American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 163–176 | Cite as

Metabolic Effects of Manidipine

Review Article


The calcium channel antagonists (CCAs) were originally introduced as vasodilators for the treatment of coronary heart disease, but are now also noted for their clinical efficacy in the management of hypertension. Data from large clinical studies have shown that CCAs are not associated with the undesirable metabolic effects (e.g. worsening of dyslipidemia and reduction of insulin sensitivity) seen with older agents such as thiazide diuretics and β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) that are used to treat hypertension. Indeed, reductions in cardiovascular risk and rates of onset of new cases of diabetes mellitus have been reported in trials in patients with hypertension treated with CCAs. These beneficial effects extend beyond those expected to accompany reductions in BP.

Until recently, the biochemical effects underlying these metabolic changes were only poorly understood, but pharmacologic studies have now started to shed more light on these issues. Of particular interest are studies with manidipine, some of which suggest that this agent may be associated with greater improvements in insulin sensitivity and may have better renal protective properties than other CCAs. Confirmation of potential differences among CCAs in terms of the relative magnitude of any beneficial metabolic effects requires further study.

Ongoing research is expected to clarify further the action of these agents at the cellular level and to assist with the optimization of antihypertensive therapy, particularly in patients with elevated cardiovascular risk profiles.



Medical writing services were provided by Chris Dunn and Ray Hill on behalf of Wolters Kluwer Health. The preparation of the manuscript was financially supported by Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA. Dr Cavalieri is an employee of Promedica Srl, and Dr Cremonesi is an employee of Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA.


  1. 1.
    Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, et al. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 2002 Dec 14; 360 (9349): 1903–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steffen HM. Use of calcium channel antagonists for the treatment of hypertension in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2004; 21 (9): 565–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 2003 May 21; 289 (19): 2560–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Furberg CD, Psaty BM, Meyer JV. Nifedipine: dose-related increase in mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Circulation 1995 Sep 1; 92(5): 1326–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alderman M, Madhavan S, Cohen H. Calcium antagonists and cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Lancet 1998 Jan 17; 351 (9097): 216–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byington RP, Craven TE, Furberg CD, et al. Isradipine, raised glycosylated haemoglobin, and risk of cardiovascular events. Lancet 1997 Oct 11; 350 (9084): 1075–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pahor M, Psaty BM, Furberg CD. Treatment of hypertensive patients with diabetes. Lancet 1998 Mar 7; 351 (9104): 689–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Estacio RO, Jeffers BW, Hiatt WR, et al. The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med 1998 Mar 5; 338 (10): 645–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tatti P, Pahor M, Byington RP, et al. Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1998 Apr; 21 (4): 597–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 2007 guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2007 Jun; 25 (6): 1105–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sever P. New hypertension guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the British Hypertension Society. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst 2006 Jun; 7 (2): 61–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan NA, Hemmelgarn B, Padwal R, et al. The 2007 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for the management of hypertension: part 2 — therapy. Can J Cardiol 2007 May 15; 23 (7): 539–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wilson PW, D’Agostino RB, Levy D, et al. Prediction of coronary heart disease using risk factor categories. Circulation 1998 May 12; 97 (18): 1837–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buse JB, Ginsberg HN, Bakris GL, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in people with diabetes mellitus: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association. Circulation 2007 Jan 2; 115 (1): 114–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 2002 Dec 17; 106 (25): 3143–421.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryden L, Standl E, Bartnik M, et al. Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: executive summary. The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Eur Heart J 2007 Jan; 28 (1): 88–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith Jr SC, Allen J, Blair SN, et al. AHA/ACC guidelines for secondary prevention for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2006 update: endorsed by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circulation 2006 May 16; 113 (19): 2363–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National diabetes fact sheet: general information and national estimates on diabetes in the United States, 2007 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2008 Mar 31].
  19. 19.
    Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of longterm complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 1993 Sep 30; 329 (14): 977–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, et al. Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2005 Dec 22; 353 (25): 2643–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Lancet 1998 Sep 12; 352 (9131): 837–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008 Jun 12; 358 (24): 2560–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerstein HC, Miller ME, Byington RP, et al. Effects of intensive glucose lowering in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008 Jun 12; 358 (24): 2545–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cefalu WT. Glycemic targets and cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 2008 Jun 12; 358 (24): 2633–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abraira C, Duckworth W. Intense glucose control yields no significant effect on CVD reduction: VA Diabetes Trial [abstract]. Late-breaking presentation at the American Diabetes Association 68th Scientific Sessions; 2008 Jun 6–10; San Francisco (CA).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mather KJ, Funahashi T, Matsuzawa Y, et al. Adiponectin, change in adiponectin, and progression to diabetes in the Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes 2008 Apr; 57 (4): 980–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008 Jun 3; 148 (11): 846–54.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998 Jun 13; 351 (9118): 1755–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Effects of a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide on macrovascular and microvascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (the ADVANCE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007 Sep 8; 370 (9590): 829–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998 Sep 12; 317 (7160): 703–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abuissa H, Jones PG, Marso SP, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers for prevention of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005 Sep 6; 46 (5): 821–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bangalore S, Parkar S, Grossman E, et al. A meta-analysis of 94,492 patients with hypertension treated with beta blockers to determine the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol 2007 Oct 15; 100 (8): 1254–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elliott WJ, Meyer PM. Incident diabetes in clinical trials of antihypertensive drugs: a network meta-analysis. Lancet 2007 Jan 20; 369 (9557): 201–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Buchanan TA, Xiang AH, Peters RK, et al. Preservation of pancreatic beta-cell function and prevention of type 2 diabetes by pharmacological treatment of insulin resistance in high-risk hispanic women. Diabetes 2002 Sep; 51 (9): 2796–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gerstein HC, Yusuf S, Bosch J, et al. Effect of rosiglitazone on the frequency of diabetes in patients with impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006 Sep 23; 368 (9541): 1096–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    DeFronzo R. ACTos NOW for the prevention of diabetes (ACT NOW) [abstract]. Late-breaking presentation at the American Diabetes Association 68th Scientific Sessions; 2008 Jun 6–10; San Francisco (CA).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002 Dec 18; 288 (23): 2981–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, et al. Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 2000 Jul 29; 356 (9227): 366–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005 Sep 10–16; 366 (9489): 895–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, et al. Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 1999 Nov 20; 354 (9192): 1751–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al. Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet 2000 Jul 29; 356 (9227): 359–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet 2004 Jun 19; 363 (9426): 2022–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet 1997 Sep 13; 350 (9080): 757–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Staessen JA, Wang JG, Thijs L. Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2001 Oct 20; 358 (9290): 1305–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Elliott WJ, Bandari A. The role of calcium antagonists in stroke prevention. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2005 Apr; 7 (4 Suppl. 1): 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Angeli F, et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers for coronary heart disease and stroke prevention. Hypertension 2005 Aug; 46 (2): 386–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wang JG, Staessen JA, Li Y, et al. Carotid intima-media thickness and antihypertensive treatment: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stroke 2006 Jul; 37 (7): 1933–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tuomilehto J, Rastenyte D, Birkenhager WH, et al. Effects of calcium-channel blockade in older patients with diabetes and systolic hypertension. Systolic Hypertension in Europe Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999 Mar 4; 340 (9): 677–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gasowski J, Birkenhager WH, Staessen JA, et al. Benefit of antihypertensive treatment in the diabetic patients enrolled in the Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) trial. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2000 Feb; 14 (1): 49–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA 1991 Jun 26; 265 (24): 3255–64.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mancia G, Brown M, Castaigne A, et al. Outcomes with nifedipine GITS or co-amilozide in hypertensive diabetics and nondiabetics in Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension (INSIGHT). Hypertension 2003 Mar; 41 (3): 431–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mancia G. The association of hypertension and diabetes: prevalence, cardiovascular risk and protection by blood pressure reduction. Acta Diabetol 2005 Apr; 42 Suppl. 1: S17–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Richard S. Vascular effects of calcium channel antagonists: new evidence. Drugs 2005; 65 Suppl. 2: 1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Godfraind T, Miller R, Wibo M. Calcium antagonism and calcium entry blockade. Pharmacol Rev 1986 Dec; 38 (4): 321–416.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Furukawa T, Nukada T, Miura R, et al. Differential blocking action of dihydropyridine Ca2+ antagonists on a T-type Ca2+ channel (alpha1G) expressed in Xenopus oocytes. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2005 Mar; 45 (3): 241–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    De Paoli P, Cerbai E, Koidl B, et al. Selectivity of different calcium antagonists on T- and L-type calcium currents in guinea-pig ventricular myocytes. Pharmacol Res 2002 Dec; 46 (6): 491–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ohashi N, Mitamura H, Tanimoto K, et al. A comparison between calcium channel blocking drugs with different potencies for T- and L-type channels in preventing atrial electrical remodeling. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2004 Sep; 44 (3): 386–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Grossman E, Messerli FH, Goldbourt U. High blood pressure and diabetes mellitus: are all antihypertensive drugs created equal? Arch Intern Med 2000 Sep 11; 160 (16): 2447–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Reaven GM. Insulin resistance/compensatory hyperinsulinemia, essential hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003 Jun; 88 (6): 2399–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Zavaroni I, Mazza S, Dall’Aglio E, et al. Prevalence of hyperinsulinaemia in patients with high blood pressure. J Intern Med 1992 Mar; 231 (3): 235–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lind L, Berne C, Lithell H. Prevalence of insulin resistance in essential hypertension. J Hypertens 1995 Dec; 13 (12 Pt 1): 1457–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Amery A, Birkenhager W, Bulpitt C, et al. Diuretics: a risk in the long-term treatment of hypertensive patients? J Hypertens 1988 Nov; 6 (11): 125–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Mancia G, Grassi G, Zanchetti A. New-onset diabetes and antihypertensive drugs. J Hypertens 2006 Jan; 24 (1): 3–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mason JM, Dickinson HO, Nicolson DJ, et al. The diabetogenic potential of thiazide-type diuretic and beta-blocker combinations in patients with hypertension. J Hypertens 2005 Oct; 23 (10): 1777–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gress TW, Nieto FJ, Shahar E, et al. Hypertension and antihypertensive therapy as risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. N Engl J Med 2000 Mar 30; 342 (13): 905–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dimmitt SB, Williams PD, Croft KD, et al. Effects of beta-blockers on the concentration and oxidizability of plasma lipids. Clin Sci (Lond) 1998 Jun; 94 (6): 573–8.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ferrannini E, Buzzigoli G, Bonadonna R, et al. Insulin resistance in essential hypertension. N Engl J Med 1987; 317 (6): 350–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lender D, Arauz-Pacheco C, Adams-Huet B, et al. Essential hypertension is associated with decreased insulin clearance and insulin resistance. Hypertension 1997; 29 (1 Pt 1): 111–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Jacob S, Rett K, Henriksen EJ. Antihypertensive therapy and insulin sensitivity: do we have to redefine the role of beta-blocking agents? Am J Hypertens 1998 Oct; 11 (10): 1258–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Black HR. The coronary artery disease paradox: the role of hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance and implications for therapy. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1990; 15 Suppl. 5: S26–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Grimm Jr RH. Antihypertensive therapy: taking lipids into consideration. Am Heart J 1991 Sep; 122 (3 Pt 2): 910–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Weber MA. Hypertension with concomitant conditions: the changing role of beta-adrenoceptor blockade. Am Heart J 1991 Feb; 121 (2 Pt 2): 716–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lund-Johansen P. The role of drugs in countering adverse pathophysiological profiles: influence on hemodynamics. Am Heart J 1987 Oct; 114 (4 Pt 2): 958–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lind L, Pollare T, Berne C, et al. Long-term metabolic effects of antihypertensive drugs. Am Heart J 1994 Dec; 128 (6 Pt 1): 1177–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Giugliano D, Saccomanno F, Paolisso G, et al. Nicardipine does not cause deterioration of glucose homoeostasis in man: a placebo controlled study in elderly hypertensives with and without diabetes mellitus. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 43 (1): 39–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    de Courten M, Ferrari P, Schneider M, et al. Lack of effect of long-term amlodipine on insulin sensitivity and plasma insulin in obese patients with essential hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 44 (5): 457–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Giugliano D, Torella R, Cacciapuoti F, et al. Impairment of insulin secretion in man by nifedipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1980 Nov; 18 (5): 395–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Iimura O, Shimamoto K, Masuda A, et al. Effects of a calcium channel blocker, manidipine, on insulin sensitivity in essential hypertensives. J Diabetes Complications 1995 Oct–Dec; 9 (4): 215–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ersoy C, Imamoglu S, Budak F, et al. Effect of amlodipine on insulin resistance & tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels in hypertensive obese type 2 diabetic patients. Indian J Med Res 2004 Nov; 120 (5): 481–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Suzuki S, Ohtomo M, Satoh Y, et al. Effect of manidipine and delapril on insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetic patients with essential hypertension. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1996 Jun; 33 (1): 43–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ueshiba H, Miyachi Y. Effects of the long-acting calcium channel blockers, amlodipine, manidipine and cilnidipine on steroid hormones and insulin resistance in hypertensive obese patients. Intern Med 2004 Jul; 43 (7): 561–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Yagi S, Goto S, Yamamoto T, et al. Effect of cilnidipine on insulin sensitivity in patients with essential hypertension. Hypertens Res 2003 May; 26 (5): 383–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Fogari R, Derosa G, Mugellini A, et al. Effect of manidipine-rosuvastatin combination on fibrinolysis, inflammation markers and insulin sensitivity in hypertensive hypercholesterolemic patients [abstract]. ESC Annual Congress; 2008 Aug 30–Sep 3; Munich.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Francisco M-MJ. Manidipine (but not amlodipine), increases insulin sensitivity and rises plasma adiponectin concentrations in hypertensive non-diabetic patients with metabolic syndrome and impaired fasting glucose [abstract]. 41st EASD Annual Meeting; 2005 Sep 10–15; Athens.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Baguet JP, Legallicier B, Auquier P, et al. Updated meta-analytical approach to the efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in reducing blood pressure. Clin Drug Investig 2007; 27 (11): 735–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Antuna-Puente B, Feve B, Fellahi S, et al. Adipokines: the missing link between insulin resistance and obesity. Diabetes Metab 2008 Feb; 34 (1): 2–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fogari R, Derosa G, Salvadeo SAT, et al. Manidipine enhances insulin sensitivity and plasma adiponectin in obese hypertensive patients [abstract]. J Hypertens 2007; 25 Suppl. 2: 80.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nakami T. PPAR-γ activation by manidipine mediates enhanced adiponectin production and insulin sensitivity [abstract]. J Hypertens 2006; 24 Suppl. 6:161.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nakami T. Adiponectin enhancement and insulin sensitization by manidipine are dependent on PPAR-gamma activation but not on T-type calcium channel blockade. 2nd International Congress on Pre-Diabetes and the Metabolic Syndrome; 2007 Apr 25–28; Barcelona.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Nakami T. PPAR-gamma activation by manidipine down-regulates the age receptor expression preventing hepatic CRP production and ROS generation. 2nd International Congress on Pre-Diabetes and the Metabolic Syndrome; 2007 Apr 25–28; Barcelona.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Oshimura H, Nakami T, Javier MF. Manidipine has a marked non-haemodynamic nephroprotective action; partly dependent on PPAR-gamma activation, and synergistic with angiotensin receptor blockade [abstract]. J Hypertens 2007; 25 Suppl. 2: S8.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Otero ML, Claros NM. Manidipine versus enalapril monotherapy in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 24-week study. Clin Ther 2005 Feb; 27 (2): 166–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kasiske BL, Ma JZ, Kalil RS, et al. Effects of antihypertensive therapy on serum lipids. Ann Intern Med 1995 Jan 15; 122 (2): 133–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Brook RD. Mechanism of differential effects of antihypertensive agents on serum lipids. Curr Hypertens Rep 2000 Aug; 2 (4): 370–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ames RP. A comparison of blood lipid and blood pressure responses during the treatment of systemic hypertension with indapamide and with thiazides. Am J Cardiol 1996 Feb 22; 77 (6): 12b–16b.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Chen J, Muntner P, Hamm LL, et al. The metabolic syndrome and chronic kidney disease in US adults. Ann Intern Med 2004 Feb 3; 140 (3): 167–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Ruilope LM, van Veldhuisen DJ, Ritz E, et al. Renal function: the Cinderella of cardiovascular risk profile. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001 Dec; 38 (7): 1782–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Sarnak MJ, Levey AS, Schoolwerth AC, et al. Kidney disease as a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease: a statement from the American Heart Association Councils on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, High Blood Pressure Research, Clinical Cardiology, and Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation 2003 Oct 28; 108 (17): 2154–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Segura J, Garcia-Donaire JA, Ruilope LM. Calcium channel blockers and renal protection: insights from the latest clinical trials. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005 Mar; 16 Suppl. 1: S64–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Robles NR. Calcium antagonists and renal failure progression. Ren Fail 2008; 30 (3): 247–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Remuzzi G, Ruggenenti P, Perico N. Chronic renal diseases: renoprotective benefits of renin-angiotensin system inhibition. Ann Intern Med 2002 Apr 16; 136 (8): 604–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Wright Jr JT, Bakris G, Greene T, et al. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. JAMA 2002 Nov 20; 288 (19): 2421–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Maki DD, Ma JZ, Louis TA, et al. Long-term effects of antihypertensive agents on proteinuria and renal function. Arch Intern Med 1995 May 22; 155 (10): 1073–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Martinez Martin FJ. Calcium channel-blockers for managing metabolic syndrome-associated hypertension: trials with manidipine [in Italian]. Nefrologia 2007; 27 Suppl. 6: 26–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Bellinghieri G, Mazzaglia G, Savica V, et al. Effects of manidipine and nifedipine on blood pressure and renal function in patients with chronic renal failure: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Ren Fail 2003 Sep; 25 (5): 681–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Fogari R, Mugellini A, Zoppi A, et al. Effect of successful hypertension control by manidipine or lisinopril on albuminuria and left ventricular mass in diabetic hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005 Aug; 61 (7): 483–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Deerochanawong C, Kornthong P, Phongwiratchai S, et al. Effects on urinary albumin excretion and renal function changes by delapril and manidipine in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. J Med Assoc Thai 2001 Feb; 84 (2): 234–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Del Vecchio L, Pozzi M, Salvetti A, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of manidipine in the treatment of hypertension in patients with non-diabetic chronic kidney disease without glomerular disease: prospective, randomized, doubleblind study of parallel groups in comparison with enalapril. J Nephrol 2004 Mar–Apr; 17 (2): 261–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Pfaffendorf M, Mathy MJ, van Zwieten PA. Effects of manidipine and other calcium antagonists on rat renal arcuate arteries. Am Heart J 1993 Feb; 125 (2 Pt 2): 571–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Saruta T, Kanno Y, Hayashi K, et al. Antihypertensive agents and renal protection: calcium channel blockers. Kidney Int 1996 Jun; 49 Suppl. 55: S52–6.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Morimoto S, Ohyama T, Hisaki K, et al. Effects of CV-4093, a new dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, on renal hemodynamics and function in stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRSP). Jpn J Pharmacol 1989 Oct; 51 (2): 257–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sabbatini M, Leonardi A, Testa R, et al. Effect of calcium antagonists on glomerular arterioles in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Hypertension 2000 Mar; 35 (3): 775–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Takahashi K, Katoh T, Fukunaga M, et al. Studies on the glomerular microcirculatory actions of manidipine and its modulation of the systemic and renal effects of endothelin. Am Heart J 1993 Feb; 125 (2 Pt 2): 609–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kasai Y, Sheu HL, Yabe T, et al. Acute effect of manidipine on renal blood flow measured by pulsed-Doppler flowmeter in normal subjects. Blood Press Suppl 1992; 3: 102–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Maki M, Kawamura H, Hara K, et al. The effect of manidipine on renal hemodynamics in essential hypertensive patients: responses to acute stress. Blood Press Suppl 1992; 3: 106–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Murakami K, Kimura G, Imanishi M, et al. Effect of manidipine, a new calcium antagonist, on intrarenal hemodynamics in essential hypertension. Blood Press Suppl 1992; 3: 114–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Takabatake T, Ohta H, Sasaki T, et al. Renal effects of manidipine hydrochloride: a new calcium antagonist in hypertensive patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 45 (4): 321–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Hayashi K, Saruta T, Epstein M. Renal hemodynamic effects of calcium antagonists. In: Epstein M, editor. Calcium antagonists in clinical medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Hanley & Belfus, Inc., 2002: 559–78.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Hayashi K, Ozawa Y, Fujiwara K, et al. Role of actions of calcium antagonists on efferent arterioles: with special references to glomerular hypertension. Am J Nephrol 2003; 23: 229–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Hayashi K, Wakino S, Sugano N, et al. Ca2+ channel subtypes and pharmacology in the kidney. Circ Res 2007 Feb 16; 100: 342–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Hayashi K, Nagahama T, Oka K, et al. Disparate effects of calcium antagonists on renal microcirculation. Hypertens Res 1996 Mar; 19 (1): 31–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Taddei S, Virdis A, Ghiadoni L, et al. Lacidipine restores endothelium-dependent vasodilation in essential hypertensive patients. Hypertension 1997 Dec; 30 (6): 1606–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Rosenkranz AC, Lob H, Breitenbach T, et al. Endothelial antioxidant actions of dihydropyridines and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. Eur J Pharmacol 2006 Jan 4; 529 (1–3): 55–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Borhani NO, Mercuri M, Borhani PA, et al. Final outcome results of the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1996 Sep 11; 276 (10): 785–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Zanchetti A, Rosei EA, Dal Palu C, et al. The Verapamil in Hypertension and Atherosclerosis Study (VHAS): results of long-term randomized treatment with either verapamil or chlorthalidone on carotid intima-media thickness. J Hypertens 1998 Nov; 16 (11): 1667–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Simon A, Gariepy J, Moyse D, et al. Differential effects of nifedipine and co-amilozide on the progression of early carotid wall changes. Circulation 2001 Jun 19; 103 (24): 2949–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Motro M, Shemesh J. Calcium channel blocker nifedipine slows down progression of coronary calcification in hypertensive patients compared with diuretics. Hypertension 2001 Jun; 37 (6): 1410–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Wang JG, Staessen JA. Conventional therapy and newer drug classes for cardiovascular protection in hypertension. J Am Soc Nephrol 2002 Nov; 13 Suppl. 3: S208–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    De Siati L, Scuteri A, De Sensi F, et al. Vascular protective effects of manidipine in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus [abstract]. Circulation 2005; 112 Suppl. II: 357–8.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Toba H, Shimizu T, Miki S, et al. Calcium [corrected] channel blockers reduce angiotensin II-induced superoxide generation and inhibit lectin-like oxidized low-density lipoprotein receptor-1 expression in endothelial cells. Hypertens Res 2006 Feb; 29 (2): 105–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Costa S, Pedrelli M, Ronda N, et al. Manidipine inhibits the release of interleukin 6 (IL-6) induced by modified lipoprotein and by TNF-alpha in culture human endothelial cells [abstract]. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev 2008; 15 (3): 172.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Promedica SrlParmaItaly
  2. 2.Medical DepartmentChiesi Farmaceutici SpAParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations