Search

This double-blind, multicenter trial compared antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of manidipine and amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were randomly assigned to 48 weeks of once-daily manidipine, 10-20 mg, or amlodipine, 5-10 mg. Patients who did not respond to treatment after 12 weeks were also given enalapril, 10-20 mg, for the study's duration. The main efficacy end point was equivalence in sitting systolic (SiSBP) and diastolic (SiDBP) blood pressure reduction between the two drugs after 8 weeks (per protocol analysis). An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed in all patients with at least one efficacy determination during treatment. Quality of life was assessed by the "Subjective Symptoms Assessment Profile" (SSA-P) and "General Well-being Schedule" (GWBS), after 12 weeks of treatment. SiSBP reduction after 8 weeks was equivalent for manidipine (15.2 mm Hg, n = 227) and amlodipine (17.0 mm Hg, n = 219). The corresponding figure for SiDBP was 11.3 mm Hg for manidipine and 12.3 mm Hg for amlodipine. In the larger ITT population SiDBP was similarly and significantly reduced by manidipine (from 102 +/- 5 to 88 +/- 9 mm Hg, n = 241) and amlodipine (from 101 +/- 5 to 87 +/- 8 mm Hg, n = 240). Similar results were observed for SiSBP and standing SBP and DBP. Neither drug changed sitting or standing heart rate compared with baseline. SSA-P scores improved with manidipine but not amlodipine. GWBS total and partial scores increased more with manidipine than with amlodipine. Safety profile favored manidipine, which was associated with significantly less ankle edema than was amlodipine. This study shows for the first time that long-term treatment with the long-acting calcium channel blocker manidipine is as effective as treatment with amlodipine, has a better tolerability profile, and induces greater improvement in quality of life than amlodipine.

Background: In cross-sectional studies, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) correlates more closely than clinic BP with the organ damage of hypertension. Whether ABP predicts development or regression of organ damage over time better than clinic BP, however, is unknown., Methods and Results: In 206 essential hypertensive subjects with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), we measured clinic supine BP, 24-hour ABP, and left ventricular mass index (LVMI, echocardiography) before and after 12 months of treatment with lisinopril (20 mg UID) without or with hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 or 25 mg UID). Measurements included random-zero, clinic orthostatic, and home BP. In all, 184 subjects completed the 12-month treatment period. Before treatment, clinic supine BP was 165 +/- 15/105 +/- 5 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic), 24-hour average BP was 149 +/- 16/95 +/- 11 mm Hg, and LVMI was 158 +/- 32 g/m2. At the end of treatment, they were 139 +/- 12/87 +/- 7 mm Hg, 131 +/- 12/83 +/- 10 mm Hg, and 133 +/- 26 g/m2, respectively (P < .01 for all). Before treatment, LVMI did not correlate with clinic BP, but it showed a correlation with systolic and diastolic 24-hour average BP (r = .34/.27, P < .01). The LVMI reduction was not related to the reduction in clinic BP, but it was related to the reduction in 24-hour average BP (r = .42/.38, P < .01). Treatment-induced changes in average daytime and nighttime BPs correlated with LVMI changes as strongly as 24-hour BP changes. No substantial advantage over clinic supine BP was shown by clinic orthostatic, random-zero, and home BP., Conclusions: In hypertensive subjects with LVH, regression of LVH was predicted much more closely by treatment-induced changes in ABP than in the clinic BP. This provides the first longitudinally controlled evidence that ABP may be clinically superior to traditional BP measurements.

Diabetic nephropathy is the most frequent cause of chronic renal failure. The onset of microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes mellitus, which seems to be related to blood pressure and the control of glycemia, is predictive of the development of true proteinuria. This multicenter, single-blind, randomized study examined the effects of benazepril and nicardipine on overnight microalbuminuria in 57 normotensive and 46 hypertensive diabetic patients. At the end of a 3-month placebo run-in period, the patients were stratified on the basis of the presence or absence of arterial hypertension and, within each stratum, randomized to receive one daily tablet of 10 mg benazepril or one tablet of 20 mg nicardipine twice daily for 6 months. Renal hemodynamics was investigated in 25 patients. Both drugs decreased overnight microalbuminuria throughout the study period, but benazepril was more effective than nicardipine (p = 0.025); in the patients with hypertension, both drugs led to a similar marked reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. This study shows that benazepril was more effective than nicardipine in reducing overnight microalbuminuria in patients with diabetes mellitus, independently of their antihypertensive properties.

The aim of this study was to assess the chronic effects of a highly selective dihydropiridine calcium channel blocker, israpidine, in its sustained release form (I-SRO), on platelet functions and fibrinolytic parameters in subjects with essential hypertension (EH) combined or not with other well-known cardiovascular risk factors, such as cigarette smoking (EH+S) and type II diabetes mellitus (EH+DM). Thirty-six patients with essential hypertension with sitting diastolic blood pressures of 96-104 mmHg without (EH, n = 12) or with other risk factors (EH+S, n = 12, EH+DM, n = 12) were enrolled. After a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, the subjects received I-SRO 5 mg once daily for 18 weeks. After both placebo and 6 and 18 weeks of I-SRO treatment, the following parameters were measured: sitting blood pressure by mercury sphygmomanometer; platelet aggregation, plasma beta-thromboglobulin (BTG), platelet factor-4 (PF4), and plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) by means of ELISA methods; and euglobulin lysis time before (ELT) and after standardized (10 min) venous occlusion (ELT-VO). In the group of patients as a whole compared with placebo, I-SRO significantly reduced SBP/DBP platelet aggregation, BTG, PF4, ELT, and ELT-VO. Significant reductions in these parameters were also observed in each group. In addition to the antihypertensive effect, I-SRO chronic treatment may favorably affect the platelet function and fibrinolytic system in essential hypertension with or without other cardiovascular risk factors.

Fifty patients with mild or moderate hypertension were assessed for the influence on peripheral hemodynamics of 10 months of treatment with lisinopril (25 patients) or metoprolol (25 patients). Two-dimensional Doppler flowmetry was used for the evaluation. Responding patients (blood pressure < 150/90 mm Hg) were monitored for another 4 weeks after treatment withdrawal to determine whether changes in forearm hemodynamics, if any, persisted. Twenty-two patients from either group (88%) were considered to be responders. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients receiving lisinopril dropped by 6% and 15%, respectively (p < 0.001), in those receiving metoprolol the decrease was 5.9% and 14%, respectively (p < 0.001). Forearm hemodynamics was not significantly different before treatment and improved in patients receiving lisinopril, with increased compliance (p < 0.001) and lower vascular resistance (p < 0.001). No significant changes were observed with metoprolol. After withdrawal, blood pressure returned to baseline values in both groups. However, improvement in forearm hemodynamics persisted in the lisinopril group. Hemodynamics changes were statistically different on lisinopril versus metoprolol both after treatment and after withdrawal. Lisinopril, but not metoprolol, seems capable to induce regression of functional and/or structural changes of large arteries in patients with hypertension.