Biomedical subjects

Roberto Fogari

Publications and source records attributed to Roberto Fogari.

44 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMed2003

Differential effects of lercanidipine and nifedipine GITS on plasma norepinephrine in chronic treatment of hypertension.

This study aimed to compare the effects of two long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) with different pharmacologic properties, lercanidipine and nifedipine Gastro-Intestinal Therapeutic System (GITS), in the chronic treatment of essential hypertension. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 60 patients of both sexes were randomly treated with lercanidipine 10 to 20 mg or nifedipine GITS 30 to 60 mg taken orally for 48 weeks, according to a double-blind, parallel group design. For the first 4 weeks of treatment, the lowest dose of each drug was used, followed by higher doses if diastolic blood pressure (BP) was >90 mm Hg. At the end of the placebo period and after 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 weeks of active treatment BP, heart rate (HR), and plasma norepinephrine (NE) levels were assessed. Lercanidipine and nifedipine GITS similarly reduced BP values after 48 weeks (-21.7/15.9 mm Hg and -20.7/14.6 mm Hg, respectively, both P <.001 v placebo), with no change in HR. Despite the similar lack of effect on HR, the two drugs displayed different influences on plasma NE, which was significantly increased by nifedipine GITS (+56 pg/mL, P <.05 v placebo) but not by lercanidipine. These findings suggest that 1) sympathetic activation occurs during chronic therapy with nifedipine GITS but not with lercanidipine, which might be related to the different pharmacologic characteristics of the two CCBs at the doses evaluated; and 2) nifedipine GITS seems to activate peripheral but not cardiac sympathetic nerves, consistent with differing regulation of cardiac and peripheral sympathetic activity.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Combination of lisinopril and nifedipine GITS increases blood pressure control compared with single drugs in essential hypertensive patients.

The present study was designed to evaluate the effect of combination therapy using the angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor lisinopril and the dihydropyridine calcium antagonist nifedipine GITS on the degree and homogeneity of 24-hour blood pressure reduction in essential hypertensive patients. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 51 patients (mean age, 54.4 +/- 9.4 years) with essential hypertension and clinic diastolic blood pressure between 105 and 115 mm Hg were randomized to 4-week treatment with lisinopril (20 mg), nifedipine GITS (30 mg), or their combination according to a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Trough clinic blood pressure and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure were measured at the end of the run-in period and after 4 weeks of treatment. In addition to clinic and 24-hour average blood pressure reduction, the trough-to-peak ratio and the smoothness index, a new measure for the homogeneity of blood pressure reduction, were also calculated. Although both lisinopril and nifedipine GITS produced a significant reduction in clinic and 24-hour average blood pressure values, the reduction obtained with the combination was significantly (P < 0.001) greater. Moreover, the combination therapy increased (P < 0.01) the smoothness index as compared with each single drug for both systolic (lisinopril, 1.02; nifedipine GITS, 1.1; combination, 1.76) and diastolic (lisinopril, 0.98; nifedipine GITS, 0.87; combination, 1.54) blood pressure values, whereas trough-to-peak ratio values (expressed as median) for systolic (lisinopril, 0.41; nifedipine GITS, 0.52; combination, 0.55) and diastolic (lisinopril, 0.35; nifedipine GITS, 0.40; combination, 0.49) blood pressure values were not significantly increased by the combination therapy. Thus, antihypertensive treatment with the combination of lisinopril and nifedipine GITS is more effective and balanced over the 24 hours than the combination components administered alone, confirming that the smoothness index is superior to the trough-to-peak ratio in assessing homogeneity of pharmacologic blood pressure reduction.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Effect of antihypertensive treatment with valsartan or atenolol on sexual activity and plasma testosterone in hypertensive men.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of valsartan and atenolol on sexual activity and plasma testosterone in newly diagnosed, previously untreated, essential hypertensive male subjects. METHODS: One hundred and ten hypertensive men, aged 40-49 years, homogeneous for marital status and without any previous sexual dysfunction were randomly treated with valsartan 80 mg daily (o.d.) or atenolol 50 mg o.d. for 16 weeks according to a double-blind, parallel-arm study design. After 8 weeks the dose was doubled in the non-responders (diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). Clinical evaluation was performed after 8 weeks and 16 weeks of treatment and included blood pressure and plasma testosterone measurements and the compilation of a questionnaire about sexual activity (sexual intercourse episodes/month). RESULTS: Despite similar blood pressure lowering, atenolol significantly reduced sexual activity (from 6.0 sexual intercourse episodes/month to 4.2 sexual intercourse episodes/month, P < 0.01 vs placebo), whereas valsartan increased it, although not significantly (from 5.8 sexual intercourse episodes/month to 7.4 sexual intercourse episodes/month, P = 0.058), compared with placebo, but significantly compared with the atenolol group ( P < 0.05). Testosterone was reduced by atenolol (from 18.2 nmol/l to 13.8 nmol/l, P < 0.01 vs baseline) but was not affected by valsartan (from 17.6 nmol/l to 18.3 nmol/l). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that atenolol induces a worsening of sexual activity and a reduction of testosterone, whereas valsartan does not worsen sexual activity and does not change testosterone levels.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Effects of antihypertensive therapy on sexual activity in hypertensive men.

Sexual dysfunction has a high prevalence among hypertensive men, and hypertension per se, regardless of drugs, has been suggested to affect sexual function. The available studies have not clarified which factors play a major role in the pathogenesis of sexual dysfunction in hypertensive men. Neurovascular factors, however, seem to be especially important, (in particular defective nitric oxide activity), although hormonal and psychogenic factors cannot be excluded. Further studies are needed to answer the important question of whether erectile dysfunction seen in hypertension may be one expression of vascular disease and target organ damage. The incidence of sexual dysfunction is exacerbated by antihypertensive drug treatment. There is evidence that some classes of drugs, such as diuretics, centrally acting sympatholytic drugs, and b-blockers have a greater impact on sexual function than other classes, such as calcium antagonists and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Present evidence on the effects of angiotensin II antagonists is limited, but some data suggest that sexual function in men receiving these drugs not only is not altered, but even improves. Since sexual function is an important aspect of quality of life for the individual, it is important in treating hypertension to ensure that the drugs used have the lowest possible potential for causing sexual problems. This ensures the best balance between therapeutic efficacy and quality of life, which is essential for compliance.

Antihypertensive Agents↗

PubMed2002

Sexual activity and plasma testosterone levels in hypertensive males.

The aim of this study was to compare sexual activity and plasma testosterone levels of hypertensive men with those of healthy normotensive controls. We investigated 110 newly diagnosed, never treated hypertensive (blood pressure [BP] > or = 140/95 mm Hg) men and 110 healthy normotensive (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg) men. All of them were aged 40 to 49 years, married, without any previous sexual dysfunction, nondiabetic, nonobese (body mass index <28 kg/m2), nonsmoking, and not taking any drug. All subjects were evaluated in the morning after an overnight fast. Clinical evaluation included BP, body weight, and height measurements, determination of testosterone, and an interview about sexual activity, assessed as number of sexual intercourse episodes per month. Hypertensive men presented a 25% reduction in sexual activity as compared to normotensive men (5.9 +/- 2.6 v 7.9 +/- 2.5 sexual intercourse episodes per month, respectively, P < .01) and a 12% reduction in testosterone levels (510.6 +/- 151.9 ng/dL v 578.6 +/- 146.8 ng/dL, P < .01). In both normotensive and hypertensive men Pearson's correlation analysis showed a significant positive correlation between testosterone levels and sexual activity and a significant negative correlation between testosterone and age and between testosterone and BP values. Multiple regression analysis confirmed a significant inverse relationship between testosterone and age in normotensive men, whereas only a nonsignificant trend was found in the hypertensive ones. In addition, a significant inverse correlation between testosterone and BP levels was confirmed in hypertensive men limited to systolic BP, whereas a nonsignificant trend was observed in the normotensive controls. In conclusion, these findings suggest a relationship between essential hypertension and impaired testosterone levels in men. The elucidation of the nature of such a relationship and its physiologic and clinical significance needs further investigation.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Losartan and perindopril effects on plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and fibrinogen in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the effects of losartan and perindopril on plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and fibrinogen in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. METHODS: We studied 85 nonsmoking outpatients, aged 46 to 64 years, with mild to moderate essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure [BP] > 90 and < 110 mm Hg) and well controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. After a 4-week washout placebo period, patients were randomized to received perindopril 4 mg once daily (n = 42) or losartan 50 mg once daily (n = 43) for 12 weeks according to a double-blind, parallel-group design. At the end of the placebo and active treatment periods, BP was measured and plasma PAI-1 and fibrinogen were evaluated. RESULTS: Both perindopril and losartan reduced systolic and diastolic BP values (-16/15 mm Hg and -15/14, respectively; P < .001 v placebo), with no difference between the two treatments. Plasma PAI-1 was reduced by perindopril (-10 ng/dL, P = .028 v placebo) but not by losartan (+4 ng/dL, NS), the difference between the two treatments being statistically significant (P < .01). Plasma fibrinogen showed no significant change with both drugs, although a decreasing trend was noted with perindopril. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that perindopril but not losartan decreases PAI-1 in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, which suggests that the PAI-1 lowering effect is unrelated with AT, receptor blockade and could rather be due to the fact that the endothelial receptors that mediate PAI-1 expression in response to angiotensin II are not type 1 receptor subtypes. Different effects of the two drugs on the bradykinin system might also be implicated.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors↗

PubMed2002

Effects of amlodipine fosinopril combination on microalbuminuria in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare the long-term effect of amlodipine and fosinopril in monotherapy or in combination on urinary albumin excretion (UAE) in hypertensive diabetic patients. METHODS: We selected 453 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria and randomized them to amlodipine (5 to 15 mg/day), fosinopril (10 to 30 mg/day), or amlodipine plus fosinopril (5/10 to 15/30 mg/day) for a 3-month titration period. The nonresponder patients or those complaining of side effects during the titration period were discontinued (n = 144); the remaining 309 patients were enrolled in the trial and treated with the same therapy for 4 years. Every 6 months, blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), UAE, creatinine clearance, and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) were evaluated. RESULTS: The combination therapy was more effective in reducing BP than either drug alone at any time of the study without affecting glucose homeostasis. All three treatments provided a significant decrease in UAE during the 48-month study period. However, this effect was more pronounced and became evident earlier with fosinopril than with amlodipine monotherapy (after 3 v 18 months of therapy). In addition, the combination therapy provided a greater antialbuminuric effect than the single drugs. This could be due to the greater antihypertensive effects, although other drug-specific effects cannot be excluded. The cardiovascular outcomes were similar in the amlodipine and in the fosinopril group, but they were lower in the combination group. CONCLUSIONS: These results strengthen the rationale to use a calcium-antagonist/angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor combination in the treatment of hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Effect of indomethacin on the antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan and lisinopril: a multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on antihypertensive efficacy produced by the addition of indomethacin to the angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist, valsartan, or to the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril, in hypertensive patients with chronic osteoarthritis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight patients (52 men and 76 women) aged 25-82 years (mean age 55.7 years), with diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > 100 mmHg at the end of a 2-week placebo washout period were allocated randomly to groups to receive valsartan (80-160 mg once daily) or lisinopril (10-20 mg once daily). At the end of 10 weeks of treatment, patients with DBP < 90 mmHg, while continuing to receive valsartan or lisinopril treatment, were allocated randomly to groups to receive either indomethacin (50 mg three times a day) or the corresponding placebo for 2 weeks, with a 1-week washout period between the two treatments, according to a double-blind, crossover design. After the initial washout period, patients were examined at the end of the 4th, 8th and 10th weeks of randomized treatment with valsartan and lisinopril, at the end of the first crossover period and then at the beginning and at the end of the second crossover period. At each visit, sitting and standing blood pressure were measured by standard mercury sphygmomanometer. RESULTS: The addition of indomethacin blunted the blood pressure-decreasing effect of both antihypertensive drugs. Although indomethacin produced greater increases in both systolic and DBP values in the lisinopril-treated patients (5.45/3.22 mmHg) than in the valsartan-treated ones (2.12/1.87 mmHg), no significant difference between the two drugs was found. CONCLUSIONS: From a theoretical standpoint, these findings suggest that prostaglandins may play a part in the antihypertensive action of Ang II antagonists. From a practical standpoint, hypertensive patients treated with valsartan or with lisinopril should be monitored to detect changes in blood pressure control while receiving indomethacin.

Adult↗