23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Amlodipine in hypertension: a first-line agent with efficacy for improving blood pressure and patient outcomes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Hypertension is well established as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Although there is undeniable evidence to support the beneficial effects of antihypertensive therapy on morbidity and mortality, adequate blood pressure management still remains suboptimal. Research into the treatment of hypertension has produced a multitude of drug classes with different efficacy profiles. These agents include β-blockers, diuretics, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers. One of the oldest groups of antihypertensives, the calcium channel blockers are a heterogeneous group of medications.

          Methods

          This review paper will focus on amlodipine, a dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, which has been widely used for 2 decades.

          Results

          Amlodipine has good efficacy and safety, in addition to strong evidence from large randomised controlled trials for cardiovascular event reduction.

          Conclusions

          Amlodipine should be considered a first-line antihypertensive agent.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT).

          (2002)
          Antihypertensive therapy is well established to reduce hypertension-related morbidity and mortality, but the optimal first-step therapy is unknown. To determine whether treatment with a calcium channel blocker or an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lowers the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) or other cardiovascular disease (CVD) events vs treatment with a diuretic. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial conducted from February 1994 through March 2002. A total of 33 357 participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor from 623 North American centers. Participants were randomly assigned to receive chlorthalidone, 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n = 15 255); amlodipine, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 9048); or lisinopril, 10 to 40 mg/d (n = 9054) for planned follow-up of approximately 4 to 8 years. The primary outcome was combined fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction, analyzed by intent-to-treat. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, combined CHD (primary outcome, coronary revascularization, or angina with hospitalization), and combined CVD (combined CHD, stroke, treated angina without hospitalization, heart failure [HF], and peripheral arterial disease). Mean follow-up was 4.9 years. The primary outcome occurred in 2956 participants, with no difference between treatments. Compared with chlorthalidone (6-year rate, 11.5%), the relative risks (RRs) were 0.98 (95% CI, 0.90-1.07) for amlodipine (6-year rate, 11.3%) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.91-1.08) for lisinopril (6-year rate, 11.4%). Likewise, all-cause mortality did not differ between groups. Five-year systolic blood pressures were significantly higher in the amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P =.03) and lisinopril (2 mm Hg, P<.001) groups compared with chlorthalidone, and 5-year diastolic blood pressure was significantly lower with amlodipine (0.8 mm Hg, P<.001). For amlodipine vs chlorthalidone, secondary outcomes were similar except for a higher 6-year rate of HF with amlodipine (10.2% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.25-1.52). For lisinopril vs chlorthalidone, lisinopril had higher 6-year rates of combined CVD (33.3% vs 30.9%; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16); stroke (6.3% vs 5.6%; RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30); and HF (8.7% vs 7.7%; RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.31). Thiazide-type diuretics are superior in preventing 1 or more major forms of CVD and are less expensive. They should be preferred for first-step antihypertensive therapy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study: a randomized controlled trial.

            The effect of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and normal blood pressure remains uncertain. To compare the effects of amlodipine or enalapril vs placebo on cardiovascular events in patients with CAD. Double-blind, randomized, multicenter, 24-month trial (enrollment April 1999-April 2002) comparing amlodipine or enalapril with placebo in 1991 patients with angiographically documented CAD (>20% stenosis by coronary angiography) and diastolic blood pressure <100 mm Hg. A substudy of 274 patients measured atherosclerosis progression by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Patients were randomized to receive amlodipine, 10 mg; enalapril, 20 mg; or placebo. IVUS was performed at baseline and study completion. The primary efficacy parameter was incidence of cardiovascular events for amlodipine vs placebo. Other outcomes included comparisons of amlodipine vs enalapril and enalapril vs placebo. Events included cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, hospitalization for angina pectoris, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, fatal or nonfatal stroke or transient ischemic attack, and new diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease. The IVUS end point was change in percent atheroma volume. Baseline blood pressure averaged 129/78 mm Hg for all patients; it increased by 0.7/0.6 mm Hg in the placebo group and decreased by 4.8/2.5 mm Hg and 4.9/2.4 mm Hg in the amlodipine and enalapril groups, respectively (P<.001 for both vs placebo). Cardiovascular events occurred in 151 (23.1%) placebo-treated patients, in 110 (16.6%) amlodipine-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.88 [P = .003]), and in 136 (20.2%) enalapril-treated patients (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07 [P = .16]. Primary end point comparison for enalapril vs amlodipine was not significant (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.63-1.04 [P = .10]). The IVUS substudy showed a trend toward less progression of atherosclerosis in the amlodipine group vs placebo (P = .12), with significantly less progression in the subgroup with systolic blood pressures greater than the mean (P = .02). Compared with baseline, IVUS showed progression in the placebo group (P<.001), a trend toward progression in the enalapril group (P = .08), and no progression in the amlodipine group (P = .31). For the amlodipine group, correlation between blood pressure reduction and progression was r = 0.19, P = .07. Administration of amlodipine to patients with CAD and normal blood pressure resulted in reduced adverse cardiovascular events. Directionally similar, but smaller and nonsignificant, treatment effects were observed with enalapril. For amlodipine, IVUS showed evidence of slowing of atherosclerosis progression.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM.

              ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists may favorably affect serum lipids and glucose metabolism. The primary aim of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) was to compare the effects of fosinopril and amlodipine on serum lipids and diabetes control in NIDDM patients with hypertension. Prospectively defined cardiovascular events were assessed as secondary outcomes. Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of NIDDM and hypertension (systolic blood pressure of > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of > 90 mmHg). Exclusion criteria included a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, albuminuria > 40 micrograms/min, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, aspirin, or antihypertensive agents other than beta-blockers or diuretics. A total of 380 hypertensive diabetics were randomly assigned to open-label fosinopril (20 mg/day) or amlodipine (10 mg/day) and followed for up to 3.5 years. If blood pressure was not controlled, the other study drug was added. Both treatments were effective in lowering blood pressure. At the end of follow-up, between the two groups there was no significant difference in total serum cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, or plasma insulin. The patients receiving fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of the combined outcome of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina than those receiving amlodipine (14/189 vs. 27/191; hazards ratio = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.26-0.95). Fosinopril and amlodipine had similar effects on biochemical measures, but the patients randomized to fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of major vascular events, compared with the patients randomized to amlodipine.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Open Heart
                Open Heart
                openhrt
                openheart
                Open Heart
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2053-3624
                2016
                28 September 2016
                : 3
                : 2
                : e000473
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, Ochsner Clinical School-The University of Queensland School of Medicine , New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
                [2 ]Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute , Kansas City, Missouri, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr James J DiNicolantonio; jjdinicol@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                openhrt-2016-000473
                10.1136/openhrt-2016-000473
                5051471
                27752334
                dc46a23c-4a24-474c-8964-2c4d63748fe1
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 2 June 2016
                : 10 August 2016
                : 15 August 2016
                Categories
                Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention
                1506
                Original research article

                hypertension,coronary artery disease,cardiovascular,heart failure,blood pressure

                Comments

                Comment on this article