Metabolic effects of manidipine

Treatments for diabetes mellitus type II: New perspectives regarding the possible role of calcium and cAMP interaction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is among the top ten causes of death worldwide. It is considered to be one of the major global epidemics of the 21st century, with a significant impact on public health budgets. DM is a metabolic disorder with multiple etiologies. Its pathophysiology is marked by dysfunction of pancreatic β-cells which compromises the synthesis and secretion of insulin along with resistance to insulin action in peripheral tissues (muscle and adipose). Subjects presenting insulin resistance in DM type 2 often also exhibit increased insulin secretion and hyperinsulinemia. Insulin secretion is controlled by several factors such as nutrients, hormones, and neural factors. Exocytosis of insulin granules has, as its main stimulus, increased intracellular calcium ([Ca⁺²]i) and it is further amplified by cyclic AMP (cAMP). In the event of this hyperfunction, it is very common for β-cells to go into exhaustion leading to failure or death. Several animal studies have demonstrated pleiotropic effects of L-type Ca²⁺ channel blockers (CCBs). In animal models of obesity and diabetes, treatment with CCBs promoted restoration of insulin secretion, glycemic control, and reduction of pancreatic β-cell apoptosis. In addition, hypertensive individuals treated with CCBs presented a lower incidence of DM when compared with other antihypertensive agents. In this review, we propose that pharmacological manipulation of the Ca²⁺/cAMP interaction system could lead to important targets for pharmacological improvement of insulin secretion in DM type 2.

Mechanistic insight of diabetic nephropathy and its pharmacotherapeutic targets: An update

Diabetic nephropathy (DN), a chronic complication of diabetes, is charecterized by glomerular hypertrophy, proteinuria, decreased glomerular filtration, and renal fibrosis resulting in the loss of renal function. Although the exact cause of DN remains unclear, several mechanisms have been postulated, such as hyperglycemia-induced renal hyper filtration and renal injury, AGEs-induced increased oxidative stress, activated PKC-induced increased production of cytokines, chemokines, and different inflammatory and apoptotic signals. Among various factors, oxidative stress has been suggested to play a major role underlying the onset and propagation of DN. It triggers several signaling pathways involved in DN, like AGEs, PKC cascade, JAK/STAT signaling, MAPK, mTOR, and SMAD. Oxidative stress-induced activation of both inflammatory and apoptotic signals are two major problems in the pathogenesis of DN. The FDA approved pharmacotherapeutic agents affecting against polyol pathway principally include anti-oxidants, like α-lipoic acid, vitamin E, and vitamin C. Kremezin and benfotiamine are the FDA approved AGEs inhibitors, another therapeutic target against DN. Ruboxistaurin, telmizartan, rapamycin, fenofibrate, aliskiren, and manidipine are some FDA approved pharmacotherapeutics effective against DN via diverse mechanisms. Beside this, some therapeutic agents are still waiting for FDA approval and few drugs without FDA approval are also prescribed in some countries for the management of DN. Despite the medications available in the market to treat DN, the involvement of multiple mechanisms makes it difficult to choose an optimum therapeutic agent. Therefore, much research is required to find out new therapeutic agent/strategies for an adequate pharmacotherapy of DN.

Effects of manidipine plus rosuvastatin versus olmesartan plus rosuvastatin on markers of insulin resistance in patients with impaired fasting glucose, hypertension, and mixed dyslipidemia

AIM

To compare the effect of manidipine 20 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg versus olmesartan 20 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg on markers of insulin resistance in patients with mixed dyslipidemia, hypertension, and impaired fasting glucose (IFG).

METHODS

This study had a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) design. A total of 40 patients with IFG, mixed dyslipidemia, and stage 1 hypertension were included. Following dietary intervention, patients were randomly allocated to rosuvastatin (10 mg/d) plus olmesartan (20 mg/d) or manidipine (20 mg/d). The primary end point was the between-group difference in changes in the Homeostasis Model Assessment Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) index following 3 months of treatment. Secondary end points included changes in fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting insulin levels, and glucosylated hemoglobin.

RESULTS

At the end of the 3-month treatment period, a significant increase in HOMA-IR index by 14% (from 2.4 [0.5-7.9] to 2.7 [0.5-5.2], P = .02 versus baseline) was seen in the olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group. On the contrary, no significant change in HOMA-IR index was observed in the manidipine plus rosuvastatin group (1.7 [0.5-5.2] to 1.7 [0.8-6.0], P = NS versus baseline, P = .04 versus olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group). An increase in fasting insulin levels was observed in the olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group (+8%, from 10.1 [2.0-29.6] to 10.9 [2.0-19.1] μU/mL, P < .05 versus baseline), while no significant change was seen in the manidipine plus rosuvastatin group (+3%, from 7.3 [2.0-17.6] to 7.5 [1.9-15.6] μU/mL, P = NS versus baseline, P = .02 versus olmesartan plus rosuvastatin group). Fasting plasma glucose and glycosylated hemoglobin did not change significantly in any group.

CONCLUSION

Manidipine seems to ameliorate the possible statin-associated increase in insulin resistance as compared with olmesartan in patients with IFG, hypertension, and mixed dyslipidemia.

Manidipine: A different dihydropyridine

Blood pressure (BP) plays an important role in the development and progression of cardiovascular disease. Moreover, hypertensive patients often have additional cardiovascular risk factors. Despite the abundance of antihypertensive drug categories, satisfactory BP regulation is often difficult to achieve. A major cause of this difficulty to properly manage BP is the less than optimal adherence of subjects to treatment. This is often due to the various adverse effects of the antihypertensive drugs. Calcium channel blockers (CCB) have an established efficacy for reducing BP. However, their side effect of peripheral edema is often a cause for the discontinuation of treatment. Manidipine holds some unique properties differentiating it from the rest of the CCB class. It has a better safety profile with a lower incidence of peripheral edema. Moreover, there are indications that manidipine holds additional beneficial attributes, such as improvement of renal function and decrease of insulin resistance.

Effects of Manidipine and Delapril in Hypertensive Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

To assess whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and third-generation dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers ameliorate diabetic complications, we compared glomerular filtration rate (GFR; primary outcome), cardiovascular events, retinopathy, and neuropathy in 380 hypertensive type 2 diabetics with albuminuria <200 mg/min included in a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (DEMAND [Delapril and Manidipine for Nephroprotection in Diabetes]) and randomized to 3-year treatment with manidipine/delapril combination (10/30 mg/d; n=126), delapril (30 mg/d; n=127), or placebo (n=127). GFR was centrally measured by iohexol plasma clearance. Median monthly GFR decline (interquartile range [IQR]) was 0.32 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 (IQR: 0.16–0.50 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 ) on combined therapy, 0.36 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 (IQR: 0.18–0.53 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 ) on delapril, and 0.30 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 (IQR: 0.12–0.50 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 ) on placebo ( P =0.87 and P =0.53 versus combined therapy or delapril, respectively). Similar findings were observed when baseline GFR values were not considered for slope analyses. Albuminuria was stable in the 3 treatment groups. The hazard ratio (95% CI) for major cardiovascular events between combined therapy and placebo was 0.17 (0.04–0.78; P =0.023). Among 192 subjects without retinopathy at inclusion, the hazard ratio for developing retinopathy between combined therapy and placebo was 0.27 (0.07–0.99; P =0.048). Among 200 subjects with centralized neurological evaluation, the odds ratios for peripheral neuropathy at 3 years between combined therapy or delapril and placebo were 0.45 (0.24–0.87; P =0.017) and 0.52 (0.27–0.99; P =0.048), respectively. Glucose disposal rate decreased from 5.8±2.4 to 5.3±1.9 mg/kg per min on placebo ( P =0.03) but did not change on combined or delapril therapy. Treatment was well tolerated. In hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, combined manidipine and delapril therapy failed to slow GFR decline but safely ameliorated cardiovascular disease, retinopathy, and neuropathy and stabilized insulin sensitivity.

Combination delapril/manidipine as antihypertensive therapy in high-risk patients

The majority of patients with hypertension, and in particular high-risk patients or those with diabetes mellitus or renal dysfunction, are likely to require combination therapy with at least two antihypertensive agents (from different classes) to achieve their blood pressure (BP) target. The delapril/manidipine fixed-dose combination consists of two antihypertensive agents with different, yet complementary, mechanisms of action. Delapril/manidipine has demonstrated short- and long-term antihypertensive efficacy in a number of clinical studies in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy. Comparative studies have demonstrated that delapril/manidipine is as effective as enalapril/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with hypertension with an inadequate response to monotherapy, and as effective as irbesartan/HCTZ, losartan/HCTZ, olmesartan medoxomil/HCTZ, ramipril/HCTZ and valsartan/HCTZ in reducing BP in patients with hypertension and diabetes, or in obese patients with hypertension. Therapy with delapril/manidipine also appears to exert beneficial effects that extend beyond a reduction in BP, including nephroprotective activity and an improvement in fibrinolytic balance, supporting its value as a treatment option in these patient populations at high or very high cardiovascular risk because of the presence of organ damage, diabetes or renal disease.

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.