Differences Between Amlodipine and Lisinopril in Control of Clinic and Twenty- Four Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressures
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Human Hypertension (1998) 12, 411–416 1998 Stockton Press. All rights reserved 0950-9240/98 $12.00 http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/jhh ORIGINAL ARTICLE Differences between amlodipine and lisinopril in control of clinic and twenty- four hour ambulatory blood pressures AR Lorimer1, D Lyons2, G Fowler2, JC Petrie2 and MT Rothman3 1Department of Medical Cardiology, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow; 2Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen; 3Cardiology Department, The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel, London, UK The anti-hypertensive efficacy of once-daily amlodipine tensive medication. Amlodipine reduced supine systolic (up to 10 mg) and lisinopril (up to 20 mg) were compared and diastolic clinic BP significantly more than lisinopril in terms of clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) (−20 ± 2/−14 ± 1 vs −11 ± 3/−7 ± 1 mm Hg; P = 0.02/ control, in an observer-blind, two-period crossover P = 0.001) 24 h post-dose. Clinic standing diastolic BP study. Following a 4-week placebo run-in period, was also significantly reduced with amlodipine com- patients underwent two active treatment phases each pared with lisinopril (P = 0.05). Both drugs produced lasting 12 weeks and separated by a 4-week washout control of mean ambulatory BP relative to baseline over period. Sixty patients with a supine diastolic BP 24 h. Amlodipine showed more consistent control of BP between 90 and 120 mm Hg were included, irrespective over the 24-h period in contrast to lisinopril which of whether or not they had received previous anti-hyper- exerted its greatest effect during the daytime. Keywords: amlodipine; lisinopril; blood pressure determination; ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; crossover study Introduction The study was conducted at three centres in the UK. Following a 4-week, placebo run-in period, The higher the blood pressure (BP) that is found patients were allocated either amlodipine or lisinop- either by clinic or by ambulatory recording, the ril for 12 weeks by the method of minimisation greater is the risk of developing a cardiovascular which took into account age, sex, BP and body event.1 When measured by 24-h ambulatory BP rec- weight. A 4-week washout period preceded the ording, the profile as well as the degree of the BP second treatment phase, during which the alterna- change over 24 h may be important for determining tive drug was administered. possible morbidity.2 It has been suggested that the The study received ethics committee approval at greater the diurnal variation in BP, the greater is the target-organ damage;3 those who fail to exhibit a each of the three study centres and was conducted nocturnal decrease in BP (‘non-dippers’) may have a in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. greater risk of target-organ damage than ‘dippers’.4,5 Once-daily amlodipine and lisinopril have both been demonstrated to produce satisfactory control of clinic BP6,7 and 24-h BP.8,9 The present study was Patients designed to compare the efficacy of amlodipine and lisinopril in terms of clinic and 24-h BP control. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years were selected if they had a supine diastolic BP (DBP) between 90 and 120 mm Hg, and no evidence of major systemic Materials and methods illness, mental disorder or substance abuse. Patients Design who had received no previous medication, as well as those who required a change of treatment, were A two-way crossover single-blind design was chosen included. A history of myocardial infarction or because it was not possible to obtain identical for- stroke in the preceding 3 months precluded entry to mulations of both drugs. The observers were kept the study, as did a history of failure to respond to scrupulously blind to the nature of the treatment at dihydropyridine calcium antagonists or angioten- all times. sin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Women who were pregnant, lactating or likely to become Correspondence: Professor Ross Lorimer, Department of Medical pregnant, were not included. Cardiology, Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow G4 0SF, All patients gave their written informed consent Scotland to participate. Received 1 September 1997; revised and accepted 3 March 1998 Amlodipine vs lisinopril in hypertension AR Lorimer et al 412 Treatment package. All patients who took at least one dose of amlodipine and lisinopril were included in the Tablets of either drug were administered once daily analyses of efficacy (for ABPM, patients were in the morning between 09.00 and 11.00 h. Amlodi- included for whom measurements were made at pine was started at a dose of 5 mg daily, increasing baseline and on treatment in both study periods). to 10 mg daily after 4 weeks if supine clinic DBP ABPM data were weighted according to the number remained at, or above, 90 mm Hg. After one single of readings obtained in each record. Changes in dose of lisinopril 2.5 mg, patients received 5 mg clinic BP or ABPM were analysed by repeated analy- once daily for 1 week, following which, if supine 10 у sis of variance using a standard method for two- clinic DBP was 90 mm Hg, the lisinopril dosage period crossover studies; this method included was increased to 10 mg daily for a further 3 weeks. determination of order and carryover effects. ABPM At this point, if supine DBP was still not less than 90 data were not edited in any way. mm Hg, the lisinopril dosage was doubled. Dosage All patients randomised to treatment were reductions were permitted if patients developed included in the analysis of tolerability. Between- adverse events. No medication was taken on the treatment differences in the incidence of adverse morning of clinic visits until after the scheduled events were compared using the chi-square test. assessments were made (or after measurement was All statistical testing was two-sided and the level started, in the case of ambulatory BP monitoring of significance for all analyses was 5%. [ABPM]). Results Assessments Of the 60 patients who entered the study, 29 were The primary measurements were changes in clinic allocated to receive amlodipine first and 31 to supine and standing systolic and diastolic BP and receive lisinopril first. The demographics of each ABPM recordings. group were well matched (Table 1). A total of 19 Clinic BP was measured before the morning dose patients withdrew prematurely: nine during the first of either medication using a random zero sphygmo- phase of treatment; three during the placebo wash- manometer and was taken in duplicate after 5 min out; and seven during the second treatment phase spent supine, and 2 min standing. These measure- (these seven patients were from one centre and were ments thus represent BP values approximately 24 h excluded from evaluation of efficacy because of after the last dose. Assessments of clinic BP were incomplete data). Data from 41 patients were avail- made at baseline (ie, week 0, following the 4-week able for the efficacy analyses. No sequence or carry- placebo run-in) and at weeks 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 17, 20, over effects were observed. 24 and 28. Eight patients withdrew because of adverse events ABPM was carried out over a 24-h period at the (three in the amlodipine group, five in the lisinopril beginning and end of each active treatment phase group); one further patient was counted as discon- using a Spacelabs 90207 (two centres) or Instrumed- tinuing due to an adverse event after completing the ics recorder, and was preceded by a clinic BP stipulated treatment period. Other reasons for measurement. Systolic BP (SBP), DBP and mean premature withdrawal included: incomplete data arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded during each (seven patients from one centre, see above); concur- period. BPs were calculated for each 24-h period, rent disorders (two); and lost to follow-up (one). daytime period (07.00 to 22.59 h), and night-time The mean duration of therapy with both amlodip- period (23.00 to 06.59 h) and were adjusted to ine and lisinopril was 76 days, and the mean final account for any differences in scheduled and actual daily doses were 7.3 mg for amlodipine and 13.1 mg measurement times. It was calculated that 54 for lisinopril. patients would be required to detect a significant difference of 3.5 mm Hg in ambulatory BP with a power of 80%, based on standard deviation of differ- ence scores of 9 mm Hg from a previous study. Table 1 Demographic characteristics of patients Any adverse events or intercurrent illnesses occurring at baseline and at subsequent review visits First treatment were noted. Amlodipine Lisinopril Statistics Number 29 31 Based on the results of a previous study, in which Male 16 15 Female 13 16 inter-patient standard deviation was approximately Mean age (years) 54.1 53.4 9 mm Hg, a minimum sample size of 26 would be Range (years) 26–77 30–71 required to detect a significant difference of 5 Race mm Hg between treatment groups in clinic BP with Caucasian 27 29 a power of 80%. It was calculated that 54 patients Other 2 2 Baseline clinic 166/103 160/102 would be required to show, with a power of 80%, a SDP/DBP (mm Hg) 3.5 mm Hg difference between groups in ambulat- Mean duration of 3.6 3.7 ory DBP. hypertension (years) Statistical data were analysed using the SAS 6.07 Amlodipine vs lisinopril in hypertension AR Lorimer et al 413 Clinic BP control ache, whereas lisinopril was most often associated with headache and cough. The majority of side Both drugs produced reductions in supine and effects (either treatment) were mild to moderate in standing SBP and DBP.