dihydropyridines and Essential-Hypertension

Essential hypertension is a complex clinical condition, characterized by multiple and concomitant abnormal activation of different regulatory and contra-regulatory pathophysiological mechanisms, leading to sustained increase of blood pressure (BP) levels. Asymptomatic rise of BP may, indeed, promote development and progression of hypertension-related organ damage, which in turn, increases the risk of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. A progressive and independent relationship has been demonstrated between high BP levels and increased cardiovascular risk, even in the high-to-normal range. Conversely, evidence from randomized controlled clinical trials have independently shown that lowering BP to the recommended targets reduces individual cardiovascular risk, thus improving event-free survival and reducing the incidence of hypertension-related cardiovascular events. Despite these benefits, overall rates of BP control remain poor, worldwide. Currently available guidelines support a substantial equivalence amongst various antihypertensive drug classes. However, several studies have also reported clinically relevant differences among antihypertensive drugs, in terms of both BP lowering efficacy and tolerability/safety profile. These differences should be taken into account not only when adopting first-line antihypertensive therapy, but also when titrating or modulating combination therapies, with the aim of achieving effective and sustained BP control. This review will briefly describe evidence supporting the use of dihydropyridinic calcium channel blockers for the clinical management of hypertension, with a particular focus on barnidipine. Indeed, this drug has been demonstrated to be effective, safe and well tolerated in lowering BP levels and in reducing hypertension-related organ damage, thus showing a potential key role for improving the clinical management of hypertension.

Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Essential Hypertension; Humans; Medication Adherence; Nifedipine; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vasodilator Agents

This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of lercanidipine/enalapril fixed-dose combination in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.. Four observational studies on patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) between 95 and 109 mmHg, treated with lercanidipine/enalapril fixed-dose combination, were analyzed. The Random-Effect Model was used to limit heterogeneity across the studies. Weights were applied to determine the influence of each study on the combined results. The efficacy outcome measure was the reduction from baseline to endpoint in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was also investigated.. The total number of patients analyzed for efficacy and safety was 9565. No differences between study groups in demographics characteristics were observed. Mean blood pressure in the pooled population of the four studies was 162/94 mmHg at baseline. Overall, the lercanidipine/enalapril fixed-dose combination reduced SBP by 26 mmHg (95% CI, 23-29), and DBP by 13 mmHg (12-15), p < 0.05 for both. No safety concerns were reported.. This meta-analysis supports the use of the lercanidipine/enalapril fixed-dose combination for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Dihydropyridines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Enalapril; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Outcome Assessment, Health Care

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of irbesartan alone and combined with amlodipine, efonidipine, or trichlormethiazide on blood pressure (BP) and urinary albumin (UA) excretion in hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria (30≤UA/creatinine (Cr) ratio [UACR] <300 mg/g Cr) and upper-normal microalbuminuria (10≤UACR<30 mg/g Cr). This randomized controlled trial enrolled 175 newly diagnosed and untreated hypertensive patients (home systolic blood pressure [SBP]≥135 mmHg; 10≤UACR<300 mg/g Cr of casual spot urine at the first visit to clinic). All patients were treated with irbesartan (week 0). Patients who failed to achieve home SBP ≤125 mmHg on 8-week irbesartan monotherapy (nonresponders, n = 115) were randomized into three additional drug treatment groups: trichlormethiazide (n = 42), efonidipine (n = 39), or amlodipine (n = 34). Irbesartan monotherapy decreased home SBP and first morning urine samples (morning UACR) for 8 weeks (p < 0.0001). At 8 weeks after randomization, all three additional drugs decreased home SBP (p < 0.0002) and trichlormethiazide significantly decreased morning UACR (p = 0.03). Amlodipine decreased morning UACR in patients with microalbuminuria based on casual spot urine samples (p = 0.048). However, multivariate analysis showed that only higher home SBP and UACR at week 8, but not any additional treatments, were significantly associated with UACR reduction between week 8 and week 16. In conclusion, crucial points of the effects of combination therapy on UACR were basal UACR and SBP levels. The effect of trichlormethiazide or amlodipine treatment in combination with irbesartan treatment on microalbuminuria needs to be reexamined based on a larger sample size after considering basal UACR and SBP levels.

Topics: Aged; Albuminuria; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Biphenyl Compounds; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Dihydropyridines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Irbesartan; Male; Middle Aged; Nitrophenols; Organophosphorus Compounds; Tetrazoles; Trichlormethiazide; Urinalysis

To investigate the efficacy and safety of perindopril-lercanidipine combination versus perindopril or lercanidipine monotherapies in patients with mild essential hypertension.. A total of 180 patients with mild essential hypertension were randomly assigned to three groups: group A (perindopril 2 mg plus lercanidipine 5 mg; n = 60), group B (lercanidipine 10 mg; n = 60) and group C (perindopril 4 mg; n = 60). The treatment efficacy and the incidence of adverse events were evaluated at the end of 4, 8 and 12 weeks after treatment initiation.. The blood pressure in group A was already lower than in group B and group C at week 4 after treatment initiation. Systolic blood pressure was 148 ± 13 mmHg in group A, 151 ± 14 mmHg in group B, and 153 ± 13 in group C (p < 0.001); diastolic blood pressure was 89 ± 8, 92 ± 7 and 92 ± 6 mmHg, respectively (p < 0.001). At the end of treatment the normalization rate was significantly higher in group A, compared with group B and group C (71.7%, 68.3%, and 48.3%, respectively; p < 0.05). Four adverse events were observed in group A, while seven and nineteen adverse events occurred in group B and in group C, respectively. Statistically significant differences in adverse reaction incidence were reported among three groups.. Although its results were collected in an overall limited number of patients in a single center, this study shows that the combination of perindopril and lercanidipine, compared with lercanidipine alone or perindopril alone, was effective in improving blood pressure in mild essential hypertensive patients, and also decreased the incidence of adverse events.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Dihydropyridines; Drug Therapy, Combination; Essential Hypertension; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Perindopril; Treatment Outcome

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the lercanidipine/valsartan combination compared with lercanidipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension.. Part 1 of this study was the randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, Phase III, 8-week clinical trial to compare superiority of lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 80 mg (L10/V80) and lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L10/V160) combinations with lercanidipine 10 mg (L10) monotherapy. At screening, hypertensive patients, whose diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was >90 mm Hg after 4 weeks with L10, were randomized to 3 groups of L10, L10/V80, and L10/V160. The primary end point was the change in the mean sitting DBP from baseline (week 0) after 8 weeks of therapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to L10/V160 and whose mean DBP was still ≥ 90 mm Hg in part 1 were enrolled to the up-titration extension study with lercanidipine 20 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L20/V160) (part 2).. Of 772 patients screened, 497 were randomized to 3 groups (166 in the L10 group, 168 in the L10/V80 group, and 163 in the L10/V160 group). Mean (SD) age was 55 (9.9) years, and male patients comprised 69%. The mean (SD) baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were 148.4 (15.1)/94.3 (9.5) mm Hg. No significant differences were found between groups in baseline characteristics except the percentages of previous history of antihypertensive medication. The primary end points, the changes of mean (SD) DBP at week 8 from the baseline were -2.0 (8.8) mm Hg in the L10 group, -6.7 (8.5) mm Hg in L10/V80 group, and -8.1 (8.4) mm Hg in L10/V160 group. The adjusted mean difference between the combination groups and the L10 monotherapy group was -4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -6.5 to -2.6; P < 0.001) in the L10/V80 group and -5.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.9 to -4.0, P < 0.001) in the L10/V160 group, which had significantly greater efficacy in BP lowering. A total of 74 patients were enrolled in the part 2 extension study. Changes of mean (SD) DBP and SBP from week 8 to week 12 and week 16 were -5.6 (7.9)/-8.0 (12.0) mm Hg and -5.5 (7.0)/-8.5 (11.3) mm Hg, respectively. For evaluation of the safety profile, the frequencies of adverse events between groups were also not significantly different. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache (6 cases, 20.7%) in the L10 group, dizziness (8 cases, 16.3%) in L10/V80 group, and nasopharyngitis (3 cases, 9.4%) in L10/V160 group, and the incidences of adverse events were not different between groups.. Treatment of L10/V80 or L10/V160 combination therapy resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with L10 monotherapy. Moreover, the L20/V160 high dose combination had additional BP lowering effect compared with nonresponders with the L10/V160 combination. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01928628.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Dihydropyridines; Dizziness; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Essential Hypertension; Female; Headache; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Treatment Outcome; Valsartan; Young Adult

Vascular calcification is a potent predictor of plaque instability and cardiac events. Osteoprotegerin (OPG), well-known vascular calcification mediator, is a signaling molecule involved in bone remodeling, which has been implicated in the regulation of vascular calcification and atherogenesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the combination treatments of olmesartan/azelnidipine and olmesartan/diuretics on serum bone-related markers in patients with essential hypertension.. A total of 48 patients with hypertension treated with 20 mg olmesartan were randomized to receive combination treatment with 16 mg azelnidipine (O/A group) or diuretics (1 mg indapamide; O/D group) for 12 months. Osteoprotegerin, matrix metalloproteinase 2 (MMP-2), and high-sensitive CRP (hs-CRP) were measured after 3 and 12 months of treatment. Cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) was measured as the arterial stiffness using a VaSera CAVI instrument at the same time points. In both groups, the systolic and diastolic blood pressure reduction is similar. Serum OPG, MMP-2, and hs-CRP were significantly decreased at 12 months in the O/A group (P < .05), while there were no significant reductions in the O/D group. CAVI was significantly improved at 12 months in both the treatment groups. The improvement in CAVI was significantly greater in the O/A group than in the O/D group.. Azelnidipine, but not indapamide, combined with olmesartan, improved arterial stiffness and were associated with significant decrease in OPG, MMP-2, and hs-CRP concentrations. These results suggest that the beneficial effects of the combination treatments of olmesartan/azelnidipine on arterial stiffness are mediated by alteration in bone-remodeling and inflammatory markers.

Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Antihypertensive Agents; Azetidinecarboxylic Acid; Biomarkers; Blood Pressure; C-Reactive Protein; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Diuretics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hydrochlorothiazide; Hypertension; Imidazoles; Male; Matrix Metalloproteinase 2; Middle Aged; Osteoprotegerin; Prospective Studies; Tetrazoles

To examine effects of a long-acting calcium channel blocker (CCB) azelnidipine on uric acid metabolism in hypertensive patients.. Azelnidipine was administered to 72 patients at a daily dose of 8 mg or 16 mg. In 22 cases out of the 72 patients, a different CCB was switched to azelnidipine. Blood pressure was measured and biochemical parameters of blood and urine were evaluated before and 2-3 months after the administration.. Azelnidipine significantly decreased both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and the heart rate. It decreased both serum urate levels and the urinary uric acid to creatinine ratio (Uur/Ucr), but did not affect the uric acid clearance to creatinine clearance ratio (Cur/Ccr). Azelnidipine decreased both Uur/Ucr and Cur/Ccr in patients with Uur/Ucr ≥ 0.5 or ≥ 0.34, although it did not change these clearance parameters in patients with Uur/Ucr <0.5 or <0.34. Azelnidipine decreased the serum urate levels and Uur/Ucr in hyperuricemic patients with uric acid levels ≥ 7.0 mg/dL in males and ≥ 6.0 mg/dL in females. It did not change these parameters in normouricemic patients with serum urate levels <7.0 mg/dL in males and <6.0 mg/dL in females. Azelnidipine decreased Uur/Ucr and Cur/Ccr in hyperuricemic patients with normal or over excretion of uric acid, although it did not change these clearance parameters in hyperuricemic patients with uric acid hypoexcretion.. Azelnidipine decreased the serum urate acid levels and Uur/Ucr, and this response was most prominent in hyperuricemic patients or patients with normal and over excretion of uric acid.

Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Azetidinecarboxylic Acid; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Creatinine; Dihydropyridines; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Hyperuricemia; Male; Uric Acid

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are used as antihypertensive agents and have a strong vasodilatory effect; however, the sympathetic activation mediated by baroreflex might cause adverse effects. A recently developed CCB, azelnidipine, decreases the heart rate (HR) while lowering blood pressure (BP), possibly by inhibiting sympathetic nerve activity in animal models. In this study, we evaluated whether azelnidipine inhibited sympathetic nerve activity, compared to amlodipine, in primary hypertensive patients.. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label, and crossover study of 14 patients. We measured the patients' BP, HR and baroreflex sensitivity, and directly recorded muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), via microneurography, after treatment with either CCB for 8 weeks.. Although systolic and diastolic BPs did not differ between the azelnidipine and amlodipine groups, the HR in the azelnidipine group significantly decreased compared with that in the amlodipine group. MSNA was significantly reduced in the azelnidipine compared with the amlodipine group (47.7 ± 14.9 vs. 61.5 ± 10.7  bursts per 100 beats, P < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed in terms of the baroreflex control of HR, or MSNA, between the two groups.. Our data show, first, that azelnidipine, compared with amlodipine, exerted a favorable effect on sympathetic nerve activity, without affecting baroreflex sensitivity, in hypertensive patients. These results indicate that azelnidipine might be useful for treating hypertensive patients, in whom hypertension is complicated by heart failure and ischemic heart disease.

Topics: Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Azetidinecarboxylic Acid; Baroreflex; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Cross-Over Studies; Dihydropyridines; Essential Hypertension; Female; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Sympathetic Nervous System

Central blood pressure (BP) is pathophysiologically more important than peripheral BP for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is also a good predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The effects of benidipine, a unique dual L-/T-type calcium channel blocker, on central BP have not been reported. This study aimed to compare the effect of benidipine and losartan on the central BP and arterial stiffness in mild to moderate essential hypertensives.. This 24 weeks, multi-center, open label, randomized, active drug comparative, parallel group study was designed as a non-inferiority study. The eligible patients (n = 200) were randomly assigned to receive benidipine (n = 101) or losartan (n = 99). Radial artery applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis were used to measure the central BP, pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AIx). We also measured the metabolic and inflammatory markers.. After 24 weeks, the central BP decreased significantly from baseline by (16.8 ± 14.0/10.5 ± 9.2) mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa) (systolic/diastolic BP; P < 0.001) in benidipine group and (18.9 ± 14.7/12.1 ± 10.2) mmHg (P < 0.001) in losartan group respectively. Both benidipine and losartan groups significantly lowered peripheral BP (P < 0.001) and AIx (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences between the two groups. The mean aortic, brachial and femoral PWV did not change in both groups after 24-week treatment. There were no significant changes of the blood metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers in each group.. Benidipine is as effective as losartan in lowering the central and peripheral BP, and improving arterial stiffness.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Losartan; Male; Middle Aged; Vascular Stiffness

To evaluate the effect of aranidipine enteric-coated capsules on 24 h blood pressure and blood pressure variability (BPV) in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.. This was an open clinical trial with 2 weeks of placebo run-in period. A total of 74 patients with blood pressure (140-180/95-110 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) were treated by aranidipine (5 mg/d) for 4 weeks.If clinical sitting blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg at 4th week, aranidipine at 5 mg/d would be continued for another 8 weeks.If not, the dosage would be increased to 10 mg/d.If blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg at 8th week, aranidipine at 5 mg/d or 10 mg/d would be given constantly.If not, the dosage would be increased to 20 mg/d and given for another 4 weeks. All patients performed 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) before and after the treatment with BPV evaluated by the average 24 h per unit time blood pressure standard deviation and morning blood pressure surge (MBPS).. (1) After 12 weeks' treatment with aranidipine, the mean 24 h blood pressure was reduced significantly compared with the baseline [(14 ± 13)/(11 ± 9) mm Hg, both P < 0.05] with trough/peak (T/P) ratio of SBP and DBP in responders of 75.31% and 78.15%, respectively.(2) After 12 weeks' treatment, standard deviations of 24 h, daytime SBP/DBP and nighttime SBP/DBP were reduced significantly[(25 ± 3)/(14 ± 4) mm Hg vs (11 ± 3)/(8 ± 2) mm Hg, (24 ± 5)/(14 ± 4) mm Hg vs (11 ± 3)/(8 ± 2) mm Hg, (10 ± 3)/(8 ± 4) mm Hg vs (8 ± 3)/(6 ± 3) mm Hg], respectively with all P < 0.05.Significant decrease was shown in MBPS compared to the baseline [(27 ± 11) mm Hg vs (19 ± 9) mm Hg, P < 0.05]. (3) The incidence of adverse events was 13.4%, including mild dizziness, flushing and palpitation.. Administration of aranidipine enteric-coated capsules can control 24 h blood pressure effectively and reduce BPV significantly in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension with good safety profile.

Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Dihydropyridines; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Young Adult

To assess the efficacy and safety of aranidipine versus retard-released felodipine in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.. This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo and active antihypertensive drug parallel-controlled study. After 2 weeks of placebo run-in period, 315 patients at 6 centers with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between 95 to 109 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) while systolic blood pressure (SBP) below 180 mm Hg were randomized to receive aranidipine 5-20 mg/d (n = 126) or retard-released felodipine 5-10 mg/d (n = 126) for 12 weeks. Others (n = 63) received placebo for 4 weeks. Their blood pressures were evaluated at baseline and the end of Weeks 4, 8 and 12.. After a 12-week treatment, SBP decreased from 148.8 ± 10.7 mm Hg to (132.8 ± 11.2) mm Hg while DBP dropped from ( 98.4 ± 2.8) mm Hg to (83.9 ± 7.5) mm Hg. There were significant differences with the baseline values (P < 0.0001). After a 4-week treatment, the reductions of SBP in aranidipine and retard-released felodipine groups were (12.1 ± 11.0) mm Hg and (12.2 ± 11.2) mm Hg while the reductions of DBP in two groups (11.8 ± 6.9) mm Hg and (12.1 ± 7.9) mm Hg respectively. The reductions of SBP and DBP in two groups were (2.3 ± 8.4) mm Hg and (4.0 ± 5.1) mm Hg and they were significantly superior to that in placebo group (P < 0.0001). But no significant difference existed between aranidipine and retard-released felodipine groups. Also no significant differences were found between these two antihypertensive therapy groups at the end of Weeks 4, 8 and 12 in the reduction of blood pressure, total response rate and blood pressure control rate. But 20 mg daily aranidipine was significantly superior to 10 mg daily retard-released felodipine in the control rates of SBP and DBP. Adverse events occurred at 24.22% and 29.92% in aranidipine and retard-released felodipine groups respectively (P = 0.305).. Administration of aranidipine 5-20 mg/d can effectively control blood pressure and is not inferior to retard-released felodipine 5-10 mg/d. The efficacy of 20 mg/d aranidipine is superior to that of retard-released felodipine 5-10 mg/d. And the effectiveness and safety of aranidipine are similar to those of retard-released felodipine.

Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Dihydropyridines; Double-Blind Method; Essential Hypertension; Felodipine; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged

It has been demonstrated that circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) number reflects the endogenous vascular repair ability, with the EPCs pool declining in presence of cardiovascular risk factors. Several drugs, including dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, have been reported to elicit antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as to improve vascular remodeling and dysfunction. However, no data are available about the effects of lercanidipine on EPCs. The aim of the present study was therefore to investigate the effects of short-term treatment with lercanidipine on circulating EPCs, as well as on indices of inflammation and oxidative stress.. Twenty essential hypertensive patients were included in the study and treated for 4 weeks with lercanidipine 20 mg per day orally. Investigations were performed in basal condition, after appropriate wash out of previous treatments, and after 4 weeks of lercanidipine treatment. Inflammatory and oxidative stress markers were assessed by ELISA technique. Lin-/7AAD-/CD34+/CD133+/VEGFR-2 + and Lin-/7AAD-/CD34+/VEGFR-2 + cells were identified by flow cytometry and considered as EPCs. EPCs cells were expressed as number of cells per million Lin-mononuclear cells.. Circulating EPCs were significantly increased after lercanidipine treatment (CD34+/CD133+/VEGFR-2 + cells: 78.3 ± 64.5 vs 46.6 ± 32.8; CD34+/VEGFR-2+: 87996 ± 165116 vs 1026 ± 1559, respectively, p < 0.05). A modest reduction in circulating indices of inflammation was also observed.. In conclusion, lercanidipine is able to increase the number of circulating EPCs, possibly through a reduction of low-grade inflammation.

Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Dihydropyridines; Endothelial Progenitor Cells; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Inflammation; Male; Middle Aged; Risk Factors

The pupil is a suitable end organ for studying autonomic function because both sympathetic and parasympathetic nerve activity can be evaluated independently using a light stimulus. Sympathetic response elicited by physical stress is augmented in hypertensive patients compared with normotensive subjects, which increases the risk of cardiovascular events. We used pupillometry to evaluate the effects of the calcium channel blockers azelnidipine (AZ) and amlodipine (AM) on changes in autonomic nervous activity induced by isometric exercise in patients with hypertension. Twenty patients with essential hypertension who were administered AM and 21 who were administered AZ underwent a pupillary function test and blood pressure (BP) and pulse rate (PR) measurements before and after isometric handgrip exercise (IHG). Maximal velocities of pupil constriction (VC) and re-dilation (VD) obtained with light stimulation for 1 s were used as indices of parasympathetic and sympathetic nerve activity, respectively. Increases in systolic BP and PR elicited by IHG were significantly smaller in the AZ group than in the AM group. After IHG, both VC and VD significantly increased in the AM group but not in the AZ group. The low-to-high frequency ratio obtained from analysis of PR variability, another measure of sympathetic activity, also increased in only the AM group. Thus AZ inhibited autonomic activation and suppressed cardiovascular responses to IHG more effectively than AM. The sympathoinhibitory effect of AZ may therefore be beneficial for patients with essential hypertension. In addition, pupillometry was shown to be a useful tool for assessing autonomic function in hypertensive patients.

Topics: Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Autonomic Nervous System; Azetidinecarboxylic Acid; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Essential Hypertension; Exercise; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Pupil

It has been previously demonstrated that dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers may possess antioxidant properties and might improve vascular structure. Combination treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor may have additional advantages, compared with a thiazide diuretic, in this regard. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the effects of a short-term treatment with lercanidipine, and to compare two combination treatments: lercanidipine + enalapril vs. lercanidipine + hydrochlorothiazide on structural alterations in retinal arterioles, on skin capillary density and on large artery distensibility.. Twenty essential hypertensive patients were included in the study and treated for 4 weeks with lercanidipine 20 mg per day orally. Then they were treated for 6 months with lercanidipine + enalapril (n=10) or lercanidipine + hydrochlorothiazide (n=10) combinations. Investigations were performed in basal condition, after appropriate washout of previous treatments, after 4 weeks of lercanidipine monotherapy treatment, and at the end of the combination treatment. Non-invasive measurements of wall-to-lumen ratio (W/L) and other morphological parameters of retinal arterioles using scanning laser Doppler flowmetry were performed (Heidelberg Retina Flowmeter, Heidelberg Engineering). Capillary density was evaluated by capillaroscopy, whereas pulse wave velocity and central blood pressure were assessed by the Sphygmo-Cor device (AtCor Medical West Ryde, Australia).. A significant improvement of W/L and of other indices of retinal artery structure was observed after treatment with lercanidipine alone, with a further improvement after treatment with lercanidipine + enalapril, whereas after treatment with lercanidipine + hydrochlorothiazide the improvement was no longer observed. A similar behaviour was observed for central SBP and DBP. Capillary density was increased only after treatment with lercanidipine + enalapril.. Lercanidipine both in monotherapy and in combination with enalapril, was able to improve microvascular structure and to decrease central blood pressure, being thus a useful approach for both reducing blood pressure and improving vascular alterations in hypertension.

Topics: Adult; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Arterioles; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Diuretics; Drug Therapy, Combination; Enalapril; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hydrochlorothiazide; Hypertension; Kidney; Laser-Doppler Flowmetry; Male; Middle Aged; Oxidative Stress; Ultrasonography

It was previously demonstrated that metabolic syndrome in humans is associated with an impairment of insulin signalling in circulating mononuclear cells. At least in animal models of hypertension, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may correct alterations of insulin signalling in the skeletal muscle. In the first study, we investigated the effects of a 3-month treatment with an ARB with additional PPARγ agonist activity, telmisartan, or with a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, nifedipine, on insulin signalling in patients with mild-moderate essential hypertension. Insulin signalling was evaluated in mononuclear cells by isolating them through Ficoll-Paque density gradient centrifugation and protein analysis by Western Blot. An increased expression of mTOR and of phosphorylated (active) mTOR (p-mTOR) was observed in patients treated with telmisartan, but not in those treated with nifedipine, while both treatments increased the cellular expression of glucose transporter type 4 (GLUT-4). We also investigated the effects of antihypertensive treatment with two drug combinations on insulin signalling and oxidative stress. Twenty essential hypertensive patients were included in the study and treated for 4 weeks with lercanidipine. Then they were treated for 6 months with lercanidipine + enalapril or lercanidipine + hydrochlorothiazide. An increased expression of insulin receptor, GLUT-4 and an increased activation of p70S6K1 were observed during treatment with lercanidipine + enalapril but not with lercanidipine + hydrochlorothiazide. In conclusion, telmisartan and nifedipine are both effective in improving insulin signalling in human hypertension; however, telmisartan seems to have broader effects. The combination treatment lercanidipine + enalapril seems to be more effective than lercanidipine + hydrochlorothiazide in activating insulin signalling in human lympho-monocytes.

Topics: Adult; Aged; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Drug Combinations; Enalapril; Essential Hypertension; Female; Glucose Transporter Type 4; Humans; Hypertension; Insulin; Lymphocytes; Male; Middle Aged; Monocytes; Nifedipine; Pilot Projects; Signal Transduction; TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases

Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of vascular endothelium following arterial injury. Lacidipine has a beneficial effect on endothelium of hypertensive patients, but limited data are available on EPCs-mediated endothelial protection. This study tests the hypothesis that lacidipine treatment can improve endothelial repair capacity of EPCs from hypertensive patients through increasing CXC chemokine receptor four (CXCR4) signaling.. In vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs from hypertensive patients with or without in vitro lacidipine treatment was examined in a nude mouse model of carotid artery injury. Expression of CXCR4 and alteration in migration and adhesion functions of EPCs were evaluated.. Basal CXCR4 expression was markedly reduced in EPCs from hypertensive patients compared with normal subjects. In parallel, the phosphorylation of Janus kinase-2 (JAK-2) of EPCs, a CXCR4 downstream signaling, was also significantly decreased. Lacidipine promoted CXCR4/JAK-2 signaling expression of in vitro EPCs. Transplantation of EPCs pretreated with lacidipine significantly accelerated in vivo reendothelialization. The enhanced in vitro function and in vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs were inhibited by shRNA-mediated knockdown of CXCR4 expression or pretreatment with JAK-2 inhibitor AG490, respectively. In hypertensive patients, lacidipine treatment for 4 weeks also resulted in an upregulation of CXCR4/JAK-2 signaling of EPCs, which was associated with augmented EPCs-mediated reendothelialization and improved endothelial function.. Deterioration of CXCR4 signaling may lead to impaired EPCs-mediated reendothelialization of hypertensive patients. Lacidipine-modified EPCs via a partially CXCR4 signaling contribute to enhanced endothelial repair capacity in hypertension.

Topics: Adult; Animals; Antihypertensive Agents; Cells, Cultured; Dihydropyridines; Endothelial Cells; Endothelium, Vascular; Essential Hypertension; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Mice; Mice, Nude; Middle Aged; Stem Cells