Renoprotective effects of benazepril: current perspective

Cardiovascular (CV) disease, its associated risk factors and continued progression run in parallel with renal deterioration (cardio-renal syndrome). Most guidelines promote early treatment, including the use of ACE inhibitors to control CV risk in patients with chronic renal failure. The renoprotective effects of the ACE inhibitor, benazepril, independent of blood pressure control, have been demonstrated, as monotherapy or in combination with amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide, in large clinical trials: Avoiding Cardiovascular Events through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) and Gauging Albuminuria Reduction with Lotrel in Diabetic Patients with Hypertension (GUARD) in patients with mild-to-severe chronic kidney disease. In the ACCOMPLISH trial, CV outcomes and renoprotective effects were greater in patients receiving benazepril in combination with amlodipine; the GUARD trial demonstrated that combined benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide was more effective than amlodipine combined with benazepril in reducing baseline urinary albumin:creatinine ratio and normalizing urinary albumin:creatinine ratio in patients with baseline microalbuminuria, although this effect was accompanied with a greater decrease in glomerular filtration rate than with benazepril/amlodipine. While this is not a study in patients with overt renal disease (patients had severe CV diseases), the ACCOMPLISH trial is the first large study to date to show the added benefit of combining ACE inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers in renal protection. Future large, well-controlled trials, designed to evaluate hard renal outcomes, are required to identify which patients will benefit most from particular combination treatment strategies in renoprotection.     

Antihypertensive and organ-protective effects of benazepril

Benazepril is a nonsulfhydryl ACE inhibitor with favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, well-established antihypertensive effects and a good tolerability profile. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that patients treated with benazepril alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine may achieve beneficial renal outcomes that extend beyond blood pressure control. Furthermore, the recent Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed decreased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality with benazepril when administered as a cotreatment. An additional novel therapeutic area for benazepril is atrial fibrillation. Differences between combination therapies have implications for which patients may be best suited to particular interventions, and further studies are required to fully ascertain this potential.     

Antihypertensive and organ-protective effects of benazepril

Benazepril is a nonsulfhydryl ACE inhibitor with favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, well-established antihypertensive effects and a good tolerability profile. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that patients treated with benazepril alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine may achieve beneficial renal outcomes that extend beyond blood pressure control. Furthermore, the recent Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed decreased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality with benazepril when administered as a cotreatment. An additional novel therapeutic area for benazepril is atrial fibrillation. Differences between combination therapies have implications for which patients may be best suited to particular interventions, and further studies are required to fully ascertain this potential.     

Metabolic syndrome: treatment of hypertensive patients

Metabolic syndrome (MetSyndr), a constellation of abnormalities [obesity, glucose intolerance, insulin resistance (IR), dyslipidemia (low HDL-cholesterol, high LDL-cholesterol and triglycerides (TG)], and elevated blood pressure (BP)], increases the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease and premature death. From 10% to 30% of the adult population in industrialized countries has MetSyndr, which effectively predicts the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) and CV disease. Because of the complex etiology of MetSyndr, a multi-targeted, integrated therapeutic approach is required to simultaneously treat high BP, obesity, lipid disorders and T2D (if present), to fully protect CV, cerebrovascular and renal systems. If lifestyle modification (weight control, diet, exercise, smoking cessation, moderation of alcohol intake) is ineffective, pharmaco-theraphy should be added to treat simultaneously the lipid- and non-lipid CV risk factors.Patients with HTN and MetSyndr should be started on angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, unless contraindicated. The ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce the odds of developing new onset T2D and also decrease albuminuria. The ACE inhibitors provide cardioprotective and renoprotective benefits beyond their effect on BP; they also improve IR. The ARBs are renoprotective in addition to being cardioprotective. Long-acting calcium channel blockers are also recommended in hypertensive patients with MetSyndr; these drugs also improve IR. Thiazides (at low doses) and selected ss-blockers can be given to patients with HTN and MetSyndr. Celiprolol in combination with diuretics has a favorable effect on glucose tolerance and IR in patients with HTN and MetSyndr, and spironolactone added to ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy provides additional reno- and CV protective benefits in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Carvedilol, a ss-blocker with vasodilating properties, added to ACE inhibitor or ARB therapy, is effective in preventing worsening of microalbuminuria in patients with HTN and MetSyndr; it also improves IR and glycemic control. Most patients eventually require two or more antihypertensive drugs to reach BP goal. It is recommended that therapy in patients whose BP is more than 20/10 mm Hg above target at diagnosis be initiated with a combination of antihypertensive drugs, administered either as individual drugs or as fixed-dose formulations. Treatment with fixed-dose combinations, such as irbesartan + hydrochlorothiazide provides good BP control in more than two-thirds of hypertensive patients with MetSyndr. Lipid and BP targets are reached in a high percent of patients with HTN and CV disease treated with a combination of amlodipine + atorvastatin.In conclusion, hypertensive patients with the MetSyndr be treated aggressively for each component of the syndrome to provide CV, cerebrovascular and renal protection.     

Comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of two fixed-dose combinations of antihypertensive agents, amlodipine/benazepril versus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a 16-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study

BackgroundHypertension is a prevalent condition that is closely associated with chronic complications in patients with diabetes. Fixed-dose combination therapy is currently recommended for the treatment of hypertension due to the advantage of reducing the pill burden. However, the effects of combination therapy may be diverse because of the different components.ObjectivesWe examined blood pressure reduction and metabolic alterations after amlodipine/benazepril and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, parallel comparison, noninferiority clinical trial included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension and microalbuminuria detected within the past year. After a 2-week, placebo run-in period, patients were assigned to treatment with amlodipine/benazepril or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide for 16 weeks. The primary end point was mean change in diastolic blood pressure. The prespecified boundary for noninferiority was 3.5 mm Hg of the mean change in diastolic blood pressure between treatments (amlodipine/benazepril minus valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide). If the upper limit of the 95% CI fell within 3.5 mm Hg, amlodipine/benazepril would be considered noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide.ResultsOf the 226 patients assessed for eligibility, 169 satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were assigned to a treatment group; 83 patients (54.2% male, mean age of 60.5 [10.0] years) in the amlodipine/benazepril group and 84 patients (64.3% male, mean age of 59.0 [10.6] years) in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group received at least 1 dose of study medication and were included in the intention-to-treat population. In the per-protocol population, amlodipine/benazepril (n = 74) was noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (n = 78) with regard to the mean change in diastolic blood pressure (difference, ?0.9 mm Hg; 95% CI, ?3.5 to 1.6). The mean change in systolic blood pressure was not significantly different (2.4 mm Hg; 95% CI, ?1.2 to 6.0) between study groups (P = 0.195) in the per-protocol population. However, data from the intention-to-treat population suggest that patients in the amlodipine/benazepril group may have better metabolic outcomes than those in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group; specifically, a preservation of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (5.7 mL/min/1.73 m² [95% CI, 1.9 to 9.6]; P = 0.004) and improvements in glycosylated hemoglobin (?0.5% [95% CI, ?0.7 to ?0.2]; P < 0.001), fasting triglycerides (?0.4 mmol/L [95% CI, ?0.7 to ?0.2]; P = 0.002), HDL-C (0.07 mmol/L [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]; P = 0.022), and uric acid (?57.5 μmol/L [95% CI, ?74.8 to ?40.3]; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse effects between groups, with the exception of more respiratory disorders in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide group (17 vs 5; P = 0 .006).ConclusionsThe study results suggest that amlodipine/benazepril is noninferior to valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide with regard to blood pressure reduction and that this combination exerts beneficial effects on renal function, glucose control, HDL-C, and triglyceride levels compared with valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide. However, respiratory adverse events (particularly coughing) were more frequently reported in the amlodipine/benazepril group. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375322.     

金水宝胶囊联合贝那普利治疗高血压早期肾功能损害的临床观察

目的探讨金水宝胶囊联合贝那普利治疗高血压早期肾功能损害的临床疗效。方法将原发性高血压患者84例随机分为研究组和对照组,对照组给予口服贝那普利治疗,研究组给予贝那普利联合金水宝胶囊治疗,观察2组血压情况和肾功能改变情况。结果治疗后2组血压较治疗前明显降低,但治疗后2组血压比较并无统计学差异。治疗前、后2组血尿素氮(BUN)和血肌酐(Cr)比较差异无统计学差异;治疗后研究组尿微量白蛋白、血β2-微球蛋白、尿β2-微球蛋白明显低于对照组和治疗前。结论金水宝胶囊联合贝那普利治疗高血压,在有效降压的同时可以降低尿微量白蛋白、血β2-微球蛋白、尿β2-微球蛋白,改善患者早期肾功能损害,其治疗效果优于单独应用贝那普利治疗。     

Role of angiotensin receptor blockers in diabetes: implications of recent clinical trials

Hypertension is a comorbidity of Type 2 diabetes, and blood pressure lowering has been shown to reduce cardiovascular (CV) and renal disease progression in this population. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors have demonstrated reduction in CV mortality and myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure in patients with diabetes. Evidence suggests that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have similar CV protective effects, particularly in patients post-myocardial infarction and in those with heart failure, and their renoprotective effects have reduced proteinuria in patients with or without diabetes. In addition, ARBs have been shown to reduce diabetic nephropathy and complications related to nephropathy. The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint trial (ONTARGET) is the first trial to demonstrate that the ARB, telmisartan, is as effective as the ACE-inhibitor, ramipril, in CV protection in a high-risk, ACE-tolerant population. Whether all ARBs are equally cardioprotective is uncertain. Data indicate that the beneficial effects of telmisartan may be drug specific rather than constitute a ‘class effect.’     

Diuretics: still essential drugs for the management of hypertension

According to most current international guidelines for hypertension, diuretics are indicated for elderly and black patients, unless they have any of a long list of other preferential indications. These recommendations are mostly based on the results of corporate-sponsored and biased trials, which have unsuccessfully tried to demonstrate the existence of pleiotropic effects of newer agents. Metaregression analyses have shown that the benefits of treatments are directly proportional to the difference in blood pressure between trial arms. New analyses of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack (ALLHAT) trial demonstrated the superiority of chlorthalidone over other agents in the prevention of end-stage renal disease in diabetics and of cardiovascular events in newer cases of diabetes. Despite this evidence, patients continue to withdraw from effective therapies in recent trials. The use of diuretics has also been challenged by the results of the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events in Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial, which employed hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic with lower potency and duration of action than chlorthalidone. Diuretics are still essential drugs for hypertension management, but diuretics with higher potency and duration of action, such as chlorthalidone, should be preferred.     

The telmisartan renoprotective study from incipient nephropathy to overt nephropathy--rationale, study design, treatment plan and baseline characteristics of the incipient to overt: angiotensin II receptor blocker, telmisartan, Investigation on Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy (INNOVATION) Study

We planned the INNOVATION study to determine whether telmisartan, an angiotensin-2-receptor blocker, delays the progression of renal disease from incipient nephropathy to overt nephropathy in hypertensive or normotensive Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The INNOVATION study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible patients must have incipient nephropathy (defined as a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio of 100-300 mg/g creatinine) and a serum creatinine concentration of < 1.5 mg/dl for men and < 1.3 mg/dl for women. Patients who need treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are excluded. Eligible patients are randomly assigned to three groups: telmisartan titrated to 40 mg; telmisartan titrated to 80 mg; or placebo. The primary endpoint is the time from baseline visit to first detection of overt nephropathy (defined by a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio that is > 300 mg/g creatinine and 30% higher than the baseline on at least two consecutive visits). A total of 1855 patients have been enrolled from 160 study centres. In 527 randomized patients (28.4% of the enrolled patients), mean (SD) urinary albumin to creatinine ratio and serum creatinine concentration at baseline were 173.3 (47.2) mg/g creatinine and 0.78 (0.19) mg/dl. Sixty-eight per cent of the patients had hypertension at baseline. Mean (SD) systolic and diastolic blood pressures at baseline were 137.1 (14.6) and 77.5 (10.3) mmHg. The INNOVATION study will determine whether telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, provides clinical benefits in hypertensive or normotensive patients with diabetes mellitus and diabetic nephropathy.     

Results of a pilot pharmacotherapy quality improvement program using fixed-dose,combination amlodipine/benazepril antihypertensive therapy in a long-term care setting

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is common in older adults (aged > or =65 years). Treatment frequently requires multiple medications and can be expensive. OBJECTIVE: This study measured the impact of substituting low-dose, fixed-combination therapy using the calcium channel blocker (CCB) amlodipine and the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor benazepril for high-dose CCB monotherapy or dual therapy with a CCB and an ACE inhibitor on antihypertensive drug costs, the incidence of adverse events, and blood-pressure control. METHODS: A multicenter, pilot pharmacotherapy quality improvement program was undertaken in a long-term care facility setting. Consultant pharmacists reviewed pharmacy records and medical charts from long-term care facilities, identifying older patients with a diagnosis of hypertension who either took CCB concomitantly with an ACE inhibitor or experienced adverse events on high-dose CCB therapy. Eligible patients were identified and their physicians contacted regarding switching them to fixed-dose combination therapy. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients at 17 facilities were switched to fixed-dose amlodipine/benazepril combination therapy; 94.1% were women and 5.9% were men (mean age, 85.1 years; range, 64-99 years). The mean number of comorbidities was 1.6. During the subsequent 2 months, mean blood pressure remained at levels similar to those at baseline. The number of patients reporting at least 1 drug-related adverse event decreased by 81.8% (P < 0.05), and the incidence of edema decreased by 75.0%. The mean per-patient cost of antihypertensive drugs decreased by 33.1% (P < 0.001), a mean per-patient savings of 19.21 US dollars per month. CONCLUSION: In patients aged > or =65 years with hypertension in long-term care facilities, a change from high-dose CCB monotherapy or CCB/ACE-inhibitor dual therapy to fixed-dose combination amlodipine/benazepril therapy significantly reduced drug costs and the incidence of adverse events and maintained blood-pressure control.     

The benefits of angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with renal insufficiency or failure

Hypertension occurs frequently in patients with renal disease and contributes to the development of end-stage renal disease. Because the renin angiotensin system (RAS) influences hypertension and renal disease, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been used successfully to treat and reduce renal consequences of hypertension. This review assesses how angiotensin II (A-II) influences renal disease and explores the effectiveness of losartan, a selective A-II receptor blocker, in patients with renal disease. Clinical trials have demonstrated that losartan is a safe and effective treatment for hypertension in renally impaired patients and produces renal hemodynamic effects akin to those seen with ACE inhibitors. However, losartan demonstrates a greater uricosuric effect than ACE inhibitors and does not produce cough, a significant side effect frequently associated with ACE inhibitors. Further studies will determine whether combination therapy with an ACE inhibitor and A-II receptor blocker will provide additional RAS blockade and synergistic benefits in patients with renal disease.     

Renal effects of sodium–glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes and renal impairment

In patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), microvascular changes in the kidney often result in diabetic kidney disease (DKD), the progression of which is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) are a newer class of oral glucose-lowering therapies that were associated with significant reductions in the risk of major adverse CV events, CV death, and hospitalization for heart failure compared with placebo in CV outcomes trials (CVOTs) of patients with T2D and established CV disease or varying levels of CV risk. In addition, SGLT-2is reduced the risks of clinically relevant renal outcomes in these large randomized studies, indicating the potential for renoprotective effects in patients with T2D and DKD. This review discussed the non-glycemic effects of SGLT-2is in patients with T2D and renal impairment, including reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, decreases in albuminuria and plasma uric acid, changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate, and minimal changes in electrolytes. Potential mechanisms for the renoprotective effects of SGLT-2is observed in CVOTs were considered, including the likely incremental benefits of SGLT-2is when added to renin-aldosterone-angiotensin system inhibitors (RAASis). The possibility of extending the use of SGLT-2is to patients with non-DKD was also discussed. Although the exact mechanisms by which SGLT-2is improve renal outcomes are not fully understood, they are likely to be multifactorial and additive when these drugs are used in combination with RAASis in patients with DKD.     

Assessment of patients' and physicians' compliance to an ACE inhibitor treatment based on urinary N-acetyl Ser-Asp-Lys-Pro determination in the Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes, Hypertension, Microalbuminuria, Proteinuria, Cardiovascular Events, and Ramipril (DIABHYCAR) study

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess patients' and physicians' compliance with ACE inhibitor treatment, by measuring an endogenous biomarker of ACE inhibition, urinary N-acetyl-Ser-Asp-Lys-Pro (AcSDKP), in the Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes, Hypertension, Microalbuminuria, Proteinuria, Cardiovascular Events, and Ramipril (DIABHYCAR) trial, which compared ramipril (1.25 mg o.d.) with placebo in 4,912 patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria/proteinuria. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The urine AcSDKP-to-creatinine ratio was measured blind to treatment in all participants who completed follow-up and provided spot urine samples (n = 1,871). RESULTS: The median urinary AcSDKP-to-creatinine ratio was six times higher for ramipril than for placebo. Urinary AcSDKP-to-creatinine ratios displayed a bimodal distribution in both groups, with a very large intergroup overlap. Based on cluster analysis, we defined truly adherent ramipril patients as those with a ratio > or =4 nmol/mmol and truly adherent placebo patients as those with a ratio < 4 nmol/mmol. After excluding patients withdrawing prematurely from the study or known to have used a nonstudy ACE inhibitor, 27.3% of the 597 ramipril patients had ratios <4, indicating poor compliance, and 9.7% of the 621 placebo patients had ratios > or =4, indicating intake of a nonstudy ACE inhibitor. Correcting for compliance by using AcSDKP-guided analysis affected surrogate outcome results (decrease in systolic blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion) only slightly. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic use of spot urinary AcSDKP determination facilitated the detection of defects in compliance with ACE inhibitor treatment in both patients and physicians. Urinary AcSDKP measurement could be a useful biomarker for assessing compliance with ACE inhibition in the routine care of diabetic patients.     

University of Miami Division of Clinical Pharmacology Therapeutic Rounds: managing hypertension in patients with kidney disease-implications for preservation of renal function

Renal parenchymal hypertension is defined as hypertension caused by disease of the kidneys. Impaired renal sodium excretion leading to extracellular fluid volume (ECFV) expansion is the most clinically important mechanism leading to hypertension in patients with kidney disease. Most patients with renal parenchymal hypertension have sodium-sensitive hypertension, and, consequently, sodium restriction and loop diuretics constitute the initial steps in effective antihypertensive therapy in patients with renal disease. The loop diuretics (furosemide, ethacrynic acid, bumetanide, torasemide) are used for the management of ECFV and hypertension in patients with renal disease because thiazide diuretics are generally not effective in patients with serum creatinine values above 2.0 mg/dL or creatinine clearances below 30 mL/min. The Joint National Committee VI recommends the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with hypertension and chronic renal disease to control hypertension and to slow progressive renal failure. Antihypertensive treatment with ACE inhibitors may favorably alter renal hemodynamics, thereby slowing the progression of renal dysfunction. ACE inhibitors have been found to be useful agents in preventing the progression of renal disease in the settings of established insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) nephropathy, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) nephropathy, IDDM patients with normal blood pressures and microalbuminuria, NIDDM patients with microalbuminuria and normal renal function, and a variety of non-diabetic renal diseases, especially in the setting of significant proteinuria. Calcium antagonists are effective for treating hypertensive patients with chronic renal impairment, and the initial results for calcium antagonists and for combination calcium antagonist-ACE inhibitor therapy have been encouraging. Although promising, the calcium antagonists and the new angiotensin II antagonists have not been studied as intensively as ACE inhibitors in regard to their ability to slow the progression of renal insufficiency.     

What have we learned from the current trials?

Even well-conducted randomized controlled trials can only reduce uncertainty, not eliminate it. The trials presented in this article all have gaps, and like many studies, some raise more questions than answers. A summary of the current trials, however, can be presented as follows. For patients with essential hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease, the use of diuretic therapy (excluding simultaneous use of ACE or CCB) resulted in outcomes at least equivalent to the use of either ACE or CCB without diuretics. Naturally, the dilemma for clinicians is that these drugs are most often used in combination with thiazide diuretics, as indicated by the RENAAL trial where 80% of ARB were used with diuretics in patients with type II diabetes and known nephropathy. The increased risk of heart failure observed with ACE and CCB in that trial may be relevant only to patients in whom diuretics were not also used. The study does raise important awareness, however, that ACE or CCB use without diuretic therapy is no better than diuretic therapy, and may be associated with higher risk of certain outcomes. A substantial number of patients with essential hypertension might achieve adequate blood pressure control with diuretic monotherapy. If so, that certainly has important implications for the cost of medical care in this country. For African Americans with essential hypertension, ACE may have advantages as a component of therapy in comparison with CCBs or beta-blockers, although diuretics should probably be the cornerstone of therapy for them and supported by the Seventh Joint National Committee. For patients with proteinuric renal disease, whether associated with diabetes or hypertension, it should be considered inappropriate to use DHP CCB as monotherapy in any setting, whether as part of a clinical trial or in clinical practice. These drugs should not be considered as ethical placebo arms in trials, most especially in diabetic nephropathy, nor should they be used without an ACE or ARB in patients with proteinuric renal disease in the absence of documented contraindications or intolerance to ACE, ARB, or non-DHP CCB (which are now considered second-line agents for proteinuric renal disease, and are acceptable placebo or comparison arms in clinical trials). For patients with type I diabetes, ACE remain the cornerstone of therapy. Because of recent RENAAL and IDNT trial results, the greatest benefit for slowing progression of renal disease in type II diabetic nephropathy now belongs to ARBs. In contrast, however, the HOPE trial showed that ACE, specifically ramipril, had the greatest evidence for prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with renal insufficiency, regardless of diabetic status. Cardiovascular outcomes were secondary end points in the RENAAL and IDNT trials, and with the exception of heart failure for losartan, no benefits on cardiovascular outcomes were statistically significant. Progression of renal disease has only been studied in a relatively small cohort of Israeli patients comparing enalapril with nifedipine. These gaps lead to a classic dilemma in medical decision-making. Because evidence has shown that patients with elevated serum creatinine (greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are just as likely to die from cardiovascular disease as they are to reach end-stage renal disease, which outcome should be the focus for clinicians, or for researchers? Using a strictly evidence-based approach, this question can only be answered by yet another large, long, randomized, controlled trial. Given the similarity of actions between the ARB and ACE, it is likely there is considerable overlap of both benefits and side-effects between the two, although ARB may have a lower incidence of cough and hyperkalemia. The decision of which antihypertensive agents to use will have to be tailored carefully to the needs of the patient and careful consideration of both medical and economic factors. Regardless of the choice between an ACE or ARB, however, post hoc analysis of clinical trials [21,47] and observational data clearly indicate that patients with chronic kidney disease, even if considered mild (ie, serum creatinine greater than or equal to 1.4 mg/dL) are at significantly greater risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality compared with those with better kidney function. As stated in a recent review by the authors of the HOPE trial [50], "the frequent practice of withholding ACE [or ARB] in patients with mild renal insufficiency is unwarranted," because not only are these patients precisely those who might benefit most from their use, but safety and tolerability are generally excellent. Based on the results of the AASK trial, the authors add the same for the use of ACE inhibitors in African Americans.     

黄芪并用苯那普利治疗早期慢性肾功能不全患者的疗效观察

目的 :观察黄芪并用苯那普利对各种病因所致的早期慢性肾功能不全患者的疗效。方法 :4 2例由各种病因所致的早期慢性肾功能不全采用自身对照开放试验方式 ,经 3个月观察后 ,先给黄芪 30g/次 ,及苯那普利 10mg/次 ,疗程共 6个月。结果 :治疗后 85 .71%患者的血肌酐每月平均下降值与治疗前比较有显著差别 (P <0 .0 5 )。对药物性肾病及糖尿病肾病的效果优于其它病因所致的早期慢性肾功能不全。患者血肌酐的下降与尿蛋白的减少之间有显著差别 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :黄芪并用苯那普利能减少蛋白尿 ,降低血肌酐浓度 ,能较好延缓多种病因所致慢性肾功能不全的病程     

L’association inhibiteur de l’enzyme de conversion et antagoniste calcique. Quelle place chez le patient coronarien stable ?

Cardiovascular diseases are one of the main causes of early morbidity and mortality within occidental world as well as in developing countries where they become a growing burden of public health. North-American recommendations and the ones of the European Society of Cardiology underline that medical treatment, risk factor management and life-style modifications are cornerstone of the treatment. Thanks to their impact on prognosis, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are obvious in stable coronary patients. Recently, some large trials have supported the benefits of combining calcium antagonist, amlodipine, and ACE inhibitor, perindopril, in patients with high cardiovascular risk, stable coronary patients or hypertensive patients. This combination has synergistic properties on blood pressure control and target-organ protection, thus reducing cardiovascular events over the long term.     

Effect of intensive glycemic control on microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Glycemic Control and Complications in Type 2 Diabetes Feasibility Trial Investigators

OBJECTIVE: Microalbuminuria can reflect the progress of microvascular complications and may be predictive of macrovascular disease in type 2 diabetes. The effect of intensive glycemic control on microalbuminuria in patients in the U.S. who have had type 2 diabetes for several years has not previously been evaluated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We randomly assigned 153 male patients to either intensive treatment (INT) (goal HbA(1c) 7.1%) or to standard treatment (ST) (goal HbA(1c) 9.1%; P = 0.001), and data were obtained during a 2-year period. Mean duration of known diabetes was 8 years, mean age of the patients was 60 years, and patients were well matched at baseline. We obtained 3-h urine samples for each patient at baseline and annually and defined microalbuminuria as an albumin:creatinine ratio of 0.03-0.30. All patients were treated with insulin and received instructions regarding diet and exercise. Hypertension and dyslipidemia were treated with similar goals in each group. RESULTS: A total of 38% of patients had microalbuminuria at entry and were evenly assigned to both treatment groups. INT retarded the progression of microalbuminuria during the 2-year period: the changes in albumin:creatinine ratio from baseline to 2 years of INT versus ST were 0.045 vs. 0.141, respectively (P = 0.046). Retardation of progressive urinary albumin excretion was most pronounced in those patients who entered the study with microalbuminuria and were randomized to INT. Patients entering with microalbuminuria had a deterioration in creatinine clearance at 2 years regardless of the intensity of glycemic control. In the group entering without microalbuminuria, the subgroup receiving ST had a lower percentage of patients with a macrovascular event (17%) than the subgroup receiving INT (36%) (P = 0.03). Use of ACE inhibitors or calcium-channel blockers was similarly distributed among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive glycemic control retards microalbuminuria in patients who have had type 2 diabetes for several years but may not lessen the progressive deterioration of glomerular function. Increases in macrovascular event rates in the subgroup entering without albuminuria who received INT remain unexplained but could reflect early worsening, as observed with microvascular disease in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.     

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist versus angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitor in experimental renal diseases

Angiotensin II has an important role in the structural and functional regulation of the cardiovascular and renal systems. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system can be achieved with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and non-peptidic, orally active, angiotensin II type I receptor (AT1) antagonists. However, the question that has yet to be answered is whether ACE inhibitors and AT1 receptor antagonists have similar renoprotective effects in various experimental diseases. Although many studies have assessed the role of either ACE inhibitors or AT1 receptor antagonists, we have reviewed the literature comparing both types of blocker in the same experiment. In most models of hypertension or renal failure, both classes of blocker appear to have similar antihypertensive and renal profiles. In a few models, the influence of the ACE inhibitor on arterial pressure and/or renal function is more marked than that of the AT1 receptor antagonist. Even though the maximum dose-effect curve for each compound was not often carried out for the systemic haemodynamics and renal alterations, the difference between both classes of blocker, when observed, appeared to favour the participation of non-angiotensin II or non-AT1-mediated mechanisms. Among them are the stimulation of prostaglandin production, kinin accumulation, nitric oxide generation and modulation of endothelin or TGFbeta1 expression via direct or indirect pathways. Future experimental and probably human studies aimed at comparing angiotensin II receptor antagonists and ACE inhibitors, with respect to blood pressure and renal damage, should be designed with all these concerns in mind.     

Role of combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension: Focus on valsartan plus amlodipine

Hypertension control is rare in clinical practice, particularly in high-risk patients. A large factor is therapeutic inertia deriving from poorly prescribed lifestyle changes, excess monotherapy use, and scarce on-treatment modifications. The use of drug combinations significantly improves blood pressure (BP) control; in particular, fixed combinations improve therapy without increasing daily pill intake, thereby favouring patient compliance and therapy continuation. The most widely used fixed combination is based on thiazide diuretics added to either angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Several large-scale clinical trials have been conducted showing that these combinations are effective in lowering BP. However, thiazide diuretics can reduce the metabolic benefits derived from renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in high metabolic risk patients. In contrast, ACE inhibitors or ARBs combined with dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonists (DHPCAs) exert a marked antihypertensive effect without decreasing metabolic protection by RAAS blockade. In the recent JIKEI heart study, approximately 60% of patients affected by hypertension, heart failure, coronary heart disease or their combination in the valsartan arm were simultaneously treated with DHPCAs. Of note, a 39% reduction in the primary endpoint of combined morbidity and mortality was reported in the valsartan compared with the non-valsartan arm. Furthermore, in a recent multinational study, 83% of 3161 hypertensive patients treated with valsartan and the DHCPA amlodipine reported a concontrolled BP after 8 weeks of treatment. As expected, amlodipine did not negatively influence the metabolic profile of patients, thereby supporting the role of ARB+DHPCA combinations as effective and promising tools in hypertension treatment. In summary, the combination of ARBs with DHPCAs is an effective strategy in hypertension treatment through synergy between their antihypertensive and vascular protective actions, persistent metabolic benefits deriving from RAAS inhibition, and reduced incidence of side effects.