R. Donnelly

Pharmacodynamic modeling of the antihypertensive response to amlodipine

The distinctive pharmacokinetic characteristics of amlodipine, particularly the long half‐life, are presumed to translate directly to a prolonged duration of action, but the concentration‐effect relationship for the antihypertensive response has not been clearly established. In this study of 12 patients with essential hypertension, treatment with 5 mg amlodipine once daily has been evaluated with use of an integrated pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic model to calculate individual patient responsiveness for the decrease in blood pressure per unit change in drug concentration. Amlodipine concentrations were well correlated with the placebo‐corrected reductions in blood pressure in individual patients and responsiveness, for example, for erect systolic blood pressure was − 3.1 ± 0.9 mm Hg/ng/ml. By characterizing the concentration‐effect relationships in individual patients, this study has confirmed that the plasma concentration–time profile is an appropriate index of the effect‐time profile, as reflected by an antihypertensive response that is sustained throughout 24 hours with relatively little trough‐to‐peak variability.

Clinical Studies with the Potassium Channel Activator Cromakalim in Normotensive and Hypertensive Subjects

Summary: Eight normotensive subjects received single and multiple doses of cromakalim (1 mg) and placebo in a randomised double-blind cross-over study to examine general tolerance to cromakalim and its effects on blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and pressor responses to norepinephrine (NE) and angiotensin II (AH). In a second study, 10 hypertensive patients whose BP control was unsatisfactory with atenolol 50-100 mg received additional treatment with placebo followed by cromakalim 1 mg daily for 4 weeks. Assessments were made of BP, HR, apparent hepatic blood flow and renal blood flow (RBF), pulmonary function, and the pharmacokinetics of atenolol. Cromakalim was generally well tolerated in both normotensive and hypertensive subjects. In the normotensive group, cromakalim produced a reflex increase in HR without any detectable decrease in BP: average (placebosubtracted) increases in HR at 4 h were 16 beats/min with subjects in an erect position after the single dose and 14 beats/min after 7 days. Cromakalim had no effect on pressor responses to NE and AII. Addition of cromakalim to atenolol was associated with modest further reductions in BP between 0.5 and 3 h after drug administration, with maximal reductions of 21/14 mm Hg (subjects in supine position) 2 h after the first dose. Cromakalim had no effect on apparent liver blood flow and RBF, pulmonary function, and the steady-state pharmacokinetics of atenolol. Single and multiple 1-mg doses of cromakalim are well tolerated but are associated with only modest vasodilator activity

An evaluation of the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of nicardipine combined with enalapril in essential hypertension

Summary: Recent observations suggest that calcium antagonists may enhance the antihypertensive effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Twelve essential hypertensives who had blood pressures > 160/90 after a minimum of 6 weeks of monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor enalapril 20 mg daily received additional treatment with nicardipine 30 mg t.i.d. and placebo, each for 2 weeks, in a double-blind crossover study. The combination of nicardipine with enalapril was well tolerated. The addition of the first dose of nicardipine was associated with significant reductions (p < 0.05) in blood pressure during the first 4 h: from a baseline of 165/99 to 128/80 (supine) at 2 h after nicardipine as compared with 167/101–146/90 following placebo. Two weeks of combined treatment with nicardipine and enalapril significantly reduced the predosing blood pressure, 12 h after the last dose of nicardipine (158/96 as compared with 172/106 with placebo), and there were further significant reductions in blood pressure during the subsequent dosage interval. The profile of plasma ACE inhibition and the pharmacokinetics of enalaprilat were unaffected by the addition of nicardipine. These results suggest that nicardipine and enalapril are an effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive combination.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Kinetic-Dynamic Relationships of Dilevalol and Labetalol

SummaryDilevalol and labetalol are examples of a growing number of new β-blockers which combine nonselective β-adrenoceptor antagonism with vasodilator activity. Dilevalol is one of the 4 stereoisomers of labetalol, and is estimated to form approximately 25% of the racemic drug. Labetalol itself is an α-antagonist but dilevalol, which has negligible affinity for α-receptors, exerts its vasodilator effect via β2-agonism.Both drugs are rapidly and completely absorbed in 60 to 90 min and subject to extensive first-pass hepatic metabolism; the average bioavailability after oral administration is around 20 to 35%, and there is wide interindividual variability in plasma drug concentrations and dosage requirements. The volume of distribution of dilevalol (17 to 25 L/kg) is higher than that reported for labetalol (3 to 16 L/kg), although both drugs are concentrated in the extravascular compartment. Correspondingly, the elimination half-life of dilevalol at steady-state is around 15h compared with 8h for labetalol. There is evidence that the pharmacokinetics of dilevalol change (a reduction in clearance) in translation from single-dose to long term therapy. There is no clinically significant effect of age on the steady-state disposition of either drug and the pharmacokinetics of labetalol appear to be unchanged during pregnancy. Although there is a linear relationship between dose and area under the concentration-time curve, early studies found no evidence of a simple relationship between dose or plasma drug concentration and the fall in blood pressure. However, an integrated pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model has been used to correlate concentrations of both drugs with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in individuals. This approach derives a mathematical description of antihypertensive response which integrates pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information and also takes account of placebo effects and changes in drug concentration and blood pressure during the dosage interval.The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships of labetalol are characterised by a linear model. For example, in a group of healthy volunteers, the ‘responsiveness’ to labetalol was −0.19mm Hg/µg/L. In contrast, the relationships of dilevalol are best described by a Langmuir maximum effect model, and so individual responses to short and long term treatment have been quantified by the concentration-effect parameters of maximum effect and drug concentration required to produce 50% of this. This integrated method of analysis with dilevalol and labetalol has revealed that (a) drug concentrations are related to the fall in blood pressure in individual subjects; (b) there is no relationship between age and antihypertensive response; and (c) there is a direct correlation for an individual patient between response to the first dose and the response during long term therapy.

Antihypertensive drugs: Individualized analysis and clinical relevance of kinetic-dynamic relationships

Individualized approaches to antihypertensive therapy are being widely advocated. Ideally these should incorporate rational prospective methods for drug and dosage selection but progress has been hampered by the paucity of information about dose- (and plasma concentration-) response relationships. However, in several recent clinical studies, concentration-effect analysis has been used to characterize kinetic-dynamic relationships in individual patients for a range of antihypertensive drugs. This approach provides an integrated mathematical description of drug response which has potential utility for quickly identifying poor or nonresponders and for determining individual dose requirements for optimum longterm blood pressure control.

Comparative effects of rilmenidine and atenolol on tests of autonomic function and mental and dynamic exercise in patients with essential hypertension

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of rilmenidine (1–2 mg/day) and atenolol (50–100 mg/day) on tests of mental arithmetic, bicycle exercise, and autonomic function. Twelve male patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (blood pressure, 160/95 ± 15/7 mm Hg; age range, 32 to 60 years) completed a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Both drugs were well tolerated and, after 4 weeks of monotherapy, were associated with significant reductions in supine and erect BP. Hemo-dynamic responses to mental arithmetic were similar for both drugs, and neither agent affected mental performance as judged by psychomotor testing. The increase in heart rate during bicycle exercise was significantly greater with rilmenidine (50 vs. 41 beats/min, p = 0.04), and during the postexercise recovery phase, areas under the curve for diastolic blood pressure and heart rate were smaller after atenolol than after rilmenidine: 46,450 versus 51,400 mm Hg

Factors Determining the Response to Calcium Antagonists in Hypertension

s (p = 0.02) and 49,445 versus 63,597 beats/min-s (p = 0.001), respectively. In conclusion, rilmenidine and atenolol exert comparable antihypertensive effects both at rest and during mental and dynamic exercise. Although atenolol blunted the heart rate responses to dynamic exercise and the Valsalva maneuver, rilmenidine showed no interference with physiological hemodynamic responses of blood pressure and heart rate during tests of sympathetic and parasympathetic function.

The pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the combination of nifedipine and doxazosin

: Thirty-seven essential hypertensives received placebo for 3 weeks followed by nifedipine retard (n = 14) or enalapril (n = 13) or doxazosin (n = 10) as monotherapy for 6 weeks and attended study days to evaluate the effects of placebo, first dose, and chronic (1-6 weeks) treatment. On each study day, pressor responses to i.v. infusions of phenylephrine (PE) and angiotensin II (AII) were measured 1.5-3 h after drug administration and the derived PD20 values (dose required to increase mean blood pressure by 20 mm Hg) compared. Each treatment produced comparable reductions in BP. Nifedipine significantly attenuated the pressor responses to AII and PE: for AII, the mean PD20 (ng/kg/min) increased from 8.2 (placebo) to 9.9 (first dose), 13.9 (1 week), and 17.4 (6 weeks). Pressor responsiveness to both AII and PE was unchanged following enalapril: for PE, the mean PD20 (micrograms/kg/min) was 2.1 (placebo), 1.5 (first dose), and 1.5 (6 weeks). Doxazosin produced rightward shifts of the PE pressor dose-response curves but had no effect on responses to AII. The relationship between the simultaneous BP and HR changes during the infusion of PE was used as an index of cardiac baroreflex activity. In contrast to enalapril and doxazosin, which had no effect, nifedipine reduced the slope of the HR/BP relationship from -0.62 (placebo) to -0.38 (first dose) and -0.31 beats/min/mm Hg (6 weeks). For comparable reductions in BP, doxazosin only affects adrenergic mechanisms whereas nifedipine affects both adrenergic and non-adrenergically mediated vasoconstriction. The ACE inhibitor enalapril had no effect on pressor responses to AII and PE.

Effects of Ketanserin on Peripheral Vascular Pressor Mechanisms in Essential Hypertension

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability account for the large interindividual differences in the antihypertensive response to treatment with a calcium antagonist. Using an integrated kinetic-dynamic model, the acute and chronic (4-6 weeks) responses to nifedipine (n = 14) and verapamil (n = 14) were characterized for individual hypertensive patients in terms of fall in blood pressure per unit drug concentration. The responsiveness to nifedipine, as the mean of the group, was -0.48 mm Hg/ng/ml following the first dose and -0.49 mm Hg/ng/ml after chronic dosing. The corresponding values for verapamil were -0.13 and -0.12 mm Hg/ng/ml, respectively. For nifedipine and verapamil, the responsiveness to the first dose was significantly correlated both with the height of the pretreatment blood pressure (p less than 0.001) and the responsiveness after 4-6 weeks of treatment (p less than 0.001). Parameters derived from an individual approach to concentration-effect analysis are useful for evaluating the determinants of response to calcium antagonists and form a potential basis for optimizing drug therapy in individual patients.