INTRODUCTIONThe need for the rational development of newer and adjuvant drugs to treat epilepsy has prompted this study of the potential anticonvulsant effect of amlodipine.

METHODSThe acute effect was studied in mice in single doses of 1 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg of amlodipine and the chronic effect was studied in doses of 1 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg (administered daily for 21 days) using the maximal electroshock seizure and pentylenetetrazole-induced seizure models of epilepsy. Sodium valproate and normal saline were used as the standard and control, respectively.

RESULTSFor the acute study, in the maximal electroshock seizure model, the administration of 1 mg/kg of amlodipine resulted in the complete abolition of seizures in 33 percent of the mice, and this was increased to 67 percent with the administration of 4 mg/kg. In the pentylenetetrazole-induced seizure model, the administration of 1 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg amlodipine protected 33 percent of the animals from mortality, and 67 percent were protected with the administration of 4 mg/kg. For the chronic study, in the maximal electroshock seizure model, the administration of 1 mg/kg amlodipine resulted in the complete abolition of seizures in 40 percent of the mice and in 60 percent, with the administration of 4 mg/kg. In the pentylenetetrazole-induced seizure model, 50 percent of the mice were protected from mortality with 1 mg/kg amlodipine and 60 percent, with 4 mg/kg amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONThese findings indicate that amlodipine may be a good candidate as an add-on therapy for epilepsy.

Amlodipine ; therapeutic use ; Animals ; Anticonvulsants ; therapeutic use ; Calcium Channel Blockers ; therapeutic use ; Convulsants ; toxicity ; Disease Models, Animal ; Electroshock ; adverse effects ; Female ; Male ; Mice ; Mice, Inbred Strains ; Pentylenetetrazole ; toxicity ; Seizures ; drug therapy ; etiology ; prevention & control ; Time Factors ; Valproic Acid ; therapeutic use

BACKGROUNDCentral blood pressure (BP) is pathophysiologically more important than peripheral BP for the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease. Arterial stiffness is also a good predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The effects of benidipine, a unique dual L-/T-type calcium channel blocker, on central BP have not been reported. This study aimed to compare the effect of benidipine and losartan on the central BP and arterial stiffness in mild to moderate essential hypertensives.

METHODSThis 24 weeks, multi-center, open label, randomized, active drug comparative, parallel group study was designed as a non-inferiority study. The eligible patients (n = 200) were randomly assigned to receive benidipine (n = 101) or losartan (n = 99). Radial artery applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis were used to measure the central BP, pulse wave velocity (PWV) and augmentation index (AIx). We also measured the metabolic and inflammatory markers.

RESULTSAfter 24 weeks, the central BP decreased significantly from baseline by (16.8 ± 14.0/10.5 ± 9.2) mmHg (1 mmHg = 0.133 kPa) (systolic/diastolic BP; P < 0.001) in benidipine group and (18.9 ± 14.7/12.1 ± 10.2) mmHg (P < 0.001) in losartan group respectively. Both benidipine and losartan groups significantly lowered peripheral BP (P < 0.001) and AIx (P < 0.05), but there were no significant differences between the two groups. The mean aortic, brachial and femoral PWV did not change in both groups after 24-week treatment. There were no significant changes of the blood metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers in each group.

CONCLUSIONBenidipine is as effective as losartan in lowering the central and peripheral BP, and improving arterial stiffness.

Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers ; therapeutic use ; Blood Pressure ; drug effects ; Calcium Channel Blockers ; therapeutic use ; Dihydropyridines ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Essential Hypertension ; Female ; Humans ; Hypertension ; drug therapy ; physiopathology ; Losartan ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Vascular Stiffness ; drug effects

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the fixed combination of amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 10 mg once-daily therapy, compared with benazepril, 10 mg, monotherapy in patients with mild and moderate hypertension, and to evaluate the 24 h antihypertensive efficacy and the duration of action by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring.

METHODSIn a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel controlled trial, 356 cases of hypertensive patients after 2 weeks wash-out, and then given 4 weeks of benazepril 10 mg monotherapy, 220 patients with mean seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) remained ≥ 90 mm Hg (1 mm Hg = 0.133 kPa) were randomly divided into benazepril 10 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (BZ10/AML5) fixed-dose combination therapy group (once a day, n = 113), and benazepril monotherapy group (daily 20 mg, n = 107). In the two groups the patients with SeDBP ≥ 90 mm Hg were doubled the dosage of the initial regimen at the end of 4-week treatment for additional 4 weeks, and the patients with SeDBP < 90 mm Hg remained the initial regimen for additional 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the improvement of SeDBP at the end of 8-week treatment. There were 74 patients (the combination therapy group n = 38, monotherapy therapy group n = 36) completed the 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring which was included in the final efficacy analysis.

RESULTSThe randomized, double-blind treatment for 8 weeks, the mean value of SeDBP reduction, the reaching target blood pressure rate and total successful response rate to the treatment (a SeDBP < 90 mm Hg or a decrease of 10 mm Hg or more from baseline) were (11.7 ± 6.8) mm Hg, 65.7% and 88.5% in the combination therapy group, respectively, and were (7.7 ± 6.9) mm Hg, 35.5% and 65.5% in the monotherapy group, respectively. There were statistically significant difference between the combination therapy and the monotherapy groups in all the 3 indexs (P < 0.001). The fixed combination significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) values throughout the 24 h. The trough to peak ratios of DBP/SBP in the fixed compound of benazepril/amlodipine (10 mg/5 mg) and benazepril (20 mg) alone were 83.1%/76.0% and 85.8%/79.5%, respectively. Adverse events rates were 16.8% in the combination therapy group and 35.5% in the monotherapy group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONSThe combination therapy with benazepril/amlodipine was superior to benazepril monotherapy and was well tolerated in patients with essential hypertension and allowing a satisfactory BP control for 24 hours.

Adult ; Amlodipine ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Antihypertensive Agents ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Benzazepines ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Calcium Channel Blockers ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Double-Blind Method ; Drug Combinations ; Female ; Humans ; Hypertension ; drug therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged

BACKGROUNDAntihypertensive drugs have been linked to new-onset osteoporotic fracture (NOF), and different classes of antihypertensive drugs may alter the risk for the development of NOF; however, the classic effect of different antihypertensive drugs on the development of NOF in the elderly has not been well studied during long-term follow-up.

METHODSIn this study, we investigated the association between different classic antihypertensives and the development of NOF in the elderly. This was a longitudinal cohort study performed using data from claim forms submitted to the Taiwan Bureau of National Health Insurance in Central Taiwan, China including case patients with NOF aged 65-80 years from January 2002 to December 2012 and non-NOF controls. Prescriptions for antihypertensives before the index date were retrieved from a prescription database. We estimated the hazard ratios (HR s) of NOF associated with antihypertensive use. Non-NOF controls served as the reference group.

RESULTSA total of 128 patients with NOF were identified from among 1144 patients with hypertension during the study period. The risk of NOF after adjusting age, sex, comorbidities, and concurrent medications was higher among the users of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (HR, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.66) than among nonusers. Patients who took calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.49-0.99) were at a lower risk of developing NOF than nonusers. Loop diuretics, thiazide diuretics, angiotensin receptor blocker, beta-blocker, and alpha-blocker were not associated with the risk of NOF.

CONCLUSIONSElderly with hypertension who take CCBs are at a lower risk of NOF and that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing NOF during the 11-year follow-up.

Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Antihypertensive Agents ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Calcium Channel Blockers ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Cohort Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Hypertension ; drug therapy ; Longitudinal Studies ; Male ; Osteoporotic Fractures ; chemically induced ; epidemiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Taiwan ; epidemiology

PURPOSE: Calcium channel blockers diltiazem and nitrate have been used as selective coronary vasodilators for patients with significant coronary artery spasm (CAS). However, no study has compared the efficacy of diltiazem alone versus diltiazem with nitrate for long-term clinical outcomes in patients with CAS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 2741 consecutive patients without significant coronary artery disease with positive CAS by acetylcholine (Ach) provocation test between November 2004 and May 2014 were enrolled. Significant CAS was defined as a narrowing of >70% by incremental intracoronary injection of 20, 50, and 100 µg of Ach into the left coronary artery. Patients were assigned to either the diltiazem group (n=842) or the dual group (diltiazem with nitrate, n=1899) at physician discretion. To adjust for potential confounders, a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using the logistic regression model. After PSM analysis, two well-balanced groups (811 pairs, n=1622, C-statistic=0.708) were generated. RESULTS: At 5 years, there were similar incidences in primary endpoints, including mortality, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography between the two groups. Diltiazem alone was not an independent predictor for major adverse cardiovascular events or recurrent angina requiring repeat coronary angiography. CONCLUSION: Despite the expected improvement of endothelial function and the relief of CAS, the combination of diltiazem and nitrate treatment was not superior to diltiazem alone in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events up to 5 years in patients with significant CAS.
Acetylcholine ; Aged ; Angina Pectoris/diagnosis ; Calcium Channel Blockers/therapeutic use ; Cardiovascular Agents/*therapeutic use ; Coronary Angiography/adverse effects ; Coronary Artery Disease/prevention & control ; Coronary Vasospasm/diagnosis/*drug therapy ; Diltiazem/*therapeutic use ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Female ; Humans ; Incidence ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Myocardial Infarction/prevention & control ; Nitrates/*therapeutic use ; Propensity Score ; Time Factors ; Vasodilator Agents/therapeutic use

BACKGROUNDCombination therapy is an effective method to reduce the blood pressure (BP) for patients with hypertension. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of benazepril/lercanidipine compared with benazepril alone in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

METHODSOne hundred and eighty-one patients with mild-to-moderate primary hypertension were assigned in this randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study and were randomly divided into group A (benazepril 10 mg/lercanidipine 10 mg) and group B (benazepril 10 mg) for 8 weeks. At 4 weeks, the dosage of Benazepril was titrated up to 20 mg if the diastolic blood pressure (DBP) remained ≥ 90 mmHg. BP control and side effects were evaluated at the end of 1, 4 and 8 weeks.

RESULTSThe baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. The BP in both groups decreased from the baseline (P < 0.05). At the end of 4 and 8 weeks, Benazepril/Lercanidipine produced greater BP reduction than Benazepril alone (P < 0.05). The comparison of the rate of BP control for the benazepril/lercanidipine and benazepril groups at the end of 1, 4, and 8 weeks were 41.2% vs. 37.6% (P > 0.05), 67.1% vs. 44.7% (P < 0.05), and 71.8% vs. 45.9% (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference of side effects between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONThe benazepril/lercanidipine combination is more effective in reducing BP than benazepril alone, while it does not increase the incidence of side effects.

Aged ; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ; therapeutic use ; Benzazepines ; administration & dosage ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use ; Blood Pressure ; drug effects ; Calcium Channel Blockers ; administration & dosage ; Dihydropyridines ; administration & dosage ; adverse effects ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Female ; Humans ; Hypertension ; drug therapy ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Single-Blind Method

Previous studies have demonstrated that enalapril and verapamil seem to attenuate the cyclosporine nephrotoxicity. However, the mechanisms have not been completely understood, especially on molecular events. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of individual or combined treatment on osteopontin, TGF-beta, endothelin-1 and procollagen alpha 1(I) mRNA expressions. Enalapril (50 mg/L in drinking water) and verapamil (0.5 mg/kg/day, subcutaneously), alone or in combination, were administered to rats with chronic cyclosporine nephrotoxicity (cyclosporine, 25 mg/kg/day, subcutaneously) (n = 5 each). Five rats treated with olive oil vehicle were used as control. After 4 weeks, biochemical parameters were measured, and renal cortical mRNA levels were evaluated by Northern blot analysis. Cyclosporine reduced renal creatinine clearance significantly and induced renal cortical osteopontin, TGF-beta, endothelin-1 and procollagen alpha 1(I) gene expressions around 13.5 +/- 1.3, 2.4 +/- 0.2, 1.5 +/- 0.1, 1.9 +/- 0.1 folds, respectively. Individual treatment with enalapril or verapamil significantly suppressed the osteopontin and TGF-beta mRNA expression, but not endothelin-1 and procollagen alpha 1(I). Combined treatment also inhibited the osteopontin and TGF-beta mRNA expression but there was no difference between combined and individual treatment. In conclusion, enalapril or verapamil significantly blunted the cyclosporine-induced osteopontin and TGF-beta gene expressions. However, combined treatment did not show any additive effect.
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use* ; Animal ; Calcium Channel Blockers/therapeutic use* ; Cyclosporine/adverse effects ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Enalapril/therapeutic use* ; Enalapril/administration & dosage ; Endothelin-1/metabolism ; Endothelin-1/genetics ; Gene Expression Regulation/drug effects ; Immunosuppressive Agents/adverse effects ; Kidney Cortex/metabolism ; Male ; Nephritis/drug therapy* ; Nephritis/chemically induced ; Procollagen/metabolism ; Procollagen/genetics ; RNA, Messenger/analysis ; Rats ; Rats, Wistar ; Sialoglycoproteins/metabolism ; Sialoglycoproteins/genetics ; Transforming Growth Factor beta/metabolism ; Transforming Growth Factor beta/genetics ; Verapamil/therapeutic use* ; Verapamil/administration & dosage

PURPOSE: Severe hypoglycemia can result in neural damage, impaired cognitive function, coma, seizures, or death. The decision to admit diabetic patients after initial treatment in the emergency department remains unclear. Our purpose is to identify risk factors for developing recurrent hypoglycemia in diabetic patients admitted for severe hypoglycemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 233 subjects (92 males, 141 females; mean age, 74.1 +/- 9.8 years) with type 2 diabetes treated at a tertiary care teaching hospital and hospitalized for severe hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Seventy-four (31.8%) patients were categorized with recurrent hypoglycemia and 159 (68.2%) with non-recurrent. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with loss of a recent meal, coronary artery disease, infection, and poor renal function (lower estimated glomerular filtration rate) were at risk for recurrent hypoglycemia. The use of calcium-channel blockers appeared to be a protective factor for the development of recurrent hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: There may be a subset of patients with severe hypoglycemia and certain risk factors for recurrent hypoglycemia that should be admitted.
Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Calcium Channel Blockers/adverse effects/therapeutic use ; Coronary Artery Disease/complications ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications ; Female ; Glomerular Filtration Rate ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Hypoglycemia/*etiology/*prevention & control ; Kidney Diseases/complications ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Multivariate Analysis ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors