Once-daily verapamil in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: a double-blind placebo-controlled dose-ranging study

Efficacy and toxicity of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy relative to effective dose 50

Antihypertensive drugs have usually been approved at doses near the top of their respective dose-response curves. Efficacy plateaus but adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as falls, cerebral or renal ischaemia, increase as dose is increased, especially in older patients with comorbidities. ADRs reduce adherence and may be difficult to ascertain reliably. Higher doses have generally not been shown to reduce total mortality, which provides a summary of efficacy and safety. Weight loss and other lifestyle measures are essential and may be sufficient treatment in many young and low risk patients. Most antihypertensive drug lower systolic blood pressure by around 10 mmHg, which reduces stroke and heart failure by about a quarter. Clinical trials have not been designed to demonstrate specific blood pressure treatment thresholds and targets, which are mostly extrapolated from epidemiology. Mean population oral effective dose 50 may be the most appropriate dose at which to commence antihypertensive drugs. The dose can then be titrated up if greater efficacy is demonstrated, or lowered if ADRs develop. Lower dose combination therapy may best balance benefit and harms with fewer ADRs and additive, potentially synergistic, efficacy.

Drug delivery systems for treatment of systemic hypertension

Novel drug delivery systems are available in many areas of medicine. Their application in the treatment of hypertension continues to widen. Oral drug delivery systems permit antihypertensive agents that were previously administered two to four times daily to be administered once daily. Biotechnical use of chemical-dispensing systems has been applied to propranolol (polymer coated beads), clonidine (transdermal therapeutic system), nifedipine (osmotic pump and coat-core), isradipine (osmotic pump), verapamil (sodium alginate and spheroidal oral delivery absorption system), felodipine (coat-core), nisoldipine (coat-core) and diltiazem (polymer coated beads and Geomatrix. The initial goal was to lower blood pressure by a uniform amount throughout the entire day. Now, new drug delivery systems are being developed to target blood pressure in the early morning hours when most cardiovascular events occur. Two chronotherapeutic drug delivery systems are now available for verapamil (chronotherapeutic oral delivery absorption system and delayed coat osmotic pump). Disadvantages of sustained-release products include delayed achievement of pharmacodynamic effect, unpredictable bioavailability, enhanced first-pass hepatic metabolism, dose dumping, sustained toxicity, dosage inflexibility and increased cost. Potential advantages include reduced administration frequency, enhanced adherence and convenience, reduced toxicity, stable drug concentrations, uniform drug effect, decreased cost (occasionally) and decreased daily dosage.

Verapamil revisited: a transition in novel drug delivery systems and outcomes

Verapamil, the oldest calcium-channel blocker, is now being rediscovered and reevaluated in the light of new novel drug delivery systems and new evidence-based trials. Verapamil, a phenylalkylamine, is useful in the treatment of hypertension, stable angina, and narrow QRS supraventricular arrhythmias. This calcium antagonist is effective in both young and old, and both black and white hypertensive patients, and is free of metabolic side effects. Verapamil has a well-documented history as an effective antianginal agent when directly compared with a beta-blocker, and is more effective in reducing myocardial ischemia compared with amlodipine monotherapy. Because of the short half-life of verapamil, drug delivery systems are used to prolong the duration of action. Novel drug delivery systems using encapsulated beads or a modified osmotic pump have been designed to be taken at nighttime to provide maximal blood pressure reduction in the early morning hours and effective 24-hour blood pressure control, and to avoid excessive blood pressure reduction during sleep. The Verapamil in Hypertension and Atherosclerosis Study has documented equivalent effectiveness of verapamil compared with chlorthalidone, but showed superior plaque regression and reduced events in subjects with the greatest plaques with verapamil treatment. The Angina Prognosis Study in Stockholm, comparing verapamil and metoprolol for stable angina, found no difference in total cardiovascular mortality or combined cardiovascular events. Other large ongoing randomized, multicenter trials, including Controlled-Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints and the International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study, will expand our knowledge of the role of verapamil in the treatment of hypertension.

Treatment of mild hypertension with low once-daily doses of a sustained-release capsule formulation of verapamil

The efficacy and safety of a low dose (120 mg) of a sustained-release capsule formulation of verapamil administered once daily in the treatment of 42 patients with mild hypertension were assessed in this clinical trial. After a 4-week placebo washout period (baseline), patients with diastolic clinic blood pressures of 91 to 100 mm Hg inclusive were treated for 4 weeks with once-daily verapamil sustained-release 120 mg capsules. Clinic blood pressure was measured and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed at the end of both the baseline and the 4-week treatment periods. Twenty-four hour, day, and night systolic and diastolic ambulatory blood pressure were significantly (P < 0.01) reduced in the entire study population (24-hour, -5/-4 mm Hg; day, -6/-4 mm Hg; night, -4/-3 mm Hg). On the basis of mean daytime (6 AM to 6 PM) ambulatory diastolic blood pressure, patients were stratified into subgroups of patients with confirmed (> 85 mm Hg) and unconfirmed mild hypertension (< or = 85 mm Hg). The magnitude of the mean change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure was greater in the group of patients with confirmed mild hypertension than the group with unconfirmed hypertension. The incidence of adverse experiences was low in frequency and events were of mild severity; quality of life scores improved (P = 0.02). Low daily doses (120 mg) of verapamil sustained-release capsules provide a well-tolerated and sustained antihypertensive effect over 24 hours in patients with mild hypertension.

Individualization of therapy for hypertension in the 1990's: the role of calcium antagonists

The Joint National Committee Reports IV (1988) and V (1992) have emphasized individualization of drug therapy for patients with hypertension-a departure from the "stepped" care approach of initiating therapy with diuretics as advocated by the JNC I-III in the 1970's and 1980's. This review highlights individualization or "patient profiling" using calcium channel blockers as first-line treatment strategy for patients with primary hypertension--especially in the patient who has attendant risk factors and sequelae. The calcium channel antagonists, especially effective in elderly and Black patients, have proven efficacy in reducing left ventricular hypertrophy and improving diastolic function in patients with hypertensive heart disease. The heart rate limiting calcium antagonist, verapamil, has been found effective in outcome trials of reducing death and reinfarction rates post myocardial infarction and is an alternative therapy for the beta blocker intolerant hypertensive post myocardial infarction. More vascular specific dihydropyridines (felodipine, isradipine, and amlodipine) may be preferable to rate limiting agents in hypertensives with sinus node or AV conduction disorders and in those with impaired left ventricular systolic function. Verapamil and diltiazem have been effective in preliminary trials in reducing proteinuria and preserving renal function in both diabetic and non diabetic hypertensives. Calcium channel antagonists appear to prevent the progress of atherosclerosis independent of their antihypertensive properties. Further, they have theoretic value in improving endothelial mediated vasodilation.

Novel drug-delivery systems for hypertension

Although novel controlled-release drug-delivery systems have been used in other areas of medicine, their application in the treatment of hypertension has been relatively recent. Biotechnical use of chemical-dispensing systems has been applied to propranolol, clonidine (the transdermal therapeutic system), nifedipine (the gastrointestinal therapeutic system), verapamil (the sodium alginate and spheroidal oral-delivery absorption system), felodipine (the hydrophilic gel principle), metoprolol succinate (the multiple-unit pellet system), and diltiazem (one system comprising sustained-release beads and the other utilizing the patented Geomatrix extended-release system). Oral drug-delivery systems allow antihypertensive agents that previously had to be administered two to four times daily to be administered once each day. Potential disadvantages of the oral controlled-release products include delayed attainment of pharmacodynamic effect, unpredictable or reduced bioavailability, enhanced first-pass hepatic metabolism, dose dumping, sustained toxicity, dosing inflexibility, and increased cost. Potential advantages include reduced dosing frequency, enhanced compliance and convenience, reduced toxicity, stable drug levels, uniform drug effect, and decreased total dose. Although skin reactions are common, the transdermal drug delivery of clonidine provides another innovative approach to supplying transcutaneous, controlled, continuous delivery of drug for 7 days. It is possible that future research will prove that the agents that provide complete 24-hour control may reduce the cardiovascular events associated with the early-morning blood pressure surge. This evolution in antihypertensive therapy to achieve once-daily dosing may prove to be of great value to both physicians and patients in the 1990s.

Variability and similarity of manual office and automated blood pressures

The evaluation and management of hypertension is based on indirect blood pressures obtained in the office (COBPs) using the mercury sphygmomanometer. The usefulness of COBPs is limited by factors such as observer bias, which confound the ability to discern the true blood pressure value. Automated portable monitors have been marketed, which also measure blood pressure (ABP) indirectly throughout 24 hours, but without human intervention. Acceptance of a new device that indirectly records blood pressure depends largely on its the agreement with the established method of blood pressure measurement. This review compares the variability of blood pressures collected indirectly by standard mercury sphygmomanometer and by an auscultatory automated portable blood pressure monitor. The results indicate that blood pressure, when measured indirectly in a hypertensive patient, is quite variable. Automated blood pressures were lower and demonstrated less within-subject variability during repeated measures than COBPs. The agreement between ABPs and COBPs was better than the agreement between COBPs alone on successive visits. In addition, the mean hourly blood pressure profiles recorded throughout 24 hours by automated and manual methods from ten hypertensive patients were nearly identical. These data suggest that blood pressures measured by auscultatory automated methods are similar to and representative of those obtained manually.

Effectiveness of antihypertensive medications in office and ambulatory settings: a placebo-controlled comparison of atenolol, metoprolol, chlorthalidone, verapamil, and an atenolol-chlorthalidone combination

In a double-blind, crossover study, five white men with mild-to-moderate hypertension received placebo and fixed doses of atenolol, metoprolol, chlorthalidone, verapamil, and the combination of atenolol and chlorthalidone in a quasi-random order. Daily dosages were: atenolol, 100 mg; metoprolol, 200 mg; chlorthalidone, 50 mg; verapamil, 240 mg; and the same doses of atenolol and chlorthalidone in combination. Standard office and daytime ambulatory blood pressures were assessed at the end of each month-long trial. Atenolol, metoprolol, chlorthalidone, and verapamil controlled office blood pressure with similar reductions. Verapamil did not lower ambulatory blood pressure at this dose (which is lower than is now commonly used), but reductions in ambulatory blood pressure were similar for atenolol, metoprolol, and chlorthalidone. The combination of atenolol and chlorthalidone maintained blood pressure control more effectively than the single drug treatments in both office and ambulatory settings, and the combined hypotensive effects were additive. However, reductions in the office due to the combination appeared to overestimate hypotensive effectiveness in the ambulatory setting. This study suggests that the effectiveness of commonly prescribed antihypertensive regimens varies according to setting as well as drug, and that assessment of treatment effectiveness can be improved by automated ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.