Treatment of essential hypertension with calcium channel blockers: what is the place of lercanidipine?

In all actual clinical guidelines, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) belong to the recommended first line antihypertensive drugs to treat essential hypertension. Several recent large clinical trials have confirmed their efficacy not only in lowering blood pressure but also in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with a normal or high cardiovascular risk profile. In clinical trials such as ALLHAT, VALUE or ASCOT, an amlodipine-based therapy was at least as effective, when not slightly superior, in lowering blood pressure and sometimes more effective in preventing target organ damages than blood pressure lowering strategies based on the use of diuretics, beta-blockers and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. One of the main clinical side effects of the first and second generation CCBs including amlodipine is the development of peripheral edema. The incidence of leg edema can be markedly reduced by combining the CCB with a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system. This strategy has now led to the development of several fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Another alternative to lower the incidence of edema is to use CCBs of the third generation such as lercanidipine. Indeed, although no major clinical trials have been conducted with this compound, clinical studies have shown that lercanidipine and amlodipine have a comparable antihypertensive efficacy but with significantly less peripheral edema in patients receiving lercanidipine. In some countries, lercanidipine is now available in a single-pill association with an ACE inhibitor thereby further improving its efficacy and tolerability profile.

Reasons why emergency department providers do not rely on the pneumonia severity index to determine the initial site of treatment for patients with pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Many emergency department (ED) providers do not follow guideline recommendations for the use of the pneumonia severity index (PSI) to determine the initial site of treatment for patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We identified the reasons why ED providers hospitalize low-risk patients or manage higher-risk patients as outpatients. METHODS: As a part of a trial to implement a PSI-based guideline for the initial site of treatment of patients with CAP, we analyzed data for patients managed at 12 EDs allocated to a high-intensity guideline implementation strategy study arm. The guideline recommended outpatient care for low-risk patients (nonhypoxemic patients with a PSI risk classification of I, II, or III) and hospitalization for higher-risk patients (hypoxemic patients or patients with a PSI risk classification of IV or V). We asked providers who made guideline-discordant decisions on site of treatment to detail the reasons for nonadherence to guideline recommendations. RESULTS: There were 1,306 patients with CAP (689 low-risk patients and 617 higher-risk patients). Among these patients, physicians admitted 258 (37.4%) of 689 low-risk patients and treated 20 (3.2%) of 617 higher-risk patients as outpatients. The most commonly reported reasons for admitting low-risk patients were the presence of a comorbid illness (178 [71.5%] of 249 patients); a laboratory value, vital sign, or symptom that precluded ED discharge (73 patients [29.3%]); or a recommendation from a primary care or a consulting physician (48 patients [19.3%]). Higher-risk patients were most often treated as outpatients because of a recommendation by a primary care or consulting physician (6 [40.0%] of 15 patients). CONCLUSION: ED providers hospitalize many low-risk patients with CAP, most frequently for a comorbid illness. Although higher-risk patients are infrequently treated as outpatients, this decision is often based on the request of an involved physician.