Quantification of Pedal Edema During Treatment With S(-)-Amlodipine Nicotinate Versus Amlodipine Besylate in Female Korean Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension: A 12-Week, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Phase IV Clinical Trial

Effect of a fixed-dose combination of Telmisartan/S-amlodipine on circadian blood pressure compared with Telmisartan monotherapy: TENUVA-BP study

Background

This study evaluated the circadian efficacy of a telmisartan 40 mg/S-amlodipine 2.5 mg fixed-dose combination (Telmisartan40/S-Amlodipine2.5) compared to telmisartan 80 mg (Telmisartan80) in patients with essential hypertension who did not respond to 2–4 weeks’ treatment with telmisartan 40 mg.

Methods

Eligible patients with essential hypertension (clinic mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg, or ≥ 130 mmHg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease) were randomly assigned to Telmisartan40/S-Amlodipine2.5 or Telmisartan80 for 8 weeks. All patients underwent ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) at baseline and 8 weeks later. Primary endpoints were changes in mean 24-h SBP and DBP on 24-h ABPM from baseline after 8 weeks. Secondary endpoints were changes in daytime, nighttime, and morning SBP and DBP, and clinic MSSBP and MSDBP.

Results

A total of 316 Korean patients were enrolled, 217 patients were randomized to treatment, and 192 patients completed the study. Compared to Telmisartan80, Telmisartan40/S-Amlodipine2.5 showed significantly better reductions in 24-h mean SBP and DBP after 8 weeks. Telmisartan40/S-Amlodipine2.5 also significantly reduced secondary endpoints compared to Telmisartan80. Among 15 adverse events (7 [Telmisartan40/S-Amlodipine2.5] and 8 [Telmisartan80]), there were five adverse drug reactions; 14 events were mild, and none were identified with significant between-group differences.

Conclusions

Telmisartan40/S-Amlodipine2.5 was tolerable and more effective than Telmisartan80 in lowering 24-h mean ambulatory BP in patients with essential hypertension not responding adequately to Telmisartan40. Our findings support the fact that the combination of S-amlodipine with telmisartan is more appropriate than increasing the dose of telmisartan monotherapy.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02231788. Registered 4 September 2014.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40885-021-00184-0.

Ambulatory blood pressure response to S‐amlodipine in Korean adult patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension: A prospective, observational study

Although amlodipine is recommended as the first‐line therapy for the treatment of hypertension, its use is limited by its potential side effects. S‐amlodipine is expected to be able to minimize side effects of amlodipine with a similar antihypertensive effect by removing the malicious R‐chiral form. However, sustainable blood pressure control with S‐amlodipine has not been well established yet. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) profiles before and after a 12‐week treatment of S‐amlodipine. Patients received once‐daily S‐amlodipine 2.5 or 5 mg. ABP during 24 hr and office blood pressure were measured at baseline and after the 12‐week treatment. Primary endpoints were changes of systolic and diastolic 24 hr ABP. After 12‐week S‐amlodipine treatment, mean systolic ABP (‐15.1 ± 16.2 mmHg, p < .001) and diastolic ABP (‐8.9 ± 9.8 mmHg, p < .001) were decreased significantly. Both daytime and night‐time mean systolic BP and diastolic BP were also significantly decreased after the 12‐week treatment. Global trough‐to‐peak ratio and smoothness index after 12‐week S‐amlodipine treatment were .75 and .79 for SBP and .65 and .61 for DBP, respectively. Age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.67–14.3) and nonalcohol drinking (HR: 3.09; 95% CI: 1.34–7.17) were independent clinical factors for target ABP achievement. Adverse drug reactions (ADR) were developed in 16 (6.4%) patients, including two (.8%) cases of peripheral edema. In conclusion, this study demonstrated the efficacy and safety of S‐amlodipine in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension.

An examination of three prescribing cascades in a cohort of older adults with dementia

BACKGROUND

Prescribing cascades are a source of inappropriate prescribing for older adults with dementia. We aimed to study three prescribing cascades in older Nova Scotians with dementia using administrative databases.

METHODS

Cohort entry for Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare Program beneficiaries was the date of dementia diagnosis. Prescription drug dispensing data was extracted for inciting medication and second treatment (cholinesterase inhibitor and bladder anticholinergic, metoclopramide and Parkinson's disease medication, or calcium channel blocker (CCB) and diuretic) over the six-year period April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2015. In three separate analyses, dispensing an inciting medication signaled a look back of 365 days from the date of first dispensing to confirm that the second treatment was started after the inciting medication. The prescribing cascade was considered when the second treatment was started within 180 days of the inciting treatment. Sex differences in the prescribing cascade were tested using t-tests or chi square tests as appropriate. Both univariate (unadjusted) and multivariate (adjusted) logistic regression (adjusted for age, rurality, and sex) and Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify risk factors for the prescribing cascade.

RESULTS

From March 1, 2005 to March 31, 2015, 28,953 Nova Scotia Seniors' Pharmacare beneficiaries with dementia (NSSPBD) were identified. There were 60 cases of bladder anticholinergics following cholinesterase inhibitors, 11 cases of Parkinson's disease medication following metoclopramide, and 289 cases of a diuretic following CCB in the cohort. Regression analysis demonstrated that risk of bladder anticholinergics following cholinesterase inhibitors and diuretics following CCBs were associated with female sex. Cox regression suggested that bladder anticholinergics were less often used by those on cholinesterase inhibitors and did not identify CCB use as leading more frequently to diuretic use.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of diuretics following CCB was the most common prescribing cascade and bladder anticholinergics following cholinesterase inhibitors the second most common. However, exposure to the inciting medications did not increase risk of exposure to the second treatments. Combinations of bladder anticholinergics following cholinesterase inhibitors and diuretics following CCBs were more common for women raising concern that women may be at increased risk of these prescribing cascades.

Telmisartan Plus S-Amlodipine Single-Pill Combination Therapy is Safe and Effective in Patients with Hypertension from Large-Scale Nationwide Surveillance Data in Korea (NOVEL) Study

INTRODUCTION

We investigate the safety and efficacy of telmisartan plus S-amlodipine single-pill combination in a real-world population.

METHODS

A total of 44,715 patients who had hypertension and received a telmisartan/S-amlodipine single-pill combination at least once were included for safety and efficacy evaluation from 2852 primary to tertiary hospitals in Korea from August 2013 to December 2019. They were followed up for 3-6 months in terms of safety and efficacy of blood pressure (BP) lowering.

RESULTS

A total of 44,715 patients were included for safety analysis and 41,579 for efficacy analysis. Mean duration of taking the drug was 175.86 ± 48.45 days. A total of 28,096 (62.8%) patients were on telmisartan 40 mg plus S-amlodipine 2.5 mg combination followed by 80/2.5 mg (8664, 19.4%) and 40/5 mg of the drug (7136, 16.0%). Adverse events, total adverse drug reactions, and serious adverse drug reactions were found in 808 patients (1.81%), 352 (0.79%), and 1 (0.002%), respectively. Dizziness and headache were most common (134 [0.30%] and 81 [0.18%]) among all adverse events. Total edema and leg edema were rarely reported, 38 (0.08%) and 25 (0.06%), respectively. Systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) was lowered from 143.1 ± 16.1/88.1 ± 11.8 mmHg to 129.6 ± 11.4/80.1 ± 9.0 mmHg (difference - 13.5/- 7.9 mmHg, P < 0.0001 for both). Target BP goal attainment rate defined as SBP < 140 mmHg and DBP < 90 mmHg was 74.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.2-75.0) and BP response rate (defined as SBP < 140 mmHg or ≥ 20 mmHg reduction; DBP < 90 mmHg or ≥ 10 mmHg reduction) was 94.5% (95% CI 94.3-94.7).

CONCLUSION

Telmisartan plus S-amlodipine single-pill combination was safe and effective in patients with hypertension in a large real-world population.

Targeting Calcium Homeostasis in Myocardial Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury: An Overview of Regulatory Mechanisms and Therapeutic Reagents

Calcium homeostasis plays an essential role in maintaining excitation–contraction coupling (ECC) in cardiomyocytes, including calcium release, recapture, and storage. Disruption of calcium homeostasis may affect heart function, leading to the development of various heart diseases. Myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (MI/R) injury may occur after revascularization, which is a treatment used in coronary heart disease. MI/R injury is a complex pathological process, and the main cause of increased mortality and disability after treatment of coronary heart disease. However, current methods and drugs for treating MI/R injury are very scarce, not ideal, and have limitations. Studies have shown that MI/R injury can cause calcium overload that can further aggravate MI/R injury. Therefore, we reviewed the effects of critical calcium pathway regulators on MI/R injury and drew an intuitive diagram of the calcium homeostasis pathway. We also summarized and analyzed calcium pathway-related or MI/R drugs under research or marketing by searching Therapeutic Target and PubMed Databases. The data analysis showed that six drugs and corresponding targets are used to treat MI/R injury and involved in calcium signaling pathways. We emphasize the relevance of further detailed investigation of MI/R injury and calcium homeostasis and the therapeutic role of calcium homeostasis in MI/R injury, which bridges basic research and clinical applications of MI/R injury.

Validated LC-MS/MS method for the determination of amlodipine enantiomers in rat plasma and its application to a stereoselective pharmacokinetic study

A rapid and sensitive method was established to determine amlodipine enantiomers using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Stereoselective separation was performed on CHIRALCEL OZ-RH column (150 mm × 4.6 mm i.d., 5 μm) with acetonitrile-water (10 mM ammonium acetate, 0.5% ammonia solution) (95:5, v/v) at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min. The substances were detected by mass spectrometer equipped with an electrospray ionization source interface in positive ion mode. Multiple reaction monitoring was selected with the transition of the m/z 409.1 → 238.0 for amlodipine enantiomers and m/z 237.0 → 194.1 for carbamazepine (IS) respectively. Calibration curves were linear at the range of 0.9375-120 ng/mL for both isomers with r > 0.99, while using a lower sample volume (50 μL) compared with previously reported enantiospecific methods The accuracy was at the range of 84.1-119.0% for R-amlodipine, and 87.4-118.2% for S-amlodipine, respectively. The within- and between-run precision (CV%) was within 10% in all cases for both enantiomers. Enantiomers were stable under different conditions, e.g. processed sample, short-term, residue, long-term and freeze/thaw. The LC-MS/MS method was successfully applied in pharmacokinetic study of amlodipine enantiomers in rats. It was observed the concentration of the S- amlodipine was significantly higher than that of the R-amlodipine in racemate-treated group. And there was no significant difference in the pharmacokinetic profiles of the S-amlodipine between the 10 mg/kg racemate- and 5 mg/kg S-amlodipine-treated groups. In addition, it was the first time to find that the main pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC_(0-t), AUC_(0-∞) and C_max) of R-amlodipine were significantly lower in the 5 mg/kg R-amlodipine-treated group compared with the racemate-treated group.

S-Amlodipine: An Isomer with Difference-Time to Shift from Racemic Amlodipine

Calcium channel blockers are among the first-line drugs for treatment of hypertension (HTN). S-amlodipine (S-AM), an S-enantiomer of amlodipine, is available in India and in other countries like China, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, and Nepal. Being clinically researched for nearly two decades, we performed in-depth review of S-AM. This review discusses clinical evidence from total 42 studies (26 randomized controlled trials, 14 observational studies, and 2 meta-analyses) corroborating over 7400 patients treated with S-AM. Efficacy and safety of S-AM in HTN in comparison to racemic amlodipine, used as monotherapy and in combination with other antihypertensives, efficacy in angina, and pleiotropic benefits with S-AM, are discussed in this review.

Efficacy and Safety of S-Amlodipine 2.5 and 5 mg/d in Hypertensive Patients Who Were Treatment-Naive or Previously Received Antihypertensive Monotherapy

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of S-amlodipine 2.5 and 5 mg/d in patients with hypertension who were treatment-naive or previously received antihypertensive monotherapy. During the 8-week treatment period, all patients received S-amlodipine 2.5 mg/d for the first 4 weeks, followed by S-amlodipine 5 mg/d for the second 4 weeks. For efficacy assessments, ambulatory and office blood pressure (BP) measurements were performed during the baseline, fourth-week, and eighth-week visits. For safety assessments, all adverse events and abnormal laboratory findings were recorded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03038451). Of 43 patients evaluated at the screening visit, 33 were enrolled. In the treatment-naive arm, significant reductions in both office and ambulatory systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were observed with S-amlodipine 2.5 mg/d and additional significant reductions were achieved with dose titration (S-amlodipine 5 mg/d). At the end of the study, the rate of the treatment-naive patients with BP under control (SBP/DBP <140/90 mm Hg) was 53% with S-amlodipine 2.5 mg and increased to 78% with S-amlodipine 5 mg. For the noninferiority evaluation, S-amlodipine 2.5 and 5 mg/d treatments were generally noninferior to both office and ambulatory BP levels achieved with the medications that the patients received before participating in the study. Five nonserious adverse events likely to be associated with the study drug were observed. No serious adverse event was encountered. Consequently, S-amlodipine can be suggested as an effective and safe treatment option for patients with hypertension.

Bioequivalence Study of a New Fixed-dose Combination Tablet Containing S-Amlodipine Nicotinate and Olmesartan Medoxomil in Healthy Korean Male Subjects

PURPOSE

A fixed-dose combination (FDC) pill of amlodipine (relatively old calcium channel blocker as dihydropyridine) and olmesartan (relatively new angiotensin II receptor blocker) is used for hypertension that is not adequately controlled with a single-formulation drug. Because the FDC is a one-pill formulation, and amlodipine and olmesartan have different mechanisms of action, it is expected to improve patients' medication compliance and have an increased blood pressure-lowering efficacy. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety profile and the bioequivalence of two different FDC formulations [amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg (reference product) and S-amlodipine nicotinate/olmesartan medoxomil 5/40 mg (test product)].

METHODS

A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-treatment, 2-way, and 2-period crossover study, including a 3-week washout period, was performed in 32 healthy Korean male volunteers. To analyze the concentration of S-amlodipine or olmesartan, plasma samples were collected up to 144 hours after the dose for S-amlodipine and 48 hours after the dose for olmesartan. Pharmacokinetic parameters, including the C_max and the area under the curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration (AUC_0-last) for the time versus concentration plot, were calculated. Analysis of variance for bioequivalence was conducted using C_max and AUC_0-last converted to log scale, and the mean ratios and 90% CIs were determined. Safety data included analysis of adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical examinations, clinical laboratory test, and 12-lead ECGs.

FINDINGS

Of the 32 enrolled participants, 29 healthy volunteers completed the study. For both S-amlodipine and olmesartan, the main pharmacokinetic parameters were all within the acceptable range for regulatory bioequivalence. The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios of C_max and AUC_0-last were 0.8766 to 0.9760 and 0.8288 to 0.9224, respectively, for S-amlodipine and 0.9097 to 1.1229 and 0.8904 to 1.0407, respectively, for olmesartan. Hypotension was the most frequent AE, and it was observed in 4 volunteers with the test product and 7 volunteers with the reference product. Both the test and reference formulations were well tolerated.

IMPLICATIONS

The present study demonstrates that the newly developed FDC product (test drug) and the conventional FDC product (reference drug) have comparable pharmacokinetic characteristics in healthy adult male volunteers. Both the test and reference products indicated good tolerance in this population, and no serious AEs were observed.

Leg edema with (S)-amlodipine vs conventional amlodipine given in triple therapy for hypertension: a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Leg edema is a common adverse effect of dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) that may need dose reduction or drug withdrawal, adversely affecting the antihypertensive efficacy. Leg edema is reported to occur less often with (S)-amlodipine compared to conventional racemic amlodipine. We aimed to find the incidence of leg edema as a primary outcome and antihypertensive efficacy with (S)-amlodipine compared to conventional amlodipine.

METHODS

This prospective, double-blind, controlled clinical trial randomized 172 hypertensive patients, not controlled on beta-blockers (BB) and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), to either conventional amlodipine (5-10 mg; n = 86) or (S)-amlodipine (2.5-5 mg; n = 86), while continuing their previous anti-hypertensive medications. Sample was sufficient to find a difference in edema between the interventions with 80 % power at 5 % significance level. Intension to treat analysis (ITT) for safety data and per protocol analysis for efficacy data was performed. Fischer's exact test was applied to observe difference between responder rates and proportions of subjects having peripheral edema in the two groups. Pitting edema test scores were compared using Mann-Whitney test.

RESULTS

Altogether 146 patients (amlodipine, n = 76 and (S)-amlodipine, n = 70) completed 120 days treatment. Demographic variables and treatment adherence were comparable in the two groups. Incidence of new edema after randomization was 31.40 % in test group and 46.51 % in control group [p = 0.03; absolute risk reduction (ARR) = 15.1 %; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 7, ITT analysis]. Pitting edema score and patient rated edema score increased significantly in the control compared to test group (p = 0.038 and 0.036 respectively) after treatment period. Edema scores increased significantly in the control group from baseline (p < 0.0001). Responders in blood pressure were 98.57 % in test and 98.68 % in control group. Most common adverse events (AE) were pitting edema and increased urinary frequency. Incidence of all AEs other than edema was similar in both groups. Two serious AEs occurred unrelated to therapy. Biochemical and ECG parameters in the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

In hypertensive patients not controlled on prior BB and ACEI/ARB therapy, addition of (S)-amlodipine besylate at half the dose of conventional amlodipine provides better tolerability with reduced incidence of peripheral edema, and equal antihypertensive efficacy compared to amlodipine given at usual doses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Sri Lanka Clinical Trials registry: www.slctr.lk, SLCTR/2013/006.

A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, 3 × 3 Factorial Design, Phase II Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Fimasartan/Amlodipine in Patients With Essential Hypertension

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fimasartan/amlodipine combination in patients with hypertension and to determine the optimal composition for a future single-pill combination formulation.

METHODS

This Phase II study was conducted by using a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3 × 3 factorial design. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, eligible hypertensive patients (with a sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] between 90 and 114 mm Hg) were randomized to treatment. They received single or combined administration of fimasartan at 3 doses (0, 30, and 60 mg) and amlodipine at 3 doses (0, 5, and 10 mg) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the change in SiDBP from baseline and at week 8; secondary end points included the change in SiDBP from baseline and at week 4 and the changes in sitting systolic blood pressure from baseline and at weeks 4 and 8. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

FINDINGS

420 Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomly allocated to the 9 groups. Mean (SD) SiDBP changes in each group after 8 weeks were as follows: placebo, -6.0 (8.5) mm Hg; amlodipine 5 mg, -10.6 (9.2) mm Hg; amlodipine 10 mg, -15.9 (7.2) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg, -10.1 (9.1) mm Hg; fimasartan 60 mg, -13.0 (10.0) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, -16.2 (8.5) mm Hg; fimasartan 30 mg/amlodipine 10 mg, -19.5 (7.5) mm Hg; fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 5 mg, -16.6 (6.9) mm Hg; and fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg, -21.5 (8.3) mm Hg. All treatment groups produced significantly greater reductions in blood pressure compared with the placebo group. In addition, all combination treatment groups had superior reductions in blood pressure compared with the monotherapy groups. In the combination treatment groups, doubling fimasartan dose in the given dose of amlodipine did not show further BP reduction, whereas doubling amlodipine dose showed significantly further BP reduction in the given dose of fimasartan. During the study period, 75 (17.9%) of 419 patients experienced 110 AEs. Ninety-five AEs were mild, 9 were moderate, and 6 were severe in intensity. Eight patients discontinued the study due to AEs. There was no significant difference in incidence of AEs among groups (P = 0.0884). The most common AE was headache (12 patients [2.9%]), followed by dizziness (11 patients [2.6%]) and elevated blood creatine phosphokinase levels (6 patients [1.4%]).

IMPLICATIONS

Fimasartan combined with amlodipine produced superior blood pressure reductions and low levels of AEs compared with either monotherapy. Therefore, a single-pill combination with fimasartan 60 mg/amlodipine 10 mg will be developed. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01518998.

The effects of amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine on vascular endothelial function in patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

Amlodipine has been shown to improve vascular endothelial function in hypertensive patients, but whether S(-)-amlodipine has a similar effect remains controversial. This study compared the effects of amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine on vascular endothelial function in hypertensive patients and investigated relevant mechanisms of action in cell culture.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with essential hypertension received amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine for 6 weeks in a randomized, crossover study. Associated flow-mediated dilation (FMD), nitric oxide (NO), and endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) levels were determined. NO levels were measured after exposure of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) to amlodipine, S(-)-amlodipine, the eNOS inhibitor N w-nitro-L-arginine (L-NA), and the Protein Kinase C (PKC) inhibitor Ro 31-8220. Phosphorylation levels of Ser(1177) and Thr(495) in eNOS were determined after exposure to amlodipine, S(-)-amlodipine, and Ro 31-8220.

RESULTS

FMD, NO, and eNOS levels significantly improved after treatment with amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine. The levels were all higher with amlodipine, although the between-treatment difference was not statistically significant. Amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine significantly increased NO levels in cultured HUVECs, but increases in NO levels were more marked with amlodipine. Western blot assay showed that both amlodipine and Ro31-8220 induced Ser(1177) phosphorylation and weakened Thr(495) phosphorylation in eNOS. S(-)-amlodipine had no similar effects. Amlodipine, but not S(-)-amlodipine, decreased the PKC phosphorylation in a time-dependent manner.

CONCLUSIONS

Amlodipine and S(-)-amlodipine can both improve endothelial function in hypertensive patients. Amlodipine has greater potential for vascular endothelial protection than S(-)-amlodipine. It affects eNOS phosphorylation at Ser(1177) and Thr(495) by the PKC pathway, further enhancing eNOS activation.