Efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of long-term treatment with manidipine or amlodipine in patients with essential hypertension.
This double-blind, multicenter trial compared antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and impact on quality of life of manidipine and amlodipine in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Patients were randomly assigned to 48 weeks of once-daily manidipine, 10-20 mg, or amlodipine, 5-10 mg. Patients who did not respond to treatment after 12 weeks were also given enalapril, 10-20 mg, for the study's duration. The main efficacy end point was equivalence in sitting systolic (SiSBP) and diastolic (SiDBP) blood pressure reduction between the two drugs after 8 weeks (per protocol analysis). An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed in all patients with at least one efficacy determination during treatment. Quality of life was assessed by the "Subjective Symptoms Assessment Profile" (SSA-P) and "General Well-being Schedule" (GWBS), after 12 weeks of treatment. SiSBP reduction after 8 weeks was equivalent for manidipine (15.2 mm Hg, n = 227) and amlodipine (17.0 mm Hg, n = 219). The corresponding figure for SiDBP was 11.3 mm Hg for manidipine and 12.3 mm Hg for amlodipine. In the larger ITT population SiDBP was similarly and significantly reduced by manidipine (from 102 +/- 5 to 88 +/- 9 mm Hg, n = 241) and amlodipine (from 101 +/- 5 to 87 +/- 8 mm Hg, n = 240). Similar results were observed for SiSBP and standing SBP and DBP. Neither drug changed sitting or standing heart rate compared with baseline. SSA-P scores improved with manidipine but not amlodipine. GWBS total and partial scores increased more with manidipine than with amlodipine. Safety profile favored manidipine, which was associated with significantly less ankle edema than was amlodipine. This study shows for the first time that long-term treatment with the long-acting calcium channel blocker manidipine is as effective as treatment with amlodipine, has a better tolerability profile, and induces greater improvement in quality of life than amlodipine.
Zanchetti
A
A
Centro di Fisiologia Clinica e Ipertensione, Università di Milano, Ospedale Maggiore, Milano, Italy. zanchett@mailserver.unimi.it
Omboni
S
S
La Commare
P
P
De Cesaris
R
R
Palatini
P
P
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D017311:Amlodipine / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D000959:Antihypertensive Agents / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D001794:Blood Pressure / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D004095:Dihydropyridines / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000494:pharmacology / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006339:Heart Rate / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D006973:Hypertension / Q000097:blood / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000523:psychology; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009578:Nitrobenzenes; D010879:Piperazines; D011788:Quality of Life / Q000523:psychology; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D000959:Antihypertensive Agents; D004095:Dihydropyridines; D009578:Nitrobenzenes; D010879:Piperazines; D017311:Amlodipine; C054218:manidipine