Lercanidipine alleviates doxorubicin-induced lung injury by regulating PERK/CHOP and Bax/Bcl 2/Cyt c pathways

Doxorubicin (DOX), which is used to treat various cancers and hematological malignancies, has limited therapeutic application due to its toxicity in tissues and organs. These toxic effects occur through alterations in intracellular calcium regulation, elevated cell stress and oxidative damage, and increased apoptosis. Lercanidipine (LRD) is a long-acting antihypertensive calcium channel blocker with anti-inflammatory, anti-apoptotic, and antioxidant effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of LRD on DOX-induced lung toxicity. Four groups (control, DOX, DOX + 0.5 LRD, and DOX + 2 LRD) totaling 32 rats were established. TNF-α levels in the lung tissues were detected by immunohistochemistry, and the tissues were subjected to histopathological examination. In determining oxidative stress, total antioxidant status (TAS) and total oxidative stress (TOS) were determined using spectrophotometry, and the oxidative stress index (OSI) value was calculated. The mRNA relative expression levels of the genes were evaluated by RT-qPCR. It was determined that inflammatory and oxidative stress markers and pro-apoptotic gene levels were increased and anti-apoptotic gene levels were decreased in the lung tissues of the DOX-administered group. In addition, histopathological changes were significantly increased. Although it was not statistically significant, inflammation, oxidative stress, and apoptosis were reduced, as were other histopathological indicators, in the group that received LRD (0.5 mg/kg). Inflammation, oxidative stress, and apoptosis were found to be statistically reduced and corroborated by histological findings in the group given LRD (2 mg/kg). In conclusion, it was determined that LRD had an ameliorative effect on DOX-induced lung toxicity in an experimental animal model.

New Insights into the Nephroprotective Potential of Lercanidipine

Kidneys are responsible for many crucial biological processes in the human body, including maintaining the water-electrolyte balance, pH, and blood pressure (BP), along with the elimination of toxins. Despite this, chronic kidney disease (CKD), which affects more and more people, is a disease that develops insidiously without causing any symptoms at first. The main purpose of this article is to summarize the existing literature on lercanidipine, with a particular focus on its nephroprotective properties. Lercanidipine is a third-generation dihydropyridine (DHP) blocker of calcium channels, and as such it possesses unique qualities such as high lipophilicity and high vascular selectivity. Furthermore, it acts by reversibly inhibiting L-type and T-type calcium channels responsible for exerting positive renal effects. It has been shown to reduce tissue inflammation and tubulointerstitial fibrosis, contributing to a decrease in proteinuria. Moreover, it exhibited antioxidative effects and increased expression of molecules responsible for repairing damaged tissues. It also decreased cell proliferation, preventing thickening of the vascular lumen. This article summarizes studies simultaneously comparing the effect of lercanidipine with other antihypertensive drugs. There is still a lack of studies on the medications used in patients with CKD, and an even greater lack of studies on those used in patients with concomitant hypertension. Therefore, further studies on lercanidipine and its potential in hypertensive patients with coexisting CKD are required.

Development of a list with renally relevant drugs as a tool to increase medicines optimisation in patients with chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVES

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common disorder all over the world. Therapeutic goals are early detection of declining renal function and implementation of adequate pharmacological treatments regarding underlying and secondary diseases. As therapy becomes more complex with increasing stages of CKD, a decision-making tool for healthcare professionals could help to ensure safe drug treatment in patients with CKD in the outpatient setting. Therefore, a list of renally relevant drugs as a decision-making tool was developed to improve medicines optimisation for CKD patients in the outpatient setting long term.

METHODS

A renally relevant drug list (RRD-list) with renally relevant drugs, based on data from a study on medicines optimisation in patients with CKD from June 2015 to March 2018, was developed at the nephrological outpatient clinic at the Klinikum Fulda, Germany. The whole study is published elsewhere. A clinical pharmacist reviewed the patients' medications, current drug-related problems and all nephrologists' recommendations, and categorised all detected drugs into renally relevant and non-renally relevant groups. The 10 most frequently detected renally relevant drug groups were summarised in the RRD-list and extended by treatment alternatives and advice.

RESULTS

The medication of 160 patients, who were receiving overall 1376 drugs, was analysed; 831 drugs were defined as renally relevant. Drug-related problems were caused by 543 renally relevant drugs. The nephrologists made 292 recommendations regarding 28 drug classes. Considering the 10 most frequent drug groups, in total 16 renally relevant drug groups with 36 drug classes were added to the RRD-list.

CONCLUSIONS

The RRD-list could be an essential tool for all healthcare professionals in their daily work, such as general practitioners and community pharmacists, for the treatment of patients with renal insufficiency.

Current perspective on the use of calcium channel blockers to treat hypertensive patients: the role of lercanidipine

The symposium 'Current perspective on the use of calcium channel blockers in the treatment of hypertensive patients', held in Stresa (Italy) on 28th and 29th June 2018 with the participation of the main experts in the field of hypertension from all over the world, reviewed the role of calcium channel blockers in the management of hypertension. Considering the new European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines presented at the last European Society of Hypertension meeting in Barcelona in June 2018, a special attention was focused on lercanidipine. In this article, the main highlights of the symposium were summarized.

Long-term outcomes of lercanidipine versus other calcium channel blockers in newly diagnosed hypertension: a nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been proved to have beneficial effects on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, especially in stroke. Lercanidipine, a highly lipophilic CCB, lacks data regarding long-term outcomes including: CV, stroke, renal and all-cause mortality. This retrospective cohort study aims to clarify this.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 144,630 newly diagnosed hypertension (HTN) patients (age: 18-65 years) in 2005 from the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database were enrolled in this observational study. A pure hypertension population was fetched by excluding all chronic diseases in the Charlson Comorbidities Index. Patients were stratified into the lercanidipine group (n = 1303) and the propensity-score-matched comparative group (nifedipine, amlodipine or felodipine, n = 15,301).

RESULTS

Compared to other CCBs, lercanidipine didn't have a significant difference on the study endpoints. In individual head-to-head comparisons, lercanidipine was shown to be superior to nifedipine in incident stroke with an adjusted HR with 95% CI of 0.526 (0.347-0.797) (p = .0025). The key limitations were that personal variables, such as smoking habits, alcohol intake, body mass index and physical activity and blood pressure profiles were not available in the nationwide registry database.

CONCLUSION

In newly diagnosed patients with hypertension, lercanidipine was superior to nifedipine in the six-year period when the analyzed endpoint was stroke.

Lercanidipine valuable effect on urine protein losses: the RED LEVEL study

OBJECTIVE

The RED LEVEL study (REnal Disease: LErcanidipine Valuable Effect on urine protein Losses) directly compares, in an explorative fashion, the effects of lercanidipine + enalapril and amlodipine + enalapril combinations on renal parameters in hypertensive subjects.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 1 year, prospective, multi-center, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) study in hypertensive patients with albuminuria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Renal function (albuminuria, serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria); blood pressure.

RESULTS

Albuminuria was significantly reduced, compared with baseline values, with the lercanidipine + enalapril combination over the entire study period; at month 3, month 6 and month 12, changes from baseline were: -162.5 (p-value = 0.0439), -425.8 (p-value = 0.0010), -329.0 (p-value = 0.0011) mg/24 h), respectively. On the other hand, this improvement was not observed with enalapril + amlodipine. Other parameters of renal function such as serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, estimated glomerular filtration rate and proteinuria did not change over the study. Both lercanidipine + enalapril and amlodipine + enalapril significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure values from baseline all over the study period with no significant differences between groups. Safety outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the results of this explorative study lend support to the anti-albuminuric effect of the lercanidipine + enalapril combination and to the long term renal-protective effects of this combination in patients with hypertension.

Differential effects of lercanidipine/enalapril versus amlodipine/enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide/enalapril on target organ damage and sympathetic activation in non-obese essential hypertensive subjects

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of the combination of lercanidipine/enalapril versus amlodipine/enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide/enalapril on blood pressure, target organ damage and sympathetic activation in patients with grade 2 essential hypertension.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a 3 month, randomized, blinded-endpoint study in essential hypertensive patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Office and ambulatory blood pressure, arterial stiffness, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio, renal arterial resistive index, and muscle sympathetic nerve activity were evaluated at baseline, after a 2 week run-in placebo period, at 1 month and at 3 months.

RESULTS

In total, 56 patients were assigned to lercanidipine/enalapril (n = 19), enalapril/amlodipine (n = 18) and hydrochlorothiazide/enalapril (n = 19). Each pharmacological combination tested was effective in reducing office blood pressure at 1 month and 3 months, and 24 h ambulatory blood pressure at 3 months. Renal arterial resistive index (RI) significantly improved at 1 month and 3 months compared with baseline in all groups. However in the lercanidipine/enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide/enalapril groups, RI was favorably reduced (0.53 ± 0.03 and 0.54 ± 0.04 respectively, p < 0.05) in comparison with the enalapril/amlodipine RI value (0.57 ± 0.03) at 3 months. Moreover, after 3 months of treatment, a significant decrease (by -5.47 bursts/min) (p < 0.05) in muscle sympathetic nerve activity was observed in the lercanidipine/enalapril group (50.79 ± 6.49) compared with baseline (56.26 ± 6.05), while no differences were detected in the amlodipine/enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide/enalapril groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides evidence of the efficacy of the lercanidipine/enalapril combination in ameliorating hypertension-related target organ damage and in reducing sympathetic overdrive.

CLINICAL EFFECTS AND RENOPROTECTIVE FACILITIES OF OLMESARTAN AND LERKANIDIPINEAS MONOTHERAPY AND WHEN COMBINED APPLICATION IN PATIENTS WITH ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION

The evaluation of the clinical efficacy and renoprotective effects of olmesartan and lercanidipine as monotherapy and when combined application in patients with arterial hypertension (AH) 1-2 degrees and microalbuminuria (MAU).It is established that the degree of blood pressure (BP) reduction and corrective influence on diurnal BP profile were similar in groups of monotherapy with olmesartan and lercanidipine. In the group of combined application of the studied drugs target BP levels were achieved in 88% of cases in the monotherapy group and 78% (1G) and 76% (2 G).Revealed renoprotective effects of olmesartan and lercanidipine as when used in monotherapy and in combination in patients with arterial hypertension of 1-2 degrees, and MAU, revealed reliable decrease in MAU. The greatest reduction in MAU was achieved in the combination therapy group.

Can lercanidipine improve renal function in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis undergoing renal artery intervention?

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the renal-protective effect of lercanidipine in patients undergoing renal artery intervention.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, cohort study was conducted and patients, 30-75 years of age, with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis were consecutively enrolled between September 2011 and October 2012. Lercanidipine (10-20 mg/day) was regularly taken after the intervention. Follow up visits were performed at 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Serum creatinine, clinical blood pressure, 24 hour ambulatory blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, and 24 hour urine protein were assessed. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

In total, 55 patients (mean age 63.5 ± 8.9 years) were enrolled and 52 completed the study. Renal function, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and 24 hour urine protein at 3 months after the intervention were not statistically different compared with the baseline. At 6 months after the intervention eGFR significantly increased versus baseline (78 ± 23 ml/min/1.73 m(2) vs 71 ± 21 ml/min/1.73 m(2), p = 0.021); 24 hour urine protein decreased significantly (0.02 g [IQR, 0.01-0.1] vs 0.03 g [IQR, 0.01-0.28], p = 0.042). Blood pressure control improved at 3 months and 6 months after the intervention. The need for antihypertensive drugs decreased; clinical systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and 24 hour average systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure decreased. The pulse wave velocity decreased after 3 and 6 months. At the end of follow-up, none of the following adverse events occurred: death, dialysis, myocardial infarction or stroke. Mild lower extremity edema occurred in only one patient. No other side effects occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that lercanidipine can improve renal function in patients undergoing renal artery intervention.

Single-pill combination therapy in the initial treatment of marked hypertension: a propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Many drugs combinations are available and equally recommended for the initial treatment of patients with marked blood pressure (BP) elevation and high cardiovascular risk.

HYPOTHESIS

To investigate safety and efficacy of such combination therapies.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed, inclusion criteria were: initial single-pill combination therapy, availability of clinical and echocardiographic 6-month follow-up. Six treatment groups were identified: Enalapril 20 mg+ Hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (E/H), E 20 mg + Lercanidipine 10 mg (E/L), Ramipril 2.5 mg+ H 12.5 mg (R/H), Perindopril 5 mg+ Amlodipine 5 mg (P/A), Olmesartan 40 mg+ H 12.5 mg (O/H) and Telmisartan 40 mg+ H 12.5 mg (T/H). To avoid selection bias a Propensity score (goodness of fit: c-statistic 0.78, p = 0.0001) was used to select comparable cohorts of patients (n = 142 each).

RESULTS

After 4 weeks of treatment BP goal was achieved by 624/852 (73.2%) patients, and adverse events were registered in 24/852 (2.8%) patients. After 6 months, 562/624 (90.1%) patients maintained the BP goal. Six-month responder rate was significantly higher in the E/L (69.0%) and P/A (68.3%) groups (p = 0.05); especially among diabetics (52.0% and 51.0%, respectively; p = 0.003). Patients receiving E/L (-19.8 ± 3.2 mmHg) and P/A (-19.9 ± 4.6 mmHg) showed greater reductions of diastolic BP (p = 0.03); whereas reductions of systolic BP were similar between treatment groups (p = 0.46). Echocardiographic follow-up revealed greater left ventricular reverse remodeling among patients receiving ACE-inhibitors (E/L, R/H, E/H and P/A), but this trend did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-pill fixed-dose combination therapies are highly effective and safe in the study settings. Best clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were noted among patients receiving E/L, R/H and P/A.

Renal protection with calcium antagonists: the role of lercanidipine

BACKGROUND

Clinical research in the field of hypertension is now increasingly focusing on the potential effects of antihypertensive treatments that may go beyond the reduction of blood pressure (BP). In particular, renal protection appears as a desirable goal, especially considering that hypertension is associated with an increased risk of developing kidney damage, which may eventually lead to end-stage renal disease and a higher mortality. Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are widely used in the field of hypertension therapy but the different renal effects of the various CCBs have been poorly explored to date.

SCOPE

This review will discuss available evidence on the renal effects of two calcium channel blockers: amlodipine and lercanidipine, on the basis of clinical data.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for inclusion of relevant studies. No limitations in time were considered.

RESULTS

Results from preclinical and clinical studies suggest that amlodipine is overall less effective in terms of renal protection when compared with other antihypertensive tested agents. Its beneficial effect in retarding the progression of renal disease is achievable only when combined with a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system. Conversely lercanidipine seems to provide renal protection in a similar way to ACE inhibitors, probably thanks to its mechanism of action which acts directly on the afferent and efferent renal arterioles.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of hypertension with CCBs should take into consideration the special effects of each single agent at different levels; lercanidipine for example may play a useful role in the management not only of hypertension but also in renal protection of hypertensive patients.

COMBINATION THERAPY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LERCANIDIPINE AND ENALAPRIL COMBINATION

This review presents the evidence on the benefits of fixed-dose combination therapy for arterial hypertension management. The focus is on the combination of a third-generation dihydropyridine calcium antagonist lercanidipine and an ACE inhibitor enalapril. Lercanidipine is characterised by high vascular selectivity and lipophilicity, good antihypertensive effectiveness, and prolonged, gradually developing therapeutic effects. Literature data on the effectiveness of the lercanidipine-enalapril combination are presented. This combination facilitates a marked reduction in blood pressure levels, which is particularly relevant for elderly patients and patients with diabetes mellitus or obesity. The combination of pharmacologic effects of lercanidipine and enalapril provides additional benefits in terms of organ protection and reduction of adverse effects of the antihypertensive treatment. 

Treatment of proteinuria with lercanidipine associated with reninangiotensin axis-blocking drugs

Aim. Most calcium antagonists do not seem to reduce microalbuminuria or proteinuria. We have tried to assess the antiproteinuric effect of a calcium channel blocker, lercanidipine, in patients previously treated with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers.Design and methods. The study included 68 proteinuric (>500 mg/day) patients (age 63,1±12,9 years, 69,1 % males and 30,9 % females). All patients were receiving ACE inhibitors (51,4 %) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (48,6 %) therapy but had higher blood pressure (BP) than recommended for proteinuric patients (<130/80 mm Hg). Patients were clinically evaluated one, three, and six months after starting treatment with lercanidipine (20 mg/day). Samples for urine and blood examination were taken during the examination. When needed, a third drug was added to treatment. Creatinine clearance was measured using 24 h urine collection.Results. BP significantly decreased from 152±15/86±11 mm Hg to 135±12/77±10 mm Hg at six months of follow-up (p<0,001). After six months of treatment, the percentage of normalized patients (BP <130/80 mm Hg) was 42,5 %, and the proportion of patients whose BP was below 140/90 mm Hg was 58,8 %. Plasmatic creatinine did not change nor did creatinine clearance. Plasmatic cholesterol also decreased from 210±48 to 192±34 mg/dL (p<0,001), as did plasma triglycerides (from 151±77 to 134±72 mg/dL,p=0,022). Basal proteinuria was 1,63±1,34 g/day; it was significantly (p<0,001) reduced by 23 % at the first month, 37 % at three months, and 33 % at the last visit.

Conclusion. Lercanidipine at 20 mg dose, associated with renin-angiotensin axis-blocking drugs, showed a high antihypertensive and antiproteinuric effect. This antiproteinuric effect seems to be dose-dependent as compared with previous reports and proportionally higher than blood pressure reduction.

Add-on manidipine versus amlodipine in diabetic patients with hypertension and microalbuminuria: the AMANDHA study

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of adding manidipine 20 mg versus amlodipine 10 mg to the treatment of diabetic patients with uncontrolled hypertension and microalbuminuria despite full-dose treatment with a renin-angiotensin system blocker for at least 6 months. Patients were randomized to receive manidipine (n = 61) or amlodipine (n = 30) in a 2:1 ratio for 6 months and monitored for microalbuminuria for an additional extension phase of 18 months. Manidipine and amlodipine decreased blood pressure values to a similar extent. Urinary albumin excretion was reduced by 65.5% with manidipine versus 20% with amlodipine (p < 0.01) at 6 months and 62.7 versus 16.6% (p < 0.01) at the end of the extension phase. Manidipine was better tolerated than amlodipine. Thus, the addition of manidipine, but not amlodipine, resulted in a large reduction in the urinary albumin excretion rate despite similar blood pressure reductions.

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.

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.