Effects of calcium antagonists on insulin sensitivity and other metabolic parameters

Blood pressure-lowering effects of nifedipine/candesartan combinations in high-risk individuals: subgroup analysis of the DISTINCT randomised trial

The DISTINCT study (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS-Candesartan Therapy) investigated the efficacy and safety of nifedipine GITS/candesartan cilexetil combinations vs respective monotherapies and placebo in patients with hypertension. This descriptive sub-analysis examined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects in high-risk participants, including those with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate<90 ml min^-1, n=422), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=202), hypercholesterolaemia (n=206) and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (n=971), as well as the impact of gender, age and body mass index (BMI). Participants with grade I/II hypertension were randomised to treatment with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30, 60 mg and/or candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16, 32 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Mean systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions after treatment in high-risk participants were greater, overall, with N/C combinations vs respective monotherapies or placebo, with indicators of a dose-response effect. Highest rates of BP control (ESH/ESC 2013 guideline criteria) were also achieved with highest doses of N/C combinations in each high-risk subgroup. The benefits of combination therapy vs monotherapy were additionally observed in patient subgroups categorised by gender, age or BMI. All high-risk participants reported fewer vasodilatory adverse events in the pooled N/C combination therapy than the N monotherapy group. In conclusion, consistent with the DISTINCT main study outcomes, high-risk participants showed greater reductions in BP and higher control rates with N/C combinations compared with respective monotherapies and lesser vasodilatory side-effects compared with N monotherapy.

Review: The metabolic syndrome as an endocrine disease: is there an effective pharmacotherapeutic strategy optimally targeting the pathogenesis?

The metabolic syndrome (MetS) represents a combination of cardiovascular risk determinants such as obesity, insulin resistance and lipid abnormalities such as hypertriglyceridemia, increased free fatty acids, low high-density-cholesterol and hypertension. As a multiple component condition it imparts a doubling of relative risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). It is currently controversial which component of the syndrome carries what weight. There is even a considerable debate whether the risk for ASCVD is greater in patients diagnosed with MetS than that by the individual risk factors. At present, no unifying pathogenetic mechanism can explain the metabolic syndrome and there is no unique treatment for it. This review summarizes and critically reviews the currently available clinical and scientific evidence for the concept that the MetS is causally an endocrine disease and discusses pharmacotherapeutic strategies targeting the pathogenesis rather than single symptoms of the cluster.

Effects of the fixed combination of manidipine plus delapril in the treatment of hypertension inadequately controlled by monotherapy with either component: a phase III, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Failure to achieve good blood pressure (BP) control is probably the most important reason for high rates of morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension. Combination therapy has been shown to increase the percentage of patients in whom BP control is achieved. One combination is a calcium channel blocker (CCB) and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of the fixed combination of the CCB manidipine and the ACE-I delapril in the treatment of hypertensive patients already given monotherapy with either component but with poor results (ie, insufficient BP control or adverse events [AEs]).

METHODS

In this Phase III, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial, patients with mild to moderate hypertension were assigned to 1 of 2 groups. Group 1 comprised patients whose diastolic BP (DBP) was >90 mm Hg or who experienced AEs with manidipine 20 mg once daily. Group 2 comprised patients who had a DBP >90 mm Hg or who experienced AEs with delapril 30 mg BID. In both groups, patients aged <65 years were to be treated with a fixed combination of manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg once daily for 12 weeks, whereas patients aged ≥65 years were to be treated with manidipine 5 mg plus delapril 15 mg once daily for 2 weeks and then manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg once daily for 10 weeks. Patients were assessed at baseline and at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. At each visit, systolic blood pressure (SBP), DBP, and heart rate were measured 24 hours after dosing, and AEs were recorded.

RESULTS

Group 1 included 154 patients (80 men, 74 women; mean [SD] age, 55 [6] years); group 2 included 158 patients (79 men, 79 women; mean [SD] age, 56 [5] years). Mean BP decreased significantly in both groups (P<0.01). Compared with baseline values, mean SBP/DBP decreased 16.2 (3.8)/10.1 (1.9) mm Hg in group 1 and 15.8 (3.1)/11.0 (1.5) mm Hg in group 2 at the last visit. The success rate-rate of normalized DBP (≤90 mm Hg) and responder rate (DBP reduction ≥10 mm Hg)-was 79% in group 1 and 82% in group 2. The rates of treatment-related AEs were 11% in group 1 and 8% in group 2. In group 1, heart rate significantly increased from baseline only at 2 weeks (P<0.05); in group 2, at each visit (P<0.05) except at week 12. However, none of these differences were clinically significant.

CONCLUSION

In this study population of patients whose BP was not adequately controlled by monotherapy, the fixed combination of manidipine 10 mg plus delapril 30 mg, once daily, was effective and well tolerated.

Antihypertensive medications and blood sugar: theories and implications

Increased rates of diabetes have been reported with thiazide diuretics and beta-blockers, but not with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or calcium channel blockers. These observations are important because significant glycemic effects of drugs may be a source of accelerated cardiovascular risk that is not detectable during restricted clinical trial follow-up periods. The extent to which diabetes is affected by these medications remains unclear, as is the precise mechanism by which diabetes is promoted. However, several plausible theories are presented herein. Although drug-induced diabetes has been a concern for several years, not enough information is available to influence prescribing for the majority of patients. The number one priority should be controlling blood pressure in a timely manner.

Insulin resistance in hypertension quantified by oral glucose tolerance test: comparison of methods

Four methods reported in the literature for evaluation of insulin sensitivity indexes from oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) were analyzed and compared in order to test their ability to discriminate the insulin-resistant state in hypertension. To this aim, 15 normoglycemic subjects, not affected by metabolic syndrome, underwent a 22-sample, 300-minute OGTT. Eight subjects were normotensive (mean age, 47.0 +/- 4.2 years) and 7 were hypertensive (mean age, 53.6 +/- 1.6 years). The following insulin sensitivity indexes were computed and compared: (a) 2 indexes, ISIE22/300 and ISIE8/180, provided by an integral equation (IE) method applied to the full OGTT and to a reduced 8-sample, 180-minute data subset, respectively; (b) 2 indexes, ISOGIS180 and ISOGIS120, computed by the oral glucose, insulin sensitivity (OGIS) method, which only requires 3 blood samples taken within 180 and 120 minutes, respectively; (c) an index, ISISI, which considers fasting and mean insulinemia and glycemia measured during a 5-sample, 120-minute OGTT; and (d) an index, ISMCR, which considers body mass index and requires 2 blood samples taken within 120 minutes. Except the ISOGIS180, all other indexes were able to detect a significant reduction (unpaired Student t test, P < .05) of insulin sensitivity in our hypertensive group compared with the normotensive group. Failure of ISOGIS180 was explained by the fact that this index did not capture the information portrayed by the peak of insulinemia in hypertensive patients, which occurred around the 90th minute. Intraclass correlation coefficients higher than 0.89 demonstrated a substantial agreement between ISIE22/300 and ISIE8/180 indexes. These are the only indexes characterized by units of measure consistent with the definition of insulin sensitivity as the ability of insulin to enhance glucose effectiveness.

Effect of Manidipine as Compared to Atenolol on Platelet Aggregation in Elderly Patients with Isolated Systolic Hypertension and Type II Diabetes Mellitus

This study was done to evaluate the effect of treatment with manidipine as compared with atenolol on thrombin-mediated platelet aggregation in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension and type II diabetes mellitus. After a 2-week washout placebo period, 60 elderly patients (aged 65-80 years) with isolated systolic hypertension (SBP > 140 mm Hg and DBP < 90 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to manidipine 10 mg or atenolol 50 mg 6-week treatment according to a double-blind, crossover design. Thirty patients had a concomitant well-controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (HbA1c < or = 6.5%). At the end of the washout and of each treatment period, blood pressure (BP) (by mercury sphygmomanometer) and platelet aggregation (by Born-type aggregometer) were evaluated. Blood samples were collected using sodium citrate as anticoagulant, and platelet aggregation was induced by 2 different concentrations of ADP and collagen. Manidipine and atenolol produced a significant BP reduction in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients, with no difference between treatments. Despite the similar BP effect, in diabetic patients manidipine produced a significant reduction in platelet aggregation induced by both doses of either ADP or collagen. In nondiabetic hypertensives, manidipine inhibited platelet aggregation only at the highest doses of both inducers. The difference in the platelet inhibitory effect of manidipine between diabetic and nondiabetic subjects was statistically significant (P < 0.05) at both inducer concentrations. No changes in platelet aggregation were observed in the atenolol group. These data indicate that, unlike atenolol, manidipine inhibits platelet aggregation in elderly hypertensive patients, expecially in those with associated type II diabetes mellitus. The clinical impact of this positive effect in terms of prevention of cardiovascular complications in these high-risk patients remains to be clarified.

The effect of renin-angiotensin axis inhibition on early atherogenesis in LDL-receptor-deficient mice

OBJECTIVE

The renin-angiotensin system may play a role in the development of atherosclerosis. Nevertheless, different results from studies attempting to attenuate the process by inhibiting the converting enzyme were equivocal, and in those who succeeded, blood pressure was lowered and/or the lipid profile was improved in addition to the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin axis. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of low doses of fosinopril, a converting enzyme inhibitor, on the development of atherosclerosis in LDL-receptor-deficient mice.

METHODS

Three groups of 15 mice were fed a high-fat, high-cholesterol western diet. The three study groups received either distilled water (control group), or water supplemented with fosinopril 0.01 mg/kg/day (low-dose group) or with 0.1 mg/kg/day (high-dose group). Plasma aldosterone levels and lipid profiles were measured at the beginning and at the end of the study. After 10 weeks, the mice were sacrificed and the extent of atherosclerosis was assessed at the aortic sinus.

RESULTS

Plasma aldosterone levels did not change in the control group, but decreased significantly in both treated groups from 74.7 to 39.3 ng/ml in the low-dose group (p < 0.003) and from 70.7 to 33.6 ng/ml in the high-dose group (p < 0.001). The lipid profile at the end of the study showed significantly lower levels of cholesterol and triglycerides in the high-dose group as compared to the low-dose group (p < 0.05). There was no difference between the three groups regarding the area of atherosclerosis at the aortic sinus: 157,000 +/- 34,000, 130,000 +/- 58,000 and 145,000 +/- 26,000 microm(2) in the control, low-dose and high-dose groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis by itself does not prevent the development of early atherosclerosis in LDL-receptor-deficient mice.

Treatment of diabetic patients with hypertension

This review attempts to highlight the potential of calcium-channel blockers in the prevention of sequelae of diabetes mellitus and hypertension in patients who have both disorders. Evidence-based medicine is driven by the results of randomized, clinical trials. Major contributions were therefore derived from post hoc analyses of the diabetic patients enrolled in placebo-controlled trials, such as Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP), Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur), and Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst-China), and stepped-care blood-pressure-oriented trials, such as the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) and United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS). Several studies, such as the Fosiniprl; versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Trial (FACET) and Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial, have compared the relative merits of angiotensin-converting enzyme and calcium-channel blockers in preserving renal function and metabolic balance in diabetic patients with hypertension, but their publications focused on cardiovascular disorders, which were only secondary end points. On balance, the articles reviewed prove that dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers score particularly well in the prevention of cardiovascular complications in diabetic patients with hypertension.

Effects of calcium-channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators

BACKGROUND

Recent reports suggest that calcium-channel blockers may be harmful in patients with diabetes and hypertension. We previously reported that antihypertensive treatment with the calcium-channel blocker nitrendipine reduced the risk of cardiovascular events. In this post hoc analysis, we compared the outcome of treatment with nitrendipine in diabetic and nondiabetic patients.

METHODS

After stratification according to center, sex, and presence or absence of previous cardiovascular complications, 4695 patients (age, > or =60 years) with systolic blood pressure of 160 to 219 mm Hg and diastolic pressure below 95 mm Hg were randomly assigned to receive active treatment or placebo. Active treatment consisted of nitrendipine (10 to 40 mg per day) with the possible addition or substitution of enalapril (5 to 20 mg per day) or hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 to 25 mg per day) or both, titrated to reduce the systolic blood pressure by at least 20 mm Hg and to less than 150 mm Hg. In the control group, matching placebo tablets were administered similarly.

RESULTS

At randomization, 492 patients (10.5 percent) had diabetes. After a median follow-up of two years, the systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the placebo and active-treatment groups differed by 8.6 and 3.9 mm Hg, respectively, among the diabetic patients. Among the 4203 patients without diabetes, systolic and diastolic pressures differed by 10.3 and 4.5 mm Hg, respectively, in the two groups. After adjustment for possible confounders, active treatment was found to have reduced overall mortality by 55 percent (from 45.1 deaths per 1000 patients to 26.4 deaths per 1000 patients), mortality from cardiovascular disease by 76 percent, all cardiovascular events combined by 69 percent, fatal and nonfatal strokes by 73 percent, and all cardiac events combined by 63 percent in the group of patients with diabetes. Among the nondiabetic patients, active treatment decreased all cardiovascular events combined by 26 percent and fatal and nonfatal strokes by 38 percent. In the group of patients receiving active treatment, reductions in overall mortality, mortality from cardiovascular disease, and all cardiovascular events were significantly larger among the diabetic patients than among the nondiabetic patients (P=0.04, P=0.02, and P=0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Nitrendipine-based antihypertensive therapy is particularly beneficial in older patients with diabetes and isolated systolic hypertension. Thus, our findings do not support the hypothesis that the use of long-acting calcium-channel blockers may be harmful in diabetic patients.