Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in elderly patients

Arterial hypertension and antihypertensive therapy in older patients. The agreed opinion of experts from the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatricians, the Antihypertensive League, the National Society for Preventive Cardiology

High blood pressure is a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, as well as cognitive decline and loss of autonomy in the elderly and old age. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in populations of older patients living at home with low comorbidity and preserved autonomy indicate the benefit of lowering elevated blood pressure in patients over 80 years of age. Older patients with senile asthenia, loss of autonomy and other geriatric problems were excluded from RCTs, and observational studies in these groups of patients indicate an increase in morbidity and mortality with lower blood pressure and antihypertensive therapy. Obviously, in very elderly patients, a universal strategy for the treatment of arterial hypertension cannot be applied due to the significant heterogeneity of their functional status. The geriatric approach to the management of arterial hypertension in older patients involves an assessment of the functional status, the presence of senile asthenia, and the degree of autonomy for the choice of antihypertensive therapy tactics.

Self-Assembly of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Captopril and Lisinopril and Their Crystal Structures

The peptide angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors captopril and lisinopril are unexpectedly shown to exhibit critical aggregation concentration (CAC) behavior through measurements of surface tension, electrical conductivity, and dye probe fluorescence. These three measurements provide similar values for the CAC, and there is also evidence from circular dichroism spectroscopy for a possible conformational change in the peptides at the same concentration. Cryogenic transmission electron microscopy indicates the formation of micelle-like aggregates above the CAC, which can thus be considered a critical micelle concentration, and the formation of aggregates with a hydrodynamic radius of ∼6-7 nm is also evidenced by dynamic light scattering. We also used synchrotron radiation X-ray diffraction to determine the single-crystal structure of captopril and lisinopril. Our results improve the accuracy of previous data reported in the literature, obtained using conventional X-ray sources. We also studied the structure of aqueous solutions containing captopril or lisinopril at high concentrations. The aggregation may be driven by intermolecular interactions between the proline moiety of captopril molecules or between the phenylalanine moiety of lisinopril molecules.

Oral Adverse Drug Reactions to Cardiovascular Drugs

A great many cardiovascular drugs (CVDs) have the potential to induce adverse reactions in the mouth. The prevalence of such reactions is not known, however, since many are asymptomatic and therefore are believed to go unreported. As more drugs are marketed and the population includes an increasing number of elderly, the number of drug prescriptions is also expected to increase. Accordingly, it can be predicted that the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including the oral ones (ODRs), will continue to increase. ODRs affect the oral mucous membrane, saliva production, and taste. The pathogenesis of these reactions, especially the mucosal ones, is largely unknown and appears to involve complex interactions among the drug in question, other medications, the patient’s underlying disease, genetics, and life-style factors. Along this line, there is a growing interest in the association between pharmacogenetic polymorphism and ADRs. Research focusing on polymorphism of the cytochrome P450 system (CYPs) has become increasingly important and has highlighted the intra- and inter-individual responses to drug exposure. This system has recently been suggested to be an underlying candidate regarding the pathogenesis of ADRs in the oral mucous membrane. This review focuses on those CVDs reported to induce ODRs. In addition, it will provide data on specific drugs or drug classes, and outline and discuss recent research on possible mechanisms linking ADRs to drug metabolism patterns. Abbreviations used will be as follows: ACEI, ACE inhibitor; ADR, adverse drug reaction; ANA, antinuclear antigen; ARB, angiotensin II receptor blocker; BAB, beta-adrenergic blocker; CCB, calcium-channel blocker; CDR, cutaneous drug reaction; CVD, cardiovascular drug; CYP, cytochrome P450 enzyme; EM, erythema multiforme; FDE, fixed drug eruption; I, inhibitor of CYP isoform activity; HMG-CoA, hydroxymethyl-glutaryl coenzyme A; NAT, N-acetyltransferase; ODR, oral drug reaction; RDM, reactive drug metabolite; S, substrate for CYP isoform; SJS, Stevens-Johnson syndrome; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; and TEN, toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Green Synthetic Approach for Synthesis of Fluorescent Carbon Dots for Lisinopril Drug Delivery System and their Confirmations in the Cells

In this work, highly luminescent carbon dots (CDs) were synthesized by the hydrothermal method at 170 °C for 12 h using pasteurized milk as a carbon source. The prepared CDs exhibited bright blue fluorescence under UV light illumination at 365 nm. The CDs show fluorescence life time of ~4.89 ns at excitation wavelength of 370 nm. The effect of different solvents on the fluorescence property of CDs was also investigated. The lisinopril (Lis)-loaded CDs were fabricated by self-assembly of lisinopril on the surfaces of CDs, which were characterized by UV-visible and FT-IR spectroscopic techniques. The controlled release of lisinopril from the Lis-CDs was realized at pH values of 5.2, 6.2 and 7.4, respectively. The results of the cytotoxicity and confocal laser scanning microscopic images indicate that the Lis-CDs were successfully uptaken by HeLa cells without apparent cytotoxicity. The synthesized CDs show great potential as drug vehicles with good biocompatibility, sustained release of lisinopril from CDs, indicating that the CDs can act as a promising drug delivery system for therapeutic delivery and/or bioimaging applications.

Rapid quantification of lisinopril in human plasma by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry

An assay based on protein precipitation and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) has been developed and validated for the quantitative analysis of lisinopril in human plasma. After the addition of enalaprilat as internal standard (IS), plasma samples were prepared by one-step protein precipitation using perchloric acid followed by an isocratic elution with 10 mm ammonium acetate buffer (pH adjusted to 5.0 with acetic acid)-methanol (70:30, v/v) on a Phenomenex Luna 5 mu C(18) (2) column. Detection was performed on a triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer utilizing an electrospray ionization (ESI) interface operating in positive ion and selected reaction monitoring (SRM) mode with the precursor to product ion transitions m/z 406 --> 246 for lisinopril and m/z 349 --> 206 for enalaprilat. Calibration curves of lisinopril in human plasma were linear (r = 0.9973-0.9998) over the concentration range 2-200 ng/mL with acceptable accuracy and precision. The limit of detection and lower limit of quantification in human plasma were 1 and 2 ng/mL, respectively. The validated LC-MS/MS method has been successfully applied to a preliminary pharmacokinetic study of lisinopril in Chinese healthy male volunteers.

Zofenopril versus Lisinopril in the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in Elderly Patients

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been proposed as first-choice drugs for antihypertensive therapy in elderly subjects because of their demonstrated efficacy and safety. However, no information is currently available on the use of zofenopril in elderly hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of zofenopril (30 or 60mg once daily) compared with lisinopril (10 or 20mg once daily).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients aged >/=65 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >/=90mm Hg and </=110mm Hg) were included in the study. They were randomised to receive either zofenopril 30mg or lisinopril 10mg. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured at baseline and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. Patients underwent electrocardiography and evaluation of laboratory parameters at baseline and after 12 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was also performed at baseline and after 12 weeks. After 4 weeks drug doses were doubled in patients whose sitting DBP was >/=90mm Hg. The primary endpoint was to achieve sitting DBP values <90mm Hg or a reduction of sitting DBP >10mm Hg after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

181 patients were randomised to treatment and 164 patients completed the study. Thirty-three patients were included in the analysis of 24-hour blood pressure monitoring. The percentage of patients with normalised sitting DBP (<90mm Hg) and the rate of treatment responders (reduction of sitting DBP >/=10mm Hg) were not significantly different between the two treatment groups (normalised: zofenopril 81.3% vs lisinopril 76.7%; responders: zofenopril 74.7% vs lisinopril 77.8%). At the end of the treatment sitting DBP was not significantly different between the two treatment groups (zofenopril 82.2 +/- 6.6mm Hg vs lisinopril 82.0 +/- 7.8mm Hg). Eight percent of patients experienced adverse events in the zofenopril group and 9% in the lisinopril group. A small percentage of adverse events (4%) was related to treatment and reported in the zofenopril group.

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly hypertensive patients, treatment with zofenopril was effective and well tolerated. Efficacy and safety were comparable with those of lisinopril.

New and emerging prophylactic agents for migraine

Frequent, severe and long-lasting migraine attacks require prophylaxis. Established drugs used for the prevention of migraine such as beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (beta-blockers), calcium channel antagonists, antidepressants and others have an unknown mode of action in migraine. Their prophylactic effect in migraine was discovered by chance in clinical practice when these drugs were used for other purposes. Recently, research into the mechanisms of migraine and the progressive recognition that cortical hyperexcitability and an imbalance between neuronal inhibition [mediated by gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)] and excitation (mediated by excitatory amino acids) may play an important role in migraine pathophysiology have lead to the identification of potential new agents for the prevention of migraine attacks. This paper reviews the recent literature on these new agents. A search was conducted using MEDLINE from 1998 to November 2001 with the following search terms: migraine, preventive, prophylactic and treatment. Headache textbooks edited in 2000 and 2001 were also used. After analysing the available controlled and uncontrolled clinical studies as well as abstracts, divalproex sodium (valproate semisodium) can be recommended for the prevention of migraine. Lamotrigine may be useful for preventing aura associated with migraine, and topiramate seems a promising option pending trials with more patients, which are currently underway. Riboflavin (which is possibly involved in improving neuronal energy production) appears to be a promising agent, although comparisons with established prophylactic medications are needed. Gabapentin, magnesium, lisinopril and botulinum toxin A have recently been suggested to be effective; however, at present, there are insufficient rigorous and reliable controlled data on these drugs for them to be indicated for such use. Emerging options such as tiagabine, levetiracetam, zonisamide and petasites may all be useful, but controlled data are required to confirm their efficacy. The anti-asthma medication montelukast was found to be effective in an open trial, but ineffective in a recently completed controlled trial. There is an expectation that modern neuroscience will soon provide more efficacious and better tolerated prophylactic medications for migraine.

Vasopeptidase inhibitor reduces inhospital costs for patients with congestive heart failure: results from the IMPRESS trial. Inhibition of Metallo Protease by BMS-186716 in a Randomized Exercise and Symptoms Study in Subjects With Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

The Inhibition of Metallo Protease by BMS-186716 in a Randomized Exercise and Symptoms Study in Subjects With Heart Failure (IMPRESS) clinical trial randomized patients with congestive heart failure to a daily regimen of either omapatrilat or lisinopril. At 24 weeks, patients randomized to omapatrilat had a significant reduction in the combined end point of death, hospitalization, or discontinuation of study drug for worsening heart failure when compared with patients randomized to lisinopril. They also had significantly fewer serious cardiac adverse events.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to determine the economic consequences of the lower event rates of patients who were given omapatrilat.

METHODS

Economic outcomes (major hospitalizations and their associated medical costs) were compared between treatment groups and assessed by use of the societal perspective. Hospitalization information was obtained from the IMPRESS trial's standardized case report and serious adverse event forms. Hospital costs were evaluated by means of assigning each hospital admission a diagnosis-related group and an average cost for physician and hospital services. Emergency department visits were included only when they were made for worsening heart failure and were assigned costs equivalent to the average hospital and physician Medicare reimbursement for these visits in Duke University Medical Center's heart failure program. Drug costs were not assessed.

RESULTS

Although the typical patient in both treatment groups was event-free, there was a trend toward a greater number of hospitalizations in the patients given lisinopril than in the patients given omapatrilat (P =.07). Differences in the distribution of cardiac hospitalizations between patients given lisinopril and patients given omapatrilat were significant (P =.03). There was a trend toward lower medical costs at 24 weeks in patients given omapatrilat versus patients given lisinopril ($1930 vs $2002, P =.09). Considering only cardiac medical costs, this trend toward reduced medical costs was significant ($1240 vs $1442, P =.03).

CONCLUSIONS

At 24 weeks, patients with heart failure treated with omapatrilat had fewer hospitalizations and lower medical costs than patients treated with lisinopril. However, drug treatment costs were not available for this analysis.

Alpha-adrenergic blocking drugs in the management of benign prostatic hyperplasia: interactions with antihypertensive therapy

Management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is often complicated by concomitant hypertension, a life-threatening condition that must be managed optimally. Many of the alpha blockers used to treat BPH also decrease blood pressure, and terazosin and doxazosin have been shown to have significant cardiovascular side effects, such as asthenia/fatigue, postural hypotension, and dizziness when used to treat BPH patients. Furthermore, these drugs are not first-line therapies for hypertension, and the majority of hypertensive BPH patients will be receiving other antihypertensive agents. Therefore, it is possible that the introduction of these drugs will affect blood pressure control, at least temporarily, with possible adverse effects. In contrast, the selective alpha1A blocker tamsulosin does not appear to have significant cardiovascular side effects and produces minimal blood pressure reductions. Therefore, urologists can choose either to use alpha blockers to treat both hypertension and BPH or to treat BPH using alpha blockers that do not interact with antihypertensive therapy. This review focuses on the alpha blockers currently being used to treat BPH, their effects on the cardiovascular system, and their interaction with antihypertensive drugs.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and use in the management of the complications of diabetes mellitus

Lisinopril, like other ACE inhibitors, lowers blood pressure and preserves renal function in hypertensive patients with non-insulin-dependent or insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM or IDDM) and early or overt nephropathy, without adversely affecting glycaemic control or lipid profiles. On available evidence, renoprotective effects appear to be greater with lisinopril than with comparator calcium channel blockers, diuretics and beta-blockers, despite similar antihypertensive efficacy. As shown by the EUCLID (EUrodiab Controlled trial of Lisinopril in Insulin-Dependent Diabetes) trial, lisinopril is also renoprotective in normotensive patients with IDDM and microalbuminuria. The effect in normotensive patients with normoalbuminuria was smaller than in those with microalbuminuria, and no conclusions can yet be made about its use in patients with normoalbuminuria. In complications other than nephropathy, lisinopril has shown some benefit. Progression to retinopathy was slowed during 2 years' lisinopril therapy in the EUCLID study. Although not yet fully published, these results provide the most convincing evidence to date for an effect of an ACE inhibitor in retinopathy. The drug may also improve neurological function, but this finding is preliminary. Lastly, post hoc analysis of the GISSI-3 trial indicates that lisinopril reduces 6-week mortality rates in diabetic patients when begun as early treatment after an acute myocardial infarction. The tolerability profile of lisinopril is typical of ACE inhibitors and appears to be similar in diabetic and nondiabetic individuals. Hypoglycaemia has occurred at a similar frequency with lisinopril and placebo, as shown in the EUCLID trial. In addition, the GISSI-3 study indicates that the incidence of persistent hypotension and renal dysfunction is increased with lisinopril in general, but the presence of diabetes does not appear to confer additional risk of these events in diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving lisinopril. In summary, lisinopril lowers blood pressure and produces a renoprotective effect in patients with IDDM and NIDDM without detriment to glycaemic control or lipid profiles. Like other ACE inhibitors, lisinopril should thus be viewed as a first-line agent for reducing blood pressure and preventing or attenuating nephropathy in hypertensive diabetic patients with IDDM or NIDDM and microalbuminuria or overt renal disease. The EUCLID study, using lisinopril, provides new data supporting an additional place in managing normotensive patients with microalbuminuria and IDDM. These findings, together with some evidence for an effect of lisinopril in delaying progression of retinopathy and in reducing mortality, suggest a broader role for the drug in managing diabetic vascular complications.