title: Results of a meta-analysis comparing the tolerability of lercanidipine and other dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Results from clinical studies suggest that the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (CCB) lercanidipine may be associated with a lower incidence of peripheral edema than are older dihydro-pyridine CCBs.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  The objective of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of published data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the relative risk (RR) of dihydropyridine CCB-specific adverse events with lercanidipine versus the older dihydro-pyridine CCBs (first generation: amlodipine, felodipine, and nifedipine), and versus the other lipophilic dihy-dropyridine CCBs (second generation: lacidipine and manidipine).
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic literature search (all years through August 11, 2008) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for English-language reports of single- or double-blind RCTs of > or = 4 weeks' duration that compared the tolerability of lercanidipine with other dihydropyridine CCBs in participants with mild (140-159/90-99 mm Hg) to moderate (160-179/100-109 mm Hg) hypertension.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eight RCTs (6 used first-generation drugs, and 4 used second-generation drugs) met the criteria for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes for lowering blood pressure did not differ statistically between lercanid-ipine and either generation of medications. Compared with the first generation, lercanidipine was associated with a reduced risk of peripheral edema (52/742 with lercanidipine vs 88/627 with first generation; RR = 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62]), but not flushing or headache. The frequency of peripheral edema, flushing, and headache did not differ statistically between lercanidi-pine and the second-generation drugs. Study participants were less likely to withdraw from the RCTs because of peripheral edema (RR = 0.24 [95% CI, 0.12-0.47]) or any adverse event (RR = 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33-0.77]) when treated with lercanidipine rather than a drug from the first generation, but not when treated with lercanidipine rather than second-generation drugs.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this meta-analysis, lercanidipine was associated with a lower risk of peripheral edema and a lower risk of treatment withdrawal because of peripheral edema than were the first-generation, but not the second-generation, dihydropyridine CCBs.
authors.affiliation: KMC Health Care, Frankston, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Kelly
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Makarounas-Kirchmann
authors.forename: Sophie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Glover-Koudounas
authors.forename: Paolo
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Ferrari
mesh_terms: D000959:Antihypertensive Agents / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002121:Calcium Channel Blockers / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004095:Dihydropyridines / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004487:Edema / Q000139:chemically induced; D006801:Humans; D006973:Hypertension / Q000188:drug therapy; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D000959:Antihypertensive Agents; D002121:Calcium Channel Blockers; D004095:Dihydropyridines; C060343:lercanidipine