Effect of valsartan or olmesartan addition to amlodipine on ankle edema in hypertensive patients

Younger females are at greater risk of vasodilation-related adverse symptoms caused by dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers: results of a study of 11,918 Japanese patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Adequate control of blood pressure in younger females is of crucial importance, because they are at higher risk of hypertensive target organ damage compared with males of similar age. In addition, female sex is a risk factor for adverse effects of antihypertensive drugs, especially dihydropyridines. This study set out to assess the incidence of adverse reactions during dihydropyridine use in a real-life clinical setting, focusing on the influence of female sex and age.

METHODS

The incidence of adverse reactions to dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were investigated in 11,918 Japanese patients who participated in the Drug Event Monitoring project of the Japan Pharmaceutical Association conducted in Kumamoto prefecture. A multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between the incidence of adverse symptoms and female sex, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Vasodilation-related adverse symptoms occurred significantly more often in females than in males (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.28-2.71, p=0.001). Furthermore, among females only, the younger age group (<50 years) complained of vasodilation-related symptoms more frequently (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.02-5.59, p=0.045) and the older age group (≥80 years) complained of vasodilation-related symptoms less frequently (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.95, p=0.030) than the middle age group (50-79 years).

CONCLUSION

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report showing that younger females are at high risk for vasodilation-related adverse symptoms during dihydropyridine use in a real-life clinical setting. These results should be verified in clinical studies using larger samples of young patients and more parameters.

Calcium channel blockers in cardiovascular pharmacotherapy

This paper summarizes the pharmacological properties of calcium channel blockers (CCBs), their established therapeutic uses for cardiovascular disorders and the current improvement of their clinical effects through drug combinations. Their identification resulted from study of small molecules including coronary dilators, which were named calcium antagonists. Further experiments showed that they reduced contraction of arteries by inhibiting calcium entry and by interacting with binding sites identified on voltage-dependent calcium channels. This led to the denomination calcium channel blockers. In short-term studies, by decreasing total peripheral resistance, CCBs lower arterial pressure. By unloading the heart and increasing coronary blood flow, CCBs improve myocardial oxygenation. In long-term treatment, the decrease in blood pressure is more pronounced in hypertensive than in normotensive patients. A controversy on the safety of CCBs ended after a large antihypertensive trial (ALLHAT) sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. There are two main types of CCBs: dihydopyridine and non-dihydropyridine; the first type is vascular selective. Dihydropyrines are indicated for hypertension, chronic, stable and vasospastic angina. Non-dihydropyridines have the same indications plus antiarrythmic effects in atrial fibrillation or flutter and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia. In addition, CCBs reduced newly formed coronary lesions in atherosclerosis. In order to reach recommended blood pressure goals, there is a recent therapeutic move by combination of CCBs with other antihypertensive agents particularly with inhibitors acting at the level of the renin-angiotensin system. They are also combined with statins. Prevention of dementia has been reported in hypertensive patients treated with nitrendipine, opening a way for further studies on CCBs' beneficial effect in cognitive deterioration associated with aging.

[Edematous and painful leg. Pathophysiology in the spotlight: presentation of a case]

We report on a 74-year-old woman visually impaired and under treatment with amlodipine, valsartan and thyroid hormone. The patient complained of her unique, edematous and painful leg after a local trauma. The worsening was slow and gradual, affecting walk and state of mind. Several unsuccessful diagnoses were done before suspecting and confirming a Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Edema disappeared dramatically after amlodipine empirical discontinuation. Pain improved gradually with rehabilitation exercises but, mainly, after gaining skills and self-esteem due to cataract surgery of her unique functional eye. It was necessary to decrease thyroid hormone dosage after a long lasting balance. The sympathetic nervous system role of the case is discussed.

Different aspects of sartan + calcium antagonist association compared to the single therapy on inflammation and metabolic parameters in hypertensive patients

This study aims to evaluate the effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB)/calcium channel blocker combination on blood pressure control, lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, and inflammation markers. We randomized 276 hypertensive patients to olmesartan 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or a single pill containing an olmesartan/amlodipine combination 20/5 mg for 12 months. We evaluated the following: body weight, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, fasting plasma insulin (FPI), M value, lipid profile, adiponectin (ADN), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and macrophage migration inhibitory factor-1β (MIP-1β). Olmesartan/amlodipine combination better reduced blood pressure, FPI, homeostasis model assessment index, and increased M value and ADN compared to olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies. Olmesartan/amlodipine significantly decreased Hs-CRP, MCP-1, and MIP-1β. In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical study, ARB/calcium antagonist combination resulted to be more effective than single monotherapies in reducing blood pressure, in improving insulin sensitivity, and in reducing inflammation parameters in patients with stage I essential hypertension.

Results from a 12 months, randomized, clinical trial comparing an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill combination to olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies on blood pressure and inflammation

AIM

Hypertension affects nearly 1 in 3 adults in the United States, and it is an important modifiable risk factor for coronary artery disease, heart failure, renal failure, and stroke. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a fixed-dose olmesartan/amlodipine combination on blood pressure control, lipid profile, insulin sensitivity, and inflammation compared to singles monotherapies.

METHODS

We randomized 276 hypertensive patients to olmesartan 20 mg, amlodipine 10mg or a single pill containing a fixed-dose olmesartan/amlodipine combination 20/5mg for 12 months. We evaluated: body weight, body mass index (BMI), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), lipid profile, omentin, chemerin, high sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP). At baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, patients underwent an euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamp to assess insulin sensitivity (M value).

RESULTS

Olmesartan/amlodipine combination was more effective than amlodipine or olmesartan in reducing blood pressure. Olmesartan/amlodipine combination, but not amlodipine, decreased FPG after 12 months. Olmesartan/amlodipine combination better decreased FPI and HOMA index and increased M value compared to olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies. Olmesartan/amlodipine significantly decreased chemerin and omentin compared to olmesartan and amlodipine.

CONCLUSION

Other than to be more effective in reducing blood pressure, olmesartan/amlodipine single pill combination gave also a major increase of insulin sensitivity and a decrease of inflammatory markers compared to single monotherapies.

Olmesartan/amlodipine combination versus olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies on blood pressure and insulin resistance in a sample of hypertensive patients

Despite the wide range of antihypertensive medications, about 45.5% of treated patients fail to achieve the desired blood pressure (BP) target. This study evaluated the effects of an olmesartan/amlodipine single pill combination compared to olmesartan or amlodipine monotherapies on BP, lipid profile, insulin resistance, and insulin sensitivity parameters. Two hundred and seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to olmesartan (20 mg), amlodipine (10 mg), or a single pill containing olmesartan/amlodipine (5/20 mg) for 12 months. We evaluated the following parameters at the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months: body weight, body mass index (BMI), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), and lipid profile. At the baseline, and after 6 and 12 months, patients underwent an euglycemic, hyperinsulinemic clamp to assess M value. Olmesartan/amlodipine gave a greater decrease in SBP and DPB compared to amlodipine and olmesartan at 6 (P < .05) and 12 months (P < .01). There was a decrease in FPG with olmesartan/amlodipine after 12 months compared to amlodipine (P < .05). Olmesartan/amlodipine decreased FPI and homeostasis model assessment index compared to both baseline (P < .05) and olmesartan and amlodipine (P < .05). Olmesartan/amlodipine gave an increase in M value, compared to baseline (P < .01) and to olmesartan monotherapy (P < .05) and amlodipine monotherapy (P < .01). In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, olmesartan/amlodipine combination resulted more effective than olmesartan and amlodipine monotherapies in reducing BP, in improving insulin resistance, and insulin sensitivity parameters in patients with stage I essential hypertension. The combination also resulted in less peripheral edema.

Effect of aliskiren addition to amlodipine on ankle edema in hypertensive patients: a three-way crossover study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of aliskiren and amlopidine on ankle-foot volume (AFV) and pretibial subcutaneous tissue pressure (PSTP).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After 4-week placebo, 120 outpatients with grade 1 - 2 hypertension were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg or aliskiren 300 mg or their combination for 8 weeks in three crossover periods. At the end of each treatment, blood pressure, AFV, PSTP, plasma renin activity (PRA) and norepinephrine were assessed.

RESULTS

Both monotherapies similarly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP; p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; p < 0.001), but the reduction was greater with amlodipine/aliskiren combination (SBP: - 24.6 mmHg, p < 0.001 vs monotherapy; DBP: -20.9 mmHg, p < 0.01 vs monotherapy). Amlodipine increased both AFV (+ 28.4%, p < 0.01) and PSTP (+ 80.4%, p < 0.01), while the combination produced a less marked increase in AFV (+ 6.6%, p < 0.01 vs amlodipine) and PSTP (+ 20.1%, p < 0.01 vs amlodipine). Plasma norepinephrine increased with amlodipine (+ 53.5%, p < 0.01) and this increase was not reduced by aliskiren addition. PRA was unaffected by amlodipine, while it was reduced by both aliskiren monotherapy (- 77.7%, p < 0.01) and aliskiren/amlodipine combination (- 75.7%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct renin inhibition by aliskiren partially counteracts the microcirculatory changes responsible for calcium-channel-induced edema formation, possibly through preferential vasodilation of venous capacitance vessels.