Published online Jun 26, 2014. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v6.i6.507
Revised: April 5, 2014
Accepted: May 8, 2014
Published online: June 26, 2014
Processing time: 198 Days and 12.9 Hours
AIM: To undertake a review of the evidence that nifedipine GITS and lercanidipine are therapeutically equivalent in the management of essential hypertension.
METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was prompted by the findings of two meta-analyses which indicated that there was a lower incidence of peripheral (ankle) oedema with lercanidipine. However, neither meta-analysis gave detailed attention to comparative antihypertensive efficacy or cardiovascular protection. Accordingly, a systematic, detailed and critical review was undertaken of individual published papers. The review started with those studies incorporated into the 2 meta-analyses and then all other salient and directly relevant papers identified through the following search criteria: all randomized controlled trials in which the therapeutic profile and antihypertensive effects of lercanidipine were directly compared with those of nifedipine GITS (in hypertensive patients). The search strategy was focused on the reports of clinical trials of lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS, which were identified through a systematic search of PubMed (from 1966 to October 2012), Embase (from 1980 to October 2012) and the Cochrane library (from 1 October 2008 to end October 2013). The search combined terms related to lercanidipine vs nifedipine GITS (including MeSH search using calcium antagonists, calcium channel blockers and dihydropyridines).
RESULTS: With regard to blood pressure (BP) control and the consistency of BP control throughout 24-h, there is limited published evidence. However, two studies using 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring clearly identified the dose-dependency of BP lowering with lercanidipine and its variably sustained 24-h efficacy. In contrast, there is evidence of a consistent antihypertensive effect throughout 24 h with nifedipine GITS. The incidence of the most common “side effect”, i.e., peripheral (ankle) oedema can be estimated as follows. For every 100 patients treated with lercanidipine, 2.5 will report oedema compared to 6 patients treated with nifedipine GITS. However, 98 or 99 patients will continue treatment with nifedipine GITS, compared with 99.5 patients on lercanidipine. Finally, with regard to outcome studies of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality, there is definitive outcome evidence for nifedipine GITS but there is no evidence that treatment with lercanidipine leads to reductions in CV morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSION: There is no evidence in terms of long-term BP control and CV protection to justify the contention that lercanidipine is therapeutically equivalent to nifedipine GITS.
Core tip: Even in this time of “evidence-based medicine”, there is a widespread presumption of “class effects” in therapeutic practice including that for antihypertensive drug treatments. Thus, guidelines tend to recommend treatment not with specific agents but with groups or classes such as “calcium channel blockers” on the presumption of the therapeutic equivalence or inter-changeability of different agents. This literature review focuses attention on the apparent therapeutic advantage of lercanidipine over nifedipine GITS on the basis of a lower incidence of the adverse effect of peripheral (ankle) oedema. Overall, however, the balance of evidence of efficacy favours nifedipine GITS.