MIBEFRADIL IN THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEMIC HYPERTENSION - COMPARATIVE-STUDIES WITH OTHER CALCIUM-ANTAGONISTS
Citation
Bm. Massie et al., MIBEFRADIL IN THE TREATMENT OF SYSTEMIC HYPERTENSION - COMPARATIVE-STUDIES WITH OTHER CALCIUM-ANTAGONISTS, The American journal of cardiology, 80(4B), 1997, pp. 27-33
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiac & Cardiovascular System
SICI code
0002-9149(1997)80:4B<27:MITTOS>2.0.ZU;2-K
Abstract
This paper summarizes the results of 4 double-blind studies of antihyp
ertensive therapy in which mibefradil was compared with other commonly
used calcium antagonists (diltiazem CD, amlodipine, nifedipine SR, an
d nifedipine GITS) at the recommended dose range. A total of 640 patie
nts were included, with 361 randomized to mibefradil, 98 to diltiazem
CD, 119 to amlodipine, 71 to nifedipine SR, and 36 to nifedipine GITS.
Trials included an active treatment phase of 6 or 12 weeks in duratio
n. Compared with diltiazem CD or nifedipine SR, mibefradil demonstrate
d statistically significant greater efficacy. Decreases in sitting dia
stolic blood pressure (SDBP) after treatment with mibefradil 100 mg on
ce daily were 14.0 +/- 7.8 mm Hg compared with 9.5 +/- 7.5 mm Hg with
diltiazem CD 360 mg once daily (p = 0.001), and 12.8 +/- 8.4 mm Hg com
pared with 8.1 +/- 19.2 mm Hg with nifedipine SR 40 mg twice daily (p
= 0.014). Patients on mibefradil also had higher normalization (SDBP r
educed to less than or equal to 90 mm Hg) and response (SDBP reduction
greater than or equal to 10 mm Hg or normalization) rates than did th
ose on diltiazem CD or nifedipine SR. The overall incidence of adverse
events was similar among these 3 compounds, but the number of prematu
re withdrawals due to adverse events was greater with both comparators
than with mibefradil. Treatment with 100 mg mibefradil or 10 mg amlod
ipine once daily resulted in statistically significant decreases from
baseline in SDBP of 11.5 +/- 8.2 mm Hg and 13.2 +/- 7.9 mm Hg, respect
ively, which were statistically equivalent. However, patients treated
with amlodipine had a considerably greater incidence of leg edema than
did those treated with mibefradil (33.6% vs 4.2%, respectively). Simi
larly, 100 mg mibefradil was equivalent in efficacy to 60 mg nifedipin
e GITS once daily, but patients on mibefradil experienced fewer vasodi
latory related adverse events. In summary, mibefradil demonstrated sup
erior efficacy to diltiazem CD and nifedipine SR and equivalent effica
cy to amlodipine and nifedipine GITS in the treatment of hypertension.
(C) 1997 by Excerpta Medico, Inc.