Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 7, 2026

Isolation of Human Atrial Myocytes for Simultaneous Measurements of Ca2+ Transients and Membrane Currents
Published on: July 3, 2013
1995: the year of the calcium antagonist controversy
1Department of Internal Medicine, St. Louis University Health Sciences Center, MI 63104, USA.
Insights
Concerns arose in 1995 regarding the safety of calcium antagonists for hypertension treatment. Studies linked short-acting nifedipine to increased heart attack risk and mortality, questioning their efficacy and safety compared to alternatives.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Pharmacology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- 1995 saw controversy surrounding calcium antagonists, particularly nifedipine, in treating hypertension and ischemic heart disease.
- Concerns emerged from studies suggesting increased risks associated with these drugs.
Purpose of the Study:
- To review the safety and efficacy debate surrounding calcium antagonists.
- To address questions regarding the validity of studies, extrapolation of findings, and cardiovascular benefits.
Main Methods:
- Review of a case-control study on hypertension treatment.
- Analysis of a meta-analysis of clinical trials for myocardial ischemia syndromes.
- Inclusion of editorial commentaries and critical reviews of study methodologies.
Main Results:
- A case-control study indicated a higher risk of myocardial infarction with short-acting calcium antagonists compared to diuretics and beta-blockers.
- A meta-analysis revealed an increased relative mortality rate associated with high-dose, short-acting nifedipine.
- Critiques highlighted potential weaknesses in the design, conduct, and analysis of the cited studies.
Conclusions:
- The safety and efficacy of calcium antagonists remain debated, with questions about data validity and extrapolation to newer formulations.
- Limited evidence supports a reduction in cardiovascular events with calcium antagonists.
- Clinically proven alternatives like diuretics and beta-blockers exist, shifting the burden of proof to proponents of calcium antagonists.
Abstract:
The year 1995 has been an unsettling one in the history of the treatment of hypertension and ischemic heart disease. A fierce debate has sprung up about the safety of calcium antagonists, particularly the dihydropyridine nifedipine. A widely publicized case-control study showed that compared with diuretics and beta-blockers, short-acting calcium antagonists, when used in the treatment of hypertension, were associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction, an effect which appeared to be dose related. A second study focused on clinical trials of nifedipine in patients primarily with acute myocardial ischemia syndromes. The meta-analysis showed an increased risk in the relative mortality rate of 1.16 associated with the use of short-acting nifedipine at doses of 80 mg/day or higher. The mechanisms responsible for these results were also discussed. Both publications were accompanied by editorials, and there were subsequently other commentaries published which pointed out weaknesses in the design, conduct, analysis and interpretation of the studies, and these have also been reviewed. Arising from this controversy, important questions have been raised which need to be addressed. First, are the data valid and are these drugs safe? If not, can the data be extrapolated from short-acting dihydropyridines, to the newer formulations and other sub-classes of calcium antagonists? Second, do these agents reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality? Finally, what are the alternatives to their use and the clinical implications? These studies have raised questions about safety, and there is little evidence to show any actual benefit on the incidence of cardiovascular events. For most patients there are clinically tested and proved therapeutic alternatives, i.e. diuretics and beta-blockers, and therefore the burden of proof must now be on those who primarily recommend the use of calcium antagonists. Recommendations and guidelines for treatment, where the primary goal is to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality must be supported by adequate data.
More Related Videos
10:01High-Throughput Optical Controlling and Recording Calcium Signal in iPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes for Toxicity Testing and Phenotypic Drug Screening
Published on: March 31, 2022
07:13Characterizing Modulators of Protease-Activated Receptors with a Calcium Mobilization Assay Using a Plate Reader
Published on: May 24, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Antihypertensive Drugs: Action of Calcium Channel Blockers
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class I Agents as Sodium Channel Blockers
Class 1A Antiarrhythmic Drugs: These drugs work by moderately blocking sodium channels,...
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class II Agents as β-Adrenergic Blockers
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class IV Agents as Calcium Channel Blockers
Verapamil, a calcium channel blocker, inhibits calcium movement across myocardial cell membranes and vascular smooth muscle. This results in the dilation of coronary and...
Antianginal Drugs: Calcium Channel Blockers and Ranolazine
CCBs, a diverse class that includes dihydropyridines (nifedipine) and diphenylalkylamines (verapamil and diltiazem), exert their effect by blocking calcium channels in cardiac and smooth muscle cells. This...
Antiepileptic Drugs: Calcium Channel Blockers
Calcium channel blockers exert their antiepileptic effects by targeting T-type calcium channels, which are integral to transmitting nerve signals in the central nervous system. These channels allow the passage of calcium ions, which are vital for neuronal communication. By inhibiting T-type calcium channels, calcium channel blockers effectively reduce the release of neurotransmitters and...