1994•PubMedRequires access

Conversion from sustained-release to immediate-release calcium entry blockers: outcome in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

D E Hilleman, Mohiuddin Sm, Lucas Bd, Brianna Shinn, Gary N. Elsasser

Open publisher page 19 citations

Abstract

We evaluated 110 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 110 mmHg) whose blood pressure was initially controlled on monotherapy with once-daily sustained-release calcium entry blockers; these patients were then switched to their respective immediate-release formulations TID. The study group consisted of 35 patients on diltiazem controlled delivery (CD) switched to immediate-release diltiazem, 41 patients on nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) switched to immediate-release nifedipine, and 34 patients on verapamil sustained-release (SR) switched to immediate-release verapamil. Outcome evaluation included a pair-wise comparison of the following during treatment with both formulations: blood pressure control, need for additional hypertensive agents, side effects, compliance, and cost of therapy. Blood pressure was controlled in 94% of patients switched from diltiazem CD to immediate-release diltiazem; 6% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects and compliance were not significantly different between groups. Blood pressure was controlled in 78% of patients switched from nifedipine GITS to immediate-release nifedipine; 22% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects, compliance, and cost of therapy were significantly different between groups. Side effects increased from 32% on nifedipine GITS to 58% on immediate-release nifedipine; and compliance decreased from 93% on nifedipine GITS to 76% on immediate-release nifedipine (P < 0.05). Blood pressure was controlled in 91% of patients switched from verapamil SR to verapamil immediate release; 9% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects and compliance were not significantly different between groups, but immediate-release verapamil was significantly less expensive than verapamil SR.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

About this research paper

What this paper is about

We evaluated 110 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 110 mmHg) whose blood pressure was initially controlled on monotherapy with once-daily sustained-release calcium entry blockers; these patients were then switched to their respective immediate-release formulations TID. The study group consisted of 35 patients on diltiazem controlled delivery (CD) switched to immediate-release diltiazem, 41 patients on nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) switched to immediate-release nifedipine, and 34 patients on verapamil sustained-release (SR) switched to immediate-release verapamil. Outcome evaluation included a pair-wise comparison of the following during treatment with both formulations: blood pressure control, need for additional hypertensive agents, side effects, compliance, and cost of therapy. Blood pressure was controlled in 94% of patients switched from diltiazem CD to immediate-release diltiazem; 6% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects and compliance were not significantly different between groups. Blood pressure was controlled in 78% of patients switched from nifedipine GITS to immediate-release nifedipine; 22% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects, compliance, and cost of therapy were significantly different between groups. Side effects increased from 32% on nifedipine GITS to 58% on immediate-release nifedipine; and compliance decreased from 93% on nifedipine GITS to 76% on immediate-release nifedipine (P < 0.05). Blood pressure was controlled in 91% of patients switched from verapamil SR to verapamil immediate release; 9% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects and compliance were not significantly different between groups, but immediate-release verapamil was significantly less expensive than verapamil SR.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 19 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

We evaluated 110 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 110 mmHg) whose blood pressure was initially controlled on monotherapy with once-daily sustained-release calcium entry blockers; these patients were then switched to their respective immediate-release formulations TID. The study group consisted of 35 patients on diltiazem controlled delivery (CD) switched to immediate-release diltiazem, 41 patients on nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) switched to immediate-release nifedipine, and 34 patients on verapamil sustained-release (SR) switched to immediate-release verapamil. Outcome evaluation included a pair-wise comparison of the following during treatment with both formulations: blood pressure control, need for additional hypertensive agents, side effects, compliance, and cost of therapy. Blood pressure was controlled in 94% of patients switched from diltiazem CD to immediate-release diltiazem; 6% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects and compliance were not significantly different between groups. Blood pressure was controlled in 78% of patients switched from nifedipine GITS to immediate-release nifedipine; 22% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects, compliance, and cost of therapy were significantly different between groups. Side effects increased from 32% on nifedipine GITS to 58% on immediate-release nifedipine; and compliance decreased from 93% on nifedipine GITS to 76% on immediate-release nifedipine (P < 0.05). Blood pressure was controlled in 91% of patients switched from verapamil SR to verapamil immediate release; 9% of patients required additional antihypertensive agents. Side effects and compliance were not significantly different between groups, but immediate-release verapamil was significantly less expensive than verapamil SR.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Key concepts: Diltiazem, Nifedipine, Verapamil, Medicine, Blood pressure, Compliance (psychology), Anesthesia, Pharmacology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Conversion from sustained-release to immediate-release calcium entry blockers: outcome in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. — Research Paper | ScholarLens