DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20162233

A randomized comparison between lercanidipine and amlodipine for efficacy and tolerability in patients with essential hypertension

Girish Tulshidas Raparti, Balwant Kisanrao Choure, Praveenkumar Tukaram Patil, Shailesh Shyamling Patne

Abstract


Background: Lercanidipine, a newly added dihydropyridine, was compared with one of its older and time tested congener- amlodipine for their efficacy and tolerability.

Methods: This was a prospective, double blind, parallel group study. 100 patients according to inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomised into two groups of 50 each. One group received lercanidipine 10 mg while second group received tablet amlodipine 5 mg at the beginning, both once daily orally for 12 weeks of duration. Follow up was done at 2, 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure was recorded in sitting position. If the patient did not attain target blood pressure of 140/90 mmHg, dose was titrated at 4, 8 weeks. Tolerability was assessed by questioning about adverse drug reactions at follow up and derangements of routine laboratory parameters at the end. Z test was used for analysis.

Results: There was no statistical difference between antihypertensive efficacies of two drugs. Number of patients showing adverse reactions were significantly less in lercanidipine group compared to amlodipine. Though vasodilation related adverse reactions were less lercanidipine group, significant difference was observed only in occurrence of pedal edema. This difference in incidence of edema cannot be related to the extent of reduction in blood pressure.

Conclusions: With the comparable antihypertensive efficacy, lercanidipine is associated with considerably lower incidence of vasodilation related side effects than amlodipine, especially pedal edema. This favourable tolerability profile can potentially enhance treatment outcome by promoting better adherence to drug therapy.


Keywords


Lercanidipine, Amlodipine, Hypertension, Edema

Full Text:

PDF

References


Das SK, Sanyal K, Basu A. Study of urban community survey in India: growing trend of high prevalence of hypertension in a developing country. Int J Med Sci. 2005;2(2):70-8.

Borghi C. Lercanidipine in hypertension. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2005;1(3):173-82.

Arauz-Pacheco C, Parrott MA, Raskin P. Hypertension management in adults with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 2004;27(Suppl1):S65-7.

Weir MR. Incidence of pedal edema formation with dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers: issues and practical significance. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2003;5(5):330-5.

Düsing R, Weisser B, Mengden T, Vetter H. Changes in antihypertensive therapy- the role of adverse effects and compliance. Blood Press. 1998;7:313-5.

Aranda P, Tamargo J, Aranda FJ, Luque M, López-Garcia-Franco A. Use and adverse reactions of antihypertensive drugs in Spain. Part I of the RAAE Study. Blood Press Suppl. 1997;1:11-6.

Caro JJ, Salas M, Speckman JL, Raggio G, Jackson JD. Persistence with treatment for hypertension in actual practice. CMAJ. 1999;160:31-7.

Pruijm MT, Maillard MP, Burnier M. Patient adherence and the choice of antihypertensive drugs: focus on lercanidipine. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2008;4(6):1159-66.

Messerli FH, Feng Z. Vasodilatory edema: synergistic effect of high-dose calcium antagonist/ACE inhibitor combination therapy (Abstract). Am J Hypertens. 1999;12:121A.

Leonetti G, Magnani B, Pessina AC, Rappelli A, Trimarco B, Zanchetti A. COHORT study group. Tolerability of long-term treatment with lercanidipine versus amlodipine and lacidipine in elderly hypertensives. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15(11):932-40.

Messerli FH, Grossman E. Pedal edema not all dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are created equal. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15(11):1019-20.

Pedrinelli R, Dell’Omo G, Mariani M. Calcium channel blockers, postural vasoconstriction and dependent oedema in essential hypertension. J Hum Hypertens. 2001;15:455-61.

Sabbatini M, Leonardi A, Testa R, Vitaioli L, Amenta F. Effect of calcium antagonists on glomerular arterioles in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Hypertension. 2000;35:775-9.

Fogari R, Mugellini A, Zoppi A, Corradi L, Rinaldi A, Derosa G, et al. Differential effects of lercanidipine and nifedipine GITS on plasma norepinephrine in chronic treatment of hypertension. Am J Hypertens. 2003;16:596-9.

Romito R, Pansini MI, Perticone F, Antonelli G, Pitzalis M, Rizzon P. Comparative effect of lercanidipine, felodipine, and nifedipine GITS on blood pressure and heart rate in patients with mild to moderate arterial hypertension: the Lercanidipine in Adults (LEAD) Study. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2003;5(4):249-53.

Borghi C, Prandin MG, Dormi A, Ambrosioni E. Study group of the regional Unit of the Italian Society of Hypertension. Improved Tolerability of the dihydropyridine calcium-channel antagonist lercanidipine: the lercanidipine challenge trial. Blood Press Suppl. 2003;1:14-21.

Barrios V, Navarro A, Esteras A, Luque M, Romero J, Tamargo J, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in daily clinical practice. The ELYPSE Study. Eficacia de Lercanidipinoy su Perfil de Seguridad. Blood Press. 2002;11:95-100.

Barrios V, Escobar C, Navarro A, Calderón A, Ruilope LM. Antihypertensive effectiveness of lercanidipine administered using an electronic pillbox compared with usual care in a cohort of mild-to-moderately hypertensive patients: the ELECTRA study. Therapy. 2007;4(4):433-40.

Floras JS. Antihypertensive treatment, myocardial infarction and nocturnal myocardial ischaemia. Lancet. 1988;2:994-6.