Efficacy and safety profiles of manidipine compared with amlodipine: A meta-analysis of head-to-head trials

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of manidipine 20 mg with that of amlodipine 10 mg. A systematic research of quantitative data produced or published between 1995 and 2009 was performed. Head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 12 months minimum duration reporting comparative efficacy (changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure) and safety (total adverse events and ankle oedema), were included. Four high-quality RCTs, accounting for 838 patients (436 received manidipine and 402 received amlodipine) were included. The efficacy of manidipine and amlodipine was statistically equivalent: effect size for DBP = −0.08 (p = 0.22) and SBP = −0.01 (p = 0.83). The global safety of manidipine was significantly better than amlodipine: the relative risk (RR) for adverse event was 0.69 (0.56–0.85), and particularly for ankle oedema RR was 0.35 (0.22–0.54). Publication bias was not significant and the robustness of the analyses was good. These data suggest a better efficacy/safety ratio of manidipine over amlodipine.

Key Words::

• Ankle oedema
• calcium antagonists
• hypertension
• meta-analysis

Disclosures

FR and SL have received honorarium from Chiesi Laboratories for scientific consultation.

Notice of correction

[ePub ahead of print] 14 October 2010, DOI: 10.310908037051.2010.518670. The Early Online version of this article published ahead of print on 14 October 2010 contained an error in the abstract where SBP was shown as −0.08 instead of as −0.01. The corrected sentence is shown in this issue. Some errors were also shown in the labeling of the tables. The corrected versions are shown in this issue.