Felodipine is a new dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, and in hypertension it is a much more effective "third-line" drug than hydralazine. Nifedipine, on the other hand, is the established dihydropyridine calcium antagonist that has been increasingly used to treat hypertension. Information is now needed on the relative merits and demerits of these two drugs. This study appraised, therefore, the therapeutic utility of twelve months' treatment with nifedipine 20-60 mg twice daily in 55 patients with previous drug-resistant hypertension who had been successfully treated for the previous year with felodipine 5-20 mg twice daily, each calcium antagonist being used in combination with atenolol 100 mg daily with or without chlorthalidone 25 mg daily. Initially, nifedipine maintained comparable blood pressure control to that which had been achieved by felodipine, although in the longer term (over eight months) nifedipine proved less effective than felodipine had (p less than 0.02) and more patients became uncontrolled (supine diastolic blood pressure, Phase V, greater than or equal to 90 mmHg) on the maximum tolerated dose of the calcium antagonist (chi 2 = 4.13, p less than 0.05 greater than 0.025). The former degree of blood pressure control was, however, reestablished by increasing the dose of nifedipine or reintroducing the diuretic as necessary, and this control was maintained over the next four months. Minor side effects were less common on nifedipine than they had been during the preceding felodipine treatment phase. Felodipine thus has more pronounced and sustained antihypertensive effects than nifedipine, though its side effect burden may appear to be greater.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

1 In a double-blind, randomised, three-way-crossover study, 25 patients with sitting diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 120 mm Hg (Phase V) after 4 weeks' run-in on atenolol 50 mg twice daily, received atenolol 50 mg twice daily alone, atenolol 50 mg plus nifedipine 20 mg each twice daily and atenolol 50 mg plus nifedipine 40 mg each twice daily in three treatment periods each lasting 4 weeks. 'Washout' periods were not included. 2 The two combination treatment regimes lowered the 12 h post-dose blood pressure more effectively than did atenolol alone, but the high dose nifedipine combination was no more effective than the low dose nifedipine combination. Sitting systolic BP (± s.e. mean) at the end of each period was 174 ± 5 mm Hg after the atenolol run-in, 170 ± 5 mm Hg with atenolol alone, 156 ± 5 mm Hg with the low dose combination and 158 ± 4 mm Hg with the high dose combination. Corresponding diastolic BP readings were 106 ± 2 mm Hg, 106 ± 2 mm Hg, 97 ± 2 mm Hg and 99 ± 2 mm Hg respectively. 3 Side-effects tended to occur less commonly with the low dose of the fixed combination than with atenolol alone. An increased number of side-effects occurred with the 40 mg twice daily doses of nifedipine, particularly flushing/erythema, oedema of the ankles/feet, and a hot feeling in the legs. These differences did not reach significance. 4 Overall compliance was good (98 ± 0.7 s.e. mean %) and was similar within the different treatment regimes. 5 Thus the addition of nifedipine 'retard' 20 mg twice daily to atenolol 50 mg twice daily improved blood pressure control in these patients and tended to decrease adverse drug effects: increasing the dose of nifedipine to 40 mg twice daily had no further effect on blood pressure and was less well tolerated by some patients.