TY - JOUR
T1 - Results of a meta-analysis comparing the tolerability of lercanidipine and other dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers
AU - Makarounas-Kirchmann, K.
AU - Glover-Koudounas, S.
AU - Ferrari, Paolo
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - Background: Results from clinical studies suggest that the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) lercanidipine may be associated with a lower incidence of peripheral edema than are older dihydro-pyridine CCBs.Objective: The objective of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the relative risk (RR) of dihydropyridine CCB-specific adverse events with lercanidipine versus the older dihydro-pyridine CCBs (first generation: amlodipine, felodipine, and nifedipine), and versus the other lipophilic dihy-dropyridine CCBs (second generation: lacidipine and manidipine).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 dihydropyridine CCBs in participants with mild (140–159/90–99 mm Hg) to 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 lercanid-ipine and either generation of medications. 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, 0.31–0.62]), but not flushing or headache. The frequency of peripheral edema, flushing, and headache did not differ statistically between lercanidi-pine 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 adverse event (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: In this meta-analysis, 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, dihydropyridine CCBs.
AB - Background: Results from clinical studies suggest that the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) lercanidipine may be associated with a lower incidence of peripheral edema than are older dihydro-pyridine CCBs.Objective: The objective of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the relative risk (RR) of dihydropyridine CCB-specific adverse events with lercanidipine versus the older dihydro-pyridine CCBs (first generation: amlodipine, felodipine, and nifedipine), and versus the other lipophilic dihy-dropyridine CCBs (second generation: lacidipine and manidipine).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 dihydropyridine CCBs in participants with mild (140–159/90–99 mm Hg) to 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 lercanid-ipine and either generation of medications. 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, 0.31–0.62]), but not flushing or headache. The frequency of peripheral edema, flushing, and headache did not differ statistically between lercanidi-pine 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 adverse event (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: In this meta-analysis, 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, dihydropyridine CCBs.
U2 - 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.08.010
DO - 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.08.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 19808126
SN - 0149-2918
VL - 31
SP - 1652
EP - 1663
JO - Clinical Therapeutics
JF - Clinical Therapeutics
IS - 8
ER -