-
1.
Combination therapy with an Xa inhibitor and antihypertensive agent improved anticoagulant activity in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: the hypertension and atrial fibrillation treated by rivaroxaban for the morning and night with sYnergy with calcium antagonists (HARMONY) study.
Kabutoya, T, Ohmori, T, Fujiwara, T, Kario, K
Clinical and experimental hypertension (New York, N.Y. : 1993). 2020;(4):365-370
Abstract
Background: Anticoagulant activity and blood pressure increase in the morning. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes of anticoagulant activity, blood pressure and target organ damage in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) given combination treatment with Xa inhibitor and antihypertensive agent.Methods: We enrolled 72 patients with nonvalvular AF. Rivaroxaban (10-15 mg) was continuously administered once daily over 8 weeks (study period I). For subjects (n = 50) who exhibited uncontrolled morning hypertension (home systolic blood pressure [SBP]≥125 mmHg) at the end of study period I (at 8 weeks), nifedipine CR (20-40 mg) was added at bedtime, and rivaroxaban administration was continued an additional 8 weeks. We assessed prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 (optimal range: 69-229 pmol/L) and D-dimer (negative D-dimer measurement: <1.0 μg/mL).Results: The percentage of patients with optimal-range prothrombin fragment 1 + 2 was significantly increased at 4 weeks compared to baseline (70.8% vs. 86.1%, p = .033). In period II, office and home morning SBP were reduced at 12 compared to 8 weeks (office SBP: 135.2 ± 15.7 vs. 125.6 ± 18.4mmHg, p < .001; home morning SBP: 133.5 ± 10.5 vs. 119.9 ± 12.1mmHg, p<.001).The percentage of patients with negative D-dimer was increased at 8 weeks compared to baseline (92% vs. 100%, p = .044), and remained at 100% at 16 weeks.Conclusions: Xa inhibitor therapy improved anticoagulant activity, and additional antihypertensive therapy maintained the anticoagulant activity in patients with nonvalvular AF.
-
2.
A randomized controlled trial on the blood pressure-lowering effect of amlodipine and nifedipine-GITS in sustained hypertension.
Huang, QF, Sheng, CS, Li, Y, Dou, Y, Zheng, MS, Zhu, ZM, Wang, JG, ,
Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.). 2019;(5):648-657
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
In a multicenter, randomized trial, we investigated whether the long half-time dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine was more efficacious than the gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) formulation of nifedipine in lowering ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in sustained hypertension (clinic systolic/diastolic BP 140-179/90-109 mm Hg and 24-hour systolic/diastolic BP ≥ 130/80 mm Hg). Eligible patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine 5-10 mg/day or nifedipine-GITS 30-60 mg/day. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed for 24 hours at baseline and 4-week treatment and for 48 hours at 8-week treatment with a dose of medication missed on the second day. After 8-week treatment, BP was similarly reduced in the amlodipine (n = 257) and nifedipine-GITS groups (n = 248) for both clinic and ambulatory (24-hour systolic/diastolic BP 10.3/6.5 vs 10.9/6.3 mm Hg, P ≥ 0.24) measurements. However, after missing a dose of medication, ambulatory BP reductions were greater in the amlodipine than nifedipine-GITS group, with a significant (P ≤ 0.04) between-group difference in 24-hour (-1.2 mm Hg) and daytime diastolic BP (-1.5 mm Hg). In conclusion, amlodipine and nifedipine-GITS were efficacious in reducing 24-hour BP. When a dose of medication was missed, amlodipine became more efficacious than nifedipine-GITS.
-
3.
Blood pressure-lowering effects of nifedipine/candesartan combinations in high-risk individuals: subgroup analysis of the DISTINCT randomised trial.
Mancia, G, Cha, G, Gil-Extremera, B, Harvey, P, Lewin, AJ, Villa, G, Kjeldsen, SE
Journal of human hypertension. 2017;(3):178-188
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The DISTINCT study (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS-Candesartan Therapy) investigated the efficacy and safety of nifedipine GITS/candesartan cilexetil combinations vs respective monotherapies and placebo in patients with hypertension. This descriptive sub-analysis examined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects in high-risk participants, including those with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate<90 ml min-1, n=422), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=202), hypercholesterolaemia (n=206) and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (n=971), as well as the impact of gender, age and body mass index (BMI). Participants with grade I/II hypertension were randomised to treatment with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30, 60 mg and/or candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16, 32 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Mean systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions after treatment in high-risk participants were greater, overall, with N/C combinations vs respective monotherapies or placebo, with indicators of a dose-response effect. Highest rates of BP control (ESH/ESC 2013 guideline criteria) were also achieved with highest doses of N/C combinations in each high-risk subgroup. The benefits of combination therapy vs monotherapy were additionally observed in patient subgroups categorised by gender, age or BMI. All high-risk participants reported fewer vasodilatory adverse events in the pooled N/C combination therapy than the N monotherapy group. In conclusion, consistent with the DISTINCT main study outcomes, high-risk participants showed greater reductions in BP and higher control rates with N/C combinations compared with respective monotherapies and lesser vasodilatory side-effects compared with N monotherapy.
-
4.
Nifedipine GITS/Candesartan Combination Therapy Lowers Blood Pressure Across Different Baseline Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure Categories: DISTINCT Study Subanalyses.
Kjeldsen, SE, Cha, G, Villa, G, Mancia, G, ,
Journal of clinical pharmacology. 2016;(9):1120-9
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
DISTINCT was an 8-week, double-blind, randomized study to investigate the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of various nifedipine gastrointestinal treatment system (GITS)/candesartan cilexetil (N/C) dose combinations, vs respective monotherapies or placebo, in patients with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥95 to <110 mm Hg. The current prespecified analysis compared BP reduction in participants with mild vs moderate baseline hypertension (ie, systolic [S]BP <160 mm Hg vs ≥160 mm Hg and DBP <100 mm Hg vs ≥100 mm Hg). A total of 1362 patients were analyzed by descriptive statistics. In all patient subgroups investigated, the NC combinations (ie, N: 20, 30, or 60 mg; C: 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg daily) provided greater SBP and DBP lowering and higher rates of BP control (defined as BP <140/90 mm Hg) than respective monotherapies or placebo, with greatest absolute BP reductions observed in the moderately elevated SBP or DBP subgroups. A trend to dose-response relationship was observed in each subgroup. In each SBP and DBP subgroup, treatment-related vasodilatory events (flushing, headache, or edema) were less frequent for patients receiving NC combination therapy than N monotherapy. These analyses support the use of calcium antagonist and angiotensin receptor blocker combination therapy in patients with both mild and moderate hypertension, for whom effective BP normalization and good drug tolerance would greatly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events.
-
5.
Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
Pickard, R, Starr, K, MacLennan, G, Lam, T, Thomas, R, Burr, J, McPherson, G, McDonald, A, Anson, K, N'Dow, J, et al
Lancet (London, England). 2015;(9991):341-9
Abstract
BACKGROUND Meta-analyses of previous randomised controlled trials concluded that the smooth muscle relaxant drugs tamsulosin and nifedipine assisted stone passage for people managed expectantly for ureteric colic, but emphasised the need for high-quality trials with wide inclusion criteria. We aimed to fulfil this need by testing effectiveness of these drugs in a standard clinical care setting. METHODS For this multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adults (aged 18-65 years) undergoing expectant management for a single ureteric stone identified by CT at 24 UK hospitals. Participants were randomly assigned by a remote randomisation system to tamsulosin 400 μg, nifedipine 30 mg, or placebo taken daily for up to 4 weeks, using an algorithm with centre, stone size (≤5 mm or >5 mm), and stone location (upper, mid, or lower ureter) as minimisation covariates. Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who did not need further intervention for stone clearance within 4 weeks of randomisation, analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population defined as all eligible patients for whom we had primary outcome data. This trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, EudraCT number 2010-019469-26, and as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 69423238. FINDINGS Between Jan 11, 2011, and Dec 20, 2013, we randomly assigned 1167 participants, 1136 (97%) of whom were included in the primary analysis (17 were excluded because of ineligibility and 14 participants were lost to follow-up). 303 (80%) of 379 participants in the placebo group did not need further intervention by 4 weeks, compared with 307 (81%) of 378 in the tamsulosin group (adjusted risk difference 1·3% [95% CI -5·7 to 8·3]; p=0·73) and 304 (80%) of 379 in the nifedipine group (0·5% [-5·6 to 6·5]; p=0·88). No difference was noted between active treatment and placebo (p=0·78), or between tamsulosin and nifedipine (p=0·77). Serious adverse events were reported in three participants in the nifedipine group (one had right loin pain, diarrhoea, and vomiting; one had malaise, headache, and chest pain; and one had severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, and left arm pain) and in one participant in the placebo group (headache, dizziness, lightheadedness, and chronic abdominal pain). INTERPRETATION Tamsulosin 400 μg and nifedipine 30 mg are not effective at decreasing the need for further treatment to achieve stone clearance in 4 weeks for patients with expectantly managed ureteric colic. FUNDING UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
-
6.
Randomized trial comparing the effects of a low-dose combination of nifedipine GITS and valsartan versus high-dose monotherapy on central hemodynamics in patients with inadequately controlled hypertension: FOCUS study.
Park, JB, Ha, JW, Jung, HO, Rhee, MY, ,
Blood pressure monitoring. 2014;(5):294-301
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Measurement of central blood pressure provides prognostic information beyond conventional peripheral blood pressure (BP). However, few studies have directly compared the effects of antihypertensives on central hemodynamics. This study investigated the effects of a low-dose combination of nifedipine Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS) and valsartan versus high-dose monotherapy with either agent in reducing central BP in essential hypertension inadequately controlled by low-dose monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this prospective, open-label, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter 8-week study, patients not meeting the target BP after 4 weeks of treatment with low-dose monotherapy were randomized to receive nifedipine GITS 30 mg plus valsartan 80 mg (N30+V80), nifedipine GITS 60 mg (N60), or valsartan 160 mg (V160) for a further 4 weeks. Central hemodynamics were measured by applanation tonometry. RESULTS A total of 391 patients were enrolled. Reduction in central systolic BP from baseline to week 8, the primary efficacy variable, was significantly greater in the N30+V80 group (-27.2±14.7 mmHg) and the N60 group (-27.1±16.5 mmHg) compared with V160 group (-14.4±16.6 mmHg). Decrease in the augmentation index in the N60 group was significantly greater compared with V160 alone, without differences between combination therapy and either high-dose monotherapy. Decreases in brachial systolic BP were significantly greater in the N30+V80 and N60 groups than in the V160 group. By multiple regression analysis, most differences in drug effects on central hemodynamics disappeared after controlling for changes in peripheral BP. A low rate of adverse events occurred in all treatment groups. CONCLUSION A low-dose combination of nifedipine GITS plus valsartan or high-dose nifedipine was more effective in improving central hemodynamics than high-dose valsartan in patients with hypertension, mostly because of the improvement in peripheral (brachial) hemodynamics.
-
7.
Topical nifedipine with lidocaine ointment versus active control for pain after hemorrhoidectomy: results of a multicentre, prospective, randomized, double-blind study.
Perrotti, P, Dominici, P, Grossi, E, Cerutti, R, Antropoli, C
Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie. 2010;(1):17-24
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Spasm through the internal anal sphincter is one of the supposed causes for pain after hemorrhoidectomy, a common and distressing experience. We hypothesized that the addition of topical nifedipine to lidocaine would improve pain control by causing a relaxation of the smooth muscle of the internal anal sphincter. METHODS We conducted a multicentre randomized, double-blind trial to compare the efficacy of 0.3% nifedipine and 1.5% lidocaine ointment versus 1.5% lidocaine ointment alone in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy. A physician unaware of the treatment arm measured pain by use of the Analogue Chromatic Continuous Scale (ACCS) at baseline; soon after surgery; at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after surgery; on day 7 after surgery; and at a final visit 14 days after surgery. The physician also noted the time to first analgesic administration within 24 hours after surgery. RESULTS In all, 135 patients per group participated (270 total). Evaluation of the delta ACCS score versus basal value, a covariate for rescue analgesic administration time, revealed better pain control in the group that received nifedipine with lidocaine at 6 hours after surgery and on day 7 (p < 0.011 and p < 0.054, respectively). We noticed no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic, blood pressure, heart rate or frequency of headache. CONCLUSION Although there was no difference between groups for time of administration of rescue analgesic after open hemorrhoidectomy, the patients' assessment of pain using ACCS showed that the use of topical nifedipine with lidocaine may provide a slight significant difference in favour of the study group at 6 hours and at day 7 after surgery. Narcotic analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration should continue to be recommended. Further research focusing on these outcomes is warranted.
-
8.
To compare the efficacy and safety of nifedipine sustained release with Ginkgo biloba extract to treat patients with primary Raynaud's phenomenon in South Korea; Korean Raynaud study (KOARA study).
Choi, WS, Choi, CJ, Kim, KS, Lee, JH, Song, CH, Chung, JH, Ock, SM, Lee, JB, Kim, CM
Clinical rheumatology. 2009;(5):553-9
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This study examined the efficacy and safety of nifedipine sustained release (nifedipine SR) compared with Ginkgo biloba extract as treatment for primary Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) in Korea. Primary RP were screened and assigned to either the nifedipine SR group (Group N) or the Ginkgo biloba extract group (Group G) in the ratio of 2:1. After a run-in period of 2 weeks, patients received treatment for 8 weeks. We observed the percent improvement of the RP attack rate between before and after the 8-week treatment. Ninety-three subjects were randomly assigned. The percent improvement in Group N was 50.1% at 8 weeks after treatment, while it was 31.0% in Group G (p = 0.03). No serious adverse events occurred, and almost adverse events were mild and improved without specific treatment. nifedipine SR was more effective than Ginkgo biloba extract for treatment of primary RP in Korean patients. Both drugs were tolerable with primary RP patients.
-
9.
Long-term renoprotection by perindopril or nifedipine in non-hypertensive patients with Type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.
Jerums, G, Allen, TJ, Campbell, DJ, Cooper, ME, Gilbert, RE, Hammond, JJ, O'Brien, RC, Raffaele, J, Tsalamandris, C, ,
Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association. 2004;(11):1192-9
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the efficacy of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (perindopril), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (sustained release nifedipine) and placebo in preventing the progression of albuminuria and decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in patients with Type 2 diabetes and microalbuminaria. METHODS A prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point study of 77 patients allocated to three treatment groups (23 perindopril, 27 nifedipine, 27 placebo). Drug doses were adjusted to achieve a decrease in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of 5 mmHg in the first 3 months and additional therapy was given if hypertension developed (supine DBP > 90 mmHg and/or systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 140 mmHg if < or = 40 years; supine DBP > 90 mmHg and/or SBP > 160 mmHg if > 40 years). Median follow-up was 66 months, with 37 patients being followed for at least 6 years. RESULTS Blood pressure remained within the non-hypertensive range in 83% of perindopril-, 95% of nifedipine- and 30% of placebo-treated patients (P < 0.01). In the first 12 months albumin excretion rate (AER) decreased by 47% only in the perindopril group (P = 0.04). From 12 to 72 months, AER gradients increased by 27% per year only in the placebo group (P < 0.01). After 6 years, macroalbuminuria had developed in 7/15 placebo compared with 2/11 in perindopril and 1/11 nifedipine-treated patients (P = 0.05). GFR did not change in the first 12 months, but thereafter the median GFR gradient (ml/min/1.73 m(2) per year) was -2.4 (P < 0.01) for perindopril-, -1.3 (P = 0.26) for nifedipine- and -4.2 (P = 0.01) for placebo-treated patients. The rate of decline in GFR for the study group as a whole from 12 months to the end of follow-up correlated negatively with mean arterial pressure (MAP) (r = -0.38, P < 0.01). During a 3-month treatment pause in 29 patients AER tended to increase only in the perindopril group (P < 0.07). CONCLUSIONS Long-term control of blood pressure with perindopril or nifedipine stabilizes AER and attenuates GFR decline in proportion to MAP in non-hypertensive patients with Type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria.
-
10.
Treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension with calcium channel blockers: a multicentre comparison of once-daily nifedipine GITS with once-daily amlodipine.
Kes, S, Caglar, N, Canberk, A, Deger, N, Demirtas, M, Dortlemez, H, Kiliccioglu, B, Kozan, O, Ovunc, K, Turkoglu, C
Current medical research and opinion. 2003;(3):226-37
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hypertension is one of the most important causes of cardiovascular disease, and treatment of hypertension leads to a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. Although calcium channel blockers are regarded as an important part of the therapeutic armamentarium against cardiovascular diseases, and are among the most frequently prescribed antihypertensive medications, concern has been aroused about these drugs, particularly the short-acting dihydropyrldine derivatives. However, the value of nifedipine GITS(Adalat-Crono), the long-acting dihydropyrldine, is in need of being re-established. OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of once-daily nifedipine and amlodipine treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. DESIGN Randomised multicentre trial with an open comparison of treatments for 12 weeks, with a preceding placebo run-in period of 2 weeks (patients on beta-blockers at the time of enrollment entered a mandatory 2-week wash-out period before being allowed In the placebo run-in period;this wash-out period was one week for patients using any antihypertensive medication other than beta-blockers). SETTING Nine centres (all university hospitals) in Turkey. PATIENTS 155 patients with essential hypertension(diastolic blood pressure 95-109 mmHg). INTERVENTIONS Initial treatment (step 1) consisted of 30 mg nifedipine GlTS (n = 76; (Adalat-Crono tablets), or 5 mg amlodipine (n = 79; Norvasct5-mg tablets), either administered once daily, as a morning dose, or f the blood pressure was not below 140/90 mmHg, or the reduction In diastolic blood pressure was lower than 10 mmHg after a treatment period of 6 weeks, the dose was increased (Step 2) to 60 mg once daily in the nifedipine group, or 10 mg once daily in the amlodipine group. MAIN EFFICACY PARAMETER Diastolic blood pressure at trough after 12 weeks of active compound therapy adjusted to baseline. RESULTS After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean diastolic blood pressure was 83.1 and 81.9 mmHg,in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively (p = 0.436). The mean decrease in systolic blood pressure (28.5 +/- 11.9 and 28.2 +/- 11.2 mmHg in the nifadipine and amlodipine groups, respectively) and the mean decrease in diastolic blood pressure (16.4A +/- 7.0 and 17.5 +/- 6.9 mmHg in the nifedipine and amlodipine groups, respectively), as well as the responder rates (88.1%and 92.1%, in the nifediplne and amlodipine groups, respectively) were comparable at the end of the study. No significant differences between groups were detected In the efficacy parameters assessed in this study. Both drugs were well tolerated. The overall incidence of adverse events was 7.9% in the nifadipine group and 10.1% In the amlodipine group. However, more patients discontinued treatment prematurely in the amlodipine group (13 patients; 19.7%), than in the nifedipine group (four patients; 5.6%). CONCLUSIONS The results of this study demonstrated that once-daily nifedipine in GITS formation and amlodipine are comparably safe and effective treatment options in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.