypertension treatment is affected by treatment-related factors (complexity, side effects), efficacy and compound-specific effects that impact on quality of life. This study examined the differences in quality of life produced by two once-daily calcium channel blockers using different delivery systems: nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) and amlodipine. DESIGN: This was a double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial comparing nifedipine GITS (30 mg) and amlodipine (5 mg) for 24 weeks following a placebo run-in. Clinical, laboratory evaluations and quality-of-life data were assessed at screening, baseline randomization and three times during active therapy. SETTING: The study was conducted in 13 medical clinics in Spain. PATIENTS: The sample comprised 430 screened and 356 randomized patients with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95-114 mmHg). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure and in health-related quality of life were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between active treatment groups in the blood pressure changes (systolic blood pressure: nifedipine GITS -15.5 mmHg; amlodipine -15.7 mmHg). Spontaneous adverse events consistent with calcium channel blockage were not different. The nifedipine GITS group improved in all quality-of-life measures except Sexual Symptom Distress and showed a significantly greater improvement than amlodipine in overall Quality of Life (P< 0.05), General Perceived Health (P < 0.026) and its subscale Vitality (P < 0.019). The amlodipine group declined in overall Quality of Life, General Perceived Health, Vitality and Sleep Disturbance, and significantly in Sexual Symptom Distress (P < 0.045). However, this group improved in self-reported Cognitive Functioning (P=0.036), Mental Acuity (P < 0.005) and Detachment/disorientation (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest compound-specific effects on quality of life that may be due to differences in the delivery system. Nifedipine GITS is short-acting (2 h half-life) and is delivered continuously over a 24 h period, while amlodipine has a half-life of 40 h, which may produce more sustained low-level effects. While a more beneficial profile was observed for nifedipine, amlodipine demonstrated potential positive effects on cognitive functioning.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00004872-199816120-00018

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 40

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Turner, 1992, Cardiology, 80, 11, 10.1159/000175043 · DOI
  2. Dahlof, 1991, Lancet, 338, 1281, 10.1016/0140-6736(91)92589-T · DOI
  3. 1991, JAMA, 265, 3255, 10.1001/jama.265.24.3255 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Amery, 1985, Lancet, i, 1349, 10.1016/S0140-6736(85)91783-0 · DOI
  5. 1993, Arch Intern Med, 153, 154, 10.1001/archinte.153.2.154 · DOI
  6. Hosie, 1995, J Hum Hypertens, 9, 515
  7. Croog, 1986, New Engl J Med, 314, 1657, 10.1056/NEJM198606263142602 · DOI
  8. Testa, 1991, Am J Hypertens, 4, 363, 10.1093/ajh/4.4.363 · DOI
  9. Testa, 1993, New Engl J Med, 328, 907, 10.1056/NEJM199304013281302 · DOI
  10. Handa, 1991, Am Heart J, 122, 1389, 10.1016/0002-8703(91)90582-3 · DOI
  11. Materson, 1994, Arch Intern Med, 154, 513, 10.1001/archinte.154.5.513 · DOI
  12. Bulpitt, 1976, Br Heart J, 38, 121, 10.1136/hrt.38.2.121 · DOI
  13. Weiss, 1972, N Engl J Med, 287, 632
  14. Bansal, 1988, Hypertension, 12, 1, 10.1161/01.HYP.12.1.1 · DOI
  15. Shapiro, 1982, Hypertension, 4, 355, 10.1161/01.HYP.4.3.355 · DOI
  16. Wassertheil-Smoller, 1992, Am J Hypertens, 5, 37, 10.1093/ajh/5.1.37 · DOI
  17. Brogden, 1995, Drugs, 50, 375, 10.2165/00003495-199550030-00007 · DOI
  18. van Zwieten, 1994, Clin Cardiol, 17, III3, 10.1002/clc.4960170103 · DOI
  19. Meredith, 1994, Clin Cardiol, 17, III7
  20. Perry, 1984, J Hypertens, 2, S197
  21. Veit, 1983, J Consult Clin Psychol, 51, 730, 10.1037/0022-006X.51.5.730 · DOI
  22. Rose, 1978, Pschosom Med, 40, 142, 10.1097/00006842-197803000-00006 · DOI
  23. Jenkins, 1983, JAMA, 250, 782, 10.1001/jama.250.6.782 · DOI
  24. Testa, 1989, Am J Prev Med, 5, 82, 10.1016/S0749-3797(18)31109-7 · DOI
  25. Testa, 1988, Postgrad Med J, 64, 50, 10.1136/pgmj.64.747.50 · DOI
  26. Guyatt, 1987, J Chronic Dis, 40, 171, 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 · DOI
  27. 1991, Arch Intern Med, 151, 1413, 10.1001/archinte.151.7.1413 · DOI
  28. Bulpitt, 1992, Pharmaco Economics, 1, 95, 10.2165/00019053-199201020-00006 · DOI
  29. Schwartz, 1989, Am J Cardiol, 64, 31
  30. Anderson, 1994, Drug Inf J, 28, 89, 10.1177/009286159402800112 · DOI
  31. Bergner, 1981, Med Care, 19, 787, 10.1097/00005650-198108000-00001 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Omvik, 1993, J Hypertens, 11, 103, 10.1097/00004872-199301000-00015 · DOI
  33. Parnetti, 1995, Clin Pharmacol, 29, 110, 10.2165/00003088-199529020-00005 · DOI
  34. Fritze, 1995, J Neural Transm Suppl, 46, 439
  35. Pazzaglia, 1995, Neuropsychopharmacology, 13, 75, 10.1016/0893-133X(95)00024-8 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Testa, M. A., Turner, R. R., Simonson, D. C., Krafcik, M. B., Calvo, C., & Luque-Otero, M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Xunta de Galicia (ES)
  • Hospital Clínico San Carlos (ES)
Corresponding author
Turner, Ralph R.
Venue
Journal of Hypertension
Published
1998-12
Volume
16
Issue
12
Pages
1839-1847
ISSN
0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W84312996
Cited by
40
References
30
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS07767)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Keywords
hypertension, nifedipine GITS, amlodipine, calcium channel blockers, health-related quality of life, sustained-release formulation, once-daily dosing, blood pressure reduction, sleep disorders, cognitive function, medication adherence, adverse events, mild to moderate hypertension, Spain
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Calcium Channel Blockers, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Nifedipine, Quality of Life, Spain, Drug Delivery Systems, Amlodipine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review