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

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for preventing the progression of diabetic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I2 = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I2 = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I2 = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I2 = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I2 = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.

Combination Therapy Use and Associated Events in Clinical Practice Following Dissemination of Trial Findings: A De-Implementation Study Using Interrupted Time Series Analysis

PURPOSE

It takes 17 years, on average, for trial results to be implemented into practice. Using data from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), this study assessed the potential impact on clinical practice of the dissemination of findings from a randomized, controlled trial reporting harm with the use of combination therapy. Communication between research and VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services (PBM)  provided the impetus for communication from the PBM about the findings of the trial in accordance with policy.

METHODS

In this de-implementation study, interrupted time series analysis was used for assessing prescribing patterns and adverse clinical events before and after the dissemination of the trial findings. The de-implementation strategy was multicomponent and multilevel. Strategies were aligned with categories outlined in the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change: train and educate stakeholders, use evaluative and iterative strategies, develop stakeholder inter-relationships, change infrastructure, provide interactive assistance, and engage consumers. VA patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease stages 1 to 3, and a moderate or severe albuminuria who received care between July 2008 and November 2017 were included. Patients were subgrouped according to treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor + angiotensin receptor blocker. The primary end point was the prevalence of combination therapy use. Secondary end points were the incidences of acute kidney injury and hyperkalemia.

FINDINGS

This study followed 712,245 patients, 9297 of whom used combination therapy. Data were available from 428,535 and 283,710 patients pre- and post-intervention, respectively; among these, 8324 and 973 patients used combination therapy, the median ages were 66 and 68 years, and 96.92% and 98.82% were men. One month following communication from the PBM, the reductions in combination therapy users, acute kidney injury events, and hyperkalemia were 331.94 (95% CI, 500.27-163.32), 36.58% (95% CI, 31.90%-41.95%), and 25.49% (95% CI, 14.17%-36.07%) per 100,000 patients per month, respectively (all, P < 0.001), whereas before the communication, these changes were +14.84 (95% CI, 10.27-19.42), -3.46% (95% CI, 3.18-3.74), and -3.27% (95% CI, 2.66%-3.87%) (all, P < 0.001).

IMPLICATIONS

The apparent speed and impact of the implementation of changes resulting from the dissemination of trial findings into VA clinical practice are encouraging. The speed of implementation was much faster than average for health care providers in the United States. Established communications between research and clinical practice, as well as established policy and communications between PBM and clinical practice, may be a model for other health care organizations.

The association between dual RAAS inhibition and risk of acute kidney injury and hyperkalemia in patients with diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade involves dual therapy with a combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), direct renin inhibitors (DRIs), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). It is hypothesized that dual RAAS blockade would result in a more complete inhibition of the RAAS cascade. However, large clinical trials on dual RAAS inhibition have shown increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia without additional benefit on mortality, cardiovascular events, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression compared to RAAS inhibitor monotherapy in patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The development of newer, more selective non-steroidal MRAs as cardiorenal protective therapies has created a new opportunity for dual RAAS inhibition. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risks of AKI and hyperkalemia with dual RAAS blockade in patients with DKD.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from 1 January 2006 to 30 May 2022. The study population included adult patients with DKD receiving dual RAAS blockade. A total of 31 RCTs and 33 048 patients were included in the systematic review. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects.

RESULTS

There were 208 AKI events in 2690 patients on ACEi + ARB versus 170 in 4264 patients with ACEi or ARB monotherapy (pooled RR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.23-1.39). There were 304 hyperkalemia events in 2818 patients on ACEi + ARB versus 208 in 4396 patients with ACEi or ARB monotherapy (pooled RR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.32-2.94). A non-steroidal MRA + ACEi or ARB showed no increase in the risk of AKI (pooled RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16) compared to ACEi or ARB monotherapy but had a 2-fold higher risk of hyperkalemia with 953 events in 7837 patients in dual therapy versus 454 events in 6895 patients in monotherapy (pooled RR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.84-2.28). A steroidal MRA + ACEi or ARB had a 5-fold higher risk of hyperkalemia with 28 events in 245 at risk in dual therapy versus five events in 248 at risk in monotherapy (pooled RR 5.42 95% CI: 2.15-13.67).

CONCLUSION

Dual therapy with RAASi is associated with an increased risk of AKI and hyperkalemia compared to RAASi monotherapy. Conversely, dual therapy with RAAS inhibitors and non-steroidal MRAs have no additional risk of AKI but a similar risk of hyperkalemia, which is lower than dual therapy with RAAS inhibitors and steroidal MRAs.

Intravenous injection of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells ameliorates not only blood glucose but also nephrotic complication of diabetic rats through autophagy-mediated anti-senescent mechanism

BACKGROUND

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is one of the most severe complications of diabetes mellitus, which is characterized by early occurrence of albuminuria and end-stage glomerulosclerosis. Senescence and autophagy of podocytes play an important role in DN development. Human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hucMSCs) have potential in the treatment of diabetes and its complications. However, the role of hucMSCs in the treatment of DN and the underlying mechanism remain unclear.

METHODS

In vivo, a streptozotocin-induced diabetic male Sprague Dawley rat model was established to determine the renoprotective effect of hucMSCs on DN by biochemical analysis, histopathology, and immunohistochemical staining of renal tissues. And the distribution of hucMSCs in various organs in rats within 168 h was analyzed. In vitro, CCK8 assay, wound healing assay, and β-galactosidase staining were conducted to detect the beneficial effects of hucMSCs on high glucose-induced rat podocytes. Real-time PCR and western blot assays were applied to explore the mechanism of action of hucMSCs.

RESULTS

The in vivo data revealed that hucMSCs were distributed into kidneys and significantly protected kidneys from diabetic damage. The in vitro data indicated that hucMSCs improved cell viability, wound healing, senescence of the high glucose-damaged rat podocytes through a paracrine action mode. Besides, the altered expressions of senescence-associated genes (p16, p53, and p21) and autophagy-associated genes (Beclin-1, p62, and LC3) were improved by hucMSCs. Mechanistically, hucMSCs protected high glucose-induced injury in rat podocytes by activating autophagy and attenuating senescence through the AMPK/mTOR pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, hucMSCs might be a promising therapeutic strategy for the clinical treatment of DN-induced renal damages.

Efficacy and safety of dual vs single renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in chronic kidney disease: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To lower albuminuria and to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are sometimes used in clinical practice for the treatment of CKD. However, the efficacy and safety of dual RAAS blockade therapy remains controversial.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched, and random effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes of eligible studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity were detected by meta-regression and subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

The present meta-analysis of 72 randomized controlled trials with 10,296 patients demonstrated that dual RAAS blockade therapy was superior to monotherapy in reducing the urine albumin excretion, urine protein excretion, and BP. These beneficial effects were related to the decrease of glomerular filtration rate, the increase of serum potassium level, and higher rates of hyperkalemia and hypotension. Meanwhile, these effects did not lead to improvements in short-term or long-term outcomes, including doubling of serum creatinine, acute kidney injury, end-stage renal disease, mortality, and hospitalization. Compared with the single therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in combination with angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) was a better dual therapy than ACEI or ARB in combination with renin inhibitor or aldosterone receptor antagonist in decreasing urine albumin excretion, urine protein excretion and BP, and the combination was not associated with a lower glomerular filtration rate.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the single therapy, ACEI in combination with ARB was a better dual therapy than ACEI or ARB in combination with renin inhibitor or aldosterone receptor antagonist. Although ACEI in combination with ARB was associated with higher incidences of hyperkalemia and hypotension, careful individualized management and potassium binders may further expand its application (PROSPERO number CRD42020179398).

Efficacy and Safety of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor in Combination with Angiotensin-Receptor Blocker in Chronic Kidney Disease Based on Dose: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the controversy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in combination with angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) in the treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on dose.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to March 2020. The random effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes. Potential sources of heterogeneity were detected using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.

Results: This meta-analysis of 53 RCTs with 6,375 patients demonstrated that in patients with CKD, ACEI in combination with ARB was superior to low-dose ACEI or ARB in reducing urine albumin excretion (SMD, −0.43; 95% CI, −0.67 to −0.19; p = 0.001), urine protein excretion (SMD, −0.22; 95% CI, −0.33 to −0.11; p < 0.001), and blood pressure (BP), including systolic BP (WMD, −2.89; 95% CI, −3.88 to −1.89; p < 0.001) and diastolic BP (WMD, −3.02; 95% CI, −4.46 to −1.58; p < 0.001). However, it was associated with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (SMD, −0.13; 95% CI, −0.24 to −0.02; p = 0.02) and increased rates of hyperkalemia (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.55 to 2.76; p < 0.001) and hypotension (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.54; p = 0.001). ACEI in combination with ARB was more effective than high-dose ACEI or ARB in reducing urine albumin excretion (SMD, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.26 to −0.43; p < 0.001) and urine protein excretion (SMD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.09; p = 0.002), without decrease in GFR (SMD, 0.02; 95% CI, −0.12 to 0.15; p = 0.78) and increase in rate of hyperkalemia (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.37; p = 0.76). Nonetheless, the combination did not decrease the BP and increased the rate of hypotension (RR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.13 to 13.84; p = 0.03) compared with high-dose ACEI or ARB.

Conclusion: ACEI in combination with ARB is superior in reducing urine albumin excretion and urine protein excretion. The combination is more effective than high-dose ACEI or ARB without decreasing GFR and increasing the incidence of hyperkalemia. Despite the risk of hypotension, ACEI in combination with ARB is a better choice for CKD patients who need to increase the dose of ACEI or ARB (PROSPERO CRD42020179398).

Anti-Diabetic Effect of Telmisartan Through its Partial PPARγ-Agonistic Activity

Telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, which selectively inhibits the angiotensin II type 1 receptor. Thus, it is widely used for hypertension management. Nowadays, telmisartan's effect on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) is gaining wider attention. PPARs are ligand-activated transcription factors that belong to the nuclear hormone receptor superfamily. Telmisartan is reported to have a partial PPARγ-agonistic effect while avoiding the safety concerns found with full PPARγ agonists (thiazolidinediones). Telmisartan could be an alternative treatment option, with dual benefit for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension. This review summarizes the anti-diabetic activity of telmisartan via its partial PPARγ-agonistic activity.

Efficacy and Safety of Dual Blockade of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System in Diabetic Kidney Disease: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD). However, evidence suggests that the combined use of RAAS blockers may be associated with increased rates of adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to examine the efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the RAAS in patients with DKD.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1990 and January 2018 sourced via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. RCTs were included if they investigated the efficacy and safety of dual blockade therapy compared with monotherapy in patients with DKD. Random effects models were used in meta-analysis to account for heterogeneities in effect sizes across the reviewed studies. Analyses were stratified by blood pressure and albuminuria. We further conducted subgroup analyses by considering various combinations of RAAS inhibitors.

RESULTS

Based on 42 RCTs with 14,576 patients, dual RAAS blockade therapy was associated with significant decreases in blood pressure, albuminuria, and proteinuria. However, dual therapy was not superior to monotherapy in terms of reductions in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Significant increases in serum potassium and rates of hyperkalemia and hypotension were more common in patients treated with dual therapy. However, glomerular filtration rates (GFR) did not decrease significantly with dual therapy. In subgroup analysis, an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) plus an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) or a direct renin inhibitor (DRI) plus an ACEI/ARB did not significantly increase the risk of hyperkalemia, hypotension, and adverse events, and the risk of hypotension increased significantly within the normotensive subgroup but not within the hypertensive subgroup. The risk of hyperkalemia increased significantly in patients with DKD with macroalbuminuria but not in those with microalbuminuria.

CONCLUSION

Dual inhibition therapy is superior to monotherapy for blood pressure control and urine protein reduction, though such superiority does not translate into improvements in longer-term outcomes, such as reduced progression to ESRD, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. An ACEI plus an ARB or a DRI plus an ACEI/ARB may be a safe and effective therapy for patients with DKD, and combination therapy may be suitable for patients with DKD and hypertension and microalbuminuria.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Antihypertensive Agents for Adult Diabetic Patients with Microalbuminuric Kidney Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive treatment mitigates the progression of chronic kidney disease. Here, we comparatively assessed the effects of antihypertensive agents in normotensive and hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuric kidney disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antihypertensive agents in adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. The primary efficacy outcome was reduction in albuminuria, and the primary safety outcomes were dry cough, presyncope, and edema. Random-effects pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to produce outcome estimates for all RCTs, only hypertensive RCTs, or only normotensive RCTs. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability rankings were calculated for all outcomes. Sensitivity analyses on type 2 diabetes status, age, or follow-up duration were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-calcium channel blocker (ACEI-CCB) combination therapy of captopril+diltiazem was most efficacious in reducing albuminuria irrespective of blood pressure status. However, the ACEI-angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI-ARB) combination therapy of trandolapril+candesartan was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while the ACEI-CCB combination therapy of fosinopril+amlodipine was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. The foregoing combination therapies displayed inferior safety profiles relative to ACEI monotherapy with respect to dry cough, presyncope, and edema. With respect to type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, the Chinese herbal medicine Tangshen formula followed by the ACEI ramipril were the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria.

CONCLUSIONS

Trandolapril+candesartan appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while fosinopril+amlodipine appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. For practitioners opting for monotherapy, our SUCRA analysis supports the use of trandolapril and fosinopril in normotensive and hypertensive adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, respectively.

Dual Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibition for the Treatment of Diabetic Kidney Disease: Adverse Effects and Unfulfilled Promise

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is a major complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) affecting individuals with type 1 or type 2 DM and is the leading cause of chronic kidney disease and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in the USA. Estimates of disease burden are projected to increase, with prevalence of nearly one in five adults by 2050. The role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition in delaying the progression of DN utilizing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers has been well established in multiple controlled trials. Given greater reduction of proteinuria with dual RAAS blockade compared to monotherapy alone, the potential benefit of dual therapy on progression of DN has been tested in three large randomized clinical trials. Unfortunately, results from these studies demonstrated lack of benefit of dual blockade on renal or cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes. The overall objectives of this review are to provide both the rationale for dual blockade as potential therapy as well as review the literature of its use in patients with DN.

Effects of ACEIs Versus ARBs on Proteinuria or Albuminuria in Primary Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Although angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) belong to a family of therapies that block the renin-angiotensin system and are suggested to improve proteinuria/albuminuria, it is unclear which is more effective. To compare the effects of ACEIs and ARBs on proteinuria in primary hypertension by performing a meta-analysis covering randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1990 to November 2014. Eligible studies were RCTs of ACEI therapy versus ARB therapy that reported the albumin excretion rate (AER), albumin (Alb), and urinary albumin excretion (UAE) as outcomes. Seventeen RCTs, including 17,951 patients (without limit of race, age, or sex) with a mean duration of 62.6 weeks, were included. Pooled analysis suggested that ACEIs and ARBs showed no significant differences in AER/Alb/UAE/24-h urine protein/24-h urine total protein in a comparison of 10 trials (SMD 0.09; 95% CI -0.18-0.36; P = 0.52). No significant differences were observed in urinary protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR)/urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR), or albumin/creatinine ratio (ACR) in 7 trials (SMD 0.15; 95% CI -1.88-2.19; P = 0.88). The total outcome of ACEIs and ARBs also showed no significant difference (SMD 0.13; 95% CI -1.03-1.29; P = 0.83). The efficacies of ACEIs and ARBs in controlling blood pressure as a secondary indicator were also similar (SMD -0.50; 95% CI -1.58-0.58; P = 0.37). Based on a meta-analysis of 17 randomized controlled trials including 17,951 patients, we found that ACEIs and ARBs can reduce urine protein levels, improve blood pressure, and were similarly effective in terms of reducing urinary protein excretion.

Meta-analysis: the efficacy and safety of combined treatment with ARB and ACEI on diabetic nephropathy

OBJECTIVE

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy (DN). Some studies have suggested that dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system provides additive benefits in DN but others showed increased adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy for DN.

METHODS

Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CNKI. All trials involved ACEI + ARB (combination therapy), and ACEI or ARB alone (monotherapy) for DN. The outcomes measured were urinary total proteinuria (UTP), urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), hyperkalemia, hypotension, and acute kidney injury (AKI).

RESULTS

In the 32 included trials, 2596 patients received combination therapy and 3947 received monotherapy. UTP and UAER were significantly reduced by combined treatment compared with monotherapy. It was notable that low doses of combination therapy reduced UTP more than high doses. Serum creatinine, GFR, and ESRD were not significantly different between the two groups. In severe DN, the occurrence of hyperkalemia and AKI were higher with combination therapy. However, in mild DN, the prevalence of hyperkalemia and AKI were the same in both the groups. In mild DN, the occurrence of hypotension was higher with combination therapy; however, in severe DN, it was not different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that combination therapy can be used on DN with proteinuria, but should be used with caution in those with decreased renal function, especially with severe renal failure.

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). However, while ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in placebo-controlled trials, ARBs have not. Therefore, a comparison of the efficacies of these two drug classes in primary hypertension for preventing total mortality and cardiovascular events is important.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on total mortality and cardiovascular events, and their rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs), in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISI Web of Science up to July 2014. We contacted study authors for missing and unpublished information, and also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials enrolling people with uncontrolled or controlled primary hypertension with or without other risk factors. Included trials must have compared an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a head-to-head manner, and lasted for a duration of at least one year. If background blood pressure lowering agents were continued or added during the study, the protocol to do so must have been the same in both study arms.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies with 11,007 participants were included. Of the included studies, five reported data on total mortality, three reported data on total cardiovascular events, and four reported data on cardiovascular mortality. No study separately reported cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, eight studies contributed data on WDAE. Included studies were of good to moderate quality. There was no evidence of a difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10), total cardiovascular events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19), or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13). Conversely, a high level of evidence indicated a slightly lower incidence of WDAE for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.8%, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 55 over 4.1 years), mainly attributable to a higher incidence of dry cough with ACE inhibitors. The quality of the evidence for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes was limited by possible publication bias, in that several studies were initially eligible for inclusion in this review, but had no extractable data available for the hypertension subgroup. To this end, the evidence for total mortality was judged to be moderate, while the evidence for total cardiovascular events was judged to be low by the GRADE approach.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses found no evidence of a difference in total mortality or cardiovascular outcomes for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors, while ARBs caused slightly fewer WDAEs than ACE inhibitors. Although ACE inhibitors have shown efficacy in these outcomes over placebo, our results cannot be used to extrapolate the same conclusion for ARBs directly, which have not been studied in placebo-controlled trials for hypertension. Thus, the substitution of an ARB for an ACE inhibitor, while supported by evidence on grounds of tolerability, must be made in consideration of the weaker evidence for the efficacy of ARBs regarding mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with ACE inhibitors. Additionally, our data mostly derives from participants with existing clinical sequelae of hypertension, and it would be useful to have data from asymptomatic people to increase the generalizability of this review. Unpublished subgroup data of hypertensive participants in existing trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs needs to be made available for this purpose.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers for end-stage renal disease/mortality in type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) development and all-cause mortality in veterans with macroalbuminuria and with newly documented type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the national Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) databases. The study followed 5166 subjects without a history of use of ACEIs or ARBs. To control for differences in baseline characteristics between groups, comparisons of subjects ACEIs and ARBs were made by incorporating propensity scores analysis into multivariate logistic regression. This resulted in adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for ESRD development and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

The sample was followed up to five years with a mean follow-up of three years. Subjects taking ACEIs has lower odds of ESRD development (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.13-0.82]) and all-cause mortality (OR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.04-0.21]) than ARBs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that ACEIs are associated with lower ESRD development and all-cause mortality than ARBs. This may have implications for guidelines which currently suggest that these two therapeutic classes provide similar benefits in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes and macroalbuminuria.

Efficacy and safety of combined vs. single renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade in chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has gained popularity for the treatment of kidney disease, its benefits and potential risks have not been fully elucidated. We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of combined vs. single RAAS blockade therapy in chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

We performed a literature search using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, scientific abstracts from meetings, and bibliographies of retrieved articles. We used random-effects models to compute net changes and rate differences in variables.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine (25 crossover and 34 parallel-arm) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of combined vs. single RAAS blockade therapy in CKD were identified (4,975 patients). Combined RAAS blockade therapy was associated with a significant net decrease in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (-1.8ml/min or ml/min/1.73 m(2); P = 0.005), albuminuria (-90mg/g of creatinine; P = 0.001 or -32mg/day; P = 0.03), and proteinuria (-291mg/g; P = 0.003 or -363mg/day; P < 0.001). Combined RAAS blockade therapy was associated with a 9.4% higher rate of regression to normoalbuminuria and a 5% higher rate of achieving the blood pressure (BP) goal (as defined in individual trials). However, combined RAAS blockade therapy was associated with a significant net increase in serum potassium level, a 3.4% higher rate of hyperkalemia, and a 4.6% higher rate of hypotension. There was no effect on doubling of the serum creatinine level, hospitalization, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Although combined RAAS blockade therapy in CKD is associated with a decrease in albuminuria and proteinuria, it is associated with a decrease in GFR and a higher incidence of hyperkalemia and hypotension relative to monotherapy. The potential long-term kidney benefits of combined RAAS blockade therapy require further study.

Efficacy of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes

Cardiovascular disease is the predominant cause of morbidity in people with type 2 diabetes. Hypertension frequently coexists with diabetes and substantially increases the risk of developing end-organ damage. Controlling hypertension in patients with diabetes is therefore critical to reducing microvascular and macrovascular complications. Agents that block the renin-angiotensin system are increasingly used in patients with diabetes based on their cardiovascular and renoprotective effects, in addition to their direct effects on reducing blood pressure. Telmisartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), has a number of distinguishing pharmacological properties such as having the longest half-life and highest lipophilicity in its class. The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET(®)) trial showed that telmisartan reduces cardiovascular morbidity (including myocardial infarction and stroke) in subjects with a broad spectrum of cardiovascular risk factors, including type 2 diabetes. Telmisartan is the only ARB indicated for the reduction of cardiovascular morbidity in patients with diabetes and end-organ damage, as well as in patients without diabetes but with a history of coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or previous stroke. Trials of telmisartan in patients with diabetes and varying degrees of nephropathy also suggest that this drug can slow the progression of renal disease, an effect that appears to be at least partly independent of reduction in blood pressure. Telmisartan is therefore an important therapeutic option for optimizing cardiovascular and renal protection in the type 2 diabetic population.

Updated report on comparative effectiveness of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and direct renin inhibitors for patients with essential hypertension: much more data, little new information

OBJECTIVES

A 2007 systematic review compared angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) have since been introduced, and significant new research has been published. We sought to update and expand the 2007 review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (through December 2010) and selected other sources for relevant English-language trials.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

We included studies that directly compared ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and/or DRIs in at least 20 total adults with essential hypertension; had at least 12 weeks of follow-up; and reported at least one outcome of interest. Ninety-seven (97) studies (36 new since 2007) directly comparing ACE inhibitors versus ARBs and three studies directly comparing DRIs to ACE inhibitor inhibitors or ARBs were included.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

A standard protocol was used to extract data on study design, interventions, population characteristics, and outcomes; evaluate study quality; and summarize the evidence.

RESULTS

In spite of substantial new evidence, none of the conclusions from the 2007 review changed. The level of evidence remains high for equivalence between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for blood pressure lowering and use as single antihypertensive agents, as well as for superiority of ARBs for short-term adverse events (primarily cough). However, the new evidence was insufficient on long-term cardiovascular outcomes, quality of life, progression of renal disease, medication adherence or persistence, rates of angioedema, and differences in key patient subgroups.

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were limited by follow-up duration, protocol heterogeneity, and infrequent reporting on patient subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Evidence does not support a meaningful difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for any outcome except medication side effects. Few, if any, of the questions that were not answered in the 2007 report have been addressed by the 36 new studies. Future research in this area should consider areas of uncertainty and be prioritized accordingly.

Should all patients at high cardiovascular risk receive renin-angiotensin system blockers?

Despite considerable advances in preventative treatment during the last two decades, the increasing burden of cardiovascular (CV) disease constitutes an urgent need for new therapeutic strategies to reduce CV mortality and morbidity in patients at high CV risk. Activation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) results in vasoconstrictive, proliferative and pro-inflammatory effects that contribute to the development of atherosclerosis. As a result, the RAS is implicated at all stages of the 'CV continuum' that links risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia with major CV events, congestive heart failure (CHF) and CV death. The RAS therefore represents a rational and ideal therapeutic target in CV risk reduction strategies. Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to promote beneficial effects on end-organ damage, such as decreases in arterial stiffness and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Several trials have shown that ACE inhibitors and ARBs reduce CV risk in patients with specific risk factors. Furthermore, the HOPE study and, more recently, the ONTARGET® study have shown that ramipril and telmisartan reduce CV risk in patients with a high CV risk profile across the 'CV continuum'. Telmisartan is the first ARB to demonstrate CV prevention in patients at high CV risk, similar to that of the gold-standard ACE inhibitor, ramipril. This extensive clinical trial evidence suggests that ACE inhibitors or ARBs should be part of the standard treatment for patients at risk of CV events. ARBs may represent a preferred option due to their unsurpassed tolerability.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and combined therapy in patients with micro- and macroalbuminuria and other cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A recent clinical trial showed harmful renal effects with the combined use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARB) in people with diabetes or vascular disease. We examined the benefits and risks of these agents in people with albuminuria and one or more cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Renal Health Library were searched for trials comparing ACEI, ARB or their combination with placebo or with one another in people with albuminuria and one or more cardiovascular risk factor.

RESULTS

Eighty-five trials (21,708 patients) were included. There was no significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality or fatal cardiac-cerebrovascular outcomes with ACEI versus placebo, ARB versus placebo, ACEI versus ARB or with combined therapy with ACEI + ARB versus monotherapy. There was a significant reduction in the risk of nonfatal cardiovascular events with ACEI versus placebo but not with ARB versus placebo, ACEI versus ARB or with combined therapy with ACEI + ARB versus monotherapy. Development of end-stage kidney disease and progression of microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria were reduced significantly with ACEI versus placebo and ARB versus placebo but not with combined therapy with ACEI + ARB versus monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

ACEI and ARB exert independent renal and nonfatal cardiovascular benefits while their effects on mortality and fatal cardiovascular disease are uncertain. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of combination therapy. A comparative clinical trial with ACE, ARB and its combination in people with albuminuria and a cardiovascular risk factor is warranted.

New standards in hypertension and cardiovascular risk management: focus on telmisartan

Blockade of the renin–angiotensin system is an important approach in managing high blood pressure, and has increasingly been shown to affect cardiovascular disease processes mediated by angiotensin II throughout the cardiovascular and renal continua. Telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) displaying unique pharmacologic properties, including a longer half life than any other ARB, that result in large and sustained reductions of blood pressure. In patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, telmisartan has proved superior to other antihypertensive agents (valsartan, losartan, ramipril, perindopril, and atenolol) in controlling blood pressure particularly towards the end of the dosing interval. There is also clinical evidence that telmisartan reduces left ventricular hypertrophy, reduces arterial stiffness and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation, and confers renoprotection. The ONgoing Telmisartan Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET^®) study has demonstrated that telmisartan has similar cardiovascular protective effects to ramipril in a large, high-risk patient population but was better tolerated. The powerful and sustained blood pressure control apparent in clinical trials, together with cardiovascular protection and tolerability demonstrated in ONTARGET^® means that telmisartan may be a preferred option for patients with hypertension.

ACE inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and direct renin inhibitors in combination: a review of their role after the ONTARGET trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials have shown organ-protective effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs); however, cardiovascular mortality and morbidity rates, and decline in renal function remain high. In the ONTARGET trial in patients with hypertension at high cardiovascular risk, ACE inhibitor/ARB combination therapy provided no significant clinical outcome benefits over monotherapy, and was associated with a worse safety and tolerability profile. These results raise the question of whether ACE inhibitor/ARB, direct renin inhibitor (DRI)/ACE inhibitor and DRI/ARB combinations are of clinical value.

SCOPE

Using PubMed and EMBASE databases, we conducted a systematic review of clinical trials published before June 2008 evaluating dual intervention with ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and compared these with trials of DRI/ACE inhibitor or DRI/ARB combinations.

FINDINGS

A total of 70 studies met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. In patients with hypertension, ACE inhibitor/ARB combinations provided limited additional reductions in blood pressure (BP) over monotherapy. Outcomes benefits were unclear: VALIANT and ONTARGET demonstrated no enhanced outcome benefit of combination therapy over monotherapy; Val-HeFT and CHARM-Added showed reduced morbidity/mortality in patients with heart failure, but at the expense of poorer tolerability. Combination therapy with the DRI aliskiren and an ACE inhibitor or ARB provided significant additional BP reductions over monotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension, and reduced surrogate markers of organ damage in patients with heart failure or diabetic nephropathy, with generally similar safety and tolerability to the component monotherapies. No morbidity and mortality data for DRI/ACE inhibitor or DRI/ARB combinations are currently available.

CONCLUSIONS

ACE inhibitor/ARB combinations showed equivocal effects on clinical outcomes. DRI/ACE inhibitor and DRI/ARB combinations reduced markers of organ damage, but longer-term trials are required to establish whether more complete renin--angiotensin--aldosterone system control with aliskiren-based therapy translates into improved outcome benefits.

Long-term antiproteinuric effect of dual renin-angiotensin system blockade

We evaluated the long-term changes on overt proteinuria induced by dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). Dual blockade was produced by adding an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) to treatment with maximal recommended doses of an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor in proteinuric patients. A total of 28 patients (19 men and 9 women) with proteinuria higher than 1 g/24 h were enrolled in this trial of treatment with the ARB candesartan (from 4 up to 32 mg daily) added to existing treatment with an ACE inhibitor. At 6, 12, 24, and 36 months, we evaluated proteinuria in 24-h urinary collections, office blood pressure (BP), plasmatic creatinine (Cr), serum potassium (K), and 24 h urine collection creatinine clearance (CrC). During monoblockade of the RAS by ACE inhibitor treatment, albuminuria was 2.94 +/- 1.92 mg/24 h; BP was 137/76 mmHg; K+ was 4.8 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, Cr was 1.76 +/- 0.67 mg/dL, and CrC was 62 +/- 31.9 mL/min. After 6 months, dual blockade of the RAS albuminuria was 2.18 +/- 2.29 mg/24 h (P < 0.01 vs. baseline) and BP was 133/75 mmHg (not significant). At 36 months, albuminuria was 2.21 +/- 2.20 mg/24 h (P < 0.05 vs. baseline); BP was 133/73 mmHg (not significant). CrC was not changed along the follow up. A small increment of Cr was detected at 24 months (2.11 +/- 1.06 mg/mL, P < 0.05). The antiproteinuric effect of dual renin-angiotensin system blockade combining candesartan and ACE inhibitors remain after 36 months without losing its initial effect. Blood pressure changes seem not to explain this long-term antiproteinuric effect.

Target-organ protection with combination renin-angiotensin-system blockade

Pharmacologic blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) has antihypertensive, anti-atherogenic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory effects. Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been demonstrated to prevent atrial fibrillation and new-onset diabetes, and provide cardiac, cerebral, and renal protection. Combination therapy with ACEIs and ARBs, compared with monotherapy, provides enhanced reno- and cardioprotection, although available data indicate that combination RAS blockade may be beneficial only in select patient groups, such as those with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure (HF). In certain high-risk patients, the use of ARBs provides comparable efficacy to that observed with ACEIs. The efficacy of these agents may stem from pleiotropic effects beyond blood pressure (BP) reduction. Several studies demonstrate achievement of clinical endpoints without significant effects on BP.

Valsartan in combination with lisinopril versus the respective high dose monotherapies in hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria: the VALERIA trial

OBJECTIVES

Microalbuminuria is known as an independent predictor for stroke, myocardial infarction, and death. The purpose of the VALERIA trial was a comparison of the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of valsartan and lisinopril with valsartan and lisinopril high-dose monotherapy in patients with hypertension and microalbuminuria.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, interventional, parallel-group study. After a washout/placebo-run-in phase of 3 weeks, 133 patients were randomized to treatment (1: 1:1) with either lisinopril 40 mg, valsartan 320 mg, or a combination of valsartan/lisinopril 320/20 mg for 30 weeks.

RESULTS

At baseline, the urine albumin creatinine ratio was similar for the three treatment groups (geometric means, lisinopril 9.6 mg/mmol, valsartan 9.1 mg/mmol, and valsartan/lisinopril 9.5 mg/mmol). After 30 weeks of treatment, the geometric mean urine albumin creatinine ratio had decreased in all three groups by 41, 51, and 62% to 5.7 mg/mmol (lisinopril), 4.5 mg/mmol (valsartan), and 3.6 mg/mmol (valsartan/lisinopril). The decrease for valsartan/lisinopril was statistically significantly greater compared with lisinopril [adjusted ratio 60%, confidence interval (38-94%), P = 0.029]. Normalization of microalbuminuria was greatest with valsartan and valsartan/lisinopril (lisinopril 17%, valsartan 31%, and valsartan/lisinopril 38% of patients) and was statistically significant for lisinopril in contrast with valsartan/lisinopril (P = 0.034). Differences in blood pressure reduction between the groups were not statistically significant. All treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The combination of valsartan and lisinopril provided a significantly better reduction of urine albumin creatinine ratio and more than doubled the rate of patients with normalized urine albumin creatinine ratio compared with lisinopril alone. All treatments were safe and well tolerated.

Telmisartan versus angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Telmisartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are both effective and widely used antihypertensive drugs targeting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The study aimed to estimate the efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan in comparison with different ACEIs as monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials fulfilling the predefined criteria was performed. A random-effect model was used to account for heterogeneity among trials. Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 5157 patients were ultimately identified out of 721 studies. Telmisartan had a greater diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction than enalapril (weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-2.99), ramipril (WMD 3.09, 95% CI 1.94-4.25) and perindopril (WMD 1.48, 95% CI 0.33-2.62). Telmisartan also showed a greater DBP response rate than enalapril (relative risk (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26), ramipril (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.11-1.61) and perindopril (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.41). There was no statistical difference in DBP reduction or therapeutic response rate between telmisartan and lisinopril (WMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.05; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80-1.23, respectively). Telmisartan had fewer drug-related adverse events than enalapril (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44-0.74), ramipril (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.75), lisinopril (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56-0.89) and perindopril (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28-0.98). The meta-analysis indicates that telmisartan provides a superior BP control to ACEIs (enalapril, ramipril and perindopril) and has fewer drug-related adverse events and better tolerability in hypertensive patients.

Reduction of proteinuria with angiotensin receptor blockers

Renal pathophysiology is elicited by activation of angiotensin II type 1 (AT(1)) receptors at all stages of renovascular disease. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) that specifically block the AT(1) receptor offer the potential to prevent or delay progression to end-stage renal disease independently of reductions in blood pressure. Proteinuria--an early and sensitive marker for progressive renal dysfunction--is reduced by ARB use in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy and microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria. Retrospective analysis of data available from early trials has confirmed this finding and has shown that albuminuria reduction is associated with lessening of cardiovascular risk. The ARB telmisartan is equivalent to enalapril in preventing glomerular filtration rate decline, and equivalent to valsartan in reducing proteinuria. Telmisartan is more effective than conventional therapy in lowering the risk of transition to overt nephropathy in hypertensive and normotensive patients. An additive effect has been seen in smaller studies when telmisartan has been added to lisinopril therapy, and high-dose telmisartan reduces albuminuria better than low-dose telmisartan. Similar data were obtained with other ARBs such as candesartan, losartan, valsartan, or irbesartan. These data support the proposition that blockade of the renin-angiotensin system beyond that required for maximum blood pressure reduction provides optimum renal protection.

Effects of dual blockade of Renin-Angiotensin system on concentric left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension: a randomized, controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a major role in promoting left ventricular (LV) remodeling in essential hypertension. We designed a controlled, randomized pilot study aimed to test the hypothesis that the dual RAS blockade with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ACEi) + angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) can be more effective in decreasing LV hypertrophy and improving diastolic function than a largely employed association such as ACEi + calcium-antagonist (Ca-A).

METHODS

Twenty-four never-treated hypertensive patients with LV concentric hypertrophy were randomized to ramipril + candesartan or ramipril + lercanidipine. Before and after the 6-month treatment they underwent a 24-h blood pressure (BP) monitoring and echocardiographic examination.

RESULTS

At baseline, age, body mass index (BMI), 24-h BP, and LV morpho-functional parameters were similar between the two groups. The 6-month treatment induced in both groups a significant decrease of 24-h BP, septal and posterior wall thickness, and LV mass index (LVMi) (ACEi + ARB 155 +/- 19 to 122 +/- 17 g/m(2), P < 0.0001; ACEi + Ca-A 146 +/- 18 to 127 +/- 20 g/m(2), P < 0.0001). Systolic function remained unchanged; LV diastolic parameters increased significantly in both groups. The extent of 24-h BP decrease was similar between the two groups (-13.3/16.3% vs. -12.3/15.8%, P = 0.63/P = 0.71), whereas the decrease of LV mass (-22% vs. -12.8%, P < 0.005) and the improvement of diastolic function were greater in ACEi + ARB group.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with ACEi + Ca-A, ACEi + ARB treatment showed a greater antiremodeling effect, that can be reasonably ascribed to a BP-independent effect of the dual RAS blockade.

New opportunities in cardiovascular patient management: a survey of clinical data on the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) differ in their actions on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). ACE inhibitors prevent the formation of angiotensin II, although angiotensin II may still be generated by alternative pathways. However, ACE inhibitors interrupt bradykinin breakdown, which in turn potentially enhances nitric oxide and prostacyclin mechanisms. In contrast, ARBs selectively prevent the binding of angiotensin II to the angiotensin type 1 (AT(1)) receptor while leaving the potentially beneficial effects of the AT(2) receptor unaffected. The supposition is that dual blockade of the RAAS effectively overcomes the harmful effects of angiotensin II mediated by the AT(1) receptor while offering the additional effects of the ACE inhibitor. This concept was first evaluated clinically more than a decade ago in small-scale studies that were not sufficiently powered to conclusively demonstrate benefits from dual blockade. Subsequently, larger-scale trials have been conducted to determine the effects of a combination of an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in combating the effects of angiotensin II at different stages of cardiovascular and renal disease. This review explores these data in areas, such as hypertension, renal disease, and cardiovascular disease, and draws on this preliminary evidence to support the rationale for the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) program, which aims to fully explore the clinical end points and effects of dual RAAS blockade in patients at high risk for cardiovascular outcomes.

Hypertension and diabetes: role of the renin-angiotensin system

Hypertension is often associated clinically with diabetes as part of the insulin-resistance syndrome or as a manifestation of renal disease. Elevated systemic blood pressure accelerates micro- and macrovascular complications in diabetes. Vasoactive hormone pathways including the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) appear to play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis and progression of diabetic complications and possible diabetes itself. Recent studies have increased our understanding of the complexity of the RAAS with identification of new components of this cascade including angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and a putative renin receptor. Agents that interrupt the RAAS confer end-organ protection in diabetes via hemodynamic and non-hemodynamic mechanisms. Trials are investigating the possible role of RAAS blockade in the prevention of type 2 diabetes.