Mm Hg In Study Research Articles

Combined ab-interno trabeculectomy and cataract surgery induces comparable intraocular pressure reduction in supine and sitting positions.

To analyze the therapeutic effect of combined ab-interno trabeculectomy and cataract surgery on intraocular pressure (IOP) levels in supine and sitting postures during a 24-hour IOP profile. Twenty-six eyes of twenty-six patients receiving ab-interno trabeculectomy using electroablation of the trabecular meshwork combined with cataract surgery or stand-alone were included in this retrospective analysis. IOP change during 24-hour IOP profiles within two years postoperatively were analyzed for eyes receiving surgery ("study eyes") and compared to fellow eyes, which had not received surgery. Clinical data including mean sitting IOP (siIOP), mean supine IOP (suIOP) and the number of topical antiglaucomatous medications (TAM) were extracted from patients' files. Preoperatively, siIOP was 17.6±5.3 mm Hg in study and 17.1±4.7 mm Hg in fellow eyes (P=0.347). Patients were treated with an average of 2.8±1.0 TAM. Best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) was significantly worse in study eyes (P<0.001), visual field function was marginally not significantly different (P=0.057). After surgery 9.6±6.8mo, study eyes had a mean siIOP of 14.5±3.6 mm Hg (IOP reduction: -3.2 mm Hg, P=0.009), a mean suIOP of 18.0±3.5 mm Hg, and an average of 1.3±1.34 TAM (P<0.001), while in fellow eyes, mean siIOP was 16.2±3.4 mm Hg and mean suIOP was 20.5±5.1 mm Hg. Postoperatively, the relative IOP increase between sitting and supine postures was approximately 30% in both study and fellow eyes (P=0.99). IOP after ab-interno trabeculectomy shows a comparable relative reduction in both supine and sitting position. Classical trabeculectomy is known to lower suIOP overproportionally.

Two multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine and valsartan in combination and as monotherapy in adult patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension

Background: Patients with hypertension may require combination therapy to attain the blood pressure targets recommended by US and European treatment guidelines. Combination therapy with a calcium channel blocker and an angiotensin II-receptor blocker would be expected to provide enhanced efficacy. Objectives: Two studies were conducted to compare the efficacy of various combinations of amlodipine and valsartan administered once daily with their individual components and placebo in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure [ MSDBP] ≥95 and < 110 mm Hg). A secondary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. Methods: The 2 studies were multinational, multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials. In study 1, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg once daily, valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg with valsartan 40 to 320 mg once daily, or placebo. In study 2, patients were randomized to receive amlodipine 10 mg once daily, valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, the combination of amlodipine 10 mg with valsartan 160 or 320 mg once daily, or placebo. The primary efficacy variable in both studies was change from baseline in MSDBP at the end of the study. Secondary variables included the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP), response rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg or a ≥ 10-mm Hg decrease from baseline), and control rate (the proportion of patients achieving an MSDBP <90 mm Hg). Safety was assessed in terms of adverse events (spontaneously reported or elicited by questioning), vital signs, and laboratory values. Results: A total of 1911 patients were randomized to treatment in study 1 (1022 amlodipine + valsartan; 507 valsartan; 254 amlodipine; 128 placebo); 1250 were randomized to treatment in study 2 (419, 415, 207, and 209, respectively). In all treatment groups in both studies, the majority of patients were white (79.5% study 1, 79.4% study 2) and male (53.5% and 50.3%, respectively). The overall mean age was 54.4 years in study 1 and 56.9 years in study 2. The mean weight of patients in study 1 was higher than that in study 2 (88.8 vs 79.7 kg). The overall baseline mean sitting BP was 152.8/99.3 mm Hg in study 1 and 156.7/99.1 mm Hg in study 2. With the exception of a few combinations that included amlodipine 2.5 mg, the combination regimens in both studies were associated with significantly greater reductions in MSDBP and MSSBP compared with their individual components and placebo ( P < 0.05). A positive dose response was observed for all combinations. The highest response rate in study 1 was associated with the highest dose of combination therapy (amlodipine 5 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 91.3%). Amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan 320 mg, and placebo were associated with response rates of 71.9%, 73.4%, and 40.9%, respectively. In study 2, the 2 doses of combination therapy were associated with similar response rates (amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 160 mg: 88.5%; amlodipine 10 mg + valsartan 320 mg: 87.5%). Amlodipine 10 mg was associated with a response rate of 86.9%; valsartan 160 and 20 mg were associated with response rates of 74.9% and 72.0%, respectively; and placebo was associated with a response rate of 49.3%. Control rates followed a similar pattern. The incidence of peripheral edema with combination therapy was significantly lower compared with amlodipine monotherapy (5.4% vs 8.7%, respectively; P = 0.014), was significantly higher compared with valsartan monotherapy (2.1%; P < 0.001), and did not differ significantly from placebo (3.0%). Conclusions: In these adult patients with mild to moderate hypertension, the combination of amlodipine + valsartan was associated with significantly greater blood pressure reductions from baseline compared with amlodipine or valsartan monotherapy or placebo. The incidence of peripheral edema was significantly lower with combination therapy than with amlodipine monotherapy.

The Efficacy of Low Dose Metoprolol CR/ZOK in Mild Hypertension and in Elderly Patients with Mild to Moderate Hypertension

In two separate but similarly designed placebo-controlled studies, the efficacy of metoprolol CR/ZOK 50 mg once daily was evaluated in 64 patients (mean age 53 years) with mild hypertension (Study I) and in 34 elderly patients (mean age 68 years) with mild to moderate hypertension (Study II). Both studies were of randomized, double-blind, parallel-group design, the entry criteria for diastolic blood pressure being greater than or equal to 90 less than 105 mm Hg in Study I and greater than or equal to 95 less than 110 mm Hg in Study II. Study I: The impact of metoprolol CR/ZOK 50 mg once daily for 4 weeks compared with placebo 24 hours post dosing was to produce a significant reduction in supine (P = .0001), and standing (P less than .0001) systolic blood pressures and the standing diastolic pressure (P = .035). The supine diastolic pressure was lower after metoprolol CR/ZOK but not significantly so. Study II: Metoprolol CR/ZOK 50 mg daily given to elderly hypertensives when compared with placebo 24 hours post dosing produced a significant fall in supine (P = .022) and standing (P = .022) diastolic pressure. Systolic pressure and heart rate were not significantly reduced. One patient in Study II had a nonfatal myocardial infarct whilst receiving placebo. There were no other serious adverse effects in either study and no patients were withdrawn from the trial because of drug related unwanted events. The studies indicate that 50 mg metoprolol CR/ZOK may be an effective antihypertensive agent which may prove useful in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension, particularly in the elderly.