Diuretics versus calcium-channel blockers in systemic hypertension: a preliminary multicenter experience with hydrochlorothiazide and sustained-release diltiazem

24 hour blood pressure control with once-daily versus twice-daily formulations of diltiazem

The antihypertensive effects of once-daily diltiazem CD over a 24 hour period were compared with twice-daily diltiazem SR in 95 patients with mild to moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. This trial was designed as a multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study. Following a 2 to 4 week placebo run-in period, diltiazem was administered as once-daily CD or twice-daily SR, starting with 180 mg daily and increasing to a maximum of 360 mg daily, to achieve a seated diastolic blood pressure goal of < or = 90 mmHg as measured by cuff between 08:00 and 10:00 in the morning. Following drug titration, patients received a maintenance dose of diltiazem for an additional 6 week follow-up phase. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring recordings were obtained at the end of the placebo, titration, and maintenance phases. Both diltiazem CD and diltiazem SR significantly reduced both systolic and diastolic blood pressure over the 24 hour day and maintained a normal circadian pattern. As well, treatment with once-a-day diltiazem CD significantly decreased the slope of the early morning rise of diastolic and mean blood pressure. Thus, diltiazem CD is as effective as diltiazem SR in lowering diastolic blood pressure over a 24 hour period and has the advantage of a once-daily formulation.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of once-daily versus twice-daily formulations of diltiazem in the treatment of systemic hypertension. The Canadian Multicenter Diltiazem-CD Hypertension Trial Group

The efficacy and safety of optimally titrated once-daily (CD) and twice-daily (SR) diltiazem were compared in 111 patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension [seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 95 mmHg and < or = 114 mmHg] in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo run-in, parallel-group trial. Following a 4 week washout and placebo-controlled run-in period, patients were randomized to receive diltiazem CD 180 mg and matching placebo (n = 54), or diltiazem SR 90 mg bid (n = 57). Total daily doses were titrated from 180 mg to 360 mg to achieve a goal of seated DBP < 90 mmHg during a 6 week titration period. The patients continued to receive their optimal dose for a 6 week follow-up period. Ninety-six (96) patients (diltiazem CD: 47, diltiazem SR: 49) completed the study protocol, with 60% of the diltiazem CD and 55% of the diltiazem SR patients achieving the goal of seated DBP of < 90 mmHg (p = 0.685). Although significant decreases occurred in seated and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP and heart rate with treatment in both groups, there were no significant differences between treatment groups. Both medications were well tolerated, with a similar frequency of adverse effects [diltiazem CD: 24/54 (37%) patients; diltiazem SR: 24/57 (42.1%) patients] with the most frequently reported adverse effects being headache and edema.

Metabolic effects of isradipine versus hydrochlorothiazide in diabetes mellitus

Most antihypertensive drugs have negative effects on metabolic control in diabetic patients. Calcium antagonists have been widely used in antihypertensive treatment of diabetics, although a possible influence on glucose tolerance, insulin secretion, and insulin action is unknown. Therefore, the effect of the calcium antagonist isradipine on glucose tolerance and insulin secretion (75 g oral glucose tolerance test) and on peripheral and hepatic insulin action (euglycemic clamp) was evaluated in 11 type II diabetic patients. All patients were treated with placebo or isradipine for 8 weeks (double-blind, crossover design). A second group of six diabetic patients received a thiazide diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide, according to the same protocol. Systolic blood pressure was significantly lowered after isradipine and hydrochlorothiazide compared with placebo (127 +/- 3 versus 139 +/- 6 mm Hg and 129 +/- 4 versus 142 +/- 4, respectively; p less than 0.05). Fasting blood glucose (190 +/- 21 versus 152 +/- 15 mg/dl; p less than 0.01), glucose levels, basal and glucose-stimulated insulin levels were significantly higher after hydrochlorothiazide compared with placebo but remained unchanged after calcium antagonist treatment. Basal hepatic glucose production and peripheral insulin resistance were significantly elevated after hydrochlorothiazide compared with placebo or calcium antagonist therapy. These data indicate that the calcium antagonist isradipine has no effect on glucose tolerance, insulin secretion, and insulin action in type II diabetic patients and might therefore be a useful drug for antihypertensive treatment in diabetes mellitus. However, diuretic treatment can lead to impairment of metabolic control and reduction of insulin action in type II diabetes mellitus.

Diltiazem in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes mellitus

Twenty-three patients with essential hypertension and diabetes mellitus type II were treated with the calcium antagonist diltiazem (120 to 180 mg twice daily). The mean dose was 307 mg/day. The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design. All measurements were performed 12 to 14 hours after drug intake. Blood pressure, heart rate and forearm blood flow were measured noninvasively. Platelet function was studied by measuring adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation and the platelet specific proteins, beta thromboglobulin and platelet factor 4. Thromboxane B2 formation in serum and the plasma concentration of diltiazem and its metabolites N-demethyldiltiazem, deacetyldiltiazem and N-demethyldeacetyldiltiazem were measured both during placebo and diltiazem treatment. Diabetic control was evaluated by following HbA1C, fasting blood glucose and urinary glucose. Diltiazem reduced both systolic and diastolic (supine and standing) blood pressure significantly. Forearm blood flow was significantly increased by 32%, p less than 0.05. Supine heart rate decreased significantly, while no such change was seen in the standing position. No significant changes were observed in platelet function during diltiazem treatment. There was no relation between the observed blood pressure reduction and the plasma concentration of diltiazem or its metabolites. A positive correlation between the change in heart rate and the metabolite N-demethyldeacetyldiltiazem was observed (r = 0.647, p = 0.005). Three patients were excluded during diltiazem treatment (skin exanthema, headache and atrial fibrillation) and 1 during placebo treatment (angina pectoris). No negative effect on diabetes control was observed. Thus, diltiazem could be used for treatment of hypertension in diabetic patients.

Role of calcium antagonists as initial pharmacologic monotherapy for systemic hypertension in patients over 60 years of age

Hypertension is most prevalent in older patients and is associated with increasing morbidity and mortality with age. The ability of antihypertensive treatment to reduce these complications in the elderly is now well established. However, several aspects of the treatment of hypertension are being evaluated. In particular, there is a growing trend to avoid individualizing the choice of medication. This is of particular concern in older patients who may differ in the pathophysiology of their hypertension, in their accompanying medical conditions, and in how they may respond to antihypertensive drugs. In addition, elderly hypertensives are often taking a number of medications in addition to antihypertensive drugs. This, along with the fact that the elderly often metabolize drugs more slowly, makes this group particularly susceptible to drug-drug interactions and pharmacologically induced toxic side effects. Considering these points, it appears that the calcium channel blockers are attractive antihypertensive agents for the elderly population.

Calcium channel blockers

The calcium channel blockers initially were approved for the treatment of classical and variant angina pectoris. Recent studies indicate that these agents also are useful in such diverse conditions as pulmonary and systemic hypertension, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmias, asthma, Raynaud's syndrome, esophageal spasm, myometrial hyperactivity, cerebral arterial spasm, and migraine.