Comparative effect of lercanidipine, felodipine, and nifedipine GITS on blood pressure and heart rate in patients with mild to moderate arterial hypertension: the Lercanidipine in Adults (LEAD) Study

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.

A Retrospective, Observational, EMR-Based Real-World Evidence Study to Assess the Incidence of Pedal Edema in Essential Hypertensive Patients on Amlodipine or Cilnidipine

Introduction

Calcium channel blockers have pedal edema as one of the confining factors of treatment. A real-world study may help evident reality of the situation in regular Indian clinical practice. The aim of the study is to assess effectiveness and incidence of pedal edema in essential hypertensive patients treated with amlodipine or cilnidipine monotherapy.

Methods

Retrospective EMR data of adult essential hypertensive patients, prescribed amlodipine (n = 800) or cilnidipine (n = 800) as monotherapy, were analyzed. Incidence of pedal edema from baseline visit was analyzed in terms of dose and duration of treatment. The changes in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline and proportion of patients achieving target BP goals were assessed.

Results

In amlodipine and cilnidipine groups, mean changes in SBP and DBP from baseline to end of the study period were 28.4 and 15.1 mmHg and 24.3 and 13.5 mmHg, respectively (p value <0.05). More than 50% of patients in both groups achieved BP goal at the end of the study (p value 0.266). In amlodipine group, total 23.9% reported pedal edema, while in cilnidipine, 27.6% (p value 0.0863). At the end of the study, 3.5% and 8.2% of patients remain with pedal edema, respectively, in both groups (pvalue <0.005).

Conclusion

Amlodipine demonstrated greater BP reduction at a lower average dose, better efficacy, and tolerability in terms of pedal edema count as a lesser number of patients reported edema at the end of the study and a higher percentage of patients continued the prescribed baseline dosage regimen as compared to cilnidipine. Thus, the study established amlodipine as an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive for Indians.

Effectiveness and Effect on Renal Parameters of Amlodipine vs. Other Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers in Patients with Essential Hypertension: Retrospective Observational Study Based on Real-World Evidence from Electronic Medical Records

Introduction

The renoprotective effects of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been established as non-inferior to other classes of antihypertensive drugs. Studying their effect on renal outcome parameters, specifically for amlodipine as monotherapy, in real-world settings can further help in expanding its usage among Indian patients. This study was performed to assess the effects of amlodipine and other dihydropyridine CCBs (cilnidipine, benidipine and azelnidipine) on renal parameters and effectiveness in blood pressure reduction in Indian patients.

Methods

The retrospective data of adult patients (> 18 years) with essential hypertensive who were prescribed amlodipine (n = 92), cilnidipine (n = 91), benidipine (n = 70) or azelnidipine (n = 71) as monotherapy were analyzed. The renal outcomes, serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), microalbumin, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), sodium and potassium levels, and mean changes in BP were analyzed from baseline to 12 months. Appropriate statistical methods were used to determine the significance (p value < 0.05).

Results

From baseline to the end of the study, mean serum creatinine changed from 0.98 ± 0.17 to 1.07 ± 0.28 mg/dL with amlodipine, 0.97 ± 0.18 to 1.13 ± 0.50 mg/dL with cilnidipine, 0.98 ± 0.30 to 0.97 ± 0.27 mg/dL wi th benidipine, and 0.99 ± 0.23 to 0.98 ± 0.25 mg/dL with azelnidipine (p = 0.01). The mean microalbumin and UACR were reduced from baseline to the end of the study (p = 0.06 and p > 0.05). No significant changes were observed in BUN, sodium or potassium levels. Overall, for all CCBs, the mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) values were reduced from baseline to the end of the study (p = 0.002). At the end of the study, the average dose of amlodipine was 7.25 mg, and the average reduction in SBP and DBP per mg dose was 1.54 and 0.57 mmHg. The corresponding numbers for the other CCBs were as follows: cilnidipine, 14.28 mg, 0.26 and 0.01; benidipine, 5.71 mg, 0.41 and 0.11; azelnidipine, 15.88 mg, 0.13 and 0.06.

Conclusion

Amlodipine and other CCBs demonstrated good efficacy and similar effects on renal parameters from baseline to end of study. Amlodipine also showed higher potency by demonstrating greater BP reduction at a lower dose. Thus, amlodipine can remain a preferred choice among CCBs, even with the advent of the newer CCBs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40119-021-00224-8.

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.

Effects of lercanidipine hydrochloride versus felodipine sustained-release on day-to-day home blood pressure variability

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of lercanidipine with felodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension on day-to-day home blood pressure variability.

METHODS

This is a sub-study of a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel group and active controlled clinical trial. Hypertensive patients aged 18-75 (i.e. diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg and <110 mmHg; systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg and <180 mmHg) and 24 h mean BP >130/80 mmHg) were eligible for this study. During the study, blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded. The day-to-day BP variability (BPV) and HR variability (HRV) were obtained by the standard deviation (SD) of daily BP/HR average (of six readings) in 7 days.

RESULTS

There were 186 patients (89 and 97 patients in the lercanidipine and felodipine groups, respectively) included in this study. Lercanidipine hydrochloride 10 mg/d and felodipine sustained-release tablets 5 mg/d were given to their respective groups. After 6 weeks of treatment, SD of home BP significantly reduced compared with baseline in both groups (P < .05) while SD of home HR also changed significantly after treatment (P < .05). There was no significant difference in SD of home BPV between the lercanidipine and felodipine groups after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with lercanidipine and felodipine both resulted in reduction of BPV and HRV. There was no significant inter-group difference in reduction of BPV between the groups. Lercanidipine is an effective antihypertensive drug in improving BPV. National clinical trial: NCT01520285.

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.

Fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril in the management of hypertension: focus on patient preference and adherence

Hypertension is one of the most important and widespread risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease. Once, combination therapy was traditionally reserved as a third-line or fourth-line approach in the management of hypertension. However, several major intervention trials in high-risk patient populations have shown that an average of 2-4 antihypertensive agents are required to achieve effective blood pressure control. Combination treatment should be considered as a first choice in patients at high cardiovascular risk and in individuals for whom blood pressure is markedly above the hypertension threshold (eg, more than 20 mmHg systolic or 10 mmHg diastolic), or when milder degrees of blood pressure elevation are associated with multiple risk factors, subclinical organ damage, diabetes, renal failure, or associated cardiovascular disease. A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that a fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril has better efficacy and tolerability than monotherapy with either agents. The fixed-dose formulation of lercanidipine-enalapril was well tolerated in all clinical trials, with an adverse event rate similar to that of the component drugs as monotherapy. The advantages of combination therapy include improved adherence to therapy and minimization of blood pressure variability. In addition, combining two antihypertensive agents with different mechanisms of action may provide greater protection against major cardiovascular events and the development of end-organ damage.

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.

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.

Fixed combinations in the management of hypertension: perspectives on lercanidipine-enalapril

Although achieving blood pressure (BP) control is critical to improve cardiovascular prognosis in hypertensive patients, many of them fail to achieve BP goals. The majority of hypertensive patients need more than one antihypertensive agent to attain BP targets. Combination therapy is required when monotherapy fails to attain BP objectives and as a first-line treatment in certain situations, such as markedly elevated BP values, when lower targets are required in high or very high cardiovascular risk patients. The advantages of combination therapy are well documented, with an increased antihypertensive efficacy as a result of the simultaneous inhibition of different mechanisms of action and with a lesser incidence of adverse events, because of the possible compensatory responses and the lower doses used. Calcium channel blockers are effective drugs in the treatment of hypertension. The efficacy of lercanidipine has been evaluated in several noncomparative and in comparative studies showing a great efficacy with a good tolerability. On the other hand, the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system appears to be very beneficial in the treatment of patients with hypertension. Enalapril is an effective and well tolerated angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. Although there are several fixed-combination drugs, the combination lercanidipine plus enalapril appears to be one of the most promising therapies in the treatment of hypertension. The aim of this manuscript is to update the published data about the efficacy and safety of this fixed combination.

Updated meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Despite advances in the treatment of hypertension, control rates continue to be suboptimal in both Europe and the US. Strategies that improve hypertension control are therefore urgently needed. This study aimed to assess the relative efficacies of various antihypertensive drugs commonly used in France in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) by using a meta-analytical approach. This update of a previously published meta-analytical approach extends the number of drugs evaluated from 13 to 19.

METHODS

A total of 80 randomised, controlled trials published between 1973 and 2007 involving 10 818 patients were selected for inclusion in the meta-analytical approach. Data were examined for 19 drugs, and 16 drugs were included in the analysis: hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide sustained-release (SR), atenolol, amlodipine, lercanidipine, manidipine, enalapril, ramipril, trandolapril, candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, valsartan and aliskiren. Weighted average reductions in SBP and DBP over a period of 8-12 weeks were calculated for each drug from information on both the mean and the variability in BP reduction. No trials evaluating furosemide, spironolactone or cicletanine satisfied the inclusion criteria for this analysis.

RESULTS

The average weighted reductions in SBP over 8-12 weeks were most marked with diuretics, and in particular indapamide SR 1.5 mg/day (mean change from baseline -22.2mm Hg), which reduced SBP to a greater extent than any of the other drugs evaluated (at any dosage considered). Average weighted reductions in DBP were generally similar with all classes of antihypertensives and ranged from -11.4mm Hg with the beta-adrenoceptor blocker atenolol and calcium channel antagonists to -10.3mm Hg with the angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSION

This new analysis supports the results of the earlier investigation, in that indapamide SR 1.5 mg/day appeared to be the most effective drug for producing significant reductions in SBP within 8-12 weeks, which is an essential element in optimising cardiovascular prevention among hypertensive patients. The clinical application of these results should take into consideration all the limitations discussed in this analysis.

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.

Lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive drug regardless the cardiovascular risk profile: The LAURA study

To determine whether the antihypertensive effectiveness of lercanidipine was independent of the different cardiovascular risk levels. Patients with treated or untreated mild-to-moderate essential hypertension were included in a multicentre, prospective, non-comparative, open-label study. Patients received lercanidipine (10 mg/day, uptitrated to 20 mg/day) during 6 months. A total of 3175 patients, age 63 +/- 10 years, 51% women, were included. The cardiovascular risk was low in 237 patients, medium in 1396, high in 722, and very high in 820. At baseline, blood pressure (BP) was 159.5 +/- 11.7/95.2 +/- 7.4 mmHg. BP was progressively higher according to increase in cardiovascular risk. After 6 months of treatment, BP was 136.0 +/- 9.7/79.7 +/- 6.8 mmHg. The decrease in systolic BP and diastolic BP at each follow-up visit compared with baseline was statistically significant both in the intergroup and intragroup comparisons (p < 0.001). Mean decreases of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were -18.5/-13.8 mmHg in the low risk group, -23/-15.2 mmHg in the medium risk group, -24.4/-16.1 mmHg in the high risk group, and -27.4/-17.4 mmHg in the very high risk group. Most frequent side effects were oedema (5.1%), headache (3.3%), flushes (2.5%), and asthenia (1%). Only 1.7% of patients discontinued antihypertensive medication because of adverse events. Tolerability of lercanidipine was independent of the cardiovascular risk group. Lercanidipine was effective and well-tolerated in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in the daily practice. The effectiveness and safety of the drug were independent of the degree of cardiovascular risk.

A meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure

INTRODUCTION

Hypertension constitutes a veritable public health issue. Several classes of drugs are available for the treatment of hypertension. The objective of this meta-analytical approach was to assess the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs most commonly used in France in reducing clinical SBP and DBP.

METHODS

The antihypertensive drugs selected were hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide sustained release (SR), furosemide and spironolactone for diuretics; amlodipine and lercanidipine for calcium channel antagonists; atenolol for beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers); enalapril and ramipril for ACE inhibitors; and candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan, and valsartan for angiotensin II receptor antagonists. The trials selected were published between 1973 and 2004, evaluated monotherapy with trial drugs as fixed-dosage or with dosage increase, and assessed blood pressure reduction between 2 and 3 months. The analysis method used was based on the calculation of the sum weighted for the trial size.

RESULTS

A total of 72 trials (comprising 9094 patients) were selected and analyzed. No trial evaluating furosemide or spironolactone satisfied the inclusion criteria for this analysis. For SBP, the reduction was more marked with diuretics, calcium channel antagonists, and ACE inhibitors. Of all the drugs studied, indapamide SR gave the greatest SBP reduction (-22.2 mm Hg). Evaluated therapeutic classes had a similar magnitude of effect on DBP, i.e. reduction between -11.4 mm Hg with beta-adrenoceptor antagonists and -10.3 mm Hg with angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSION

Indapamide SR 1.5 mg appeared to be the most effective drug for a significant reduction in SBP within 2-3 months, which is an essential element in optimizing cardiovascular prevention among hypertensive patients. The clinical application of these results should take into consideration all the limitations discussed in this analysis.

Lercanidipine in hypertension

Lercanidipine is a lipophilic, dihydropyridine calcium antagonist with a long receptor half-life. Its slow onset of action helps to avoid reflex tachycardia associated with other dihydropyridines (DHPs). It produces even and sustained blood pressure lowering with once-daily dosing. It has equivalent antihypertensive efficacy to many other agents and is effective as initial monotherapy or in combination. Efficacy has been demonstrated in elderly as well as younger patients and also in the presence of other risk factors. Lercanidipine is well tolerated with DHP-associated adverse effects occurring early in treatment. The incidence of pedal edema and subsequent withdrawals has been found to be lower with lercanidipine than with amlodipine or nifedipine gastrointestinal transport system. Preclinical and preliminary clinical findings suggest lercanidipine may have beneficial effects on atherosclerosis and left ventricular hypertrophy. The efficacy and tolerability profiles of lercanidipine make it a suitable choice for treating hypertension in a wide range of affected patients.

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.