Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0002962 (angina)
 21,142 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Recent publications purporting to show that calcium antagonists, when used for the treatment of hypertension or in the post myocardial infarction patient, would paradoxically increase the rate of heart attack and mortality have cast doubts on the safety and efficacy of this drug class. All three studies are retrospective, and have various drawbacks. Specifically, the metaanalysis of Furberg et al is fraught with mistakes, of borderline significance, and based on old data pertaining to short-acting nifedipine only (which should not be given in patients who have suffered an acute heart attack). The case control study of Psaty et al suggested that hypertensive patients who were treated with short-acting verapamil, diltiazem, and nifedipine had an excessive rate of myocardial infarction when compared with patients who were treated with diuretics. Two out of the three calcium antagonists that were used in this study were not approved for the treatment of hypertension by the US Food and Drug Administration. Some patients were taking these drugs only once a day whereas, because of their short duration of action, at least a three or four times daily regimen would be required to achieve an acceptable blood pressure control throughout a 24-h period. The cohort study of Pahor et al suggested distinct differences among various calcium antagonists with regard to survival. Blood pressure was controlled in < 40% of all patients, and in some patients blood pressure was never even measured. Recent studies, such as the Prospective Randomized Amlodipine Survival Evaluation (PRAISE), the third Vasodilator-Heart Failure Trial (VHeFT-III), the second Doppler Flow and Echocardiography in Functional Cardiac Insufficiency Assessment of Nisoldipine Therapy (DEFIANT II), the Angina Prognosis Study in Stockholm (APSIS), and the Shanghai Trial of Nifedipine in the Elderly (STONE), attest to the safety and efficacy of the newer long-acting calcium antagonists in patients with a wide spectrum of heart disease. Several ongoing trials including the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) with amlodipine, the International Nifedipine-GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT) with nifedipine, the Hypertension Optimal Treatment study (HOT) with felodipine, the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly in Europe Trial (SYST-EUR) with nicardipine, the Second Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP II) with felodipine, and Nordic Diltiazem Study (NORDIL) with diltiazem, will give us morbidity and mortality data in patients with high blood pressure within the next few years. Until these results are available, we can be confident that the lowering of blood pressure and providing relief of patients with symptomatic angina can be achieved safely and efficiently with the presently available long-acting calcium antagonists.
 ...
PMID:What, if anything, is controversial about calcium antagonists? 896 30

EFFICACY OF CALCIUM ANTAGONISTS: Calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) have long been recognized as potent agents for hypertensive therapy, with substantial blood pressure reduction in all age groups and races. CCBs improve endothelial function, may positively influence atherosclerosis in carotid arteries, reduce left ventricular hypertrophy, and hypertrophy of the resistance vessels, and improve arterial compliance. They do not adversely affect lipids and serum glucose. USE IN PRACTICE: CCBs are also a heterogenous class of drugs composed of the phenylalkylamine verapamil, the benzothiazepine diltiazem, and the large group of dihydropyridines (DHPs) with the prototype nifedipine, and an increasing number of newer agents (e. g. nitrendipine, nisoldipine, amlodipine, felodipine, lacidipine and lercanidipine). DHPs are primarily vasodilators, lowering blood pressure by decreasing peripheral vascular resistance at the level of the small arterioles which can be followed by an autonomic counterregulation especially in drugs with a rapid onset of action. This is markedly reduced or abolished in the treatment with the modern long acting DHPs and is also not the case in the treatment with non-DHPs. Prospective randomized controlled outcome studies demonstrated a significant reduction in stroke in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension compared with placebo (Syst-Eur [Syst-China]), and no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality and combined morbidity compared with diuretics, beta blockers or ACE-Inhibitors (STOP-2, INSIGHT, NORDIL, ALLHAT, INVEST). To normalize the blood pressure it is mostly necessary to combine antihypertensive drugs. Here are CCBs ideal partners for a therapy with ACE-inhibitors, AT1 antagonists or beta blockers (DHP) and diuretics (verapamil). With respect to the antihypertensive differential therapy the author recommends CCBs based on studies with the evidence grade 1-3; especially for elderly hypertensives (with isolated systolic neuhypertension and a high risk of stroke), for patients with COPD and asthma bronchiale, Raynaud's syndrome or Prinzmetal-angina, patients with diastolic function disturbances including diastolic heart failure or hypertensives with massive left ventricular hypertrophy (in combination with ACE or AT1 inhibitors).
 ...
PMID:[Differential therapy with calcium antagonists]. 1468 11

Beta-blockers have been considered for decades as effective agents in preventing coronary events in hypertensive patients. Actually, the scrutiny of the available data arises some doubts over the real value of this pharmacological class. In primary prevention, the clinical benefits of beta-blockers are poorly documented: the studies conducted against placebo (MRC, IPPPSH...) did not show any significant differences regarding the rate of coronary events (except within non smokers); moreover, the beneficial effect of propranolol in preventing sudden deaths and silent myocardial infarctions has been reported byjust one retrospective analysis. Likewise in HAPPHY study, the comparison with diuretics did not emphasize a clear superiority of one of both classes; the better effect of metoprolol regarding overall mortality and fatal coronary events was shown in the pecular subset MAPHY, only. Furthermore, in elderly people, HEP, MRC OA and STOP studies did not find any significant effect of beta-blockers in preventing coronary events, as compared with placebo. However, SHEP study, which involved patients older than 60 years with isolated systolic hypertension receiving first a diuretic, then a beta-blocker(atenolol) in 1/4 of the cases, demonstrated a significant reduction versus placebo both in strokes and in coronary events. Finally, in UKPDS, CAPP, LIFE and CONVINCE studies, atenolol turned out to have a similar efficacy as captopril, losartan and verapamil, in preventing ischemic heart disease. Among the numerous published meta-analyses, that of Psaty pointed out the absence of a primary cardioprotective effect by beta-blockers; more recently, that of Carlberg, emphasized atenolol given alone as the first-line drug to fail in significantly reducing coronary events and strokes. In secondary prevention, some more convincing data may be found in the literature, regarding post myocardial infarction patients (meta-analyses of Staessen, 1982, Yusuf, 1985 and Soriano, 1997), as well as those with stable angina (BIP study in diabetics) or silent ischemia (ASIST study: significant reduction in number and duration of ischemic events by atenolol). Moreover, INVEST study recently showed atenolol and verapamil to have an equivalent efficacy in the hypertensive patients with stable coronary artery disease. Last, hypertension should be reminded as resulting in many cases of heart failure, a pathology where beta-blockers have clearly demonstrated their beneficial effects.
 ...
PMID:[Do beta-blockers prevent coronary events in hypertensive patients?]. 1623 74