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

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.

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).

Effects of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide on ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus, are associated with small reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and increases in heart rate. However, findings based on clinic measurements do not adequately assess a drug's 24-hour pharmacodynamic profile. The effects of dulaglutide, a once-weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, on BP and heart rate were investigated using ambulatory BP monitoring. Patients (n=755; 56±10 years; 81% white; 48% women), with type 2 diabetes mellitus, taking ≥1 oral antihyperglycemic medication, with a clinic BP between 90/60 and 140/90 mm Hg were randomized to dulaglutide (1.5 or 0.75 mg) or placebo subcutaneously for 26 weeks. Ambulatory BP monitoring was performed at baseline and at 4, 16, and 26 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline to week 16 in mean 24-hour SBP, a tree gatekeeping strategy compared the effects of dulaglutide to placebo. Both doses of dulaglutide were noninferior to placebo for changes in 24-hour SBP and diastolic blood pressure, and dulaglutide 1.5 mg significantly reduced SBP (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]), -2.8 mm Hg [-4.6, -1.0]; P≤0.001). Dulaglutide 0.75 mg was noninferior to placebo (1.6 bpm; [0.3, 2.9]; P≤0.02) for 24-hour heart rate (least squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]), but dulaglutide 1.5 mg was not (2.8 bpm [1.5, 4.2]). Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with a reduction in 24-hour SBP and an increase in 24-hour heart rate. The mechanisms responsible for the observed effects remain to be clarified.

Antihypertensive agents for preventing diabetic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Various blood pressure-lowering agents, and particularly inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), are widely used for people with diabetes to prevent the onset of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003 and updated in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to assess the benefits and harms of blood pressure lowering agents in people with diabetes mellitus and a normal amount of albumin in the urine (normoalbuminuria).

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2011 we searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any antihypertensive agent with placebo or another agent in hypertensive or normotensive patients with diabetes and no kidney disease (albumin excretion rate < 30 mg/d) were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two investigators independently extracted data on kidney and other patient-relevant outcomes (all-cause mortality and serious cardiovascular events), and assessed study quality. Analysis was by a random effects model was applied to analyse results which were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 26 studies that enrolling 61,264 participants. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) reduced the risk of new onset of microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria or both when compared to placebo (8 studies, 11,906 patients: RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89), with similar benefits in people with and without hypertension (P = 0.74), and when compared to calcium channel blockers (5 studies, 1253 participants: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.85). ACEi reduced the risk of death when compared to placebo (6 studies, 11,350 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97). No effect was observed for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) when compared to placebo for new microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria or both (5 studies, 7653 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19) or death (5 studies, 7653 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.41); however, meta-regression suggested possible benefits from ARB for preventing kidney disease in high risk patients. There was a trend towards benefit from use of combined ACEi and ARB for prevention of DKD compared with ACEi alone (2 studies, 4171 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00).The risk of cough was significantly increased with ACEi when compared to placebo (6 studies, 11,791 patients: RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.72), however there was no significant difference in the risk of headache or hyperkalaemia. There was no significant difference in the risk of cough, headache or hyperkalaemia when ARB was to placebo. On average risk of bias was judged to be either low (27% to 69%) or unclear (i.e. no information available) (8% to 73%). Blinding of participants, incomplete outcome data and selective reporting were judged to be high in 23%, 31% and 31% of studies, respectively.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACEi were found to prevent new onset DKD and death in normoalbuminuric people with diabetes, and could therefore be used in this population. More data are needed to clarify the role of ARB and other drug classes in preventing DKD.

Differential clinical profile of candesartan compared to other angiotensin receptor blockers

The advantages of blood pressure (BP) control on the risks of heart failure and stroke are well established. The renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in volume homeostasis and BP regulation and is a target for several groups of antihypertensive drugs. Angiotensin II receptor blockers represent a major class of antihypertensive compounds. Candesartan cilexetil is an angiotensin II type 1 (AT[1]) receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) that inhibits the actions of angiotensin II on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Oral candesartan 8–32 mg once daily is recommended for the treatment of adult patients with hypertension. Clinical trials have demonstrated that candesartan cilexetil is an effective agent in reducing the risk of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, heart failure, arterial stiffness, renal failure, retinopathy, and migraine in different populations of adult patients including patients with coexisting type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or kidney impairment. Clinical evidence confirmed that candesartan cilexetil provides better antihypertensive efficacy than losartan and is at least as effective as telmisartan and valsartan. Candesartan cilexetil, one of the current market leaders in BP treatment, is a highly selective compound with high potency, a long duration of action, and a tolerability profile similar to placebo. The most important and recent data from clinical trials regarding candesartan cilexetil will be reviewed in this article.

Irbesartan improves arterial compliance more than lisinopril

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive agents can reduce arterial stiffness. We hypothesized that an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) irbesartan and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) lisinopril improved arterial compliance.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled crossover trial. Fifteen hypertensive patients, mean age 65.5 +/- 8.9 years (mean +/- SD) were given irbesartan (150 to 300 mg/day) or lisinopril (10 to 20 mg/day) for 12 weeks and then crossed over for 12 weeks. Pulse wave velocity (PWV) in the carotid-femoral (CF), carotid-radial (CR), and femoral dorsalis-pedis (FD) were measured using a Complior((R)) PWV system.

RESULTS

After 12 weeks, systolic blood pressure (SBP) decreased from 162.4 +/- 12.9 to 134.5 +/- 14.8 with irbesartan and to 145.2 +/- 25 mmHg with lisinopril. Irbesartan and lisinopril reduced PWV (CF) in the elastic arterial system from 15.1 +/- 5 to 13.3 +/- 2.6 (p < 0.005) and to 14 +/- 4.7 (p < 0.05) m/s respectively (p = 0.345). Irbesartan reduced PWV (CR) and PWV (FD), whereas lisinopril did not. The difference between treatments was significant after SBP adjustment (p = 0.037 for PWV (CR) and p < 0.001 for PWV (FD)).

CONCLUSIONS

Irbesartan improved arterial compliance in elastic and muscular arteries, whereas lisinopril improved it only in elastic arteries.

Ambulatory pulse pressure, decreased nocturnal blood pressure reduction and progression of nephropathy in type 2 diabetic patients

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

We followed type 2 diabetic patients over a long period to evaluate the predictive value of ambulatory pulse pressure (PP) and decreased nocturnal BP reduction (non-dipping) for nephropathy progression.

METHODS

Type 2 diabetic patients (n = 112) were followed for an average of 9.5 (range 0.5-14.5) years. At baseline, all patients underwent 24 h ambulatory BP measurement. Urinary albumin excretion rate was evaluated by three urinary albumin:creatinine ratio measurements at baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

At baseline, patients who subsequently progressed to a more advanced nephropathy stage (n = 35) had reduced diastolic night/day BP variation and higher 24 h systolic BP and PP values; they also had more advanced nephropathy and were more likely to smoke than those with no progression of nephropathy (n = 77). In a Cox regression analysis, independent predictors of nephropathy progression were 24 h PP (p < 0.01), diastolic night:day BP ratio (p = 0.02) and smoking (p = 0.02). The adjusted hazards ratio (95% CI) for each mmHg increment in 24 h PP was 1.04 (1.01-1.07), whereas the adjusted hazards ratio (95% CI) for each 1% increase in diastolic night:day BP ratio was 1.06 (1.01-1.11). Only one of 33 patients (3.0%) with both a diastolic night:day BP ratio and a 24 h PP below the median progressed, whereas 17 of 32 patients (53.1%) with both a diastolic night:day BP ratio and a 24 h PP equal to or above the median progressed to a more advanced nephropathy stage (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Ambulatory PP, impaired nocturnal BP decline and smoking are strong, independent predictors of nephropathy progression in type 2 diabetic patients.

Twelve shifting paradigms in diabetic renal disease and hypertension

In the last 30 years we have seen considerable progress in the management of patients with diabetes, in particular with diabetic renal disease. A number of paradigms have been broken down, namely the following, as a consequence, clinical care has improved dramatically. . Significant renal involvement and albuminuria is rare in patients with essential hypertension. 2. High GFR is good for prognosis. 3. Only proteinuric diabetic patients have a poor prognosis. 4. Microalbuminuria only predicts renal disease. 5. Reducing blood pressure may cause low perfusion in the kidney and other organs with long-term negative effect, especially on the glomerular filtration rate. 6. Only in the presence of high blood pressure, should microalbuminuric patients receive anti-hypertensive treatment, including blockade of the RAS. 7. Only reducing blood pressure by blocking RAS in diabetes is relevant and justified. 8. Normoalbuminuria as indicated in the present definition is 'normal'. 9. ACE-I or ARB can only be used separately. 10. Diastolic blood pressure and later systolic pulse pressure are the best parameters for blood pressure recording. 11. Microalbuminuria is the strongest risk marker in patients with type 1 diabetes. 12. Screening for microalbuminuria is relevant, but follow-up was not proposed (also regarding microalbuminuria). In the present situation, it is well-known that patients with essential hypertension may sometimes have microalbuminuria, and it is known that it predicts a poor prognosis. Interestingly, in type 1 diabetes, hyperfiltration is a marker for poor prognosis related to metabolic control. Thus hyperfiltration is a marker for bad development, but microalbuminuria (below the proteinuric level) is also associated with a poor prognosis. It was originally believed that microalbuminuria only predicts renal disease. However, surprisingly it predicts as well cardiovascular disease and early mortality. The story about blood pressure and progression of renal disease is interesting, because it was earlier believed that a certain high blood pressure was mandatory for preservation of the renal function. This appeared to be a completely wrong concept. The data regarding microalbuminuria suggest that patients with microalbuminuria should receive anti-hypertensive treatment, even patients with so-called normal blood pressure. This was confirmed in several trials and also included in the guidelines. Reducing blood pressure is important, but it appeared to be especially beneficial to block the renin-angiontensin system, and it is clear that albuminuria is a continuous variable and is also a risk factor. Earlier it was suggested to use ACE-inhibitors or ARBs. Now it is clear that it is possible to use a combination, with good theoretical background. In the history of hypertension, it was earlier believed that diastolic blood pressure was most important, but later on it was generally accepted that systolic is a better predictor and the goal for treatment and pulse pressure may be even better. Not only is microalbuminuria an important risk marker, but it is as well clear that regression of microalbuminuria is a good marker for a better prognosis in patients. Microalbuminuria is believed to be the strongest risk factor, but new studies actually suggest that a simple parameter such as self-rated health is crucial along with other factors. Regarding new developments, it is clear that new studies have led to several advancements in management in patients, for instance the Steno II study shows positive effect on mortality by multifactorial intervention. Similarly, the ADVANCE study also showed positive effect on mortality by more intensified anti-hypertensive treatment with an ACE-inhibitor. We are eagerly awaiting the results from glucose arm in the ADVANCE study, especially in the light of the ACCORD study showing increased mortality with too strict glycemic control with a goal of 6% in HbA1c.

Pulse pressure and adverse outcomes in women: a report from the Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation (WISE)

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that brachial pulse pressure (PP) may be a better predictor of outcome than systolic or diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP). We sought to investigate the relative contributions of these indices to risk for adverse outcomes in women with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial ischemia.

METHODS

Among 857 women referred for angiography for suspected myocardial ischemia, baseline evaluations were performed, and the women were followed for clinical outcome. Relationships between baseline characteristics, blood pressure components, and outcomes were evaluated. Separate multivariate stepwise Cox regression models for PP and SBP (expressed in 10 mm Hg increments) were constructed and included covariates significantly associated with adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

After 5.2 years (mean), univariate testing identified higher PP associated with higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) mortality and adverse CV outcomes than SBP, DBP, or mean arterial pressure (MAP). Multivariate modeling identified both PP and SBP associated with adverse CV outcomes, but only PP was significantly associated with higher CV mortality. When both PP and SBP were included in the model, only PP remained an independent predictor of adverse outcomes for CV events.

CONCLUSIONS

In women with suspected CAD and myocardial ischemia, PP is a stronger predictor of adverse outcomes than SBP, DBP, or MAP with an 18% excess mortality risk for every 10 mm Hg increase in PP. Further investigations into pathophysiologic mechanisms and specific pharmacologic approaches to modifying this novel target are warranted.

Current possibilities of ACE inhibitor and ARB combination in arterial hypertension and its complications

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a crucial role in blood pressure regulation and hypertension-related complications. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) were the first to be used to block the RAAS and now have many compelling indications in the treatment of hypertension and its cardiovascular and renal complications. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), introduced 20 years later, have been shown to be equally as effective as antihypertensive treatment and are also associated with a lower number of side effects. Furthermore, in clinical trials ARBs and ACEIs were associated with comparable benefits for their most typical indications. This was confirmed in the 2007 New European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines for the management of hypertension by comparable specific recommendations for ARB and ACEI treatment. There is sufficient theoretical background and, in some cases, also clinical evidence that combination therapy with ACEIs and ARBs may be more beneficial than monotherapy with either of the groups alone, both in uncomplicated hypertension and with concomitant heart failure or renal dysfunction. However, the combination of ACEI and ARB was not recommended in the ESH/ESC 2007 Guidelines. This may change after the publication of the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global End point Trial (ONTARGET) study, the preliminary results of which have just been presented. In heart failure, recent studies have shown that the combination of ACEI and ARB decreases cardiovascular mortality and the number of hospitalizations due to aggravation of heart failure. These results have been reflected in the newest ESC guidelines of the heart failure treatment. Nephroprotective properties of the combination of ACEs and ARBs have been proved both in studies on nondiabetic and diabetic nephropathy. The potential benefits, indications in prespecified groups of patients, the most recent data from clinical trials and latest research regarding dual blockade of RAAS will be reviewed in this article.