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 Lenfant, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lenfant, C.

(Circulation. 1995;91:2855-2856.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

The Calcium Channel Blocker Scare

Lessons for the Future

Claude Lenfant, MD

From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md.

	Introduction

 
The recent panic over use of calcium channel blockers to treat hypertension illustrates the crucial role played by the communication (or miscommunication) of research results to the public. As most readers are aware, the situation was triggered by presentation of a case-control study at the American Heart Association (AHA) 35th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease Epidemiology and Prevention. The study, which was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), observed that rates of heart attack were higher among hypertensive patients taking a calcium channel blocker than among patients taking a diuretic or a ß-blocker. The press release issued by the investigator's institution noted that the increased heart attack risk associated with calcium channel blockers might be as high as 60%. Although the investigator was interviewed by the press and some of the reporting reflected a balanced perspective, many alarming stories were printed and broadcast. Headlines such as "Drug for Blood Pressure Linked to Heart Attacks: Researchers Fear 6 Million Are Imperiled" generated considerable public concern.

At the heart of the problem was a misunderstanding of the "60%" statistic. Some of the early reports failed to explain that it was an estimate of relative risk. It was not clear to patients taking calcium channel blockers that their immediate risk of heart attack was, in fact, low. Many early reports also lacked perspective on the study methodology and its limitations.

The resultant anxiety among hypertensive patients and others taking calcium channel blockers was understandable. Hundreds of patients telephoned the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. M Shavelle Long term medical treatment of stable coronary disease Heart, November 1, 2007; 93(11): 1473 - 1477. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Kizer and S. E. Kimmel Epidemiologic Review of the Calcium Channel Blocker Drugs: An Up-to-date Perspective on the Proposed Hazards Arch Intern Med, May 14, 2001; 161(9): 1145 - 1158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Jukema, A. H. Zwinderman, A. J. van Boven, J. H.C. Reiber, A. Van der Laarse, K. I. Lie, and A. V.G. Bruschke Evidence for a Synergistic Effect of Calcium Channel Blockers With Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Retarding Progression of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Symptomatic Patients With Normal to Moderately Raised Cholesterol Levels Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol, March 1, 1996; 16(3): 425 - 430. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				T. C. Fagan Calcium Antagonists and Mortality: Another Case of the Need for Clinical Judgment Arch Intern Med, November 13, 1995; 155(20): 2145 - 2145. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. E. Buring, R. J. Glynn, and C. H. Hennekens Calcium Channel Blockers and Myocardial Infarction: A Hypothesis Formulated but Not Yet Tested JAMA, August 23, 1995; 274(8): 654 - 655. [Abstract] [PDF]