Is sublingual nifedipine administration superior to oral administration in the active treatment of hypertension?

Hypertensive emergencies: an update

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Systemic hypertension (HTN) is a common medical condition affecting over 1 billion people worldwide. One to two percent of patients with HTN develop acute elevations of blood pressure (hypertensive crises) that require medical treatment. However, only patients with true hypertensive emergencies require the immediate and controlled reduction of blood pressure with an intravenous antihypertensive agent.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the mortality from hypertensive emergencies has decreased, the prevalence and demographics of this disorder have not changed over the last 4 decades. Clinical experience and reported data suggest that patients with hypertensive urgencies are frequently inappropriately treated with intravenous antihypertensive agents, whereas patients with true hypertensive emergencies are overtreated with significant complications.

SUMMARY

Despite published guidelines, most patients with hypertensive crises are poorly managed with potentially severe outcomes.

Oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies: systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Hypertensive urgencies are defined as severe elevations in blood pressure without evidence of acute or progressive target-organ damage. The need for treatment is considered urgent but allows for slow control using oral or sublingual drugs. If the increase in blood pressure is not associated with risk to life or acute target-organ damage, blood pressure control must be implemented slowly over 24 hours. For hypertensive urgencies, it is not known which class of antihypertensive drug provides the best results and there is controversy regarding when to use antihypertensive drugs and which ones to use in these situations. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies.

METHODS

This systematic review of the literature was developed at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, and in the Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo - Escola Paulista de Medicina (Unifesp-EPM), in accordance with the methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomized clinical trials including 769 participants were selected. They showed that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors had a superior effect in treating hypertensive urgencies, evaluated among 223 participants. The commonest adverse event for calcium channel blockers were headache (35/206), flushing (17/172) and palpitations (14/189). For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, the principal side effect was bad taste (25/38).

CONCLUSIONS

There is important evidence in favor of the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treating hypertensive urgencies, compared with calcium channel blockers, considering the better effectiveness and the lower frequency of adverse effects (like headache and flushing).

Clinical review: the management of hypertensive crises

Hypertension is an extremely common clinical problem, affecting approximately 50 million people in the USA and approximately 1 billion individuals worldwide. Approximately 1% of these patients will develop acute elevations in blood pressure at some point in their lifetime. A number of terms have been applied to severe hypertension, including hypertensive crises, emergencies, and urgencies. By definition, acute elevations in blood pressure that are associated with end-organ damage are called hypertensive crises. Immediate reduction in blood pressure is required only in patients with acute end-organ damage. This article reviews current concepts, and common misconceptions and pitfalls in the diagnosis and management of patients with acutely elevated blood pressure.

The diagnosis and management of hypertensive crises

Severe hypertension is a common clinical problem in the United States, encountered in various clinical settings. Although various terms have been applied to severe hypertension, such as hypertensive crises, emergencies, or urgencies, they are all characterized by acute elevations in BP that may be associated with end-organ damage (hypertensive crisis). The immediate reduction of BP is only required in patients with acute end-organ damage. Hypertension associated with cerebral infarction or intracerebral hemorrhage only rarely requires treatment. While nitroprusside is commonly used to treat severe hypertension, it is an extremely toxic drug that should only be used in rare circumstances. Furthermore, the short-acting calcium channel blocker nifedipine is associated with significant morbidity and should be avoided. Today, a wide range of pharmacologic alternatives are available to the practitioner to control severe hypertension. This article reviews some of the current concepts and common misconceptions in the management of patients with acutely elevated BP.

Sublingual nifedipine: the continuing controversy

Sublingual, as opposed to oral, administration of Nifedipine (Adalat) has gained wide popularity as the method of choice when the most rapid onset of anti-hypertensive action is required. However recent research indicates that this delivery method may be without scientific validation, and may in fact delay the attainment of peak plasma concentrations of the drug. Peak Nifedipine serum concentrations have been shown to be less following sublingual administration than following oral administration, and the time to peak concentration has been shown to be longer following sublingual administration than with the oral dose. The lack of a standardised technique for the administration of sublingual Nifedipine means that in many cases the patient may be receiving sub-therapeutic doses of the drug.