Preventing renal complications in diabetic patients: the Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan And enalaprIL (DETAIL) study

Diabetic nephropathy is characterised by hypertension and persistent proteinuria. If ineffectively controlled, a progressive decline in renal function can result in end-stage renal disease. Patients with diabetic nephropathy are also at greatly increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors display additional renoprotective effects beyond systemic blood pressure lowering, perhaps due to reduction in intraglomerular pressure by inhibition of angiotensin II activity. In type 2 diabetics, ACE inhibitors have variable effects, with some studies showing a reduction in microalbuminuria, prevention of the progression to macroalbuminuria and maintenance of renal function. Randomised studies have demonstrated that angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), as well as controlling systemic blood pressure, delay progression of proteinuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Telmisartan has a number of features that may make it particularly suitable for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. In addition to its long duration of action and almost exclusive faecal excretion, its high lipophilicity should assist in tissue penetration. The Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan And enalaprIL (DETAIL) study was designed to compare the long-term renal outcome of treatment with telmisartan 40.80 mg versus enalapril 10.20 mg (with titration to the higher dose after 4 weeks) in patients with type 2 diabetes, mild-to-moderate hypertension and albuminuria. The primary endpoint is the change in glomerular filtration rate after 5 years' randomised treatment. Secondary endpoints are annual changes in glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine and urinary albumin excretion, as well as incidences of end-stage renal disease, cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality and adverse events. The groundbreaking DETAIL study revealed that telmisartan conferred comparable renoprotection to enalapril and was associated with a low incidence of mortality.     

Angiotensin II receptor antagonist telmisartan in isolated systolic hypertension (ARAMIS) study: efficacy and safety of telmisartan 20, 40 or 80 mg versus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or placebo

OBJECTIVE: To identify telmisartan doses that are more effective than placebo and non-inferior to hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, and are well tolerated, in lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) in patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 2-4-week single-blind placebo run-in was followed by randomization of 1039 patients (age 36-84 years) with ISH [seated SBP 150-179 mmHg and seated diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 90 mmHg] to once-daily double-blind treatment with telmisartan 20, 40 or 80 mg, HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo. The change in seated trough SBP after 6 weeks compared with baseline was the primary end point. Secondary end points were the percentage achieving the target fall in SBP and the change from baseline in seated trough DBP. Incidence and severity of adverse events and physical examination and laboratory parameters were monitored for the safety evaluation. RESULTS: Baseline demographics in telmisartan 20 mg (n = 206), 40 mg (n = 210), 80 mg (n = 207), HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 205) and placebo (n = 211) treatment groups were comparable: (mean +/- SD) age, 63.0 +/- 10.9 years; SBP, 162.9 +/- 8.1 mmHg; and DBP 83.4 +/- 5.0 mmHg. No previous antihypertensive therapy had been received by 66% of the patients. Mean reductions in seated trough SBP (adjusted for baseline and country) were: telmisartan 20 mg, 15.6 mmHg (n = 204); 40 mg, 17.9 mmHg (n = 209); and 80 mg, 16.9 mmHg (n = 205), compared with placebo, 11.4 mmHg (n = 208), and HCTZ 12.5 mg, 15.7 mmHg (n = 204). The target fall in seated trough SBP (< or =140 mmHg or reduction by > or =20 mmHg) was achieved in 46.6% (telmisartan 20 mg), 51.7% (telmisartan 40 mg), 53.9% (telmisartan 80 mg), 27.4% (placebo) and 42.7% (HCTZ 12.5 mg); the response rate was significantly higher for telmisartan 80 mg than for HCTZ 12.5 mg (P = 0.03). All-causality adverse events occurred in 19.9, 17.6 and 20.3% receiving telmisartan 20, 40 and 80 mg, respectively; 20.9% receiving placebo and 22.0% receiving HCTZ 12.5 mg. No drug-related serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: All doses of telmisartan (20-80 mg) were significantly superior to placebo in reducing SBP in patients with ISH and clinically comparable to HCTZ 12.5 mg. Tolerability of telmisartan was similar to that of placebo.     

Efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination of telmisartan plus hydrochlorothiazide in patients uncontrolled with telmisartan monotherapy.

The antihypertensive effects of a telmisartan 80 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg fixed-dose combination and telmisartan 80 mg monotherapy were compared in patients with a history of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and inadequate BP control (DBP > or = 90 mm Hg) following 8 weeks of telmisartan monotherapy. At the end of this period, 491 patients (62.9% men; mean age 55.3 years) whose DBP was > or = 90 mm Hg were double-blind randomised to once-daily telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 246) or telmisartan 80 mg (n = 245). Trough (24 h post-dose) clinic BP was measured after 4 and 8 weeks of double-blind therapy. At the end of double-blind treatment, patients receiving telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg had significant additional decrements in clinic SBP/DBP over telmisartan 80 mg of -5.7/-3.1 mm Hg (P < 0.01). Most of the additional effect occurred during the first 4 weeks of treatment. The proportion of patients with normalised BP (SBP < 140 mm Hg and DBP < 90 mm Hg) was significantly greater in the telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg group than the telmisartan 80 mg group (41.5%vs 26.1%;P < 0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. The incidence of adverse events was similar except for diarrhoea, which occurred more frequently in the telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg group, and oedema, which occurred more frequently in the telmisartan group. Our results indicate that a telmisartan 80 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg fixed-dose combination confers significant additional BP reductions compared with continuation of telmisartan monotherapy in non-responders.     

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy with irbesartan and HCTZ monotherapy in the treatment of moderate hypertension

This prospective, double-blind, parallel-group study randomized patients with moderate hypertension (seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) 160-179 mm Hg when seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) <110 mm Hg; or SeDBP 100-109 mm Hg when SeSBP <180 mm Hg) 3:1:1 to treatment with irbesartan 300 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg combination therapy (n=328), irbesartan 300 mg monotherapy (n=106) or HCTZ monotherapy 25 mg (n=104). Treatment was initiated at half dose, with forced titration to full dose after two weeks followed by ten further weeks' treatment. The primary efficacy variable was the mean reduction in SeSBP from baseline to week 8. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, with mean baseline blood pressure approximately 162/98 mm Hg; the mean age was 55 years. At week 8 there was a reduction in SeSBP of 27.1 mm Hg with irbesartan/HCTZ, compared with 22.1 mm Hg with irbesartan monotherapy (P=0.0016) and 15.7 mm Hg with HCTZ (P<0.0001). Both the rate of decline and the total degree of decline achieved were greatest with irbesartan/HCTZ and least with HCTZ. A significantly greater percentage of patients reached a treatment goal of SeSBP <140 mm Hg and SeDBP <90 mm Hg by week 8 with irbesartan/HCTZ (53.4%), compared with irbesartan (40.6%; P=0.0254) and HCTZ (20.2%; P<0.0001) alone. Treatment was well tolerated in all three-treatment groups with a slight increase in adverse events in the combination therapy group. In conclusion, irbesartan/HCTZ (300/25 mg) is well tolerated and achieves rapid and sustained reductions in both systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure in patients with moderate hypertension.     

A multicenter, 14-week study of telmisartan and ramipril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) has a circadian pattern with a morning surge that is associated with an increased risk of acute coronary and cerebrovascular events. In a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group, multicenter, forced-titration study of telmisartan and ramipril, the efficacy of both drugs on mean ambulatory diastolic BP (DBP) and systolic BP (SBP) during the last 6 h of a 24-h dosing interval was evaluated. METHODS: After screening and a single-blind run-in phase, 812 adults with mild-to-moderate hypertension (defined as a mean seated DBP > or =95 mm Hg and < or =109 mm Hg and a 24-h ABPM mean DBP 7 > or = 85 mm Hg) were randomized to the open-label, 14-week, forced-titration, active-treatment phase as follows: telmisartan 40 mg/80 mg/80 mg (n = 405) or ramipril 2.5 mg/5 mg/10 mg (n = 407), once daily in the morning. The primary efficacy variable was change from baseline in the last 6-h mean DBP and SBP at 8 and 14 weeks as assessed by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). Secondary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in BP control during each of the 24-h periods and in-clinic trough cuff BP. RESULTS: Telmisartan 80 mg was superior to ramipril 5 mg and 10 mg in change from baseline in the last 6-h ABPM mean DBP and SBP at both 8 and 14 weeks (both P < .0001), respectively. At 14 weeks, the adjusted mean change from baseline in DBP for telmisartan 80 mg was -8.8 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -5.4 mm Hg (P < .0001). For SBP, the adjusted mean change from baseline for telmisartan 80 mg was -12.7 mm Hg compared with that for ramipril 10 mg of -7.9 mm Hg (P < .0001). At 14 weeks, telmisartan 80 mg also yielded superior reductions from baseline in trough cuff BP compared with ramipril 10 mg (DBP: -11.0 mm Hg v -7.8 mm Hg, respectively; SBP: -14.3 mm Hg v -9.1 mm Hg, respectively; both P < .0001). Measures of 24-h BP control favored telmisartan 80 mg versus ramipril 10 mg (P < .0001), as did other secondary ABPM endpoints during the daytime, night-time, and morning periods. Treatment-related adverse events were uncommon; patients treated with ramipril had a higher incidence of cough than those treated with telmisartan (10.1% v 1.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 80 mg was consistently more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing both DBP and SBP during the last 6 h of the dosing interval, a measure of the early morning period when patients are at greatest risk of life-threatening cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Telmisartan 80 mg was also more effective than ramipril 10 mg in reducing BP throughout the entire 24-h dosing interval. Both drugs were well tolerated.     

ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability profiles of the selective AT1 receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan were compared with placebo in a 6-week, multinational, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study of 223 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, defined as clinic diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >/=95 and /=140 and /=85 mm Hg. After a 4-week single-blind placebo run-in, eligible patients were randomised to receive telmisartan 40 mg, telmisartan 80 mg, losartan 50 mg, or placebo. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) after 6 weeks of double-blind therapy showed that all active treatments produced significant (P < 0.01) reductions from baseline in 24-h mean SBP and DBP compared with placebo. During the 18-to-24 h period after dosing, the reductions in SBP/DBP with telmisartan 40 mg (10.7/6.8 mm Hg) and 80 mg (12.2/7. 1 mm Hg) were each significantly (P <0.05) greater than those observed for losartan 50 mg (6.0/3.7 mm Hg), and losartan was no better than placebo. Also for the 24-h mean blood pressure, telmisartan 40 mg and 80 mg were significantly (P< 0.05) better than losartan 50 mg. Compared with losartan, telmisartan 80 mg produced significantly (P < 0.05) greater reductions in both SBP and DBP during all monitored periods of the 24-h period, while telmisartan 40 mg produced significantly greater reductions in SBP and DBP in the night-time period (10.01 pm to 5.59 am) (P < 0.05) and in DBP in the morning period (6.00 am to 11.59 am) (P < 0.05). All treatments were comparably well tolerated. Telmisartan 40 mg and 80 mg once daily were effective and well tolerated in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension, producing sustained 24-h blood pressure control which compared favourably with losartan.     

Efficacy and renal effects of enalapril therapy for hypertensive patients with chronic renal insufficiency

The antihypertensive efficacy and renal effects of enalapril maleate therapy were evaluated in 13 hypertensive patients with chronic renal failure. Enalapril was administered as follows: alone; added to furosemide, clonidine hydrochloride, or atenolol; or in combination with any of the aforementioned drugs. Three patients did not complete the study; uncontrolled hypertension was the cause in two of these patients. In the remaining ten patients, short-term (mean +/- SD, 63 +/- 9 days) enalapril maleate therapy decreased the patient's seated blood pressure from 161/98 +/- 19/8 to 130/80 +/- 13/7 mm Hg. Furosemide was administered to eight patients; the dose of concomitant sympatholytic therapy was decreased in five of five patients. Serum potassium concentration increased from 4.1 +/- 0.3 to 4.5 +/- 0.3 mmol/L. Levels of urinary total protein excretion decreased from 2.23 +/- 2.05 to 1.08 +/- 1.45 g/d. Renal function (creatinine clearance, 0.58 +/- 0.21 mL/s) did not change from baseline. During long-term therapy, the rate of progression of renal insufficiency seemed to slacken in three of four patients with diabetic nephropathy. Thus enalapril can reduce blood pressure and proteinuria in hypertensive patients with chronic renal insufficiency. The possibility that enalapril can slow the progression of diabetic nephropathy remains to be confirmed by future studies.     

Comparison of telmisartan versus losartan: meta-analysis of titration-to-response studies

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of telmisartan and losartan to reduce mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval in a prospectively planned meta-analysis of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) data from two independent studies. METHODS: Data were from two independent randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, titration-to-response studies conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension (seated cuff DBP 95-109 mmHg, 24-h mean ambulatory DBP >or=85 mmHg). After a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients received once-daily telmisartan 40 mg or losartan 50 mg, with up-titration after 4 weeks to telmisartan 80 mg or losartan 100 mg, respectively, if seated trough cuff DBP >or=90 mmHg. Blood pressures were recorded using ABPM immediately before randomization and after 8 weeks of active treatment. In addition, seated trough cuff blood pressures were measured at baseline and after 4 and 8 weeks of active treatment. RESULTS: Titration to the higher dose was required in 60.1% of telmisartan patients and 69.5% of losartan patients (P=0.01). Reductions from baseline in the last 6 h mean ambulatory DBP with telmisartan and losartan were 6.6+/-0.4 and 5.1+/-0.4 mmHg, respectively (P<0.01, adjusted for baseline and study); the effects were homogeneous across the two studies. During the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval, telmisartan produced greater reductions in each of the observed hourly mean ambulatory DBP values. Telmisartan-induced reductions were also greater for the majority of the observed hourly mean ambulatory DBP values over the entire 24-h dosing interval. Reductions from baseline in the last 6 h adjusted mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) for telmisartan and losartan were 9.9+/-0.6 and 7.8+/-0.6 mmHg, respectively (P=0.01). The 24-h profiles of ambulatory SBP hourly mean reductions were similar to those for DBP. Both telmisartan and losartan were found to be safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Telmisartan 40/80 mg is superior to losartan 50/100 mg in controlling DBP and SBP during the last 6 h of the 24-h dosing interval.     

Diabetes and hypertension, the deadly duet: importance, therapeutic strategy, and selection of drug therapy

Large, placebo-controlled RCTs that involve only diabetic patients who have hypertension have not been performed. Subgroup analyses of hyper-tension control from several recent RCTs un-equivocally demonstrated greater benefit in diabetic populations (see Table 3) with ACE inhibitors, TDs, and CCBs. Treatment with fBs(atenolol) also was beneficial in diabetic patients who had hypertension in the actively-controlled UKPDS. The results of three RCTs support intensive BP control in diabetic patients (see Table 4). In these trials, diabetic patients gained more benefit than nondiabetic patients. Such an effect is consistent with the fact that diabetics are at higher risk for CV events. Although there are limited data from RCTs with head-to-head comparison of newer agents (eg,ACE inhibitors, ARBs, CCBs) to show that these drugs are better than diuretics and betaBs in reducing CV events by treating hypertension in the diabetic population, the available data support ACE inhibitors (and ARBs if ACE inhibitors are not tolerated) as an initial drug of choice in diabetic,hypertensive patients (see Table 5). Most diabetic patients require three or four drugs to control their BP to target range; as such, it is not necessary to justify the choice of any single class of drug.Tight BP control is cost-effective and is more rewarding than hyperglycemic control in diabetic,hypertensive patients. The optimal goal in diabetics should be to achieve BP that is less than 130/80 mm Hg. Appropriate action should be taken if BP is greater than 140/85 mm Hg. In subjects who have diabetes and renal insufficiency,the BP should be decreased to less than 125/75 mm Hg to delay the progression of renal failure. Limited data suggest that an ACE inhibitor or an ARB is the agent of choice, especially in patients who have proteinuria or renal insufficiency. betaBs can be the first-line agent in diabetics who have CAD. TDs and CCBs are the second line drugs.AAAs should be avoided. Most hypertensive patients require more than one agent to adequately control their BP. There is no evidence to support one combination regimen over the others, nevertheless, the combination of an ACE inhibitor with a TD or a fPB may be more beneficial and cost effective than other combinations in the diabetic population. Large outcome studies that compare different combination therapies in hypertensive,diabetic patients are needed.     

Lovastatin preserves renal function in experimental diabetes

Although hyperlipidemia has been associated with the progression of glomerulosclerosis, little attention has been directed toward the use of lipid-lowering agents in altering diabetic nephropathy. We tested the hypothesis that lovastatin and the combination of lovastatin and enalapril would preserve renal function in streptozotocin-induced diabetic Wistar rats. Five groups of animals were studied: group 1, nondiabetic (n = 10); group 2, diabetic, insulin only (n = 12); group 3, lovastatin, (15 mg/kg/day, n = 13); group 4, enalapril, (50 mg/L drinking water, n = 10) and group 5, lovastatin plus enalapril, (n = 14). After 8 weeks of treatment, glomerular filtration rate (GFR, insulin clearance) was measured in anesthetized animals. The diabetic group was characterized by a GFR of 0.18 +/- 0.03 ml/min/g of kidney weight (gKW), a blood glucose level of 441 +/- 36 mg/dL, plasma cholesterol and triglyceride levels of 64 +/- 6.0 and 103 +/- 26.0 mg/dL. Lovastatin preserved GFR, 0.52 +/- 0.06 ml/min/gKW compared with the diabetic control subjects (P < 0.05). Enalapril also maintained GFR (0.42 +/- 0.06 ml/min/gKW, P < 0.05). In the lovastatin plus enalapril group, GFR (0.62 +/- 0.05 ml/min/gKW) was greater than in the enalapril group (P < 0.05), but was not different from the lovastatin group. Plasma lipid levels were not altered in any of the groups. Assessment of the kidneys by histology after treatment showed that the mesangial matrix injury score was better in the lovastatin, enalapril, and lovastatin plus enalapril groups compared with the diabetic group (P < 0.05). Lovastatin, enalapril, and lovastatin plus enalapril abrogated the decline in GFR and glomerular injury in diabetic rats. Lovastatin's direct renal protective effect seems to be independent of its lipid-lowering properties.     

Double-blind comparison of captopril and enalapril in mild to moderate hypertension

To compare the antihypertensive and humoral effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors captopril and enalapril, 20 patients with essential hypertension, not receiving treatment for 2 weeks and consuming a prescribed sodium ion intake, were randomly assigned to two parallel, double-blind treatment groups with stratification based on race and untreated seated diastolic blood pressure. These groups received a placebo (day -1) followed by either captopril, 200 mg every 12 hours (n = 9), or enalapril maleate, 20 mg every 12 hours (n = 11), alone (days 1 to 14) and then with hydrochlorothiazide, 25 mg every 12 hours (days 16 to 28). Captopril and enalapril were coadministered alone (day 15) and with hydrochlorothiazide (day 29) to assess whether further decreases in blood pressure would occur. Captopril and enalapril alone caused comparable decreases (p less than 0.05) in the mean 12 hour time-averaged seated diastolic blood pressure from values on day -1 (placebo), on day 1 (11 and 9 mm Hg, respectively) and day 14 (8 and 7 mm Hg, respectively). The addition of hydrochlorothiazide further decreased (p less than 0.05) blood pressure in each group (7 and 8 mm Hg, respectively) from values on day 14. Combined use of captopril and enalapril did not result in further reduction. Coupled with the comparable changes observed in each treatment group in serum angiotensin-converting enzyme activity, plasma renin activity and plasma aldosterone concentration, these data support the view that captopril and enalapril have similar antihypertensive effects and mechanisms.     

Management of hypertension in patients with diabetes using an amlodipine-, olmesartan medoxomil-, and hydrochlorothiazide-based titration regimen

The safety and efficacy of an amlodipine/olmesartan medoxomil (OM)-based titration regimen was assessed in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. After a 2- to 3-week placebo run-in period, 207 patients received amlodipine 5 mg and were uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 5/20, 5/40, and 10/40 mg and then amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 and 25 mg in a step-wise manner at 3-week intervals if the seated blood pressure (BP) remained ≥120/70 mm Hg. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the mean 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP after 12 weeks of treatment. The baseline mean ± SD seated cuff systolic/diastolic BP was 158.8 ± 13.1/89.1 ± 10.1 mm Hg and the mean ± SD 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was 144.4 ± 11.7/81.6 ± 9.8 mm Hg. At week 12, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM 24-hour ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP was -19.9 ± 0.8/-11.2 ± 0.5 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), and 70% of patients had achieved a 24-hour ambulatory BP target of <130/80 mm Hg. At the end of 18 weeks of active treatment in patients uptitrated to amlodipine/OM 10/40 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg, the change from baseline in the mean ± SEM seated BP was -28.0 ± 1.5/-13.7 ± 1.0 mm Hg (p<0.0001 vs baseline), with 62% of patients reaching the guideline-recommended seated BP goal of <130/80 mm Hg. Drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 19.3% of patients. The most frequent events were peripheral edema (6%), dizziness (3%), and hypotension (2%). In conclusion, this amlodipine/OM-based titration regimen was well tolerated and effectively lowered BP throughout the 24-hour dosing interval in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes.     

Comparison of enalapril and atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension

PURPOSE: Short-term therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for hypertension is effective and well tolerated, and compared with beta blockers, may cause fewer adverse reactions. Furthermore, enalapril has been observed to have a greater effect on systolic blood pressure than beta blockers. We therefore decided to compare the ACE inhibitor enalapril and the beta blocker atenolol as monotherapy in a double-blind study of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After a four-week placebo run-in period, 162 patients were allocated randomly to receive atenolol (50 to 100 mg daily) or enalapril (20 to 40 mg daily) for 12 weeks. To assess the influence of these drugs on quality of life, a series of psychologic tests was performed, and a subset of patients also underwent treadmill exercise and pulmonary function tests. RESULTS: In 147 patients who completed the study, enalapril reduced supine blood pressure by 19/12 mm Hg, compared with 9/7 mm Hg for atenolol (p less than 0.001/p less than 0.005). The modest blood pressure response to atenolol was not due to poor compliance. A target blood pressure of 140/90 mm Hg or less was achieved by 35 percent of enalapril-treated atenolol (p less than 0.01). The frequency and severity of adverse effects with the two drugs were similar, and few important differences emerged from the quality-of-life assessments. CONCLUSION: At the doses used, enalapril induced a greater short-term blood pressure response than atenolol; long-term studies of its safety and efficacy are required.     

Initial Combination Therapy With Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide for Hypertension: An Analysis of the Relationship Between Baseline Blood Pressure and the Need for Combination Therapy

Hypertension treatment guidelines recommend initiating 2-drug therapy whenever blood pressure (BP) is ≥20 mm Hg systolic or ≥10 mm Hg diastolic above goal. This post hoc pooled analysis of 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled forced-titration studies in 1235 patients with moderate and severe hypertension examined how baseline BP levels relate to the need for combination therapy by comparing the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of once-daily fixed-dose irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 300/25 mg compared with irbesartan 300-mg or HCTZ 25-mg monotherapies. In study 1, patients with severe hypertension (seated diastolic BP [SeDBP] ≥110 mm Hg) were treated for 7 weeks with irbesartan or irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy, with forced-titration after week 1. In study 2, patients with moderate hypertension (seated systolic BP [SeSBP] 160–180 mm Hg or SeDBP 100–110 mm Hg) were treated for 12 weeks with irbesartan/HCTZ, irbesartan monotherapy, or HCTZ monotherapy, with forced-titration after week 2. The relationship between baseline BP and the likelihood of achieving BP goals (SeSBP <140 mm Hg or SeDBP <90 mm Hg; SeSBP <130 mm Hg or SeDBP <80 mm Hg) as well as the antihypertensive response was evaluated at week 7/8. The need for combination therapy increased with increasing baseline BP and lower BP goals across the range of BP levels studied, with a comparable adverse effect profile to monotherapy. These results suggest that the likelihood of achieving an early BP goal for a given BP severity should be considered when choosing initial combination therapy vs monotherapy.     

Efficacy and safety of telmisartan, a selective AT1 receptor antagonist, compared with enalapril in elderly patients with primary hypertension. TEES Study Group

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of the novel AT1 receptor antagonist, telmisartan, compared with that of enalapril in elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension. DESIGN: A 26-week, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, dosage titration study. METHODS: A total of 278 patients aged > or = 65 years were randomized to eithertelmisartan or enalapril once a day. The telmisartan dosage was increased from 20 to 40-80 mg and that of enalapril from 5 to 10-20 mg at 4-week intervals until trough supine diastolic blood pressure was < 90 mmHg. After 12 weeks, hydrochlorothiazide at 12.5-25 mg once a day was added to the treatment regimen of those patients not controlled on monotherapy. RESULTS: Both treatments lowered blood pressure in a comparable and clinically meaningful manner. The adjusted mean changes from baseline in supine diastolic blood pressure at trough were -12.8 mmHg for telmisartan and -11.4 mmHg for enalapril (P = 0.074). Mean changes in supine systolic blood pressure were -22.1 mmHg for telmisartan and -20.1 mmHg for enalapril (P = 0.350). Overall, 63 and 62% of patients responded to telmisartan and enalapril, respectively, with a supine diastolic blood pressure of < 90 mmHg. Both regimens provided effective blood pressure lowering over the 24 h dosing interval, as determined by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Both regimens were well tolerated; however, patients on the enalapril regimen had more than double the incidence of treatment-related cough compared with those on the telmisartan regimen (16 versus 6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that telmisartan is well tolerated and is at least as effective as enalapril in treating elderly patients with mild to moderate hypertension.     

依那普利对糖尿病大鼠肾脏保护作用的实验研究

目的 研究依那普利对糖尿病大鼠肾脏的保护作用。方法 应用依那普利对糖尿病大鼠进行了１０周治疗,观察了其对糖尿病大鼠肾脏的保护作用。结果 对照组糖尿病大鼠肾小球滤过度,肾血流量,滤过分数及尿白蛋白均较正常对照组明显升高,肾小球基底膜不规则增厚,突触融合。依那普利治疗后糖尿病大鼠ＧＦＲ,ＲＰＦ,ＦＦ及ＵＡ均较糖尿病对照组明显降低,病理学异常不明显。     

Beneficial effect of lisinopril plus telmisartan in patients with type 2 diabetes, microalbuminuria and hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have favourable effects on hypertension and diabetic nephropathy, but persistent use may result in incomplete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system. Long-term effects of dual blockade using the ACE inhibitor lisinopril and the long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) telmisartan on blood pressure and albumin excretion rate (AER) were evaluated. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] >or=140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] >or=90 mmHg) and microalbuminuria (AER 30-300 mg/24h) received 20mg of lisinopril or 80 mg of telmisartan once a day for 24 weeks. Patients were then randomised to continuing treatment with the respective monotherapy or with lisinopril plus telmisartan for a further 28 weeks. Significant (P<0.001) declines in SBP (11.1 mmHg versus 10.0 mmHg), DBP (5.6 mmHg versus 5.3 mmHg) and AER (98 mg/24 h versus 80 mg/24 h) were achieved with lisinopril (n=95) or telmisartan (n=97), respectively, after 24 weeks. Subsequent treatment with lisinopril plus telmisartan for 28 weeks resulted in further significant reductions (P<0.001) in SBP, DBP and AER compared with either monotherapy. All treatments were well tolerated. Lisinopril plus telmisartan thus provides superior blood pressure and AER control than either monotherapy. We conclude that use of dual blockade may provide a new approach to prevention of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and microalbuminuria.     

Effect of enalapril on the progression of chronic renal failure. A randomized controlled trial.

In order to study the influence of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition on the progression of chronic nephropathy, 70 patients with a median glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 15 (range, 6 to 54) mL/min/1.73 m2 were randomized in an open study to basic treatment with enalapril or conventional antihypertensive treatment. The patients were followed for at least 2 years or until they needed dialysis. The groups were comparable with respect to age and sex distribution, etiology of renal diseases, initial levels of renal function and arterial blood pressure (BP), and protein intake. The therapeutic goal was a BP of 120 to 140/80 to 90 mm Hg. The GFR, estimated by the plasma clearance of 51Cr-EDTA, was measured every third month, and the individual rate of progression was calculated as the slope of the GFR v time plot. In the enalapril group, the median decline in GFR was -0.20 (range, +0.18 to -7.11) mL/min/1.73 m2/month and in the control group it was -0.31 (+0.01 to -1.97) mL/min/1.73 m2/month (P less than .05). There was no significant difference in blood pressure or plasma lipid levels between the groups. Thus, the progression of moderate to severe chronic nephropathy was slower on a basic treatment with enalapril as compared to conventional antihypertensive therapy.     

Hemodynamic and Humoral Responses to Enalapril and Nifedipine in the Rat

The hemodynamic and humoral effects of enalapril, an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and nifedipine, a calcium-entry blocker, were evaluated in conscious spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). Rats received enalapril (5 mg/kg, po) or vehicle, followed in one hour by nifedipine (2.5 mg/kg, ip) or its vehicle. After treatment with enalapril alone, systolic blood pressure (BP) declined over a 3 hour period from 204 ± 4 (mean ± SE) to 168 ± 6 mm Hg and remained suppressed for an additional 4 hours. Heart rate (HR) did not change. Plasma renin activity (PRA) increased approximately 9-fold and serum ACE was maximally inhibited. BP response to nifedipine was more rapid, greater in magnitude (?59 ± 6 mm Hg) and shorter in duration; heart rate increased and remained elevated for 2.5 hours. PRA only rose twofold. After the drugs in combination, BP declined as rapidly and to the same degree as after nifedipine and remained reduced for a longer duration. Treatment with enalapril attenuated the reflex tachycardia observed after nifedipine. These data suggest that coadministration of an ACE inhibitor and calcium-entry blocker may provide better blood pressure control than either drug class alone and at the same time prevent the reflex tachycardia frequently observed after nifedipine.     

Vascular and renal effects of vasopeptidase inhibition and angiotensin-converting enzyme blockade in spontaneously diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rats

BACKGROUND: The renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in the pathogenesis of diabetes-induced vascular and renal complications. Vasopeptidase inhibitors simultaneously inhibit angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and neutral endopeptidase. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of vasopeptidase inhibition and ACE inhibition in preventing hypertension, endothelial dysfunction and diabetic nephropathy in spontaneously diabetic Goto-Kakizaki (GK) rats. METHODS: Eight-week-old GK rats received omapatrilat (40 mg/kg) or enalapril (30 mg/kg) for 12 weeks, either during a normal-sodium or high-sodium diet (7% w/w). Blood pressure, arterial functions and renal morphology were determined. RESULTS: Blood pressure and albuminuria were increased in GK rats compared to non-diabetic Wistar controls. Endothelium-dependent vascular relaxation in response to acetylcholine (ACh) and endothelium-independent vascular relaxation in response to sodium nitroprusside (SNP) were impaired in GK rats. Experiments with N-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME), diclofenac, and L-NAME + diclofenac suggested that cyclooxygenase and endothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor components of endothelium-dependent vascular relaxation were also impaired. A high-sodium diet aggravated hypertension and diabetes-induced vascular and renal complications. Omapatrilat and enalapril normalized blood pressure and albuminuria during the normal-sodium diet, and effectively ameliorated diabetes-induced renal complications also during the high-sodium diet. However, omapatrilat improved endothelium-dependent relaxation to ACh to a greater extent (85 +/- 5%) than enalapril (68 +/- 6%, P < 0.05). Diclofenac pre-incubation eliminated this difference between omapatrilat and enalapril in ACh-induced vascular relaxation, suggesting that it was mediated, at least in part, via the cyclooxygenase pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Despite comparable blood pressure-lowering and renoprotective properties, omapatrilat may be more effective in preventing vascular dysfunction during diabetes compared to enalapril in GK rats.