CAJ | 학술논문

目的：采用系统评价方法，确定氨氯地平联合氢氯噻嗪（A／H ）与缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪（V／H ）比较，治疗原发性高血压的降压效果及安全性。方法计算机检索Cochrane Library、PubMed、OVID、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CBM、CNKI、VIP、万方等数据库，检索时间为建库至2013年11月；手工检索相关杂志纸质版。对纳入文献进行方法学质量评价，用RevM an 5．2软件进行统计分析。结果共纳入7篇随机对照试验。M eta分析结果显示：在降低动态血压方面，V／H优于 A／H ，差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）；在降低诊室血压及血压控制率方面，V／H与A／H差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）。与A／H相比，V／H出现不良反应的可能性更小，差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）。结论 A／H治疗原发性高血压对血压的改善不如V／H ，且不良反应发生更多。
목적：채용계통평개방법，학정안록지평연합경록새진（A／H ）여힐사탄연합경록새진（V／H ）비교，치료원발성고혈압적강압효과급안전성。방법계산궤검색Cochrane Library、PubMed、OVID、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CBM、CNKI、VIP、만방등수거고，검색시간위건고지2013년11월；수공검색상관잡지지질판。대납입문헌진행방법학질량평개，용RevM an 5．2연건진행통계분석。결과공납입7편수궤대조시험。M eta분석결과현시：재강저동태혈압방면，V／H우우 A／H ，차이유통계학의의（P＜0．05）；재강저진실혈압급혈압공제솔방면，V／H여A／H차이무통계학의의（P＞0．05）。여A／H상비，V／H출현불량반응적가능성경소，차이유통계학의의（P＜0．05）。결론 A／H치료원발성고혈압대혈압적개선불여V／H ，차불량반응발생경다。
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of amlodipine (A)/hydrochlorothiazide(H) versus val‐sartan(V)/hydrochlorothiazide(H) in treatment of essential hypertension .Methods Literature was retrieved online in Cochrane Li‐brary ,PubMed ,OVID ,MEDLINE ,EMBASE ,CBM ,CNKI ,VIP and Wan fang database up to November 2013 .Relevant magazines were retrieved manually .Quality of the included studies was assessed and Meta‐analysis was performed with RevMan 5 .2 software . Results Seven randomized controlled trials(RCTs) were finally included .Meta‐analyses showed that :in terms of lowering ABP ,V/H group was more effective than A/H group ,the difference was statistically significant (P<0 .05);there was no significant differ‐ence in the decreased value of clinic BP and the control rate of blood pressure between A /H group and V/H group(P>0 .05) .Ad‐verse events occurred less frequently with V/H group compared with A/H group ,the difference was statistically significant (P<0 .05) .Conclusion A/H treatment of essential hypertension is inferior to V/H ,and has more adverse events .