Современное лечение артериальной гипертониидигидропиридинами III поколения с учетомдоказанных преимуществ: фокус на лерканидипин
Современное лечение артериальной гипертониидигидропиридинами III поколения с учетомдоказанных преимуществ: фокус на лерканидипин
Материалы доступны только для специалистов сферы здравоохранения.
Чтобы посмотреть материал полностью
Авторизуйтесь
или зарегистрируйтесь.
Список литературы
1. Российское медицинское общество по артериальной гипертонии. Диагностика и лечение артериальной гипертензии. М., 2008 г.
2. Pruijm MT, Maillord MP, Burnier M. Приверженность пациентов лечению и выбор антигипертензивной терапии: фокус на лерканидипин. Cons Med 2009; 11 (10): 19–25.
3. Бубнова М.Г., Оганов Р.Г. Лечение пациентов с артериальной гипертонией и дополнительными факторами риска в клинической практике. Программа наблюдения «прогноз». Тер. арх. 2009; 9: 4.
4. Murray CJ, Lopez AD et al. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from all diseases, injures, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2010. Available at: http://wmv.who.inf/Assessed July.
5. Izzo JL, Levy D, Black HR. Importance of systolic blood pressure in older ameicans. Hypertension 2000; 35: 1021–4.
6. Toyo-oka Т, Nayler W. Third generation calcium entry blockers. Blood pressure 1996; 5: 206–8.
7. Kizer IR, Kimmel SE. Epidemiologic review of calcium channel blocker drugs. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 1145–58.
8. Epstein M. Calcium antagonists in the management of hypertension. In: Epstein M (ed). Calcium antagonists in clinical medicine. 2nd ed, Philadelphia: Hanlly & Belfus, 1998; 155–76.
9. Messerli FM. Vasodilatory oedema: a common side effect on antihypertensive therapy. Am J Hypertens 2001; 14: 987–9.
10. Papavassiliou MV, Vyssoulis GP, Karpanou EA et al. Side effecls of antihypertensive treatment with calciunn channel antagonists (abstract). Am J Hypertens 2001; 14: 114A.
11. Keli S, Blaemberg B, Kromhaut D. Predictive value of repeated systolic blood pressure measurements for stroke risk: The Zutphen Study Stroke 1992; 23: 347–51.
12. Barrios V, Escobar C, de la Figuera M et al. Tolerability of high doses of lercanidipine versus high doses of other dihydropyridines in daily clinical practice: the TOLERANCE study. Cardiovasc Ther 2008; 26: 2-9.
13. Meredith PA. Lercanidipine: a novel lipophilic dihydropyridine calcium antagonist with long duration of action and high vascular selectivity. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 1999; 8: 1043-62.
14. Sironi G, Montagna E, Greto L et al. Haemodynamic effects of lercanidipine in anaesthetized open-chest dogs. Arzneimittelforschung 1996; 46: 256-61.
15. Sabbatini M, Leonardi A, Testa R et al. Effect of calcium antagonists on glomerular arterioles in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Hypertension 2000; 35: 775-9.
16. Omboni S, Zanchetti A, for the Multicenter Study Investigators. Antihypertensive efficacy of lercanidipine at 2,5, 5 and 10 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertensives assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1831-8.
17. James I, Jones A, Davies P. A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine tablets and losartan tablets in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Human Hypertens 2002; 16: 605-10.
18. Millar-Craig M, Shaffu B et al. Lercanidipine vs lacidipine in isolated systolic hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2003; 17 (11): 799-806.
19. Ninci MA, Magliocca R, Malliani A. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in eldrly patients with mild to moderate hypertension in placebo-controlled, double-blind study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl. 2): S40–4.
20. Patema S, Licata A, Amone S et al. Double-blind crossover study of lercanidipine versus amlodipine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Curr Ther Res 1999; 9: 511–20.
2. Pruijm MT, Maillord MP, Burnier M. Приверженность пациентов лечению и выбор антигипертензивной терапии: фокус на лерканидипин. Cons Med 2009; 11 (10): 19–25.
3. Бубнова М.Г., Оганов Р.Г. Лечение пациентов с артериальной гипертонией и дополнительными факторами риска в клинической практике. Программа наблюдения «прогноз». Тер. арх. 2009; 9: 4.
4. Murray CJ, Lopez AD et al. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from all diseases, injures, and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2010. Available at: http://wmv.who.inf/Assessed July.
5. Izzo JL, Levy D, Black HR. Importance of systolic blood pressure in older ameicans. Hypertension 2000; 35: 1021–4.
6. Toyo-oka Т, Nayler W. Third generation calcium entry blockers. Blood pressure 1996; 5: 206–8.
7. Kizer IR, Kimmel SE. Epidemiologic review of calcium channel blocker drugs. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 1145–58.
8. Epstein M. Calcium antagonists in the management of hypertension. In: Epstein M (ed). Calcium antagonists in clinical medicine. 2nd ed, Philadelphia: Hanlly & Belfus, 1998; 155–76.
9. Messerli FM. Vasodilatory oedema: a common side effect on antihypertensive therapy. Am J Hypertens 2001; 14: 987–9.
10. Papavassiliou MV, Vyssoulis GP, Karpanou EA et al. Side effecls of antihypertensive treatment with calciunn channel antagonists (abstract). Am J Hypertens 2001; 14: 114A.
11. Keli S, Blaemberg B, Kromhaut D. Predictive value of repeated systolic blood pressure measurements for stroke risk: The Zutphen Study Stroke 1992; 23: 347–51.
12. Barrios V, Escobar C, de la Figuera M et al. Tolerability of high doses of lercanidipine versus high doses of other dihydropyridines in daily clinical practice: the TOLERANCE study. Cardiovasc Ther 2008; 26: 2-9.
13. Meredith PA. Lercanidipine: a novel lipophilic dihydropyridine calcium antagonist with long duration of action and high vascular selectivity. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 1999; 8: 1043-62.
14. Sironi G, Montagna E, Greto L et al. Haemodynamic effects of lercanidipine in anaesthetized open-chest dogs. Arzneimittelforschung 1996; 46: 256-61.
15. Sabbatini M, Leonardi A, Testa R et al. Effect of calcium antagonists on glomerular arterioles in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Hypertension 2000; 35: 775-9.
16. Omboni S, Zanchetti A, for the Multicenter Study Investigators. Antihypertensive efficacy of lercanidipine at 2,5, 5 and 10 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertensives assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1831-8.
17. James I, Jones A, Davies P. A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine tablets and losartan tablets in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Human Hypertens 2002; 16: 605-10.
18. Millar-Craig M, Shaffu B et al. Lercanidipine vs lacidipine in isolated systolic hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2003; 17 (11): 799-806.
19. Ninci MA, Magliocca R, Malliani A. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in eldrly patients with mild to moderate hypertension in placebo-controlled, double-blind study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl. 2): S40–4.
20. Patema S, Licata A, Amone S et al. Double-blind crossover study of lercanidipine versus amlodipine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Curr Ther Res 1999; 9: 511–20.
Авторы
А.Г.Евдокимова
Цель портала OmniDoctor – предоставление профессиональной информации врачам, провизорам и фармацевтам.