Clinical Research in Cardiology

, Volume 95, Issue 4, pp 217–223 | Cite as

Trapidil is as effective as isosorbidedinitrate for treating stable angina pectoris—

A multinational, multicenter, double-blind, randomized study
  • T. MeinertzEmail author
  • W. Lehmacher
  • for the Trapidil/ISDN Study Group



Nitrates have long been used in the treatment of stable angina pectoris. We set out to show that trapidil, a triazolopyrimidine with a mode of action different from that of nitrates, is not inferior to isosorbidedinitrate (ISDN) in the treatment of this clinical syndrome.

Patients and Methods

We studied the efficacy of 200 mg trapidil (t.i.d.) vs. ISDN (20 mg b.i.d.) in patients with chronic stable angina treated for 12 weeks. The therapeutic effect was measured in terms of responder rate as change in total exercise time (TET) by at least 60 seconds using the bicycle ergometer test.


A total of 648 patients were included in the study. Responder rates in the Per– Protocol (PP) population (n = 529) were 50.4% (n = 133) in the trapidil group and 52.5% (n = 139) in the ISDN group (p = 0.233). As the lower non–inferiority limit (–15%) was clearly excluded from the 95% CI (pp: –10.6%, +6.4%; ITT –9.7%, 5.7%), non–inferiority of trapidil compared to ISDN can be concluded. Trapidil 200 mg t.i.d. combined with short–acting NTG prn as rescue medication over 12 weeks in subjects with chronic stable angina pectoris proved to have similar effects on TET and on other clinical endpoints as ISDN 20 mg b.i.d. The secondary efficacy analyses did not reveal any clinically relevant differences between treatment groups, and were not in conflict with the non–inferiority claim. Patients in the ISDN group had significantly more headach (34.1%; n = 110) compared to those taking trapidil (19.3%, n = 62; p <0.0001).


Overall results of this study show that both drugs are equally effective and safe for the short–term treatment of patients with chronic stable angina pectoris and that trapidil can be considered as therapeutically equivalent to ISDN.

Key words

Chronic angina pectoris trapidil ISDN 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abrams J (1995) The role of nitrates in coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 155:357–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ACC/AHA/ACP–ASIM (1999) Practice guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 33:2092–2197Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietz R, Rauch B (2003) Leitlinie zur Diagnose und Behandlung der chronisch koronaren Herzerkrankung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz und Kreislaufforschung (DGK). Z Kardiol 92:501–521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asirvatham S, Sebastian C, Thadani U (1998) Choosing the most appropriate treatment for stable angina. Safety conditions. Drug Saf 19(1):23– 44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Olsson G, Allgén J (1991) Is there an optimal prophylactic nitrate therapy? Eur Heart J 12(Suppl A):21–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cleophas TJ, Niemeyer MC, van der Wall EE et al on behalf of the 5– ISMN headache study group (1996) Angiology 47(7):679–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parker JO, Baird MG (1994) Efficacy of eccentric dosing with sustained–release isosorbide dinitrate in patients with angina pectoris. Can J Card 10:909–912Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caramori PR, Zago AJ (2000) Endothelial dysfunction and coronary artery disease. Arg Bras Cardiol 75:163–182Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gori T, Mak SS, Kelly S, Parker JD (2001) Evidence supporting abnormalities in nitric oxide synthase function induced by nitroglycerin in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 38:1102– 1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Münzel T, Sayegh H, Freeman BA, Tarpey MM, Harrison DG (1995) Evidence for enhanced vascular superoxide anion production in nitrate tolerance J Clin Invest 95:187–195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nakamura Y (1999) Long–term nitrate use may be deleterious in ischemic heart disease: A study using the databases from two large–scale postinfarction studies. Am Heart J 138; 3(1):577–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sichelschmidt OJ, Hahnefeld C, Hohlfeld Th et al (2003) Trapidil protects ischemic hearts from reperfusion injury by stimulating PKAII activity. Cardiovascular Research (58):602–610Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schrör K, Zwaka P, Tannhäuser R (1998) Cardioprotective actions of Trapidil in myocardial ischemia involve inhibition of the activation of NfKb. Exp Biol, p 198Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boenisch D, Weber AA, Wittpoth M et al (1998) Antimitogenic effects of trapidil in coronary artery smooth muscle cells by direct activation of protein kinase. A Mol Pharmacol 54:241–248Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wittpoth M et al (1997) Trapidil inhibits PDGF–BB and LPS induced translocation of NFκB in vascular smooth muscle cells. Naunyn Schmied Arch Pharmacol 355/4 SupplGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schroer K, Bönisch D (1997) Trapidil inhibits RAF–1 kinase in vascular smooth muscle cells via activation of protein kinase A (PKA). Circulation 96:I–1–I–901Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raubach KH, Vlahov V, Wolter K et al (1997) Double–blind randomized multicentre study on the efficacy of trapidil vs. isosorbide dinitrate in stable angina pectoris. Clin Cardiol 20:483–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aßmann I, Lehrl I, Lehrl S et al (1996) Behandlung der körperlichen, emotionalen und kognitiven Belastbarkeit bei Patienten mit koronarer Herzkrankheit unter Trapidil im Vergleich zu Nifedipin. Arzneimittelforschung 46/9:868–874Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fihn SD, Williams SV, Daley J et al (2001) Guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: Treatment. Ann Int Med 135:616–632PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    ESC (1993) Working Group on Exercise Physiology, Physiopathology and Electrocardiography. Guidelines for cardiac exercise testing. Eur Heart J 14:969–988Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shapiro W (1992) Comparative efficacy of bepridil vs. placebo in angina pectoris: Treatment and withdrawal studies. Am J Cardiol 69:43D–49DCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Glasser SP, Friedman R, Talibi T et al (1994) Safety and compatibility of betaxolol hydrochloride combined with diltiazem or nifedipine therapy in stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 73(4):213–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thadani U, Bittar N (1992) Effects of 8:00 a. m. and 20:00 p. m. doses of isosorbide– 5–mononitrate during twicedaily therapy in stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 70:286–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bakx ALM, van der Wall EE, Braun S et al (1995) Effects of the new calcium antagonist mibefradil (Ro 40– 5967) on exercise duration in patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. A multicentre, placebo–controlled study. Am Heart J 130:748–757CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fox KM, Mukahy D, Findlay I et al (1996) on behalf of the TIBET Study Group. The Total Ischemic Burden European Trial (TIBET). Eur Heart J 17:96–103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alpert JS, Bakx LM, Braun S et al (1997) Antianginal and anti–ischemic effects of mibefradil in the treatment of patients with chronic stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 80(4B):20C– 26CPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker JM, Curry PVL, Bailey AS et al (1996) A comparison of nifedipine once daily (Adalat LA), isosorbide mononitrate once daily, and isosorbide dinitrate twice daily in patients with chronic stable angina. Internat J Cardiol 53:117–126Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fox KM, Jespersen CM, Ferrari R et al (1997) How European cardiologists perceive the role of calcium antagonists in the treatment of stable angina. Eur Heart J 18/Suppl A:A113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weiss RJ, Hicks D, Bittar N et al (1993) and the Sustained–Release Diltiazem Study Group. A double–blind placebo–controlled trial of sustainedrelease diltiazem in patients with angina. Clinical Therapeutics 15:1069– 1075PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eteiba H, Hutton, I Foale RA et al (1991) Acute and chronic effects of once–daily isosorbide–5–mononitrate on exercise capacity of patients with angina pectoris treated with betablocking agent. Br J Clin Pharmacol 45:185–188Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davies GJ, Kobrin I, Caspi A et al (1997) Long–term anti–anginal and anti–ischemic effects of mibefradil, the novel T–type calcium channel blocker: A multicentre, double–blind, placebo–controlled, randomized comparison with sustained–release diltiazem. Am Heart J 134:220–228CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kohl O, Grebe M, Hölschemann H et al (2004) Fortbestehende Angina pectoris trotz erfolgreicher Myokardrevaskularisation. Z Kardiol 93:63–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lutter G, Frey M, Saurbier B et al (1998) Treatment option for patients with otherwise intractable angina pectoris: Transmyocardial laser revascularisation. Z Kardiol 87(Suppl 2):s199–s202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lauer B, Schuler G (2000) Myokardiale Laserrevascularisation bei therapierefraktäerer Angina pectoris. Z Kardiol 89:810–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ries MW, Rupprecht HJ, Dudsjak H et al (1999) Freisetzung von Troponin T im Rahmen der PTCA bei Patienten mit instabiler und stabiler Angina pectoris. Z Kardiol 88:914–921CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klepzig H, Krobot K, Flettner R et al (1999) Determinanten der Behandlungskosten instabiler Angina pectoris. Z Kardiol 88:261–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Werner D, Hui JCK, Kropp J et al (1998) Pneumatische externe Gegenpulsation– Therapieoption bei Angina pectoris. Z Kardiol 87(Suppl 2):s193– s198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lauer B, Stahl F, Bratanow S et al (2000) Perkutane myokardiale Laserrevaskularisation (PMR), ein neues Therapieverfahren für Patienten mit therapierefraktärer Angina pectoris. Z Kardiol 89(Suppl 7):31–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schoebel FC, Peters AJ, Schannwell CM et al (1998) Detection of antiischemic therapeutic effectiveness in patients with refractory angina pectoris and end–stage coronary artery disease– Long–term intermittent urokinase therapy. Z Kardiol 87(Suppl 2):s188–s192Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mitrovic V, Miskovic A, Straub M et al (1999) Auswirkungen des K+–Kanalblockers Tedisamil auf Hämodynamik, Myokardischämie und neurohumorales System bei Patienten mit stabiler Angina pectoris. Ein Vergleich mit dem β–Blocker Atenolol. Z Kardiol 88:838–849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gulba DC, Eichstädt H, Engberding R et al (2000) Empfehlungen des International Cardiology Forum (ICF) 1998 zur Revisison der bestehenden Richtlinien zur Diagnostik und Therapie der instabline Angina pectoris und des nicht–transmuralen Myokardinfarktes. Z Kardiol 89:706–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Baller D, Gleichmann U, Notohamiprodjo G et al (1998) Improvement of coronary vasodilator capacity by lipid– lowering therapy in patients with angina pectoris, reduced cornary reserve and moderate LDL–hypercholesterolemia. Z Kardiol 87(Suppl 2):s136–s144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Meinertz
    • 1
    Email author
  • W. Lehmacher
    • 2
  • for the Trapidil/ISDN Study Group
  1. 1.Heart CenterUniversity HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.University of CologneInstitute for Medical Statistics Informatics and EpidemiologyKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations