Advertisement

Calcium Channel Blockers Co-prescribed with Loop Diuretics: A Potential Marker of Poor Prescribing?

  • Henry J. WoodfordEmail author
Current Opinion

Abstract

Prescribing cascades are where a drug adverse reaction is wrongly attributed to the emergence of a new condition, which leads to further drug prescribing. This promotes polypharmacy, adverse drug reactions and therapeutic burden. An example of a prescribing cascade is the co-prescribing of loop diuretics to treat the peripheral oedema caused by calcium channel blocker (CCB) drugs. Although well recognised, this is still a combination of medications taken by millions of people worldwide. CCBs have no prognostic benefit in heart failure and have an absolute risk increase for oedema of around 8–18% (number needed to harm 6–13). In the treatment of hypertension, they also increase the risk of oedema and a new diagnosis of heart failure without having any major advantages over alternative drugs. The best way to manage the oedema caused by CCBs is to switch to an alternative medication. Only where this is not possible or fails to achieve therapeutic goals would the CCB–loop diuretic combination appear to be justified. In many cases, therapeutic practice could be improved by targeting people on CCB–loop diuretic combinations for medication review. This could improve quality of life and reduce polypharmacy, adverse drug reactions, therapeutic burden and financial costs for millions of people worldwide.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Kelly J, Chambers J. Inappropriate use of loop diuretics in elderly patients. Age Ageing. 2000;29:489–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH. Optimising drug treatment for elderly people: the prescribing cascade. BMJ. 1997;315:1096–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duerden M, Avery T, Payne R. Polypharmacy and medicines optimisation: making it safe and sound. The King’s Fund 2013. http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/polypharmacy-and-medicines-optimisation. Accessed 9 July 2019.
  4. 4.
    Nguyen PV, Spinelli C. Prescribing cascade in an elderly woman. CPJ/RPC. 2016;149:122–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berry SD, Mittleman MA, Zhang Y, et al. New loop diuretic prescriptions may be an acute risk factor for falls in the nursing home. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012;21:560–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xiao F, Qu X, Zhai Z, et al. Association between loop diuretic use and fracture risk. Osteoporos Int. 2015;26:775–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekundayo OJ, Markland A, Lefante C, et al. Association of diuretic use and overactive bladder syndrome in older adults: a propensity score analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2009;49:64–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vouri SM, van Tuyl JS, Olsen MA, et al. An evaluation of a potential calcium channel blocker-lower-extremity edema-loop diuretic prescribing cascade. J Am Pharm Assoc. 2018;58:534–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rodriguez-Cillero C, Menu D, d’Athis P. Potentially inappropriate use of furosemide in a very elderly population: an observational study. Int J Clin Pract. 2017;71:e12975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldstein RE, Boccuzzi SJ, Cruess D, et al. Diltiazem increases late-onset congestive heart failure in postinfarction patients with early reduction in ejection fraction. Circulation. 1991;83:52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sica DA. Calcium channel blocker-related peripheral edema: can it be resolved? J Clin Hypertens. 2003;5:291–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chrysan SG. Proactive compared with passive adverse event recognition: calcium channel blocker-associated edema. J Clin Hypertens. 2008;10:716–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Messerli FH. Vasodilatory edema: a common side effect of antihypertensive therapy. Am J Hyperten. 2001;14:978–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leonetti G, Magnani B, Pessina AC, et al. Tolerability of long-term treatment with lercanidipine versus amlodipine and lacidipine in elderly hypertensives. Am J Hypertens. 2002;15:932–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Handler J. Managing calcium channel blocker-related peripheral edema. J Clin Hypertens. 2004;6:400–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weir MR, Rosenberger C, Fink JC. Pilot study to evaluate a water displacement technique to compare effects of diuretics and ace inhibitors to alleviate lower extremity edema due to dihydropyridine calcium antagonists. Am J Hypertens. 2001;14:963–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    de la Sierra A. Mitigation of calcium channel blocker-related oedema in hypertension by antagonists of the renin-angiotensin system. J Hum Hypertens. 2009;23:503–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schrader J, Salvetti A, Calvo C, et al. The combination of amlodipine⁄valsartan 5⁄160 mg produces less peripheral oedema than amlodipine 10 mg in hypertensive patients not adequately controlled with amlodipine 5 mg. Int J Clin Pract. 2009;63:217–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Calhoun DA, Lacourciere Y, Chiang YT, et al. Triple antihypertensive therapy with amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide: a randomized clinical trial. Hypertension. 2009;54:32–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borlaug BA, Redfield MM. Diastolic and systolic heart failure are distinct phenotypes within the heart failure spectrum. Circulation. 2011;123:2006–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Packer M, O’Connor CM, Ghali JK, et al. Effect of amlodipine on morbidity and mortality in severe chronic heart failure. NEJM. 1996;335:1107–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Packer M, Carson P, Elkayam U, et al. Effect of amlodipine on the survival of patients with severe chronic heart failure due to a nonischemic cardiomyopathy: results of the PRAISE-2 study (Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation 2). J Am Coll Cardiol HF. 2013;1:308–14.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohn JN, Ziesche S, Smith R, et al. Effect of the calcium antagonist felodipine as supplementary vasodilator therapy in patients with chronic heart failure treated with enalapril: V-HeFT III. Circulation. 1997;96:856–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Littler WA, Sheridan DJ. Placebo controlled trial of felodipine in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. Br Heart J. 1995;73:428–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Patel K, Fonarow GC, Ahmed M, et al. Calcium channel blockers and outcomes in older patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. Circ Heart Fail. 2014;7:945–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management. Clinical guideline 127; 2011. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg127.
  27. 27.
    Handler J. Resistant hypertension responding to change from furosemide to thiazide: understanding calcium channel blocker-related edema. J Clin Hypertens. 2010;12:949–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Duarte JD, Cooper-DeHoff RM. Mechanisms for blood pressure lowering and metabolic effects of thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2010;8:793–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, et al. Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet. 1999;354:1751–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, et al. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet. 2000;356:366–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:895–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. 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). JAMA. 2002;288:2981–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:957–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Institue for Health and Care Excellence. Stable angina: management. Clinical guideline 126, 2011. http://nice.org.uk/guidance/cg126.
  35. 35.
    Guthrie B, Makubate B, Hernandez-Santiago V, et al. The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug–drug interactions: population database analysis 1995–2010. BMC Med. 2015;13:74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    O’Mahony D, Gallagher P, Ryan C, et al. STOPP & START criteria: a new approach to detecting potentially inappropriate prescribing in old age. Eur Geriatr Med. 2010;1:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH. The prescribing cascade revisited. Lancet. 2017;389:1778–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dalton K, O’Brien G, O’Mahony D, et al. Computerised interventions designed to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing in hospitalised older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2018;47:670–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northumbria HealthcareNorth ShieldsUK

Personalised recommendations