Why the study?
Does cilnidipine improve ambulatory blood pressure and pulse rate compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients?
Does cilnidipine improve ambulatory blood pressure and pulse rate compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients?
Cilnidipine effectively lowers blood pressure while preventing reflex tachycardia compared to amlodipine, likely due to its N-type calcium channel blockade.
Cilnidipine may mitigate reflex tachycardia versus amlodipine in hypertension; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Cilnidipine is a novel and unique 1,4-dydropyridine derivative calcium antagonist that exerts potent inhibitory actions not only on L-type but also on N-type voltage-dependent calcium channels. Blockade of the neural N-type calcium channel inhibits the secretion of norepinephrine from peripheral neural terminals and depresses sympathetic nervous system activity. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of cilnidipine and amlodipine on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) levels. We performed 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring before and after once-daily use of cilnidipine (n=55) and amlodipine (n=55) in 110 hypertensive patients. Both drugs significantly reduced clinic and 24-h systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) (p < 0.005). However, the reductions of 24-h (-1.19+/-6.78 vs. 1.55+/-6.13 bpm, p=0.03), daytime (-1.58+/-6.72 vs. 1.68+/-7.34 bpm, p=0.02) and nighttime (-1.19+/-5.72 vs. 1.89+/-6.56 bpm, p=0.01) pulse rate (PR) were significantly greater in the cilnidipine group than the amlodipine group. There was no correlation between the degree of daytime SBP change and that of daytime PR change after amlodipine treatment (r=-0.08, n.s.), but there was a significant negative correlation between the degree of daytime SBP change and that of day-time PR change after cilnidipine treatment (r=-0.27, p<0.05). N-type calcium channel blockade by cilnidipine may not cause reflex tachycardia, and may be useful for hypertensive treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hoshide et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: