Improved Tolerability of the Dihydropyridine Calcium-Channel Antagonist Lercanidipine: The Lercanidipine Challenge Trial

References

• Epstein M. Calcium antagonists in the management of hypertension. In: Epstein M, editor. Calcium antagonists in clinical medicine, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus, 1998: 155–76.
   Google Scholar
• Conlin PR, Williams GH. Use of calcium channel blockers in hypertension. In: Schrier RW, Baxter JD, Dzau VJ, Fauci AC, editors. Advances in internal medicine, Vol. 43. St. Louis, MO: Mosby-Year Book, Inc., 1998: 533–62.
   Google Scholar
• Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. for the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hyperten-sion. Lancet 1997; 350: 757–64.
   Google Scholar
• Kizer JR, Kimmel SE. Epidemiologic review of calcium channel blocker drugs. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 1145–58.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elliot HL, Meredith PA, Reid JL. Pharmacokinetics of calcium antagonists: implications for therapy. In: Epstein M, editor. Calcium antagonists in clinical medicine, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus, 1998: 35–56.
   Google Scholar
• Papavassiliou MV, Vyssoulis EA, Karpanou DA, Belegrinos DA, Giannakopoulou AE, Toutouzas PK. Side effects of antihypertensive treatment with calcium channel antagonists [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 2001; 14: 114A.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedrinelli R, Dell'Omo G, Mariani M. Calcium channel blockers, postural vasoconstriction and dependent oedema in essential hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2001; 15: 455–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vetrovec GW. Calcium antagonists and myocardial ische-mia. In: Epstein M, ed. Calcium antagonists in clinical medicine, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus, 1998: 99–111.
   Google Scholar
• Testa R, Leonardi A, Tajana A, Riscassi E, Magliocca R, Sartani A. Lercanidipine (Rec 15/2375): a novel 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist for hypertension. Car-diovasc Drug Rev 1997; 15: 187–219.
   Google Scholar
• Meredith PA. Lercanidipine: a novel lipophilic dihydropy-ridine calcium antagonist with long duration of action and high vascular selectivity. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 1999; 8: 1043–62.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ambrosioni E, Circo A. Activity of lercanidipine adminis-tered in single and repeated doses once daily as monitored over 24 hours in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl 2: S16–20.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Omboni S, Zanchetti A. for the Multicenter Study Investigators. Antihypertensive efficacy of lercanidipine at 2.5,5 and 10 mg in mild to moderate essential hypertensives assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure measure-ments. J Hypertens 1998; 16: 1831–8.
   Google Scholar
• Herbette LG, Vecchiarelli M, Sartani A, Leonardi A. Lercanidipine: short plasma half-life, long duration of action and high cholesterol tolerance: updated molecular model to rationalize its pharmacokinetic properties. Blood Press 1998; 7 Suppl 2: 10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Herbette LG, Vecchiarelli M, Leonardi A. Lercanidipine: short plasma half-life, long duration of action. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1997; 29 Suppl 1: S19–24.
   Google Scholar
• Fogad R, Malamani GD, Zoppi A, etal. Comparative effect of lercanidipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on ankle volume and subcutaneous interstitial pressure in hypertensive patients: a double-blind, rando-mized, parallel-group study. Curr Ther Res 2000; 61: 850–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pedrinelli R, Menegato A, Nuti M, Dell'Omo G, Balbarini A, Mariani M. Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and dependent edema: a comparison between amlodipine and lercanidipine in essential hypertensive patients [ab-stract]. Am J Hypertens. 2002; 15: 54A.
   Google Scholar
• Leonetti G, Magnani B, Pessina AC, Rappelli A, Trimarco B, Zanchetti A on behalf of the COHORT study group. Tolerability of long-term treatment with lercanidipine vs amlodipine and lacidipine in elderly hypertensives. Am J Hypertens. 2002; 11: 932–40.
   Google Scholar
• Barrios V, Navarro A, Esteras A, et al Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of lercanidipine in daily clinical practice. The ELYPSE study. Eficacia de Lercanidipino y su Perfil de Seguridad. Blood Press 2002; 11: 95–100.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson JD, Merat P. Unmet needs in hypertension: challenges and opportunities. Curr Hypertens Rep 1999; 1: 495–501.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berg JS, Dischler J, Wagner DJ, Raia JJ, Palmer-Shevlin N. Medication compliance: a healthcare problem. Ann Phar-macother 1993; 27 Suppl 9: S1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Dusing R, Weisser B, Mengden T, Vetter H. Changes in antihypertensive therapy — the role of adverse effects and compliance. Blood Press 1998; 7: 313–15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Aranda P, Tamargo J, Aranda FJ, Luque M, Lopez-Garcia-Franco A. Use and adverse reactions of antihypertensive drugs in Spain. Blood Press 1997; 1 Suppl: 11–16.
   Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Salas M, Speckman JL, Raggio G, Jackson JD. Persistence with treatment for hypertension in actual practice. CMAJ 1999; 160: 31–7.
   Google Scholar
• Payne KA, Esmonde-White S. Observational studies of antihypertensive medication use and compliance: is drug choice a factor in treatment adherence. Curr Hypertens Rep 2000; 2: 515–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar