This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sennesael, J. Articles by Verbeelen, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sennesael, J. Articles by Verbeelen, D. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB AMLODIPINE BESYLATE CYCLOSPORIN A Medline Plus Health Information High Blood Pressure Kidney Transplantation

(Hypertension. 1995;26:436-444.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Comparison of Perindopril and Amlodipine in Cyclosporine-Treated Renal Allograft Recipients

Jacques Sennesael; Jan Lamote; Isabelle Violet; Sophie Tasse; Dierik Verbeelen

From the Renal Unit, Academisch Ziekenhuis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium, and Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier (IRIS), Courbevoie, France.

Correspondence to Jacques Sennesael, Renal Unit, AZ-VUB, Laarbeeklaan 101, B 1090 Brussels, Belgium.

Abstract The objective of this study was to compare the antihypertensive efficacy and influence on renal function of perindopril and amlodipine in cyclosporine-treated renal allograft recipients with mild to moderate hypertension. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy crossover trial in ambulatory patients. Four phases were conducted: 2 weeks on placebo, 8 weeks of maintenance (perindopril or amlodipine), and 2 weeks of washout between treatment periods. Ten hypertensive patients with stable renal allograft function transplanted more than 6 months previously and receiving cyclosporine as part of their immunosuppressive regimen were studied. The patients were allocated to perindopril (2 or 4 mg/d) and amlodipine (5 mg/d) in a random sequence. If office diastolic pressure was greater than or equal to 90 mm Hg after 4 weeks, the dosage was doubled and continued for another 4 weeks. The main outcome measures were office and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure changes after 8 weeks of active treatment and treatment and time effect on glomerular filtration rate and effective renal plasma flow. Perindopril and amlodipine were equally effective in lowering office blood pressure and similarly efficacious for the 24-hour period of the day. Neither drug affected glomerular filtration rate or effective renal plasma flow. Both agents demonstrated equivalent capacity (timextreatment, P=.955) to reverse renal vascular resistance (amlodipine from 0.35±0.02 to 0.30±0.02 mm Hg/mL per minute per 1.73 m²; perindopril from 0.36±0.03 to 0.32±0.01) (time effect of all treatments together, P=.043). After amlodipine, hemoglobin was higher (148±5 versus 135±5 g/L, P=.002) and serum uric acid was lower (351±17 versus 398±24 µmol/L, P=.001) compared with perindopril.

Key Words: amlodipine • kidney transplantation • cyclosporine • hemodynamics • blood pressure monitoring, ambulatory

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. Lindenfeld, R. L. Page II, R. Zolty, S. F. Shakar, M. Levi, B. Lowes, E. E. Wolfel, and G. G. Miller Drug Therapy in the Heart Transplant Recipient: Part III: Common Medical Problems Circulation, January 4, 2005; 111(1): 113 - 117. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hausberg, M. Barenbrock, H. Hohage, S. Muller, S. Heidenreich, and K.-H. Rahn ACE Inhibitor Versus ß-Blocker for the Treatment of Hypertension in Renal Allograft Recipients Hypertension, March 1, 1999; 33(3): 862 - 868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]