Rationale and design of diabetics exposed to telmisartan and enalapril (DETAIL) study

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.

The 2021-2022 position of Brazilian Diabetes Society on diabetic kidney disease (DKD) management: an evidence-based guideline to clinical practice. Screening and treatment of hyperglycemia, arterial hypertension, and dyslipidemia in the patient with DKD

BACKGROUND

Diabetic kidney disease is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. This review is an authorized literal translation of part of the Brazilian Diabetes Society (SBD) Guidelines 2021-2022. This evidence-based guideline provides guidance on the correct management of Diabetic Kidney Disease (DKD) in clinical practice.

METHODS

The methodology was published elsewhere in previous SBD guidelines and was approved by the internal institutional Steering Committee for publication. Briefly, the Brazilian Diabetes Society indicated 14 experts to constitute the Central Committee, designed to regulate methodology, review the manuscripts, and make judgments on degrees of recommendations and levels of evidence. SBD Renal Disease Department drafted the manuscript selecting key clinical questions to make a narrative review using MEDLINE via PubMed, with the best evidence available including high-quality clinical trials, metanalysis, and large observational studies related to DKD diagnosis and treatment, by using the MeSH terms [diabetes], [type 2 diabetes], [type 1 diabetes] and [chronic kidney disease].

RESULTS

The extensive review of the literature made by the 14 members of the Central Committee defined 24 recommendations. Three levels of evidence were considered: A. Data from more than 1 randomized clinical trial or 1 metanalysis of randomized clinical trials with low heterogeneity (I² < 40%). B. Data from metanalysis, including large observational studies, a single randomized clinical trial, or a pre-specified subgroup analysis. C: Data from small or non-randomized studies, exploratory analyses, or consensus of expert opinion. The degree of recommendation was obtained based on a poll sent to the panelists, using the following criteria: Grade I: when more than 90% of agreement; Grade IIa 75-89% of agreement; IIb 50-74% of agreement, and III, when most of the panelist recommends against a defined treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

To prevent or at least postpone the advanced stages of DKD with the associated cardiovascular complications, intensive glycemic and blood pressure control are required, as well as the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blocker agents such as ARB, ACEI, and MRA. Recently, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists have been added to the therapeutic arsenal, with well-proven benefits regarding kidney protection and patients' survival.

Consensus recommendations for management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases

The recent American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes guideline mentioned glycaemia management in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs); however, it did not cover the treatment approaches for patients with T2DM having a high risk of CVD, and treatment and screening approaches for CVDs in patients with concomitant T2DM. This consensus guideline undertakes the data obtained from all the cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) to propose approaches for the T2DM management in presence of CV comorbidities. For patients at high risk of CVD, metformin is the drug of choice to manage the T2DM to achieve a patient specific HbA1c target. In case of established CVD, a combination of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist with proven CV benefits is recommended along with metformin, while for chronic kidney disease or heart failure, a sodium-glucose transporter proteins-2 inhibitor with proven benefit is advised. This document also summarises various screening and investigational approaches for the major CV events with their accuracy and specificity along with the treatment guidance to assist the healthcare professionals in selecting the best management strategies for every individual. Since lifestyle modification and management plays an important role in maintaining the effectiveness of the pharmacological therapies, authors of this consensus recommendation have also briefed on the patient-centric non-pharmacological management of T2DM and CVD.

The effect of antihypertensive drugs on chronic kidney disease: a comprehensive review

Data from randomized clinical trials and epidemiological evidence identify systemic hypertension as the second most common modifiable risk factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression after diabetes mellitus. CKD may progress silently over the years and early diagnosis and control of hypertension is of major importance in delaying renal function decline. Recent guidelines for the treatment of hypertension suggest the use of a variety of antihypertensive drugs in order to achieve the desired blood pressure levels. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors have been undoubtedly studied the most and are suggested by guidelines and experts as first choice in patients with hypertension and renal injury, particularly in those with diabetes, as they have repeatedly shown to significantly reduce proteinuria. Other classes of antihypertensive drugs have been studied to a lesser extent and they have their own unique properties and effects. However, it is now common knowledge that adequate blood pressure control is the most important factor for the preservation of renal function, so every drug that effectively lowers hypertension is believed to be renoprotective. The present article will review the latest data on the role and properties of each class of antihypertensive drugs on CKD.

Synthesis, binding studies and in vivo biological evaluation of novel non-peptide antihypertensive analogues

AT(1) antagonists (SARTANs) constitute the last generation of drugs for the treatment of hypertension, designed and synthesized to mimic the C-terminal segment of the vasoconstrictive hormone angiotensin II (AngII). They exert their action by blocking the binding of AngII on the AT(1) receptor. Up to date eight AT(1) antagonists have been approved for the regulation of high blood pressure. Although these molecules share common structural features and are designed to act under the same mechanism, they have differences in their pharmacological profiles and antihypertensive efficacy. Thus, there is still a need for novel analogues with better pharmacological and financial profiles. An example of a novel synthetic non peptide AT(1) antagonist which devoids the classical template of SARTANs is MM1. In vivo studies showed that MMK molecules, which fall in the same class of MM1, had a significant antihypertensive (40-80% compared to the drug losartan) activity. However, in vitro affinity studies showed that losartan has considerably higher affinity. The theoretical docking studies showed that MM1 acts on the same site of the receptor as losartan. They exert hydrophobic interactions with amino acid Val108 of the third helix of the AT(1) receptor and other hydrophobic amino acids in spatial vicinity. In addition, losartan favours multiple hydrogen bondings between its tetrazole group with Lys199. These additional interactions may in part explain its higher in vitro binding affinity.

Prevention of loss of renal function over time in patients with diabetic nephropathy

Management of hypertension is the mainstay of prevention and treatment of diabetic renal disease; evidence suggests that tight blood pressure control slows renal disease progression in established diabetic nephropathy. Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has renoprotective effects over and above those achieved by lowering systemic blood pressure. To date, however, no long-term study using hard end points has directly compared current mechanisms for RAAS inhibition, angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition. This issue was addressed in the recently published Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan and Enalapril (DETAIL) study, a head-to-head comparison of telmisartan and enalapril in 250 patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus and early-stage nephropathy. After 5 years' treatment, change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), the primary efficacy end point, was equivalent in the 2 treatment groups, as were all secondary end points. The expected steep decline in GFR in the first year was followed by a lesser decrease in the second year and then almost complete stabilization of renal function at > or =3 years. Over 5 years, no patient went into end-stage renal disease or required dialysis. There were also no increases in albumin excretion rate, nor was there an increase in creatinine beyond 200 mumol/L. Incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality was extremely low in both treatment groups, a remarkable outcome given that almost 50% of patients had evidence of cardiovascular disease at randomization. Inhibition of the RAAS should play a major part in management of patients with type 2 diabetes with nephropathy, for which both telmisartan and enalapril provide long-term renoprotection.

Current status of angiotensin receptor blockers for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases: focus on telmisartan

Poorly controlled hypertension is a major risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, strokes, heart failure and renal failure. Despite these devastating complications, blood pressure control of </=140/90 mmHg, which is above the current standard, is very poor worldwide, accounting for 34% of hypertensive patients in the United States, and 6% in other countries. The reasons for this poor control of blood pressure include lack of aggressive treatment by physicians, especially for the systolic blood pressure, drug selection and patient compliance. The blood pressure follows a circadian rhythm and is the highest between 0600 to 1200 h, when most complications occur. Long-acting drugs that extend their action to cover this vulnerable period are preferable, especially those that block the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, such as ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, and are the most effective in controlling blood pressure and preventing or reducing its cardiovascular and renal complications. With respect to the angiotensin receptor blockers, telmisartan has been demonstrated by several studies to be the longest acting among its class of drugs and to effectively prevent the early morning rise of blood pressure.

Telmisartan - killing two birds with one stone

In theory, a drug that inhibits the renin-angiotensin system in order to lower blood pressure and acts as a PPARgamma agonist to increase insulin sensitivity, could be very useful in the treatment of coexisting Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. Telmisartan is an angiotensin Type 1 (AT(1))-receptor antagonist being used in the treatment of hypertension. Recent studies suggest that telmisartan is also a partial PPARgamma agonist. In an animal model of insulin resistance, telmisartan lowered serum levels of glucose, insulin and triglycerides, and body weight. Thus, telmisartan, an AT(1)-receptor antagonist and PPARgamma agonist, represents the prototype of a new approach to treating coexisting diabetes and hypertension, which needs to be evaluated clinically.

Angiotensin-receptor blockade versus converting-enzyme inhibition in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy

BACKGROUND

Few studies have directly compared the renoprotective effects of angiotensin II-receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in persons with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, double-blind, five-year study, we randomly assigned 250 subjects with type 2 diabetes and early nephropathy to receive either the angiotensin II-receptor blocker telmisartan (80 mg daily, in 120 subjects) or the ACE inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily, in 130 subjects). The primary end point was the change in the glomerular filtration rate (determined by measuring the plasma clearance of iohexol) between the baseline value and the last available value during the five-year treatment period. Secondary end points included the annual changes in the glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine level, urinary albumin excretion, and blood pressure; the rates of end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular events; and the rate of death from all causes.

RESULTS

After five years, the change in the glomerular filtration rate was -17.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 (where the minus sign denotes a decrement) in the telmisartan-treated subjects, as compared with -15.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the enalapril-treated subjects; the treatment difference was thus -2.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 (95 percent confidence interval, -7.1 to 2.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2)[corrected] The lower boundary of the confidence interval, in favor of enalapril, was greater than the predefined margin of -10.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2, indicating that telmisartan was not inferior to enalapril. The effects of the two agents on the secondary end points were not significantly different after five years.

CONCLUSIONS

Telmisartan is not inferior to enalapril in providing long-term renoprotection in persons with type 2 diabetes. These findings do not necessarily apply to persons with more advanced nephropathy, but they support the clinical equivalence of angiotensin II-receptor blockers and ACE inhibitors in persons with conditions that place them at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Comparison of the effects of telmisartan and nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system on blood pressure control, glucose metabolism, and the lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild hypertension: a 12-month, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) provide effective blood pressure control. Whereas none of the ARBs appear to affect glucose homeostasis, some ARBs have been associated with a decrease in cholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to evaluate blood pressure control glucose homeostasis, and the plasma lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mild hypertension during 12 months of treatment with the ARB telmisartan or nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS).

METHODS

In this double-blind trial, patients taking oral hypoglycemic agents were randomized to receive telmisartan 40 mg or nifedipine GITS 20 mg once daily for 12 months. At the time of enrollment, patients were given advice on diet (1400-1600 kcal/d) and exercise (stationary bicycle for > or =30 min, 4 d/wk). Assessments of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), fasting plasma glucose concentrations, glycosylated hemoglobin, fasting plasma insulin concentrations, the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, and the lipid profile were performed at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of treatment.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen patients were divided into 2 age- and sex-matched treatment groups (58 men, 58 women; mean [SD] age, 52.5 [5] years). All patients were in good general health at baseline; had achieved adequate glycemic control with diet and oral hypoglycemic agents; were taking antihypercholesterolemic drugs; and had no evidence of macroangiopathy, microalbuminuria, or neuropathy. There were significant reductions from baseline in seated trough SBP after 12 months of treatment with both telmisartan and nifedipine GITS (from 139 [4] to 132 [4] mm Hg and from 140 [4] to 130 [4] mm Hg, respectively; both, P < 0.01). No change in BMI or glucose metabolism was observed with either treatment. After 12 months, there were significant improvements in concentrations of total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with telmisartan (-9% and -11.5%, respectively; both, P < 0.01) compared with nifedipine GITS (-2% and -1.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this selected sample of patients with type 2 diabetes and mild hypertension, both telmisartan and nifedipine GITS produced significant reductions in blood pressure. Telmisartan was associated with a slight but statistically significant improvement in plasma TC and LDL-C concentrations compared with nifedipine GITS.

Microalbuminuria and hypertension with focus on type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Microalbuminuria and hypertension with Over the past decade, there has been considerable focus on the concept of microalbuminuria, not only because it predicts renal disease in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but also because it relates to premature mortality in the diabetic and in the general population. More importantly, intervention at this stage is now possible with the perspective of preserving glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and ameliorating cardiovascular disease and ensuing strong end-points. INITIAL STUDIES: The concept of microalbuminuria was introduced about 20 years ago and since then there has been a multitude of studies and papers on this subject using the original definition, but not always, in the US. Before that time it was suggested, mainly from the US, that diabetic renal disease was an untreatable relentlessly progressive condition.

GENETIC STUDIES

There is an overwhelming number of studies on genetics and diabetes and also covering the genetics of diabetic complications including nephropathy. However, so far the results are extremely disappointing. Patients at risk cannot be identified and genetic analyses are of no value as a guide to treatment. The notion that the development of complications is controlled mainly by a special genetic pattern is increasingly doubtful. In genetic studies, it is rather phenotypic well-accepted risk factors that dominate. STRUCTURAL BASIS OF MICROALBUMINURIA: Patients with microalbuminuria have significant abnormalities in the kidney, including glomeruli. This is quite clear in patients with type 1 diabetes, but is also seen in type 2 diabetes, where on the other hand, other risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia also seem to be of importance, including loss of autoregulation. Renal biopsies are generally not indicated in the management of diabetic patients. MICROALBUMINURIA AND EARLY MORTALITY: It is quite clear that microalbuminuria predicts early mortality both in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The association to other risk factors may partly explain this--but this does not account for the whole picture. Endothelial dysfunction as well as inflammatory and arteriosclerotic abnormalities in blood vessels may be a relevant hypothesis that needs to be further explored along with other possibilities. CLINICAL COURSE AND ASSOCIATED ABNORMALITIES: The risk factor for progression in normoalbuminuric patients to microalbuminuria is higher than normal albumin excretion (strongest factor), poor glycaemic control, elevated blood pressure, and to some extent smoking. The clinical course of microalbuminuria is usually progressive, but with the more effective intervention now available we encounter that the so-called natural history (without intervention) is increasingly difficult to study. Microalbuminuria is clearly associated with a number of abnormalities, almost in all organs, but GFR is generally well preserved in spite of more advanced structural lesions. Therefore, microalbuminuria is an important marker for more pronounced diabetic vascular disease in general as well as for nephropathy. Regression to normoalbuminuria only rarely occurs during standard unchanged nonintensive treatment. TREATMENT STRATEGIES: The best possible glycaemic control is important in preventing and ameliorating the course of normo- and micro-albuminuria. Another major treatment strategy, especially in microalbuminuric patients, is antihypertensive treatment including inhibition of the renal angiotensin aldosterone system. Numerous new studies are available, both in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, documenting that not only microalbuminuria but also renal and cardiovascular complications in these patient are also far better controlled by early detection and treatment. Therefore, screening for microalbuminuria should be a strategy in all diabetes management followed by effective intervention as outlined in this paper.

Angiotensin II receptor blockers and cardiovascular outcomes: what does the future hold?

The ability of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) to lower blood pressure (BP) is well established. ACE inhibitors (ACE-Is) have also been shown to improve the prognosis of a broad range of patients at high cardiovascular risk, including those with heart failure, post-myocardial infarction (MI), and nephropathy. These benefits suggest that interrupting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) with ACE-Is has a widespread vasculoprotective effect, provided that BP is also adequately controlled. Evidence that RAAS blockade by ARBs also improves long-term clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease has started to accumulate, and will be tested further during the coming years as a number of large-scale, prospective trials are completed. These trials are investigating the long-term protective effects of ARBs on morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension, heart failure, diabetes mellitus, acute MI, or established vascular disease. The results should establish the extent to which ARBs exhibit the vasculoprotective properties demonstrated by ACE-Is in patients at high cardiovascular risk. If ARBs are found to provide benefits that are similar to, or even greater than ACE-Is, it may have important implications for drug selection, given the excellent tolerability of ARBs. Some studies are also investigating whether more extensive RAAS blockade using a combination of an ARB and an ACE-I will offer even greater protection than either agent alone.

Treatment of hypertension with an angiotensin II-receptor antagonist compared with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: a review of clinical studies of telmisartan and enalapril

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II (ATII)-receptor antagonists suppress the effects of ATII and are effective antihypertensive agents. However, the use of ACE inhibitors is sometimes associated with intolerable side effects (eg, cough, angioedema), and patients may develop a compensatory rise in ATII levels. ATII-receptor antagonists have tolerability profiles similar to that of placebo and inhibit the effects of ATII more completely by blocking the AT1 receptor.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes clinical studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of the ATII-receptor antagonist telmisartan with the ACE inhibitor enalapril in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing telmisartan with enalapril in patients with primary hypertension were identified through a PubMed search of the English-language literature from 1998 through 2001 and from bibliographic data provided by the manufacturer of telmisartan.

RESULTS

In 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (total number of patients, 647), telmisartan 40 or 80 mg/d was at least as effective as enalapril 20 mg/d for lowering blood pressure (BP) in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. An open-label, titration-to-response study involving 86 patients with severe hypertension found that telmisartan 80 to 160 mg/d was as efficacious as enalapril 20 to 40 mg/d. The antihypertensive effects of telmisartan 20 to 80 mg/d and enalapril 5 to 20 mg/d were comparable in 278 elderly patients (age > or = 65 years) with mild to moderate hypertension enrolled in a 26-week, double-blind, dose-titration study. A double-blind, titration-to-response study in 71 patients with moderate renal impairment and mild to moderate hypertension found equivalent reductions in BP with telmisartan 40 to 80 mg/d and enalapril 10 to 20 mg/d without any clinically relevant decline in renal function. Telmisartan tended to be better tolerated than enalapril in this study, with fewer patients experiencing treatment-related adverse events (8.9% vs 26.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the literature included in this review, telmisartan and enalapril produced comparable reductions in BP in a broad range of patients with hypertension. Telmisartan appeared to have a better tolerability profile.