Poor oral hygiene enhances gingival overgrowth caused by calcineurin inhibitors

Aim: To estimate the prevalence of gingival overgrowth in kidney allograft recipients in southern Switzerland and to determine the factors associated with it. We hypothesized that poor oral hygiene was a risk factor. Methods: We assessed the level of oral hygiene among renal transplant patients and determined whether a good level of information and regular dental checkups in addition to good oral hygiene could prevent gingival hyperplasia. Seventy‐six adults who had undergone kidney transplantation were examined. The level of oral hygiene, gender, age, time elapsed from transplantation, medication and dose were recorded. Results: In general the level of oral hygiene was average. We found a significant association between the severity of gingival overgrowth and the level of oral hygiene. No statistical relationship between gingival hyperplasia and the other recorded variables was detected. Patients on tacrolimus had a tendency to have less gingival hyperplasia. Patient education, along with regular dental checkups and a good level of oral hygiene, should prevent gingival hyperplasia or maintain it at an acceptable level. Conclusion: Intensive motivation of patients to maintain good oral hygiene is necessary to reduce the incidence of gingival hyperplasia.     

Effect of Periodontal Treatment in Renal Transplant Recipients

Objective

To evaluate the effect of periodontal treatment on gingival overgrowth in a group of renal transplant patients.

Subjects and Methods

Twenty-five renal transplant recipients receiving immunosuppressive therapy with cyclosporine A (CsA) were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Group 1 (n = 15) included patients who had been specifically referred to a dental clinic to prevent gingival overgrowth and were given full periodontal therapy. Group 2 (n = 10) was comprised of patients who did not receive any professional periodontal cleaning. Patients from both groups were examined to determine their periodontal status before and after 3, 6 and 12 months in terms of their plaque index, gingival index and gingival overgrowth. During the examination, their overall health was stable.

Results

For group 1, the scores were 1.89 (baseline), 0.98 (6 months) and 0.56 (12 months), and hence there were significant reductions (p = 0.0001). The gingival indices were 1.71 (baseline), 0.76 (6 months) and 0.35 (12 months), and the reductions were also significant (p = 0.0001). A significant association was observed between poor oral hygiene and the degree of gingival overgrowth. The 1-year post-treatment follow-up showed that patients in group 1 did not develop gingival overgrowth due to the use of CsA as group 2 did without prior periodontal therapy.

Conclusion

Oral hygiene status was the most important variable related to the development and degree of gingival overgrowth due to the use of CsA.Key Words: Gingival overgrowth, Periodontal treatment, Cyclosporine     

西尼地平和氨氯地平降压有效性和安全性比较

目的　评价西尼地平和氨氯地平降压的疗效和安全性。方法　采用随机双盲双模拟研究方法。西尼地平组 (A组 ) 2 7例 ,氨氯地平组 (B组 ) 2 7例。起始剂量为 5mg ,活性药物治疗 4周后未达到有效标准则药物剂量加倍继续治疗 4周 ,有效者原药量继续服用 4周。总疗程为 8周。结果　两组患者治疗 4周和 8周血压均比用药前下降 (P <0 .0 5 )。A、B两组总有效率分别为 85 .1 9%和 88.89%。两组间总有效率无显著性差异 (P >0 .0 5 )。A、B两组不良反应发生率分别为 1 1 .1 1 %和 1 4 .81 % ,试验过程中不良反应均能耐受 ,无一例退出试验。结论　西尼地平和氨氯地平均是治疗轻、中度高血压的有效药物 ,药物不良反应少     

Results of a pilot pharmacotherapy quality improvement program using fixed-dose,combination amlodipine/benazepril antihypertensive therapy in a long-term care setting

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is common in older adults (aged > or =65 years). Treatment frequently requires multiple medications and can be expensive. OBJECTIVE: This study measured the impact of substituting low-dose, fixed-combination therapy using the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine and the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor benazepril for high-dose CCB monotherapy or dual therapy with a CCB and an ACE inhibitor on antihypertensive drug costs, the incidence of adverse events, and blood-pressure control. METHODS: A multicenter, pilot pharmacotherapy quality improvement program was undertaken in a long-term care facility setting. Consultant pharmacists reviewed pharmacy records and medical charts from long-term care facilities, identifying older patients with a diagnosis of hypertension who either took CCB concomitantly with an ACE inhibitor or experienced adverse events on high-dose CCB therapy. Eligible patients were identified and their physicians contacted regarding switching them to fixed-dose combination therapy. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients at 17 facilities were switched to fixed-dose amlodipine/benazepril combination therapy; 94.1% were women and 5.9% were men (mean age, 85.1 years; range, 64-99 years). The mean number of comorbidities was 1.6. During the subsequent 2 months, mean blood pressure remained at levels similar to those at baseline. The number of patients reporting at least 1 drug-related adverse event decreased by 81.8% (P < 0.05), and the incidence of edema decreased by 75.0%. The mean per-patient cost of antihypertensive drugs decreased by 33.1% (P < 0.001), a mean per-patient savings of 19.21 US dollars per month. CONCLUSION: In patients aged > or =65 years with hypertension in long-term care facilities, a change from high-dose CCB monotherapy or CCB/ACE-inhibitor dual therapy to fixed-dose combination amlodipine/benazepril therapy significantly reduced drug costs and the incidence of adverse events and maintained blood-pressure control.     

Results of a multicenter, 8-week, parallel-group, randomized,double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine maleate versus amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Recently, amlodipine maleate was developed and tested in preclinical and Phase I clinical trials in Korea. The studies found pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics similar to those of amlodipine besylate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of amlodipine maleate with those of amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 8-week, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, Phase III clinical trial. Eligible patients were Korean, aged 18 to 75 years, had hypertension, and were either taking antihypertensive medications or had a documented sitting diastolic blood pressure of 90 to 109 mm Hg. After a washout period of 2 weeks, patients were randomized to amlodipine maleate or amlodipine besylate for 8 weeks. In both groups, the medications were initiated at 5 mg QD. At day 29, the medication dose was increased to 10 mg QD if sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) was > or = 90 mm Hg. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen patients were enrolled. Fifty-seven patients received amlodipine maleate (29 men, 28 women; mean [SD] age, 49.0 [11.4] years) and 61 received amlodipine besylate (35 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 51.6 [9.4] years). Baseline mean (SD) values for sitting systolic blood pressure and SiDBP were 152.0 (12.2) mm Hg and 98.1 (5.6) mm Hg, respectively, for the amlodipine maleate group and 153.4 (14.0) mm Hg and 98.1 (5.5) mm Hg, respectively, for the amlodipine besylate group. In this population, amlodipine maleate was not inferior to amlodipine besylate: the lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference in SiDBP was greater than -4 mm Hg. The between-group difference in SiDBP response rate (the proportion of patients who experienced adequate SiDBP reductions) did not reach statistical significance: 85.7% (42/49) for the amlodipine maleate group and 91.8% (45/49) for the amlodipine besylate group. Compliance rates were similar between groups, with mean (SD) compliance rates of 97.4% (2.8%) and 97.1% (3.6%) in the amlodipine maleate and amlodipine besylate groups, respectively. Also, there were no significant differences in the incidences of drug-related clinical and laboratory adverse events; the most common were headache, flushing, facial edema, and paresthesia. CONCLUSION: In this population, the efficacy and tolerability observed with amlodipine maleate were similar to those seen with amlodipine besylate.     

Sevikar®: Combination therapy for the treatment of hypertension

Hypertension is a highly prevalent disease and one of the most important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Hypertension remains the leading cause of mortality and the third largest cause of disability in both developed and developing countries. Although recent guidelines and advisory statements are recommending lower thresholds and goals for antihypertensive treatment, approximately two thirds of patients do not achieve the goals. In the United States only 36.8% of hypertensive patients achieve the goal of <140/90 mmHg. Poor adherence to antihypertensive medication regimens contributes to the practice-outcome gap. In most hypertensive patients it is difficult or impossible to control blood pressure with one drug, thus current guidelines have recommended the use of combination therapy as first-line treatment, or early in the management of hypertension. Blocking two or more blood pressure regulatory systems provides a more effective and more physiologic reduction in blood pressure. Fixed-dose combinations offer many advantages over free-drug combinations, such as convenience of use, fewer adverse events, and greater antihypertensive potency. Similar to other combinations, fixed-dose combination tablets containing the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker amlodipine and the angiotensin receptor blocker olmesartan bring together two distinct and complementary mechanisms of action, resulting in improved blood pressure control and potential for improved target organ protection relative to either class of agent alone.     

硝苯吡啶所致小鼠牙龈增生的组织病理学和细胞凋亡实验研究

目的:通过动物实验来研究硝苯吡啶造成小鼠牙龈增生的发病机制和预防办法,降低临床应用硝苯吡啶的副作用。方法:采用纯系昆明种雄性小鼠为研究对象,灌喂硝苯吡啶不同时间来观察:1.牙龈增生与牙龈上皮厚度及胶原纤维的变化;2.细胞凋亡指数;3.药物作用时间对上述指标的影响;4.撤药后增生牙龈的恢复情况。结果:小鼠牙龈上皮厚度明显增加,胶原纤维致密性加大,牙龈凋亡细胞数目减少(P<0.05),硝苯吡啶撤退后一段时间,增生的牙龈恢复正常。结论:硝苯吡啶可导致小鼠牙龈增生,服药55天细胞凋亡数减少,此损害是可逆的。     

Anasarca edema with amlodipine treatment

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of anasarca edema associated with amlodipine use. CASE SUMMARY: A 77-year-old woman with essential hypertension who had not been treated with any other drug was prescribed amlodipine 10 mg/day to control her blood pressure. She developed anasarca edema soon after amlodipine treatment was initiated. Laboratory test results for possible etiologies were negative. Discontinuation of amlodipine resulted in dramatic improvement. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, as of February 3, 2005, there have been no other reports of amlodipine-related anasarca edema in the English literature, and only one case was described in the Japanese literature. Pretibial edema is the most common adverse effect of amlodipine. Periocular and perioral edema have occurred less frequently, but anasarca edema has not emerged as a problem. An objective causality assessment revealed amlodipine to be a probable cause of anasarca edema. CONCLUSIONS: In rare instances, amlodipine may cause generalized edema, which will resolve upon discontinuation of the drug.     

Results of a phase III, 8-week, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial to assess the effects of amlodipine camsylate versus amlodipine besylate in Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension

BACKGROUND: Amlodipine besylate has been used in Korea for the treatment of hypertension for >17 years, with well-established efficacy and tolerability. Amlodipine camsylate is a newer formulation developed for generic use. It has been assessed in terms of physical stability and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and been found to be effective in lowering blood pressure in preclinical and Phase I and II trials. However, to date, no studies have compared the clinical effectiveness of amlodipine camsylate and amlodipine besylate in treating hypertension. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of amlodipine camsylate compared with amlodipine besylate in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This Phase III, 8-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted in 13 cardiology centers across the Republic of Korea. Male and female Korean patients aged 18 to 75 years having uncomplicated, mild to moderate, essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressure [SiDBP] 90-<110 mm Hg) and receiving no antihypertensives in the 2 weeks before randomization were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral treatment with amlodipine camsylate or amlodipine besylate. For the first 4 weeks, patients received amlodipine 5 mg QD (morning). After 4 weeks, if either blood pressure was > or =140/ > or =90 mm Hg or SiDBP had not decreased by > or =10 mm Hg from baseline, the dose of amlodipine was increased to 10 mg QD for 4 weeks. Trough blood pressure and heart rate were measured in duplicate with the patient in the sitting position at each clinic visit (baseline [week 0] and weeks 4 and 8 of treatment); mean values were calculated and recorded. At weeks 4 and 8, tolerability was assessed using history taking and laboratory analysis, and compliance was assessed using pill counts. The primary end point was change from baseline in SiDBP at week 8. Secondary end points were change from baseline in sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) at week 8 in the total population and in the subgroup of patients who had previously received antihypertensive treatment versus those who had not. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were enrolled (mean age, 53 years; 105 women, 84 men; mean body weight, 65.8 kg). One patient in the amlodipine camsylate group dropped out of the study at week 0 of treatment (this patient did not use any study medication) and was excluded from the modified intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Thus, 188 patients were treated and included in the ITT analysis (94 patients per treatment group; ITT analysis); 161 patients were included in the perprotocol (PP) analysis (n = 80 for amlodipine camsylate, n = 81 for amlodipine besylate) (14 patients in the amlodipine camsylate group and 13 patients in the amlodipine besylate group were excluded from the PP analysis due to consistent withdrawal or protocol violation). Mean (SD) SiSBP and SiDBP were significantly decreased from baseline in both groups (amlodipine camsylate, from 146.7 [12.3]/96.6 [5.4] to 127.9 [14.8]/83.4 [7.7] mm Hg [both, P < 0.001]; amlodipine besylate, from 146.8 [12.8]/96.7 [5.1] to 128.0 [10.1]/83.8 [7.5] mm Hg [both, P < 0.001]). The differences in SiSBP/SiDBP between the 2 groups at week 8 were not significant. The SiDBP response rates in the subgroups that had and had not been previously treated with antihypertensives were statistically similar (56/69 [81.2%] and 83/92 [90.2%], respectively). The prevalences of clinical adverse events (AEs) were not significantly different between the 2 treatment groups (amlodipine camsylate, 27.3 %; amlodipine besylate, 28.7%). The most common AEs were dizziness and dyspnea (both in 3/94 [3.2%] and 1/94 [1.1%] patients who received amlodipine camsylate and amlodipine besylate, respectively). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and tolerability of amlodipine camsylate were not significantly different from those of amlodipine besylate in these Korean adults with mild to moderate hypertension.     

Economic Burden of Adverse Events in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Background

Although targeted therapies (ie, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenesis agents) are effective as first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC), moderate-to-severe adverse events have been reported in clinical trials of these agents. Information concerning the economic burden of these events is limited.

Objective

The purpose of this study was estimate the costs associated with adverse events in patients with mRCC receiving selected targeted agents indicated for first-line treatment of this disease.

Methods

Retrospective study based on health care claims data for patients with mRCC, aged ≥18 years, receiving first-line treatment with targeted therapies. Adverse events of interest included abdominal pain, back pain, diarrhea, dyspnea, extremity pain, fatigue and/or asthenia, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, lymphopenia, nausea and/or vomiting, neutropenia, proteinuria, and thrombocytopenia. Patients receiving care for these events were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes on health care claims. Costs were examined during a 30-day period, beginning with date of first mention of each event; nonevented patients similarly were assigned a shadow index date. We estimated total costs during 30 days after the index date for patients with and without adverse events, excluding the costs of targeted therapy.

Results

Sixty-four percent of patients receiving targeted therapies for mRCC had health care encounters for ≥1 adverse events. Events that occurred with a frequency >20% included severe abdominal pain, back pain, fatigue and/or asthenia, and nausea and/or vomiting, respectively; 10% to 20% of patients had encounters for diarrhea, dyspnea, and extremity pain, respectively. Mean (SD) total costs of care during the 30-day, postevent period were substantially higher among patients with versus without adverse events—$12,177 ($19,621) versus $4070 ($8142). Adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics, the estimated cost difference was $11,373 (95% CI, $5286–$21,419).

Conclusions

Costs of adverse events are substantial in patients receiving targeted therapies, specifically, sunitinib, sorafenib, or bevacizumab, for mRCC. Efforts to prevent and/or better manage these events may reduce health care costs.     

Comparison of the blood pressure-lowering effects and tolerability of Losartan- and Amlodipine-based regimens in patients with isolated systolic hypertension

BACKGROUND: Elevated systolic blood pressure is a more important risk factor for cardiovascular and renal disease than elevated diastolic blood pressure. Isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) is the predominant form of hypertension in the elderly. Effects of angiotensin II on the vascular wall and endothelium may contribute to development of ISH. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects on trough sitting systolic blood pressure (SiSBP) of a regimen of losartan, a selective angiotensin II-receptor antagonist, and an amlodipine-based regimen in patients with ISH. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study consisted of a 4-week placebo phase and an 18-week active-treatment phase. The losartan-based regimen consisted of losartan 50 mg, increased as needed to losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg at week 6 and to losartan 100 mg/HCTZ 25 mg at week 12 to achieve a target SiSBP <140 mm Hg. the amlodipine-based regimen consisted of amlodipine 5 mg, increased as needed to amlodipine 10 mg at week 6 and to amlodipine 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg at week 12. The primary efficacy measure was change in trough SiSBP from baseline to week 18. Information on the tolerability of study treatments was collected at each visit, including the investigator's and patient's observations of clinical adverse experiences (CAEs), laboratory adverse experiences, and responses to a symptom questionnaire. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-seven patients (65.6% female) were randomized to treatment, 432 in the losartan group and 425 in the amlodipine group. Their mean age was 67.6 years, and they had a mean duration of hypertension of 6.7 years at baseline. The losartan and amlodipine groups (intent-to-treat population) had baseline mean SiSBP values of 171.2 and 171.9 mm Hg, respectively. At week 18 (the primary end point), the mean change from baseline in SiSBP was -27.4 mm Hg for 426 patients who received losartan and -28.1 mm Hg for 419 patients who received amlodipine (estimated least-square mean difference, 0.3 mm Hg; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.0), indicating that losartan's effect on systolic blood pressure was noninferior to that of amlodipine. The proportion of patients who responded (SiSBP <140 mm Hg or a > or =20-mm Hg decrease in SiSBP from baseline) was comparable between groups (73.9% losartan, 75.4% amlodipine). The incidence of CAEs and drug-related CAEs was significantly greater in the amlodipine group (amlodipine, 79.8% and 43.8%, respectively; losartan, 67.8% and 25.5%; P < or = 0.001). In addition, more patients in the amlodipine group discontinued therapy due to a drug-related CAE compared with patients in the losartan group (12.9% vs 4.4%, respectively; P < or = 0.001). Lower-extremity edema was the most common drug-related CAE in the amlodipine group (24.0% amlodipine, 2.5% losartan; P < or = 0.001); dizziness was the most common drug-related CAE in the losartan group (6.0% losartan, 4.0% amlodipine). CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with ISH, losartan and amlodipine produced comparable clinically relevant reductions in SiSBP; however, losartan was better tolerated, as evidenced by fewer CAEs and discontinuations compared with amlodipine. Losartan may be considered for the initial treatment of ISH.     

络活喜治疗老年性原发性高血压病的临床分析

目的观察对原发性的老年高血压病患者应用络活喜治疗的临床效果。方法对我院自2008年11月至2011年11月以来,于我科治疗的320例老年高血压病患者临床资料进行回顾性分析。结果 A,B两组相较,疗效差异显著(P<0.01)。A,B两组不良反应差异显著(P<0.01)。结论对原发性的老年高血压病患者应用络活喜治疗,不仅疗效确切,而且不良反应较少,而且安全性也较高,同时每天仅需服药1次,即能在24h内有效的控制血压,应予推广。     

Amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoximil fixed combination for the treatment of hypertension

National and international guidelines recommend the use of combination drugs as a first-line therapy for persons with stage 2 hypertension (blood pressure >160/100 mmHg). Although hypertension is common (30% of adults in the USA), its control to recommended blood pressure levels of under 140/90 mmHg remains low, at 36.8%. In the past, fixed-drug combinations included a diuretic with another antihypertensive drug. Recently, combinations of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers mostly with dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers have been developed and approved for the treatment of hypertension. One of these, olmesartan medoxomil in combination with amlodipine besylate has been shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of hypertension. In a large, randomized, placebo-controlled study (Combination of Olmesartan medoxomil and Amlodipine besylate in Controlling High blood pressure [COACH]) of 1940 patients, the high-dose combinations of olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine besylate 40/10 mg/day reduced the sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 29/19 mmHg from baseline (p < 0.001) and resulted in 54% of patients achieving blood pressure goals. It also decreased the pedal edema induced by amlodipine monotherapy 10 mg/day by 36.1%. This drug combination, besides being effective, is also safe and well tolerated.     

The cost-effectiveness of irbesartan in the treatment of hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy

BACKGROUND: End-stage renal disease (ESRD)-related health care costs are substantial. Improving clinical outcomes in patients at risk of progression to ESRD could lead to considerable health care savings. OBJECTIVE: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of irbesartan compared with placebo or amlodipine in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and overt nephropathy. METHODS: Three treatments for hypertension patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy were assessed: (1) irbesartan, (2) amlodipine, and (3) placebo. A Markov model was developed based on primary data from the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial and the United States Renal Data System. Projected survival and costs were compared for each treatment at 3-, 10-, and 25-year time horizons. Different assumptions of treatment benefits and costs were tested with use of sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: At 10 and 25 years, the model projected irbesartan to be both the least costly and most effective (ie, demonstrating a survival advantage) strategy. At 25     

Mucositis prevention by improved dental care in acute leukemia patients

Goals of work The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of the intensive dental care protocol in preventing oral complications in acute leukemia patients.Patients and methods Thirty-four patients hospitalized for induction remission therapy for acute leukemia were randomly assigned to one of two groups, whether to receive intensive dental care protocol or not. The intensive dental care group of patients received dental treatment and plaque and calculus removal prior to chemotherapy and supervised oral hygiene measures during chemotherapy. The limited dental care group of patients did not receive prechemotherapy dental care. Groups were comparable in age, sex, and antineoplastic treatment received. Patients were examined after admission to the hospital; at the initiation of the chemotherapy; and 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after initiation of therapy. Positive data about subjective difficulties were taken by anamnesis. Oral hygiene index (OHI) and gingival index (GI) were used to assess the periodontal status of the patients. The severity of mucositis was evaluated according to WHO classification.Main results The results of this study pointed out lower mean values of GI and lower mean values of mucositis score in the intensive dental care group of patients during the whole period of examination. Although the differences in mean values were not statistically significant on most of the examination days, intensive dental care group of patients developed less severe and less painful oral complications compared to the limited dental care group of patients.Conclusion We conclude that proper dental care and preventive measures both before and during chemotherapy can be beneficial to these patients.     

Prevalence and risk of gingival enlargement in patients treated with anticonvulsant drugs

BACKGROUND: Predictors of gingival enlargement in patients treated with anti-epileptics have not been previously assessed. This study was conducted to determine, with the aid of two indices that score vertical and horizontal overgrowth, the prevalence and risk factors for gingival enlargement in patients treated with phenytoin and other anticonvulsant drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted and data from 59 patients taking antiepileptics were compared with 98 controls. Gingival enlargement was evaluated with two indices to score vertical overgrowth [Gingival overgrowth index (GO] and horizontal overgrowth [Miranda-Brunet index (MB)]. Gingival index, plaque index, and probing depth were also evaluated. RESULTS: The prevalence of gingival enlargement was significantly higher (P < 0.0001) for both indices in the anticonvulsants treated groups than in the control group. Gingival overgrowth was significantly higher for both indices in the phenytoin group than in the non phenytoin group. Among the possible risk factors, only the gingival index showed a significant association with gingival enlargement. For the MB index the risk of gingival enlargement (odds ratio) associated to phenytoin therapy and other anticonvulsants therapy were 52.6 (13.5-205) and 6.6 (1.5-28.2). Gingival index-adjusted odds ratios for the same drugs were 5.7 (1.3-24.7) and 18.1 (2-158), respectively. The concordance between GO and MB indices in the control group and in the phenytoin-group and non phenytoin-group showed a Kappa value of 0.773 and 0.697, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study reports significant differences in the prevalence and severity of gingival overgrowth in two groups of patients, one treated with phenytoin, and another treated with other anticonvulsants. Gingival inflammation is a significant risk factor for gingival enlargement in these patients.     

Effective and safe reduction of blood pressure with the combination of amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 160 mg in hypertensive patients not controlled by calcium channel blocker monotherapy

INTRODUCTION: The addition of an angiotensin II receptor blocker to calcium channel blocker-based antihypertensive therapy may be associated with enhanced efficacy and reduced risk of adverse events. METHODS: This 8-week, open-label, single-arm trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of amlodipine and valsartan in patients not responding adequately to treatment with amlodipine or felodipine alone. Patients aged >/=18 years with moderate essential hypertension (defined as mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP] >/=160 and <180 mmHg) were treated for 4 weeks with once-daily amlodipine 5 mg or felodipine 5 mg. At week 4, patients not adequately responding were treated for an additional 4 weeks with once-daily amlodipine 5 mg plus valsartan 160 mg. Of 214 patients treated for 4 weeks with amlodipine 5 mg or felodipine 5 mg, 181 failed to achieve MSSBP <140 mmHg. These non-responders were treated for an additional 4 weeks with amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 160 mg. RESULTS: A clinically and statistically significant additional reduction in MSSBP of 13.1 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.4, 14.7; P<0.0001) and a mean sitting diastolic blood pressure of 5.3 mmHg (95% CI: 4.3, 6.3; P<0.0001) were observed. Of patients treated with amlodipine 5 mg and valsartan 160 mg, 51.1% achieved target blood pressure levels (<140/90 mmHg) after 4 weeks. Adverse event rates were low in both treatment phases, and most were mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: The combination of amlodipine/valsartan was effective and well tolerated.     

Clinic blood pressure responses to two amlodipine salt formulations, adipate and besylate, in adult Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 8-week comparison

BACKGROUND: The commercially available formulation of amlodipine is conjugated with besylate salt to increase water solubility. Recently, a new amlodipine salt formulation has been developed in which the free base of amlodipine is conjugated with a chemically different salt, adipate. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the antihypertensive effect and tolerability of amlodipine adipate with those of amlodipine besylate in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, doubleblind, parallel-group study in which patients received 8 weeks of treatment with either amlodipine adipate or amlodipine besylate. The primary efficacy variable was noninferiority of the difference in mean changes from baseline in trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) after 8 weeks of treatment. Secondary efficacy variables included mean changes in DBP, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and response rate (defined as the proportion of patients whose DBP was <90 mm Hg or whose DBP had decreased from baseline by > or =10 mm Hg). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven patients were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine adipate (n = 106) or amlodipine besylate (n = 105). Study patients were primarily female (54.5%), with a mean (SD) age of 52.2 (9.6) years and a mean body weight of 67.1 (10.2) kg; there were no between-group differences in demographic profiles. After 4 weeks of randomized treatment, 58 (27.5%) patients (29 [27.4%] amlodipine adipate, 29 [27.6%] amlodipine besylate) had not achieved a mean DBP <90 mm Hg, and their dose was doubled. Mean DBP changes at 8 weeks were -15.2 (7.3) mm Hg in the amlodipine adipate group and -14.2 (7.4) mm Hg in the amlodipine besylate group (P = NS). Because the 95% CI for the difference in mean DBP changes between groups (-0.53 to 2.55) was within the prespecified lower limit (-4 mm Hg), amlodipine adipate was considered noninferior to amlodipine besylate. Mean SBP changes were -24.9 (12.1) mm Hg in the amlodipine adipate group and -22.0 (14.7) mm Hg in the amlodipine besylate group (P = NS). The response rates were 92.0% for amlodipine adipate and 95.4% for amlodipine besylate (P = NS). The overall incidence of clinical AEs was 20.8% in the amlodipine adipate group and 25.7% in the amlodipine besylate group (P = NS). Drug-related clinical AEs occurred in 5.7% and 12.4% of patients in the respective treatment groups (P = NS). Serum uric acid levels decreased significantly from base-line in both groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Eight weeks of treatment with amlodipine adipate produced significant reductions from baseline in blood pressure in these patients with mild to moderate hypertension. The efficacy of amlodipine adipate was not inferior to that of amlodipine besylate. Tolerability was comparable between the 2 treatment groups.