Drugs

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 141–157 | Cite as

Felodipine/Metoprolol

A Review of the Fixed Dose Controlled Release Formulation in the Management of Essential Hypertension
Adis Drug Evaluation

Summary

Abstract

The main objective of fixed dose combination therapy for hypertension is to improve blood pressure (BP) control with lower, better tolerated dosages of 2 antihypertensives rather than higher dosages of a single agent. Felodipine and metoprolol lower BP via different, but complementary, mechanisms and controlled release formulations of these 2 drugs are available as a fixed dose combination, felodipine/metoprolol.

In clinical trials in patients with hypertension, felodipine/metoprolol was significantly more effective than placebo and the respective monotherapies administered at the same dosages. Mean BP was reduced to <155/90mm Hg in patients treated with combination therapy and controlled in ≈70% of patients. In one study that titrated dosages to effect, fewer felodipine/metoprolol than felodipine or metoprolol monotherapy recipients required dosage increases to achieve BP control (45 vs 60 and 67%, respectively).

Data from double blind comparative studies show that the antihypertensive efficacy of felodipine/metoprolol 5 to 10/50 to 100 mg/day is significantly greater than that of enalapril monotherapy or captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and equivalent to nifedipine/atenolol and amlodipine.

In comparisons with enalapril, fewer felodipine/metoprolol than enalapril recipients required dosage titration to achieve BP control.

Compared with amlodipine, felodipine/metoprolol significantly reduced mean 24-hour average BP (8.9/5.5 vs 14.4/9.5mm Hg after 6 weeks; p < 0.001). Both treatments preserved diurnal rhythm.

Long term follow-up studies show that the antihypertensive effect of felodipine/metoprolol occurs mostly during the first month of treatment with small additional decreases in BP being observed in the second and third months, and a relatively constant effect thereafter.

According to a validated questionnaire, quality of life was relatively similar during 12 weeks treatment with felodipine/metoprolol, enalapril or placebo.

In a retrospective pharmacoeconomic analysis conducted in Sweden, felodipine/metoprolol was more cost effective than enalapril as initial treatment for hypertension.

Peripheral oedema, headache and flushing were the most commonly reported adverse events with felodipine/metoprolol and felodipine monotherapy, whereas dizziness, fatigue, headache and respiratory infection were more frequent with metoprolol monotherapy. Dose-dependent adverse events such as oedema may occur less often in patients taking lower dosages in combination than in those taking higher dosages of felodipine monotherapy.

Thus, patients with hypertension treated with felodipine/metoprolol experience greater control of BP, with less need for dosage titration, than those treated with felodipine, metoprolol or enalapril monotherapy. Importantly this greater efficacy does not appear to be associated with a higher incidence of adverse events relative to monotherapy. Additionally, in short term studies felodipine/metoprolol had a similar (minimal) effect on QOL to enalapril monotherapy but was more cost effective.

Pharmacodynamic Properties

This review evaluates the antihypertensive efficacy of a fixed dose controlled release formulation of felodipine and metoprolol, felodipine/metoprolol. Felodipine is a vascular selective dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker which lowers arterial BP by decreasing peripheral vascular resistance. It dilates systemic but not pulmonary arterioles and has no effect on venous vessels. Felodipine is also selective for vascular smooth muscle over myocardial tissue, and thus has no direct effect on cardiac contractility or conduction at therapeutic dosages.

Metoprolol is a β1-blocker with no intrinsic sympathomimetic activity and essentially no membrane stabilising properties. Competitive antagonism of β1-adrenoceptors by metoprolol produces a negative chronotropic effect, with resulting decreases in cardiac output and systolic BP (SBP) after acute drug administration.

The combined effects of felodipine and metoprolol on haemodynamic parameters may provide some additional benefit compared with the 2 drugs as monotherapy. Reflex tachycardia induced by felodipine may be prevented by metoprolol, and decreases in cardiac output resulting from metoprolol administration may be counteracted by felodipine. Potential increases in peripheral vascular resistance caused by β-blockers may readily be compensated for by the effects of calcium channel blockers on this parameter.

Pharmacokinetic Properties

Concomitant use of felodipine and metoprolol does not appear to produce clinically significant changes in the pharmacokinetic parameters [maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax), minimum plasma concentrations, time to Cmax(tmax), area under the plasma concentration-time curve and terminal elimination half-life] of either drug.

Design of the controlled release felodipine/metoprolol combination tablet is based on the principles used for the individual drug preparations, namely felodipine ER and metoprolol CR/ZOK and the 2 drugs have similar pharmacokinetic profiles when administered as separate controlled release dosage forms or when administered as the combined fixed dose, controlled release formulation.

Therapeutic Efficacy

Preliminary data from a large cohort indicate felodipine/metoprolol is effective in patients with inadequately treated hypertension [insufficient BP control (n =1350) or experiencing adverse events (n = 193)]. The combination elicited BP response in 84.4% of patients.

In all comparative studies, felodipine/metoprolol reduced mean BP to less than 155/90mm Hg and elicited BP control in 63 to 76% of patients. The combination was significantly more effective than placebo or each drug as monotherapy. Combination therapy acheived BP control in 71 or 73% of patients compared with 44 to 49% in felodipine monotherapy recipients and 34 to 59% of metoprolol monotherapy recipients (p < 0.05).

In 1 study, upward dosage titration (in patients not achieving BP control) was required in fewer felodipine/metoprolol (45%) than felodipine (60%) or metoprolol (67%) monotherapy recipients.

In direct comparisons, felodipine/metoprolol reduced DBP to a significantly greater extent than enalapril monotherapy, captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide and nifedipine/atenolol, but not amlodipine. SBP was reduced by a significantly greater extent relative to enalapril monotherapy and captopril plus hydrochlorothiazide, but not nifedipine/atenolol or amlodipine.

Studies comparing felodipine/metoprolol with enalapril allowed upward dosage titration in cases where BP was not controlled (as defined above). This was required in ≈one-third fewer felodipine/metoprolol than enalapril recipients.

In a study evaluating 24-hour BP control, ambulatory BP was reduced to a greater extent with felodipine/metoprolol than with amlodipine.

Data from 1 to 2 year follow-up studies show that the optimal antihypertensive effect of felodipine/metoprolol therapy is generally attained within the first month of treatment, with small additional effects during the second and third months of treatment. BP remained relatively constant during subsequent months. The response rate to treatment with felodipine/metoprolol and the percentage of patients experiencing BP control exceeded 90% in 2 of these studies.

At end-point, 49 to 70% of patients remained on the lowest dosage of felodipine/metoprolol; 23 to 30% required the higher dosage and, where permitted, 17 to 25% required the addition of hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 to 25 mg/day) to achieve BP control.

In the Logiq study, health-related quality of life in patients with hypertension was similar at baseline and changed little during 12 weeks’ treatment with felodipine/metoprolol 5 to 10/50 to 100 mg/day, enalapril 10 to 20 mg/day or placebo.

A retrospective pharmacoeconomic conducted in Sweden found that, in terms of cost per millimetre of mercury reduction in BP (SEK198/mm Hg vs SEK328/mm Hg) and the number of patients reaching the goal DBP (≤90mm Hg)[SEK3776 vs SEK5756 per patient], felodipine/metoprolol was more cost effective than enalapril treatment.

Tolerability

Comparative studies show that the overall incidence of adverse events in patients receiving felodipine/metoprolol was similar to that observed in individuals taking felodipine and metoprolol as monotherapy. No differences were observed between the 3 groups in terms of withdrawal rates. Tolerability profiles, however, varied between the 3 treatment groups; most adverse events were described as mild. Overall, peripheral oedema, headache and flushing were the most commonly reported events with felodipine and felodipine/metoprolol, whereas dizziness, fatigue, headache and respiratory infection were the most frequently observed adverse events in metoprolol recipients. Patient withdrawals in most studies resulted from vasodilatory effects. Other contributory events included fatigue, and nausea and vomiting.

In long term studies (1 to 2 years), most adverse events were reported during the first 3 to 6 months of therapy, and decreased thereafter. Typically, peripheral oedema was most commonly described; headache and dizziness occurred less frequently.

Felodipine and metoprolol are metabolised by hepatic microsomal cytochrome P-450 (CYP) isoenzymes; predominantly CYP2D6 (metoprolol) and CYP3A4 (felodipine). Any drug that induces or inhibits these isoenzymes has the potential to affect plasma felodipine and/or metoprolol concentrations.

Dosage and Administration

Felodipine/metoprolol is available as 5/50 and 10/100mg tablets. Therapy should be initiated at a dosage of 5/50mg administered once daily in the morning and increased to 10/100 mg/day if required. Tablets should be swallowed whole; they must not be divided, crushed or chewed.

References

  1. 1.
    Ménard J. Critical assessment of combination therapy development. Blood Press 1993; 2 Suppl. 1: 5–9Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sica DA. Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive drugs. Do they have a role in rational therapy? Drugs 1994; 48: 16–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guidelines Subcommittee of the WHO-ISH. 1999 World Health Organization — International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens 1999 Feb; 17: 151–83Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Joint National Committee on Prevention Detection Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The sixth report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation and treatment of high blood pressure. Arch Intern Med 1997 Nov 24; 157(21): 2413–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Todd PA, Faulds D. Felodipine. A review of the pharmacology and therapeutic use of the extended release formulation in cardiovascular disorders. Drugs 1992 Aug; 44: 251–77Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Plosker GL, Clissold SP. Controlled release metoprolol formulations. A review of their pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in hypertension and ischaemic heart disease. Drugs 1992; 43: 382–414Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clement DL, De BM, Duprez D. Antihypertensive effects of calcium antagonists: clinical facts and modulating factors. Am J Hypertens 1994 Jul; 7 (Part 2): 16S–22SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fagard R, Lijnen P, Moerman E, et al. Acute haemodynamic and humoral responses to felodipine and metoprolol in mild hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 32: 71–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trenkwalder P, Elmfeldt D. Improving the therapeutic balance between efficacy and tolerability in antihypertensive drugs-the rationale and benefits of combining felodipine and metoprolol. J Hum Hypertens 1995 Jul; 9 Suppl. 2: 37–42Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wing LM, Russell AE, Tonkin AL, et al. Felodipine, metoprolol and their combination compared with placebo in isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly. Blood Press 1994 Mar; 3: 82–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dahlöf B, Hosie J. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a new once-daily felodipine-metoprolol combination compared with each component alone. Blood Press 1993; 2 Suppl. 1: 22–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gordon RD, Klemm SA, Tunny TJ. Effects of felodipine, metoprolol and their combination on blood pressure at rest and during exercise and on volume regulatory hormones in hypertensive patients. Blood Press 1995 Sep; 4: 300–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dahlöf B, Pennert K, Hansson L. Reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients. A metaanalysis of 109 treatment studies. Am J Hypertens 1992 Feb; 5: 95–110Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wetzchewald D, Klaus D, Garanin G, et al. Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy during long-term antihypertensive treatment — a comparison between felodipine and the combination of felodipine and metoprolol. J Intern Med 1992 Mar; 231: 303–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siewert-Delle A, Ljungman S, Hartford M. Effects of intensified blood-pressure reduction on renal function and albumin excretion in primary hypertension: addition of felodipine or ramipril to long-term treatment with beta-blockade. Am J Hypertens 1995 Feb; 8: 113–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Erley CM, Haefele U, Heyne N. Microalbuminuria in essential hypertension. Reduction by different antihypertensive drugs. Hypertension 1993 Jun; 21: 810–5Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lundgren H, Bengtsson C, Lapidus L. Antihypertensive drugs and glucose metabolism: comparison between a diuretic, a beta-blocker and felodipine, a new calcium antagonist in subjects with arterial hypertension and diabetes. J Intern Med 1990 Dec; 228: 597–602PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith SR, Wilkins MR, Jack DB, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions between felodipine and metoprolol. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 31: 575–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abrahamsson B, Edgar B, Lidman K, et al. Design and pharmacokinetics of Logimax®, a new extended-release combination tablet of felodipine and metoprolol. Blood Press 1993; 2 Suppl. 1: 10–5Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Edgar B, Lundborg P, Regardh CG. Clinical pharmacokinetics of felodipine. A summary. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 3: 16–27Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cardiovascular drugs. In: McEvoy GK, editor. AHFS Drug Information. Bethesda (MD): American Society of Hospital Pharmacists, Inc, 1995: 1017–270Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venables TL, Akhtar W, Campbell LM, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy of a combination of felodipine and metoprolol [abstract]. J Hum Hypertens 1995 Jul; 9 Suppl. 2: S53Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meredith PA. Trough/peak ratios for antihypertensive agents. The issues in perspective. Drugs 1994; 48: 661–6Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Groom P, Simpson RJ, Singh B, et al. A double-blind comparison of felodipine and hydrochlorothiazide added to metoprolol to control hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 34: 21–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fogari R, Corradi L, Ferri F, et al. Comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy of felodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension with patients insufficiently controlled by beta-blocker treatment alone. Curr Ther Res 1990 Sep; 48: 409–16Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Davis RH, Burton RH, Freeling P, et al. Hypertension in the elderly. Its diagnosis in general practice and treatment with felodipine and metoprolol. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 3: 149–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jennings GL, Sudhir K, Laufer E. Assessment of effects of two anti-hypertensive regimens on overall cardiovascular risk. J Hum Hypertens 1995 Mar; 9: 181–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freeling P, Davis RH, Goves JR, et al. Control of hypertension in elderly patients with felodipine and metoprolol: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1987 Oct; 24: 459–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lohmann FW, Simon A, The French-German Multicentre Study Group. More effective blood pressure reduction with a felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet than with a capsule containing nifedipine and atenolol. Eur J Clin Res 1997; 9: 199–208Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Venables T, Akhtar W, Campbell LM, et al. Low dose felodipine with low dose metoprolol as once daily antihypertensive therapy [abstract]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1990 May; 29: 628–9PGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berger A, Chima P, Dawes M, et al. A fixed combination of felodipine 5mg and metoprolol 50mg compared with double doses of the individual components as antihypertensive therapy. J Drug Dev 1992 Apr; 4: 199–206Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bran J, Froberg L, Kronmann P, et al. Optimal felodipine dose when combined with metoprolol in arterial hypertension: a Swedish multicenter study within primary health care. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1990; 15 Suppl. 4: 60–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Missault LH, Friart A, Van BP. Efficacy, tolerability and quality of life in the Hypertension Optimal Reduction by Treatment Adjustments — trial [abstract]. Cardiovasc Drags Ther 1999 Mar; 13: 68Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dahlöf B, Jönsson L, Borgholst O, et al. Improved antihypertensive efficacy of the felodipine-metoprolol extended-release tablet compared with each drag alone. Blood Press 1993; 2 Suppl. 1: 37–45Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dahlof B, Hosie J. Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of metoprolol and felodipine in comparison with the individual substances in monotherapy. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1990 Dec; 16: 910–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hoffmann J. Comparison of a felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet vs each component alone as antihypertensive therapy. Blood Press 1993; 2 Suppl. 1: 30–6Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Andersson OK, Swedish Multicentre Group. Improved efficacy with maintained tolerability in the treatment of primary hypertension. Comparison between the felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet and monotherapy with enalapril. J Hum Hypertens 1999 Jan; 13: 55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Klein G, German MC Study Group. Combination therapy with felodipine and metoprolol compared with captopril and hydrochlorothiazide. Blood Press 1998 Nov; 7: 308–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Waeber B, Detry J-M, Dahlöf B, et al. Felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet: a valuable option to initiate antihypertensive therapy? Am J Hypertens 1999 Sep; 12 (Pt 1): 915–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zannad F, Boivin J-M, Lorraine General Physician Investigators Group. Ambulatory 24-h blood pressure assessment of the felodipine-metoprolol combination versus amlodipine in mild to moderate hypertension. J Hypertens 1999 Jul; 17: 1023–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hosie J, Dahlöf B, Klein G. The long-term antihypertensive efficacy and safety of a new felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet. Blood Press 1993; 2 Suppl. 1: 46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Klein G, German Felodipine Study Group. Long-term evaluation of the fixed combination of felodipine and metoprolol in the treatment of hypertension. Curr Ther Res 1992 Aug; 52: 238–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Detry JM, International L-SG. A felodipine-metoprolol combination maintains quality of life and provides better blood pressure control than enalapril: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 1997 Apr; 10: 85 (Pt 2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Andersson F, Kartman B, Andersson OK. Cost-effectiveness of felodipine-metoprolol (Logimax®) and enalapril in the treatment of hypertension. Clin Exp Hypertens 1998 Nov; 20: 833–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Metoprolol Surveillance Study Group. A long-term surveillance study of metoprolol in hypertensive patients. Curr Ther Res 1984; 35: 491–500Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Johnson JA, Burlew BS. Metoprolol metabolism via cytochrome P4502D6 in ethnic populations. Drag Metab Dispos 1996; 24(3): 350–5Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Guengerich FP, Brian WR, Iwaski M, et al. Oxidation of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers and analogs by human liver cytochrome P-450 IIIA 4. J Med Chem 1991; 34: 1838–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Michalets EL. Update: clinically significant cytochrome P-450 drug interactions. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18(1): 84–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Astra Hässle AB. Felodpine + metoprolol. Felodipine + metoprolol prescribing information. Sweden, 1995Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zanchetti A, Chalmers J, Arakawa K, et al. 1993 Guidelines for the management of mild hypertension: memorandum from a World Health Organisation/International Society of Hypertension meeting. J Hypertens 1993; 11: 905–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, et al. Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. Part 2, short term reductions in blood pressure: overview of randomised drug trials in their epidemiological context. Lancet 1990; 335: 827–38Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Collins R, Peto R, Godwin J, et al. Blood pressure and coronary heart disease [letter]. Lancet 1990; 336: 370–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jackson R. What are the implications for the community of the discrepancy between the theory and practice of BP control? J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9 Suppl. 2: S25–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    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. Lancet 1998 Jun 13; 351: 1755–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, et al. Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 1999; 354(9192): 1751–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sever P. The heterogeneity of hypertension: why dosen’t every patient respond to every antihypertensive drug? J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9 Suppl. 2: S33–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Epstein M, Bakris G. Newer appoaches to antihypertensive therapy: use of fixed-dose combination therapy. Arch Intern Med 1996 Sep 23; 156: 1969–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hosie J, Wiklund I. Managing hypertension in general practice: can we do better? J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9 Suppl. 2: S15–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Eisen SA, Miller DK, Woodward RS, et al. The effect of prescribed daily dose frequency on patient medication compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1881–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kruse W, Rampmaier J, Ullrich G, et al. Patterns of drug compliance with medications to be taken once and twice daily assessed by continuous electronic monitoring in primary care. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 452–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Dimenas E, Wallander M-A, Svardsudd K. Aspects of quality of life on treatment with felodipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1991 Feb;40: 141–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Oparil S. Antihypertensive therapy — efficacy and quality of life. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 959–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malini Haria
    • 1
  • Greg L. Plosker
    • 1
  • Anthony Markham
    • 1
  1. 1.Adis International LimitedMairangi Bay, Auckland 10New Zealand

Personalised recommendations