Comparison of nifedipine alone and with diltiazem or verapamil in hypertension

Approach to Resistant Hypertension from Cardiology and Nephrology Standpoints: Tailoring Therapy

Resistant hypertension is commonly encountered in primary care, cardiology, and nephrology clinics. In patients presenting for the evaluation of resistant hypertension, taking a thoughtful approach to excluding pseudoresistant hypertension or a secondary cause of hypertension is important. When a patient is deemed to have true resistant hypertension, following an evidence-based treatment approach while considering patient-specific comorbidities results not only in better blood pressure control but also better patient long-term adherence to lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions. This article details an approach to the diagnosis and treatment of resistant hypertension with special consideration for patients with preexisting renal and/or cardiovascular disease.

Drug Interactions with Antihypertensives

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypertension is remarkably prevalent, affecting an estimated 1.13 billion people worldwide. It often requires the use of multi-drug regimens and is commonly associated with a myriad of other comorbidities which increase medication use. The pervasive use of antihypertensive medications combined with the presence of polypharmacy in many hypertensive patients results in significant risk of drug interactions. This review will summarize the relevant literature to assist clinicians in mitigating drug interaction risks when prescribing antihypertensives.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pharmacokinetic interactions affect drug disposition in the body and can occur at the steps of absorption, distribution, metabolism, or elimination of involved medications. Data has established the calcium channel blockers, namely, diltiazem and verapamil, as potent inhibitors of CYP3A4, and the majority of significant drug interactions involving antihypertensives are attributable to these two agents. Although less common, pharmacokinetic drug interactions with other antihypertensive classes have also been identified. Pharmacodynamic drug interactions with antihypertensives lead to synergy or antagonism of blood pressure lowering effects and can increase or mitigate adverse effects depending on the agents involved. Knowledge is emerging about drug-induced phenoconversion, a phenomenon whereby a drug interaction results in a drug metabolizing phenotype that is different than that predicted by an individual's genotype. Antihypertensive use in patients with comorbidities and polypharmacy increases the likelihood of encountering important drug-drug interactions. Dedicated efforts to better understand the relationship between pharmacokinetic drug interactions and pharmacogenomic information is important to advance efforts related to personalized medicine.

A pharmacological characterization of electrocardiogram PR and QRS intervals in conscious telemetered rats

INTRODUCTION

The conscious telemetered rat is widely used as an early in vivo screening model for assessing the cardiovascular safety of novel pharmacological agents. The current study aimed to identify its utility in assessing electrocardiogram (ECG) PR and QRS interval changes.

METHOD

Male Han-Wistar rats (~250 g) were implanted with radio-telemetry devices for the recording of ECG and haemodynamic parameters. Animals (n = 4-8) were treated with single doses of calcium (nifedipine, diltiazem or verapamil; CCBs) or sodium channel blockers (quinidine or flecainide; SCBs) or their corresponding vehicles in an ascending dose design. Data was recorded continuously up to 24 h post-dose. Pharmacokinetic analysis of blood samples was performed to allow comparison of effects to published data in other species.

RESULTS

Of the CCBs, only diltiazem (300 mg/kg) prolonged the PR interval (49 ± 2 versus vehicle: 43 ± 1 ms), although this was not statistically significant (p = .11). QA interval decreased with nifedipine (30 ± 1 versus 24 ± 0 ms) and diltiazem (34 ± 1 versus 27 ± 1 ms) but increased with verapamil (30 ± 0 versus 37 ± 1 ms) demonstrating pharmacological activity of each agent. Both SCBs, caused statistically significant (p < .05) increases in both intervals - quinidine (100 mg/kg; PR: 50 ± 2 versus 43 ± 1 ms; QRS: 22 ± 2 versus 18 ± 1 ms) and flecainide (9 mg/kg; PR: 56 ± 1 versus 46 ± 1 ms; QRS: 27 ± 1 versus 21 ± 1 ms). Drug plasma exposure was confirmed in all animals.

DISCUSSION

At similar plasma concentrations to other species, the conscious telemetered rat demonstrates limited utility in assessing PR interval prolongation by CCBs, despite significant contractility effects being observed. However, results with SCBs demonstrate a potential application for evaluating drug-induced QRS prolongation.

Treatment with verapamil for restoration of sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: A case report

RATIONALE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia disease that can cause thromboembolic disease and/or heart failure, resulting in increased mortality. Propafenone, amiodarone, and flecainide are recommended for converting AF to sinus rhythm. Beta blockers, verapamil, diltiazem, and digoxin are recommended for controlling AF with fast ventricular rate (VR). In this case report, we found that verapamil successfully converted AF into sinus rhythm.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 92-year-old woman presented with fast VR AF with a history of coronary heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes.

DIAGNOSES

Verapamil can successfully convert AF into sinus rhythm.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

The patient was treated with amiodarone or propafenone, yet still had AF. After stopping amiodarone and propafenone, the patient was given verapamil to control the VR, and following 9 days of treatment the patient switched to sinus rhythm. When verapamil treatment was stopped, the patient experienced AF recurrence. Upon receiving verapamil again, the AF again converted into sinus rhythm.

LESSONS

For the treatment of AF, nondihydropyridine calcium antagonists can be tried in the absence of antiarrhythmic drugs.

Resistant Hypertension: Mechanisms and Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Emerging evidence suggests that multiple mechanisms may be responsible for the development of treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH). This review aims to summarize recent data on potential mechanisms of resistance and discuss current pharmacotherapeutic options available in the management of TRH.

RECENT FINDINGS

Excess sodium and fluid retention, increased activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, and heightened activity of the sympathetic nervous system appear to play an important role in development of TRH. Emerging evidence also suggests a role for arterial stiffness and, potentially, gut dysbiosis. Therapeutic approaches for TRH should include diuretic optimization and the addition of aldosterone antagonists as the preferred fourth agent in most patients. Further therapeutic approaches may be guided by the suspected underlying mechanism of TRH in conjunction with other patient-specific factors. The pathophysiology of TRH is multifaceted; however, increasing evidence supports several mechanisms that may be targeted to improve blood pressure control among patients with TRH. Further studies are needed to determine whether such approaches may be more effective than usual care.

Design and synthesis of 6,7-dimethoxyquinazoline analogs as multi-targeted ligands for α1- and AII-receptors antagonism

Multiple-targeted ligands can have certain advantages for the management of hypertension which has multiple controls. Molecules with dual bioactivities are available in literature for treating metabolic disorders like diabetes, hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. After scrutinizing the SAR of prazosin-type α1-blockers and AII-antagonists it was planned to develop dual α1- and AII-antagonists. Five series of quinazoline derivatives were synthesized and evaluated as dual α1- and AII-antagonists on rat aortic strips for the blockade of known α1- and AII-agonist mediated contractions. Many compounds showed balanced activity on both the receptors but compound (22) was found to be the most active derivative having higher antagonistic activity on both the receptors. In the in vivo experiments the chosen compound (22) was slightly less active than prazosin but was found to be equipotent to losartan. These findings shed a new light on the structural requirements for both α1- as well as AII-receptor antagonists.

Effect of a fixed combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine on blood pressure control in 6256 patients with not-at-goal hypertension: the AVANT'AGE study

In clinical practice, general practitioners are likely to face hypertensives with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP), whose antihypertensive treatment need to be modified. In the present study, 710 general practitioners have each included the first 10 patients with not-at-goal hypertension, for whom they decided to modify their antihypertensive treatment with addition of a fixed combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine at either of its four dosages: 5/5, 5/10, 10/5, or 10/10 mg. In total, 6256 patients were included, with BP measured both at baseline and after 3 months. At the end of follow-up, a mean reduction of 20.3 ± 12.4 mm Hg in systolic BP and 11.3 ± 9.6 mm Hg in diastolic BP were observed, and 62.3% achieved successful BP control. Body mass index and waist circumference were significant determinants of both systolic and diastolic BP reductions (P ≤ .04). Moreover, in addition to baseline BP level, body mass index was the only significant determinant of BP control of systolic, diastolic BP, and of both (P ≤ .04). Addition of a fixed combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine to BP regimen was efficient, in terms of BP control, for 62.3% of those patients with not-at-goal hypertension. Furthermore, baseline BP level and obesity were important influential factors of BP control.

Efficacy and safety of dual calcium channel blockade for the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dual calcium-channel blocker (CCB) with a dihydropyridine (DHP) and a nondihydropyridine (NDHP) has been proposed for hypertension treatment. However, the safety and efficacy of this approach is not well known.

METHODS

A MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL search for randomized clinical trials published on this topic from 1966 to February 2012 was performed. Efficacy outcomes of decrease in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures from baseline, changes in heart rate (HR), and adverse effects were compared between dual CCB therapy vs. DHP or NDHP. SBP, DBP, and HR were expressed as weighted mean deviation (WMD).

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies with 153 patients were included. Dual CCB produced a significantly greater reduction in SBP (21.6±9.2 mmHg) from baseline than DHP (10.3±6.3 mmHg (WMD = 10.9 mmHg, P < 0.0001)) or NDHP (8.9±4.2 mmHg (WMD = 14.1 mmHg, P = 0.002)). Dual CCB therapy reduced DBP from baseline more than either monotherapy (dual CCB = 17.5±10.2 mmHg vs. DHP = 11.6±8.7 mmHg, WMD = 5.5 mmHg, P < 0.001; and NDHP = 10.5±5.6 mmHg, WMD = 5.3 mmHg, P = 0.03). Dual CCB therapy had significantly lower HR compared to DHP (P < 0.001) but was comparable to NDHP (P = 0.12) (Delta change dual CCB = -4.0±3.5 vs. DHP = -2.0±1.5 and NDHP = -6.0±5.0 beats/min). Dual CCB therapy did not increase adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual CCB therapy lowers blood pressure significantly better than CCB monotherapy, without an increase in adverse events. However, given the lack of long-term outcome data on efficacy and safety, dual CCB therapy should be used with restraint, if at all. Large-scale long-term trials are needed to further evaluate such a strategy.

Resistant hypertension workup and approach to treatment

Resistant hypertension is defined as blood pressure above the patient's goal despite the use of 3 or more antihypertensive agents from different classes at optimal doses, one of which should ideally be a diuretic. Evaluation of patients with resistive hypertension should first confirm that they have true resistant hypertension by ruling out or correcting factors associated with pseudoresistance such as white coat hypertension, suboptimal blood pressure measurement technique, poor adherence to prescribed medication, suboptimal dosing of antihypertensive agents or inappropriate combinations, the white coat effect, and clinical inertia. Management includes lifestyle and dietary modification, elimination of medications contributing to resistance, and evaluation of potential secondary causes of hypertension. Pharmacological treatment should be tailored to the patient's profile and focus on the causative pathway of resistance. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension despite receiving an optimal therapy are candidates for newer interventional therapies such as carotid baroreceptor stimulation and renal denervation.

Current options for the treatment of resistant hypertension

Patients with resistant hypertension are those who have uncontrolled blood pressure despite use of three or more antihypertensive medications, or those who require four or more medications to achieve control. When evaluating resistant hypertension it is important to rule out pseudoresistant hypertension that may result from factors including poor blood pressure measurement technique and the white coat effect. Potential contributing factors should be identified and reversed if possible, including obesity, excess alcohol intake and use of interfering medications such as NSAIDS, sympathomimetics and oral contraceptives. Modification of lifestyle factors such as weight loss, sodium restriction and physical activity is paramount for treatment success. Secondary causes of hypertension are common in this patient group and, therefore, appropriate screening tests should be carried out as necessary. Pharmacologic therapy is centered on combination therapy of medications from different mechanisms of action, especially diuretics, which are essential in maximizing antihypertensive effects. The role of mineralocorticoid antagonists is expanding, especially in patients with obstructive sleep apnea and obesity where aldosterone excess may be implicated. Finally, when appropriate, specialist referral may facilitate blood pressure reduction and the ability to meet target blood pressure goals.

ASH position paper: treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes-an update

This report updates concepts on hypertension management in patients with diabetes. It focuses on clinical outcomes literature published within the last 3 years and incorporates these observations into modifications of established guidelines. While the fundamentals of treatment and goal blood pressures remain unchanged, approaches to specific patient-related issues has changed. This update focuses on questions such as what to do when a patient has an elevated potassium level when therapy is initiated and whether combinations of agents that block the renin-angiotensin system still be used. In addition, there are updates from trials, just published and in press, that focus on related management issues influencing cardiovascular outcomes in persons with diabetes. Last, an updated algorithm is provided that incorporates many of the new findings and is suggested as a starting point to achieve blood pressure goals.

Resistant hypertension: an overview of evaluation and treatment

Resistant hypertension is defined as failure to achieve goal blood pressure (BP) when a patient adheres to the maximum tolerated doses of 3 antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic. Although the exact prevalence of resistant hypertension is currently unknown, indirect evidence from population studies and clinical trials suggests that it is a relatively common clinical problem. The prevalence of resistant hypertension is projected to increase, owing to the aging population and increasing trends in obesity, sleep apnea, and chronic kidney disease. Management of resistant hypertension must begin with a careful evaluation of the patient to confirm the diagnosis and exclude factors associated with "pseudo-resistance," such as improper BP measurement technique, the white-coat effect, and poor patient adherence to life-style and/or antihypertensive medications. Education and reinforcement of life-style issues that affect BP, such as sodium restriction, reduction of alcohol intake, and weight loss if obese, are critical in treating resistant hypertension. Exclusion of preparations that contribute to true BP treatment resistance, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, cold preparations, and certain herbs, is also important. Lastly, BP control can only be achieved if an antihypertensive treatment regimen is used that focuses on the genesis of the hypertension. An example is volume overload, a common but unappreciated cause of treatment resistance. Use of the appropriate dose and type of diuretic provides a solution to overcome treatment resistance in this instance.

Low-Dose Aldosterone Blockade as a New Treatment Paradigm for Controlling Resistant Hypertension

Treatment of resistant hypertension requires confirmation of true resistance, diagnosis and treatment of secondary causes of hypertension, adoption of appropriate lifestyle modifications, and effective use of multidrug antihypertensive regimens. Excessive volume retention often underlies resistant hypertension, so diuretics are generally necessary to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals. Although treatment regimens consisting of 3 or more agents have not been systematically evaluated, the author has found a triple regimen consisting of a thiazide diuretic, a calcium channel blocker, and an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) to be generally effective and well tolerated. Although hydrochlorothiazide is more widely used, chlorthalidone provides better BP reduction and should be preferentially used in patients with resistant hypertension, particularly if the patient remains uncontrolled on hydrochlorothiazide. Recent studies have demonstrated that low doses of aldosterone antagonists, when added to multidrug regimens that include a thiazide diuretic and an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, provide significant additional BP reduction, seemingly exceeding what would be expected with addition of alternative classes of agents. The degree of BP reduction induced by aldosterone blockade has been similar in patients with and without evidence of aldosterone excess. Aldosterone antagonists are generally safe and well tolerated. The most common adverse effect of low-dose spironolactone has been breast tenderness, occurring in about 10% of men. Hyperkalemia is uncommon, but can occur, necessitating biochemical monitoring. Risk of hyperkalemia is increased in patients with chronic kidney disease or diabetes, elderly patients, and patients already receiving an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker.

Calcium channel blockers in the spectrum of antihypertensive agents

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are widely used in the treatment of hypertension. Through blood pressure reduction, and possibly other mechanisms such as antioxidative effects, they may play a role in diminishing the risk for a variety of cardiovascular outcomes. The combination of CCBs with other newer antihypertensive agents such, as ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, may provide complementary effects on risk reduction in cardiovascular adverse events and renal disease. Although the efficacy of CCBs as antihypertensive agents has been adequately demonstrated, there have been concerns regarding the use of short acting dihydropyridines after acute myocardial infarction. There have also been questions about the role of CCBs with regards to other antihypertensive agents in renal disease. For example, differential effects of dihydropyridine and non-dihydropyridine CCBs may affect progression of renal disease and risk for diabetes. Certain precautions involving drug interactions are needed because of the effects of CCBs on the CYP450 enzyme systems.

Additional antihypertensive effect of drugs in hypertensive subjects uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy: a randomized controlled trial using office and home blood pressure monitoring

The purpose of this study was to compare several diltiazem-based antihypertensive drug combinations and assess the usefulness of home blood pressure monitoring in the evaluation of the efficacy of combination pharmacotherapy. Sixteen general practitioners recruited hypertensive subjects uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy, who were randomized to receive eight weeks of add-on therapy with a diuretic (chlorthalidone), a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist (felodipine), an ACE inhibitor (lisinopril), or an angiotensin blocker (valsartan). Sitting office and home blood pressure was measured using electronic devices A&D 767. A total of 211 patients were randomized, and 185 completed the study. Of 52 subjects randomized to felodipine, 15 were withdrawn due to ankle edema. The additional antihypertensive effect of the second drug was smaller in 18 subjects with a white coat effect (p < 0.01). All combinations produced a significant decline in office (21.2 +/- 14.8 / 7.7 +/- 9.7 mmHg) and home (17.1 +/- 11.9 / 6.0 +/- 7.0) blood pressure (systolic / diastolic, p < 0.001). There were no differences in the efficacy of the four combinations assessed using office or home blood pressure monitoring. These data suggest that diuretics, dihydropyridines, ACE inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers provide significant additional antihypertensive effects in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on diltiazem monotherapy. The diltiazem-dihydropyridine combination is often intolerable because of ankle edema. Home blood pressure monitoring is useful in the assessment of the efficacy of combination pharmacotherapy and also allows for the detection of subjects who do not require treatment intensification.

Use of Aldosterone Antagonists in Resistant Hypertension

Resistant hypertension is defined as an elevated blood pressure in spite of treatment with 3 different antihypertensive agents. The prevalence of resistant hypertension is unknown, but recent cross-sectional analyses and hypertension outcome studies suggest it is a common clinical problem and will become even more so with an aging and increasingly heavy population. Secondary causes of hypertension are common in patients with resistant hypertension, in particular, obstructive sleep apnea and hyperaldosteronism. Treatment of resistant hypertension is predicated upon identification and reversal of secondary causes of hypertension, as possible, and effective use of multidrug regimens. Recent clinical studies indicate that aldosterone antagonists, spironolactone and amiloride, provide significant additional blood pressure reduction when added to treatment regimens of patients with resistant hypertension. Both agents are generally well tolerated. Hyperkalemia is an uncommon complication of aldosterone antagonists, but it can occur; therefore, biochemical monitoring is necessary, particularly in high-risk patients.

Clinical Pharmacology of Antihypertensive Therapy

Adequate control of blood pressure poses challenges for hypertensive patients and their physicians. Success rates of greater than 80% in reducing blood pressure to target values among high-risk hypertensive patients reported by several recent clinical trials argue that effective medications currently are available. Yet, only 34% of hypertensive patients in the United States are at their goal blood pressure according to the most recent national survey. Rational selection of antihypertensive drugs that target both the patient's blood pressure and comorbid conditions coupled with more frequent use of low-dose drug combinations that have additive efficacy and low adverse-effect profiles could improve significantly US blood pressure control rates and have a positive impact on hypertension-related cardiovascular and renal mortality and morbidity. This article reviews the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles that underlie the actions of drugs in each of the classes of antihypertensive agents when used alone and in combination, provides practical pharmacologic information about the drugs most frequently prescribed for treatment of hypertension in the outpatient setting, and summarizes the current data influencing the selection of drugs that might be used most effectively in combination for the majority of hypertensive patients whose blood pressures are not controlled adequately by single-drug therapy.

Drug therapy for hypertension in hemodialysis patients

The majority of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are hypertensive. Drug therapy for hypertension in hemodialysis (HD) patients includes all classes of antihypertensive drugs, with the sole exception of diuretics. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers may decrease morbidity and mortality by reducing the mean arterial pressure (MAP), aortic pulse wave velocity, and aortic systolic pressure augmentation, as well as left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) and probably reduction of C-reactive protein (CRP) and oxidant stress. Potential risk factors include hyperkalemia, anaphylactoid reaction with AN69 membranes (particularly ACE inhibitors), and aggravation of renal anemia. beta-blockers decrease not only mortality, blood pressure (BP), and ventricular arrhythmias, but also improve left ventricular function in ESRD patients. Nonselective beta-blockers can cause an increase in serum potassium (particularly during fasting or exercise). Lisinopril and atenolol have a predominant renal excretion and therefore a prolonged half life in ESRD patients. Thus thrice-weekly supervised administration of these drugs after HD can enhance BP control. The use of calcium channel blockers is also associated with lower total and cardiovascular-specific mortality in HD patients. Minoxidil is a very potent vasodilator that is generally reserved for dialysis patients with severe hypertension. Hypertensive dialysis patients who are noncompliant with their medications may benefit from transdermal clonidine therapy once a week. The majority of dialysis patients need a combination of several antihypertensive drugs for adequate BP control.

Antihypertensive therapy: special focus on drug interactions

Today, the lifetime risk of patients aged 55-65 years to receive antihypertensive drugs approaches 60%. Yet, recent trials suggest that hypertension is not adequately controlled in the majority of patients. The prevalence of hypertension increases with advancing age, as does the prevalence of comorbid conditions and the total number of medications taken. Multi-drug therapy, advancing age and comorbid conditions are also key risk factors for adverse drug reactions and drug interactions. In this review, the authors evaluate the most frequently used antihypertensive drugs (diuretics, beta-adrenergic blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin II receptor Type 1 blockers and alpha-adrenergic blockers) with special reference to pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug interactions. As the spectrum of drugs prescribed is constantly changing, safety yesterday does not imply safety today and safety today does not imply safety tomorrow. Furthermore, therapeutic efficacy should not be neglected over concerns regarding drug interactions. Many patients are at risk of clinically relevant drug interactions involving antihypertensive drugs but, presently, even more patients may be at risk of suffering from the consequences of their inadequately treated hypertension. In this respect, the authors discuss controversial viewpoints on the overall clinical relevance of drug interactions occurring at the level of cytochrome P450 metabolism.

Management of Glomerular Proteinuria: A Commentary

ABSTRACT. It is widely accepted that proteinuria reduction is an appropriate therapeutic goal in chronic proteinuric kidney disease. Based on large randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT), ACE inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy have emerged as the most important antiproteinuric and renal protective interventions. However, there are numerous other interventions that have been shown to be antiproteinuric and, therefore, likely to be renoprotective. Unfortunately testing each of these antiproteinuric therapies in RCT is not feasible. The nephrologist has two choices: restrict antiproteinuric therapies to those shown to be effective in RCT or expand the use of antiproteinuric therapies to include those that, although unproven, are plausibly effective and prudent to use. The goal of this work is to provide the documentation needed for the nephrologist to choose between these strategies. This work describes 25 separate interventions that are either antiproteinuric or may block injurious mechanisms of proteinuria. Each intervention is assigned a level of recommendation (Level 1 is the highest; Level 3 is the lowest) according to the strength of the evidence supporting its antiproteinuric and renoprotective efficacy. Pathophysiologic mechanisms possibly involved are also discussed. The number of interventions at each level of recommendation are: Level 1, n = 7; Level 2, n = 9; Level 3, n = 9. Our experience indicates that we can achieve in most patients the majority of Level 1 and many of the Level 2 and 3 recommendations. We suggest that, until better information becomes available, a broad-based, multiple-risk factor intervention to reduce proteinuria can be justified in those with progressive nephropathies. This work is intended primarily for clinical nephrologists; therefore, each antiproteinuria intervention is described in practical detail.

Renal and cardiovascular considerations for the nonpharmacological and pharmacological therapies of obesity-hypertension

Obesity-associated hypertension is a common disease that involves a complex pathogenesis. Failure to control hypertension (HTN) in obese subjects provides a great threat to their renal and cardiovascular functions. The treatment of obesity-associated HTN is often difficult, and requires nonpharmacological and/or pharmacological approaches. Weight reduction is the cornerstone of the therapies of obesity-HTN, as it reverses the multiple components of its pathogenesis. When weight loss cannot be sustained or fails, pharmacological means should then be used. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) are the drug of choice: they can reduce blood pressure, protect the kidney and heart, and improve the metabolic abnormalities in obese subjects. Angiotensin-2 type-1 receptor blockers have a renoprotective benefit similar to ACEI, and they provide an important alternative to the use of ACEI. Diuretics are very effective in African-American obese hypertensives, but small doses should be used to avoid adverse effects on metabolic profiles. Long-acting calcium channel blockers are also effective and have the advantage of no adverse metabolic effects. Nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers may provide additional renal and cardiovascular protective effects. The beta-adrenergic receptor blockers can cause further weight gain and metabolic abnormalities in obese subjects; therefore, careful monitoring is needed. There are few clinical data that support the efficacy and benefit of centrally acting alpha-2 agonists and alpha-adrenergic receptor antagonists in the treatment of obesity-HTN.

Is fixed combination therapy appropriate for initial hypertension treatment?

Recent clinical trials in hypertension prove how seldom single drug therapy achieves target blood pressure (BP) and reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. A natural response is the testing and marketing of fixed-dose combination products for hypertension, of which 14 have been approved in the United States since 1993. Currently, only five products are indicated by the Food and Drug Administration for initial therapy of hypertension; all include a diuretic. To achieve such an indication, studies must show not only safety and efficacy of the combination, but also BP lowering that is at least additive compared with the two agents given separately, as well as a "synergy" not present when each agent is given alone. Some advantages to initial combination therapy include greater BP reduction, improved adherence to pill taking, fewer side effects, and lower cost. The most likely candidates for initial combination therapy are patients with initial BP higher than 160/100 mm Hg, or those with a BP goal lower than the customary 140/90 mm Hg. These include patients with target organ damage, clinical cardiovascular disease, proteinuria, renal impairment, or diabetes mellitus. In many of these circumstances, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor antagonist is frequently recommended; adding a diuretic or calcium antagonist to it is much more likely to result in achievement of the BP goal. More research is being done to explore the combination of not only two representatives from classes of conventional agents, but also other drugs that may help address the multiple manifestations of the "metabolic syndrome" that often accompanies hypertension.

Current concepts of pharmacotherapy in hypertension: combination calcium channel blocker therapy in the treatment of hypertension

Effective control of blood pressure is usually achieved only with the use of two or more antihypertensive medications. The treatment options for hypertension are numerous, and the number of possible combinations large. The selection of a specific combination drug regimen has often been linked to the perceived need for diuretic therapy as first- or second-step therapy; thus, the popularity of such drug combinations as an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/diuretic, an angiotensin-receptor blocker/diuretic, or a beta blocker/diuretic. Rational alternatives exist, including an ACE inhibitor/calcium channel blocker (CCB) or a dihydropyridine CCB/b blocker combination. Traditionally, recommendations have advised against the use of combination therapy with two drugs from the same therapeutic class. However, because of the different binding and pharmacologic characteristics of CCBs, a rationale exists for combining different agents in this class in the management of hypertension and/or symptomatic coronary artery disease. In the treatment of either hypertension or angina, combination CCB therapy can prove uniquely successful.

Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: a consensus approach. National Kidney Foundation Hypertension and Diabetes Executive Committees Working Group

Over 11 million Americans have both diabetes and hypertension-comorbid diseases that strongly predispose people to both renal as well as cardiovascular (CV) injury. Hypertension substantially contributes to CV morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes. Diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease in the United States. Furthermore, hypertension and diabetes are particularly prevalent in certain populations, such as African-Americans and Native Americans. Since the 1994 Working Group Report on Hypertension and Diabetes, a large body of clinical trial data has affirmed the original blood pressure goal of less than 130/85 mmHg recommended to preserve renal function and reduce CV events in people with hypertension and diabetes. Data that are more recent have emerged, however, to support an even lower diastolic blood pressure goal, ie, 80 mmHg, in order to optimally preserve renal function and reduce CV events in people with diabetic nephropathy. A review of clinical trials indicates that more than 65% of people with diabetes and hypertension will require two or more different antihypertensive medications to achieve the new suggested target blood pressure of 130/80 mmHg. The purpose of this report is to update the previous recommendations with a focus on level of blood pressure control, proteinuria reduction, and therapeutic approaches to achieve these goals. We provide an evidence-based approach, integrating data from the major clinical trials that were designed as randomized prospective, long-term studies that had as a primary endpoint either progression of diabetic nephropathy or reduction in CV events. This report also addresses socioeconomic and cultural barriers that hinder achievement of blood pressure goals. Lastly, the report discusses approaches to resolve cultural barriers, both physician- and patient-derived, that interfere with achievement of lower blood pressure goals.

Combination drug therapy in hypertension: a rational approach for the pharmacist

OBJECTIVE

To review the use of combination therapy versus monotherapy in hypertension, and to review seven major antihypertensive combinations in regard to their pharmacologic actions and appropriateness.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was identified through a MEDLINE search from January 1985 to December 1997. Search terms included hypertension, blood pressure, combination therapy, diuretics, beta-receptor antagonists, calcium channel antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs). Major hypertension texts were also reviewed for information on combination therapy.

STUDY SELECTION

Clinical studies focusing primarily on blood pressure control with combinations of antihypertensive medications.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were evaluated with respect to study design, clinical outcomes, and use of antihypertensive classes commonly seen in practice.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Combination therapy in hypertension is often required because many patients cannot be controlled on one drug alone. Available data demonstrate that ACEIs plus diuretics or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) produce synergistic effects on blood pressure. Beta-blockers plus diuretics or CCBs produce additive effects, as does the rarer combination of diltiazem plus a dihydropyridine CCB. Ineffective combinations include beta-blockers plus ACEIs and dihydropyridine CCBs plus diuretics, although there are specific clinical circumstances where these combinations may be used.

CONCLUSION

When used appropriately, certain combinations of antihypertensives can effectively control blood pressure and minimize side effects. The pharmacist who understands and applies the pharmacology of these antihypertensives can help prescribers make rational decisions in selecting combination therapy.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of vasodilators. Part I

Understanding the mechanism of action and the pharmacokinetic properties of vasodilatory drugs facilitates optimal use in clinical practice. It should be kept in mind that a drug belongs to a class but is a distinct entity, sometimes derived from a prototype to achieve a specific effect. The most common pharmacokinetic drug improvement is the development of a drug with a half-life sufficiently long to allow an adequate once-daily dosage. Developing a controlled release preparation can increase the apparent half-life of a drug. Altering the molecular structure may also increase the half-life of a prototype drug. Another desirable improvement is increasing the specificity of a drug, which may result in fewer adverse effects, or more efficacy at the target site. This is especially important for vasodilatory drugs which may be administered over decades for the treatment of hypertension, which usually does not interfere with subjective well-being. Compliance is greatly increased with once-daily dosing. Vasodilatory agents cause relaxation by either a decrease in cytoplasmic calcium, an increase in nitric oxide (NO) or by inhibiting myosin light chain kinase. They are divided into 9 classes: calcium antagonists, potassium channel openers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-II receptor antagonists, alpha-adrenergic and imidazole receptor antagonists, beta 1-adrenergic agonist, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, eicosanoids and NO donors. Despite chemical differences, the pharmacokinetic properties of calcium antagonists are similar. Absorption from the gastrointestinal tract is high, with all substances undergoing considerable first-pass metabolism by the liver, resulting in low bioavailability and pronounced individual variation in pharmacokinetics. Renal impairment has little effect on pharmacokinetics since renal elimination of these agents is minimal. Except for the newer drugs of the dihydropyridine type, amlodipine, felodipine, isradipine, nilvadipine, nisoldipine and nitrendipine, the half-life of calcium antagonists is short. Maintaining an effective drug concentration for the remainder of these agents requires multiple daily dosing, in some cases even with controlled release formulations. However, a coat-core preparation of nifedipine has been developed to allow once-daily administration. Adverse effects are directly correlated to the potency of the individual calcium antagonists. Treatment with the potassium channel opener minoxidil is reserved for patients with moderately severe to severe hypertension which is refractory to other treatment. Diazoxide and hydralazine are chiefly used to treat severe hypertensive emergencies, primary pulmonary and malignant hypertension and in severe preeclampsia. ACE inhibitors prevent conversion of angiotensin-I to angiotensin-II and are most effective when renin production is increased. Since ACE is identical to kininase-II, which inactivates the potent endogenous vasodilator bradykinin, ACE inhibition causes a reduction in bradykinin degradation. ACE inhibitors exert cardioprotective and cardioreparative effects by preventing and reversing cardiac fibrosis and ventricular hypertrophy in animal models. The predominant elimination pathway of most ACE inhibitors is via renal excretion. Therefore, renal impairment is associated with reduced elimination and a dosage reduction of 25 to 50% is recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. Separating angiotensin-II inhibition from bradykinin potentiation has been the goal in developing angiotensin-II receptor antagonists. The incidence of adverse effects of such an agent, losartan, is comparable to that encountered with placebo treatment, and the troublesome cough associated with ACE inhibitors is absent.

Mibefradil: a new class of calcium-channel antagonists

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, and clinical efficacy of mibefradil compared with other agents used for hypertension and angina.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was performed for the period of January 1980 through September 1997 using the key terms mibefradil or Ro 40-5967. All articles written in English were considered for review.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All clinical studies involving mibefradil were evaluated. Preclinical data were included if these data were not adequately represented in clinical (human) studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Mibefradil is the first member of a new class of calcium-channel antagonists (CCAs) that block the T-type calcium channels. A long elimination half-life makes once-daily dosing feasible, and the drug's lack of negative inotropy and reflex tachycardia distinguishes it from other available CCAs. When administered at recommended dosages (50 or 100 mg once daily), mibefradil reduces blood pressure over 24 hours in patients with hypertension, improves exercise capacity, and relieves anginal symptoms in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical studies have found that the antihypertensive effects of mibefradil are comparable with those of nifedipine, verapamil, and amlodipine, and more effective than those of diltiazem. These effects result from peripheral vasodilation and a slight reduction in heart rate. Selective vasodilation of the coronary vasculature makes it an effective antianginal agent when used alone or added to beta-blocker therapy. Mibefradil demonstrates no significant effects on cardiac contractility, and no adrenergic stimulation resulting in reflex tachycardia. Therefore, it may have some advantages over currently available CCAs, especially in patients with congestive heart failure, although such advantages are unproven in published clinical trials. Ongoing clinical studies, including the Mortality Assessment in Congestive Heart Failure Trial (MACH-1) currently in progress, are needed to clarify mibefradil's place in cardiovascular therapy.

Dual calcium-channel blocker therapy in the treatment of hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To review the in vitro receptor binding data of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) and in vivo studies in humans regarding the use of dual calcium-channel blocker therapy, with a focus on the use of this therapy for hypertension.

DATA SOURCE

A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify literature pertaining to CCBs.

STUDY SELECTION

In vitro studies and investigations that evaluated CCB receptor binding and the interactions between subclasses of CCBs were chosen. All studies in humans and clinical trials that evaluated the use of dual CCB therapy in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases were selected for review. Also, case reports describing the use of dual CCB therapy were included in this article.

DATA EXTRACTION

The methodology, results, and conclusions of the selected data were evaluated. Data regarding the in vitro receptor binding kinetics of CCBs, as well as interactions, were reported. Because there is limited information on dual CCB therapy for hypertension, clinical studies using this treatment for ischemic heart disease were also reviewed. They were summarized and compared on the basis of the degree of disease control (e.g., blood pressure, exercise tolerance), adverse effects, and other clinical endpoints of pharmacologic therapy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In vitro studies have identified binding sites for the dihydropyridine (nifedipine), diphenylalkylamine (verapamil), and benzothiazepine (diltiazem) subclasses of CCBs, and indicate that they are allosterically related to each other within the voltage-sensitive calcium-channel receptor. Dihydropyridine binding affinity is decreased with concomitant verapamil binding, but is enhanced by concomitant diltiazem binding. Dual CCB therapy has been shown to be efficacious in patients with ischemic heart disease. Although this therapy is limited by dose-related adverse effects, it appears to have an important role in patients with ischemia that is refractory to conventional therapy, or for those whose therapeutic options are limited by contraindications. Theoretically, many patients with hypertension may benefit similarly from dual CCB therapy. Because data evaluating this treatment option are sparse, recommendations regarding safety, efficacy, and the role of dual CCB therapy for hypertension would be premature.

CONCLUSIONS

Controlled data evaluating dual CCB therapy for the treatment of hypertension are lacking. This treatment modality may be beneficial in the future, but requires further investigation to determine safety and efficacy.