Multicenter comparison of once- and twice-daily isradipine to hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension in elderly patients

Peripheral edema associated with calcium channel blockers: incidence and withdrawal rate--a meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE

Peripheral edema is considered to be a common and annoying adverse effect of calcium channel blockers (CCBs). It has been thought to occur secondary to arteriolar dilatation causing intracapillary hypertension and fluid extravasation. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and withdrawal rate of peripheral edema with CCBs.

METHODS

A systematic search was made in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1980 to January 2011 for randomized clinical trials reporting peripheral edema with CCBs in patients with hypertension. Trials enrolling at least 100 patients in the CCB arm and lasting at least 4 weeks were included in the analysis. Both the incidence and withdrawal rate due to edema were pooled by weighing each trial by the inverse of the variance. Head-to-head comparison was done to evaluate the risk of edema between newer lipophilic dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs and older DHPs.

RESULTS

One hundred and six studies with 99 469 participants, mean age 56 ± 6 years, satisfied our inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. The weighted incidence of peripheral edema was significantly higher in the CCBs group when compared with controls/placebo (10.7 vs. 3.2%, P < 0.0001). Similarly, the withdrawal rate due to edema was higher in patients on CCBs compared with control/placebo (2.1 vs. 0.5%, P < 0.0001). Both the incidence of edema and patient withdrawal rate due to edema increased with the duration of therapy with CCBs reaching 24 and 5%, respectively, after 6 months. The risk of peripheral edema with lipophilic DHPs was 57% lower than with traditional DHPs (relative risk 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.53; P < 0.0001). Incidence of peripheral edema in patients on DHPs was 12.3% compared with 3.1% with non-DHPs (P < 0.0001). Edema with high-dose CCBs (defined as more than half the usual maximal dose) was 2.8 times higher than that with low-dose CCBs (16.1 vs. 5.7%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of peripheral edema progressively increased with duration of CCB therapy up to 6 months. Over the long term, more than 5% of patients discontinued CCBs because of this adverse effect. Edema rates were lower with both non-DHPs and lipophilic DHPs.

Isradipine--another calcium-channel blocker for the treatment of hypertension and angina

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetic disposition, dose recommendations, adverse effects, drug interactions, and efficacy of isradipine in patients with hypertension or ischemic heart disease.

DATA SOURCES

Data from scientific literature were extracted, evaluated, and summarized for presentation. A MEDLINE search was conducted using the following indexing terms: isradipine, calcium-channel blockers, hypertension, and angina pectoris. Experiences from studies evaluating isradipine reported in the form of articles, abstracts, or proceedings involving patients or healthy subjects were considered for inclusion.

STUDY SELECTION

Special consideration was given to clinical studies that had been designed in a blind, randomized fashion. Studies that compared the effectiveness and safety of isradipine with another antihypertensive or antianginal agent or placebo were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data from human studies published in the English language were evaluated. Trials were evaluated according to sample size, design, and adequacy of description of therapeutic response.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Isradipine is a new dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker that appears to exert less negative inotropic activity than nifedipine and to selectively inhibit sinoatrial conduction. Pharmacokinetic parameters are quite variable and considerably more work is needed to better describe the kinetic disposition of isradipine. Antihypertensive efficacy has been demonstrated extensively in a number of short-term trials. Antianginal efficacy also has been observed in a few short-term trials and is comparable to that of isosorbide dinitrate and nifedipine. Extensive experience with isradipine is minimal and no clear-cut advantages over existing compounds have been noted thus far.

CONCLUSIONS

The place of isradipine in the therapy of hypertension and myocardial ischemia is unclear and its routine use cannot yet be recommended based solely on clinical grounds.