Why the study?
Does high-dose lercanidipine improve tolerability compared to amlodipine or nifedipine GITS in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome?
Does high-dose lercanidipine improve tolerability compared to amlodipine or nifedipine GITS in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome?
High-dose lercanidipine demonstrates a better tolerability profile with fewer vasodilation-related adverse reactions compared to amlodipine or nifedipine GITS in hypertensive patients with metabolic syndrome.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Lercanidipine was associated with fewer adverse reactions; leaves open whether randomized trials will confirm better tolerability in metabolic syndrome hypertension.
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: The TOlerabilidad de LERcanidipino 20 mg frente a Amlodipino y Nifedipino en CondicionEs normales de uso study was aimed to compare the tolerability of high doses of lercanidipine with amlodipine and nifedipine gastro-intestinal therapeutic system (GITS) in the treatment of hypertension in daily clinical practice. PATIENTS/METHODS: Essential hypertensives >or= 18 years, treated during at least 1 month with lercanidipine 20 mg, amlodipine 10 mg or nifedipine GITS 60 mg, after a previous treatment course of at least 1 month with half the dose of the corresponding drugs were included. We present the data of the subgroup of patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS). RESULTS: Three hundred and thirty-seven of the 650 study population fulfilled criteria of MetS, 233 (69.1%) on lercanidipine and 104 (30.9%) on amlodipine/nifedipine GITS. Overall, a significantly lower proportion of lercanidipine-treated patients showed adverse reactions (ARs) when compared with patients receiving other-dihydropyridines (DHPs) (60.1% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.003). Similarly, the most common vasodilation-related ARs (oedema, swelling, flushing and headache) were significantly less frequent in lercanidipine group (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, lercanidipine appears to exhibit a better tolerability profile and less vasodilation-related ARs compared with other DHPs in hypertensive patients with MetS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barrios et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: