Drugs

, Volume 63, Issue 22, pp 2449–2472 | Cite as

Lercanidipine

A Review of its Efficacy in the Management of Hypertension
  • Lynne M. Bang
  • Therese M. Chapman
  • Karen L. Goa
Adis Drug Evaluation

Summary

Abstract

Lercanidipine (Zanidip®) is a vasoselective dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist that causes systemic vasodilation by blocking the influx of calcium ions through L-type calcium channels in cell membranes. It is a highly lipophilic drug that exhibits a slower onset and longer duration of action than other calcium channel antagonists. Furthermore, lercanidipine may have antiatherogenic activity unrelated to its antihypertensive effect.

In two large, nonblind, noncomparative studies involving approximately 16 000 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, systolic blood pressure (BP) [SBP] and diastolic BP (DBP) were significantly reduced after 12 weeks' treatment with lercanidipine 10–20 mg/day. Furthermore, in the largest study, 64% of patients were responders (DBP <90mm Hg) after 12 weeks of treatment and an additional 32% had their BP normalised (BP <140/90mm Hg).

In comparative trials, lercanidipine 10–20 mg/day was as effective as nifedipine slow release (SR) 20–40mg twice daily, amlodipine 10 mg/day, felodipine 10–20 mg/day, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30–60mg once daily or verapamil SR 240 mg/day at reducing SBP and DBP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension after 2–16 weeks of therapy. In addition, 4 weeks of lercanidipine therapy (10 mg/day) was as effective as captopril 25mg twice daily, atenolol 50 mg/day or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day.

Lercanidipine 5–30 mg/day effectively decreased BP in elderly patients (aged >60 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension to the same extent as amlodipine 5–10 mg/day, nifedipine GITS 30–60 mg/day or lacidipine 2–4 mg/day after 24–26 weeks of therapy. In addition, a limited number of studies suggest that lercanidipine may have antihypertensive efficacy in patients with severe or resistant hypertension, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and in postmenopausal women with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

Lercanidipine is well tolerated, with most treatment-emergent events related to vasodilation. Common adverse events included headache, flushing and peripheral oedema. Importantly, the incidence of vasodilatory oedema was significantly lower in patients receiving lercanidipine than in those receiving some other calcium channel antagonists.

Conclusion: Once-daily lercanidipine is an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive agent in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Furthermore, in a small number of studies, the drug has demonstrated efficacy in patients with severe or resistant hypertension (as add-on therapy), in the elderly and in patients with type 2 diabetes. Importantly, lercanidipine appears to be as effective and at least as well tolerated as many other calcium channel antagonists, but with a decreased incidence of oedema. Limited studies also suggest that this drug can be used in combination therapy. Lercanidipine is therefore an appropriate option for the treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension.

Pharmacodynamic Properties

Lercanidipine is a third-generation dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist, that blocks calcium entry into smooth muscle cells, thereby causing peripheral vasodilation and a reduction in blood pressure (BP).

The antihypertensive effect of lercanidipine is gradual in onset and long in duration (mean time to equilibrium effect was 70–116 minutes at log−7 to log−10 concentrations). Significant reductions in BP were maintained over a 24-hour period in patients with essential hypertension who received lercanidipine 10 or 20 mg/day.

Lercanidipine is vasoselective and has little cardiodepressant activity. Heart rate or electrocardiographic parameters were not significantly altered in clinical trials in patients with hypertension. In small studies, left ventricular mass was significantly reduced compared with baseline in patients with hypertension treated with lercanidipine 10 mg/day for up to 12 months.

Lercanidipine has an antiatherogenic effect unrelated to its antihypertensive activity. Studies in patients with hypertension with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus have shown that lercanidipine also has antioxidant activity. Lercanidipine 10 mg/day for 16 weeks significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol oxidation in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.

Lercanidipine appears to neutrally or favourably affect lipid and glucose metabolism in patients with hypertension. As with other calcium channel antagonists, no significant effect on the albumin/creatinine ratio was seen in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes treated with lercanidipine for 16 weeks. In addition, creatinine clearance, but not plasma creatinine concentrations, increased by 10% compared with baseline in patients with chronic renal failure.

Pharmacokinetic Properties

Lercanidipine is administered as a racemic mixture. The mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of S-lercanidipine after a single oral dose of lercanidipine 10 or 20mg in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension was 1.75 and 4.09 μg/L and time to Cmax was 2.3 and 3.3 hours; the corresponding mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) was 4.55 and 16.36 μg ⋅ h/L indicating a non-linear profile. Lercanidipine is highly bound to plasma proteins (>98%).

After absorption, oral lercanidipine undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism, with approximately equivalent amounts of an oral dose eliminated in the urine and the faeces as metabolites. In patients with hypertension or angina pectoris, the mean terminal elimination half-life in plasma for a single oral dose of lercanidipine 10 or 20mg was 8 or 10.5 hours.

The pharmacokinetic profile of lercanidipine in elderly patients or patients with mild hepatic impairment or mild-to-moderate renal impairment is not significantly different from that of otherwise healthy patients with hypertension. However, accumulation of lercanidipine occurred after repeat administrations in patients with severe renal impairment.

Coadministration of lercanidipine with inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 (e.g. ketoconazole) led to significantly increased lercanidipine Cmax (8-fold) or AUC values (15-fold). Furthermore, in vivo coadministration of lercanidipine and midazolam, a substrate of CYP3A4, did not alter the plasma concentrations of midazolam, but increased the extent (by ≈40%) and decreased the rate (by ≈75%) of lercanidipine absorption.

No clinically significant interactions were reported when lercanidipine 10 or 20 mg/day was coadministered with β-methyldigoxin, cimetidine at standard dosages, simvastatin 40mg, sildenafil, warfarin, diuretics or ACE inhibitors.

Therapeutic Efficacy

Systolic BP (SBP) was significantly reduced from baseline by 19 and 26mm Hg and diastolic BP (DBP) by 13 and 15mm Hg after 12 weeks of therapy with lercanidipine 10–20 mg/day in two large noncomparative studies involving 16 105 patients with grade 1, 2 or 3 hypertension. Reductions in BP were similar in those receiving lercanidipine monotherapy and those receiving combination therapy with other antihypertensive agents in one trial. Furthermore, in one study (ELYPSE [Eficacia de Lecanidipino y su Perfil de Seguridad]) 64% of patients were responders (DBP <90mm Hg) after 12 weeks of treatment and 32% had their BP normalised (BP <140/90mm Hg).

Compared with other calcium channel antagonists, lercanidipine 10–20 mg/day was as effective as nifedipine slow release (SR) 20–40mg twice daily, amlodipine 10 mg/day, felodipine 10–20 mg/day, nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30–60mg once daily or verapamil SR 240 mg/day at reducing SBP and DBP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension after 2–16 weeks of therapy. Furthermore, 4 weeks of lercanidipine therapy (10 mg/day) was also as effective as captopril 25mg twice daily, atenolol 50 mg/day or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/day at reducing BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Normalisation rates were higher at completion of therapy than after 4 weeks in studies which employed dosage titration in nonresponders after 4 weeks.

In one study, lercanidipine monotherapy reduced BP in patients with severe hypertension, albeit at dosages higher than those currently recommended. As add-on therapy, lercanidipine 10–30 mg/day was as effective as nitrendipine 10–30 mg/day in patients with hypertension not responding to therapy with other antihypertensive agents.

Lercanidipine 5–30 mg/day decreased BP in elderly patients (aged >60 years) with mild-to-moderate hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension to a similar extent to amlodipine 5–10 mg/day, nifedipine GITS 30–60 mg/day or lacidipine 2–4 mg/day after 24–26 weeks of therapy.

Lercanidipine has also demonstrated antihypertensive efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes and in postmenopausal women with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in single studies.

Tolerability

Lercanidipine was well tolerated in clinical trials with most treatment-emergent adverse events related to vasodilation. In the two largest studies, involving 16 105 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, adverse events were observed in 1.6 and 6.5% of patients receiving lercanidipine 10 or 20 mg/day. Headache (0.2% and 2.9%), ankle oedema (0.4% and 1.2%) and flushing (1.0% and 1.1 %) were the most commonly reported events.

Adverse events were reported in 11.8% of lercanidipine recipients (10 or 20mg once daily) compared with 7.0% of those receiving placebo in a pooled analysis of data from 20 clinical trials involving almost 1800 patients with hypertension. Similar percentages of patients withdrew because of poor tolerability (5% and 3%) and the most commonly reported events were headache, flushing, vertigo, palpitations and ankle oedema.

Lercanidipine was well tolerated in elderly patients (aged >60 years) during both short-term (8–24 weeks) and longer-term treatment (>6 months). Adverse events, including peripheral oedema, elevated liver enzymes, flushing and headache were reportedby <3–19.4% of elderly patients receiving lercanidipine 10 or 20 mg/day. A small number of elderly lercanidipine recipients withdrew because of poor tolerability.

Lercanidipine 10 or 20 mg/day showed a similar tolerability profile to captopril 50–100 mg/day, atenolol 50–100 mg/day and losartan 50–100 mg/day. However, adverse events were less common with lercanidipine 10–20mg once daily than with nitrendipine (10 or 20 mg/day), nifedipine SR (20–40 mg twice daily) and nifedipine GITS (30–60 once daily) during 8–24 weeks of therapy. The incidence of peripheral oedema was significantly lower during treatment with lercanidipine 10–20 mg/day than during treatment with amlodipine or nifedipine GITS, whereas treatment withdrawals due to peripheral oedema were similar in patients treated with lercanidipine 10–20 mg/day or lacidipine 2–4 mg/day.

Furthermore, patients reported significantly fewer adverse events after switching to lercanidipine from amlodipine, nifedipine GITS, felodipine or nitrendipine. The incidence of oedema was reduced by 46%, flushing by 51 % and headache and rash both by 53% (p < 0.001 for all comparisons).

Dosage and Administration

Oral lercanidipine is approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension in most of Europe (including the UK), Asia, Australasia and South America. UK prescribing information indicates that lercanidipine therapy should be initiated at 10 mg/day. The dosage can be gradually titrated to 20 mg/day in patients who do not respond satisfactorily.

Dosage adjustments are not required in the elderly or in patients with mild-to-moderate renal or hepatic dysfunction. Lercanidipine is not recommended for use in patients with severe hepatic or renal dysfunction, nor in patients aged <18 years.

Lercanidipine is contraindicated during pregnancy and lactation, in women of child-bearing potential unless effective contraception is used, in patients with left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, untreated congestive heart failure, unstable angina pectoris or within 1 month of a myocardial infarction.

Lercanidipine should not be coadministered with inhibitors of CYP3A4 or cyclosporin or grapefruit juice. Furthermore, caution should be exercised when administering lercanidipine with inducers or other substrates of CYP3A4. Lercanidipine can be coadministered with warfarin, simvastatin, β-methyldigoxin and low dosages of cimetidine (<-800 mg/day), although patients receiving concomitant digoxin should be monitored for digoxin toxicity.

Keywords

Nifedipine Losartan Amlodipine Felodipine HCTZ 

References

  1. 1.
    Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002; 360: 1903–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al. Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population: results from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991. Hypertension 1995; 25: 305–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colhoun HM, Dong W, Poulter NR. Blood pressure screening, management and control in England: results from the health survey for England 1994. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 747–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Scriabine A. Seventeenth annual scientific meeting of the American Society of Hypertension, New York, NY, May 14–18, 2002. Cardiovasc Drug Rev 2002; 20(2): 153–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McClellan KJ, Jarvis B. Lercanidipine: a review of its use in hypertension. Drugs 2000 Nov; 60(5): 1123–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herbette LG, Vecchiarelli M, Sartani A, et al. Lercanidipine: short plasma half-life, long duration of action and high cholesterol tolerance: updated molecular model to rationalize its pharmacokinetic properties. Blood Press 1998; 7 Suppl. 2: 10–7Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leonardi A, Poggesi E, Taddei C, et al. In vitro calcium antagonist activity of lercanidipine and its enantiomers. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 1: S10–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Testa R, Rimoldi E, Sironi G, et al. Hemodynamic effects and power spectral analysis of heart rate and arterial pressure variabilities induced by lercanidipine and its enantiomers in conscious dogs. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 1: S78–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meredith PA. Lercanidipine: a novel lipophilic dihydropyrindine calcium antagonist with long duration of action and high vascular selectivity. Exp Opin Invest Drugs 1999; 8(7): 1043–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sironi G, Colombo D, Greto L, et al. Antihypertensive activity of lercanidipine and its enantiomers in animal models. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 1: S33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guarneri L, Angelico P, Ibba M, et al. Pharmacological in vitro studies of the new 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist lercanidipine. Arzneimittel Forschung 1996; 46: 15–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Angelico P, Guarneri L, Leonardi A, et al. Vascular-selective effect of lercanidipine and other 1,4-dihydropyridines in isolated rabbit tissues. J Pharm Pharmacol 1999; 51: 709–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van der Lee R, Pfaffendorf M, van Zwieten PA. The differential time courses of the vasodilator effects of various 1,4-dihydropyridines in isolated human small arteries are correlated to their lipophilicity. J Hypertens 2000 Nov; 18(11): 1677–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ambrosioni E, Circo A. Activity of lercanidipine administered in single and repeated doses once daily as monitored over 24 hours in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macchiarulo C, Pieri R, Mitolo DC, et al. Antihypertensive effects of six calcium antagonists: evidence from Fourier analysis of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure recordings. Curr Ther Res 2001; 62(4): 236–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Omboni S, Zanchetti A. Antihypertensive efficacy of lercanidipine at 2.5, 5 and 10 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertensives assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measurements. J Hypertens 1998; 16 (Pt 1): 1831–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cavallini A, Terzi G. Effects of antihypertensive therapy with lercanidipine and verapamil on cardiac electrical activity in patients with hypertension: a randomized, double-blind pilot study. Curr Ther Res 2000 Jul; 61(7): 477–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barbagallo Sangiorgi G, Putignano E, Calcara L, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine vs. captopril in patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a double-blind controlled study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S36–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Giorgio LA, Orlandini F, Malasoma P, et al. Double-blind, crossover study of lercanidipine versus amlodipine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Curr Ther Res 1999 Oct; 60(10): 511–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    James IGV, Jones A, Davies P. A randomised, double-blind, double-dummy comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine tablets and losartan tablets in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2002 Aug; 16(8): 605–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morisco C, Trimarco B. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in comparison to and in combination with atenolol in patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a double-blind controlled study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S26–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paterna S, Licata A, Arnone S, et al. Lercanidipine in two different dosage regimens as a sole treatment for severe essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S50–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rimoldi E, Lumina C, Giunta L, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of two different formulations of lercanidipine versus placebo after once-daily administration in mild to moderate hypertensive patients. Curr Ther Res 1993 Aug; 54(2): 248–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seravalle G, Stella ML, Foglia G, et al. Temporal profile of antihypertensive drug-induced regression of cardiac and vascular structural alterations in hypertension [abstract no. P0780]. J Hypertens 2002; 20 Suppl. 4: S190–1Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sánchez A, Sayans R, Alvarez JL, et al. Left ventricular hypertrophy regression after a short antihypertensive treatment with lercanidipine vs. enalapril [abstract no. 12]. Fourth European Meeting on Calcium Antagonists; 1999 Oct 27–29; AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fogari R, Mugellini A, Corradi L, et al. Efficacy of lercanidipine vs losartan on left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients [abstract no. P1.191]. J Hypertens 2000; 18 Suppl. 2: S65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Corsini A, Accomazzo MR, Canavesi M, et al. The new calcium antagonist lercanidipine and its enantiomers affect major processes of atherogenesis in vitro: is calcium entry involved? Blood Press 1998; 7 Suppl. 2: 18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taddei S, Virdis A, Ghiadoni L, et al. Calcium antagonist treatment by lercanidipine prevents hyperpolarization in essential hypertension. Hypertension 2003; 41: 950–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rachmani R, Levi Z, Zadok BS, et al. Losartan and lercanidipine attenuate low-density lipoprotein oxidation in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, prospective crossover study. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Sep; 72(3): 302–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Incandela L, Belcaro G, Cesarone MR, et al. Oxygen-free radical decrease in hypertensive patients treated with lercanidipine. Int Angiol 2001 Jun; 20(2): 136–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Soma MR, Natali M, Donetti E, et al. Effect of lercanidipine and its (R)-enantiomer on atherosclerotic lesions induced in hypercholesterolemic rabbits. Br J Pharmacol 1998; 125: 1471–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sabbatini M, Leonardi A, Testa R, et al. Effect of calcium antagonists on glomerular arterioles in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Hypertension 2000; 35: 775–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sabbatini M, Vitaioli L, Baldoni E, et al. Nephroprotective effect of treatment with calcium channel blockers in spontaneously hypertensive rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2000; 294: 948–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kanda T, Hayashi K, Ozawa Y, et al. Role of T-type calcium channels as a determinant of glomerular microcirculation and subsequent renal protection [abstract no. P0170]. J Hypertens 2002 Jun; 20 Suppl. 4: S48Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Notarbartolo A, Rengo F, Scafidi V, et al. Long-term effects of lercanidipine on the lipoprotein and apolipoprotein profile of patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Curr Ther Res 1999 Apr; 60(4): 228–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Viviani GL. Lercanidipine in type II diabetic patients with mild to moderate arterial hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2002 Jul; 40(1): 133–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fogari R, Malamani GD, Zoppi A, et al. Comparative effect of lercanidipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on ankle volume and subcutaneous interstitial pressure in hypertensive patients: a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2000 Dec; 61: 850–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lund-Johansen P, Stranden E, Helberg S, et al. Quantification of leg oedema in postmenopausal hypertensive patients treated with lercanidipine or amlodipine. J Hypertens 2003 May; 21(5): 1003–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Harada N, Yamaguchi H, Shigematsu K, et al. Effects of lercanidipine, a novel calcium antagonist, on stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats. SHR Congress; 1999 Aug 26–27; Sapporo, JapanGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Amenta F, Leonardi A, Sabbatini M, et al. Glial-fibrillary acidic protein immunoreactive astrocytes in the brain of spontaneously hypertensive rats: sensitivity to pharmacological treatment [abstract]. 28th National Congress of the Italian Society of Histochemistry; 1999 Jun 2–4; Camerino, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Guarneri L, Sironi G, Angelico P, et al. In vitro and in vivo vascular selectivity of lercanidipine and its enantiomers. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 1: S25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bianchi G, Passoni A, Griffini PL. Effects of a new calcium antagonist, REC 15/2375, on cardiac contractility of conscious rabbits. Pharmacol Res 1989; 21(2): 193–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Grassi G, Seravalle G, Turri C, et al. Short-versus long-term effects of different dihydropyridines on sympathetic and baroreflex function in hypertension. Hypertension 2003 Mar; 41(3): 558–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fogari R, Mugellini A, Zoppi A, et al. Differential effects of lercanidipine and nifedipine GITS on plasma norepinephrine in chronic treatment of hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2003; 16(7): 596–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Policicchio D, Magliocca R, Malliani A. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: a comparative study with slow-release nifedipine. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S31–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Barbagallo M, Barbagallo Sangiorgi G. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in monotherapy in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Aging Clin Exp Res 2000 Oct; 12(5): 375–9Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Romito R, Pansini MI, Perticone F, et al. Comparative effect of lercandipine, felodipine and nifedipine GITS on blood pressure and heart rate in patients with mild to moderate arterial hypertension: the Lercandipine in Adults (LEAD) study. J Clin Hypertens 2003; 5(4): 249–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Barrios V, Navarro A, Esteras A, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in daily clinical practice. The ELYPSE study. Blood Press 2002; 11(2): 95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cominacini L, Fratta Pasini A, Garbin U, et al. Antioxidant activity of different dihydropyridines. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003 Mar 21; 302(4): 679–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lozano JV, Sanchis C, Llisterri JL. Efficacy of lercanidipine in poorly controlled hypertensive patients who follow a home blood pressure measurement training program [abstract no. R190]. J Hypertens 2002 Jun; 20 Suppl. 4: S376Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Abellán Alemán J, Martínez García JF, Merino Sanchez J, et al. Evaluation of psychosomatic semiology in hypertensive patients treated with lercanidipine (LERCAPISCO study) [in Italian]. An Med Interna 2003; 20(6): 287–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sabbatini M, Leonardi A, Testa R, et al. Effects of dihydropyridine-type Ca2+ antagonists on the renal arterial tree in spontaneously hypertensive rats. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2002 Jan; 39(1): 39–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zanchetti A, Cifkova R, Fagard S, et al. 2003 European Society of Hypertension — European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Guidelines Committee. Journal of Hypertension 2003; 21: 1011–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Robles NR, Ocon J, Campdera FG, et al. Lercanidipine in chronic renal failure (CRF) [abstract no. P2.225]. J Hypertens 2003; 21 Suppl. 4: S185Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Pedrinelli R, Dell'Omo G, Nuti M, et al. Heterogenous effect of calcium antagonists on leg oedema: a comparison of amlodipine versus lercanidipine in hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1969–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Guillen VF, Abellan J, Llisterri JL, et al. Efficacy and safety of Lercanidipine in combination with Enalapril in HBP: preliminary results of ZANYCONTROL Study Group [abstract no. P.212]. Am J Hypertens 2003; 16 (5 Suppl. 1: 115ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Barchielli M, Dolfini E, Farina P, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of lercanidipine. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Zanidip tablets: SPC from the eMC [online]. Available from URL: http://emc.vhn.net/eMC/assets/c/html/DisplayDoc.asp?DocumentId=1234 [Accessed 2003 Oct 10]
  59. 59.
    Barchielli M, Leoni B, Perego R. Lercanidipine plasma levels monitoring in patients: pharmacokinetic contribution to the study Rec 15/2375-RIC1-0047: dose finding study with lercanidipine in angina pectoris. Double blind randomised multicentre trial. Milan: Recordati, 1999. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Klotz U. Interaction potential of lercanidipine, a new vasoselective dihydropyridine calcium antagonist. Arzneimittel Forschung 2002; 52(3): 155–61PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Farina P, Tajana A, Barchielli M, et al. Effect of lercanidipine on CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 activities: in vitro/in vivo correlation [abstract]. 9th North American International Society for the Study of Xenobiotics Meeting; 1999 Oct 24–28; Nashville, TNGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hedner T, Everts B, Kraizci H, et al. Enhanced blood pressure lowering effect in hypertensive patients on combined sildenafil and lercanidipine treatment [abstract no. P3.52]. 10th European Meeting on Hypertension; 2000 May 29–Jun 3; Goteborg, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Schwinger RHG, Schmidt-Mertens A. The new lipophillic calcium channel blocker lercanidipine combines high antihypertensive efficacy with low side effects [abstract no. P1-7]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2002; 127 Suppl. 1: S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Calvo C, Hermida R, Navarro A. Results from the ZANyCAL study on the treatment of elderly hypertensive patients [abstract no. P343]. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2002 May; 16 Suppl. 1: 57Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Roma J, Sobrino J, Plana J, et al. Treatment with lercanidipine during six months in hypertensive elderly patients (more than 60 years) [abstract no. R268]. J Hypertens 2002 Jun; 20 Suppl. 4: S391Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    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 Nov; 15(11): 932–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ninci MA, Magliocca R, Malliani A. Efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S40–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Cherubini A, Fabris F, Ferrari E, et al. Comparative effects of lercanidipine, lacidipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on blood pressure and heart rate in elderly hypertensive patients: the ELderly and LEcandipine (ELLE) study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2003; 37: 203–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rengo F, Romis L. Activity of lercanidipine in double-blind comparison with nitrendipine in combination treatment of patients with resistant essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S54–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    A multicenter randomized, double-blind trial of the efficacy and safety of lercanidipine in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension, uncontrolled on hydrochlorothiazide. Milan: Recordati S.p.A, 2000. (Data on file)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Cafiero M, Giasi M. Long-term (12-month) treatment with lercanidipine in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl. 2: S45–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Luque M, Ruilope LM, Tamargo J, et al. Drug surveillance study in patients with mild to moderate hypertension treated with lercanidipine: the Zanyten study [abstract no. P068]. J Hypertens 2002 Jun; 20 Suppl. 4: S163Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Herrera J, Ghais Z, Gonzalez L. Antihypertensive treatment with a calcium channel blocker in postmenopausal women: prospective study in a primary health care setting [abstract no. P0680]. J Hypertens 2002 Jun; 20 Suppl. 4: S162Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Leonetti G. The safety profile of antihypertensive drugs as the key factor for the achievement of blood pressure control: current experience with lercanidipine. High Blood Press 1999; 8: 92–101Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Borghi C, Prandin MG, Dormi A, et al. Improved tolerability of the dihydropyridine calcium-channel antagonist lercanidipine: the lercanidipine challenge trial. Blood Press 2003; 12 Suppl. 1: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ramsay LE, Williams B, Johnston GD, et al. British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 1999: summary. BMJ 1999 Sep 4; 319: 630–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. JAMA 2003; 289(19): 2560–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Staessen JA, Wang J-G, Thijs L. Cardiovascular prevention and blood pressure reduction: a quantitative overview updated 1 March 2003. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1055–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sheinfeld GR, Bakris GL. Benefits of combination angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and calcium antagonist therapy for diabetic patients. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 80S–5SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Alderman M, Arakawa K, Beilin L, et al. 1999 World Health Organization — International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. Guidelines Sub-Committee. Blood Press 1999; 8 Suppl. 1: 9–43Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and β-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet 2000; 356: 359–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Black HR, Elliot WJ, Grandits G, et al. Principal results of the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) trial [abstract]. JAMA 2003; 289(16): 2073–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynne M. Bang
    • 1
  • Therese M. Chapman
    • 1
  • Karen L. Goa
    • 1
  1. 1.Adis International LimitedMairangi Bay, AucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations