Improved tolerability of the dihydropyridine calcium-channel antagonist lercanidipine: the lercanidipine challenge trial

Etiology of Drug-Induced Edema: A Review of Dihydropyridine, Thiazolidinedione, and Other Medications Causing Edema

Edema is an accumulation of fluid in the body's tissues that affects millions of Americans yearly. It can affect multiple body parts, for example, the brain or eyes, but often occurs in the periphery, including the feet and legs. Medications, such as dihydropyridine and thiazolidinediones (TZDs), can be the etiology of edema. Edema can develop in association with problems in the vasculature or lymphatic flow. In recent years, a better understanding of these drug-induced mechanisms has been appreciated. Specifically, dihydropyridines can increase hydrostatic pressure and cause selective pre-capillary vessel vasodilation. TZDs can cause edema through increased vascular permeability and increased hydrostatic pressure. Specifically, peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) stimulation increases vascular endothelial permeability, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) secretion, renal sodium, and fluid retention. Other drugs that can cause edema include neuropathic pain agents, dopamine agonists, antipsychotics, nitrates, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDS), steroids, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and insulin. There are various clinical presentations of edema. Since multiple mechanisms can induce edema, it is important to understand the basic mechanisms and pathophysiology of drug-induced edema. Edema can even become fatal. For example, angioedema can occur from ACE inhibitor therapy. In this regard, it is considered a medical emergency when there is laryngeal involvement. This review aims to thoroughly appreciate the multiple causes of drug-induced edema and the ways it can be treated or prevented.

Comparative peripheral edema for dihydropyridines calcium channel blockers treatment: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.

Lercanidipine in the Management of Hypertension: An Update

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs), particularly dihydropyridine-CCBs, (DHP-CCBs), have an established role in antihypertensive therapy, either as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs. Two hundred and fifty-one papers published in PubMed in English between January 1, 1990, and October 31, 2016, were identified using the keyword "lercanidipine." Lercanidipine is a lipophilic third-generation DHP-CCB, characterized by high vascular selectivity and persistence in the smooth muscle cell membranes. Lercanidipine is devoid of sympathetic activation, and unlike the first and second generation of DHP-CCBs, it dilates both the afferent and the efferent glomerular arteries, while preserving the intraglomerular pressure. In addition, lercanidipine prevents renal damage induced by angiotensin II and demonstrates anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and anti-atherogenic properties through an increasing bioavailability of endothelial nitric oxide. It is associated with a regression of microvascular structural modifications in hypertensive patients. The efficacy of lercanidipine has been demonstrated in patients with different degrees of hypertension, in the young and elderly and in patients with isolated systolic hypertension. In patients with diabetes and renal impairment, lercanidipine displays a renal protection with a significant decrease of microalbuminuria and improvement of creatinine clearance. Lercanidipine is well tolerated and is associated with a very low rate of adverse events, particularly ankle edema, compared with amlodipine and nifedipine. In conclusion, lercanidipine produces a sustained blood pressure-lowering activity with a high rate of responder/normalized patients, associated with a favorable tolerability profile.

Follow-up of Antihypertensive Therapy Improves Blood Pressure Control: Results of HYT (HYperTension survey) Follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Although improved during the past few years, blood pressure control remains sub optimal.

AIM

The impact of follow-up assessment on blood pressure control was evaluated in a group of patients of the HYT (HYperTension survey), treated with a combination of different dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs regimen) and inhibitors of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) and with uncontrolled blood pressure. This was obtained assessing (a) the rate of blood pressure control at 3 and 6 months of follow-up in the whole group of patients, (b) the rate of blood pressure control and the average blood pressure values in subjects treated with different DHP-CCBs regimen.

METHODS

From the 4993 patients with uncontrolled blood pressure, (BP ≥ 140/90 or ≥140/85 in patients with diabetes), 3729 (mean age 61.2 ± 11.5 years), maintained CCBs regimen combined wih RAAS blockers and were evaluated at 3 and 6 months follow-up. At each visit BP (semiautomatic device, Omron-M6, 3 measurements), heart rate, adverse events and treatment persistence were collected.

RESULTS

At 1st and 2nd follow-up the rate of controlled BP was 63.5 and 72.8% respectively (p < 0.05 vs 35.3% at baseline), whereas in diabetes was 32.5 and 37.9% respectively (p < 0.05 vs 20% at baseline). No differences in heart rate were observed. No differences in control rate were observed between the different CCBs regimen. The incidence of drugs related adverse events was 3.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide evidence that: (a) the follow-up of hypertensive patients under therapy increase the rate of blood pressure control; (b) there is no significant difference in the antihypertensive effect between different CCBs regimen;

Combination therapy with lercanidipine and enalapril in the management of the hypertensive patient: an update of the evidence

Hypertension is an important risk factor for premature death as it increases the probability of stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Antihypertensive drugs can decrease cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. The majority of hypertensive patients need more than one antihypertensive agent to attain blood pressure (BP) targets. Monotherapy can effectively reduce BP only in 20%–40% of patients. Multiple mechanisms including increased peripheral vascular resistance, increased cardiac work, and hypervolemia are involved in the pathogenesis of hypertension. Targeting multiple pathways may more potently reduce BP. Increasing the dose of a single agent in many cases does not provide the expected BP-lowering effect because the underlying mechanism of the BP increase is either different or already corrected with the lower dose. Moreover, drugs acting on different pathways may have synergistic effects and thus better control hypertension. It is well known that diuretics enhance the actions of renin–angiotensin aldosterone system and activate it as a feedback to the reduced circulated blood volume. The addition of a renin–angiotensin aldosterone system blocker to a diuretic may more effectively reduce BP because the system is upregulated. Reducing the maximal dose of an agent may also reduce possible side effects if they are dose dependent. The increased prevalence of peripheral edema with higher doses of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) is reduced when renin–angiotensin aldosterone system blockers are added to CCBs through vein dilation. The effectiveness of the combination of enalapril with lercanidipine in reducing BP, the safety profile, and the use of the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors with CCBs in clinical trials with excellent CV hard end point outcomes make this combination a promising therapy in the treatment of hypertension.

Lercanidipine hydrochloride versus felodipine sustained-release for mild-to-moderate hypertension: a multi-center, randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Lercanidipine hydrochloride and felodipine sustained-release tablets comparison for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate primary hypertension.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was designed as a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group clinical trial. A total of 281 adult patients (18-75 years) with a mild-to-moderate primary hypertension diagnosis were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to lercanidipine hydrochloride (n = 139; 81 males) or felodipine sustained-release tablets (n = 142; 87 males). Study duration was 8 weeks, including two run-in weeks and 6 weeks of treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The mean seated diastolic blood pressure (BP) change from baseline to 6 weeks of treatment was the primary endpoint. Main secondary efficacy parameters were: (i) mean seated systolic BP change from baseline to 6 weeks of treatment; (ii) normalization BP rate. The incidence of adverse events was also considered.

RESULTS

BP monitoring showed a significant decrease compared with baseline in diastolic BP (lercanidipine: from 96 ± 4 to 83 ± 6 mmHg, p < 0.0001; felodipine: from 96 ± 4 to 82 ± 5 mmHg, p < 0.0001). The mean systolic BP decreased, when compared with baseline values, by 18 mmHg and 19 mmHg in the lercanidipine and felodipine arm, respectively (p < 0.0001 versus baseline for both comparisons). The normalization rates of BP were 79.5% and 87.2%, in the lercanidipine and felodipine groups, respectively (in-office monitoring; p = n.s.). In total, 73 patients experienced 103 AEs: 26.6% (37/139) in the lercanidipine group and 25.3% (36/142) in the felodipine arm (p = n.s.). The analysis of safety showed no unexpected adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the overall short follow-up of the present study should be taken into account, lercanidipine is an effective and safe treatment option for BP control in adult patients with mild-to-moderate primary hypertension.

Thrapeutic equivalence in the treatment of hypertension: Can lercanidipine and nifedipine GITS be considered to be interchangeable?

AIM: To undertake a review of the evidence that nifedipine GITS and lercanidipine are therapeutically equivalent in the management of essential hypertension.

METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was prompted by the findings of two meta-analyses which indicated that there was a lower incidence of peripheral (ankle) oedema with lercanidipine. However, neither meta-analysis gave detailed attention to comparative antihypertensive efficacy or cardiovascular protection. Accordingly, a systematic, detailed and critical review was undertaken of individual published papers. The review started with those studies incorporated into the 2 meta-analyses and then all other salient and directly relevant papers identified through the following search criteria: all randomized controlled trials in which the therapeutic profile and antihypertensive effects of lercanidipine were directly compared with those of nifedipine GITS (in hypertensive patients). The search strategy was focused on the reports of clinical trials of lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS, which were identified through a systematic search of PubMed (from 1966 to October 2012), Embase (from 1980 to October 2012) and the Cochrane library (from 1 October 2008 to end October 2013). The search combined terms related to lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS (including MeSH search using calcium antagonists, calcium channel blockers and dihydropyridines).

RESULTS: With regard to blood pressure (BP) control and the consistency of BP control throughout 24-h, there is limited published evidence. However, two studies using 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring clearly identified the dose-dependency of BP lowering with lercanidipine and its variably sustained 24-h efficacy. In contrast, there is evidence of a consistent antihypertensive effect throughout 24 h with nifedipine GITS. The incidence of the most common “side effect”, i.e., peripheral (ankle) oedema can be estimated as follows. For every 100 patients treated with lercanidipine, 2.5 will report oedema compared to 6 patients treated with nifedipine GITS. However, 98 or 99 patients will continue treatment with nifedipine GITS, compared with 99.5 patients on lercanidipine. Finally, with regard to outcome studies of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality, there is definitive outcome evidence for nifedipine GITS but there is no evidence that treatment with lercanidipine leads to reductions in CV morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSION: There is no evidence in terms of long-term BP control and CV protection to justify the contention that lercanidipine is therapeutically equivalent to nifedipine GITS.

Results of a meta-analysis comparing the tolerability of lercanidipine and other dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers

BACKGROUND

Results from clinical studies suggest that the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) lercanidipine may be associated with a lower incidence of peripheral edema than are older dihydro-pyridine CCBs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the relative risk (RR) of dihydropyridine CCB-specific adverse events with lercanidipine versus the older dihydro-pyridine CCBs (first generation: amlodipine, felodipine, and nifedipine), and versus the other lipophilic dihy-dropyridine CCBs (second generation: lacidipine and manidipine).

METHODS

A systematic literature search (all years through August 11, 2008) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for English-language reports of single- or double-blind RCTs of > or = 4 weeks' duration that compared the tolerability of lercanidipine with other dihydropyridine CCBs in participants with mild (140-159/90-99 mm Hg) to moderate (160-179/100-109 mm Hg) hypertension.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (6 used first-generation drugs, and 4 used second-generation drugs) met the criteria for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes for lowering blood pressure did not differ statistically between lercanid-ipine and either generation of medications. Compared with the first generation, lercanidipine was associated with a reduced risk of peripheral edema (52/742 with lercanidipine vs 88/627 with first generation; RR = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62]), but not flushing or headache. The frequency of peripheral edema, flushing, and headache did not differ statistically between lercanidi-pine and the second-generation drugs. Study participants were less likely to withdraw from the RCTs because of peripheral edema (RR = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.47]) or any adverse event (RR = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]) when treated with lercanidipine rather than a drug from the first generation, but not when treated with lercanidipine rather than second-generation drugs.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, lercanidipine was associated with a lower risk of peripheral edema and a lower risk of treatment withdrawal because of peripheral edema than were the first-generation, but not the second-generation, dihydropyridine CCBs.

Patient adherence and the choice of antihypertensive drugs: focus on lercanidipine

Despite the development of many effective antihypertensive drugs, target blood pressures are reached in only a minority of patients in clinical practice. Poor adherence to drug therapy and the occurrence of side effects are among the main reasons commonly reported by patients and physicians to explain the poor results of actual antihypertensive therapies. The development of new effective antihypertensive agents with an improved tolerability profile might help to partly overcome these problems. Lercanidipine is an effective dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker of the third generation characterized by a long half-life and its lipophylicity. In contrast to first-generation dihydropyridines, lercanidipine does not induce reflex tachycardia and induces peripheral edema with a lower incidence. Recent data suggest that in addition to lowering blood pressure, lercanidipine might have some renal protective properties. In this review we shall discuss the problems of drug adherence in the management of hypertension with a special emphasis on lercanidipine.

Mitigation of calcium channel blocker-related oedema in hypertension by antagonists of the renin-angiotensin system

This review is aimed at examining calcium channel blocker (CCB)-related oedema and how this can be attenuated through the use of agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system. CCBs are effective antihypertensive agents, but their propensity for causing oedema may reduce compliance. A review of the literature has indicated that the absolute incidence of this side effect is difficult to determine because reported rates vary widely, a factor that may stem from differences in the surveillance technique (active vs passive). In a recent trial incorporating active surveillance, 25% of patients who received amlodipine 10 mg per day experienced oedema. CCB-induced oedema is caused by increased capillary hydrostatic pressure that results from preferential dilation of pre-capillary vessels. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) cause post-capillary dilation and normalize hydrostatic pressure, and are thus ideally suited for prevention/reversal of CCB-induced oedema. The efficacy of this strategy was proven using both subjective and objective techniques. ARB/CCB and ACEI/CCB combination therapy is also more effective than CCB monotherapy in controlling blood pressure. These combinations represent an important advance in the management of hypertension.

Proactive compared with passive adverse event recognition: calcium channel blocker-associated edema

This article examines the concept of passive compared with proactive surveillance for monitoring adverse events occurring with antihypertensive medications, using the example of calcium channel blocker (CCB)-induced peripheral edema. Monitoring adverse events and clinical trial safety are important functions and dependent on investigator protocols and data and safety monitoring teams. Compared with proactive surveillance, voluntary reporting systems tend to yield a lower frequency of adverse events occurrence. Limitation of data has the potential to directly influence clinical and prescribing practices. This discussion addresses advantages of proactive surveillance accomplished by patient solicitation of adverse events and investigators' direct clinical examination. A literature search between the years 2000 and 2007 was conducted on MEDLINE for randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses reporting the incidence of dihydropyridine-associated peripheral edema. The incidence of edema was high in clinical trials in which patients were actively questioned about edema development and tended to be higher than reported in the prescribing information. The incidence of dihydropyridine CCB-induced edema appears to be dependent on the method of edema assessment.

High doses of lercanidipine are better tolerated than other dihydropyridines in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: results from the TOLERANCE study

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

The TOlerabilidad de LERcanidipino 20 mg frente a Amlodipino y Nifedipino en CondicionEs normales de uso study was aimed to compare the tolerability of high doses of lercanidipine with amlodipine and nifedipine gastro-intestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in the treatment of hypertension in daily clinical practice.

PATIENTS/METHODS

Essential hypertensives >or= 18 years, treated during at least 1 month with lercanidipine 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg or nifedipine GITS 60 mg, after a previous treatment course of at least 1 month with half the dose of the corresponding drugs were included. We present the data of the subgroup of patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS).

RESULTS

Three hundred and thirty-seven of the 650 study population fulfilled criteria of MetS, 233 (69.1%) on lercanidipine and 104 (30.9%) on amlodipine/nifedipine GITS. Overall, a significantly lower proportion of lercanidipine-treated patients showed adverse reactions (ARs) when compared with patients receiving other-dihydropyridines (DHPs) (60.1% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.003). Similarly, the most common vasodilation-related ARs (oedema, swelling, flushing and headache) were significantly less frequent in lercanidipine group (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, lercanidipine appears to exhibit a better tolerability profile and less vasodilation-related ARs compared with other DHPs in hypertensive patients with MetS.

The significance of compliance and persistence in the treatment of diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia: a review

OBJECTIVES

To review studies of patient compliance/persistence with cardiovascular or antidiabetic medication published since the year 2000; to compare the methods used to measure compliance/persistence across studies; to compare reported compliance/persistence rates across therapeutic classes and to assess whether compliance/persistence correlates with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

English language papers published between January 2000 and November 2005 investigating patient compliance/persistence with cardiovascular or antidiabetic medication were identified through searches of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Definitions and measurements of compliance/persistence were compared across therapeutic areas using contingency tables.

RESULTS

Of the 139 studies analysed, 32% focused on hypertension, 27% on diabetes and 13% on dyslipidaemia. The remainder covered coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in general. The most frequently reported measure of compliance was the 12-month medication possession ratio (MPR). The overall mean MPR was 72%, and the MPR did not differ significantly between treatment classes (range: 67-76%). The average proportion of patients with an MPR of >80% was 59% overall, 64% for antihypertensives, 58% for oral antidiabetics, 51% for lipid-lowering agents and 69% in studies of multiple treatments, again with no significant difference between treatment classes. The average 12-month persistence rate was 63% and was similar across therapeutic classes. Good compliance had a positive effect on outcome in 73% of the studies examining clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-compliance with cardiovascular and antidiabetic medication is a significant problem, with around 30% of days 'on therapy' not covered by medication and only 59% of patients taking medication for more than 80% of their days 'on therapy' in a year. Good compliance has a positive effect on clinical outcome, suggesting that the management of CVD may be improved by improving patient compliance.

Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in patients with hypertension: results of a Phase IV study in general practice

INTRODUCTION

Calcium antagonists are very effective drugs, recommended as first-line therapy in hypertension. However, their large use in clinical practice is often limited by a high incidence of peripheral oedema. Calcium antagonists of the third generation, such as lercanidipine, have been shown to be as effective as first- and second-generation calcium antagonists, while showing a better side-effect profile.

OBJECTIVE AND METHODS

The purpose of the present Phase IV study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in a large unselected population of hypertensive patients managed in private practice in Switzerland. A total of 504 physicians participated in this survey and 2199 patients were included. Treatment with lercanidipine was introduced at a dose of 10 mg and titration to 20 mg was optional according to the physician's decision. Evaluations of blood pressure control and tolerability were made after 4 and 8 weeks.

RESULTS

The results of the present study show that lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive agent in newly treated hypertensive patients. In this group of patients, 63% reached the target blood pressure (< or = 140/90 mmHg) with lercanidipine alone. Lercanidipine is also an effective alternative in patients who are insufficiently controlled with another therapy, or in patients not tolerating other calcium channel blockers. Finally, lercanidipine is well-tolerated, with a very low rate of drop-out (1-2%) because of adverse events, and a low occurrence of peripheral oedema.

CONCLUSION

Lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated calcium channel blocker of the third generation. This new calcium antagonist represents a very useful tool to improve blood pressure control in the community.

Lercanidipine in the treatment of hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature regarding the efficacy, tolerability, and utility of lercanidipine in the treatment of hypertension.

DATA SOURCES

A search of the literature was performed using MEDLINE (1966-September 2006), EMBASE Drugs and Pharmacology (1980-September 2006), and Current Contents/Clinical Medicine (week 24, 2005-week 30, 2006). Package inserts from lercanidipine, nifedipine, felodipine, and amlodipine were also reviewed for comparison of adverse effects.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were limited to clinical trials, abstracts, and review articles published in English.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Lercanidipine is a novel dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium-channel blocker indicated for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. Although it is not yet available in the US, lercanidipine has been utilized extensively in other countries. In 2 randomized controlled trials of approximately 400 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, lercanidipine showed efficacy similar to that of 2 other DHPs, felodipine and slow-release nifedipine, in significantly reducing systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 4 weeks. In a longer trial (12 mo), lercanidipine 10 mg/day led to normalized blood pressure in 49% of patients after 4 weeks. A postmarketing trial of 9050 patients corroborated the results observed in previous clinical trials, with 64% of patients achieving a DBP of less than 90 mm Hg and 32% attaining blood pressure control (<140/90 mm Hg). In elderly patients, lercanidipine was found comparable with lacidipine and nifedipine, showing similar decreases in DBP when compared with nifedipine (-18.3 vs -17.7 mm Hg, respectively). What distinguishes lercanidipine from other members of the DHP class is its lower incidence of adverse effects, particularly edema. One study showed that fewer patients withdrew secondary to adverse drug reactions in the lercanidipine (0.9%) and nifedipine (3.8%) group compared with the felodipine (4.5%) group. Lercanidipine has also shown efficacy similar to that of other antihypertensives, including atenolol, captopril, and losartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Lercanidipine may be an option in the treatment of hypertension, as current literature suggests comparable antihypertensive efficacy and better tolerability. Further randomized, double-blind clinical trials must be conducted in order to clarify its position among other antihypertensive medications.

Hypertension, possible vascular protection and lercanidipine

Systemic hypertension is a major global problem contributing to enormous disease burden, premature morbidity and mortality. A substantial majority of hypertensive patients require long-term drug therapy for appropriate blood pressure control. Although there are many classes of antihypertensive drugs for clinical use, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have a special role in the management of hypertension owing to their well established safety and efficacy among the CCBs; the dihydropyridines (DHPs) are recognized for their predictable efficacy and dependability to achieve the recommended target goals of treatment. The older DHPs, such as nifedipine, felodipine and amlodipine, can cause bothersome side effects, such as ankle edema. The new-generation lipophilic DHP CCBs, such as lercanidipine, offer an advantage of less frequent occurrence of ankle edema. Furthermore, lercanidipine (in contrast to older DHPs) exerts favorable cardiorenal effects. Lercanidipine administered alone or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs represents a useful treatment option for efficient blood pressure control without causing significant adverse effects.

Efficacy and safety of lercanidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide as add-on to enalapril in diabetic populations with uncontrolled hypertension

OBJECTIVE

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors plus dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers or low-dose thiazide diuretics are considered first-line therapies in hypertensive diabetic patients as glucose metabolism is not relevantly affected. Most diabetic patients require at least two different drug classes to achieve the recommended target blood pressure of 130/85 mmHg. This controlled clinical trial investigated the calcium channel blocker lercanidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as add-on in diabetic patients with uncontrolled hypertension on enalapril monotherapy.

METHODS

Overall, 174 patients (18-80 years old, well-controlled diabetes type 1 or 2, mild to moderate hypertension) were included in a 2-week placebo run-in followed by 4 weeks on enalapril 20 mg. Subsequently, 135 non-responders (90 mmHg < or = mean sitting diastolic blood pressure < or = 109 mmHg) were randomized to 20 weeks of double-blind add-on therapy to enalapril with either lercanidipine 10 mg (n = 69) or HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 66). The primary study objective was to prove non-inferiority of lercanidipine add-on versus HCTZ add-on in reducing sitting diastolic blood pressure; response rates and tolerability data were also observed.

RESULTS

Both add-on treatments clearly decreased diastolic blood pressure to a greater extent than enalapril monotherapy (mean +/- SD changes at study end: lercanidipine, -9.3 mmHg; HCTZ, -7.4 mmHg); non-inferiority of lercanidipine versus HCTZ was formally proven. Blood pressure response rates reached 69.6% on enalapril plus lercanidipine as compared with 53.6% on enalapril plus HCTZ (difference between treatments, P > 0.05). Blood pressure of 130/85 mmHg or less was achieved in 30.4% of patients on lercanidipine add-on and in 23.2% of those randomized to HCTZ add-on (P > 0.05). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Lercanidipine add-on showed comparable efficacy to HCTZ add-on in diabetic patients with hypertension badly controlled on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor monotherapy. The blood pressure response rates seemed to be somewhat higher following enalapril plus lercanidipine than enalapril plus HCTZ.

Therapeutic profile of manidipine and lercanidipine in hypertensive patients

Manidipine and lercanidipine are considered effective and safe in the treatment of chronic arterial hypertension and are equipotent in reducing blood pressure (BP) levels. Their main side effect is ankle-foot edema. After a 2-week placebo run-in period, these 2 drugs were compared in a controlled parallel-group study lasting 3 months, involving 53 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (26 assigned to manidipine and 27 to lercanidipine). At the end of the active treatment period, BP was significantly reduced in comparison with the end of the placebo phase in both the manidipine and the lercanidipine groups, without significant differences between the 2 drugs. Daytime BP was significantly reduced by 5.5%/5.6% with manidipine and by 3.8%/6.6% with lercanidipine, while smaller reductions were seen at nighttime. The smoothness index was the same with both drugs. Unlike lercanidipine, manidipine significantly reduced both basal (-30%) and minimal vascular resistance (-39%), qualifying it as a potent vasodilator. Despite vasodilation, heart rate was not increased but was even slightly reduced by treatment. Ankle-foot edema was observed with both drugs but was less pronounced with manidipine, probably because of greater postcapillary dilatation. In conclusion, manidipine and lercanidipine are both effective and safe in mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, although the former seems to have a more favorable tolerability profile than the latter.

Lercanidipine : a review of its efficacy in the management of hypertension

Lercanidipine (Zanidip) is a vasoselective dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist that causes systemic vasodilation by blocking the influx of calcium ions through L-type calcium channels in cell membranes. It is a highly lipophilic drug that exhibits a slower onset and longer duration of action than other calcium channel antagonists. Furthermore, lercanidipine may have antiatherogenic activity unrelated to its antihypertensive effect. In two large, nonblind, noncomparative studies involving approximately 16 000 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, systolic blood pressure (BP) [SBP] and diastolic BP (DBP) were significantly reduced after 12 weeks' treatment with lercanidipine 10-20 mg/day. Furthermore, in the largest study, 64% of patients were responders (DBP <90 mm Hg) after 12 weeks of treatment and an additional 32% had their BP normalised (BP <140/90 mm Hg). In comparative trials, lercanidipine 10-20 mg/day was as effective as nifedipine slow release (SR) 20-40 mg twice daily, amlodipine 10 mg/day, felodipine 10-20 mg/day, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30-60 mg once daily or verapamil SR 240 mg/day at reducing SBP and DBP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension after 2-16 weeks of therapy. In addition, 4 weeks of lercanidipine therapy (10 mg/day) was as effective as captopril 25mg twice daily, atenolol 50 mg/day or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day. Lercanidipine 5-30 mg/day effectively decreased BP in elderly patients (aged >60 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension to the same extent as amlodipine 5-10 mg/day, nifedipine GITS 30-60 mg/day or lacidipine 2-4 mg/day after 24-26 weeks of therapy. In addition, a limited number of studies suggest that lercanidipine may have antihypertensive efficacy in patients with severe or resistant hypertension, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and in postmenopausal women with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Lercanidipine is well tolerated, with most treatment-emergent events related to vasodilation. Common adverse events included headache, flushing and peripheral oedema. Importantly, the incidence of vasodilatory oedema was significantly lower in patients receiving lercanidipine than in those receiving some other calcium channel antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive agent in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.