Abstract
Calcium antagonists were originally introduced as fast‐acting vasodilators exhibiting powerful antihypertensive properties. They have now evolved into agents exhibiting a smooth onset and a long duration of action. Early agents, because of their rapid onset of action, were associated with a host of compensatory hemodynamic adverse effects including cardioacceleration and sympathetic stimulation. In contrast, the newer agents appear to retain the antihypertensive properties, but with an improved tolerability profile. Across the cardiovascular disease continuum, the presence of diabetes adds to the risk for cardiovascular events. In diabetic patients with hypertension, multiple drug therapy is clearly indicated. Agents such as calcium antagonists that normalize hemodynamics in this patient population might be expected to demonstrate beneficial effects on mortality. Evidence from the Systolic Hypertension in Europe and the Systolic Hypertension in China trials demonstrated over a 50% reduction in total mortality in the diabetic subgroup in patients treated with calcium antagonists. Among the calcium antagonists, particularly among the dihydropyridine subclasses, the efficacy of the drugs has been accompanied by some side effects, in particular pedal edema. The incidence of pedal edema is dose dependent and is the result of vasodilation and intracapillary hypertension. Newer calcium antagonists demonstrate antihypertensive efficacy similar to that of their predecessors but appear to have a reduced propensity to cause edema.
Keywords: antihypertensive agents, calcium antagonists, hypertension, lercanidipine, diabetes, pedal edema
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (58.1 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. 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]
- 4. Woods DJ, Fowler S: Nifedipine for hypertensive emergencies. J Am Med Assoc 1997; 277: 790–791 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Grossman E, Messerli FH, Goldbourt U: High blood pressure and diabetes mellitus: Are all antihypertensive drugs created equal? Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2447–2452 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group : Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. Br Med J 1998; 317: 703–713 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Furberg CD, Psaty BM, Meyer JV: Nifedipine. Dose‐related increase in mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Circulation 1995; 92: 1326–1331 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Estacio RO, Jeffers BW, Hiatt WR, Biggerstaff SL, Gifford N, Schrier RW: The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 645–652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Tatti P, Pahor M, Byington RP, Di Mauro P, Guarisco R, Strollo G, Strollo F: Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 597–603 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Abernethy DR, Schwartz JB: Calcium‐antagonist drugs. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1447–1457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Pahor M, Kritchevsky SB, Zuccala G, Guralnik JM. Diabetes and risk of adverse events with calcium antagonists. Diabetes Care 1998; 21: 193–194 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Tuomilehto J, Rastenyte D, Birkenhager WH, Thijs L, Antikainen R, Bulpitt CJ, Fletcher AE, Forette F, Goldhaber A, Palatini P, Sarti C, Fagard R: Effects of calcium‐channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 677–684 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. 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]
- 14. Major outcomes in high‐risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs. diuretic : The Antihypertensive and Lipid‐Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). J Am Med Assoc 2002; 288: 2981–2997 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Schmieder R: Reduction of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) by antihypertensive therapy: results of a meta‐analysis of all double‐blind randomized studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37 (suppl 2): 261A–262A [Google Scholar]
- 16. Gerritsen TA, Bak AA, Stolk RP, Jonker JJ, Grobbee DE: Effects of nitrendipine and enalapril on left ventricular mass in patients with non‐insulin‐dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 689–696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Fogari R, Mugellini A, Corrao S, Preti P, Zoppi A, Lazzari P, Pasotti M: Efficacy of lercanidipine vs. losartan on left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. J Hypertens 2000; 18 (suppl 2): S65 [Google Scholar]
- 18. Elliott WJ: Drug therapy and “dropouts” in a tertiary hypertension clinic (abstr). Am J Hypertens 1994; 7: 26A [Google Scholar]
- 19. Chrysant SG, Cohen M: Sustained blood pressure control with controlled‐release isradipine. Am J Hypertens 1995; 8: 87–89 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Messerli FH: Vasodilatory edema: A common side effect of antihypertensive therapy. Am J Hypertens 2001; 14: 978–979 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Weir MR: The rationale for combination versus single‐entity therapy in hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1998; 11: 163S–169S [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Messerli FH: Vasodilatory edema: A common side effect of antihypertensive therapy. Curr Cardiol Rep 2002; 4: 479–482 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Borghi C, Prandin MG, Dormi A, Bacchelli S, Degli Esposti D, Ambrosioni E: The use of lercanidipine can improve the individual tolerability to dihydropiridine calcium blockers in hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 2000; 18 (suppl 2): S155 [Google Scholar]
- 24. Fogari R, Malamani GD, Zoppi A, Preti P, Vanasia A, Fogari 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 Ther Res Clin Exp 2000; 61: 850–862 [Google Scholar]
- 25. 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]
- 26. Sabbatini M, Leonardi A, Testa R, Vitaioli L, Amenta F: Effect of calcium antagonists on glomerular arterioles in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Hypertension 2000; 35: 775–779 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]