title: Nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system versus nifedipine coat-core: comparison of efficacy via 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To assess the comparable efficacy and adverse effect profile of two extended-release preparations of nifedipine--gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) and coat-core (CC)--in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.
  
  
  METHODS
  Single institution, single-blind, prospective study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, GA.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ninety-one patients who were taking nifedipine GITS as a sole antihypertensive agent were randomized to receive either GITS or CC. After 3 weeks, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted and an adverse effect questionnaire was administered. The patients were then crossed over to the other treatment arm and monitoring was repeated after 3 weeks.
  
  
  METHODS
  Mean blood pressure, heart rates, and the percentage of readings exceeding 140 mm Hg systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic were compared for the 24-hour period. Additionally, mean blood pressures at 4-hour intervals after drug administration and heart rate during the first 8 hours of the dosage interval were compared.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Ninety-one patients enrolled, 79 completed the study, and 62 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. A statistically significant difference (p = 0.020) was shown only in the last 4-hour systolic blood pressure. However, this difference was small (122 +/- 15 mm Hg with GITS vs. 126 +/- 14 mm Hg with CC). There was no difference in the percentage of readings exceeding 140 mm Hg systolic or 90 mm Hg diastolic. Neither dosage nor treatment order had an effect on the results. Adverse effects were reported with a greater frequency during CC therapy (40 with CC vs. 22 with GITS; p = 0.006), but were generally transient. Discontinuation of the drug was necessary in 3 patients during the CC cycle.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  GITS and CC demonstrated clinically equivalent antihypertensive efficacy in the study population. The CC produce may have a higher rate of adverse effects, but drug discontinuation was uncommon.
authors.affiliation: Dallas Diagnostic Association, TX, USA.
authors.forename: L F
authors.initials: LF
authors.lastname: Defina
authors.forename: D A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Bookstaver
authors.forename: M P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Goldfinger
authors.forename: T A
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Coffey
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001794:Blood Pressure / Q000187:drug effects*; D018660:Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; D002121:Calcium Channel Blockers / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D003692:Delayed-Action Preparations; D016503:Drug Delivery Systems; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006973:Hypertension / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000503:physiopathology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009543:Nifedipine / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000191:economics; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011897:Random Allocation; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
chemical_list: D002121:Calcium Channel Blockers; D003692:Delayed-Action Preparations; D009543:Nifedipine