Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0235886 (leg edema)
 674 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

We prospectively evaluated the antihypertensive effect and tolerability of three different antihypertensive agents, losartan (angiotensin II receptor blocker), amlodipine (calcium channel blocker), and lisinopril (angiotensin-coverting enzyme inhibitor), in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 2-week washout period, 121 patients were randomly allocated to three different groups for 12 weeks. Medications were titrated upward as necessary to achieve the goal office-recorded sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) (defined as SiDBP <90 mmHg or SiDBP > or = 900 mmHg but with a > or = 10 mmHg drop from baseline). Efficacy and tolerability were assessed after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of therapy with each regimen. At 12 weeks, significant differences in SiDBP compared with data of baseline were noted in all three groups ( P < 0.001 in all comparisons). Similarly, significant differences in the sitting systolic blood pressure compared with baseline data were also seen for all three groups ( P < 0.001 in all comparisons). The number of patients reaching goal SiDBP were comparable for the three groups: 25 patients (62.5%) in the losartan group, 27 patients (67.5%) in the amlodipine group, and 22 patients (59.5%) in the lisinopril group (not significant). Amlodipine produced a more pronounced reduction in SiDBP than the other two medications, although without statistical significance. Patients receiving lisinopril showed a high incidence of coughing (31.7%). Low leg edema was noted only in the amlodipine group (7.5%). Compared with the amlodipine and lisinopril groups, the losartan group seemed to have relatively fewer episodes (7.5%), and fewer patients (three cases) experienced adverse effects. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that losartan has the same antihypertensive effect, but has superior tolerability compared with the other two drugs. Coughing was a common side effect of lisinopril therapy in our population.
 ...
PMID:Prospective and randomized study of the antihypertensive effect and tolerability of three antihypertensive agents, losartan, amlodipine, and lisinopril, in hypertensive patients. 1468 49

In all actual clinical guidelines, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) belong to the recommended first line antihypertensive drugs to treat essential hypertension. Several recent large clinical trials have confirmed their efficacy not only in lowering blood pressure but also in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with a normal or high cardiovascular risk profile. In clinical trials such as ALLHAT, VALUE or ASCOT, an amlodipine-based therapy was at least as effective, when not slightly superior, in lowering blood pressure and sometimes more effective in preventing target organ damages than blood pressure lowering strategies based on the use of diuretics, beta-blockers and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. One of the main clinical side effects of the first and second generation CCBs including amlodipine is the development of peripheral edema. The incidence of leg edema can be markedly reduced by combining the CCB with a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system. This strategy has now led to the development of several fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Another alternative to lower the incidence of edema is to use CCBs of the third generation such as lercanidipine. Indeed, although no major clinical trials have been conducted with this compound, clinical studies have shown that lercanidipine and amlodipine have a comparable antihypertensive efficacy but with significantly less peripheral edema in patients receiving lercanidipine. In some countries, lercanidipine is now available in a single-pill association with an ACE inhibitor thereby further improving its efficacy and tolerability profile.
 ...
PMID:Treatment of essential hypertension with calcium channel blockers: what is the place of lercanidipine? 1961 74