Preferential benefits of nifedipine GITS in systolic hypertension and in combination with RAS blockade: further analysis of the 'ACTION' database in patients with angina.

A retrospective analysis of the database from A Coronary Disease Trial Investigating Outcome with Nifedipine (ACTION) evaluated the effectiveness of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) (i) in combination with renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers and (ii) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, treatment groups were compared by the log-rank test without adjustment for covariates and hazard ratios with 95% CIs were obtained using Cox proportional hazards models. Of 7665 randomized patients, 1732 patients were receiving RAS blockade at baseline, the addition of nifedipine GITS significantly reduced any cardiovascular (CV) event (-20%; P<0.05), the composite of death, any CV event and revascularization (-16%; P<0.05) and coronary angiography (-22%; P<0.01). These benefits were achieved with relatively small differences in systolic (3.2 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (BP) (2.3 mm Hg). In 2303 patients (30.0%) who had ISH at baseline (1145 nifedipine GITS and 1158 placebo), nifedipine significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point (-18%; P<0.03), any CV event (-22%; P<0.01) and new heart failure (-40%; P<0.01). The benefits were associated with between-group differences in achieved BP of 4.7 and 3.3 mm Hg for systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. In summary, the lowest CV event rates were seen in those receiving (i) the combination of RAS blockade and nifedipine GITS and (ii) in those specifically treated for ISH.

Circulating endothelial cells in renal transplant recipients.

Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) are a marker of endothelial injury and endothelial dysfunction. We measured CECs in 95 patients with functioning renal transplants at risk of premature cardiovascular (CV) disease and in normal control subjects. We were unable to demonstrate consistent relationships between CEC levels and conventional CV risk factors in transplant recipients. However, CEC levels were increased in patients with a history of rejection. We conclude that CECs are of little use as a marker of CV risk in this population but may be a useful marker to monitor allograft rejection.

24-hour blood pressure control: its relevance to cardiovascular outcomes and the importance of long-acting antihypertensive drugs.

This review article outlines the evidence that 24 h blood pressure (BP) measurements are particularly important predictors of adverse cardiovascular outcome. In turn, there is supportive evidence from a range of studies that 24 h BP control should be an integral part of the antihypertensive drug treatment strategy. Furthermore, since not all once daily antihypertensive agents can provide such 24 h control, there is a requirement for careful drug (and/or dosage) selection. Although the clinic (office) BP continues to be the standard measurement by which hypertension is diagnosed and treatment monitored, there is now clear evidence of the superiority of 24 h BP assessments. Although there are not yet prospective, outcome clinical trails which have relied upon 24 h BP values there is clear evidence that 24 h BP values correlate much more closely than conventional clinic BP values with measurements such as left ventricular hypertrophy, cerebral vascular damage (lacunar infarcts), renal damage (microalbuminuria) and vascular damage (carotid artery intima media thickness). In turn, there is evidence that during drug treatment, when achieved clinic blood pressures appear to be comparable, there is improved outcome in those patients whose 24 h BP values are significantly lower. Not all antihypertensive drugs are equivalent, however, in their abilities to reduce 24 h BP and the clinician needs to be aware of possible shortcomings when considering the choice of drug. In this respect, intrinsically long-acting agents are best equipped to provide sustained and consistent BP control throughout 24 h.

Cardiac and vascular abnormalities in renal transplant patients: differential effects of cyclosporin and azathioprine.

Renal transplant patients die prematurely of cardiovascular disease and LV hypertrophy is now recognised as an important adverse prognostic indicator. This study investigated the factors implicated in the development of echocardiographic abnormalities (including LV hypertrophy) and the possible differential effects of treatment with cyclosporin and azathioprine. A cross-sectional study was undertaken in 46 patients randomly assigned to immunosuppressant treatment with either cyclosporin or azathioprine at 1 year post-transplantation: patients were studied not less than 5 years after assignment to cyclosporin (CyA) - or azathioprine (Aza)-based treatment regimens. Although clinic blood pressure control was not different in the two treatment groups, 24 hour ambulatory BP (ABP), particularly night-time BP, was significantly higher in the CyA group. There was a trend for both left ventricular hypertrophy (61 vs. 43%) and carotid wall thickening (43 vs. 26%) to be more common in the CyA group though this failed to achieve statistical significance. Left ventricular mass was determined by ABP, rather than clinic BP, and was also associated with increased QT dispersion. Multivariate analysis identified that 24 hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure (ASBP) and time on renal replacement therapy (RRT) were the major determinants of LV mass. Thus, despite the absence of differences in clinic BP measurements, CyA treatment was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular functional and structural abnormalities. This small scale study has identified cardiovascular functional and structural abnormalities in renal transplant patients, particularly in those receiving CyA-based immunosuppressive therapy. However, rather than reflecting a direct effect of CyA they are related to increased 24 ABP (but not clinic BP). These data suggest that ABP should be used to monitor and target antihypertensive therapy in this high risk patient group. Moreover, the future use of non-calcineurin inhibitor immunosuppressant therapy may have benefits on blood pressure control and LV mass.

Trandolapril does not improve insulin sensitivity in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes: a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are increasingly used as first-line therapy for hypertension in type 2 diabetes mellitus and are widely believed to improve insulin sensitivity (M). However, the evidence for the latter effect does not stand close scrutiny. We have assessed the effect of the ACE inhibitor trandolapril on M in 16 patients (mean +/- SD age, 58 +/- 10.6 yr) with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (initial blood pressure, 173 +/- 14.5/93 +/- 8.0 mm Hg), obesity (body mass index, 30 +/- 5.4 kg/m2), and impaired glucose intolerance (n = 4) or type 2 diabetes (n = 12) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover design. All patients underwent three 3-h euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp studies (soluble insulin, 1.5 mU/kg x min) after a 2-week placebo run-in and at the end of two 4-week periods of treatment with 2 mg trandolapril or placebo (2-week washout). M (mean +/- SD) did not change with trandolapril: placebo (run-in), 5.2 +/- 1.98 mg/kg x min; placebo, 5.3 +/- 1.70 mg/kg x min; trandolapril, 5.1 +/- 1.65 mg/kg x min; P = 0.58; 95% confidence intervals, -0.74, 0.43 (trandolapril vs. placebo); 95% power to exclude an 8% increase in M. In conclusion, trandolapril had no clinically relevant effect on M in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Previous reports of improved M during ACE inhibitor treatment may be attributable to suboptimal study design and/or use of surrogate measures of M.

Endothelial dysfunction as a possible link between C-reactive protein levels and cardiovascular disease.

Low-grade chronic inflammation, characterized by elevated plasma concentrations of C-reactive protein (CRP), is associated with an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Endothelial cell activation is an early event in atherogenesis, and previous studies have reported correlations between indirect markers of endothelial cell activation and CRP concentration. Therefore, in the present study, we measured CRP concentration (and leptin concentration as an index of fat mass) in nine healthy subjects (mean age 53+/-8.1 years; body mass index 27+/-3.2 kg/m(2); mean arterial blood pressure 101+/-9.0 mmHg) undergoing measurement of basal endothelial nitric oxide (NO) synthesis using intra-brachial infusions of N(G)-monomethyl-L-arginine (L-NMMA; a substrate inhibitor of endothelial NO synthase) and noradrenaline (a non-specific control vasoconstrictor). In univariate analysis, CRP concentration was correlated with (i) the percentage decrease in forearm blood flow (FBF) during L-NMMA infusion (r=0.85, P=0.004); and (ii) the serum leptin concentration (r=0.65, P=0.05). In multivariate analysis, the relationship between CRP concentration and the FBF response to L-NMMA remained significant when age and leptin (t=2.65, P=0.045), age and BMI (t=3.69, P=0.014), or age and low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol plus high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol (t=3.37, P=0.044), were included in regression models. In contrast, the response of FBF to noradrenaline was not significantly related to CRP concentration. These data demonstrate for the first time a relationship between low-grade chronic inflammation and basal endothelial NO synthesis (measured using an invasive method), and support the notion that endothelial dysfunction is a critical intermediate phenotype in the relationship between inflammation and cardiovascular disease.

Insulin action is associated with endothelial function in hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

A primary defect in the vascular action of insulin may be a key intermediate mechanism that links endothelial dysfunction with reduced insulin-mediated cellular glucose uptake in metabolic and cardiovascular disorders. The present study was designed to characterize more fully the relations between insulin action and endothelial function in male patients with essential hypertension (H, n=9) or type 2 diabetes (D, n=9) along with healthy control subjects (C) matched for age, body mass index, and lipid profile. They attended for measurement of whole-body insulin sensitivity (MCR) by the hyperinsulinemic clamp technique (day 1) and forearm vasoreactivity in response to intra-arterial infusions of insulin/glucose (day 2) and N(G)-monomethyl-L-arginine (L-NMMA) and norepinephrine (day 3) by bilateral venous-occlusion plethysmography. Results expressed as mean+/-SE MCR (mL/kg per minute) were 7.22+/-0. 99 (C), 6.32+/-0.78 (H), and 5.06+/-0.53 (D). Insulin/glucose-mediated vasodilation (IGMV) was 17.1+/-5.6% (C), 17. 2+/-5.5% (H), and 12.3+/-6.4% (D). L-NMMA vasoconstriction (LNV) was 37.9+/-5.1% (C), 37.5+/-2.3% (H), and 33.6+/-2.8% (D). There were no significant differences among groups for these parameters. Pooled correlation analyses revealed associations between MCR and IGMV (r=0. 46, P<0.05), MCR and LNV (r=0.44, P<0.05), and IGMV and LNV (r=0.52, P<0.01). This study supports functional coupling between insulin action (both metabolic and vascular) and basal endothelial nitric oxide production in humans.

The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of controlled-release formulations of felodipine and metoprolol in free and fixed combinations in elderly hypertensive patients.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to study the efficacy and tolerability of felodipine extended release (ER) 5 mg and metoprolol controlled release (CR/ZOC) 50 mg given as a fixed combination (Logimax) or as a free combination in elderly (age greater than 60 years) hypertensive patients, using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring. A secondary aim was to relate the efficacy of the free and fixed combinations with pharmacokinetic profiles. METHODS: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised three-way crossover multi-centre study. BP was measured for 26 h using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), which was performed on the last day of the three treatment phases. RESULTS: Mean sitting BPs, measured during the trough period with ABPM, were significantly lower with both the free and fixed combinations of metoprolol and felodipine than placebo (141/83 mmHg free, 140/83 mmHg fixed, 156/93 mmHg placebo). The mean BPs measured over 24 h using ABPM were 143/82 mmHg, 140/82 mmHg and 158/93 mmHg for the free, fixed and placebo treatment arms, respectively. The trough-to-peak ratios (T:P) were 75% and 79% for the systolic BP and 70% and 70% for the diastolic BP for the free and fixed combinations, respectively. Pharmacokinetic evaluation revealed identical plasma concentration-time curves for felodipine given as the free or fixed combination. Comparison of the plasma concentration-time curves for metoprolol revealed a delay in the release rate from the fixed combination formulation. No significant differences in BP control between the active treatments were noted during this period. Of 26 patients entered into the study, 3 withdrew during active phase for non-drug-related reasons. No patient withdrew from active treatment due to treatment-related adverse events. The frequency of adverse event reporting for the fixed combination of felodipine and metoprolol was similar to that for placebo (60% and 58%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that once-daily dosing with either the free or fixed combination of felodipine 5 mg and metoprolol 50 mg produces a significant sustained reduction in systolic and diastolic BP with similar plasma concentration profiles over a 24-h period.

Platelet-derived growth factor stimulation of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 gene expression is mediated by transient activation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase signal transduction pathway.

Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) stimulates transcription of an immediate-early gene set in Balb/c 3T3 cells. One cohort of these genes, typified by c-fos, is induced within minutes following activation of PDGF receptors. A second cohort responds to PDGF only after a significant time delay, although induction is still a primary response to receptor activation as shown by "superinduction" in the presence of the protein synthesis inhibitor cycloheximide. PDGF-receptor activated signaling pathways for the "slow" immediate-early genes are poorly resolved. Using gain-of-function mutations together with small molecule inhibitors of kinase activity, we show that activation of PI 3-kinase is both necessary and sufficient for the induction of the prototype slow immediate-early gene, monocyte chemoattractant-1 (MCP-1). Following activation of PDGF receptors, MCP-1 mRNA does not begin to accumulate for at least 90 min. However, only a brief (10 min) interval of PI 3-kinase activity is required to trigger this delayed response. The serine/threonine protein kinase, Akt/PKB, likely functions as a downstream affector of PI 3-kinase for this induction.

ACE inhibition in chronic renal failure and in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy: focus on spirapril.

The management of hypertension and nephropathy, in both diabetes and other forms of renal disease, is usually based on blood pressure reduction through an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-based treatment regimen. With particular respect to the choice of ACE inhibitor drug, there are no definitive direct comparisons in the treatment of renal disease. In terms of blood pressure reduction, however, there is evidence that spirapril is at least as effective as the reference ACE inhibitor, enalapril. However, patients with diabetic nephropathy and/or chronic renal failure are at potential risk from drug accumulation if the preferred agent relies predominantly on glomerular filtration for its elimination. In this respect spirapril may have an advantage because it has been shown that there are no clinically relevant increases in the spirapril(at) concentrations (24 h post-dose) even in the setting of advanced renal failure (creatinine clearance <20 ml/min). Thus, there is no requirement to modify the dose and no concerns about drug accumulation or the potential for exaggerated therapeutic or adverse effects. In summary, an ACE inhibitor drug is seen as an integral component of the drug treatment regimen for patients with nephropathy. Where there is renal failure it may be prudent to administer a drug, such as spirapril, which also has alternative elimination mechanisms.

Renal effects of amlodipine in normotensive renal transplant recipients.

Renal effects of amlodipine in normotensive renal transplant recipients. The use of cyclosporin A (CsA) has improved the success of renal transplantation, but is associated with hypertension and significant renal toxicity. Previous reports suggest that calcium channel blockers may be useful in opposing the adverse effects of CsA. We have evaluated the effects of amlodipine (5 mg, once daily for 8 weeks) on renal function in 27 normotensive renal transplant recipients with stable renal function, in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, cross over study. Amlodipine significantly reduced serum creatinine concentration relative to placebo (mean+/-SD: 168+/-65 vs 177+/-66 micromol/l; P=0.002) and there was a strong trend towards an increase in effective renal plasma flow on amlodipine relative to placebo (238+/-92 vs 217+/-87 ml/min; P=0.055). Glomerular filtration rate and lithium clearance were unaffected. Trough CsA blood concentration was unaffected. Amlodipine was well tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse events, and did not affect blood pressure or heart rate. In conclusion, amlodipine reduced serum creatinine in normotensive renal transplant recipients after only 8 weeks treatment, and was well tolerated in concomitant administration with CsA.

Insulin-mediated vasodilation and glucose uptake are functionally linked in humans.

Intra-arterial infusion of insulin in physiological doses causes forearm vasodilation which is augmented by co-infusion of D-glucose, leading us to speculate that local insulin-mediated vasodilation may depend on insulin-mediated glucose uptake. We have examined the relationship between whole-body insulin sensitivity and forearm vasodilation in response to local infusion of insulin/glucose, thus avoiding any confounding effects of sympathetic stimulation on peripheral blood flow. Eighteen healthy, normotensive male volunteers (age, 26+/-5.4 years) attended on two separate occasions for measurement of: (1) whole-body insulin sensitivity with use of the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp; (2) forearm vasodilation in response to an intra-arterial infusion of insulin/glucose with use of bilateral venous occlusion plethysmography. Insulin-mediated glucose uptake (M) for the group (mean+/-SD) was 10.0+/-2.2 mg. kg-1. min-1, and the percentage change in forearm blood flow ratio (%FBFR) for the group (median, interquartile range) was 28.2% (13.6, 48.6). In univariate analysis, M was significantly correlated with %FBFR (rs=0.60, P<0.05), but not with body mass index (BMI) (rs=-0. 42), age (r=-0.39) or mean arterial pressure (r=0.13). In multiple regression analysis, %FBFR remained a significant independent predictor of M (R2 (adj)=0.48, t=3.23, P<0.01) in a model involving BMI, age, and blood pressure. These data support the concept of a significant functional relationship between insulin's metabolic and vascular actions, possibly at an endothelial level.

ACE (I/D) genotype as a predictor of the magnitude and duration of the response to an ACE inhibitor drug (enalaprilat) in humans.

BACKGROUND: We have investigated the possible effects of contrasting ACE (I/D) genotypes on the responses to the ACE inhibitor enalaprilat in normotensive men. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects with DD (n=12) and II (n=11) ACE genotypes received an intravenous infusion of enalaprilat or placebo. Pressor responses to stepwise, incremental doses of angiotensin I were measured at 1 and 10 hours after dosing. The dose required to raise mean blood pressure by 20 mm Hg (PD20) was calculated individually, and the ratio of PD20 during enalaprilat to that during placebo (dose ratio, DR) was used for assessment of the extent of ACE inhibition. The pressor response was significantly attenuated at 1 hour after enalaprilat in both groups, but significant attenuation was evident at 10 hours after dose only in the II subjects. The DRs at both 1 hour (median, 5.43 versus 2.82, P=0.0035) and 10 hours (2.06 versus 0.84, P=0.0008) after enalaprilat were significantly higher in II subjects than in DD subjects. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of enalaprilat was significantly greater and lasted longer in normotensive men homozygous for the II ACE genotype. By multivariate analysis, ACE (I/D) genotype and plasma angiotensin II levels were predictive of >50% of the variation in response to ACE inhibition.

Population pharmacokinetics of gentamicin in patients with cancer.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to describe the population pharmacokinetics of gentamicin in patients with cancer, to identify possible relationships between clinical covariates and population pharmacokinetic parameter estimates and to examine the relevance of existing dosage nomograms in light of the population model developed in these patients. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 210 patients with cancer and were analysed with package NONMEM. Data were split into two sets: a population data set and an evaluation set. Creatinine clearance was estimated using measured creatinine concentrations and using 'low' creatinines set to a minimum of 60 micromol l(-1), 70 micromol l(-1) or 88.4 micromol l(-1) RESULTS: A two compartment model was fitted to the concentration-time curve. Two best models were obtained, one that related clearance to estimated creatinine clearance (minimum creatinine value 60 micromol l(-1)) and the other that related clearance to age, creatinine concentration and body surface area. Volume of the central compartment was influenced by body surface area and albumin concentration. For both models 90% of measured concentrations lay within the 95% confidence interval of the simulated concentrations and the mean prediction errors were -7.2% and -6.6%, respectively. A final analysis performed in all patients identified the following relationship CL (1 h(-1))=0.88 x (1 + 0.043 x creatinine clearance) and central volume of distribution V1 (1)=8.59 x body surface area x (albumin/34)(-0.39). The mean population estimate of intercompartmental clearance (Q) was 1.301 h(-1) and peripheral volume of distribution (V2) was 9.801. Coefficient of variation was 18.5% on clearance and 28.2% on Q. Residual error expressed as a standard deviation was 0.36 mg l(-1) at 1.0 mg l(-1) and 1.32 mg l(-1) at 8.0 mg l(-1). The mean population estimate of clearance was 4.21 h(-1) and volume of distribution (Vss) was 24.61 (0.381 kg(-1)). The mean population estimates of half-lives were 1.8 h and 8.0 h. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of published nomograms this analysis indicated that both the traditional approach and the new, 'once daily' approach should achieve satisfactory concentrations in cancer patients although serum concentration monitoring is required to confirm optimal dosing in individual patients.

Renal and haemodynamic effects of amlodipine and nifedipine in hypertensive renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive treatment with cyclosporin A (CsA) improves the survival of renal allografts, but is associated with renal vasoconstriction and hypertension. Previous reports suggest that the calcium-channel blockers nifedipine and amlodipine may improve graft function in CsA-treated patients. We have compared the effects of amlodipine (5-10 mg once daily) and nifedipine retard (10-40 mg twice daily) on renal function and blood pressure in renal transplant recipients treated with CsA. METHODS: This was a multicentre, two-way, crossover study in 27 evaluable hypertensive patients with renal insufficiency following renal transplantation, who were maintained on a stable dose of CsA. Patients received either amlodipine (5-10 mg once daily) or nifedipine retard (10-40 mg twice daily) for 8 weeks, and were then crossed over to the other treatment for a further 8 weeks. RESULTS: Trends were seen during amlodipine treatment towards larger improvements, in serum creatinine (by 8% of baseline on amlodipine vs 4% on nifedipine), lithium clearance (13% vs 2%), and glomerular filtration rate 11% vs 7%). Effective renal plasma flow was increased by 11% of baseline on nifedipine vs 9% on amlodipine. There were no significant differences between treatments. Amlodipine and nifedipine lowered systolic blood pressure to a similar extent (21 mmHg vs 15 mmHg respectively, P=0.25), but amlodipine was more effective than nifedipine in lowering diastolic blood pressure (13 mmHg vs 8 mmHg, P=0.006). Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Once-daily amlodipine is at least as effective as twice-daily nifedipine retard in controlling blood pressure and does not adversely affect graft function in hypertensive renal allograft recipients.