Comparative effects of amlodipine and nifedipine GITS during treatment and after missing two doses.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the antihypertensive efficacy of amlodipine and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) measured by office and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) during treatment and, after patients have missed two doses. METHOD: After a single blind run-in 4-week placebo period, 58 patients were randomly allocated to amlodipine (5mg/daily, n=30) or nifedipine GITS (30mg/daily; n=28) in a double-blind, double dummy fashion. Patients received active medication for 4 weeks. Then, to simulate failure of compliance, patients received two single blinded doses of placebo. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was carried out at the end of run-in placebo phase, the first day, the last day of active treatment and up to 72h after the last active dose. RESULTS: Diastolic blood pressure was controlled in 61.9% patients on amlodipine and 52.9% on nifedipine GITS. Reductions in blood pressure were similar in both groups. ABPM showed significant reduction in blood pressure from the first day in the nifedipine GITS group, while amlodipine group had marginal effect. Peak reduction in systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 26/15mmHg at 5-6h after ingestion of amlodipine tablets. The trough reduction was 22/13mmHg; with a trough-to-peak ratio of 84.61% for systolic and 86.67% for diastolic blood pressure. Peak reduction in systolic/diastolic blood pressure with nifedipine GITS was 19/15mmHg and the trough reduction was 21/17mmHg, giving a trough-to-peak ratio of 100% for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. When patients received placebo after 4 weeks of active treatment, simulating a compliance failure, amlodipine maintained reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure for at least up to 72h after the last active dose, maintaining 57.71% of the effect for systolic blood pressure and 60.00% for diastolic blood pressure. In contrast, nifedipine GITS effect was rapidly lost during this study phase, with a reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure of only 14-16%, 72h after the last active dose. CONCLUSION: This study showed that amlodipine and nifedipine GITS reduce blood pressure to about the same extent during chronic treatment. In the case of compliance failure, such as missing one or two doses, amlodipine maintained significant and important antihypertensive effect with the trough-to-peak ratio still over 50% 72h after the last active dose. On the other hand, the coverage of nifedipine GITS was limited to about 36h after the last active dose.

Acute mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion down regulates renal PGE2 synthesis.

This study examines the hypothesis that pentoxifylline protects renal PGE2 synthesis during mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion injury. Anesthetized Sprague-Dawley rats (300 g) were subjected to sham or superior mesenteric artery occlusion for 20 min followed by 30 min of reperfusion. The ischemia/reperfusion groups received either enteral allopurinol (10 mg/kg) daily for 5 d prior to ischemia, pentoxifylline (50 mg/kg) 10 min prior to ischemia or carrier. The kidney was removed and perfused in vitro with oxygenated Krebs buffer and the effluent was assayed for release of 6-keto-PGF1 alpha, PGE2 and thromboxane B2 (TXB2) by enzyme immunoassay. Mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion decreased renal PGE2 release by 50% (compared to sham) but did not alter release of TXB2 or 6-keto-PGF1 alpha. Pentoxifylline pretreatment (not allopurinol) preserved renal PGE2 release at the sham level. These data showed pentoxifylline exerted a protective effect against severe mesenteric ischemia/reperfusion injury by maintaining release of renal PGE2, a potent endogenous renal vasodilator.

Severe hypertension, hyperkalemia, and renal tubular acidosis responding to dietary sodium restriction.

A 13-year-old girl with severe hypertension (240/140 mm Hg), short stature, marked hyperkalemia (8.6 mEq/liter), and renal tubular acidosis was studied. Renal parenchymal and renovascular diseases as well as endocrinologic causes of hypertension were ruled out by appropriate studies. The hypertension was associated with sodium retention, increased plasma volume, suppressed plasma renin activity, and decreased urinary excretion of aldosterone. Impaired renal excretion of potassium was demonstrated by sodium sulfate infusion when the patient was fed a high-sodium diet but a significant kaliuresis occurred when the test was performed on a low-sodium diet suggesting that renal sodium retention may play a role in the defect in potassium excretion. The renal tubular acidosis was associated with normal distal acidification but a low bicarbonate threshold (19 mmoles/liter) and marked suppression of urinary ammonium excretion. The hypertension, hyporeninemia, and hypoaldosteronism as well as the hyperkalemia and acid-base abnormalities were completely reversed by dietary sodium restriction or the administration of thiazides or furosemide. It is concluded that an unusual avidity for sodium chloride reabsorption by the renal tubules leading to extracellular volume expansion and renin-aldosterone suppression plays a significant pathogenic role in this syndrome and may explain the hypertension and biochemical abnormalities discussed.