Nisoldipine Inhibits Influenza A Virus Infection by Interfering with Virus Internalization Process

Influenza virus infections and the continuing spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are global public health concerns. As there are limited therapeutic options available in clinical practice, the rapid development of safe, effective and globally available antiviral drugs is crucial. Drug repurposing is a therapeutic strategy used in treatments for newly emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. It has recently been shown that the voltage-dependent Ca²⁺ channel Cav1.2 is critical for influenza A virus entry, providing a potential target for antiviral strategies. Nisoldipine, a selective Ca²⁺ channel inhibitor, is commonly used in the treatment of hypertension. Here, we assessed the antiviral potential of nisoldipine against the influenza A virus and explored the mechanism of action of this compound. We found that nisoldipine treatment could potently inhibit infection with multiple influenza A virus strains. Mechanistic studies further revealed that nisoldipine impaired the internalization of the influenza virus into host cells. Overall, our findings demonstrate that nisoldipine exerts antiviral effects against influenza A virus infection and could serve as a lead compound in the design and development of new antivirals.

Pharmacokinetics of Oral Doses of Telmisartan and Nisoldipine, Given Alone and in Combination, in Patients With Essential Hypertension

This randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study was performed to assess pharmacokinetic interactions potentially occurring during concomitant use of telmisartan and nisoldipine. Patients with essential hypertension (n = 37) were treated with once-daily doses of telmisartan, nisoldipine, or their combination for 6 weeks. The regimen was started at low dose with an increase of dosage after 3 weeks of treatment. AUC(ss) (132%; P < .01) of telmisartan applied in doses of 80 mg was significantly higher after concomitant application with nisoldipine (10 mg), whereas CL/f(ss) (-54%; P < .05) and Vz/f(ss) (-72%; P < .05) were significantly lower. Regarding pharmacokinetic parameters of nisoldipine, significant differences between treatment groups were not detected. In conclusion, the results of this study strongly suggest that concomitant treatment with nisoldipine enhances telmisartan bioavailability in hypertensive individuals. Larger crossover trials will have to establish these observations and investigate whether interaction of both drugs affects telmisartan efficacy and tolerability in clinical use.

Antianginal and anti-ischemic effects of nisoldipine and ramipril in patients with syndrome X

BACKGROUND

Syndrome X is defined as typical angina pectoris, positive treadmill exercise test, negative intravenous ergonovine test, and angiographically normal coronary arteries.

HYPOTHESIS

In the present study, we investigated the anti-ischemic and antianginal effects of nisoldipine and ramipril in patients with syndrome X.

METHODS

After 2 weeks of the first wash-out period, 18 patients (7 men, 11 women, age 46 +/- 10 years) were given nisoldipine (NIS) 5 mg twice daily for 4 weeks, and after 2 weeks of the second wash-out period, the same patients were given ramipril (RAM) 2.5 mg once daily for 4 weeks. A treadmill exercise test with modified Bruce protocol was performed at the end of each period.

RESULTS

The time to angina in exercise (607 +/- 115 s-650 +/- 117 s, p = 0.006, vs. 630 +/- 114 s-660 +/- 123 s, p = 0.02), total exercise time (612 +/- 110 s-656 +/- 114 s, p = 0.0008, vs. 630 +/- 114 s-660 +/- 123 s, p = 0.02), and maximum MET value (11.09 +/- 2.08-11.86 +/- 2.04, p = 0.0016, vs. 11.42 +/- 2.09-12.2 +/- 2.26, p = 0.01) were increased significantly with both therapy modalities. The time to 1 mm ST-segment depression (123 +/- 93 s-220 +/- 172 s, p = 0.002) was increased significantly with NIS therapy. The time to ST-segment recovery (434 +/- 268 s-330 +/- 233 s, p = 0.016 vs. 443 +/- 289 s-370 +/- 278 s, p = 0.012), the frequency of anginal attacks per week (1.27 +/- 1.4-0 +/- 0.38, p = 0.005, vs. 1 +/- 1.32-0.33 +/- 0.59, p = 0.028), and the need for sublingual nitroglycerin (1.16 +/- 1.29-0.11 +/- 0.32, p = 0.005, vs. 0.94 +/- 1.16-0.27 +/- 0.57, p = 0.012) were decreased significantly with both drugs.

CONCLUSION

We observed that 10 mg daily NIS and 2.5 mg daily RAM have similar anti-ischemic and antianginal effects in patients with syndrome X.

Mobilization of putative high-proliferative-potential endothelial colony-forming cells during antihypertensive treatment in patients with essential hypertension

Recent studies have shown that in response to vascular damage or ischemia, bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are recruited into the circulation. To investigate whether antihypertensive treatment has an influence on the number of circulating EPCs, patients with essential hypertension were treated either with the angiotensin receptor antagonist telmisartan, the calcium channel blocker nisoldipine, or their combination for 6 weeks. At baseline and after 3 and 6 weeks of treatment, EPCs were identified and quantified by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis and by their capacity to generate colony-forming units of the endothelial lineage (CFU-EC) in a methylcellulose-based assay. During treatment, patients in the nisoldipine groups, but not in the telmisartan group, showed a significant mobilization of EPCs, which in part had the capacity to generate large-sized colonies comprising more than 1,000 cells. Moreover, a remarkable correlation between the number of CFU-EC and the number of circulating CD133(+)/CD34(+)/CD146(+) cells was observed, thereby providing strong evidence that cells with this phenotype represent functional EPCs. No correlation was found between the numbers of CFU-EC and the blood pressure levels at any time point during the treatment. Hence, nisoldipine-induced mobilization of EPCs might represent a novel mechanism by which this antihypertensive compound independently of its blood pressure-lowering effect contributes to vasoprotection in patients with essential hypertension.

Pharmacologic Agents in the Management of Hypertension-Nisoldipine Coat-Core

Nisoldipine coat-core (CC), a 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and may be used alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents. The CC technology allows for extended delivery of the drug and once-daily dosing. Nisoldipine CC tablets are absorbed across the entire gastrointestinal tract, including the colon. Eighty percent of the total dose is in the slow-release outer coat, while the core has immediate-release characteristics suitable for absorption in the distal gastrointestinal tract. Numerous double-blind, randomized studies of this agent have been done in patients with hypertension. The use of nisoldipine CC reduced both clinic and ambulatory blood pressure to a similar degree when compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the calcium antagonists amlodipine and felodipine. The drug has also been studied in hypertensive African Americans and demonstrated equivalent efficacy to amlodipine. Tolerability of the drug is good, with the most common side effect of edema at a rate similar to other dihydropyridine calcium antagonists. Thus, results of more than a decade of clinical trial data support the use of nisoldipine CC as once-daily therapy for the treatment of hypertension.

Comparative efficacy and safety of nisoldipine extended-release (ER) and amlodipine (CESNA-III study) in African American patients with hypertension

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates the efficacy of the new dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nisoldipine extended-release (ER) compared to amlodipine on ambulatory and clinic blood pressures (BP) and heart rates in African American patients with hypertension.

METHODS

This prospective, double-blind trial randomized 192 patients with office diastolic BP of 95 to 114 mm Hg to receive either nisoldipine (20 to 60 mg once daily) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg once daily) for 12 weeks in a titration-to-effect design. Using ambulatory monitoring, efficacy was assessed by measuring change from baseline in systolic and diastolic BP and heart rate during three time intervals: 24-h mean period, awake, and sleep. In addition, a subanalysis was performed to evaluate patients whose nocturnal decline in BP was elevated (nondippers) versus those whose BP declined by 10% or more (dippers).

RESULTS

Substantial and significant mean changes from baseline in 24-h BP were observed for patients treated with nisoldipine ER (-23/-16 +/- 3/2 mm Hg) and amlodipine (-20/15 +/- 3/2 mm Hg) (between-group comparisons, P =.07 for systolic BP; P =.50 for diastolic BP). Significant and similar reductions also were observed for clinic, awake, and sleep BP. Reductions in BP in the nondippers was substantially greater than in patients with a dipper profile. Neither agent had a significant effect on ambulatory heart rate. Adverse events were mild and infrequent (headache, edema, and dizziness at rates of 4% to 15%), and similar for both agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Nisoldipine ER was as effective as amlodipine in reducing 24-h BP in African-American patients with hypertension, with a similar adverse effect profile. Thus, this new therapy for delivery of a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker is a useful antihypertensive strategy for African-American patients with hypertension.

Long term effects of nisoldipine on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis and the occurrence of clinical events: the NICOLE study

BACKGROUND

Earlier angiographic studies have suggested that calcium antagonists may prevent the formation of new coronary lesions and the progression of minimal lesions. Conversely, a meta-analysis suggested that these drugs may increase cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with coronary heart disease.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether nisoldipine retards the progression of coronary atherosclerosis or reduces the occurrence of clinical events.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The NICOLE study (NIsoldipine in COronary artery disease in LEuven) is a single centre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial with coronary angiography at baseline, six months, and three years of follow up.

PATIENTS

826 patients who had undergone successful coronary angioplasty were randomised to nisoldipine 40 mg once daily or placebo. The intention to treat and per protocol population consisted of 819 and 578 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

In the per protocol population, 625 of the nisoldipine treated and 655 of the placebo treated patients (NS) showed angiographic progression in at least one coronary arterial segment, defined as an increase in diameter stenosis of > or = 13%. The average minimum luminal diameter of the non-dilated lesions decreased by 0.163 mm and 0.167 mm in the nisoldipine and placebo groups, respectively (NS). The respective numbers of new lesions detected were 7 and 13 (NS). In the intention to treat population, the rates of death, stroke, and acute myocardial infarction were similar in both treatment groups. However, nisoldipine use was associated with fewer revascularisation procedures and thus the percentage of patients with any clinical event was lower (44.6% v 52.6%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Nisoldipine has no demonstrable effect on the angiographic progression of coronary atherosclerosis or the risk of major cardiovascular events but its use is associated with fewer revascularisation procedures.

Differential effects of antihypertensive agents on electrocardiographic voltage: results from the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) trial

BACKGROUND

Serial decline in electrocardiographic voltage in patients with increased left ventricular mass has been associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.

METHODS

We studied 468 patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension in the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) trial. Patients were randomized in a stratified design to receive initial treatment with either enalapril or nisoldipine and to either intensive or moderate treatment goals. We measured an electrocardiographic index for increased left ventricular mass, the adjusted Cornell voltage, serially by treatment group. The association between changes in electrocardiographic voltage and cardiovascular events was defined with Cox proportional hazards analysis.

RESULTS

In 5 years of follow-up, the decline in adjusted Cornell voltage was significantly greater for patients treated with enalapril than for patients treated with nisoldipine (repeated measures analysis of variance P =.002). In the Cox proportional hazards model, treatment assignment (enalapril vs nisoldipine) was the strongest predictor of cardiovascular events, but the presence of coronary disease at baseline, the duration of diabetes mellitus, and change in voltage were also independent predictors of cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

In the ABCD study, enalapril treatment was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction. The reduction in left ventricular mass as reflected by diminished electrocardiographic voltage may explain some, but not all, of the effect of enalapril in this study.

An updated meta-analysis of calcium-channel blockers in the prevention of restenosis after coronary angioplasty

BACKGROUND

In 1994, a meta-analysis of 5 small randomized trials reported a 30% reduction in the odds of angiographic restenosis when calcium-channel blockers (CCB) were given after percutaneous coronary intervention. Recently, the results of 2 large similar trials (Nisoldipine In Coronary Artery Disease in Leuven [NICOLE], and Coronary AngioPlasty Amlodipine in REstenosis Study [CAPARES]) were published. An extended meta-analysis including the results of the latter trials was performed.

METHODS

A total of 2380 patients were analyzed. Statistical analysis included calculation of odds ratios for each trial, common odds ratio, and homogeneity for treatment effects across trials.

RESULTS

The incidence of angiographic restenosis was 36% in the CCB-treated group and 42% in the placebo group. The odds ratio of restenosis with CCB therapy was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) compared with control patients (P =.01). Treatment effects were homogeneous across the trials. For the combined end point of death, coronary artery bypass grafting, repeat percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and myocardial infarction, 126 of 626 events occurred in the CCB group and 191 of 655 in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.61 [95% CI 0.47-0.80], P <.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This extended meta-analysis confirmed a reduction in the odds of restenosis and clinical events when CCBs were added to standard therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Intensive blood pressure control reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral arterial disease and type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and diabetes are both associated with a high risk of ischemic events, but the role of intensive blood pressure control in PAD has not been established.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes study followed 950 subjects with type 2 diabetes for 5 years; 480 of the subjects were normotensive (baseline diastolic blood pressure of 80 to 89 mm Hg). Patients randomized to placebo (moderate blood pressure control) had a mean blood pressure of 137+/-0.7/81+/-0.3 mm Hg over the last 4 years of treatment. In contrast, patients randomized to intensive treatment with enalapril or nisoldipine had a mean 4-year blood pressure of 128+/-0.8/75+/-0.3 mm Hg (P<0.0001 compared with moderate control). PAD, which is defined as an ankle-brachial index <0.90 at the baseline visit, was diagnosed in 53 patients. In patients with PAD, there were 3 cardiovascular events (13.6%) on intensive treatment compared with 12 events (38.7%) on moderate treatment (P=0.046). After adjustment for multiple cardiovascular risk factors, an inverse relationship between ankle-brachial index and cardiovascular events was observed with moderate treatment (P=0.009), but not with intensive treatment (P=0.91). Thus, with intensive blood pressure control, the risk of an event was not increased, even at the lowest ankle-brachial index values, and was the same as in a patient without PAD.

CONCLUSIONS

In PAD patients with diabetes, intensive blood pressure lowering to a mean of 128/75 mm Hg resulted in a marked reduction in cardiovascular events.

Comparison of effects of nisoldipine-extended release and amlodipine in patients with systemic hypertension and chronic stable angina pectoris

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS). Both drugs resulted in similar BP responder rates (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg in 87% of patients who received nisoldipine-ER and 78% of patients on amlodipine, p = NS) and anti-ischemic responder rates (increasing exercise time >20% in 20% and 27%, respectively [p = NS], and increasing exercise time >60 seconds in 32% and 29% of patients, respectively [p = NS]. Also, after 6 weeks of active therapy, there was a similar mean increase in total exercise duration (23 seconds in the nisoldipine-ER group and 21 seconds in the amlodipine group, p = NS). Neither drug increased heart rate and both decreased frequency of anginal episodes. Adverse events were infrequent, and typically were vasodilator-related effects (including headache and peripheral edema) that occurred with somewhat higher incidence in the nisoldipine-ER group. Thus, nisoldipine-ER and amlodipine provided comparable antihypertensive and anti-ischemic efficacy, and both were generally well tolerated.

Dynamic and kinetic disposition of nisoldipine enantiomers in hypertensive patients presenting with type-2 diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

Nisoldipine (N) is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist marketed as a racemic mixture and used for the treatment of hypertension. In the present study, we investigated the influence of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM) on the enantioselective pharmacokinetic and dynamic parameters of N.

METHODS

Seventeen hypertensive patients, nine of them with DM, were investigated in a cross-over study with administration of rac-N as coat-core tablets (20 mg day(-1)) or placebo for 15 days each. Serial blood samples (0-24 h) were collected on the 15th day, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring was simultaneously evaluated. N enantiomers in plasma samples were analysed using chiral high-performance liquid chromatography combined with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The enantiomeric ratios differing from one were evaluated using the Wilcoxon test, and the results are reported as means with the 95% confidence intervals. A lidocaine (L) test was carried out as an in vivo marker of CYP3A4 (and CYP1A2) activities.

RESULTS

The following differences were observed between the (+)-N and (-)-N enantiomers, respectively, in the patients presenting with DM (means and ranges): C(max) 3.9 (1.7-6.1) ng ml(-1) versus 0.7 (0.4-1.0) ng ml(-1), AUC(0-24) 51.5 (29.0-74.0) ng ml(-1) h versus 9.4 (5.9-12.8) ng ml(-1) h, and Cl/f 3.6 (1.9-5.4) l h(-1) kg(-1) versus 18.7 (11.7-25.7) l h(-1) kg(-1). The Cl/f value of (+)-N was lower (Mann-Whitney test) in patients with DM: 6.0 (4.3-7.5) l h(-1) kg(-1) versus 3.6 (1.9-5.4) l h(-1) kg(-1). The same observation was made for the (-)-N, with Cl/f reaching 38.8 (26.8-51.0) l h(-1) kg(-1) and 18.7 (11.7-25.7) l h(-1) kg(-1) for the non-diabetic and DM groups, respectively. The L test resulted in higher ratios (P < 0.05) of plasma L/MEGX concentrations (30 min after i.v. L) for DM (11.1 vs 18.6). N significantly reduced systolic and diastolic BP (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon test) in all patients investigated relative to placebo. No differences in BP reduction were observed between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. N significantly increased noradrenaline concentrations in plasma of both patient groups. The data also demonstrated that the plasma concentrations of noradrenaline 30 min after N administration were lower (P < 0.05) in diabetic (mean 2.86 pmol ml(-1)) than in non-diabetic patients (4.80 pmol ml(-1)).

CONCLUSIONS

The present data permit us to infer that type-2 diabetes mellitus alters the kinetic disposition of the (+)-N eutomer and (-)-N distomer, presumably due to a lower activity of CYP3A4, although it does not modify the clinical effect brought about by the reduction in BP.

Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes

BACKGROUND

Although several important studies have been performed in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, it is not known whether lowering blood pressure in normotensive (BP <140/90 mm Hg) patients offers any beneficial results on vascular complications. The current study evaluated the effect of intensive versus moderate diastolic blood pressure (DBP) control on diabetic vascular complications in 480 normotensive type 2 diabetic patients.

METHODS

The current study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in normotensive type 2 diabetic subjects. The subjects were randomized to intensive (10 mm Hg below the baseline DBP) versus moderate (80 to 89 mm Hg) DBP control. Patients in the moderate therapy group were given placebo, while the patients randomized to intensive therapy received either nisoldipine or enalapril in a blinded manner as the initial antihypertensive medication. The primary end point evaluated was the change in creatinine clearance with the secondary endpoints consisting of change in urinary albumin excretion, progression of retinopathy and neuropathy and the incidence of cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 5.3 years. Mean BP in the intensive group was 128 +/- 0.8/75 +/- 0.3 mm Hg versus 137 +/- 0.7/81 +/- 0.3 mm Hg in the moderate group, P < 0.0001. Although no difference was demonstrated in creatinine clearance (P = 0.43), a lower percentage of patients in the intensive group progressed from normoalbuminuria to microalbuminuria (P = 0.012) and microalbuminuria to overt albuminuria (P = 0.028). The intensive BP control group also demonstrated less progression of diabetic retinopathy (P = 0.019) and a lower incidence of strokes (P = 0.03). The results were the same whether enalapril or nisoldipine was used as the initial antihypertensive agent.

CONCLUSION

Over a five-year follow-up period, intensive (approximately 128/75 mm Hg) BP control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients: (1) slowed the progression to incipient and overt diabetic nephropathy; (2) decreased the progression of diabetic retinopathy; and (3) diminished the incidence of stroke.

Comparison of 24-hour blood pressure profiles in patients with hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare 24-hour blood pressure control and adverse effects in patients with essential hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine.

DESIGN

Open-label, one-way crossover study.

SETTING

Cardiac clinic and patients' homes.

PATIENTS

Twenty-five patients with stage I or II essential hypertension stabilized with amlodipine for at least 3 months, of whom 21 patients completed the study.

INTERVENTION

All patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring while receiving amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day. Patients then were switched to nisoldipine 10 mg/day (> or = 65 yrs old) or 20 mg/day (< 65 yrs old) and returned to the clinic at 2-week intervals to assess cuff blood pressure, heart rate, adverse effects, and compliance. No adverse effects were experienced in 15 of the 25 patients. Lower extremity edema was the most commonly reported adverse effect (four patients). Two patients discontinued treatment because of pulmonary edema in one and chest pain in the other. Two patients were lost to follow-up. After a mean of 10.6 weeks, repeat 24-hour ambulatory monitoring was performed to evaluate blood pressure control with nisoldipine. Systolic and diastolic ambulatory results for daytime, nighttime, and total 24 hours were calculated. For amlodipine versus nisoldipine, no significant differences existed in any of the blood pressure parameters (p>0.05) in the 21 patients who completed the study, except for 24-hour diastolic pressure (p<0.05); however, this latter difference was only 2 mm Hg (nisoldipine 77 mm Hg, amlodipine 75 mm Hg).

CONCLUSION

Both amlodipine and nisoldipine have similar 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure profiles. The frequency of lower extremity edema was no different after the switch to nisoldipine than when the patients were taking amlodipine.

Usefulness of Nisoldipine for prevention of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (results of the NICOLE study). NIsoldipine in COronary artery disease in LEuven

The NIsoldipine in COronary artery disease in LEuven (NICOLE) study investigates (1) whether nisoldipine, a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, reduces the progression of minor coronary arterial lesions in the long term, and (2) whether it reduces the restenosis rate after successful percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). The NICOLE study is a single-center, randomized, double-blind trial in 826 patients, who underwent a successful PTCA. Nisoldipine 40 mg coat-core or placebo was started the morning after the procedure and continued for 3 years. All coronary arterial segments were measured on preprocedural angiogram and on the second follow-up angiogram at 3 years. On the first follow-up angiogram at 6 months only the dilated segments were measured. Although the study is still ongoing until the primary end point is reached, we report in this study the angiographic restenosis data as well as the clinical events observed at 6-month follow-up. The per-protocol population consisted of 646 patients. Restenosis, defined as a > or =50% loss of the initial gain (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute criterion IV) occurred in 49% and 55% of the 308 nisoldipine-treated and the 338 placebo-treated patients, respectively (p = NS). At follow-up, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were low and similar in both groups, but in the nisoldipine group, less patients required early coronary angiography (18% vs 26%, p = 0.006) and subsequent revascularization procedures (32% vs 41%, p = 0.057). Thus, nisoldipine did not significantly reduce the angiographic restenosis rate after PTCA, but reduced the number of repeat revascularization procedures, which may be due to its antianginal action.

Long-term renoprotective effect of nisoldipine and lisinopril in type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term effect on kidney function of a long-acting calcium antagonist (nisoldipine) versus a long-acting ACE inhibitor (lisinopril) in hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a 4-year prospective, randomized, double-dummy controlled study comparing nisoldipine (20-40 mg once a day) with lisinopril (10-20 mg once a day). The study was double-blinded for the first year and single-blinded thereafter. The study included 51 hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy. Three patients dropped out during the first month; results for the remaining 48 patients are presented.

RESULTS

At baseline, the two groups were comparable: glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was 85 +/- 5 and 85 +/- 6 ml x min(-1) x [1.73 m](-2); mean 24-h ambulatory blood pressure was 108 +/- 3 and 105 +/- 2 mmHg, and albuminuria was 1,554 mg/24 h (95% CI 980-2,465) and 1,033 mg/24 h (760-1,406) in the lisinopril and nisoldipine groups, respectively. Mean 24-h arterial blood pressure during the study did not differ between the lisinopril and nisoldipine groups (100 +/- 2 and 103 +/- 1 mmHg, respectively). The time-course of albuminuria differed between groups (P < 0.001). Whereas initiation of treatment with lisinopril resulted in a reduction from baseline albuminuria by 52% (95% CI 14-73), albuminuria in the nisoldipine group did not change throughout the study GFR declined in a biphasic manner with an initial (0-6 months) reduction of 1.3 +/- 0.3 ml x min(-1) x month(-1) in the lisinopril group compared with 0.2 +/- 0.4 ml x min(-1) x month(-1) in the nisoldipine group (P < 0.01). The subsequent sustained decline (6 to 48 months or the end of treatment) was identical in the two groups: 0.5 +/- 0.1 ml min(-1) x month(-1) (NS). Two patients in the lisinopril group and three patients in the nisoldipine group entered therapy for end-stage renal failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term treatment with lisinopril or nisoldipine has similar beneficial effects on progression of diabetic nephropathy in hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients.

A comparison of nisoldipine ER and amlodipine for the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension

This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial compared the efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine extended release (10-40 mg) and amlodipine (2.5-10 mg) in 161 patients. The primary end point was a between-treatment comparison of change from baseline to week 8 in mean office diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The least squares mean reductions in systolic (S)BP/DBP (+/- standard error) for nisoldipine and amlodipine were -11.7/-9.3 +/- 1.4/0.8 and -14.3/-12.0 +/- 1.4/0.8 mmHg, respectively. The DBP treatment difference was 2.7 mmHg (90% confidence interval: 1.1 to 4.3 mmHg; p = 0.005). Tolerability profiles were similar between treatments. The drug acquisition cost per mmHg DBP reduction was 40% lower with nisoldipine; an acquisition cost analysis revealed that amlodipine was 80% more expensive than nisoldipine for treating hypertension. In summary, nisoldipine and amlodipine provide clinically equivalent antihypertensive efficacy; however, nisoldipine is more economical than amlodipine.

Left ventricular remodelling in post-myocardial infarction patients with left ventricular ejection fraction 40-50% vs 25-39%. Influence of nisoldipine treatment? An echocardiographic substudy from the DEFIANT II study

OBJECTIVE

Left ventricular (LV) remodelling following acute myocardial infarction has generally been studied in patients with LV ejection fraction (EF) < 40%, and it has been shown that this process can be attenuated by ACE inhibitors. Little is known regarding LV remodelling in patients with LVEF > or = 40% or the effects of treatment in this patient cohort. The DEFIANT II study (Doppler Flow and Echocardiography in Functional cardiac insufficiency) included 542 post-infarction patients with LVEF 25-50% without overt heart failure within 13 days following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). They were then randomized to nisoldipine coat-core (CC) or placebo and followed up for 6 months.

DESIGN

Two-dimensional echoes were obtained after 8 (5-13) days and 6 months following AMI.

SETTING

LV end diastolic (ED) and end systolic (ES) volumes (V) were calculated in 503 patients with technically satisfactory paired echoes using the biplabe method of discs in a core laboratory.

SUBJECTS

Group A. 217 patients with baseline EF 40-50%, of whom 112 were randomized to nisoldipine and 104 to placebo (one patient was taken off study medication). Group B. 286 patients with EF 25-39%, of whom 145 were randomized to nisoldipine and 141 to placebo.

RESULTS

LVEDV was 175 (+/-45) ml in Group A vs 203 (+/-49) ml in Group B (p = 0.001) at baseline and 184 (+/-48) ml vs 213 (+/-56) ml (p = 0.001), respectively, at 6 months. LVESV at baseline was 97 (+/-42) ml in Group A vs 133 (+/-37) ml in Group B (p = 0.001), and 106 (+/-34) ml vs 134 (+/-45) ml (p = 0.001) at 6 months, respectively. The increase of LVESV was 9 (+/-29) ml in Group A vs 2 (+/-35) ml in Group B (p = 0.007). LVEF decreased by 2 (+/-6)% in Group A vs an increase of 3 (+/-6)% in Group B (p = 0.001). Treatment with nisoldipine had no influence on LV volumes in either of the two groups or in the total study group.

CONCLUSION

LV dilatation 6 months following AMI in patients with EF 40-50% was similar in end diastole, but more pronounced in end systole vs patients with EF 25-39%. LV remodelling did not change significantly after nisoldipine treatment.

Differential effects of morning and evening dosing of nisoldipine ER on circadian blood pressure and heart rate

The time of administration of once-daily antihypertensive agents may have a significant impact on blood pressure control during awake and sleep periods. Using 24-h ambulatory monitoring, we compared the effects of morning and evening dosing of the long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, nisoldipine extended-release (ER), on circadian blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After completing a 3-week placebo run-in period, 85 patients were randomized to morning versus evening nisoldipine ER treatment at a fixed 20-mg dose. Patients were treated for 4 weeks, followed by crossover to the alternate dosing regimen for 4 additional weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring was performed at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks after randomization. Awake and sleep times were determined by electronic activity recorders (Actigraphy). Similar least-squares (+/-SE) mean changes from baseline in 24-h BP (systolic BP/diastolic BP: -11.9/-7.4 +/- 0.6/0.5 v -11.6/-6.5 +/- 0.6/0.5 mm Hg) and heart rate (1.0/1.7 +/- 0.4/0.4 beats/min) occurred with morning and evening administration, respectively. A significantly greater effect on awake diastolic BP (systolic BP/diastolic BP: -12.6/-8.1 +/- 0.7/0.4 v -11.3/-6.4 +/- 0.7/0.4 mm Hg; P = .16/.01) was observed with morning dosing compared with evening dosing. In addition, small increases in sleep and early morning heart rate were seen with evening compared with morning administration of nisoldipine (sleep, 3.1 +/- 0.4 v 0.4 +/- 0.4 beats/min; P < .001; early morning, 3.5 +/- 0.7 v 0.5 +/- 0.7 beats/min; P = .002). These differential effects on awake BP and sleep heart rate were also observed in patients who had normal (dippers) and elevated (nondippers) BP values during sleep. Appropriate evaluation of the efficacy and safety of long-acting antihypertensive agents is essential when evening administration is being considered. In the present study, the timing of nisoldipine ER administration had no effect on mean changes in BP and heart rate over a 24-h period. However, nisoldipine ER had some differential effects during sleep and awake periods with morning relative to evening dosing.

Effects of nisoldipine and lisinopril on left ventricular mass and function in diabetic nephropathy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of the calcium channel blocker, nisoldipine, and the ACE inhibitor, lisinopril, on left ventricular mass (LVM) and systolic function in type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

M-mode echocardiography was performed in 50 hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy enrolled in a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, parallel study of antihypertensive treatment with nisoldipine CC (20-40 mg/day) or lisinopril (10-20 mg/day). Ambulatory 24-h blood pressure was measured with the Takeda TM 2420 device (A & D, Tokyo, Japan) every 3 months. Three patients dropped out and seven patients were excluded due to technical difficulties.

RESULTS

The 24-h diastolic blood pressure was reduced from 83 to 80 mmHg in the nisoldipine group (P = 0.06) and from 85 to 80 mmHg in the lisinopril group (P = 0.02). The decline in systolic blood pressure was not significant with any of the two treatments, and no difference in reduction of blood pressure was seen between groups. LVM corrected for body surface area (LVMI) was comparable between groups at baseline and increased from 96 +/- 5 to 107 +/- 6 g/m2 (mean +/- SEM; P = 0.007) in the nisoldipine group and from 95 +/- 4 to 103 +/- 5 g/m2 (P = 0.03) in the lisinopril group. The mean difference between the change in LVMI in the two groups was 2.9 (95% CI 6.8 to 12.7) g/m2. The prevalence of left ventricular hypertrophy rose from 18 (95% CI 6-30) to 30% (16-44) during the study period. A multiple linear regression analysis revealed that after 1 year of treatment, LVMI increased with higher systolic blood pressure level and declining glomerular filtration rate (R2 = 0.25). Fractional shortening was within normal range at baseline, 42 +/- 1 vs. 41 +/- 1% with nisoldipine and lisinopril, respectively, and did not change during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive treatment with nisoldipine or lisinopril to bring diastolic blood pressure level within the normal target range does not hinder a rise in LVMI in type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy.

Protection from digoxin-induced coronary vasoconstriction in patients with coronary artery disease by calcium antagonists

Intravenous digoxin induces constriction of normal and stenotic coronary arteries in patients with coronary artery disease, which may lead to ischemic complications. We found that pretreatment with oral nisoldipine and intracoronary nitroglycerin neutralizes this digoxin-induced effect.

Antihypertensive monotherapy with nisoldipine CC is superior to enalapril in black patients with severe hypertension

A single-center, prospective double-blind randomized trial was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of the calcium channel blocker nisoldipine in a sustained release coat-core formulation (CC), titrated from 10 mg to 40 mg daily, with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, titrated from 10 to 40 mg daily, in the treatment of black South African patients with severe hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [DBP] between 115 and 140 mm Hg, confirmed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring). Treatment target was a sitting DBP < 95 mm Hg by the 9th week of treatment. This was followed by a 4-month open phase using nisoldipine CC 10 to 60 mg daily. Ninety-six patients had complete data at baseline, and at the end of the double-blind and open phases, and were included in this analysis. In both groups, all patients required titration up to the maximal dose of double-blind medication. Monotherapy with nisoldipine CC, but not enalapril, significantly reduced both sitting and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP). Twenty-four-hour BP in the nisoldipine CC group decreased from 179+/-14 / 118+/-7 to 144+/-16 / 94+/-10 mm Hg (P < .0001) versus 181+/-13 / 117+/-5 to 171+/-17 / 110+/-11 mm Hg in the enalapril group (P = ns). The profound decrease in blood pressure achieved with nisoldipine CC was accompanied by a significant reduction in left ventricular [LV] mass index, observed after only 2 months of treatment (from 146+/-40 to 129+/-35 g/m2, P = .05). In contrast, enalapril had no effect on LV mass (from 139+/-36 to 142+/-50 g/m2, P = NS). The antihypertensive effect of nisoldipine CC was further demonstrated in the open phase, during which 24-h BP decreased from 180+/-14 / 118+/-6 mm Hg (at baseline) to 142+/-16 / 92+/-10 mm Hg at the end of the 16-week open phase (P < .0001). This effect was sustained with trough-to-peak ratio of 74% for systolic and 67% for diastolic BP, with further regression in LV mass. Reduction in 24-h systolic BP to < 135 mm Hg was associated with a greater degree of regression of LV mass index in patients treated with nisoldipine CC. The incidence of adverse events in both groups was low and both nisoldipine CC and enalapril were well tolerated. The incidence of significant ventricular arrhythmia was also low and did not change with treatment. In conclusion, our findings suggest that nisoldipine CC administered once daily could be considered as a suitable first-line antihypertensive agent in black patients with severe hypertension, based on its profound and sustained blood-pressure-lowering effect, associated with significant regression of left ventricular mass and its low side effect profile.

Nisoldipine coat-core and heart rate response during treatment of hypertension

Nisoldipine coat-core (nisoldipine CC), an extended-release once-daily formulation, is an effective treatment for mild-to-moderate hypertension, providing sustained blood pressure control over the 24-hour dosing interval. Nisoldipine CC is highly vascular selective. It causes neither reflex tachycardia nor symptomatic bradycardia; it lacks significant negative inotropy at therapeutic doses; and it does not affect circadian variation in blood pressure or heart rate. Data suggest that the lack of reflex sympathetic activation in response to the blood pressure-lowering effect of nisoldipine CC is due to the smooth onset of action of nisoldipine CC, causing resetting of the baroflex. The neutral heart rate profile of nisoldipine CC confers potential therapeutic advantages over several other calcium channel blockers, in particular, the short-acting agents, in the treatment of hypertension.

Nisoldipine selectively induces coronary vasodilation and improves mild myocardial ischemia in dogs: a potential role of cellular acidosis

We examined whether nisoldipine, a calcium (Ca) channel blocker, increases coronary blood flow (CBF) without decreasing aortic blood pressure (AoP) with ischemic and nonischemic hearts, and whether the presence of cellular acidosis in ischemic myocardium contributes to the augmentation of coronary vasodilation due to nisoldipine. In 42 dogs, coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) was reduced so that CBF decreased to 60% of the baseline, and CPP was maintained constant thereafter. First, we administered nisoldipine into a systemic vein in the ischemic and nonischemic hearts. Second, nisoldipine was administered into the canine coronary artery of the ischemic myocardium, with and without administration of either sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), sodium hydroxide (NaOH), or amiloride. Nisoldipine (0.25-4.0 mg/kg, i.v.) increased CBF by 59% in the ischemic myocardium more than the nonischemic myocardium (by 34%) without reducing AoP. The infusion of nisoldipine (40 ng/kg/min, IC) increased CBF markedly by about 55% in the ischemic myocardium with increases in fractional shortening (FS; 11 +/- 2% to 21 +/- 2%) and lactate extraction ratio (LER; -19 +/- 4% to 15 +/- 2%). Increases in CBF, FS, and LER were markedly attenuated during administration of nisoldipine with concomitant administration of either NaHCO3 or NaOH. Furthermore, the extent of increases in CBF (54 +/- 2 mL/100 g/min), FS (13 +/- 2%), and LER (-17 +/- 4%) were also markedly attenuated due to the concomitant treatment with amiloride. We conclude that myocardial cellular acidosis plays an important role in mediating coronary vasodilation affected by nisoldipine in the ischemic myocardium. H+ may modulate the property of voltage-dependent Ca channels via Na(+)-H+ exchange.

Effects of nisoldipine and lisinopril on microvascular dysfunction in hypertensive Type I diabetes patients with nephropathy

1. Our objective was to compare the effect of a long-acting calcium antagonist (nisoldipine) compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril) on the non-neurogenic regulation of the microvascular blood flow in hypertensive Type I diabetes patients with diabetic nephropathy.2. We performed a 1-year double-blind, double-dummy randomized controlled study comparing nisoldipine (20-40 mg once daily) with lisinopril (10-20 mg once daily) in 48 hypertensive Type I diabetes patients with diabetic nephropathy. For comparison, 22 age-matched normotensive healthy control subjects were included. Measurements were performed at baseline and after 1 year of antihypertensive treatment. The minimal vascular resistance and distensibility (stiffness) of resistance vessels in skin and skeletal muscle were measured using the local isotope washout method.3. Mean arterial pressure was reduced to the same extent in both groups: nisoldipine, 113+/-2.1 to 105+/-1.6 mmHg (P<0.001); lisinopril, 110+/-2.7 to 101+/-2.1 mmHg (P<0.002) (controls, 88+/-2.2 mmHg; P<0.0001 compared with diabetic patients). Nisoldipine improved the skin vascular distensibility from 28+/-3.3 to 43+/-3.8% (P<0.005) and decreased skin minimal vascular resistance from 16.9+/-1.0 to 13.6+/-0.8 mmHg.ml-1.min.100 g (P<0. 02). Lisinopril had no significant effect on skin vascular distensibility (40+/-4.0% and 41+/-4.4%), but minimal vascular resistance tended to diminish (18.1+/-0.9 to 15.8+/-1.3 mmHg.ml-1. min.100 g (P=0.09). Nisoldipine significantly increased the skin distensibility (P=0.05) after 1 year of antihypertensive treatment compared with lisinopril.4. The control group had a skin vascular distensibility of 54+/-3.2% and a minimal vascular resistance of 10. 8+/-0.7 mmHg.ml-1.min.100 g, both significantly different from the values in the diabetic groups (P<0.0001 for all). Skeletal muscle vascular distensibility was unaltered after 1 year of treatment with both nisoldipine (22+/-3.3% and 19+/-2.7%) and lisinopril (19+/-2.1% and 24+/-2.5%), but was reduced compared with a control value of 43+/-3.7% (P<0.0001 for diabetes patients versus controls). However, neither nisoldipine nor lisinopril had any effect on the increased minimal vascular resistance or the reduced skeletal muscle distensibility.5. Enhanced thickening of the basement membranes of the terminal arteriolar wall was found in skin biopsy specimens in 91% of diabetic patients and 38% only in control subjects (P<0. 000001 both before and after treatment for diabetic patients versus controls). There was no significant effect of antihypertensive treatment on arteriolar hyalinosis.6. The reduction in systemic blood pressure was identical during 1 year of treatment with nisoldipine or lisinopril. The abnormal arteriolar stiffness was more pronounced in the group treated with nisoldipine than with lisinopril and only nisoldipine compared with lisinopril improved the abnormal arteriolar stiffness and minimal vascular resistance in the skin. This suggests that nisoldipine can reverse the peripheral skin perfusion and thereby improve the local protection against development of ischaemic skin lesions in Type I diabetes patients with clinical diabetic nephropathy.

Antihypertensive therapy in type 2 diabetes: implications of the appropriate blood pressure control in diabetes (ABCD) trial

As the population ages, the incidence of type 2 diabetes will increase as will the incidence of concomitant vascular complications. Hypertension substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Results from the recent Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) trial demonstrated an advantage of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (enalapril) over a long-acting calcium antagonist (nisoldipine) with regard to the incidence of cardiovascular events over a 5-year follow-up period in hypertensive persons with type 2 diabetes. This trial was a prospective, randomized, blinded study comparing the effects of moderate blood pressure control (target diastolic pressure 80-89 mm Hg) with those of intensive control (target diastolic pressure 75 mm Hg) on the incidence and progression of diabetic vascular complications. The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as first-line antihypertensive therapy in terms of prevention and progression of complications of diabetes. In 470 hypertensive patients, the incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions was significantly (p = 0.001) higher among those receiving nisoldipine (n = 25) compared with those receiving enalapril (n = 5). Comparison with previous studies suggests that the difference observed between nisoldipine and enalapril resulted from a beneficial effect of enalapril rather than a deleterious effect from nisoldipine. Since these findings in the ABCD trial are based on a secondary endpoint, they require confirmation. Nevertheless, they suggest that ACE inhibitors should be the initial antihypertensive medication used in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

Comparison between cilnidipine and nisoldipine with respect to effects on blood pressure and heart rate in hypertensive patients

Cilnidipine is a new and unique 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist that has both L-type and N-type voltage-dependent calcium channel blocking actions. We compared the effects of cilnidipine and another once-daily dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, nisoldipine, on 24-h blood pressure and heart rate in patients with essential hypertension. We enrolled 10 hypertensive outpatients [9 men and 1 woman; age, 55+/-3 yr (means+/-SEM)] in this study. Their ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate were monitored for 24 h at intervals of 30 min with a portable recorder (TM-2425) after 8 wk of treatment with cilnidipine (5 to 20 mg once daily) and after 8 wk of treatment with nisoldipine (5 to 20 mg once daily). The order of the two treatments was randomized. Blood pressure and heart rate measurements for a 24-h period were analyzed for four segments of the day: morning (06:00 to 11:30), afternoon (12:00 to 17:30), nighttime (18:00 to 23:30), and sleeping time (0:00 to 5:30). Blood pressure levels were similar during the two treatment periods for each 6-h segment of the day. Heart rate was significantly higher during treatment with nisoldipine than during treatment with cilnidipine in the morning segment [by 4.1+/-1.3 beats/min (p < 0.05)] and the afternoon segment [by 6.4+/-3.6 beats/min (p< 0.05)]. These results suggest that cilnidipine is effective as a once-daily antihypertensive agent and causes reflex tachycardia less than does nisoldipine.

Protective effect of nisoldipine on dipyridamole-induced myocardial ischemia: correlation with exercise electrocardiography

BACKGROUND

Nisoldipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker with strong coronary dilatative action, is commonly used in the treatment of myocardial ischaemia; its beneficial effect on effort angina has been demonstrated by several previous reports. Infusion of dipyridamole in doses sufficient to provoke myocardial ischaemia in patients with significant coronary artery disease is used safely in imaging studies for diagnostic purposes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the potential effect of nisoldipine on dipyridamole-induced ischaemia and to compare the results with the effect of nisoldipine on exercise-induced ischaemia.

METHOD

Twelve patients (10 men and two women, mean age 62 +/- 8 years) with significant coronary artery disease (at least 70% lumen reduction in at least one major coronary vessel) were selected for inclusion in the study. In accordance with the inclusion criteria, the patients exhibited an ischaemic diagnostic response to a multistage exercise electrocardiography stress test (> 0.15 mV ST segment depression compared with the resting electrocardiographic tracing) and to a dipyridamole-echocardiography test (transient left ventricular dyssynergy of contraction during infusion of dipyridamole up to 0.84 mg/kg over 10 min), after 3 days' cessation of antianginal treatment. After treatment with oral nisoldipine (10 mg twice daily) was introduced, the patients repeated the two tests, within 18 days of the first evaluation.

RESULTS

The dipyridamole-echocardiography test was positive for ischaemia in 12 patients who were not receiving nisoldipine and in eight patients who were receiving the drug (100% and 67% respectively, P < 0.05). In the eight patients who gave positive dipyridamole-echocardiography tests both with and without treatment, dipyridamole time (time to onset of dyssynergy during the test) increased from 7.9 +/- 2.9 min to 10.2 +/- 3.1 min (P < 0.01). In these patients, no significant changes were observed, at ischaemia, in the severity and extent of induced dyssynergy, evaluated as wall motion score index (each of 16 left ventricular segments scored from 1 = normal to 4 = dyskinetic) after treatment (score variations from baseline to ischaemia: 0.20 +/- 0.11 without nisoldipine and 0.16 +/- 0.06 with nisoldipine; NS). Variations in dipyridamole time (arbitrarily considered to be 15 min in the negative dipyridamole-echocardiography test) were significantly correlated with variations in exercise time (duration of exercise to exhaustion or diagnostic positive response on the electrocardiogram): r = 0.75 (P < 0.01). No significant differences were recorded in rate-pressure product (beats/min x mmHg x 100) at peak ischaemia between patients who were or were not receiving nisoldipine, during either the exercise electrocardiography stress test (233 +/- 36 with nisoldipine and 244 +/- 39 without nisoldipine; NS) or the dipyridamole-echocardiography test (147 +/- 21 with nisoldipine and 133 +/- 30 without nisoldipine; NS).

CONCLUSION

Nisoldipine treatment can protect from dipyridamole-induced ischaemia, being associated with a longer stress time, and completely preventing the development of ischaemia in some patients. The therapy-induced changes in ischaemic threshold during the dipyridamole-echocardiography test correlate with variations in exercise tolerance.

A comparison of nisoldipine coat-core and felodipine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine CC and felodipine were compared in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, trial in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (n = 229). Following a two-week placebo run-in period, patients were randomised to 16 weeks' active treatment with nisoldipine coat core (CC) 20-40 mg or felodipine 5-10 mg once daily. At week 16, a higher proportion of patients in the nisoldipine CC group were on low-dose therapy (51% vs 36%, p = 0.07). The proportion of treatment responders was 77.8% with nisoldipine CC and 66.5% with felodipine. The mean change from baseline in systolic/diastolic blood pressure was -18.8/-13.6 mmHg with nisoldipine CC and -17.4/-11.3 mmHg with felodipine. The most common adverse events included peripheral oedema and headache; neither treatment affected heart rate. Thus, nisoldipine CC and felodipine provide comparable antihypertensive efficacy. The adverse effects of both drugs are related to their vasodilator properties and are common to the class.

The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension

BACKGROUND

It has recently been reported that the use of calcium-channel blockers for hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. Because this issue remains controversial, we studied the incidence of such complications in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension who were randomly assigned to treatment with either the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine or the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril as part of a larger study.

METHODS

The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial is a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing the effects of moderate control of blood pressure (target diastolic pressure, 80 to 89 mm Hg) with those of intensive control of blood pressure (diastolic pressure, 75 mm Hg) on the incidence and progression of complications of diabetes. The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as a first-line antihypertensive agent in terms of the prevention and progression of complications of diabetes. In the current study, we analyzed data on a secondary end point (the incidence of myocardial infarction) in the subgroup of patients in the ABCD Trial who had hypertension.

RESULTS

Analysis of the 470 patients in the trial who had hypertension (base-line diastolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg) showed similar control of blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid concentrations, and smoking behavior in the nisoldipine group (237 patients) and the enalapril group (233 patients) throughout five years of follow-up. Using a multiple logistic-regression model with adjustment for cardiac risk factors, we found that nisoldipine was associated with a higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (a total of 24) than enalapril (total, 4) (risk ratio, 9.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 33.8).

CONCLUSIONS

In this population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, we found a significantly higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction among those assigned to therapy with the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril. Since our findings are based on a secondary end point, they will require confirmation.

Dynamic stress echocardiography for evaluating anti-ischemic drug profiles in post-MI patients

Exercise ECG is an established method of evaluating the anti-ischemic properties of drugs. However, there are considerable methodologic limitations to this procedure and its use is restricted to patients with exercise-provoked ECG alterations which can be interpreted as ischemia. The principal, earlier onset of wall motion abnormalities according to the ischemic cascade can be detected by stress echocardiography and might be utilized as a pharmacological stress testing modality. Sixteen consecutive patients (15 men, one woman; 53 +/- 9 years old) with angiographically proven coronary artery disease (8 with one-, 5 with two-, and 3 with three-vessel disease) and exercise-induced wall motion abnormalities were examined by dynamic stress echocardiography (50 watt followed by 20-watt increases/min). Anti-ischemic drugs were withdrawn prior to and on day 1; on the following day 2, 0.2 microgram/kg/min nisoldipine was infused intravenously during the test after a 3 micrograms/kg bolus was given. At maximum comparable workload 15/16 patients showed an improved wall motion score on treatment (day 1: 22.9 +/- 4.9 vs day 2: 20.0 +/- 3.9; normal score: 12; one-sided binomial test: p = 0.0003). Eight of 16 patients demonstrated ST-segment deviations on day 1 and day 2. The double product did not differ at any workload stage until the maximum of 130 watt (day 1: 14,101 +/- 3140 vs day 2: 13,365 +/- 2865; n.s.). Dynamic stress echocardiography seems to be a valuable tool in pharmacologic stress testing and in terms of accuracy is supposed to be superior to conventional exercise ECG. Nisoldipine reduces exercise-induced wall motion abnormalities in patients with and without exercise-induced ECG alterations. The data result from a controlled pilot study, and further studies are required to confirm these promising methodological and therapeutic findings.

Nisoldipine CC and lisinopril alone or in combination for treatment of mild to moderate systemic hypertension. Canadian Nisoldipine CC Hypertension Trial Group

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine CC and lisinopril were compared in 278 patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension in a double-blind, placebo run-in trial. Patients were randomized to nisoldipine CC or lisinopril for 8 weeks to achieve a trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) < or = 90 mmHg. Responders were maintained on their optimal dose for a further 8 weeks. Nonresponders were switched to combination therapy and treated for 8 weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was carried out during placebo and monotherapy. The responder rate of 73.8% with nisoldipine CC after 8 weeks was greater than 56.1% with lisinopril (p = 0.007). The responder rate with combination therapy was 61%. ABPM showed that both nisoldipine CC and lisinopril produced constant blood pressure lowering effects over the 24-hour period and maintained circadian rhythm. Adverse effects were more frequent with nisoldipine CC (headache and peripheral edema) than with lisinopril (cough) monotherapy. Nisoldipine CC monotherapy was at least as effective as lisinopril monotherapy in the management of mild to moderate hypertension. Both agents were well tolerated. Combination therapy with nisoldipine CC and lisinopril was effective and well tolerated in patients with blood pressure not controlled by monotherapy alone.

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine coat core and hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate hypertension

This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine coat core (CC) 10-40 mg o.d. and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25-50 mg o.d. Patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension received either nisoldipine CC 10 mg o.d. or HCTZ 25 mg o.d. Treatment was titrated at two-weekly intervals as necessary. The primary efficacy endpoint was a defined reduction in diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Response rates were similar for both the nisoldipine CC- and HCTZ-treated groups (74% and 70%, respectively). Secondary efficacy endpoints were reductions in both diastolic and systolic blood pressures (SBP). At treatment endpoint, the change from baseline in SBP was 16.2 mmHg for the nisoldipine CC group and 14.9 mmHg for the HCTZ group. Both drugs were well tolerated, and adverse events were generally minor and typical of these antihypertensive agents. Drug-related adverse events were greater in the nisoldipine CC- than the HCTZ-treated patients (50% and 37%, respectively). Nisoldipine CC was shown to demonstrate antihypertensive efficacy similar to HCTZ in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Effects of nisoldipine on cytosolic calcium, platelet aggregation, and coagulation/fibrinolysis in patients with coronary artery disease

The effect of nisoldipine, a dihydropyridine Ca2+ antagonist, on the platelet cytosolic Ca2+ concentration ([Ca2+]i), platelet aggregation, and various coagulation and fibrinolysis parameters was assessed in normotensive patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Eleven patients with angiographically confirmed CAD (4 men, 7 women aged 67.3 +/- 5.4 years) were administered nisoldipine at 10 mg/day for two weeks. The [Ca2+]i was determined by use of fura2-loaded platelets, platelet aggregation was measured with an aggregometer, and coagulation/fibrinolysis parameters were measured by standard methods. Nisoldipine did not significantly affect blood pressure or heart rate. However, the [Ca2+]i decreased significantly (P<0.05) and platelet aggregation was also significantly inhibited. Plasma D-dimer levels decreased significantly (P<0.01). Thus, nisoldipine not only suppressed platelet activation but also affected the coagulation system, suggesting that it is not only a vasodilator and platelet inhibitor but also an antithrombotic agent.

What does nisoldipine coat core (CC) add to current therapy that is clinically meaningful?

Nisoldipine coat core (CC) is a long-acting dihydropyridine with good tolerability. Ambulatory blood pressure measurements in a large, South African multicenter trial show that it has an excellent trough:peak ratio, and that it reduces the early morning rise in blood pressure without any tachycardia. Nisoldipine CC is an effective antihypertensive agent in both black and nonblack South African ethnic groups. In another South African study, regression of left ventricular hypertrophy was achieved in black patients with severe diastolic hypertension. Safety issues are discussed against the background of the testing of this drug in postinfarct left ventricular dysfunction.

Nisoldipine coat-core. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and clinical efficacy in the management of ischaemic heart disease

Nisoldipine coat-core is an extended-release once-daily formulation of a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist effective in the treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris. With immediate-release formulations of nisoldipine, plasma drug concentrations that produce therapeutic effects result rapidly, but are not sustained and do not maintain the effects throughout a 12-hour dosage interval. In contrast, with nisoldipine coat-core, a gradual increase in plasma nisoldipine concentrations occurs over 12 hours and therapeutic concentrations are then maintained for the duration of a 24-hour dosage interval. In dosages of 10 to 60 mg once daily, nisoldipine coat-core controls symptoms of angina and improves exercise-induced signs of ischaemia in patients with stable angina. Compared with placebo, daily nisoldipine coat-core doses of > or = 20 mg provide statistically significant increases in total exercise time and time to produce angina and a trend towards an increase in the time to produce 1 mm ST segment depression, in exercise tests conducted approximately 23 hours postdose. When administered in 20 and 40 mg daily doses, nisoldipine coat-core produces improvements in exercise test parameters that are similar to those seen with amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day or regular-release or sustained-release (SR) diltiazem 240 mg/day. The frequency of daily angina attacks and consumption of short-acting nitrates are also reduced by nisoldipine to a similar extent to that observed with these other agents. After longer term (1 year) administration of 10 to 60 mg daily, improvements in exercise test parameters are maintained, with equivalent anti-ischaemic efficacy seen in patients receiving nisoldipine coat-core alone or with background nitrate or beta-blocker therapy. Adverse events associated with nisoldipine coat-core are typical of the dihydropyridine class of calcium antagonists, with peripheral oedema and headache being most common. Nisoldipine coat-core appears to be associated with fewer deaths than placebo, notably in the DEFIANT-II (Doppler Flow and Echocardiography in Functional Cardiac Insufficiency: Assessment of Nisoldipine Therapy II) study, where only 1 death occurred with nisoldipine compared with 7 in the placebo group. Nisoldipine should not be taken during phenytoin therapy. In addition, grapefruit juice should be avoided during nisoldipine therapy and nisoldipine should not be taken concurrently with high-fat meals. Thus, the coat-core formulation of nisoldipine appears to have overcome the limitations of the shorter duration of action of immediate-release nisoldipine. Nisoldipine coat-core is well tolerated and once-daily administration produces a long duration of effective anti-ischaemic relief in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris.

Renal response to volume expansion in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats: influence of calcium channel blockade

The renal response to volume expansion (VE) has been shown to be impaired in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetes. This may contribute to the abnormal maintenance of fluid balance in diabetics. Since calcium channel blockade (CaCb) has been shown to improve renal hemodynamic and tubular functions, the present studies were designed to examine the ability of CaCb to enhance the response of kidneys from diabetic rats to a volume load. Rats were made diabetic by a single injection of STZ (65 mg i.p.), while the control rats received only a vehicle injection. Nisoldipine, a CaCb agent was given to half of the diabetic rats in a dose of 0.015 microgram/kg per min during the acute experiment. The left kidney was denervated in each rat while the right kidney remained innervated. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was elevated during VE in all of the rats except in the denervated kidneys of diabetic rats. Nisoldipine improved GFR in most cases. Urine flow increased markedly during VE. This response was enhanced by denervation but depressed in the diabetic rats. Nisoldipine improved the defective volume reflex in primarily the denervated kidneys. Changes in net urinary excretion of water and sodium during VE were significantly lower in the diabetic rats than in the control group. In the nisoldipine treated diabetic rats the VE induced changes in water and sodium excretion returned toward normal in the denervated, but not in the innervated kidneys. The data are consistent with a blunted volume reflex in the diabetic rats that may be improved by CaCb. Impaired sympatho-inhibition in diabetic rats appears to oppose the effects of VE and nisoldipine treatment. CaCb may contribute to the volume reflex by enhanced filtration as well as by reduced tubular reabsorption.

Efficacy and tolerability of nisoldipine coat-core formulation in the treatment of essential hypertension: The South African Multicenter ANCHOR Study. Ambulatory Nisoldipine Coat-Core Hypertension Outpatient Response (ANCHOR) Investigators

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial was undertaken to assess the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a controlled-release (Coat-Core [CC] tablet) formulation of the second-generation dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, nisoldipine. Of the 208 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension, two were excluded from the main efficacy analysis, and the rest randomized into one of four treatment groups, to receive either placebo, or nisoldipine CC at doses of 10, 20, or 30 mg once daily for 6 weeks, following a 4-week placebo run-in period. Blood pressure measurements (supine, standing, diastolic, and systolic) were taken at trough plasma levels, 24 h after previous dosing at 2-week intervals throughout the study. Adverse events and laboratory parameters (plasma lipid and glucose levels, and thyroid function) were monitored. All three doses of nisoldipine CC lowered blood pressure, as compared with placebo, 24 h after dosing. At endpoint (after 6 weeks) mean changes in supine blood pressure from baseline were (systolic/diastolic) 0.9/-2.3, -8.0/-5.5, -16.9/-9.0, and -15.0/-10.3 mm Hg for the groups assigned to placebo and nisoldipine CC 10, 20, and 30 mg, respectively. The response rates were 35%, 47%, and 63% for nisoldipine CC 10, 20, and 30 mg, respectively. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring showed that nisoldipine CC effectively controlled blood pressure throughout the dosing interval. No change in heart rate was seen for all three doses of nisoldipine CC over the 24-h dosing interval. Nisoldipine CC was at least as effective in black patients as in whites. Generally adverse events were not increased, except for peripheral edema, with rates of 7% in placebo, and 6%, 9%, and 19%, respectively, in those receiving nisoldipine CC 10, 20, or 30 mg daily. There were no clinically significant changes in blood lipids, blood glucose, or thyroid function. In conclusion, once-daily nisoldipine CC at doses of 10 to 30 mg was an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive agent, providing 24-h control of blood pressure without any increase in heart rate.