Nisoldipine Inhibits Influenza A Virus Infection by Interfering with Virus Internalization Process.

Influenza virus infections and the continuing spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are global public health concerns. As there are limited therapeutic options available in clinical practice, the rapid development of safe, effective and globally available antiviral drugs is crucial. Drug repurposing is a therapeutic strategy used in treatments for newly emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. It has recently been shown that the voltage-dependent Ca2+ channel Cav1.2 is critical for influenza A virus entry, providing a potential target for antiviral strategies. Nisoldipine, a selective Ca2+ channel inhibitor, is commonly used in the treatment of hypertension. Here, we assessed the antiviral potential of nisoldipine against the influenza A virus and explored the mechanism of action of this compound. We found that nisoldipine treatment could potently inhibit infection with multiple influenza A virus strains. Mechanistic studies further revealed that nisoldipine impaired the internalization of the influenza virus into host cells. Overall, our findings demonstrate that nisoldipine exerts antiviral effects against influenza A virus infection and could serve as a lead compound in the design and development of new antivirals.

Anti-arrhythmic and hemodynamic effects of oxy nifedipine, oxy nimodipine, oxy nitrendipine and oxy nisoldipine.

Our previous studies have established cardio-protective effects of furnidipine and its active metabolites. We therefore decided to compare the influence of oral and intravenous administration of furnidipine, nifedipine, nitrendipine and nimodipine to examine their effects on hemodynamics and arrhythmias. Since dihydropyridines are oxidatively metabolized in the body and the oxidized metabolites are among the final products, we studied the influence of four oxidized dihydropyridines (oxy nifedipine, oxy nimodipine, oxy nitrendipine and oxy nisoldipine) on the same parameters. In vivo model of ischemia- and reperfusion-induced arrhythmias of rats was used. Dihydropyridines were administered 5 mg/kg orally (24 and 1 h before ischemia) or 5 µg/kg intravenously (10 min before ischemia). 20 mg/kg of the oxidized dihydropyridines was given orally (24 and 1 h before ischemia). The dihydropyridines exhibited significant anti-arrhythmic actions after both forms of administration but their influence on blood pressure was differential and contrasting and depended on route of administration. The oxidized dihydropyridines imparted strong protection against lethal arrhythmias while exerting differential influences on blood pressure with oxy nifedipine and oxy nisoldipine being hypertensive and oxy nitrendipine being most normotensive. The differential effects observed with the dihydropyridines after the two routes of administration lend strength to the hypothesis that their metabolites may have a significant role in mediating the actions of the parent drug. The strong anti-arrhythmic action of the oxidized dihydropyridines along with their differential effect on blood pressure could indicate their potential use as cardio-protective drugs in certain groups of patients.

Effect of nisoldipine and olmesartan on endothelium-dependent vasodilation in essential hypertensive patients.

AIMS: To investigate whether nisoldipine and olmesartan improve endothelial function, decrease asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) and alleviate the inflammatory and oxidative process. METHODS: Fifty-five essential hypertensive patients were randomized to receive nisoldipine or olmesartan for 8 weeks according to a parallel-group, active-controlled, single blind study, and 28 matched normotensive subjects served as healthy controls. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD), and plasma levels of nitric oxide (NO), endothelin-1 (ET-1), high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), 8-isoprostane (also named 8-isoPGF2α), and ADMA were determined. RESULTS: At baseline, the plasma levels of ADMA, ET-1, hs-CRP, and 8-isoPGF2α were markedly higher in patients with essential hypertension than in normotensive subjects (P < 0.05). A significant positive correlation was observed between plasma levels of ET-1 and ADMA in patients with essential hypertension, but not in normotensive subjects. The NO plasma concentrations were significantly lower in patients with essential hypertension than in normotensive subjects. Furthermore, hypertensive subjects demonstrated significantly lower FMD than healthy control (P < 0.05). Nisoldipine and olmesartan significantly and similarly reduced blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension (P < 0.001). At the end of the 8-week treatment, plasma ADMA and ET-1 levels were decreased significantly (P < 0.01). FMD increased significantly in nisoldipine or olmesartan-treated patients (P < 0.05). A significant decrease in plasma hs-CRP contents was observed in patients receiving nisoldipine (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that nisoldipine and olmesartan both improve FMD in patients with essential hypertension. This may be associated with decreased circulating levels of CRP, ET-1, and ADMA.

The RAAS in the pathogenesis and treatment of diabetic nephropathy.

Angiotensin II and other components of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) have a central role in the pathogenesis and progression of diabetic renal disease. A study in patients with type 1 diabetes and overt nephropathy found that RAAS inhibition with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of progression to end-stage renal disease and mortality compared with non-RAAS-inhibiting drugs. Blood-pressure control was similar between groups and proteinuria reduction was responsible for a large part of the renoprotective and cardioprotective effect. ACE inhibitors can also prevent microalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes who are hypertensive and normoalbuminuric; in addition, ACE inhibitors are cardioprotective even in the early stages of diabetic renal disease. Angiotensin-II-receptor blockers (ARBs) are renoprotective (but not cardioprotective) in patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy or microalbuminuria. Studies have evaluated the renoprotective effect of other RAAS inhibitors, such as aldosterone antagonists and renin inhibitors, administered either alone or in combination with ACE inhibitors or ARBs. An important task for the future will be identifying which combination of agents achieves the best renoprotection (and cardioprotection) at the lowest cost. Such findings will have major implications, particularly in settings where money and facilities are limited and in settings where renal replacement therapy is not available and the prevention of kidney failure is life saving.

Serum phosphorus and cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Although serum phosphorus, calcium, and calcium-phosphorus product levels have been associated with cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with normal kidney function, most studies have not examined the association of these minerals with outcomes when collected repeatedly over time. METHODS: We evaluated the association of serum phosphorus, calcium, and calcium-phosphorus product levels with cardiovascular events and mortality in 950 participants of the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes trial by both time-dependent Cox regression models using the cumulative average of minerals measured over time and fixed covariate Cox regression models with only baseline values of these minerals. RESULTS: There were 42 deaths and 193 cardiovascular events among the participants, who were followed for an average of 4.8 years following randomization. A significant association was noted between baseline serum phosphorus >3.9 mg/dL and baseline calcium-phosphorus product >36.8 mg(2)/dL(2) compared with the lowest referent category with the adjusted risk of cardiovascular death (hazard ratio [HR] 5.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-14.72) and (HR 10.01; 95% CI, 2.55-39.31), respectively. However, in time-dependent models using mineral values repeated during the course of the study, only the average of serum phosphorus remains significant (HR 4.25; 95% CI, 1.15 to 16.65). CONCLUSIONS: In the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes cohort, serum phosphorus, but not serum calcium or calcium-phosphorus product, was associated with cardiovascular mortality in time-dependent Cox regression models. Thus, serum phosphorus levels may be more reliable in predicting cardiovascular mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Telmisartan improves endothelial function in patients with essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: : Hypertension is a cardiovascular risk factor commonly associated with endothelial dysfunction and increased renal vascular resistance. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may beneficially affect these parameters via antagonism of angiotensin type 1 (AT1) receptor-mediated vasoconstriction and vascular superoxide production. We therefore investigated whether the new ARB telmisartan improves endothelial function and renal vascular resistance in patients with essential hypertension. METHODS: : Thirty-seven patients with essential hypertension were randomized to receive telmisartan, the calcium channel blocker nisoldipine, or their combination for 6 weeks in a prospective, parallel group study. Brachial artery flow-mediated (endothelium-dependent) dilation (FMD) and renal vascular resistance index (RVRI) were evaluated using high-resolution ultrasound before, at 3 weeks (low dose), and at 6 weeks (high dose) after initiation of treatment. RESULTS: : At baseline, FMD and RVRI did not significantly differ between treatment groups. After 3 weeks of treatment neither treatment significantly changed FMD or RVRI. After 6 weeks of treatment, patients randomized to receive telmisartan alone or the combination, but not those treated with nisoldipine alone, displayed a significantly improved FMD, whereas RVRI values again were not significantly different as compared to those at baseline. CONCLUSION: : In our study cohort of patients with essential hypertension, treatment with telmisartan improved FMD but did not change RVRI. Future studies will demonstrate whether this telmisartan-induced effect may contribute to a blood pressure-independent reduction in cardiovascular morbidity.

Mobilization of putative high-proliferative-potential endothelial colony-forming cells during antihypertensive treatment in patients with essential hypertension.

Recent studies have shown that in response to vascular damage or ischemia, bone marrow-derived endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are recruited into the circulation. To investigate whether antihypertensive treatment has an influence on the number of circulating EPCs, patients with essential hypertension were treated either with the angiotensin receptor antagonist telmisartan, the calcium channel blocker nisoldipine, or their combination for 6 weeks. At baseline and after 3 and 6 weeks of treatment, EPCs were identified and quantified by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) analysis and by their capacity to generate colony-forming units of the endothelial lineage (CFU-EC) in a methylcellulose-based assay. During treatment, patients in the nisoldipine groups, but not in the telmisartan group, showed a significant mobilization of EPCs, which in part had the capacity to generate large-sized colonies comprising more than 1,000 cells. Moreover, a remarkable correlation between the number of CFU-EC and the number of circulating CD133(+)/CD34(+)/CD146(+) cells was observed, thereby providing strong evidence that cells with this phenotype represent functional EPCs. No correlation was found between the numbers of CFU-EC and the blood pressure levels at any time point during the treatment. Hence, nisoldipine-induced mobilization of EPCs might represent a novel mechanism by which this antihypertensive compound independently of its blood pressure-lowering effect contributes to vasoprotection in patients with essential hypertension.

Pharmacologic agents in the management of hypertension--nisoldipine coat-core.

Nisoldipine coat-core (CC), a 1,4-dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, is indicated for the treatment of hypertension and may be used alone or in combination with other antihypertensive agents. The CC technology allows for extended delivery of the drug and once-daily dosing. Nisoldipine CC tablets are absorbed across the entire gastrointestinal tract, including the colon. Eighty percent of the total dose is in the slow-release outer coat, while the core has immediate-release characteristics suitable for absorption in the distal gastrointestinal tract. Numerous double-blind, randomized studies of this agent have been done in patients with hypertension. The use of nisoldipine CC reduced both clinic and ambulatory blood pressure to a similar degree when compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the calcium antagonists amlodipine and felodipine. The drug has also been studied in hypertensive African Americans and demonstrated equivalent efficacy to amlodipine. Tolerability of the drug is good, with the most common side effect of edema at a rate similar to other dihydropyridine calcium antagonists. Thus, results of more than a decade of clinical trial data support the use of nisoldipine CC as once-daily therapy for the treatment of hypertension.

Pharmacokinetics of oral doses of telmisartan and nisoldipine, given alone and in combination, in patients with essential hypertension.

This randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study was performed to assess pharmacokinetic interactions potentially occurring during concomitant use of telmisartan and nisoldipine. Patients with essential hypertension (n = 37) were treated with once-daily doses of telmisartan, nisoldipine, or their combination for 6 weeks. The regimen was started at low dose with an increase of dosage after 3 weeks of treatment. AUC(ss) (132%; P < .01) of telmisartan applied in doses of 80 mg was significantly higher after concomitant application with nisoldipine (10 mg), whereas CL/f(ss) (-54%; P < .05) and Vz/f(ss) (-72%; P < .05) were significantly lower. Regarding pharmacokinetic parameters of nisoldipine, significant differences between treatment groups were not detected. In conclusion, the results of this study strongly suggest that concomitant treatment with nisoldipine enhances telmisartan bioavailability in hypertensive individuals. Larger crossover trials will have to establish these observations and investigate whether interaction of both drugs affects telmisartan efficacy and tolerability in clinical use.

Comparative efficacy and safety of nisoldipine extended-release (ER) and amlodipine (CESNA-III study) in African American patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the efficacy of the new dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nisoldipine extended-release (ER) compared to amlodipine on ambulatory and clinic blood pressures (BP) and heart rates in African American patients with hypertension. METHODS: This prospective, double-blind trial randomized 192 patients with office diastolic BP of 95 to 114 mm Hg to receive either nisoldipine (20 to 60 mg once daily) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg once daily) for 12 weeks in a titration-to-effect design. Using ambulatory monitoring, efficacy was assessed by measuring change from baseline in systolic and diastolic BP and heart rate during three time intervals: 24-h mean period, awake, and sleep. In addition, a subanalysis was performed to evaluate patients whose nocturnal decline in BP was elevated (nondippers) versus those whose BP declined by 10% or more (dippers). RESULTS: Substantial and significant mean changes from baseline in 24-h BP were observed for patients treated with nisoldipine ER (-23/-16 +/- 3/2 mm Hg) and amlodipine (-20/15 +/- 3/2 mm Hg) (between-group comparisons, P =.07 for systolic BP; P =.50 for diastolic BP). Significant and similar reductions also were observed for clinic, awake, and sleep BP. Reductions in BP in the nondippers was substantially greater than in patients with a dipper profile. Neither agent had a significant effect on ambulatory heart rate. Adverse events were mild and infrequent (headache, edema, and dizziness at rates of 4% to 15%), and similar for both agents. CONCLUSIONS: Nisoldipine ER was as effective as amlodipine in reducing 24-h BP in African-American patients with hypertension, with a similar adverse effect profile. Thus, this new therapy for delivery of a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker is a useful antihypertensive strategy for African-American patients with hypertension.

Long term effects of nisoldipine on the progression of coronary atherosclerosis and the occurrence of clinical events: the NICOLE study.

BACKGROUND: Earlier angiographic studies have suggested that calcium antagonists may prevent the formation of new coronary lesions and the progression of minimal lesions. Conversely, a meta-analysis suggested that these drugs may increase cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with coronary heart disease. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether nisoldipine retards the progression of coronary atherosclerosis or reduces the occurrence of clinical events. DESIGN AND SETTING: The NICOLE study (NIsoldipine in COronary artery disease in LEuven) is a single centre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial with coronary angiography at baseline, six months, and three years of follow up. PATIENTS: 826 patients who had undergone successful coronary angioplasty were randomised to nisoldipine 40 mg once daily or placebo. The intention to treat and per protocol population consisted of 819 and 578 patients, respectively. RESULTS: In the per protocol population, 625 of the nisoldipine treated and 655 of the placebo treated patients (NS) showed angiographic progression in at least one coronary arterial segment, defined as an increase in diameter stenosis of > or = 13%. The average minimum luminal diameter of the non-dilated lesions decreased by 0.163 mm and 0.167 mm in the nisoldipine and placebo groups, respectively (NS). The respective numbers of new lesions detected were 7 and 13 (NS). In the intention to treat population, the rates of death, stroke, and acute myocardial infarction were similar in both treatment groups. However, nisoldipine use was associated with fewer revascularisation procedures and thus the percentage of patients with any clinical event was lower (44.6% v 52.6%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Nisoldipine has no demonstrable effect on the angiographic progression of coronary atherosclerosis or the risk of major cardiovascular events but its use is associated with fewer revascularisation procedures.

Differential effects of antihypertensive agents on electrocardiographic voltage: results from the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) trial.

BACKGROUND: Serial decline in electrocardiographic voltage in patients with increased left ventricular mass has been associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events. METHODS: We studied 468 patients with diabetes mellitus and hypertension in the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) trial. Patients were randomized in a stratified design to receive initial treatment with either enalapril or nisoldipine and to either intensive or moderate treatment goals. We measured an electrocardiographic index for increased left ventricular mass, the adjusted Cornell voltage, serially by treatment group. The association between changes in electrocardiographic voltage and cardiovascular events was defined with Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: In 5 years of follow-up, the decline in adjusted Cornell voltage was significantly greater for patients treated with enalapril than for patients treated with nisoldipine (repeated measures analysis of variance P =.002). In the Cox proportional hazards model, treatment assignment (enalapril vs nisoldipine) was the strongest predictor of cardiovascular events, but the presence of coronary disease at baseline, the duration of diabetes mellitus, and change in voltage were also independent predictors of cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: In the ABCD study, enalapril treatment was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction. The reduction in left ventricular mass as reflected by diminished electrocardiographic voltage may explain some, but not all, of the effect of enalapril in this study.

An updated meta-analysis of calcium-channel blockers in the prevention of restenosis after coronary angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: In 1994, a meta-analysis of 5 small randomized trials reported a 30% reduction in the odds of angiographic restenosis when calcium-channel blockers (CCB) were given after percutaneous coronary intervention. Recently, the results of 2 large similar trials (Nisoldipine In Coronary Artery Disease in Leuven [NICOLE], and Coronary AngioPlasty Amlodipine in REstenosis Study [CAPARES]) were published. An extended meta-analysis including the results of the latter trials was performed. METHODS: A total of 2380 patients were analyzed. Statistical analysis included calculation of odds ratios for each trial, common odds ratio, and homogeneity for treatment effects across trials. RESULTS: The incidence of angiographic restenosis was 36% in the CCB-treated group and 42% in the placebo group. The odds ratio of restenosis with CCB therapy was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) compared with control patients (P =.01). Treatment effects were homogeneous across the trials. For the combined end point of death, coronary artery bypass grafting, repeat percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and myocardial infarction, 126 of 626 events occurred in the CCB group and 191 of 655 in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.61 [95% CI 0.47-0.80], P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: This extended meta-analysis confirmed a reduction in the odds of restenosis and clinical events when CCBs were added to standard therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Intensive blood pressure control reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral arterial disease and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and diabetes are both associated with a high risk of ischemic events, but the role of intensive blood pressure control in PAD has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes study followed 950 subjects with type 2 diabetes for 5 years; 480 of the subjects were normotensive (baseline diastolic blood pressure of 80 to 89 mm Hg). Patients randomized to placebo (moderate blood pressure control) had a mean blood pressure of 137+/-0.7/81+/-0.3 mm Hg over the last 4 years of treatment. In contrast, patients randomized to intensive treatment with enalapril or nisoldipine had a mean 4-year blood pressure of 128+/-0.8/75+/-0.3 mm Hg (P<0.0001 compared with moderate control). PAD, which is defined as an ankle-brachial index <0.90 at the baseline visit, was diagnosed in 53 patients. In patients with PAD, there were 3 cardiovascular events (13.6%) on intensive treatment compared with 12 events (38.7%) on moderate treatment (P=0.046). After adjustment for multiple cardiovascular risk factors, an inverse relationship between ankle-brachial index and cardiovascular events was observed with moderate treatment (P=0.009), but not with intensive treatment (P=0.91). Thus, with intensive blood pressure control, the risk of an event was not increased, even at the lowest ankle-brachial index values, and was the same as in a patient without PAD. CONCLUSIONS: In PAD patients with diabetes, intensive blood pressure lowering to a mean of 128/75 mm Hg resulted in a marked reduction in cardiovascular events.

Comparison of effects of nisoldipine-extended release and amlodipine in patients with systemic hypertension and chronic stable angina pectoris.

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS). Both drugs resulted in similar BP responder rates (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg in 87% of patients who received nisoldipine-ER and 78% of patients on amlodipine, p = NS) and anti-ischemic responder rates (increasing exercise time >20% in 20% and 27%, respectively [p = NS], and increasing exercise time >60 seconds in 32% and 29% of patients, respectively [p = NS]. Also, after 6 weeks of active therapy, there was a similar mean increase in total exercise duration (23 seconds in the nisoldipine-ER group and 21 seconds in the amlodipine group, p = NS). Neither drug increased heart rate and both decreased frequency of anginal episodes. Adverse events were infrequent, and typically were vasodilator-related effects (including headache and peripheral edema) that occurred with somewhat higher incidence in the nisoldipine-ER group. Thus, nisoldipine-ER and amlodipine provided comparable antihypertensive and anti-ischemic efficacy, and both were generally well tolerated.

Dynamic and kinetic disposition of nisoldipine enantiomers in hypertensive patients presenting with type-2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Nisoldipine (N) is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist marketed as a racemic mixture and used for the treatment of hypertension. In the present study, we investigated the influence of type-2 diabetes mellitus (DM) on the enantioselective pharmacokinetic and dynamic parameters of N. METHODS: Seventeen hypertensive patients, nine of them with DM, were investigated in a cross-over study with administration of rac-N as coat-core tablets (20 mg day(-1)) or placebo for 15 days each. Serial blood samples (0-24 h) were collected on the 15th day, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring was simultaneously evaluated. N enantiomers in plasma samples were analysed using chiral high-performance liquid chromatography combined with gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The enantiomeric ratios differing from one were evaluated using the Wilcoxon test, and the results are reported as means with the 95% confidence intervals. A lidocaine (L) test was carried out as an in vivo marker of CYP3A4 (and CYP1A2) activities. RESULTS: The following differences were observed between the (+)-N and (-)-N enantiomers, respectively, in the patients presenting with DM (means and ranges): C(max) 3.9 (1.7-6.1) ng ml(-1) versus 0.7 (0.4-1.0) ng ml(-1), AUC(0-24) 51.5 (29.0-74.0) ng ml(-1) h versus 9.4 (5.9-12.8) ng ml(-1) h, and Cl/f 3.6 (1.9-5.4) l h(-1) kg(-1) versus 18.7 (11.7-25.7) l h(-1) kg(-1). The Cl/f value of (+)-N was lower (Mann-Whitney test) in patients with DM: 6.0 (4.3-7.5) l h(-1) kg(-1) versus 3.6 (1.9-5.4) l h(-1) kg(-1). The same observation was made for the (-)-N, with Cl/f reaching 38.8 (26.8-51.0) l h(-1) kg(-1) and 18.7 (11.7-25.7) l h(-1) kg(-1) for the non-diabetic and DM groups, respectively. The L test resulted in higher ratios (P < 0.05) of plasma L/MEGX concentrations (30 min after i.v. L) for DM (11.1 vs 18.6). N significantly reduced systolic and diastolic BP (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon test) in all patients investigated relative to placebo. No differences in BP reduction were observed between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. N significantly increased noradrenaline concentrations in plasma of both patient groups. The data also demonstrated that the plasma concentrations of noradrenaline 30 min after N administration were lower (P < 0.05) in diabetic (mean 2.86 pmol ml(-1)) than in non-diabetic patients (4.80 pmol ml(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: The present data permit us to infer that type-2 diabetes mellitus alters the kinetic disposition of the (+)-N eutomer and (-)-N distomer, presumably due to a lower activity of CYP3A4, although it does not modify the clinical effect brought about by the reduction in BP.

Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes.

BACKGROUND: Although several important studies have been performed in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, it is not known whether lowering blood pressure in normotensive (BP <140/90 mm Hg) patients offers any beneficial results on vascular complications. The current study evaluated the effect of intensive versus moderate diastolic blood pressure (DBP) control on diabetic vascular complications in 480 normotensive type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: The current study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in normotensive type 2 diabetic subjects. The subjects were randomized to intensive (10 mm Hg below the baseline DBP) versus moderate (80 to 89 mm Hg) DBP control. Patients in the moderate therapy group were given placebo, while the patients randomized to intensive therapy received either nisoldipine or enalapril in a blinded manner as the initial antihypertensive medication. The primary end point evaluated was the change in creatinine clearance with the secondary endpoints consisting of change in urinary albumin excretion, progression of retinopathy and neuropathy and the incidence of cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 5.3 years. Mean BP in the intensive group was 128 +/- 0.8/75 +/- 0.3 mm Hg versus 137 +/- 0.7/81 +/- 0.3 mm Hg in the moderate group, P < 0.0001. Although no difference was demonstrated in creatinine clearance (P = 0.43), a lower percentage of patients in the intensive group progressed from normoalbuminuria to microalbuminuria (P = 0.012) and microalbuminuria to overt albuminuria (P = 0.028). The intensive BP control group also demonstrated less progression of diabetic retinopathy (P = 0.019) and a lower incidence of strokes (P = 0.03). The results were the same whether enalapril or nisoldipine was used as the initial antihypertensive agent. CONCLUSION: Over a five-year follow-up period, intensive (approximately 128/75 mm Hg) BP control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients: (1) slowed the progression to incipient and overt diabetic nephropathy; (2) decreased the progression of diabetic retinopathy; and (3) diminished the incidence of stroke.

Comparison of 24-hour blood pressure profiles in patients with hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare 24-hour blood pressure control and adverse effects in patients with essential hypertension who were switched from amlodipine to nisoldipine. DESIGN: Open-label, one-way crossover study. SETTING: Cardiac clinic and patients' homes. PATIENTS: Twenty-five patients with stage I or II essential hypertension stabilized with amlodipine for at least 3 months, of whom 21 patients completed the study. INTERVENTION: All patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring while receiving amlodipine 5 or 10 mg/day. Patients then were switched to nisoldipine 10 mg/day (> or = 65 yrs old) or 20 mg/day (< 65 yrs old) and returned to the clinic at 2-week intervals to assess cuff blood pressure, heart rate, adverse effects, and compliance. No adverse effects were experienced in 15 of the 25 patients. Lower extremity edema was the most commonly reported adverse effect (four patients). Two patients discontinued treatment because of pulmonary edema in one and chest pain in the other. Two patients were lost to follow-up. After a mean of 10.6 weeks, repeat 24-hour ambulatory monitoring was performed to evaluate blood pressure control with nisoldipine. Systolic and diastolic ambulatory results for daytime, nighttime, and total 24 hours were calculated. For amlodipine versus nisoldipine, no significant differences existed in any of the blood pressure parameters (p>0.05) in the 21 patients who completed the study, except for 24-hour diastolic pressure (p<0.05); however, this latter difference was only 2 mm Hg (nisoldipine 77 mm Hg, amlodipine 75 mm Hg). CONCLUSION: Both amlodipine and nisoldipine have similar 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure profiles. The frequency of lower extremity edema was no different after the switch to nisoldipine than when the patients were taking amlodipine.

Usefulness of Nisoldipine for prevention of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (results of the NICOLE study). NIsoldipine in COronary artery disease in LEuven.

The NIsoldipine in COronary artery disease in LEuven (NICOLE) study investigates (1) whether nisoldipine, a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, reduces the progression of minor coronary arterial lesions in the long term, and (2) whether it reduces the restenosis rate after successful percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). The NICOLE study is a single-center, randomized, double-blind trial in 826 patients, who underwent a successful PTCA. Nisoldipine 40 mg coat-core or placebo was started the morning after the procedure and continued for 3 years. All coronary arterial segments were measured on preprocedural angiogram and on the second follow-up angiogram at 3 years. On the first follow-up angiogram at 6 months only the dilated segments were measured. Although the study is still ongoing until the primary end point is reached, we report in this study the angiographic restenosis data as well as the clinical events observed at 6-month follow-up. The per-protocol population consisted of 646 patients. Restenosis, defined as a > or =50% loss of the initial gain (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute criterion IV) occurred in 49% and 55% of the 308 nisoldipine-treated and the 338 placebo-treated patients, respectively (p = NS). At follow-up, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were low and similar in both groups, but in the nisoldipine group, less patients required early coronary angiography (18% vs 26%, p = 0.006) and subsequent revascularization procedures (32% vs 41%, p = 0.057). Thus, nisoldipine did not significantly reduce the angiographic restenosis rate after PTCA, but reduced the number of repeat revascularization procedures, which may be due to its antianginal action.