Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The INSIGHT and NORDIL trials: Are calcium antagonists equivalent to established drug therapies for cardiovascular protection?

  • Published:
Current Hypertension Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Calcium channel blockers have come into worldwide use for treating hypertension and other circulatory disorders. In recent years, results of several observational studies have suggested that these drugs may not be as safe or effective as other available therapies, such as diuretics and & #x00DF; -blockers, in the prevention of cardiovascular events. The Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) and the International Nifedipine GITS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT) studies were the first two randomized interventional trials in hypertensive patients that directly compared the effects of therapy based on calcium antagonists with those of diuretic and ß -blocker-based treatment on major cardiovascular endpoints. Both studies found that the effectiveness of calcium antagonist therapy was similar to that of diuretic and ß -blocker therapy for preventing the composite primary endpoint of fatal and nonfatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular death. The two studies shared several nonsignificant trends for cause-specific events, including greater stroke prevention and lesser coronary event prevention in the calcium antagonist groups compared with the diuretic and ß -blocker groups. There is not yet sufficient evidence to prove whether cause-specific differences exist. Results of the NORDIL and INSIGHT studies support incorporating calcium antagonist-based therapy as an additional safe and effective approach for preventing blood pressure-related illness and death.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al.: Prevalence of hypertension in the U.S. adult population. Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991. Hypertension 1995, 25:305–313.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Collins R, MacMahon S: Blood pressure, antihypertensive drug treatment and the risks of stroke and of coronary heart disease. Br Med Bull 1994, 50:272–298.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kostis JB, Davis BR, Cutler J et al.: Prevention of heart failure by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. JAMA 1997, 278:212–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Siegel D, Lopez J: Trends in antihypertensive drug use in the United States. JAMA 1997, 278:1747–1748.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Catterall WA: Structure and function of voltage-gated ion channels. Trends Neurosci 1993, 16:500–506.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zsoter TT, Church JG: Calcium antagonists—pharmacodynamic effects and mechanism of action. Drugs 1983, 25:93–105.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Zweiten PA, Lie KI: Long term efficacy and safety of calcium antagonists. Cardiologie 1995, 2:457–460.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Opie LH: Calcium channel antagonists in the treatment of coronary artery disease: fundamental pharmacological properties relevant to clinical use. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1996, 38:273–279.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Frishman WH: Calcium channel blockers. In Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapeutics. Edited by Frishman WH, Sonnenblick EH. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1996:101–130.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Zing W, Ferguson RK, Vlasses PH: Calcium antagonists in elderly and black patients. Arch Intern Med 1991, 151:2154–2161.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Schoen RE, Frishman WH, Shamoon H: Hormonal and metabolic effects of calcium-channel antagonists in man. Am J Med 1988, 84:492–497.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Opie L: Ongoing clinical outcome studies of calcium antagonists. Blood Press Monitor 1998, 3:59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Muiesan G, Agabiti-Rosei E, Romanelli G: Adrenergic activity and left ventricular function during treatment of essential hypertension with calcium antagonists. Am J Cardiol 1986, 57:44D-49D.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Waters D: Proischemic complications of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. Circulation 1991, 84:2598–2600.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Findling R, Frishman W, Javed MT, et al.: Calcium channel blockers and the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Ther 1996, 3:383–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Collins R, MacMahon S: Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials. Lancet 2001, 357:373–380. This is an overview of the role of randomized interventional studies in the assessment of the effects of therapy on major endpoints. Random treatment allocation minimizes bias and, with an appropriately sized study sample, can provide reliable evidence about moderate treatment effects on major endpoints. The authors urge that primary assessment of the data should be on the overall results, and they caution against overdependence on subgroup analyses.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Crucitti A, Cecchi E, Gensini GF, et al.: Use of antihypertensive drugs in the Italian hospitals. GIFA group. Pharmacol Res 2000, 41:249–253.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Burden AC: Blood pressure control and cardiovascular risk in patients of Indo-Asian and African descent. Int J Clin Pract 1998, 52:388–394.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Psaty B, Heckbert S, Koepsell T, et al.: The risk of myocardial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies. JAMA 1995, 272:620–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jick H, Derby I, Gurewich V, et al.: The risk of myocardial infarction in persons with uncomplicated hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 1996, 16:321–326.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Aursnes I, Litleskare I, Froyland H, et al.: Association between various drugs for hypertension and risk of acute myocardial infarction. Blood Press 1995, 4:157–163.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Landmark K, Reikvam A, Abdelnoor M, et al.: Acute myocardial infarction mortality related to use of calcium antagonists before admission to hospital. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 1998, 12:183–187.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Alderman MH, Cohen H, Roque R, et al.: Effect of long-acting calcium antagonists on cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients. Lancet 1997, 349:594–598.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Klungel OH, Heckbert SP, Longstreth WT, et al.: Antihypertensive drug therapies and the risk of ischemic stroke. Arch Intern Med 2001, 161:37–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pahor M, Guralnik J, Corti M, et al.: Long-term survival and use of antihypertensive medications in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995, 43:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Koenig W, Lowel H, Lewis M, et al.: Long-term survival after myocardial infarction: relationship with thromolysis and discharge medication. Results of the Augsburg Myocardial Infarction Follow-up Study 1985 to 1993. Eur Heart J 1996, 17:199–206.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Braun S, Boyko V, Behar S, et al.: Calcium antagonists and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease: a cohort study of 11,575 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 28:7–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Leader SG, Mallick R, Briggs NC: Myocardial infarction in newly diagnosed hypertensive Medicaid patients free of coronary heart disease and treated with calcium channel blockers. Am J Med 1997, 102:150–157.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Abascal VM, Larson MG, Evans JC, et al.: Calcium antagonists and mortality risk in men and women with hypertension in the Framingham Heart study. Arch Intern Med 1998, 158:1882–1886.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Michels KB, Rosner BA, Manson JE, et al.: Prospective study of calcium channel blocker use, cardiovascular disease and total mortality among hypertensive women: the Nurses’ Health Study. Circulation 1998, 97:1540–1548.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. MacMahon S, Collins R: Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, II: observational studies. Lancet 2001, 357:455–462. This is an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the observational study design. Observational studies have an important role in identifying large adverse effects of treatment on infrequent outcomes. However, this method is prone to bias and confounding by indication, and it has little role in the assessment of small or moderate effects of treatment. The authors cite examples of observational studies that provide dangerously misleading results about the size and the direction of treatment effects on clinical outcomes.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Hennekens CH: The increasing burden of cardiovascular disease: current knowledge and future directions for research on risk factors. Circulation 1998, 97:1095–1102.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Neaton JD, Grimm RH, Prineas RJ, et al.: Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study. Final results. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. JAMA 1993, 270:713–724.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pitt B, Byington RP, Furberg CD, et al.: Effect of amlodipine on the progression of atherosclerosis and the occurrence of clinical events. Circulation 2000, 102:1503–1510.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 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, 16:1667–1676.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Borhani NO, Mercuri M, Borhani PA, et al.: Final outcome results the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS). JAMA 1996, 276:785–791.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al.: Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Lancet 1997, 350:757–764.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 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, 354:1751–1756. This randomized, open-label trial in 6614 elderly hypertensive patients compared the effects of conventional therapy (diuretics and ß -blockers) with newer agents (ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists) on cardiovascular endpoints. The resultant blood pressure reduction, the primary endpoint of cardiovascular mortality, and the combined endpoint of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events were similar in all treatment groups.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. NORDIL Study Group: The Nordic Diltiazem Study (NORDIL). A prospective intervention trial of calcium antagonist therapy in hypertension. Blood Press 1993, 4:312–321.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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, 356:359–365. This study, together with the INSIGHT trial, was the first head-to-head comparison of the effects of calcium antagonists versus diuretics and ß -blockers on major cardiovascular endpoints. Although the patients assigned to diltiazem had slightly less systolic blood pressure reduction than the diuretic-ß -blocker group, the combined primary endpoint of all strokes, myocardial infarctions, and other cardiovascular death was the same in both treated groups. There was significantly greater stroke prevention and a nonsignificant trend toward lesser coronary prevention in the diltiazem group.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Grundy JS, Foster RT: The nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS). Evaluation of pharmaceutical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacological properties. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996, 1:28–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bittar N: Usefulness of nifedipine for myocardial ischemia and the nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system. Am J Cardiol 1989, 64:31F-34F.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 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, 356:366–372. This study, together with the NORDIL trial, was the first direct comparison of the effects of a calcium antagonist (nifedipine GITS) versus diuretic therapy (hydrochlorthiazide plus amiloride) on major cardiovascular endpoints. The blood pressure response, the primary endpoint of combined stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and other cardiovascular death were similar in the two treatment groups. There were nonsignificant trends toward greater stroke prevention and lesser prevention against coronary events and congestive heart failure in the nifedipine GITS group.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration: Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood pressure lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 2000, 356:1955–1965. This report is one of a continuing series of meta-analytic overviews by the BPLT Trialists of the effects of various classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality and major cardiovascular morbidity. This overview included individual participant data from the NORDIL, INSIGHT, and several additional randomized trials. The BPLT collaboration report indicates that therapy with either calcium antagonists or ACE inhibitors has about the same effect on combined cardiovascular endpoints as do diuretics and ß -blockers. Insufficient data are available from which to draw firm conclusions about the comparative effects of these therapies on the incidence of cause-specific cardiovascular events such as stroke, coronary disease, or heart failure.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. National Intervention Cooperative Study in Elderly Hypertensives Study Group: Randomized double-blind comparison of a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in elderly hypertensives. Hypertension 1999, 34:1129–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Davis BR, Cutler JA, Gordon DJ, et al.: Rationale and design for the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to prevent heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Am J Hypertens 1996, 9:342–360.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. He J, Whelton PK: Selection of initial antihypertensive drug therapy. Lancet 2000, 356:1942–1943.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Princeton Hypertension-Nephrology, Princeton Junction Professional Center, 88 Princeton-Hightstown Road, 08550, Princeton Junction, NJ, USA

    Michael C. Ruddy MD, FACP

Authors
  1. Michael C. Ruddy MD, FACP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ruddy, M.C. The INSIGHT and NORDIL trials: Are calcium antagonists equivalent to established drug therapies for cardiovascular protection?. Current Science Inc 3, 289–296 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-001-0091-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11906-001-0091-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation