Arterial vasodilator effects of the dihydropyridine calcium antagonist amlodipine alone and in combination with verapamil in systemic hypertension

Effects of intravenous amlodipine on coronary hemodynamics in subjects with angiographically normal coronary arteries

The aim of the current study was to assess the ability of amlodipine to dilate the coronary vessels in subjects with angiographically normal coronary arteries and normal left ventricular function. Ten patients, six women and four men (mean age 48 +/- 14 years, range 25-67 years) were enrolled. Coronary flow velocity and coronary perfusion pressure were invasively measured at baseline, during intracoronary adenosine (1-mg bolus) and at 5, 15, and 30 min following IV amlodipine (10 or 20 mg). Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and at 5, 15, and 30 min after amlodipine. Coronary cross-sectional area and mean coronary flow velocity progressively increased after amlodipine administration, resulting in an average increase in coronary flow at 30 min of 76%. On an individual basis, all patients but one showed a consistent trend toward a progressive coronary vasodilator effect of amlodipine over time. The peak effect of amlodipine on baseline mean coronary flow velocity was 43 +/- 12% that of adenosine. This is the first clinical study demonstrating that the IV administration of amlodipine produces a powerful coronary vasodilatation in subjects with angiographically normal coronary arteries and normal ventricular function, besides its known systemic vasodilating effects. The coronary vasodilating properties of amlodipine are particularly expressed at the microcirculatory level.

Current concepts of pharmacotherapy in hypertension: combination calcium channel blocker therapy in the treatment of hypertension

Effective control of blood pressure is usually achieved only with the use of two or more antihypertensive medications. The treatment options for hypertension are numerous, and the number of possible combinations large. The selection of a specific combination drug regimen has often been linked to the perceived need for diuretic therapy as first- or second-step therapy; thus, the popularity of such drug combinations as an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/diuretic, an angiotensin-receptor blocker/diuretic, or a beta blocker/diuretic. Rational alternatives exist, including an ACE inhibitor/calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a dihydropyridine CCB/b blocker combination. Traditionally, recommendations have advised against the use of combination therapy with two drugs from the same therapeutic class. However, because of the different binding and pharmacologic characteristics of CCBs, a rationale exists for combining different agents in this class in the management of hypertension and/or symptomatic coronary artery disease. In the treatment of either hypertension or angina, combination CCB therapy can prove uniquely successful.

Efficacy of amlodipine in pediatric bone marrow transplant patients

The calcium antagonist amlodipine may have the potential for expanded use in children owing to its physiochemistry and pharmacokinetic profile that facilitates once-daily dosing in a liquid formulation. Its safety and efficacy have not been previously evaluated in children. A retrospective analysis of 15 pediatric bone marrow transplant patients who had amlodipine incorporated into their antihypertensive drug regimen reveals significantly lower blood pressure as compared with baseline therapy (123.5+/-2.1 mmHg and 117.2+/-2.2 mmHg, systolic blood pressure before and during amlodipine, P<0.05; 81.5+/-1.8 mmHg and 75.5+/-2.6 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure before and during amlodipine, P<0.05). Amlodipine provided improved blood pressure control in this cohort and may provide a valuable pharmacologic alternative for treatment of pediatric hypertension.

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.

Verapamil and nifedipine in combination for the treatment of hypertension

The authors examined the efficacy and safety of the combination of verapamil and nifedipine in the control of hypertension. Retrospective analysis of blood pressures was obtained on 50 patients who had historically documented essential hypertension and were receiving verapamil and nifedipine. The patients had moderate to severe hypertension; 27 of 50 (54%) were uncontrolled on prescribed regimens of two or more separate classes of drugs. Control was defined by the ability to maintain a blood pressure of < or = 160/90 by providing doses of verapamil (max: 480 mg/day) and nifedipine (max: 180 mg/day). Twenty-nine (58%) were black and 21 (42%) were white. Ages ranged from 16 to 84 years. Mean duration of therapy was 1-2 years. Only 3 of 50 (6%) were control failures after providing verapamil and nifedipine. Three of 50 (6%) were discontinued because of side effects--reversible hepatitis (2) and rash (1). There were no serious adverse events, i.e., CHF or arrhythmias. Manageable ankle edema was seen in 14 of 50 (28%) patients. Verapamil and nifedipine, a combination of a dihydropyridine and a non-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, was effective and safe in this group of patients with difficult-to-manage hypertension.

Antianginal effects of amlodipine at a single dose on exertional angina patients using treadmill exercise testing--a randomized crossover study in comparison with placebo

With eight cases of stable exertional angina as subjects, the antianginal action and sustained effects of single 10 mg oral doses of new calcium antagonists amlodipine were assessed by treadmill exercise tests in randomized crossover trials with respect to a placebo. Exercise tests were conducted before as well as 4, 8, and 24 hours after administration, and plasma amlodipine concentration was investigated at the same times. The maximal exercise time was 299 +/- 43 seconds before as compared with 346 +/- 49 seconds 4 hours after administration and 368 +/- 50 seconds 8 hours after administration, a significant prolongation in each case (p < 0.01). Moreover, the exercise time elapsed until 1 mm of ST-segment depression, as well as the ST-segment depression measured at the same time, were both significantly improved as compared with the placebo results. The plasma amlodipine concentration reached a peak 8 hours after administration and displayed an effective level even 24 hours after administration. The value of delta PRP measured at the same time during the exercise test was also significantly reduced as compared with the placebo results, even 24 hours after administration of amlodipine. These findings supported the conclusion that single 10-mg doses of amlodipine provide stable antianginal action over a 24-hour period.