A1467 Blood Pressure Lowering Effect of Gastrodia-Uncaria Granules on Masked Hypertension—A Single-Center Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Dongyan Zhang,Xiaoli Shan,Fangfei Wei,Chuanhua Yang,Jiguang Wang,Yan Li
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0000548486.96450.07
IF: 4.9
2018-01-01
Journal of Hypertension
Abstract:Objectives : Gastrodia-Uncaria formulae is a classical Chinese herbal compound which has been used to treat headache or dizziness related to hypertension for thousands of years in China. However, due to lacking evidence from a placebo-controlled trial, its blood pressure (BP) lowering effect is still uncertain. Methods: We performed a single-center, single-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in Shanghai, China. From March 2014 to Oct 2016, patients with masked hypertension (office BP < 140/90 mmHg and ambulatory daytime BP 135–150/85–95 mmHg) were randomly assigned to the 4-week treatment of either Gastrodia-Uncaria granules 5–10 grams twice daily or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was change in mean daytime BP. Secondary variables included changes in 24-h, nighttime and office BP. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. Results: At baseline, office and daytime BP of the 251 participants (mean age 50.4 years, 53.4% men) averaged 129/82 and 135/89 mmHg, respectively. 234 participants (93.2%) completed the 4-week trial. Reduction in both daytime systolic (−5.44 ± 8.23 versus −2.91 ± 9.46, P = 0.025) as well as diastolic BP (−3.39 ± 5.24 versus −1.60 ± 5.84, P = 0.011) were significantly greater in the Gastrodia-Uncaria group than the placebo group. Between-group differences in the reduction of 24-h systolic BP (−4.00 ± 6.48 versus −1.67 ± 8.04, P = 0.012) as well as diastolic BP (−2.49 ± 4.22 versus −1.00 ± 4.90, P = 0.010) were also significant. Other secondary variables did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusion: Gastrodia-Uncaria granules has a modest daytime BP lowering effect by about 2.5/1.5 mmHg than placebo in patients with masked hypertension, pending further validation with a multicenter trial with longer follow-up.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?