Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 42, Supplement 1, pp 37–43 | Cite as

Comparison of Dihydropyridine and Phenylalkylamine Calcium Antagonists in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

  • Gerd F. Rettig
  • Michael Jakob
  • Semi Sen
  • Armin Heisel
Article

Summary

To evaluate possible differences between dihydropyridine and phenylalkylamine calcium antagonists in the setting of chronic stable angina, 2 placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trials were conducted comparing the effects of gallopamil and nifedipine on exercise tolerance and ischaemic ST depression, using standard as well as slow release formulations.

In the first study, 30 patients received standard formulations of gallopamil (50mg 3 times daily) and nifedipine (20mg 3 times daily). This trial was stopped after 9 patients had been enrolled, because of severe exacerbation of angina in 3 nifedipine recipients. 21 patients then entered a second protocol in which the nifedipine dose was reduced to 10mg 3 times daily. Compared with the preceding placebo periods, time to angina onset and total exercise time were statistically significantly (p < 0.01) prolonged by gallopamil (by 30 and 18%, respectively), and nonsignificantly prolonged by nifedipine (by 20 and 13%, respectively), after 4 weeks’ treatment. Increases in heart rate and rate-pressure product at maximal comparable workloads were less with gallopamil than with nifedipine (p < 0.01). In contrast to nifedipine, gallopamil was associated with very few side effects. The second trial comprised 24 patients who received slow release formulations of gallopamil (100mg twice daily) and nifedipine (20mg twice daily) over 2 weeks. Again, both drugs exhibited significant anti-ischaemic efficacy, as evidenced by reductions in ST depression at maximal comparable workloads and increases in exercise time compared with placebo, but the differences between the treatments were not statistically significant. Side effects were more frequent with nifedipine, but less severe than with the standard formulation.

In standard formulation, gallopamil is preferable to nifedipine because of a marginally higher efficacy, fewer side effects and, therefore, a more favourable risk: benefit ratio. The usefulness of nifedipine is substantially limited by significant adverse reactions, probably due to excessive reflex sympathetic discharge. The use of slow release formulations appears to attenuate these differences without completely abolishing them.

Keywords

Nifedipine Chronic Stable Angina Angina Onset Gallopamil Anginal Frequency 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bala Subramanian V, Bowles MJ, Khurmi NS, Davies AB, Raftery EB. Randomized double-blind comparison of verapamil and nifedipine in chronic stable angina. American Journal of Cardiology 50: 696–703, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourdillon PDV, Poole-Wilson PA. The effects of verapamil, quiescence and cardioplegia on calcium exchange and mechanical function in ischemic rabbit myocardium. Circulation Research 50: 360–368, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawson JR, Whitaker NHG, Sutton GC. Calcium antagonist drugs in chronic stable angina. Comparison of verapamil and nifedipine. British Heart Journal 46: 508–512, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Jong JW, Harmeson E, DeTombe PP, Keijzer E. Nifedipine reduces adenine nucleotide breakdown in ischaemic rat heart. European Journal of Pharmacology 81: 89–96, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egstrup K. Randomised double-blind comparison of metoprolol, nifedipine and their combination in chronic stable angina: effects on total ischemic activity and heart rate at onset of ischemia. American Heart Journal 116: 971–978, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fox KM, Deanfield J, Selwyn A, Krickler S, Wright C. Treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris with nifedipine. In Kaltenbach M, Neufeld HN (Eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Adalat Symposium. New therapy of ischaemic heart disease and hypertension, pp. 197–204, Excerpta Medica, Amsterdam, 1983Google Scholar
  7. Fujibay Y, Yamazaki S, Chiang B, Rajagopalan RE, Meerbaum S, et al. Comparative echocardiographic study of recovery of diastolic versus systolic function after brief periods of coronary occlusion: differentiation effects of intravenous nifedipine administered before and after occlusion. Journal of American College of Cardiology 6: 1289–1298, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gottlieb SI, Weiss JL, Flaherty JT, Millits ED, Ouang P, et al. Effects of nifedipine on clinical course and left ventricular function in low risk acute myocardial infarction. A double-blind randomised trial. Circulation 70: II 257, 1984Google Scholar
  9. HINT Research Group (Holland Interuniversity Nifedipine/Metoprolol Trial Research Group). Early treatment of unstable angina in the coronary care unit: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled comparison of recurrent ischaemia in patients treated with nifedipine or metoprolol or both. British Heart Journal 56: 400–413, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jariwalla AG, Anderson EG. Production of ischemic pain by nifedipine. British Medical Journal 1: 1181–1182, 1978PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koch GG. The use of nonparametric methods in the statistical analysis of the two period change over design. Biometrics 28: 577–584, 1972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Müller HS, Chahine RA. Interim report of multicenter double blind placebo controlled studies of nifedipine in chronic stable angina pectoris. American Journal of Medicine 71: 645–657, 1981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nayler WG. Protection of the myocardium against post-ischaemic reperfusion damage. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 84: 897–905, 1982PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nayler WG. Calcium antagonists. Academic Press, London, 1988Google Scholar
  15. Reimer KA, Jennings RB. Verapamil in two reperfusion models of myocardial infarction. Temporary protection of severely ischemic myocardium without limitation of ultimate infarct size. Laboratory Investigations 51: 655–667, 1984Google Scholar
  16. Rettig G, Sen S, Heisel A, Vogel W, Schieffer H, et al. Antianginal efficacy of gallopamil in comparison to nifedipine. International Journal of Cardiology 19: 315–325, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rettig G, Sen S, Schieffer H, Bette L. Akut- und Langzeitwirkungen von Gallopamil (D 600) bei stabiler Angina pectoris — Eine randomisierte Doppelblind-studie. Zeitschrift für Kardiologie 72: 746–754, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schulz W, Jost S, Kober G, Kaltenbach M. Relation of antianginal efficacy of nifedipine to degree of coronary arterial narrowing and to presence of coronary collateral vessels. American Journal of Cardiology 55: 26–32, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sirnes PA, Overskeid K, Pedersen TR, Bathen J, Drivenes A, et al. Evolution of infarct size during the early use of nifedipine in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The Norwegian Multicenter Trial. Circulation 70: 638–644, 1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Uusitalo A, Arstila M, Bae EA, Härkönen R, Keyriläinen O, et al. Metoprolol, nifedipine and the combination in stable effort angina pectoris. American Journal of Cardiology 57: 733–737, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vetrovec GW, Parker VE, Alpert DA. Comparative dosing and efficacy of continuous release nifedipine versus standard nifedipine for angina pectoris: clinical response, exercise performance, and plasma nifedipine levels. American Heart Journal 115: 793–798, 1988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Watts JA, Maiorano LJ, Maiorano PC. Protection by verapamil of globally ischemic rat hearts: energy preservation, a partial explanation. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology 17: 797–804, 1985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilcox RG, Hampton JR, Banks CD, Birkhead JS, Brooksby IAB, et al. Trial of early nifedipine in acute myocardial infarction: the Trent study. British Medical Journal 293: 1204–1208, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerd F. Rettig
    • 1
  • Michael Jakob
    • 1
  • Semi Sen
    • 2
  • Armin Heisel
    • 2
  1. 1.Medizinische KlinikBundesknappschaftskrankenhaus Sulzbach/SaarSulzbach/SaarFederal Republic of Germany
  2. 2.Medizinische Universitätsklinik IIIHomburg/SaarFederal Republic of Germany

Personalised recommendations