Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and security of Lacidipine and amlodipine in the treatment of essential hypertension. Methods The CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed and CCRCT were searched via computers to collect the randomized controlled trials. The retrieved studies were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of the included studies was evaluated and meta-analysis was performed by Stata and RevMan 4.2 software. Results A total of 11 articles were finally included. Meta-analysis showed that there were no statistical differences in compliance rate, decreased value of diastolic and systolic blood pressure and 24 h average diastolic and systolic blood pressure (P>0.05). The incidence of adverse drug reaction in lacidipine group was less than amlodipine group. Conclusion Lacidipine has been similar to amlodipine in the treatment of essential hypertension with less adverse drug reaction.%目的评价拉西地平与氨氯地平治疗原发性高血压的有效性和安全性。方法计算机检索中国期刊全文数据库（CNKI）、维普数据库（VIP）、万方数据库、PubMed以及Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库（CCRCT），按纳入与排除标准选择文献，评价文献质量，提取资料，并采用Stata和RevMan软件进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入14篇进行分析。Meta分析结果显示，两组药物治疗前后患者舒张压（DBP）和收缩压（SBP）的下降值、达标率和24小时平均DBP及SBP下降值组间差异无显著性（P＞0.05）。拉西地平组总不良反应发生率低于氨氯地平组（P＜0.01）。结论拉西地平治疗原发性高血压的疗效和氨氯地平相当，但拉西地平治疗组患者不良反应发生率低。
展开▼
