The calcium-channel blocker controversy: historical perspective and important lessons for future pharmacotherapies. An international society of pharmacoepidemiology 'hot topic'

Reports of adverse events in association with calcium-channel blockers led to heated controversy over the safety and efficacy of these drugs, as well as to panic among the general public. At the 1998 International Conference of Pharmacoepidemiology, four experts were asked to summarize, and draw lessons from, the controversy's development. We conducted our own review in order to provide a broader historical perspective on the subject and to present the discussants' views within the framework of additional published opinions. Several years after the controversy's onset, many uncertainties still remain about the merits of CCBs. Yet the media scare generated by a few studies might have been prevented had investigators placed greater emphasis, particularly in their reports to the media, on the limitations of their observational and meta-analytic designs. These studies, however, did call attention to the persistent use of CCBs for off-label indications, and the imperative to improve clinician prescribing practices. Moreover, they showed the pitfalls of reliance on surrogate endpoints, stressing the need for data on major clinical outcomes-with funding a responsibility of the pharmaceutical industry-before approving drugs destined for widespread, long-term use. Attention to these lessons will do us well as we evaluate emerging pharmacotherapies. Copyright (c) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Calcium channel blockers: an update

This paper reviews the current literature pertaining to calcium channel blockers, including their classification, properties, and therapeutic indications, in light of several recent trials that have addressed their safety. Calcium channel blockers are a structurally and functionally heterogeneous group of medications that are used widely to control blood pressure and manage symptoms of angina. They are classified as dihydropyridines or nondihydropyridines. As a class, they are well tolerated and are associated with few side effects. The question of whether they may precipitate cardiovascular events has been largely settled by recent trials, such as the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), the International Verapamil Slow-Release/Trandolapril Study (INVEST), and the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) study, in which no such association was found. Even so, the use of these agents has been linked with an increased risk of heart failure. Thus, long-acting calcium channel blockers may be safely used in the management of hypertension and angina. However, as a class, they are not as protective as other antihypertensive agents against heart failure.

Management of patients with hypertensive urgencies and emergencies: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Hypertensive urgencies and emergencies are common clinical occurrences in hypertensive patients. Treatment practices vary considerably to because of the lack of evidence supporting the use of one therapeutic agent over another. This paper was designed to review the evidence for various pharmacotherapeutic regimens in the management of hypertensive urgencies and emergencies, in terms of the agents' abilities to reach predetermined "safe" goal blood pressures (BPs), and to prevent adverse events.

METHODS

medline was searched from 1966 to 2001, and the reference lists of all the articles were retrieved and searched for relevant references, and experts in the field were contacted to identify other relevant studies. The Cochrane Library was also searched. Studies that were eligible for inclusion in this review were systematic reviews of randomized control trials (RCTs) and individual RCTs, all-or-none studies, systematic reviews of cohort studies and individual cohort studies, and outcomes research. No language restrictions were used.

RESULTS

None of the trials included in this review identified an optimal rate of BP lowering in hypertensive emergencies and urgencies. The definitions of hypertensive emergencies and urgencies were not consistent, but emergencies always involved target end-organ damage, and urgencies were without such damage. Measures of outcome were not uniform between studies. The 4 hypertensive emergency and 15 hypertensive urgency studies represented 236 and 1,074 patients, respectively. The evidence indicated a nonsignificant trend toward increased efficacy with urapidil compared to nitroprusside for hypertensive emergencies (number needed to treat [NNT] for urapidil to achieve target BP, 12; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], number of patients needed to harm [NNH], 5 to NNT, 40 compared to nitroprusside). Several medications were efficacious in treating hypertensive urgencies, including: nicardipine (NNT for nicardipine compared to plabebo, 2 in one study [95% CI, 1 to 5] and 1 in another [95% CI, 1 to 1]); lacidipine (NNT, 2; 95% CI, 1 to 8 for lacidipine vs nifedipine) or urapidil (NNT for urapidil compared to enalaprilat and nifedipine, 4; 95% CI, 3 to 6); and nitroprusside and fenoldopam (all patients reached target BP in 2 studies). The studies reported 2 cases of cerebral ischemia secondary to nifedipine.

CONCLUSIONS

Many effective agents exist for the treatment of hypertensive crises. Because of the lack of large randomized controlled trials, many questions remain unanswered, such as follow-up times and whether any of the studied agents have mortality benefit.

Manidipine: a review of its use in hypertension

Manidipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, which causes systemic vasodilation by inhibiting the voltage-dependent calcium inward currents in smooth muscle cells. The resulting reduction in blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension is maintained over 24 hours. Manidipine 10 to 40 mg once daily for 4 weeks significantly lowered office BP from baseline and compared with placebo, and significantly reduced 24-hour BP compared with placebo in patients with essential hypertension in a well controlled trial. The decline in BP was maintained over 24 hours (trough to peak BP ratios were >50%) without disturbing the circadian BP pattern. BP reductions with therapeutic dosages of manidipine were maintained for up to 1 year in noncomparative trials. The BP-lowering capacity of manidipine 5 to 20 mg/day appears to be similar to that of other calcium antagonists with which it has been compared in randomised double-blind and nonblind trial. In a well controlled short term trial, manidipine 10 mg daily significantly decreased trough sitting BP compared with placebo in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Decreases in BP were maintained for up to 3 years of treatment. The drug (10 or 20 mglday) also significantly lowered sitting BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomised, long term comparative trials. In general, the observed reduction in BP with manidipine was similar to that observed with amlodipine, enalapril or delapril. The effects of manidipine on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) have not been clearly demonstrated in clinical trials in this patient group. BP was also reduced with manidipine in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Manidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most adverse effects related to vasodilation. Commonly reported events included ankle oedema, headache. palpitation. flushing, dizziness, rash and fatigue. Manidipine appears to have less potential for pedal oedema than amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONS

Manidipine has shown antihypertensive efficacy and appears to be well tolerated in adult and elderly patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension. The BP-lowering effects of the drug in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance were not associated with any adverse metabolic effects. The effects of manidipine on UAE in this patient group remain unclear. Manidipine provides an additional treatment option for patients for whom dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are appropriate. Manidipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, which causes systemic vasodilation by inhibiting the voltage-dependent calcium inward currents in smooth muscle cells. The resulting reduction in blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension is maintained over 24 hours. Manidipine 10 to 40mg once daily for 4 weeks significantly lowered office BP from baseline and compared with placebo, and significantly reduced 24-hour BP compared with placebo in patients with essential hypertension in a well controlled trial. The decline in BP was maintained over 24 hours (trough to peak BP ratios were >50%) without disturbing the circadian BP pattern. BP reductions with therapeutic dosages of manidipine were maintained for up to 1 year in non-comparative trials. The BP-lowering capacity of manidipine 5 to 20 mg/day appears to be similar to that of other calcium antagonists with which it has been compared in randomised double-blind and nonblind trial. In a well controlled short term trial, manidipine 10 mg daily significantly decreased trough sitting BP compared with placebo in elderly patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. Decreases in BP were maintained for up to 3 years of treatment. The drug (10 or 20 mg/day) also significantly lowered sitting BP from baseline in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus in randomised, long term comparative trials. In general, the observed reduction in BP with manidipine was similar to that observed with amlodipine, enalapril or delapril. The effects of manidipine on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) have not been clearly demonstrated in clinical trials in this patient group. BP was also reduced with manidipine in patients with impaired glucose tolerance. Manidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials, with most adverse effects related to vasodilation. Commonly reported events included ankle oedema, headache. palpitation. flushing, dizziness, rash and fatigue. Manidipine appears to have less potential for pedal oedema than amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONS

Manidipine has shown antihypertensive efficacy and appears to be well tolerated in adult and elderly patients with mild or mo

Effect of nicardipine versus enalapril on plasma endothelin-1 in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

We compared the effects of dihydropyridine type Ca channel blocker slow-release nicardipine and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril on plasma endothelin-1 (ET-1) levels in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients (n=20). Nicardipine or enalapril was administered for 6 months by a crossover design. Nicardipine and enalapril comparably lowered blood pressure. Enalapril significantly reduced urinary albumin excretion in microalbuminuric patients, whereas nicardipine did not. Urinary beta2-microglobulin excretion was significantly increased during nicardipine treatment. However, both drugs significantly reduced plasma ET-1 as compared with pretreatment levels, close to that in healthy control (2.9 +/- 0.3 pg/ml in control, 4.8 +/- 0.3 pg/ml before treatment, 3.2 +/- 0.3 pg/ml during nicardipine vs before treatment p<0.05, 2.9 +/- 0.4 pg/ml during enalapril vs before treatment p<0.01). The decrease in plasma ET-1 was significantly correlated with the increase in natriuresis in normoalbuminuric patients treated with enalapril ( r= -0.82, p<0.01) but not in those treated with nicardipine. Although nicardipine and enalapril had different renal effects, both drugs equally suppressed plasma ET-1 levels in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.

Calcium antagonists and the diabetic patient: a response to recent controversies

The results of 2 recently published studies have been interpreted as suggesting that calcium antagonists are unsafe for the management of hypertension in patients with diabetes. These 2 studies, the Fosinopril versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) and Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD), showed that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may be preferable to calcium antagonists for managing hypertension in diabetic patients; they do not, however, show any harm attributable to calcium antagonists. Indeed, results of the FACET study suggest that the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a calcium antagonist is effective antihypertensive therapy. This suggestion is supported by findings in the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Study, which revealed outstanding benefits of either a calcium antagonist alone or a calcium antagonist combined with an ACE inhibitor among diabetic patients with hypertension. The premature termination of the hypertensive arm of the ABCD study was puzzling because, although 2 of 13 subgroups of 1 of the 5 possible secondary endpoints in this part of the trial were apparently favorably affected by the use of the ACE inhibitor rather than the calcium antagonist, such a finding was compatible with chance alone. If the results of the FACET and ABCD studies are considered in the context of the best available data arising from large randomized controlled trials, one may conclude that calcium antagonists are not harmful or contraindicated in hypertensive patients with diabetes and that the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a calcium antagonist is effective for the management of hypertension in diabetic patients.

Blood pressure reduction and tolerability of felodipine ER in older and younger hypertensive patients. The Felodipine ER in the Elderly versus Young Working Group

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare blood pressure reduction and tolerability of felodipine ER (extended-release), in younger and older patients.

DESIGN

A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group study.

SETTING

Nineteen study sites; approximately half of the sites were at academic medical centers and half were in private primary care practices. Patients were non-hospitalized and free-living.

PATIENTS

There were 243 younger (< or = 61 years) and older (> or = 64 years) patients, age range 26 to 83, with sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) of 95-115 mm Hg (higher stage 1 to lower stage 3) on placebo. Patients volunteered for the study.

INTERVENTIONS

After a 2 to 4 week, single-blind, placebo baseline period, patients with SDBP of 95-115 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with felodipine ER 2.5 mg qd or placebo at a ratio of 3:1, felodipine:placebo. The dose of felodipine ER was increased to 5 mg qd after 3 weeks and to 10 mg qd after 6 weeks if the SDBP was greater than 90 mm Hg.

MEASUREMENTS

The main outcome measure was change in SDBP. Secondary Outcome measures were change in sitting systolic blood pressure (SSBP) and percent of responders, defined as SDBP less than 90 mm Hg or a > or = 10 mm Hg reduction. Other measurements included heart rate, weight, routine laboratory values, and self-reported adverse events.

RESULTS

By Week 9, felodipine ER reduced blood pressure in the older subjects (n = 77) by 13/12 mm Hg; in the younger patients, (n = 102), the reduction was 12/8 mm Hg. All reductions were significantly different from placebo (P < or = .003). The reduction in diastolic, but not systolic, blood pressure was significantly greater in the older than in the younger patients (P = .004 and P = .188, respectively). The percentage of patients reporting a clinical adverse experience was similar for felodipine ER and placebo treatment groups. The incidence of side effects was similar between old and young patients. Discontinuation occurred in 9% of the felodipine-treated patients and 19% of the placebo-treated patients. Older patients required lower doses of felodipine ER to achieve equivalent blood pressure control.

CONCLUSIONS

Felodipine ER is effective in lowering blood pressure and is well tolerated in both young and old people.

The calcium antagonist controversy: the emerging importance of drug formulation as a determinant of risk

Calcium antagonists are one of the widely available classes of antihypertensive agents. Their broad appeal is attributable to several features, including their efficacy, their beneficial characteristics such as metabolic neutrality, and the occurrence of relatively few nuisance-type side effects. Despite these attributes, a number of retrospective analyses have suggested that calcium antagonists may be detrimental and may both promote adverse cardiovascular events and increase the risk of cancer by interfering with cellular apoptosis. On the basis of this and other retrospective analyses, Furberg and Psaty (Am J Hypertens 1996; 9: 122-125) have proposed that the use of calcium antagonists as first-line antihypertensive agents should be discontinued. I have previously countered these allegations and have suggested that they are not relevant to the newer calcium antagonist formulations in current use. It is not widely appreciated that different formulations of the same chemical moiety can produce markedly different hemodynamic and neurohormonal effects, due to differences in the rate of drug delivery into the systemic circulation. During chronic treatment with dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, major fluctuations in blood pressure (rapid onset and offset of antihypertensive effects) during the dosing interval may occur for drugs and formulations that are short acting. In contrast, slow-release formulations of otherwise rapidly absorbed dihydropyridines achieve a more gradual and sustained antihypertensive effect. It is probable that newer calcium antagonist formulations that are truly once daily and do not provoke intermittent sympathetic activation or a cardioacceleratory response will not promote adverse cardiovascular events.

Use of calcium antagonists in patients with ischemic heart disease and systemic hypertension

Ischemic heart disease (IHD) and systemic hypertension commonly coexist in a large number of patients, and the presence of hypertension is a risk factor for worsening IHD. A monotherapy that would effectively treat both is thus an attractive idea, and calcium antagonists have been evaluated in this role. Calcium antagonists exert therapeutic effects through a combination of actions, including systemic and peripheral vasodilation, negative inotropy, and reduced nodal conduction. In randomized, double-blind clinical trials, verapamil compares favorably with propranolol in the alleviation of angina and hypertension. Both diltiazem and nifedipine, as well as long-acting diltiazem, are also effective in treating the combined condition. In addition, each of these drugs enhances exercise tolerance and favors compliance with calcium antagonist therapy. Recent questions regarding the safety of this class of drug have tempered the enthusiasm for their use as first-line therapy in cardiovascular disease. In particular, short-acting dihydropyridine derivatives, including nifedipine and isradipine, may increase cardiovascular morbidity and mortality because of reflex sympathetic stimulation. The results of appropriately controlled, prospective clinical trials will provide more definitive conclusions. For now, we must be cautious in the use of calcium antagonist monotherapy for combined IHD and hypertension.

Association of calcium channel blocker use with increased rate of acute myocardial infarction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

The Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) assessed the effect of enalapril in patients with systolic left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). We performed retrospective analyses of the association between calcium channel blocker (CCB) use and fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) in these patients. MI occurred in 11.5% of 845 patients receiving CCBs versus 7.5% of 2551 patients not receiving CCBs in the enalapril group and in 14.4% of 874 patients receiving CCBs versus 9.3% of 2527 patients not receiving CCBs in the placebo group. By multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for comorbidity, cause and severity of LVD, heart failure, and concomitant drug use, CCB use was an independent predictor of MI (relative risk [RR] 1.37, confidence interval [CI] 1.14 to 1.63). The increase in MI risk was greater among patients with a higher heart rate (RR 1.46, CI 1.14 to 1.86) and lower blood pressure (RR 1.45, CI 1.14 to 1.86). The adjusted risk ratio for all-cause mortality associated with CCB use was 1.14 (CI 1.00 to 1.28; p = 0.0454). In this analysis of patients with LVD, CCB use was associated with significantly increased risk of fatal or nonfatal MI.

Calcium channel blockers and hypertension: evolving perspective--1996

In recent years, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been used extensively in the United States and elsewhere as antihypertensive agents, and their availability has been an important advance in the management of hypertension. As antihypertensive agents, the CCBs thus appear considerably more versatile than most previous vasodilators. The available studies indicate that CCBs are metabolically neutral and do not exacerbate dyslipidemia or impair glucose tolerance. In contrast to diuretics and beta-blockers, CCBs do not appear to alter insulin sensitivity. The CCBs also differ from previous vasodilators because of their favorable accompanying effects on the heart and kidney. Despite the attributes of CCBs enumerated earlier, a number of recent retrospective analyses by Psaty et al. (JAMA 1995;274:620-625) have suggested that CCBs may be detrimental and may promote adverse cardiovascular events. I have recently reviewed the results of Psaty's meta-analysis and report (Arch Intern Med 1995;155: 2150-2156). I have emphasized that it is the rate of drug delivery into the systemic circulation that produces profound effects on the hemodynamic and neurohumoral responses to a dihydropyridine CCB drug. During chronic treatment with dihydropyridines, major fluctuations in blood pressure (rapid onset and offset of antihypertensive effects) during the dosing interval may persist for drugs and formulations that are short acting. In contrast, slow-release formulations of otherwise rapidly absorbed dihydropyridines achieve a more gradual and sustained antihypertensive effect. It is probable that newer CCB formulations that do not provoke intermittent sympathetic activation and do not evoke a cardioacceleratory response would not be expected to promote adverse cardiovascular events.

Calcium channel blockers and hypertension: 2. Safety issues

As the safety of calcium channel blockers continues to be debated, it is important to realize that not all calcium channel blockers are alike. Safety, and efficacy, depend on the kinetic as well as the pharmacologic properties of the drug.

Pharmacologic and therapeutic differences among calcium channel antagonists: profile of mibefradil, a new calcium antagonist

Calcium antagonists are a heterogeneous group of drugs, each with a different chemical structure and cardiovascular profile. Distinguishing factors include pharmacokinetics, mode of calcium mobilization affected, class and subclass of calcium channel inhibited, state-dependent interactions, and effect of disease on the drug's activity. A new calcium antagonist, mibefradil, has a unique chemical structure and cardiovascular profile compared with those currently available, and it appears to represent a new class of calcium antagonists.

Dual calcium-channel blocker therapy in the treatment of hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To review the in vitro receptor binding data of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) and in vivo studies in humans regarding the use of dual calcium-channel blocker therapy, with a focus on the use of this therapy for hypertension.

DATA SOURCE

A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify literature pertaining to CCBs.

STUDY SELECTION

In vitro studies and investigations that evaluated CCB receptor binding and the interactions between subclasses of CCBs were chosen. All studies in humans and clinical trials that evaluated the use of dual CCB therapy in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases were selected for review. Also, case reports describing the use of dual CCB therapy were included in this article.

DATA EXTRACTION

The methodology, results, and conclusions of the selected data were evaluated. Data regarding the in vitro receptor binding kinetics of CCBs, as well as interactions, were reported. Because there is limited information on dual CCB therapy for hypertension, clinical studies using this treatment for ischemic heart disease were also reviewed. They were summarized and compared on the basis of the degree of disease control (e.g., blood pressure, exercise tolerance), adverse effects, and other clinical endpoints of pharmacologic therapy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In vitro studies have identified binding sites for the dihydropyridine (nifedipine), diphenylalkylamine (verapamil), and benzothiazepine (diltiazem) subclasses of CCBs, and indicate that they are allosterically related to each other within the voltage-sensitive calcium-channel receptor. Dihydropyridine binding affinity is decreased with concomitant verapamil binding, but is enhanced by concomitant diltiazem binding. Dual CCB therapy has been shown to be efficacious in patients with ischemic heart disease. Although this therapy is limited by dose-related adverse effects, it appears to have an important role in patients with ischemia that is refractory to conventional therapy, or for those whose therapeutic options are limited by contraindications. Theoretically, many patients with hypertension may benefit similarly from dual CCB therapy. Because data evaluating this treatment option are sparse, recommendations regarding safety, efficacy, and the role of dual CCB therapy for hypertension would be premature.

CONCLUSIONS

Controlled data evaluating dual CCB therapy for the treatment of hypertension are lacking. This treatment modality may be beneficial in the future, but requires further investigation to determine safety and efficacy.

Comparison of nifedipine alone and with diltiazem or verapamil in hypertension

Receptor binding studies suggest that combinations of calcium channel blockers may result in either enhanced or diminished pharmacological effects, but clinical data in hypertension are incomplete. In this study, we compared blood pressure reductions using nifedipine alone, nifedipine plus diltiazem, and nifedipine plus verapamil and determined whether combinations alter nifedipine pharmacokinetics. After determination of baseline blood pressures. 16 subjects with essential hypertension (12 men, 4 women; mean age, 48 years) received 30 mg/d open-label, sustained release nifedipine for 2 weeks. If still hypertensive (n = 16), they were randomized (double-blind) to receive either additional sustained release diltiazem or sustained release verapamil, both 180 mg/d, for 2 weeks and were then crossed-over for the final 2 weeks of the study. All medications were once-daily, extended-release formulations. Blood pressures and nifedipine plasma concentrations were measured during the final day of each treatment. Overall, each combination lowered mean systolic and diastolic pressures more than nifedipine alone. Mean supine diastolic pressures were significantly lower at 8 hours (77.6 versus 84.6 mm Hg, P = .001) and 12 hours (81.5 versus 87.1 mm Hg, P = .04) with nifedipine plus diltiazem than nifedipine plus verapamil. Mean nifedipine concentrations were inversely correlated with mean blood pressures. Mean nifedipine area under the curve values were greater with diltiazem than verapamil (1430 versus 1134 ng.h/mL, P = .026), with each greater than nifedipine alone (957 ng.h/mL). Nifedipine plus diltiazem had a greater antihypertensive effect than nifedipine plus verapamil. Diltiazem caused greater increases in nifedipine plasma concentrations than did verapamil. These data suggest that combined calcium channel blockers result in additive antihypertensive effects, perhaps because of a pharmacokinetic interaction.