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.     

Functional variants of the angiotensinogen gene determine antihypertensive responses to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in subjects of African origin

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) monotherapy in subjects of African origin is determined by genetic variants within the angiotensinogen (AGT) gene. METHODS: A total of 194 hypertensive patients of African ancestry were recruited from district clinics in Johannesburg, South Africa. Eighty patients received open-label ACEI (enalapril or lisinopril) monotherapy, and 114 open-label calcium antagonist (nifedipine) as a drug class comparator. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring was performed at baseline (off medication) and after 2 months of therapy. DNA was analysed for functional variants (-217G-->A and -20A-->C) of the AGT gene. The impact of genotype on ABP responses to ACEI monotherapy or calcium antagonists; and on plasma aldosterone and renin levels after ACEI monotherapy was assessed. RESULTS: Adjusting for baseline ABP and type of ACEI in the ACEI-treated group, the -217G-->A variant predicted ABP responses to ACEI (n = 77; P < 0.01), but not to nifedipine (n = 108). ACEI in patients with the AA genotype of the -217G-->A variant failed to elicit an antihypertensive response [change in ABP, mmHg: systolic blood pressure (SBP) +0.84 +/- 2.89, P = 0.78; diastolic blood pressure (DBP) -0.47 +/- 1.74, P = 0.79]. In contrast, those patients with at least one copy of the -217G allele developed a 7.23 +/- 1.55 and 5.38 +/- 1.12 mmHg decrease (P < 0.0001) in SBP and DBP, respectively, after ACEI administration. Similarly, the -20A-->C variant predicted ABP responses to ACEI monotherapy (P < 0.01) but not to nifedipine. Moreover, patients who were AA genotype for both variants failed to develop an antihypertensive response to ACEI (change in ABP, mmHg: SBP +1.06 +/- 3.05, P = 0.73; DBP -0.39 +/- 1.83, P = 0.83); whereas patients with at least one copy of both the -217G and the -20C allele developed substantial decreases in ABP (change in ABP, mmHg: SBP -14.08 +/- 3.72, P < 0.0001; DBP -9.62 +/- 2.74, P < 0.0001). Patients with at least one copy of the -217G allele demonstrated a significant reduction in the aldosterone-to-renin ratio (-0.098 +/- 0.035, P < 0.01), whereas in those patients who were -217AA genotype the ratio was unchanged (-0.03 +/- 0.16, P = 0.85). CONCLUSION: Functional variants of the AGT gene contribute to the variability of antihypertensive responses to ACEI monotherapy in individuals of African ancestry, with genotype determining whether or not responses occur.     

Pulse pressure lowering effect of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose ACE inhibition in hypertensive type 2 diabetic subjects: a CALM II study post-hoc analysis

BACKGROUND: Elevated pulse pressure (PP) is strongly associated with micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetic patients. We examined the effect of 12 months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril vs. high-dose lisinopril monotherapy on ambulatory PP in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients from the CALM (Candesartan and Lisinopril Microalbuminuria Trial) II study. METHODS: The CALM II study was a 12-month prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-masked study that included 75 type 1 and type 2 diabetic subjects with hypertension. Participants were randomized for treatment with either high-dose lisinopril (40 mg once daily (o.d.)) or for dual blockade treatment with candesartan (16 mg o.d.) and lisinopril (20 mg o.d.). In this article, we present data from the post-hoc subgroup of 51 type 2 diabetic subjects who completed the full 12-month study period with successful ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements at both baseline and follow-up visits. RESULTS: Baseline 24-h BP values were similar in the two groups (24-h systolic BP (SBP) 130 +/- 12 vs. 127 +/- 9, 24-h diastolic BP (DBP) 77 +/- 8 vs. 74 +/- 7, and 24-h PP 53 +/- 8 vs. 53 +/- 7 mm Hg, for the lisinopril and dual blockade groups, respectively, P > 0.2 for all). Compared with lisinopril monotherapy, dual blockade treatment caused a highly significant reduction in 24-h PP levels (-5 +/- 5 mm Hg, P = 0.003), albeit the difference in the BP lowering effect between the treatment groups did not differ significantly for 24-h systolic (P = 0.21) or diastolic (P = 0.49) BP. Dual blockade treatment significantly lowered 24-h SBP (-5 +/- 11 mm Hg, P = 0.03), but not 24-h DBP (-2 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.29), whereas in the lisinopril group, the opposite effect was observed (24-h SBP -1 +/- 9 mm Hg, P = 0.45, 24-h SBP -3 +/- 7 mm Hg, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months of dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril significantly reduced PP when compared with high-dose monotherapy with lisinopril. Larger studies are needed to confirm this observation, and to evaluate whether this effect translates into a greater degree of end-organ protection from dual blockade treatment than from conventional angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition.     

Comparison of antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients with hypertension not controlled by angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy

OBJECTIVE: To compare the additional antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients whose hypertension is not controlled by full-dose angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: Individuals with an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) that was not controlled by valsartan 160 mg once daily were allocated randomly to two groups: those in group A (n = 35) were assigned randomly to treatment with benazepril 20 mg once daily or chlorthalidone 12.5 mg once daily, whereas patients in group B (n = 29) were assigned randomly to benazepril 20 mg once daily or amlodipine 5 mg once daily. All individuals continued to receive background valsartan 160 mg once daily. After 5 weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative valsartan-based combination treatment of each group for a second 5-week period. Twenty-four-hour ABP monitoring was performed before the random allocation to groups and at the end of each randomized combination pharmacotherapy period. RESULTS: Sixty-four individuals completed the study: 32 men and 32 women (mean +/- SD age 48.2 +/- 7.9 years, average 24-h ABP on valsartan monotherapy 143.4 +/- 12.6/87.7 +/- 7.8 mmHg). Significant additional antihypertensive effects on the average 24-h ABP were obtained with benazepril (8.6 +/- 8.8/6.3 +/- 6.7 mmHg), amlodipine (15.2 +/- 12.9/9.9 +/- 6.8 mmHg) and chlorthalidone (13.5 +/- 11.6/9.5 +/- 7.7 mmHg) (P < 0.001 for all additional antihypertensive effects). The additional effects of amlodipine and chlorthalidone added to valsartan were approximately 6/3.5 mmHg (P < 0.05) greater than that of benazepril. CONCLUSIONS: In patients in whom hypertension was not controlled by full-dose ARB monotherapy, a diuretic, a calcium antagonist or an ACE inhibitor provided significant additional antihypertensive effect. The antihypertensive effects of the ARB-diuretic and the ARB-calcium antagonist combinations were superior to that of the ARB-ACE inhibitor combination.     

Reversal of cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis by S21402, a dual inhibitor of neutral endopeptidase and angiotensin converting enzyme in SHRs

OBJECTIVE: The major advantage of dual inhibitors of neutral endopeptidase (NEP) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) is their ability to lower blood pressure irrespective of renin or volume status. The aim of this study was to determine whether dual NEP/ACE inhibition produces different effects on cardiovascular structure and fibrosis, hormonal parameters and inhibition of tissue enzymes compared with selective inhibition of ACE and NEP in the spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR). METHODS: Male SHRs received the dual NEP/ACE inhibitor (S21402, 100 mg/kg per day), the ACE inhibitor (captopril, 50 mg/kg per day), the NEP inhibitor (SCH42495, 60 mg/kg per day) or vehicle for 2 weeks. RESULTS: S21402 produced equivalent blood pressure lowering effects to captopril (vehicle, 220 +/- 1 mmHg; S21402, 189 +/- 2 mmHg; captopril, 187 +/- 3 mmHg), but was a more effective antihypertensive agent than SCH42495 (214 +/- 2 mmHg, P< 0.01). All treatments reduced left ventricular mass (P< 0.05) and cardiac fibrosis (P< 0.01). S21402 inhibited renal NEP and ACE (P< 0.01), SCH42495 inhibited renal NEP (P < 0.01), and captopril inhibited renal ACE (P< 0.01). Captopril and S21402 increased plasma renin activity (P< 0.05), but the rise with S21402 was attenuated compared with that caused by captopril (P< 0.01). All treatments reduced plasma aldosterone levels (P< 0.01), and NEP inhibition with SCH42495 and S21402 increased plasma atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP; P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that selective NEP inhibition has major benefits in the regression of cardiac hypertrophy and reduction of fibrosis but has limited antihypertensive effects. The dual NEP/ACE inhibitor S21402 offered no advantage over the selective ACE inhibitor in terms of blood pressure reduction, or attenuation of cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis, but did increase plasma ANP and blunted the reactive rise in renin with ACE inhibition. Further studies are needed to determine whether more complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with dual NEP/ACE inhibition results in additional benefits in terms of morbidity and mortality in cardiovascular disease.     

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study to assess the efficacy and safety of dual ACE/NEP inhibitor GW660511X in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients

This multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study determined the efficacy and safety of GW660511 200 mg, a dual inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and neutral endopeptidase (NEP), in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressure (DBP), > or =90 and < or =109 mm Hg; systolic blood pressure (SBP), > or =150 and < or =180 mm Hg). After a single-blind 2- to 4-week placebo run-in period, 123 patients (aged 18-65 years) were randomized to either placebo (n=62) or to active treatment (n=61) consisting of two consecutive 3-day dose titration periods of GW660511X 50 mg once daily and 100 mg once daily followed by GW660511X 200 mg once daily for 14 days. GW660511X 200 mg significantly lowered (baseline and placebo-corrected) both trough mean cuff SBP (-8.00 mm Hg, P=0.002) and DBP (-5.38 mm Hg, P=0.003). GW660511X 200 mg significantly reduced placebo-corrected mean 24-h and daytime but not night-time ambulatory SBP and DBP. Over the 0-24 h time period following GW660511X 200 mg, there were significant (P<0.001) reductions in serum ACE activity and significant (P<0.001) increases in plasma ANP concentration compared with placebo in terms of both peak and trough effects. In addition, treatment with GW660511X 200 mg significantly (P=0.003) increased (placebo-corrected, 1.52-fold) urinary excretion of cGMP over the 0-24 h interval. Treatment-related adverse events were experienced by 43% of the patients administered GW660511X 200 mg and 44% of those dosed with placebo with headache the most commonly reported. In conclusion, GW660511X 200 mg is an effective antihypertensive in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients with potent effects on biological markers of ACE and NEP inhibition.     

Twenty-four hour blood pressure effect of once-daily lisinopril, enalapril, and placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

This multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study compared the antihypertensive effects of equal doses of two long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. After a two-week, placebo run-in phase, 110 patients with mild to moderate hypertension were randomised to receive 10 mg lisinopril or enalapril, or placebo for 4 weeks. Office BPs were measured at regular intervals throughout the study. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) was measured at baseline and after the first and final doses of study drug. Serum ACE activity and aldosterone were obtained concomitantly with each ABP monitoring. Office BP differences from placebo reached (P less than 0.05) or approached (P less than 0.10) statistical significance at all observations for the lisinopril group but were not significant for any observation in the enalapril group and approached significance on two occasions. After four weeks of treatment, ABP analysis revealed that the lisinopril and enalapril groups, when compared with placebo, had similar and significant systolic and diastolic AUC reductions (P less than 0.01) from baseline over the 24 h dosing interval. During the second half of the dosing interval, 13-24 h post drug administration, the lisinopril group was significantly different from placebo (systolic BP, P = 0.002; diastolic BP, P = 0.005) while the enalapril group was not. Both drugs were well tolerated. The results indicate that monotherapy with 10 mg of lisinopril is as effective as with 10 mg of enalapril, and that ABP monitoring is useful in more precisely depicting the clinical effect of the known pharmacokinetic properties of these two agents.     

Antihypertensive and antihypertrophic effects of omapatrilat in SHR

Vasopeptidase inhibitors, such as omapatrilat are single molecules that simultaneously inhibit neutral endopeptidase (NEP) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE). In normotensive rats, a single dose of oral omapatrilat (10 mg/kg) and 1 mg/kg inhibited plasma ACE (P < .01) for 24 h and increased plasma renin activity for 8 h (P < .01). In vitro autoradiography using the specific NEP inhibitor radioligand 125I-RB104 and the specific ACE inhibitor radioligand 125I-MK351A showed omapatrilat (10 mg/kg) caused rapid and potent inhibition of renal NEP and ACE, respectively, for 24 h (P < .01). In spontaneously hypertensive rats, 10 days of oral omapatrilat (40 mg/kg/day) reduced blood pressure (vehicle 237 +/- 4 mm Hg; omapatrilat, 10 mg/kg, 212 +/- 4 mm Hg; omapatrilat 40 mg/kg, 197 +/- 4 mm Hg, P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner (10 v 40 mg/kg, P < .01). Left ventricular hypertrophy was significantly reduced by high-dose omapatrilat (vehicle 2.76 +/- 0.03 mg/g body weight; omapatrilat, 10 mg/kg, 2.71 +/- 0.02 mg/g; omapatrilat 40 mg/kg, 2.55 +/- 0.02 mg/g, P < .01) and omapatrilat also increased kidney weight compared to vehicle (both doses, P < .01). Omapatrilat caused significant inhibition of plasma ACE and increased plasma renin activity (both doses, P < .01), and in vitro autoradiographic studies indicated sustained inhibition of renal ACE and NEP (both doses, P < .01). Omapatrilat is a potent vasopeptidase inhibitor, and its antihypertensive effects are associated with inhibition of NEP and ACE at the tissue level and beneficial effects on cardiovascular structure. Relating the degree of tissue inhibition to physiologic responses may allow further definition of the role of local renin angiotensin and natriuretic peptide systems in the beneficial effects of vasopeptidase inhibitors.     

Long-term exercise training and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition differentially enhance myocardial capillarization in the spontaneously hypertensive rat

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether combined treatment with lisinopril, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and exercise training would have an additive effect in enhancing the capillary supply of the left ventricular (LV) myocardium in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR). DESIGN: Twelve-week-old male SHR were divided into four groups (10-12 each): sedentary, sedentary treated with lisinopril (15-20 mg/kg per day by gavage), exercise trained, and exercise trained while treated with lisinopril. Exercise training consisted of 1 h a day/5 days a week of running on a treadmill. METHODS: After 10 weeks of experimental protocols, capillary surface density and length density were sterologically determined in 1 mum thick LV tissue samples from perfuse-fixed hearts. RESULTS: Lisinopril significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP) and LV mass in the sedentary with lisinopril and exercise trained with lisinopril groups but did not affect the heart rate (HR). Exercise training did not reduce SBP or LV mass, but significantly reduced HR in the exercise trained and exercise trained with lisinopril groups. Lisinopril treatment (sedentary with lisinopril), exercise training (exercise) and their combination (exercise trained with lisinopril) significantly increased myocardial capillary surface area density by 26, 38 and 65% and length density by 38, 48 and 67%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Lisinopril administration and exercise training independently enhanced myocardial capillarization through a reduction of myocardial mass and stimulation of angiogenesis, respectively. A combination of the two treatments enhanced myocardial capillarization more than either intervention alone. This may aid in the restoration of the normal nutritional status of cardiac myocytes compromised by the hypertrophic state of hypertension.     

Efficacy and safety of fixed combinations of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide in older vs younger patients with hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy

Subgroup analysis of the Irbesartan/Hydrochlorothiazide Blood Pressure Reductions in Diverse Patient Populations (INCLUSIVE) trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) fixed combinations in patients aged 65 years or older with uncontrolled systolic blood pressure (SBP) after >or= 4 weeks of antihypertensive monotherapy. The INCLUSIVE trial was a prospective, open-label, single-arm trial carried out in 119 sites. Of 844 patients completing placebo treatment, 212 were aged 65 years or older. Participants received treatment with placebo (4-5 weeks), HCTZ 12.5 mg (2 weeks), irbesartan/HCTZ 150/12.5 mg (8 weeks), and then irbesartan/HCTZ 300/25 mg (8 weeks). From baseline to week 18 (n=184, intent-to-treat population), mean change in SBP was -23.0+/-13.3 mm Hg (P<.001) and diastolic BP (DBP) was -10.9+/-7.7 mm Hg (P<.001). Mean SBP/DBP at study end was 134.0+/-14.7/75.1+/-8.4 mm Hg, and SBP, DBP, and SBP/DBP goal was achieved in 73%, 96%, and 72% of patients, respectively. Irbesartan/HCTZ combination therapy allowed SBP goal attainment in 73% of patients aged 65 years or older whose hypertension was previously uncontrolled with antihypertensive monotherapy.     

Combined inhibition of neutral endopeptidase with angiotensin converting enzyme or endothelin converting enzyme in experimental diabetes

OBJECTIVE: The effects of combined inhibition of neutral endopeptidase (NEP) with either angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), or endothelin-converting enzyme (ECE) on blood pressure, urinary albumin excretion and heart weight were explored in experimental diabetes. DESIGN : Streptozotocin-induced diabetic Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with vehicle, the NEP/ACE inhibitor S 21402, the NEP/ECE inhibitor CGS 26303, the NEP inhibitor SCH 42495, the ACE inhibitor captopril or the endothelin receptor antagonist bosentan for 4 weeks. METHODS: Blood pressure was measured by tail-cuff method and radiotelemetry. Albuminuria, plasma renin activity and plasma atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) were determined by radioimmunoassay. NEP binding was assessed by in vitro quantitative autoradiography. Metabolic and biochemistry parameters including food intake, 24-h urine volume, plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and urinary sodium excretion were also determined. RESULTS: Mean blood pressure over the 4-week study period after commencement of treatment was reduced to a similar extent by a range of treatments including the ACE inhibitor, NEP/ACE inhibitor, endothelin receptor antagonist, NEP/ECE inhibitor, but not the NEP inhibitor, compared with vehicle-treated diabetic rats. Heart to body weight ratio in diabetic rats was only reduced by the NEP/ACE and the NEP/ECE inhibitor. Increased albuminuria in diabetic rats (1.1 times/divided by 1.2 mg/day) was reduced by the NEP/ACE (0.6 times/divided by 1.2 mg/day) and the NEP/ECE inhibitors (0.4 times/divided by 1.2 mg/day). Renal NEP was reduced by the NEP/ACE inhibitor (35 +/- 4%) or NEP/ECE inhibitor (38 +/- 4%) as well as by the pure NEP inhibitor (27 +/- 4%) compared with the untreated diabetic group. Other abnormal metabolic and biochemical parameters in diabetic rats were not influenced by any drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Combined inhibition of NEP/ACE or NEP/ECE confers beneficial effects on blood pressure, albuminuria and heart to body weight ratio in experimental diabetes.     

Does the antihypertensive response to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition predict the antihypertensive response to angiotensin receptor antagonism?

To test the hypothesis that the antihypertensive response to angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition can predict the response to angiotensin II type I receptor (AT₁R) antagonism, 33 hypertensive patients were randomized to receive lisinopril (20 mg) or losartan (50 mg) for 5 weeks. Patients were then crossed-over to the alternative treatment for a second 5-week period. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory BP (ABP) was measured before randomization and on the final day of each period. The agreement in ABP response between the two drugs was assessed using the following approaches: Subjects were classified as responders and nonresponders using as a threshold an arbitrary level of response (ABP fall ≥ 10 mm Hg systolic or ≥ 5 mm Hg diastolic) or the median ABP response achieved by each of the drugs. Disagreement between the two drugs in the responders-nonresponders classification was expressed as the proportion of subjects whose ABP responded to one of the drugs only. Lisinopril was more effective than losartan in reducing ABP (mean difference 4.7 ± 8.1/3.3 ± 5.7 mm Hg, systolic/diastolic, P < .05). Disagreement in the antihypertensive response between the two drugs was found in 39%/33% of subjects for systolic/diastolic ABP using the arbitrary response criterion (33%/39% using the median response criterion). Significant correlations were found between the responses to lisinopril and losartan (r = 0.47/0.59, systolic/diastolic, P < .01). We conclude that in more than one third of hypertensive subjects, the BP response to ACE inhibition fails to predict the response to AT₁ R antagonism and vice versa. These data suggest that there are differences between these two drug classes that are not only of theoretical but also of practical significance.     

Endothelin A antagonist LU-135252 and trandolapril in the treatment of the Cohen-Rosenthal diabetic hypertensive rat

BACKGROUND. Hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) often occur simultaneously and the combination requires vigorous control of hypertension. This can generally be achieved by a combination of antihypertensive drugs. The present study examines the antihypertensive and possible hypoglycemic effects of combined therapy with endothelin A (ETA) receptor antagonist LU-135252 and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor trandolapril in male Cohen-Rosenthal Diabetic Hypertensive (CRDH) rats. METHODS: Rats were divided into four groups as follows: group I served as control; group II--LU-135252 30 mg/kg/day; group III--trandolapril 0.1 mg/kg/day and group IV--both LU-135252 30 mg/kg/day and trandolapril 0.1 mg/kg/day. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and plasma glucose levels were evaluated at the beginning of the experiment and after 2, 4 and 6 weeks. RESULTS:SBP decreased significantly in all treated groups after 2, 4 and 6 weeks of treatment compared to baseline. Maximum decrease was in group IV (combination) from 174.8+/-3.7 to 136.1+/-2.4 mmHg (22%) (p<0.0001); in group III (trandolapril) from 165.8+/-2.7 to 137.5+/-2.9 mmHg (17%) (p=0.0002); and in group II (LU-135252) and from 169.1+/-3.1 to 147.8+/-2.5 mmHg (12%) (p=0.0004). Glucose levels in plasma decreased significantly after 6 weeks of treatment. Maximum decrease was in group IV: from 501.0+/-42.8 to 178.6+/-7.3 mg/dl (62%) (p<0.0001); in group III from 428.2+/-47.7 to 146.8+/-5.6 mg/dl (63%) (p<0.0001); and in group II from 491.2+/-39.3 to 272.2+/-28.3 mg/dl (42%) (p=0.0002). CONCLUSION. The SBP decrease was additive when both drugs were given together. Thus, combination of ETA antagonist and ACE inhibitor appears to offer a rational fixed-dose antihypertensive therapy, which is superior to that of either drug alone. The decrease in glucose level, which was the least impressive while on LU-135252 alone, was more prominent during combination after 2 weeks, although without further decrease.     

Aliskiren, an orally effective renin inhibitor, provides antihypertensive efficacy alone and in combination with valsartan

BACKGROUND: By blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) at its rate-limiting step, renin inhibition may provide improved RAAS suppression. We investigated the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of the oral direct renin inhibitor aliskiren, alone or in combination with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week trial, 1123 patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension underwent a 3 to 4 week single-blind placebo run-in and were then randomized in a modified factorial study design to receive once-daily, double-blind oral treatment with placebo, aliskiren monotherapy (75, 150, or 300 mg), valsartan monotherapy (80, 160, or 320 mg), aliskiren and valsartan in combination, or valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (160/12.5 mg). The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in mean sitting diastolic BP (DBP) at endpoint. RESULTS: Once-daily oral treatment with aliskiren 300 mg significantly (P < .0001) lowered mean sitting DBP and systolic BP (SBP) compared with placebo; aliskiren monotherapy demonstrated a safety and tolerability profile comparable to placebo. Changes in DBP and SBP were fitted to a first-order dose-response surface (lack-of-fit test, P = .65), which showed that aliskiren and valsartan alone and in combination produced dose-related reductions in DBP and SBP. Coadministration of aliskiren and valsartan produced a greater antihypertensive effect than either drug alone, comparable in magnitude to the effect of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide, with similar tolerability to the component monotherapies and to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Aliskiren monotherapy provides antihypertensive efficacy and placebo-like tolerability in patients with hypertension. Aliskiren and valsartan in combination may provide additive BP-lowering effects with maintained tolerability.     

Relationship between polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme gene and the response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in hypertensive patients.

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between polymorphism of the anglotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene and the blood pressure response to ACE inhibition in a hypertensive cohort. Imidapril (5-10 mg/day) or benazepril (10-20 mg/day) was administered for 6 weeks to 517 essential hypertensives. ACE gene polymorphism was examined by the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method and the patients were classified as having the 190-bp deletion homozygous (DD) genotype, the 490-bp insertion homozygous (II) genotype, or the 490-bp insertion, 190-bp deletion heterozygous (ID) genotype. The achieved change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) was analyzed for association with genotypes at the ACE gene locus. The DD genotype was observed in 132 patients (25.5%), the ID genotype in 255 patients (49.3%), and the II genotype in 130 patients (25.2%). The SBP reductions in the patients with the DD genotype, II genotype, and ID genotype were -14.5 +/- 12.7 mmHg, -14.3 +/- 13.1 mmHg and -14.0 +/- 12.2 mmHg, respectively (p = 0.94). The DBP reductions in the patients with the DD genotype, II genotype, and ID genotype were -8.7 +/- 7.4 mmHg, -8.7 +/- 7.7 mmHg and -8.5 +/- 6.7 mmHg, respectively (p = 0.96). There was no significant association between the ACE gene polymorphisms and the response to ACE inhibition. These results suggest that ACE genotype does not predict the blood pressure-lowering response to antihypertensive treatment with ACE inhibition.     

Assessment of drug effects on blood pressure and pulse pressure using clinic,home and ambulatory measurements

This study investigated the differences in the effect of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) compared with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) on blood pressure (BP) and pulse pressure (PP) measured in the clinic (CBP and CPP, respectively), at home (HBP, HPP) and with ambulatory monitoring (ABP, APP). Twenty-seven hypertensive patients were randomised to receive lisinopril (20 mg) or losartan (50 mg) for 5 weeks, and were subsequently crossed-over to the alternative treatment for a second 5-week period. Measurements of CBP, 24-h ABP and 5-days HBP were performed before randomisation and at the end of each treatment period. All measurement methods showed that lisinopril was more effective than losartan in reducing BP. However, the difference between the two drugs was demonstrated with greater precision using HBP (P<0.001) than 24-h ABP (P<0.01), whereas the poorest precision for demonstrating this difference was provided by CBP (P<0.05). Lisinopril was also found more effective than losartan in reducing HPP (P=0.01) and 24-h APP (P=0.03) whereas no such a difference was detected using measurements of CPP. It was concluded that the antihypertensive drugs may differ in their effects not only on BP, but also on PP. HBP monitoring appears to be as reliable as 24-h ABP monitoring in detecting differences in the effect of drugs on both BP and PP. Clinic measurements seem to be the least reliable method, particularly in the detection of differences in PP.     

Blood pressure is linked to salt intake and modulated by the angiotensinogen gene in normotensive and hypertensive elderly subjects

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate salt sensitivity in elderly subjects with different forms of hypertension and controls and to investigate any modulation by genotype DESIGN: Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled latin-square SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital PARTICIPANTS: Community subjects (n = 46) aged > or = 60 years classified as isolated systolic hypertension [ISH; systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 160, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) < 90 mmHg, n = 19], diastolic +/- systolic hypertension (SDH; DBP > or = 90 mmHg, n = 10) and normotension (SBP < 160, DBP < 90 mmHg, n = 17). INTERVENTION: Four 14 day treatments, 50, 100, 200 and 300 mmol/day of sodium chloride supplementation interspersed with 14 day washout periods on a salt-restricted diet. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The 24 h blood pressure, heart rate, weight, urinary sodium and creatinine clearance measured during baseline, treatment and washout periods and angiotensinogen (AGT) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) genotypes. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, the mean +/- standard error (SE) of change from baseline in SBP for 50, 100, 200 and 300 mmol/day salt was 7.7+/-2.4, 12.1+/-2.4, 16.6+/-3.0, 18.5+/-2.6 mmHg, respectively. For DBP, the respective changes were: -0.1+/-1.5, 2.4+/-1.6, 3.0+/-1.5, 5.8+/-1.7 mmHg. The increase in SBP among ISH subjects was significantly higher than among subjects in the SDH and normotensive groups (P < 0.05). AGT genotype influenced the effect of salt dose on the change in DBP (P = 0.006) but not SBP (P = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy, older subjects, a linear increase in BP occurred with increasing salt dose, it appeared most pronounced in ISH subjects and could be modulated by AGT genotype.     

An ambulatory blood pressure monitoring study of the comparative antihypertensive efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists,irbesartan and valsartan

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to compare the change from baseline in mean diastolic ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) at 24 h post dose (trough measurement) after 8 weeks of treatment with irbesartan or valsartan in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Secondary objectives included comparing the mean changes from baseline in systolic ABP at trough; 24-h ABP; morning and night-time ABP; self-measured systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP); and office-measured SBP and DBP at trough. DESIGN: After a 3-week, single blind, placebo lead-in period, 426 subjects were randomized to receive either irbesartan 150 mg or valsartan 80 mg for 8 weeks. METHODS: Ambulatory blood pressure measurements were obtained at baseline and at week 8. Self-measured morning and evening DBP and SBP readings were obtained at home over a 7-day period at baseline and at week 8. Office-measured seated DBP and SBP measurements were obtained at trough, at baseline, and at week 8. RESULTS: Irbesartan demonstrated significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean change from baseline in diastolic ABP at trough (-6.73 versus -4.84 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.035). Irbesartan produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for mean systolic ABP at trough (-11.62 versus -7.5 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for mean 24-h diastolic ABP (-6.38 versus -4.82 mmHg, respectively; P = 0.023) and systolic ABP (-10.24 versus -7.76 mmHg; P < 0.01). Irbesartan also produced significantly greater reductions than valsartan for office-measured seated DBP (-10.46 versus 7.28 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-16.23 versus -9.96 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and for self-measured morning DBP (-6.28 versus -3.75 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01) and SBP (-10.21 versus -6.97 mmHg, respectively; P < 0.01). Both drugs were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Irbesartan was more effective than valsartan in reducing DBP and SBP at trough and in providing greater overall 24-h blood pressure-lowering efficacy.     

In-vitro and in-vivo inhibition of rat neutral endopeptidase and angiotensin converting enzyme with the vasopeptidase inhibitor gemopatrilat

OBJECTIVES: Vasopeptidase inhibitors are single molecules that simultaneously inhibit neutral endopeptidase (NEP) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE). The aim of this study was to characterize in-vitro and in-vivo inhibition of NEP and ACE in the rat with the vasopeptidase inhibitor gemopatrilat. DESIGN AND METHODS: In-vitro NEP and ACE inhibition was studied by radioinhibitory binding assay using rat renal membranes and the specific NEP inhibitor radioligand 125I-RB104 and the specific ACE inhibitor radioligand 125I-MK351A, respectively (n = 3 per curve). In-vivo NEP and ACE inhibition was studied using in-vitro autoradiography in rats that received oral gemopatrilat (1, 3, 10 mg/kg; n = 4 per dose) and were killed 1 h later, or received oral gemopatrilat (3, 10 mg/kg) and were killed at time points 1, 2, 4, 8, 18, 24 and 48 h (n = 4 per time point). RESULTS: Gemopatrilat caused a concentration-dependent displacement of specific radioligands from renal membrane NEP (IC50 305 +/- 5.4 nmol/I) and ACE (IC50 3.6 +/- 0.02 nmol/). In the dose-response study gemopatrilat (1, 3 and 10 mg/kg) caused significant inhibition of plasma ACE (P< 0.01), and renal ACE and NEP (3, 10 mg/kg, P < 0.01). In the time course experiment, gemopatrilat (10 mg/kg) increased plasma renin activity for 8 h (P< 0.01) and inhibited plasma ACE (P< 0.05), renal NEP (P< 0.01) and renal ACE (P< 0.05) for 48 h. CONCLUSIONS: Gemopatrilat is a potent in-vitro vasopeptidase inhibitor that also causes prolonged inhibition of circulating and renal ACE and renal NEP after a single oral dose. The data suggest that gemopatrilat may be a useful addition to existing vasopeptidase inhibitors in the treatment of cardiovascular disease.     

T1198C polymorphism of the angiotensinogen gene and antihypertensive response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

This study examined the association between T1198C polymorphism of the angiotensinogen (AGT) gene and the blood pressure response to ACE inhibitors in a Chinese hypertensive cohort. After a 2-week single-blind placebo run-in period, benazepril (10-20 mg/day) or imidapril (5-10 mg/day) was administered for 6 weeks to 509 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Polymerase chain reaction combined with restriction enzyme digestion was used to detect the polymorphism, and the patients were classified as having the TT, TC, or CC genotype. The achieved changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) were analyzed to determine their association with genotypes at the AGT gene locus. In the total 509 patients, the TT genotype was observed in 44 patients (8.7%), the TC genotype in 214 patients (42.0%), and the CC genotype in 251 patients (49.3%). The SBP reductions in patients with the TT genotype, TC genotype, and CC genotype were -15.3+/-12.7 mmHg, -14.0+/-12.7 mmHg, and -14.4+/-12.4 mmHg, respectively (p=0.809). The DBP reductions in patients with the TT genotype, TC genotype, and CC genotype were -8.5+/-8.1 mmHg, -8.3+/-7.5 mmHg, and -8.9+/-6.6 mmHg, respectively (p=0.638). There were no significant differences in the changes in SBP or DBP after treatment among the three genotype groups. In conclusion, these results suggest that the AGT genotype does not predict the blood pressure-lowering response to antihypertensive treatment with ACE inhibitors in Chinese hypertensive patients.