A Double-Blind, Parallel-Group Study of Amlodipine versus Long-Acting Nitrate in the Management of Elderly Patients with Stable Angina

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Ninety-seven elderly patients with stable angina were included in a 28-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group comparison of amlodipine 5–10 mg and isosorbide mononitrate 25–50 mg once daily. The total exercise time, as limited by angina, was recorded together with the median incidence per week of angina attacks and glyceryl trinitrate consumption. Safety was assessed by adverse event frequency, measurement of vital signs and laboratory parameters, and quality of life. At the final visit, the total exercise time was significantly greater relative to baseline with amlodipine than isosorbide mononitrate (final/baseline difference: 112.2 vs. 32.2, p = 0.016). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in relation to the incidence of adverse events. Once daily amlodipine provides significantly better control of stable angina than isosorbide mononitrate in this elderly population.

Related collections

Most cited references 2

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Calcium Channel Blockers and Mortality in Elderly Patients With Myocardial Infarction

James Jollis, Ross Simpson, Mridul K. Chowdhury … (1999)

0 comments Cited 2 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Amlodipine versus slow release Metoprolol in the treatment of Stable exertional Angina pectoris (AMSA)

Kjell Mølstad (2000)

0 comments Cited 1 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): CRD

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Cardiology

Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.0008-6312

Title: Cardiology

Publisher: S. Karger AG

ISSN (Print): 0008-6312

ISSN (Electronic): 1421-9751

Publication date Subscription-year: 2001

Publication date (Print): December 2001

Publication date (Electronic): 10 December 2001

Volume: 96

Issue: 2

Pages: 72-77

Affiliations

^aHammersmith Hospital, London, and ^bPfizer Ltd., Sandwich, UK

Article

Publisher ID: 47392 Other ID: Cardiology 2001;96:72–77

DOI: 10.1159/000047392

PubMed ID: 11740135

SO-VID: 7f7b0903-91b1-4dab-b9c2-ce589438e194

License:

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.