Abstract
Multiple studies have demonstrated dihydropyridine calcium‐channel blocker (CCB) therapy to be appropriate for the treatment of hypertension, as is reflected in treatment guidelines such as the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in the United States and the 1999 World Health Organization‐International Society of Hypertension report. As with any drug class, successful treatment with CCBs depends on good patient compliance, which often hinges on drug tolerability. The differing characteristics among the various generations of CCBs may contribute to some compounds demonstrating superior tolerability. To test this hypothesis, the COHORT trial (named for the large group of participants) was undertaken in 828 elderly hypertensive patients aged ⩾60 years. This trial investigated the possible differences in patient tolerability between the third‐generation agent amlodipine and the latest‐generation agents lercanidipine and lacidipine. The primary endpoint of the study was the percentage of patients reporting edema, the most common side effect associated with CCB therapy. The study results indicated that while all three treatments were similarly efficacious in lowering blood pressure, lercanidipine and lacidipine were much better tolerated than amlodipine whether they were used as single agents or as initial therapy combined with other antihypertensive drugs. These newest‐generation dihydropyridine CCBs offer the potential to reduce side effects, improve patient compliance, and ultimately help patients reach target blood pressures as recommended by the aforementioned guidelines.
Keywords: lercanidipine, amlodipine, lacidipine, essential hypertension, edema
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (44.5 KB).
References
- 1. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhager WH, Bulpitt CJ, de Leeuw PW, Dollery CT, Fletcher AE, Forette F, Leonetti G, Nachev C, O'Brien ET, Rosenfeld J, Rodicio JL, Tuomilehto J, Zanchetti A: Randomised double‐blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst‐Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 1997; 350: 757–764 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Birkenhager WH, Bulpitt CJ, Fagard R: Update on the systolic hypertension in Europe (Syst‐Eur) trial. The Syst‐Eur Investigators. Hypertension 1999; 33: 1476–1477 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Liu L, Wang JG, Gong L, Liu G, Staessen JA: Comparison of active treatment and placebo in older Chinese patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst‐China) Collaborative Group. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1823–1829 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Wang JG, Staessen JA, Gong L, Liu L: Chinese trial on isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly. Systolic Hypertension in China (Syst‐China) Collaborative Group. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 211–220 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (also available at: www.ama‐assn.org/internal). Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2413–2446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. 1999 World Health Organization‐International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension . Guidelines Subcommittee. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 151–183 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Messerli FH: Calcium antagonists in hypertension: From hemodynamics to outcomes. Am J Hypertens 2002; 15 (7 pt 2): 94S–97S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Herbette LG, Gaviraghi G, Tulenko T, Mason RP: Molecular interaction between lacidipine and biological membranes. J Hypertens 1993; 11 (suppl 1): S13–S19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Herbette LG: Lipophilic design of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers: Enhanced membrane properties. Presented at: Third European Meeting on Calcium Antagonists; October 29–31, 1997; Amsterdam, Netherlands
- 10. Herbette LG, Vecchiarelli M, Sartani A, Leonardi A: Lercanidipine: Short plasma half‐life, long duration of action and high cholesterol tolerance. Updated molecular model to rationalize its pharmacokinetic properties. Blood Press 1998; 7 (suppl 2): 10–17 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Rengo F, Romis L: Activity of lercanidipine in double‐blind comparison with nitrendipine in combination treatment of patients with resistant essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (suppl 2): S54–S59 [Google Scholar]
- 12. De Giorgio LA, Orlandini F, Malasoma P, Zappa A: Double‐blind, crossover study of lercanidipine versus amlodipine in the treatment of mild‐to‐moderate essential hypertension. Curr Therap Res 1999; 60: 511–520 [Google Scholar]
- 13. Fogari R, Malamani GD, Zoppi A, Preti P, Vanasia A, Rogari E, Mugellini A: Comparative effect of lercanidipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on ankle volume and subcutaneous interstitial pressure in hypertensive patients: A double‐blind, randomized parallel‐group study. Curr Therap Res 2000; 61: 850–862 [Google Scholar]
- 14. Leonetti G, Magnani B, Pessina AC, Rappelli A, Trimarco B, Zanchetti A, on behalf of the COHORT Study Group : Tolerability of long‐term treatment with lercanidipine vs. amlodipine and lacidipine in elderly hypertensives. Am J Hypertens 2002; 15; 932–940 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]