Key result
Azelnidipine proves non-inferior to amlodipine in slowing coronary plaque volume progression.
Why the study?
Does azelnidipine reduce coronary plaque volume progression compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients scheduled for coronary intervention?
RCT (n=199)
open-label blinded endpoint
randomized
Yes
Does azelnidipine reduce coronary plaque volume progression compared to amlodipine in hypertensive patients scheduled for coronary intervention?
Mean Difference: 0.18 (95% CI -4.62–4.98)
Absolute Event Rate: -4.67% vs -4.85%
Azelnidipine is non-inferior to amlodipine in regressing coronary plaque volume over 48 weeks in hypertensive patients undergoing coronary intervention.
Azelnidipine offers a non-inferior alternative to amlodipine for retarding plaque progression in hypertensive PCI patients; extends CCB options in atherosclerosis.
BACKGROUND: A previous study reported that amlodipine retarded coronary plaque progression in patients with coronary artery disease. The goal of this multicenter study was to determine which calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) other than amlodipine attenuated the progression of plaque volume (PV) accessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). METHODS AND RESULTS: ALPS-J was a prospective, randomized open-label study conducted at 5 centers. Patients who had hypertension and were scheduled for coronary intervention were enrolled. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 16 mg/day of azelnidipine or 5mg/day of amlodipine administered for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percent change in coronary PV measured by IVUS. Between 2007 and 2009, 199 patients were enrolled; 115 had evaluable IVUS images at both baseline and after 48 weeks of treatment. Blood pressure significantly reduced to 128/68 mmHg at follow-up. The lipid profiles in the 2 groups were comparable (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: 97 mg/dl). The %change in PV showed a significant regression of 4.67 and 4.85% in the azelnidipine and amlodipine groups, respectively. The upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the mean difference in %change PV between the 2 groups (0.18%, 95% confidence interval 4.62 to 4.98%) did not exceed the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 6.525%. CONCLUSIONS: ALPS-J demonstrated that azelnidipine was not inferior to amlodipine for primary efficacy. In addition to standard medical therapy, dihydropyridine CCBs will retard PV progression in hypertensive patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kojima et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Hypertension in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (n=199). Azelnidipine vs. Amlodipine 5 mg/day was evaluated on Percent change in coronary plaque volume measured by IVUS at 48 weeks (MD 0.18%, 95% CI -4.62 to 4.98). Azelnidipine was non-inferior to amlodipine in retarding coronary plaque volume progression, with a mean difference in percent change of 0.18% that did not exceed the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 6.525%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: