High doses of lercanidipine are better tolerated than other dihydropyridines in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome: results from the TOLERANCE 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.

Optimization of blood pressure control in patients with resistant arterial hypertension and visceral obesity

Aim. To evaluate the course of resistant arterial hypertension in patients with visceral obesity, to identify predictors of unsatisfactory shot-term and long-term treatment outcomes, to optimize therapy and improve adherence to treatment. Materials and methods. A total number of 90 individuals with a history of refractory or resistant arterial hypertension and visceral obesity were a subject of intensive study. The prospective analysis group consisted of 30 patients with an individualized management plan each, whereas the retrospective group of real clinical practice included 60 participants. At baseline, all patients were taking antihypertensives like ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs)/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), and a diuretic. After the initial examination, therapy was individually optimized for each patient in accordance with current clinical guidelines. Most patients in the retrospective group received ARBs valsartan or losartan, CCBs amlodipine, the diuretics indapamide and torasemide, the -blockers bisoprolol and metoprolol, the 2-agonist moxonidine, and the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist spironolactone. Patients in the prospective group were prescribed ARBs telmisartan and azilsartan, the CCB lercanidipine, thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics indapamide and chlorthalidone, the -blockers nebivolol and carvedilol, the 1-blocker doxazosin, and spironolactone. A re-examination was performed 2 months later. Subsequently, regular communication was maintained with participants of the prospective group during 8 months using a messenger. Communication with patients of the retrospective group was not maintained. All the patients were then asked to self-report their health status by conducting a telephone survey. Results. After 2 months, according to the data of the follow-up, in the retrospective group the target values of mean daily SBP and DBP were observed in 35 and 36.7% of patients, though the statistics among the patients in the prospective group were 66.7 and 60%, respectively. After 10 months, according to the results of the interviews, the target values of SBP and DBP were observed in 10 and 18.3% of patients, though the statistics among the patients in the prospective group were 93.3 and 96.7%, respectively. In the retrospective group, 78.3% of patients changed the previously selected therapy, in the prospective group this figure was only 20%. In the retrospective group, anthropometric data did not change, while in the prospective group, weight and waist circumference significantly decreased (p0.05). Conclusion. Maintaining regular contact with patients and a well-rounded treatment strategy with individualized choice and dosage of medications with an emphasis on modern metabolically neutral drugs with a prolonged duration of action led to better BP control, increased adherence to therapy and indicated significant weight loss among the patients from the prospective group.

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.

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.

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.

Valsartan-amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide: the definitive fixed combination?

A significant proportion of patients with hypertension will need three or more antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure goals, particularly those at higher risk. On the other hand, fixed combinations provide an extra beneficial effect, as they improve medication adherence and, secondarily, the attainment of blood pressure goals during follow-up. Triple therapy is recommended in the treatment of hypertension in those patients not adequately controlled with two antihypertensive drugs. In this context, guidelines recommend the combination of a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, a calcium channel blocker and a diuretic. The triple fixed combination of valsartan-amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide has been shown to be an effective and safe therapy for treating hypertension and seems a logical approach for those patients uncontrolled with two antihypertensive agents as well as in those patients already treated with three drugs to improve treatment compliance. In this article, available evidence about the efficacy and tolerability of the triple fixed combined therapy valsartan-amlodipine-hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension is updated.

Rationale for the use of a fixed-dose combination in the management of hypertension: efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine/enalapril

Hypertension, a significant factor in the development of cerebrovascular disorders, heart disease and renal failure, is a common disorder worldwide. Despite the availability of a wide range of antihypertensive agents, almost two-thirds of hypertensive patients have poorly controlled blood pressure (BP). Numerous clinical trials have shown that most patients require at least two antihypertensive agents to achieve adequate BP control and associated significant reductions in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Combination therapy using two drugs with different, complementary mechanisms of action achieves better efficacy and tolerability outcomes than treatment with either component drug alone. When such a combination is administered as a fixed-dose formulation, other benefits, such as improved compliance and potentially lower costs, are also likely. The good efficacy and tolerability of the combination of a calcium channel antagonist and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor is well established, and this combination is recommended by European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology guidelines as a first choice in high-risk hypertensive patients, including those with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lercanidipine/enalapril is a promising example of a fixed-dose combination of these drug classes. In clinical trials in hypertensive patients, including those with type 2 diabetes, lercanidipine/enalapril improved BP to a greater extent than either drug as monotherapy (in patients who were previous non-responders to lercanidipine or enalapril) or the combination of lercanidipine/hydrochlorothiazide, and was equally well tolerated. Further studies are required to evaluate the cardiovascular protective effects of lercanidipine/enalapril.

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.