Literature DB >> 28658794

A Comparative Study on Clinical and Biochemical Parameters in Amlodipine and Cilnidipine Treated Hypertensive Patients.

Kiran Shetty1, Ranjan Shetty2, Lakshminarayana Bairy3, Pragna Rao3, Amruth Kiran4, Manjunath Shetty4, Vidya Nayak5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Hypertension is a major health issue worldwide. Calcium Channel Blockers (CCBs) are the most commonly used antihypertensive agents. CCBs act on voltage-dependent calcium channels and they were categorized into two subclasses, Dihydropyridine (DHP) and non-Dihydropyridine (non-DHP) derivative. Amlodipine is a third generation L-type of DHP and Cilnidipine is a novel L/N-type of DHP CCB, both drugs have excellent pharmacological profiles with the unique actions. AIM: To study the clinical and biochemical profile in Amlodipine and Cilnidipine treated mild to moderate hypertensive patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was a cross-sectional study. A total of 140 mild to moderate hypertensive patients (HTN classified according to Joint National Committee-8 (JNC-8) HTN guideline), 70 were in Amlodipine group (Group-A), and other 70 patients were in Cilnidipine group (Group-B). Group-A receiving Tab Amlodac 5 mg/day and Group-B receiving Tab Cilacar 10 mg/day, and both the group receiving respective medications since more than six months. Patients enrolled into the study with due consideration of eligibility criteria. Demographic, clinical and biochemical parameters were noted and compared.
RESULTS: Demographic parameters are matched, there was no significant difference seen between two study groups. Systolic and Diastolic Blood Pressure (SBP and DBP) showed a significant difference (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in pulse rate between the two groups, both QT/QTc showed statistically significant difference (p<0.001). The biochemical parameters like serum creatinine, albumin, globulin, total protein, serum Na+, fractional excretion of Na+, serum osmolality, vanillyl mandelic acid, were compared between two study groups, there was no significant difference seen between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: The Amlodipine and Cilnidipine both are equally effective antihypertensive drugs. Cilnidipine treated group showed more reduction in blood pressure than the Amlodipine treated group and there was no significant change in heart rate between the two groups. Cilnidipine group showed comparatively shortened QT/QTc interval than the Amlodipine group.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calcium channel blocker; Catecholamine; QT interval; Vanillyl mandelic acid

Year:  2017        PMID: 28658794      PMCID: PMC5483696          DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/23825.9763

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res        ISSN: 0973-709X


  13 in total

1.  A rationale for combination therapy in risk factor management: a mechanistic perspective.

Authors:  R Preston Mason
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.965

Review 2.  The fourth-generation Calcium channel blocker: cilnidipine.

Authors:  K Sarat Chandra; G Ramesh
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2013-12

3.  Evidence supporting a systolic blood pressure goal of less than 150 mm Hg in patients aged 60 years or older: the minority view.

Authors:  Jackson T Wright; Lawrence J Fine; Daniel T Lackland; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Cheryl R Dennison Himmelfarb
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Comparison of the effects of cilnidipine and amlodipine on ambulatory blood pressure.

Authors:  Satoshi Hoshide; Kazuomi Kario; Joji Ishikawa; Kazuo Eguchi; Kazuyuki Shimada
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.872

5.  Comparison between cilnidipine and amlodipine besilate with respect to proteinuria in hypertensive patients with renal diseases.

Authors:  Shunichi Kojima; Mikio Shida; Hiroyuki Yokoyama
Journal:  Hypertens Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.872

6.  Antiproteinuric effect of the calcium channel blocker cilnidipine added to renin-angiotensin inhibition in hypertensive patients with chronic renal disease.

Authors:  T Fujita; K Ando; H Nishimura; T Ideura; G Yasuda; M Isshiki; K Takahashi
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 10.612

7.  Comparison of amlodipine with cilnidipine on antihypertensive efficacy and incidence of pedal edema in mild to moderate hypertensive individuals: A prospective study.

Authors:  Prabhakar Adake; H S Somashekar; P K Mohammed Rafeeq; Dilshad Umar; Bahija Basheer; Kusai Baroudi
Journal:  J Adv Pharm Technol Res       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

8.  A two-for-one bargain: using cilnidipine to treat hypertension and its comorbidities.

Authors:  Rugmani Padmanabhan Iyer; Merry L Lindsey; Robert J Chilton
Journal:  J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich)       Date:  2013-04-29       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  Excellent tolerance to cilnidipine in hypertensives with amlodipine - induced edema.

Authors:  Ranjan Shetty; G Vivek; Kushal Naha; Anil Tumkur; Abhinav Raj; K L Bairy
Journal:  N Am J Med Sci       Date:  2013-01

Review 10.  Hypertension in India: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, awareness, and control of hypertension.

Authors:  Raghupathy Anchala; Nanda K Kannuri; Hira Pant; Hassan Khan; Oscar H Franco; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; Dorairaj Prabhakaran
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.844

View more
  1 in total

1.  Effectiveness and Effect on Renal Parameters of Amlodipine vs. Other Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers in Patients with Essential Hypertension: Retrospective Observational Study Based on Real-World Evidence from Electronic Medical Records.

Authors:  Uday Jadhav; Padhinhare P Mohanan; Alan Fernandes Almeida; Georgi Abraham; Mohammed Yunus Khan; Kumar Gaurav; Amey Mane; Seema Vikas; Madhur Jain; Bhavesh Meel
Journal:  Cardiol Ther       Date:  2021-06-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.