Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Summary:From early research, investigators understood that the dose of diltiazem required for the treatment of hypertension (commonly 360 mg/day) was greater than that required for the treatment of angina (commonly 240 mg/day). Nonethe less, studies of recent prescribing practices show that the 240 and 180 mg capsule strengths constitute more than 70% of the diltiazem prescriptions for hypertension. Physicians became accustomed to the lower antianginal doses of diltiazem for 7 years before a hypertension indication was approved. Subsequently, these dosing levels were reinforced by the production of once-a-day formulations with highest capsule strengths of 240 mg and 300 mg. These strengths were dictated by the sheer bulk of the formulations, which limited how much diltiazem could be inserted into the #OO capsule, the largest capsule that can be comfortably administered. An examination of the combined data from the six randomized, blinded, and placebocontrolled trials submitted to the FDA for the original new drug applications of the three formulations of diltiazem available in the United States shows a clear linear dose-response relationship between diltiazem dose and blood pressure lowering through the 480-540 mg/day range. It also demonstrates that the 90-120 mg/day range is the "no-effect dose." These conclusions are supported by a MEDLINE review of all other studies of multilevel dosing of higher dose levels of diltiazem. The data support the conclusion that diltiazem is generally underdosed, but when properly dosed may be the single most potent antihypertensive overall.
Summary:From early research, investigators understood that the dose of diltiazem required for the treatment of hypertension (commonly 360 mg/day) was greater than that required for the treatment of angina (commonly 240 mg/day). Nonethe less, studies of recent prescribing practices show that the 240 and 180 mg capsule strengths constitute more than 70% of the diltiazem prescriptions for hypertension. Physicians became accustomed to the lower antianginal doses of diltiazem for 7 years before a hypertension indication was approved. Subsequently, these dosing levels were reinforced by the production of once-a-day formulations with highest capsule strengths of 240 mg and 300 mg. These strengths were dictated by the sheer bulk of the formulations, which limited how much diltiazem could be inserted into the #OO capsule, the largest capsule that can be comfortably administered. An examination of the combined data from the six randomized, blinded, and placebocontrolled trials submitted to the FDA for the original new drug applications of the three formulations of diltiazem available in the United States shows a clear linear dose-response relationship between diltiazem dose and blood pressure lowering through the 480-540 mg/day range. It also demonstrates that the 90-120 mg/day range is the "no-effect dose." These conclusions are supported by a MEDLINE review of all other studies of multilevel dosing of higher dose levels of diltiazem. The data support the conclusion that diltiazem is generally underdosed, but when properly dosed may be the single most potent antihypertensive overall.
In this review, several deficiencies of published bioequivalence studies for controlled-release calcium antagonists have become apparent. As a consequence, some of the published conclusions based on such studies must be viewed with care. A proper statistical analysis of bioequivalence is not frequently reported. A proper statistical analysis of the pharmacokinetic variables involves the calculation of 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the test: reference ratio of the means of the pharmacokinetic variables of the test and reference product. The CI must fall completely within the predetermined bioequivalence range (usually 0.8 to 1.25) for the products to be declared bioequivalent. Serious methodological errors, such as a conclusion of bioequivalence based on a lack of statistically significant difference between products, and conversely, a conclusion of bioequivalence because of a statistically significant difference, or because of a mere failure to show bioequivalence, are still made. With calcium antagonists in particular, an assessment of the rate of absorption and of the maximum concentration is important, as those characteristics may have implications for the safety profile with this class of drugs. As a minimum, in single doses studies the maximum concentration (Cmax), and the time to the maximum concentration (tmax), and in multiple-dose studies the Cmax, and the peak-trough fluctuation (%PTF) must be considered. Some bioequivalence studies of calcium antagonists are deficient in this respect. To show bioequivalence for controlled-release formulations, multiple-dose studies are required but some published bioequivalence studies contain only single-dose assessments. Similarly, bioequivalence studies under fed conditions are rarely published, although food may have a significant effect on the absorption rate of these drugs. Some calcium antagonists, such as verpamil, show stereo-selective pharmacokinetics, so that enantiomers may have to be investigated. Unfortunately, few of the published studies of controlled-release calcium antagonists satisfy all requirements. One would expect that data submitted to regulatory authorities for approval of generic formulations are more complete; published data are in many cases not satisfactory.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.