scholarly journals A Comparative study to assess the effectiveness and safety of cilnidipine versus amlodipine in patients with newly diagnosed essential hypertension: insights from a single centre prospective observational study

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 648
Author(s):  
Ramya Y. S. ◽  
Jayanthi C. R. ◽  
Raveendra K. R. ◽  
Pradeep Kumar B. T.
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Essential Hypertension ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Calcium Channel Blockers ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Amlodipine Group ◽  
Pedal Edema

Background: Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are proposed to play a pivotal role for the management and control of hypertension. Dihydropyridine-type calcium channel blockers (CCBs) like Amlodipine are frequently used because for their strong antihypertensive and minimal adverse side effects. However, it is commonly associated with the causation of pedal edema among the patients. Cilnidipine, which is a novel new generation calcium channel blocker, is presumed to cause lesser pedal edema with a satisfactory clinical control of hypertension along with negligible side effects. This study was carried out to compare clinical effectiveness and safety profile between Amlodipine and Cilnidipine.Methods: A prospective, randomized, open label study of 12 weeks’ duration was conducted amongst 60 patients with newly diagnosed essential hypertension. 30 patients of one group received Tab. Amlodipine 5 mg and 30 patients of same age groups received Tab. Cilnidipine 10mg.Results: There was a highly statistically significant decrease in the level of blood pressure in the Cilnidipine group compared to the Amlodipine group mainly at day 90 (P<0.001). Cilnidipine treated group had a fall in blood pressure of 23 ± 8 mmHg and the Amlodipine group had a decrease in the blood pressure of 12±7mmHg. Additionally, there was also significant reduction in pulse rate in the cilnidipine group. Only 4 patients in the Cilnidipine group developed ankle edema which completely disappeared at the end of 12 weeks of therapy compared to 9 patients in the Amlodipine group which persistently worsened at the completion of the study.Conclusions: Our study concluded that cilnidipine was a well-tolerated anti-hypertensive drug amongst patients with newly diagnosed essential hypertension and associated with minor adverse effects.

scholarly journals Calcium Channel Blockers Shorten the Periodicity of Ultradian Variation in Blood Pressure in Patients with Essential Hypertension.

1998 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Kawamura ◽  
Hiromi Mitsubayashi ◽  
Tomoaki Saito ◽  
Katsuo Kanmatsuse ◽  
Noboru Saito
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Essential Hypertension ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Calcium Channel Blockers ◽  
Channel Blockers

Case 36: Orthostatic Hypertension

2019 ◽  
pp. 215-218
Author(s):  
Peter Novak
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Essential Hypertension ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Calcium Channel Blockers ◽  
Cerebral Perfusion ◽  
Cerebral Vessels ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Orthostatic Hypertension ◽  
Orthostatic Blood Pressure

Orthostatic hypertension is a syndrome associated with a rise in orthostatic blood pressure, for example in essential hypertension, diabetes, and dysautonomia. Therapy with calcium channel blockers may reduce hypertension and also may improve cerebral perfusion since calcium channel blockers dilate cerebral vessels.

scholarly journals Comparison of effects of benidipine and amlodipine on clinical and biochemical parameters in hypertensive patients: an observational study

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 2233
Author(s):  
S. V. Dange ◽  
Bhagyashree Sharma ◽  
Pallav P. Kataria ◽  
Ritika Vaid
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Calcium Channels ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Pulse Rate ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serum Triglycerides ◽  
Amlodipine Group

Background: Hypertension is a widespread public health problem and a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Amlodipine, a calcium channel blocker, dilates arterioles by blocking L-type calcium channels. Benidipine inhibits L, N, and T type calcium channels. We compared the efficacy of Amlodipine and benidipine on blood pressure, pulse rate, proteinuria and lipid profile in hypertensive patients.Methods: The study was an observational, prospective, open label comparison. Eligible hypertensives were given either amlodipine (5mg/d) or benidipine (4mg/d). Clinical features and laboratory parameters were recorded initially and after 3 months. Adverse events were recorded with the help of a questionnaire. Compliance was assessed by return pill count.Results: Out of 35 patients, recruited for study, 16 received amlodipine and 17 were treated with benidipine and two were lost during follow up. Both the groups were well matched in terms of age, body weight, clinical findings and laboratory values. Both the drugs significantly (P <0.05) reduced systolic (142±16 to 138±15 vs.148±16 to 134±14mmHg) and diastolic blood pressure (81±9 to 79±7). In the Amlodipine group the pulse rate after treatment tended to be higher than before (70±9 to 72±10bpm). In the Benidipine group there was decrease in pulse-rate after treatment (69±9 to 67±9). Unlike Amlodipine, Benidipine significantly (P<0.05) decreased urinary protein excretion (1.0±1.2 to 1.1±1.4 vs. 1.4±2.5 to 1.1±1.7g/g-Cr) and serum triglycerides (125±25 to 120±23 vs 130±26 to 115±21mg/dl).Conclusions: In this study, amlodipine and benidipine were found to be be equally effective anti-hypertensive in patients with stage 1 hypertension. However, there was significant reduction in proteinuria and serum triglycerides in Benidipine group as compared to Amlodipine group. Benidipine may be a better alternative to existing calcium channel blockers.

Calcium-channel blockers and sodium intake: A controlled study in patients with essential hypertension

1989 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferruccio Galletti ◽  
Pasquale Strazzullo ◽  
Francesco P. Cappuccio ◽  
Gianvincenzo Barba ◽  
Nicola Giorgione ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Essential Hypertension ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Calcium Channel Blockers ◽  
Sodium Intake ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Channel Blockers

scholarly journals Comparing the Efficacy of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme In-hibitors with Calcium Channel Blockers on the Treatment of Di-abetic Nephropathy: A Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaowei ZHANG ◽  
Chunlin CHEN ◽  
Shiwen LV ◽  
Yalan ZHU ◽  
Tianzi FANG
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Diabetic Nephropathy ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Calcium Channel Blockers ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Converting Enzyme

Background: The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) could improve the symptoms of diabetic nephropathy. Whether the calcium channel blockers (CCBs) could be as effective as ACEIs on treating diabetic nephropathy is controversial. Here, we aimed to compare the efficacy of ACEIs with CCBs on the treatment of diabetic nephropathy by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: The Pubmed, Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Database were searched up to July 2017 for eligible randomized clinical trials studies. Effect sizes were summarized as mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (P-value<0.05). Results: Seven RCTs involving 430 participants comparing ACEIs with CCBs were included. No benefit was seen in comparative group of ACEIs on systolic blood pressure（SBP） (MD=1.05 mmHg; 95% CI: -0.97 to 3.08, P=0.31), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD= -0.34 mmHg; 95% CI: -1.2 to 0.51, P=0.43), urinary albumin excretion rates (UAER) (MD=1.91μg/min; 95% CI: -10.3 to 14.12, P=0.76), 24-h urine protein (24-UP) (SMD=-0.26; 95%CI: -0.55 to 0.03, P=0.08), glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (SMD=0.01; 95% CI: -0.38 to 0.41, P=0.95). On safety aspect, the risk of adverse reactions between ACEIs group and CCBs group are similar (RR=1.18; 95% CI: 0.61 to 2.28; P=0.61). Conclusion: Both ACEIs and CCBs could improve the BP, UAER, 24h-UP, and GFR of diabetic nephropathy to a similar extent

scholarly journals Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and peripheral side effects

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (10) ◽  
pp. 745-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Sirker ◽  
CG Missouris ◽  
GA MacGregor
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Calcium Channel Blockers ◽  
Channel Blockers
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document