Comparative peripheral edema for dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.

Magnitude of and Characteristics Associated With the Treatment of Calcium Channel Blocker-Induced Lower-Extremity Edema With Loop Diuretics.

Importance: Calcium channel blockers, specifically dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DH CCBs, eg, amlodipine), may cause lower-extremity edema. Anecdotal reports suggest this may result in a prescribing cascade, where DH CCB-induced edema is treated with loop diuretics. Objective: To assess the magnitude and characteristics of the DH CCB prescribing cascade. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used a prescription sequence symmetry analysis to assess loop diuretic initiation before and after the initiation of DH CCBs among patients aged 20 years or older without heart failure. Data from a private insurance claims database from 2005 to 2017 was analyzed. Use of loop diuretics associated with initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and other commonly used medications was used as negative controls. Data were analyzed from March 2019 through October 2019. Exposures: Initiation of DH CCB or negative control medications. Main Outcomes and Measures: The temporality of loop diuretic initiation relative to DH CCB or negative control initiation. Secular trend-adjusted sequence ratios (aSRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using data from 360 days before and after initiation of DH CCBs. Results: Among 1 206 093 DH CCB initiators, 55 818 patients (4.6%) (33 100 [59.3%] aged <65 years; 32 916 [59.0%] women) had a new loop diuretic prescription 360 days before or after DH CCB initiation, resulting in an aSR of 1.87 (95% CI, 1.84-1.90). An estimated 1.44% of DH CCB initiators experienced the prescribing cascade. The aSR was disproportionately higher among DH CCB initiators who were prescribed high doses (aSR, 2.20; 95% CI, 2.13-2.27), initiated amlodipine (aSR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.86-1.93), were men (aSR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.91-2.01), and used fewer antihypertensive classes (aSR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.47-2.64). The evaluation of ACE inhibitors or ARBs as negative controls suggested hypertension progression may have tempered the incidence of the prescribing cascade (aSR for ACE inhibitors and ARBs, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found an excessive use of loop diuretics following initiation of DH CCBs that cannot be completely explained by secular trends or hypertension progression. The prescribing cascade was more pronounced among those initially prescribed a high dose of DH CCBs.

How to Improve Effectiveness and Adherence to Antihypertensive Drug Therapy: Central Role of Dihydropyridinic Calcium Channel Blockers in Hypertension.

Essential hypertension is a complex clinical condition, characterized by multiple and concomitant abnormal activation of different regulatory and contra-regulatory pathophysiological mechanisms, leading to sustained increase of blood pressure (BP) levels. Asymptomatic rise of BP may, indeed, promote development and progression of hypertension-related organ damage, which in turn, increases the risk of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. A progressive and independent relationship has been demonstrated between high BP levels and increased cardiovascular risk, even in the high-to-normal range. Conversely, evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials have independently shown that lowering BP to the recommended targets reduces individual cardiovascular risk, thus improving event-free survival and reducing the incidence of hypertension-related cardiovascular events. Despite these benefits, overall rates of BP control remain poor, worldwide. Currently available guidelines support a substantial equivalence amongst various antihypertensive drug classes. However, several studies have also reported clinically relevant differences among antihypertensive drugs, in terms of both BP lowering efficacy and tolerability/safety profile. These differences should be taken into account not only when adopting first-line antihypertensive therapy, but also when titrating or modulating combination therapies, with the aim of achieving effective and sustained BP control. This review will briefly describe evidence supporting the use of dihydropyridinic calcium channel blockers for the clinical management of hypertension, with a particular focus on barnidipine. Indeed, this drug has been demonstrated to be effective, safe and well tolerated in lowering BP levels and in reducing hypertension-related organ damage, thus showing a potential key role for improving the clinical management of hypertension.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of the oral iron chelator SP-420 in ß-thalassemia.

Our phase I, open-label, multi-center, dose-escalation study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) of SP-420, a tridentate oral iron chelating agent of the desferrithiocin class, in patients with transfusion dependent ß-thalassemia. SP-420 was administered as a single dose of 1.5 (n = 3), 3 (n = 3), 6 (n = 3), 12 (n = 3), and 24 (n = 6) mg/kg or as a twice-daily dose of 9 mg/kg (n = 6) over 14-28 days. There was a near dose-linear increase in the mean plasma SP-420 concentrations and in the mean values for Cmax and AUC0-τ over the dose range evaluated. The median tmax ranged from 0.5 to 2.25 h and was not dose dependent. The study was prematurely terminated by the sponsor due to renal adverse events (AE) including proteinuria, increase in serum creatinine, and one case of Fanconi syndrome. Other adverse effects included hypersensitivity reactions and gastrointestinal disturbances. Based on current dose administration, the renal AE observed outweighed the possible benefits from chelation therapy. However, additional studies assessing efficacy and safety of lower doses or less frequent dosing of SP-420 over longer durations with close monitoring would be necessary to better explain the findings of our study and characterize the safety of the study drug.

Barnidipine compared to lercanidipine in addition to losartan on endothelial damage and oxidative stress parameters in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Essential hypertension has been extensively reported to cause endothelial dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of barnidipine or lercanidipine, in addition to losartan, on some parameters indicative of endothelial damage and oxidative stress in hypertensive, type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: One hundred and fifty one patients were randomised to barnidipine, 20 mg/day, or lercanidipine, 20 mg/day, both in addition to losartan, 100 mg/day, for 6 months. We assessed BP every month, in addition, patients underwent ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). We also assessed: fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), some markers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) and -9 (MMP-9), soluble vascular adhesion protein-1 (sVCAM-1), soluble intercellular adhesion protein-1 (sICAM-1), isoprostanes and paraoxonase-1 (PON-1). RESULTS: Both barnidipine and lercanidipine resulted in a significant reduction in blood pressure, even if the reduction obtained with barnidipine + losartan was greater than that obtained with lercanidipine + losartan. Data recorded with ABPM also showed a similar trend. Barnidipine + losartan reduced the levels of Hs-CRP, TNF-α, sVCAM-1, sICAM-1, and isoprostanes both compared to baseline and to lercanidipine + losartan. CONCLUSIONS: Barnidipine + losartan gave an improvement of some parameters indicative of endothelial damage and oxidative stress in diabetic and hypertensive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02064218 , ClinicalTrials.gov.

Desferrithiocin analogue iron chelators: iron clearing efficiency, tissue distribution, and renal toxicity.

The current solution to iron-mediated damage in transfusional iron overload disorders is decorporation of excess unmanaged metal, chelation therapy. The clinical development of the tridentate chelator deferitrin (1, Table 1) was halted due to nephrotoxicity. It was then shown by replacing the 4'-(HO) of 1 with a 3,6,9-trioxadecyloxy group, the nephrotoxicity could be ameliorated. Further structure-activity relationship studies have established that the length and the position of the polyether backbone controlled: (1) the ligand's iron clearing efficiency (ICE), (2) chelator tissue distribution, (3) biliary ferrokinetics, and (4) tissue iron reduction. The current investigation compares the ICE and tissue distribution of a series of (S)-4,5-dihydro-2-[2-hydroxy-4-(polyether)phenyl]-4-methyl-4-thiazolecarboxylic acids (Table 1, 3-5) and the (S)-4,5-dihydro-2-[2-hydroxy-3-(polyether)phenyl]-4-methyl-4-thiazolecarboxylic acids (Table 1, 8-10). The three most effective polyether analogues, in terms of performance ratio (PR), defined as mean ICE(primate)/ICE(rodent), are 3 (PR 1.1), 8, (PR 1.5), and 9, now in human trials, (PR 2.2). At the onset of the clinical trial on 9, no data were available for ligand 3 or 8. This is unfortunate, as 3 has many advantages over 9, e.g., the ICE of 3 in rats is 2.5-fold greater than that of 9 and analogue 3 achieves very high levels in the liver, pancreas, and heart, the organs most affected by iron overload. Finally, the impact of 3 on the urinary excretion of kidney injury molecule-1 (Kim-1), an early diagnostic biomarker for monitoring acute kidney toxicity, has been carried out in rats; no evidence of nephrotoxicity was found. Overall, the results suggest that 3 would be a far superior clinical candidate to 9.

Rationale for the use of a fixed-dose combination in the management of hypertension: efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine/enalapril.

Hypertension, a significant factor in the development of cerebrovascular disorders, heart disease and renal failure, is a common disorder worldwide. Despite the availability of a wide range of antihypertensive agents, almost two-thirds of hypertensive patients have poorly controlled blood pressure (BP). Numerous clinical trials have shown that most patients require at least two antihypertensive agents to achieve adequate BP control and associated significant reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Combination therapy using two drugs with different, complementary mechanisms of action achieves better efficacy and tolerability outcomes than treatment with either component drug alone. When such a combination is administered as a fixed-dose formulation, other benefits, such as improved compliance and potentially lower costs, are also likely. The good efficacy and tolerability of the combination of a calcium channel antagonist and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor is well established, and this combination is recommended by European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology guidelines as a first choice in high-risk hypertensive patients, including those with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lercanidipine/enalapril is a promising example of a fixed-dose combination of these drug classes. In clinical trials in hypertensive patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, lercanidipine/enalapril improved BP to a greater extent than either drug as monotherapy (in patients who were previous non-responders to lercanidipine or enalapril) or the combination of lercanidipine/hydrochlorothiazide, and was equally well tolerated. Further studies are required to evaluate the cardiovascular protective effects of lercanidipine/enalapril.

Quantitative analysis of T-wave morphology increases confidence in drug-induced cardiac repolarization abnormalities: evidence from the investigational IKr inhibitor Lu 35-138.

This study investigates repolarization changes induced by a new candidate drug to determine whether a composite electrocardiographic (ECG) measure of T-wave morphology could be used as a reliable marker to support the evidence of abnormal repolarization, which is indicated by QT interval prolongation. Seventy-nine healthy subjects were included in this parallel study. After a baseline day during which no drug was given, 40 subjects received an I(Kr)-blocking antipsychotic compound (Lu 35-138) on 7 consecutive days while 39 subjects received placebo. Resting ECGs were recorded and used to determine a combined measure of repolarization morphology (morphology combination score [MCS]), based on asymmetry, flatness, and notching. Replicate measurements were used to determine reliable change and study power for both measures. Lu 35-138 increased the QTc interval with corresponding changes in T-wave morphology as determined by MCS. For subjects taking Lu 35-138, T-wave morphology was a more reliable indicator of I(Kr) inhibition than QTcF (chi(2) = 20.3, P = .001). At 80% study power for identifying a 5-millisecond placebo-adjusted change from baseline for QTcF, the corresponding study power for MCS was 93%. As a covariate to the assessment of QT interval liability, MCS offered important additive information to the effect of Lu 35-138 on cardiac repolarization.

Suppression of formalin-induced nociception by cilnidipine, a voltage-dependent calcium channel blocker.

Cilnidipine is a 1,4-dihydropyridine-derived voltage-dependent calcium channel (VDCC) blocker and suppresses N-type VDCC currents in addition to L-type VDCC currents. An earlier investigation has suggested that intrathecally injected cilnidipine produces antinociception by blocking N-type VDCCs in mice. The present study using the rat formalin model examined antinociceptive effects of intrathecally and orally administered cilnidipine to elucidate a putative site of antinociception of cilnidipine, assess the efficacy of oral cilnidipine for pain relief, and clarify the mechanism(s) responsible for the antinociceptive effect of oral cilnidipine. Cilnidipine (whether intrathecal or oral) suppressed nociception in phases 1 and 2 of the formalin model. In addition, the potency of oral cilnidipine to suppress formalin-induced nociception in phase 2 was greater than that of oral gabapentin, a clinically available drug for treatment of neuropathic pain. Cilnidipine elicited antinociceptive effects without neurological side-effects including serpentine-like tail movement, whole body shaking, and allodynia. Such side-effects can be induced by higher doses of intrathecal ziconotide, a clinically available N-type VDCC blocker. In contrast, orally administered nifedipine, an L-type VDCC blocker, had no effect on either phase of formalin-induced nociception. These results suggest that cilnidipine acts on the spinal cord to produce antinociception and is efficacious for pain relief after oral administration with better safety profile than that of ziconotide. Furthermore, the failure of orally administered nifedipine to affect formalin-induced nociception raises the possibility that oral cilnidipine produces antinociception through, at least in part, spinal N-type VDCC blockade.

The role of fixed-dose combinations in the management of hypertension: focus on lercanidipine-enalapril.

Achieving optimal blood pressure (BP) control is the most important single issue in the management of hypertension, and in most patients, it is difficult or impossible to achieve target levels with one drug. Blocking two or more regulatory systems provides a more effective and more physiologic reduction in BP, and current guidelines have recommended the use of combination therapy as first-line treatment, or early in the management of hypertension. Fixed-dose combination therapy is an efficacious, relatively safe and cost-effective treatment option in most patients with essential hypertension. Of note, the once-daily administration of a fixed-dose enalapril/lercanidipine, by bringing together two distinct and complementary mechanisms of action, reduces BP effectively and has the potential for improved target organ protection relative to either class agent alone.

Angiotensin receptor blocker and dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker combinations: an emerging strategy in hypertension therapy.

Hypertension is a leading contributor to the burden of cardiovascular disease. The importance of lowering blood pressure (BP) to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events has been demonstrated in numerous clinical trials. Most patients require combination antihypertensive therapy utilizing agents from complementary drug classes to achieve BP goals. A calcium channel blocker (CCB)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination is a rational approach for such an antihypertensive strategy. Benefits of CCB/ARB combination therapy include additive BP-lowering effects and lower incidences of adverse events (AEs). These agents demonstrate benefits associated with their respective drug classes. The ARBs confer stroke protection, renal protection, and tolerability similar to placebo, without dose-related symptomatic and metabolic AEs, while CCBs are beneficial in reducing stroke and treating angina and cardiac ischemia. The efficacy of this combination has been recently investigated in clinical trials wherein amlodipine was combined with olmesartan medoxomil or valsartan. This article discusses the rationale for using CCB/ARB combinations in patients with hypertension.

Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of manidipine versus amlodipine in elderly subjects with isolated systolic hypertension: MAISH study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) affects 10-20% of the elderly population and is strongly related to the risk of cardiovascular events. Elevated systolic BP values are primarily caused by reduced large vessel compliance with a consequent increase in total peripheral resistance. Vasodilating drugs, such as calcium channel antagonists, have proven to be effective in controlling ISH in elderly patients. This study set out to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of two different calcium channel antagonists, manidipine and amlodipine, administered once daily in elderly subjects with ISH. METHODS: In a European, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, parallel-group study, after a 2-week placebo run-in period, 195 patients aged >or=60 years with ISH received manidipine 10-20 mg once daily or amlodipine 5-10 mg once daily. Chlortalidone 25mg once daily could be added to the high dose of test drug in the event of insufficient antihypertensive control. The primary efficacy parameter was the proportion of patients with a reduction in office sitting systolic BP (SBP) >or=15 mm Hg, measured at trough, at the final visit. Secondary efficacy parameters included: the proportion of patients with a normal sitting SBP value (<140 mm Hg) at the final visit; a change from baseline to the final visit in mean office trough sitting SBP; a change from baseline to the final visit in the cardiovascular risk score as measured by the INDANA (INdividual Data ANalysis of Antihypertensive intervention trials) project score; the proportion of patients with at least a two-point reduction in the cardiovascular risk score; the percentage of patients requiring upward dose titration and diuretic add-on treatment and the investigator's final judgement. Safety and tolerability evaluations were based on adverse events, ECG and laboratory tests, and clinically relevant reports of abnormalities. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (n = 189), 76% and 72% of patients in the manidipine and amlodipine groups, respectively, had a reduction in sitting SBP of >or=15 mm Hg (p-value not significant for between-group comparison). The percentage of patients with a normal sitting SBP value was 52% in the manidipine group and 51% in the amlodipine group (p-value not significant for between-group comparison). Sitting SBP reductions at the end of treatment were -19.5 +/- 11.8 mm Hg in patients receiving manidipine and -18.4 +/- 11.1 mm Hg in patients receiving amlodipine. Both treatments induced a small reduction in cardiovascular risk score, with 45% of patients in both treatment groups having a two-point reduction in the final score. At the final visit, approximately half of the patients in both treatment groups were still being treated with the low dose of one of the test drugs (manidipine 10mg or amlodipine 5mg). Chlortalidone was added to the high dose of test drugs in 7% and 11% of patients in the amlodipine and manidipine groups, respectively. Both drugs were well tolerated, with a higher incidence of oedema in the amlodipine group (9% vs 4%). No clinically relevant changes in heart rate were induced by either treatment. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with ISH, treatment with manidipine for 12 weeks was well tolerated and effective and the antihypertensive effects obtained with manidipine were the same as those obtained with amlodipine.

Effects of benidipine in a rat model for experimental angina.

To compare the antianginal effects of 1,4-dihydropyridine-type calcium-channel blockers, we evaluated the effects of benidipine, amlodipine, nifedipine, and efonidipine on vasopressin-induced myocardial ischemia in rats, an experimental model of angina. Intravenous administration of benidipine (3 microg/kg), amlodipine (1000 microg/kg), and nifedipine (100 microg/kg) suppressed the vasopressin-induced S-wave depression, an index of myocardial ischemia. Efonidipine (100 microg/kg, i.v.) tended to inhibit the S-wave depression. At the antianginal dose of each drug, amlodipine, nifedipine, and efonidipine decreased blood pressure significantly, whereas benidipine had little effect on blood pressure at a dose of 3 microg/kg. These results indicate that benidipine, unlike the other 1,4-dihydropyridine-type calcium-channel blockers examined in this study, inhibits vasopressin-induced coronary vasospasm with fewer undesirable effects such as hypotension in rats, suggesting that benidipine may be useful in the treatment of angina pectoris.

Comparative effects of lercanidipine, lacidipine, and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on blood pressure and heart rate in elderly hypertensive patients: the ELderly and LErcanidipine (ELLE) study.

This study was conducted to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of lercanidipine with those of lacidipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic systems in patients aged 65 years or above with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Patients were randomized to receive lercanidipine 5 mg, lacidipine 2 mg, or nifedipine 30 mg for 24 weeks. After 2 weeks, the dose was doubled in non-responding patients. At 24 weeks, blood pressure was significantly reduced in the three treatment groups. The decrease in systolic blood pressure was similar in all three groups. The decrease in diastolic blood pressure in the lercanidipine group (-18.3 mmHg) was comparable to that in the nifedipine group (-17.7 mmHg), but exceeded that in the lacidipine group (-16.6 mmHg). The incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was lowest in the lercanidipine group (19.4%) compared with the nifedipine group (28.4%) and the lacidipine group (27.1%). In particular, edema was least frequent in the lercanidipine group (2.8%) compared with the lacidipine group (7.5%) and the nifedipine group (10.1%). These data demonstrate that lercanidipine is effective in lowering blood pressure in older adult hypertensive patients while maintaining a superior tolerability and safety profile.

Comparative effect of lercanidipine, felodipine, and nifedipine GITS on blood pressure and heart rate in patients with mild to moderate arterial hypertension: the Lercanidipine in Adults (LEAD) Study.

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study compared the effects of three dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (lercanidipine, felodipine, and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system) on blood pressure and heart rate in 250 patients with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure > or =95 and 109 mm Hg). Patients were randomized to 4 weeks of treatment with once-daily doses of lercanidipine 10 mg, felodipine 10 mg, or nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system 30 mg. After 4 weeks of treatment, the dose was doubled in nonresponding patients. At 8 weeks, no significant differences in blood pressure were observed among the three groups. Increases in heart rate in all three groups induced by stressful conditions before and after treatment were not exacerbated during active treatment. The incidence of adverse drug reactions was lower in the lercanidipine and nifedipine groups than in the felodipine group (p<0.05); in particular, the incidence of edema for lercanidipine was 5.5% vs. 13% for felodipine and 6.6% for nifedipine.

Pilot study to evaluate a water displacement technique to compare effects of diuretics and ACE inhibitors to alleviate lower extremity edema due to dihydropyridine calcium antagonists.

Combination therapy is required in many patients to achieve goal blood pressure (BP). Calcium antagonists are highly effective antihypertensive drugs in a broad range of demographic groups. Yet, higher doses are associated with an increased frequency of lower extremity edema. The purpose of our open label, single-center clinical trial was to evaluate the use of concomitant pharmacologic therapies to attenuate the lower extremity edema associated with dihydropyridine calcium antagonists therapy using a water displacement technique. Forty-seven patients received 5 mg/day of oral amlodipine for a period of 6 weeks after a 4-week wash-out off of all antihypertensive medications to establish baseline BP. They were then randomized to receive either an additional 5 mg of amlodipine, 25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), or 20 mg of benazepril for an additional 6 weeks. Blood pressure determinations and water displacement measurements were obtained at the end of the 4-week placebo wash-out period, after 6 weeks of 5 mg/day of oral amlodipine therapy, and after an additional 6 weeks of 5 mg of amlodipine and randomized drug therapy. Adjusted BP reductions (based on pretreatment BP) were -6.8/-3.8 mm Hg for the 10-mg amlodipine group, -9.9/-8.2 mm Hg for the amlodipine (5 mg)/HCTZ (25 mg) group, and -26.2/-16.4 mm Hg for the amlodipine (5 mg)/benazepril (20 mg) group (P < .0167, group 3 v group 1 diastolic BP, which was statistically significant by the improved Bonferroni method). Seventeen of the 47 patients developed at least a 10% increase in lower extremity edema water displacement in response to 5 mg/day of oral amlodipine therapy (36.2%). Adding 5 mg of amlodipine to a baseline of 5 mg of amlodipine resulted in no net change in lower extremity edema (+58.0 mL,+ 0.6% change, n=5). Adding 25 mg of HCTZ reduced lower extremity edema by a mean of 136.3 mL (-11.1% change, n=4). Benazepril reduced water displacement by 204.4 mL (-14.3% change, n=8). Our pilot study indicates that adding an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker is the most effective way to not only reduce systolic and diastolic BP but also attenuate lower extremity edema. Due to the inherent daily variability of lower extremity edema, power calculations indicate many patients (n=702, 356 in each group) would be needed to compare the antiedema efficacy of the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and the thiazide diuretic.

Long-acting lacidipine versus short-acting nifedipine in the treatment of asymptomatic acute blood pressure increase.

We compared antihypertensive efficacy and safety of a single administration of equipotent doses of lacidipine versus nifedipine in the hypertensive urgencies. Twenty-nine asymptomatic essential hypertensive patients (nine men, 20 women) with a mean age of 55.03+/-11.19 years and baseline diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of > or =120 mm Hg after resting 30 min, not taking antihypertensive drugs for the last 24 h, were randomized in a single-blind fashion to receive lacidipine, 4 mg (LCD, 15 patients) or short-acting nifedipine, 20 mg (NFD, 14 patients) in a single dose. Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were taken every 30 min during the first 8 h and every 2 h until 24 h of follow-up. Baseline BP values were similar in the two groups (LCD, 222.5+/-32.8/124.6+/-8.4 mm Hg vs. NFD, 215.9+/-20.6/128+/-7.7 mm Hg; p = NS). Both drugs promoted a significant reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP; 169.6+/-27.8 vs. 170.6+/-25.3 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; 104.1+/-16 vs. 102.9+/-12.4 mm Hg) after 8 h. However, either SBP (165+/-27.3 vs. 190.6+/-18.2 mm Hg; p = 0.008) and DBP (99.9+/-12.3 vs. 117.2+/-11.4 mm Hg; p = 0.001) were significantly higher in the NFD group after 24-h dosing. Eleven patients in the LCD group had a decrease in BP >25% of the baseline value both 8 and 24 h after the dose. Although 10 patients showed the same response in the NFD group 8 h after the dose, only four patients maintained these values at 24 h. One patient treated with NFD had a transient cerebrovascular ischemic attack. No adverse effects were observed in the LCD group. We conclude that the long-acting calcium antagonist lacidipine was more effective than the short-acting nifedipine in both controlling BP and maintaining this BP reduction over 8 h in essential hypertensive patients with acute asymptomatic BP increase.

A long-term study comparing lacidipine and nifedipine SR in hypertensive patients: safety data.

The clinical safety of lacidipine, a new dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, has been assessed in a long-term, comparative study in hypertensive patients. Slow-release (SR) nifedipine was used for comparison. The type and incidence of adverse events seen with both drugs are characteristic of the dihydropyridine class of drugs and were mainly due to pharmacologically induced vasodilation, but lacidipine caused a significantly lower incidence of ankle edema than nifedipine SR. There were no unexpected adverse events during the treatment. The addition of atenolol 50 mg once daily did not increase the frequency of adverse events. Therefore, lacidipine can be considered a safe antihypertensive drug, which can be used as a suitable agent for first-line treatment of hypertension.

Calcium antagonist antihypertensive treatment of non-insulin-dependent diabetics: efficacy and safety of lacidipine versus nifedipine SR.

Arterial hypertension is a chronic condition regarded as one of the main risk factors for development of coronary atherosclerosis. As dyslipidemia and reduced glucose tolerance are also risk factors for coronary disease, it is considered important to use antihypertensive drugs having no negative effects on lipid and glucose metabolism when diabetic patients are treated for hypertension. Lacidipine, a new dihydropyridine-like calcium antagonist, has been shown in in vivo and in vitro preclinical studies to possess potent, long-lasting antihypertensive activity. The present study compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily treatment with lacidipine versus nifedipine SR given twice-daily in non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Results have shown a similar efficacy of the two treatments: 6 months later, both drugs had reduced blood pressure values [lacidipine from 184.8/105.2 mm Hg to 144.4/87.1 mm Hg; nifedipine slow-release (SR) from 182.3/106.8 mm Hg to 143.6/89.4 mmHg]. However, lacidipine exhibited a lower incidence of adverse events (particularly ankle edema and tachycardia) than nifedipine SR. Finally, both treatments showed no negative effect on metabolic parameters (total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and blood glucose).

Effects of manidipine hydrochloride on blood pressure in hypertensive patients--a comparison with nifedipine retard.

Manidipine hydrochloride (MH) is a new calcium channel antagonist which is not yet available in Taiwan. Thus, a clinical trial was performed. The clinical effects and adverse effects of MH were compared with those of nifedipine hydrochloride retard monotherapies. Sixty-three out-patients with mild to moderate hypertension and no advanced systemic diseases were randomly divided into 2 groups. Twenty patients remained in each group after some patients withdrew from the study. Blood pressure decreased significantly after treatment in both groups (p < 0.01). In the manidipine group, systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased from 164 +/- 14 to 140 +/- 18 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) decreased from 99 +/- 6 to 87 +/- 7 mmHg by the 8th week. In the nifedipine group, SBP decreased from 163 +/- 11 to 134 +/- 17 mmHg and DBP decreased from 101 +/- 10 to 88 +/- 9 mmHg by the 8th week. Pulse rates did not change significantly. Antihypertensive efficacy was 18/20 (90%) and 19/22 (86.4%) in the manidipine and nifedipine groups, respectively. There were a few adverse effects in both groups, the reaction was severe as to lead to the discontinuation of medication in two patients in the nifedipine group. No significant changes in laboratory tests were identified in either group, except for minimal decreases of lactate dehydrogenase and creatine kinase in the nifedipine group. We conclude that MH was equally safe and effective as nifedipine and it may have less severe side effects compared to nifedipine.