-
1.
The effect of an L/N-type calcium channel blocker on intradialytic blood pressure in intradialytic hypertensive patients.
Ito, T, Fujimoto, N, Ishikawa, E, Dohi, K, Fujimoto, M, Murata, T, Kiyohara, M, Takeuchi, H, Koyabu, S, Nishimura, H, et al
Clinical and experimental hypertension (New York, N.Y. : 1993). 2019;(1):92-99
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intradialytic hypertension (HTN), which is one of the poor prognostic markers in patients undergoing hemodialysis, may be associated with sympathetic overactivity. The L/N-type calcium channel blocker, cilnidipine, has been reported to suppress sympathetic nerves activity in vivo. Therefore, we hypothesized that cilnidipine could attenuate intradialytic systolic blood pressure (SBP) elevation. METHODS Fifty-one patients on chronic hemodialysis who had intradialytic-HTN (SBP elevation ≥10 mmHg during hemodialysis) and no fluid overload were prospectively randomized into two groups: control and cilnidipine groups. Cilnidipine group patients took cilnidipine (10 mg/day) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the intradialytic SBP elevation before and after the 12-week intervention. RESULTS Before the intervention, no differences were observed in age, sex or pre-dialytic SBP (148.5 ± 12.9 vs. 148.3 ± 19.3 mmHg) between the two groups. Intradialytic SBP elevation was unchanged in the control group. Cilnidipine significantly lowered the post-dialytic SBP with an attenuation of the intradialytic SBP elevation from 12.0 ± 15.4 mmHg to 4.8 ± 10.1 mmHg. However, the observed difference in the intradialytic SBP elevation by cilnidipine did not reach statistical significance (group×time interaction effect p = 0.25). Cathecolamine levels were unaffected by the intervention in both groups. CONCLUSION Cilnidipine lowers both the pre- and post-dialytic SBP and might attenuate intradialytic SBP elevation. Therefore, cilnidipine may be effective in lowering SBP during HD in patients with intradialytic-HTN.
-
2.
Reduction in microalbuminuria by calcium channel blockers in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension-A randomized, open-label, active-controlled, superiority, parallel-group clinical trial.
Hwang, YC, Yoon, KH, Cha, BS, Lee, KW, Jang, HC, Min, KW, Chung, CH, Lee, MK
International journal of clinical practice. 2017;(9)
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND It has been suggested that renoprotection with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) may differ. This study aimed to compare the anti-proteinuric effect of different CCBs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS A multicentre, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study was performed in seven centres in Korea. A total of 74 patients with T2D and microalbuminuria treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers were randomized to a cilnidipine 10 mg treatment (n=38) or amlodipine 5 mg treatment (n=36). RESULTS Urine albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR) reduction was similar between the two groups at 12 weeks (-53.0±123.2 mg/g in cilnidipine group and -35.7±83.6 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.29) or 24 weeks (-57.3±106.9 mg/g in cilnidipine group and -20.0±110.4 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.24). In a subgroup analysis, cilnidipine treatment showed a larger ACR reduction than amlodipine treatment at 12 weeks (-84.7±106.8 mg/g in cilnidipine group and -9.5±79.2 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.01) and 24 weeks (-84.0±111.7 mg/g in cilnidipine group and 14.6±119.4 mg/g in amlodipine group, P=.008), particularly in patients with a longer duration of diabetes more than 10 years. CONCLUSIONS Cilnidipine did not show any additional anti-albuminuric effect compared with amlodipine in patients with T2D and microalbuminuria treated with an RAS blocker. However, the anti-albuminuric effect of cilnidipine might differ according to the duration of diabetes.
-
3.
Comparison of efficacy and safety between benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide in fosinopril-treated hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Xue, C, Zhou, C, Yang, B, Lv, J, Dai, B, Yu, S, Wang, Y, Zhao, G, Mei, C
BMJ open. 2017;(2):e013672
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Co-administration of a diuretic or calcium channel blocker with an ACE inhibitor are both preferred combinations in patients with hypertensive chronic kidney disease (CKD). According to the available evidence, it is still unknown which combination plays a more active role in renal protection. We hypothesised that a combination of fosinopril and benidipine may delay the progression of CKD more effectively than a combination of fosinopril and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). METHODS AND ANALYSIS This study will be a multicentred, prospective, double-blind, randomised parallel controlled trial for hypertensive CKD patients in China. Patients will be randomised to one of two treatment groups: a combination of benidipine 4-8 mg/day and fosinopril 20 mg/day; or a combination of HCTZ 12.5-25 mg/day and fosinopril 20 mg/day. Patients will be followed up for 24 months after a month's fosinopril run-in. There will be dose-titration after 1 and 2 months. The primary endpoint is changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline to month 24. Secondary endpoints include changes in home blood pressure (BP), ambulatory BP, proteinuria, urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, and composite renal events in 24 months. Inclusion criteria are: age 18-80 years, non-dialysis CKD patients with eGFR >30 mL/min/1.73 m2, home BP >130 mm Hg systolic or BP >80 mm Hg diastolic at the screening and randomisation, and 24 hour proteinuria <3.5 g. Principal exclusions are hypertensive crisis, transplantation, cancer, severe diabetes complications, hyperkalaemia and severe allergy. The required sample size was 511 patients for detecting a difference in the change of eGFR (one sided α=0.025, power 1-β=0.90). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION BEAHIT (Benidipine and Hydrochlorothiazide in Fosinopril Treated Chronic Kidney Disease Patients with Hypertension) was approved by Changzheng Hospital Ethics Committee (CZ-20160504-16). The outcomes will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02646397.
-
4.
Changes in left ventricular relaxation after azelnidipine treatment in hypertensive patients with diabetes: subanalysis of a prospective single-arm multicentre study.
Iwakura, K, Ito, H, Ishii, K, Date, M, Nakamura, F, Nagano, T, Takiuchi, S, ,
BMJ open. 2014;(9):e006136
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We previously demonstrated that a calcium channel blocker, azelnidipine, improves left ventricular relaxation in patients with hypertension and diastolic dysfunction in a multicentre, Clinical impact of Azelnidipine on Left VentricuLar diastolic function and OutComes in patients with hypertension (CALVLOC) trial. The objectives of the present subanalysis were to investigate the differences in diastolic function in hypertensive patients with and without diabetes, and the efficacy of azelnidipine on diastolic function among them. DESIGN Subanalysis of a prospective single-arm multicentre study. PARTICIPANTS 228 hypertensive patients with normal ejection fraction and impaired left ventricular relaxation (septal e' velocity<8 cm/s on echocardiography) enrolled for CALVLOC trial. They were divided into two groups based on presence or absence of diabetes. INTERVENTIONS Administration of 16 mg of azelnidipine for 8 months (range 6-10 months). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Septal e' velocity before and at the end of the study. RESULTS Whereas patients with diabetes (n=53, 23.2%) had lower systolic blood pressure (BP) than patients without diabetes (155±17 vs 161±16 mm Hg, p=0.03), they had lower e' velocity (5.7±1.5 vs 6.1±1.4 cm/s, p=0.04) at baseline. Azelnidipine decreased BP and heart rate, and increased e' velocity similarly in patients with diabetes (5.7±1.5 to 6.3±1.5 cm/s, p=0.0003) and without diabetes (6.1±1.4 to 6.9±1.4 cm/s, p<0.0001). Increase in e' velocity was not influenced by presence of diabetes, and patients with diabetes still had lower e' velocity after treatment (p=0.006). There was a significant correlation between increase in e' velocity and decrease in systolic BP (R=0.25, p=0.0001), which was not influenced by diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Comorbid diabetes could impair left ventricular relaxation independently in patients with hypertension, which might not be improved solely by BP lowering.
-
5.
Comparison of the antialbuminuric effects of benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide in Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) inhibitor-treated hypertensive patients with albuminuria: the COSMO-CKD (COmbination Strategy on Renal Function of Benidipine or Diuretics TreatMent with RAS inhibitOrs in a Chronic Kidney Disease Hypertensive Population) study.
Ando, K, Nitta, K, Rakugi, H, Nishizawa, Y, Yokoyama, H, Nakanishi, T, Kashihara, N, Tomita, K, Nangaku, M, Takahashi, K, et al
International journal of medical sciences. 2014;(9):897-904
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study evaluated the non-inferiority of renoprotection afforded by benidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS In this prospective, multicenter, open-labeled, randomized trial, the antialbuminuric effects of benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide were examined in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor-treated patients with blood pressure (BP) readings of ≥ 130/80 mmHg and ≤ 180/110 mmHg, a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) of ≥ 300 mg/g, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 30 ml/min/1.73m(2). Patients received benidipine (n = 176, final dose: 4.8 mg/day) or hydrochlorothiazide (n = 170, 8.2 mg/day) for 12 months. RESULTS Benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide exerted similar BP- and eGFR-decreasing actions. The UACR values for benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide were 930.8 (95% confidence interval: 826.1, 1048.7) and 883.1 (781.7, 997.7) mg/g at baseline, respectively. These values were reduced to 790.0 (668.1, 934.2) and 448.5 (372.9, 539.4) mg/g at last observation carried forward (LOCF) visits. The non-inferiority of benidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide was not demonstrated (benidipine/hydrochlorothiazide ratio of LOCF value adjusted for baseline: 1.67 (1.40, 1.99)). CONCLUSIONS The present study failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antialbuminuric effect of benidipine relative to that of hydrochlorothiazide in RAS inhibitor-treated hypertensive patients with macroalbuminuria.
-
6.
Kidney-protective effects of azelnidipine versus a diuretic in combination with olmesartan in hypertensive patients with diabetes and albuminuria: a randomized study.
Kojima, M, Okubo, S, Mizubayashi, R, Isaka, N, Machida, H, Okamoto, S, Hirota, H, Takeuchi, M, Kato, T, Nakatani, K, et al
Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association. 2013;(7):1802-10
Abstract
BACKGROUND A thiazide diuretic used in combination with benazepril is superior to amlodipine plus benazepril in reducing albuminuria in hypertensive patients with diabetes. However, calcium channel blockers have diverse characteristics. Thus, we investigated whether combining an angiotensin receptor blocker with either azelnidipine or a thiazide diuretic produced similar reductions in albuminuria in hypertensive diabetic patients for the same levels of blood pressure achieved. METHODS Hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria (30-600 mg/g creatinine) under antihypertensive treatment (mean age 67.0±7.6 years) were instructed to stop all antihypertensive treatment and take a combination of olmesartan (20 mg/day) and amlodipine (5 mg/day) for 3 months (run-in period). Then, patients were randomly assigned to receive either olmesartan plus azelnidipine (16 mg/day; n=71) or olmesartan plus trichlormethiazide (1 mg/day; n=72) for an additional 6 months. The primary end point was urinary excretion of albumin at 6 months after randomization. RESULTS At the time of randomization, urinary albumin was 116.0 and 107.8 mg/g creatinine (geometric mean) in the azelnidipine and diuretic arms, respectively, and was reduced to a similar extent [79.8 (95% confidence interval 66.4-96.0) and 89.7 (74.6-107.7) mg/g creatinine, respectively, after adjustment for baseline values]. Blood pressure did not differ between the two groups throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS Azelnidipine is equally effective as a thiazide diuretic in reducing urinary albumin when used in combination with olmesartan.
-
7.
Angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy in Japanese elderly, high-risk, hypertensive patients.
Ogawa, H, Kim-Mitsuyama, S, Matsui, K, Jinnouchi, T, Jinnouchi, H, Arakawa, K, ,
The American journal of medicine. 2012;(10):981-90
Abstract
BACKGROUND It is unknown whether high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy or angiotensin II receptor blocker + calcium channel blocker combination therapy is better in elderly hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risk. The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of these treatments in elderly, high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients. METHODS The OlmeSartan and Calcium Antagonists Randomized (OSCAR) study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-end point study of 1164 hypertensive patients aged 65 to 84 years with type 2 diabetes or cardiovascular disease. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension during treatment with olmesartan 20 mg/d were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg/d olmesartan (high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker) or a calcium channel blocker + 20 mg/d olmesartan (angiotensin II receptor blocker + calcium channel blocker). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular events and noncardiovascular death. RESULTS During a 3-year follow-up, blood pressure was significantly lower in the angiotensin II receptor blocker + calcium channel blocker group than in the high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker group. Mean blood pressure at 36 months was 135.0/74.3 mm Hg in the high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker group and 132.6/72.6 mm Hg in the angiotensin II receptor blocker + calcium channel blocker group. More primary end points occurred in the high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker group than in the angiotensin II receptor blocker + calcium channel blocker group (58 vs 48 events, hazard ratio [HR], 1.31, 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.92; P=.17). In patients with cardiovascular disease at baseline, more primary events occurred in the high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker group (HR, 1.63, P=.03); in contrast, fewer events were observed in the subgroup without cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.52, P=.14). This treatment-by-subgroup interaction was significant (P=.02). CONCLUSION The angiotensin II receptor blocker and calcium channel blocker combination lowered blood pressure more than the high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker and reduced the incidence of primary end points more than the high-dose angiotensin II receptor blocker in patients with cardiovascular disease. The addition of a second antihypertensive agent is more effective at lowering blood pressure than simply doubling the dose of an existing agent.
-
8.
[Azelnidipine and amlodipine anti-coronary atherosclerosis trial in hypertensive patients undergoing coronary intervention by serial volumetric intravascular ultrasound analysis in Juntendo Medical University].
Miyauchi, K, Daida, H
Nihon Naika Gakkai zasshi. The Journal of the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine. 2012;(10):3002-11
-
9.
Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability in the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis: methodological aspects and effects of antihypertensive treatment.
Mancia, G, Facchetti, R, Parati, G, Zanchetti, A
Journal of hypertension. 2012;(6):1241-51
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recent studies have reported that in patients under antihypertensive treatment visit-to-visit (or long-term) variability of clinic BP within a given patient has an independent prognostic significance. Partly based on between-patient dispersion of BP values during treatment (interindividual variability) it has also been reported that long-term clinic BP variability is greater for β-blocker than for calcium antagonist and other types of treatment. GOALS To measure visit-to-visit intraindividual variations of both clinic and 24-h mean BP in the hypertensive patients of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA) trial treated for 4 years with either atenolol or lacidipine, and to check whether interindividual clinic and 24-h BP variabilities during treatment can really be considered a surrogate of intraindividual variabilities in exploring differences between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatments. METHODS Long-term intraindividual BP variability was defined as the coefficient of variation of the average systolic or diastolic values of clinic and 24-h BP measured at each visit throughout the treatment period. Patients in whom at least seven clinic (6-month intervals) or at least three (yearly intervals) 24-h values were available from the end of the drug titration phase to the end of the study were considered. RESULTS Visit-to-visit 24-h SBP/DBP variabilities were 20-25% smaller than, and loosely correlated with clinic BP variability (r(2) < 0.022). There was also a very limited relationship (r (2)< 0.026) between visit-to-visit and within 24-h ambulatory BP variabilities, the latter being two to three times greater than the former. Visit-to-visit intraindividual clinic SBP variability was only slightly lower on calcium antagonist than on β-blocker treatment but little or no between-treatment difference was found for visit-to-visit clinic DBP and ambulatory SBP/DBP particularly in patients under monotherapy throughout the study. Interindividual BP variability was markedly greater than the intra-individiual one of which it did not precisely reflect the treatment-induced changes. CONCLUSION In mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients, visit-to-visit BP variability does not differ substantially between β-blocker and calcium antagonist treatment. Major discrepancies exist between visit-to-visit BP variability as quantified by 24-h vs. clinic BP, making investigation of which of these indices is clinically more relevant important. Interindividual BP variability during treatment shows marked quantitative differences with intraindividual BP variability questioning whether its use can accurately reflect individual BP variations from one visit to another.
-
10.
Design and rationale of Japanese evaluation between Formula of Azelnidipine and amlodipine add on olmesartan to Get antialbuminuric effect study (J-FLAG) : evaluation of the antialbuminuric effects between calcium channel blocker with sympatholytic action in hypertensive patients with diabetes and albuminuria.
Ando, K, Haneda, M, Ito, S, Kashihara, N, Node, K, Nangaku, M, Shimosawa, T, Kishimoto, J, Fujita, T
Cardiovascular drugs and therapy. 2011;(4):341-7
Abstract
PURPOSE Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are recommended second-line antihypertensives for renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor-treated patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), but they do not always ameliorate the progression of CKD. However, small clinical studies suggest that sympatholytic CCBs may protect against kidney injury. Therefore, a clinical trial was designed to test whether the sympatholytic CCB azelnidipine decreases the urinary albumin levels of CKD patients treated with the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan more potently than the widely-used non-sympatholytic CCB amlodipine. METHODS A multi-center, open-labeled, randomized clinical intervention trial was designed to compare the antialbuminuric effect of azelnidipine (8-16 mg/day) and amlodipine (2.5-5 mg/day) in olmesartan-treated hypertensive (blood pressure 130-180/80-110 mmHg) patients with type 2 diabetes (fasting blood sugar ≥126 mg/dL or treatment with antidiabetic agents) and albuminuria (urinary albumin/creatinine ratio ≥30 mg/g). The primary study endpoint is the change in the urinary albumin/creatinine ratio after 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS The present trial is expected to clarify whether the sympatholytic CCB azelnidipine is a beneficial second-line choice for RAS inhibitor-treated hypertensive patients with CKD, such as diabetic nephropathy.