Results of a meta-analysis comparing the tolerability of lercanidipine and other dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers

Background. Results from clinical studies suggest that the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (d-CCB) lercanidipine may be associated with a lower incidence of peripheral edema than are older d-CCBs. Aim. To conduct a meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the relative risk (RR) of d-CCB-specific adverse events (AE) with lercanidipine versus the older d-CCBs (first generation: amlodipine, felodipine, and nifedipine), and versus the other lipophilic d-CCBs (second generation: lacidipine and manidipine). Material and methods. A systematic literature search (all years, through August 11 2008) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for English-language reports of single- or double-blind RCTs of ≥4 weeks’ duration that compared the tolerability of lercanidipine with other d-CCBs in participants with mild (140- 159/90-99 mm Hg) and moderate (160-179/100-109 mm Hg) hypertension. Results. Eight RCTs (6 used first-generation drugs, and 4 used second-generation drugs) met the criteria for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes for lowering blood pressure did not differ statistically between lercanidipine and either generation of d-CCBs. Compared with the first generation, lercanidipine was associated with a reduced risk of peripheral edema (52/742 with lercanidipine vs. 88/627 with first generation; RR=0,44 [95% CI 0,31-0,63]), but not flushing or headache. The frequency of peripheral edema, flushing, and headache did not differ statistically between lercanidipine and the second generation drugs. Study participants were less likely to withdraw from the RCTs because of peripheral edema (RR=0,24 [95% CI 0,12-0,47]) or any AE (RR=0,51 [95% CI 0,33-0,77]) when treated with lercanidipine rather than a drug from the first generation, but not when treated with lercanidipine rather than second-generation drugs. Conclusion. Lercanidipine was associated with a lower risk of peripheral edema and a lower risk of treatment withdrawal because of peripheral edema than were the first-generation, but not the second-generation, d-CCBs.

1. Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Cushman WC, et al. Single-drug therapy for hypertension in men. A comparison of six antihypertensive agents with placebo. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents [published correction appears in N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1689]. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 914-21.

2. Eisenberg MJ, Brox A, Bestawros AN. Calcium channel blockers: An update. Am J Med 2004; 116: 35-43.

3. Braunwald E. Mechanism of action of calcium-channel- blocking agents. N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 1618-27.

4. Leonetti G, Magnani B, Pessina AC, et al, for the COHORT Study Group. Tolerability of long-term treatment with lercanidipine versus amlodipine and lacidipine in elderly hypertensives. Am J Hypertens 2002; 15: 932-40.

5. Messerli FH, Oparil S, Feng Z. Comparison of efficacy and side effects of combination therapy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (benazepril) with calcium antagonist (either nifedipine or amlodipine) versus high dose calcium antagonist monotherapy for systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 2000; 86: 1182-7.

6. Cherubini A, Fabris F, Ferrari E, et al. Comparative effects of lercanidipine, lacidipine, and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on blood pressure and heart rate in elderly hypertensive patients: The ELderly and LErcanidipine (ELLE) study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2003; 37: 203-12.

7. Millar-Craig M, Shaffu B, Greenough A, et al. Lercanidipine vs lacidipine in isolated systolic hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2003; 17: 799-806.

8. Anderson RB, Hollenberg NK, Williams GH. Physical Symptoms Distress Index: A sensitive tool to evaluate the impact of pharmacological agents on quality of life. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 693-700.

9. Simons LA, Ortiz M, Calcino G. Persistence with antihypertensive medication: Australia-wide experience, 2004- 2006. Med J 2008; 188: 224-7.

10. Borghi C, Prandin MG, Dormi A, Ambrosioni E, for the 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.

11. Angelico P, Guarneri L, Leonardi A, Testa R. Vascular-selective effect of lercanidipine and other 1,4-dihydropyridines in isolated rabbit tissues. J Pharm Pharmacol 1999; 51: 709-14.

12. Epstein M. Lercanidipine: A novel dihydropyridine calciumchannel blocker. Heart Dis 2001; 3: 398-407.

13. Herbette LG, Vecchiarelli M, Sartani A, Leonardi A. Lercanidipine: Short plasma half-life, long duration of action and high cholesterol tolerance. Updated molecular model to rationalize its pharmacokinetic properties. Blood Press Suppl 1998; 2: 10-7.

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

15. Beckey C, Lundy A, Lutfi N. Lercanidipine in the treatment of hypertension. Ann Pharmacother 2007; 41: 465-73.

16. Policicchio D, Magliocca R, Malliani A. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: A comparative study with slow-release nifedipine. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 (Suppl): S31-5.

17. Romito R, Pansini MI, Perticone F, et al. 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: 249-53.

18. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994; 309: 597-9.

19. Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2008.

20. Der Simonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for metaanalysis of clinical trials: An update. Contemp Clin Trials 2007; 8: 105-14.

21. Fogari R, Malamani GD, Zoppi A, et al. Comparative effect of lercanidipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on ankle volume and subcutaneous interstitial pressure in hypertensive patients: A double-blind, randomized, parallelgroup study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2000; 61: 850-62.

22. Lund-Johansen P, Stranden E, Helberg S, et al. Quantification of leg oedema in postmenopausal hypertensive patients treated with lercanidipine or amlodipine. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1003-10.

23. Casiglia E, Mazza A, Tikhonoff V, et al. Therapeutic profile of manidipine and lercanidipine in hypertensive patients. Adv Ther 2004; 21: 357-69.

24. Briganti EM, Shaw JE, Chadban SJ, et al, for the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Untreated hypertension among Australian adults: The 1999-2000 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Med J Aust 2003; 179: 135-9.

25. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al, for the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003; 42: 1206-52.

26. Jones JK, Gorkin L, Lian JF, et al. Discontinuation of and changes in treatment after start of new courses of antihypertensive drugs: A study of a United Kingdom population. BMJ 1995; 311: 293-5.

27. Van Wijk BL, Klungel OH, Heerdink ER, de Boer A. Rate and determinants of 10-year persistence with antihypertensive drugs. J Hypertens 2005; 23: 2101-7.

28. Aranda P, Tamargo J, Aranda FJ, et al. Use and adverse reactions of antihypertensive drugs in Spain. Part I of the RAAE Study. Blood Press Suppl 1997; 1: 11-6.

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

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

31. Veronesi M, Cicero AF, Prandin MG, et al. A prospective evaluation of persistence on antihypertensive treatment with different antihypertensive drugs in clinical practice. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2007; 3: 999-1005.

32. He J, Whelton PK. Elevated systolic blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular and renal disease: Overview of evidence from observational epidemiologic studies and randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J 1999; 138: 211-9.

33. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: 1-90.