Pilot study of combined blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in essential hypertensive patients

Should ACE inhibitors and ARBs be used in combination in children?

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a pivotal role in a host of renal and cardiovascular functions. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), drugs that disrupt RAAS function, are effective in treating hypertension and offer other renoprotective effects independent of blood pressure (BP) reduction. As our understanding of RAAS physiology and the feedback mechanisms of ACE inhibition and angiotensin receptor blockade have improved, questions have been raised as to whether combination ACEI/ARB therapy is warranted in certain patients with incomplete angiotensin blockade on one agent. In this review, we discuss the rationale for combination ACEI/ARB therapy and summarize the results of key adult studies and the limited pediatric literature that have investigated this therapeutic approach. We additionally review novel therapies that have been developed over the past decade as alternative approaches to combination ACEI/ARB therapy, or that may be potentially used in combination with ACEIs or ARBs, in which further adult and pediatric studies are needed.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are drugs commonly used for the treatment of hypertension. However, studies on their comparative efficacy have not been extensively investigated. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis studied the comparative efficacy of the two antihypertensive treatment categories in reducing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension patients. A literature search was carried out in Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trials, which had reported blood pressure effects, mortality, and/or morbidity. Blood pressure results were found in 30 studies with 7370 participants and 8 studies with 25,158 participants with mortality/morbidity results included in the analysis. The two drug classes had similar effectiveness in lowering systolic (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.59, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.38) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.62, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.30), all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)): 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37) and stroke (RR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more helpful in the prevention and/or the hospitalization for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers (RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were similarly effective in decreasing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more protective in the advancement and/or hospitalization of the hypertensive patient for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers.

Sex-specific long-term blood pressure regulation: Modeling and analysis

Hypertension is a global health challenge: it affects one billion people worldwide and is estimated to account for >60% of all cases or types of cardiovascular disease. In part because sex differences in blood pressure regulation mechanisms are not sufficiently well understood, fewer hypertensive women achieve blood pressure control compared to men, even though compliance and treatment rates are generally higher in women. Thus, the objective of this study is to identify which factors contribute to the sexual dimorphism in response to anti-hypertensive therapies targeting the renin angiotensin system (RAS). To accomplish that goal, we develop sex-specific blood pressure regulation models. Sex differences in the RAS, baseline adosterone level, and the reactivity of renal sympathetic nervous activity (RSNA) are represented. A novel aspect of the model is the representation of sex-specific vasodilatory effect of the bound angiotensin II type two receptor (AT2R-bound Ang II) on renal vascular resistance. Model simulations suggest that sex differences in RSNA are the largest cause of female resistance to developing hypertension due to the direct influence of RSNA on afferent arteriole resistance. Furthermore, the model predicts that the sex-specific vasodilatory effects of AT2R-bound Ang II on renal vascular resistance may explain the higher effectiveness of angiotensin receptor blockers in treating hypertensive women (but not men), compared to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors.

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Regulates Cell Proliferation and Migration

Background

The angiotensin-I converting enzyme (ACE) plays a central role in the renin-angiotensin system, acting by converting the hormone angiotensin-I to the active peptide angiotensin-II (Ang-II). More recently, ACE was shown to act as a receptor for Ang-II, and its expression level was demonstrated to be higher in melanoma cells compared to their normal counterparts. However, the function that ACE plays as an Ang-II receptor in melanoma cells has not been defined yet.

Aim

Therefore, our aim was to examine the role of ACE in tumor cell proliferation and migration.

Results

We found that upon binding to ACE, Ang-II internalizes with a faster onset compared to the binding of Ang-II to its classical AT1 receptor. We also found that the complex Ang-II/ACE translocates to the nucleus, through a clathrin-mediated process, triggering a transient nuclear Ca²⁺ signal. In silico studies revealed a possible interaction site between ACE and phospholipase C (PLC), and experimental results in CHO cells, demonstrated that the β3 isoform of PLC is the one involved in the Ca²⁺ signals induced by Ang-II/ACE interaction. Further studies in melanoma cells (TM-5) showed that Ang-II induced cell proliferation through ACE activation, an event that could be inhibited either by ACE inhibitor (Lisinopril) or by the silencing of ACE. In addition, we found that stimulation of ACE by Ang-II caused the melanoma cells to migrate, at least in part due to decreased vinculin expression, a focal adhesion structural protein.

Conclusion

ACE activation regulates melanoma cell proliferation and migration.

Combined Treatment With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers: A Review of the Current Evidence

Several studies have shown that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers are useful in the treatment of hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic heart failure, and some types of nephropathy. In this context, dual renin-angiotensin system blockade with both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers may be more effective than treatment with each agent alone. Many clinical trials have demonstrated the beneficial effect of this combined treatment on proteinuria, hypertension, heart failure, and cardiovascular events. Moreover, these studies demonstrated that dual renin-angiotensin system blockade is generally safe and well tolerated. Long-term studies are under way to confirm these effects and also investigate the effectiveness of dual reninangiotensin system blockade on cerebrovascular disease and prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus. These studies are expected to define the optimal use of combination treatment in everyday clinical practice. This review considers the most important clinical trials that evaluated the effect of dual renin-angiotensin system blockade on blood pressure, heart failure, and renal function.

An update of the blockade of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Blockade of this system is commonly used in the treatment of cardiovascular (CV) and renal disease.

AREAS COVERED

Data from multiple clinical trials have provided good evidence about the benefit of blocking the system as a therapeutic target to reduce CV and renal events. We have reviewed all the tested combinations of different drugs counteracting the effects of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

EXPERT OPINION

Monotherapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) remains valid in all the guidelines, whereas their dual combination has been discarded due to the absence of proven benefits in high CV risk patients and in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The combination of the standard therapy with an ACEi or an ARB with a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker is a valid option, but has the inconvenience of frequent hyperkalemia in patients with CKD. Similarly, the addition of the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, to this standard therapy is not particularly supported in diabetic patients. New dual-acting blockers, for example, those combining valsartan and neprilysin inhibitors (LCZ696-Novartis) or endothelin converting enzyme inhibitors and neprilysin inhibitors (ECEI, Daglutril-Solvay), are currently under investigation.

Efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long term efficacy and adverse events of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with monotherapy.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, January 1990 to August 2012.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials comparing dual blockers of the renin-angiotensin system with monotherapy, reporting data on either long term efficacy (≥ 1 year) or safety events (≥ 4 weeks), and with a sample size of at least 50. Analysis was stratified by trials with patients with heart failure versus patients without heart failure.

RESULTS

33 randomised controlled trials with 68,405 patients (mean age 61 years, 71% men) and mean duration of 52 weeks were included. Dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system was not associated with any significant benefit for all cause mortality (relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.06) and cardiovascular mortality (0.96, 0.88 to 1.05) compared with monotherapy. Compared with monotherapy, dual therapy was associated with an 18% reduction in admissions to hospital for heart failure (0.82, 0.74 to 0.92). However, compared with monotherapy, dual therapy was associated with a 55% increase in the risk of hyperkalaemia (P<0.001), a 66% increase in the risk of hypotension (P<0.001), a 41% increase in the risk of renal failure (P=0.01), and a 27% increase in the risk of withdrawal owing to adverse events (P<0.001). Efficacy and safety results were consistent in cohorts with and without heart failure when dual therapy was compared with monotherapy except for all cause mortality, which was higher in the cohort without heart failure (P=0.04 v P=0.15), and renal failure was significantly higher in the cohort with heart failure (P<0.001 v P=0.79).

CONCLUSION

Although dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may have seemingly beneficial effects on certain surrogate endpoints, it failed to reduce mortality and was associated with an excessive risk of adverse events such as hyperkalaemia, hypotension, and renal failure compared with monotherapy. The risk to benefit ratio argues against the use of dual therapy.

Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System Blockade: Little to No Rationale for ACE Inhibitor and ARB Combinations

Our understanding of the complexities and inter-related pathways of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system continues to evolve. Which drugs to use, when, and how, are everyday questions faced by clinicians in the ambulatory setting. Combining these classes, for the purpose of enhancing renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade and incremental blood pressure, nephroprotective, and cardioprotective effects, logically has emerged as an area for scientific inquiry and clinical use. Despite the lack of evidence on safety and efficacy in most disease states, dual therapy has been embraced as a treatment option. Most studies of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combination therapy in the treatment of hypertension have limitations. In contrast, combination ACE inhibitor-ARB therapy in systolic heart failure has been addressed in several large randomized controlled trials. Until recently, there has been limited and conflicting evidence for the use of combination therapy for the prevention or management of nephropathy. Based on the new evidence, combination ACE inhibitor-ARB therapy in the treatment and management of hypertension, heart failure, and nephropathy should be limited.

Dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in cardiac and renal disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade improves outcome in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD), but the residual risk during monotherapy RAAS blockade remains very high. This review discusses the place of dual RAAS blockade in improving these outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) with angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker (ARB) generally had a better antihypertensive and antiproteinuric effect than monotherapy in many studies, but is also associated with more adverse effects. Unfortunately, the effect on hard renal and cardiovascular endpoints is not unequivocal. The combination of ACEI (or ARB) with aldosterone blockade has long-term benefits in heart failure, and an added effect on proteinuria in CKD, but data on hard renal endpoints are lacking. Dual blockade including renin inhibition has added antiproteinuric effects, but studies to gather long-term data are still under way. Available strategies to optimize the effect of monotherapy RAAS blockade include dose titration and correction of volume excess. Whether dual blockade has better efficacy and/or fewer adverse effects than optimized monotherapy has not been investigated.

SUMMARY

Several options are available to increase the effect of monotherapy RAAS blockade. For proteinuric CKD, these can be combined in a stepwise approach aimed at maximal proteinuria reduction; this includes dual blockade for patients with persistent proteinuria during optimized monotherapy RAAS blockade. Long-term randomized studies, however, are needed to support the benefits of dual blockade for long-term renal and cardiovascular outcome in CKD.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of diuretics as second-line therapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Diuretics are widely prescribed for hypertension not only as a first-line drug but also as a second-line drug. Therefore, it is essential to determine the effects of diuretics on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) when given as a second-line drug.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the additional reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of diuretic therapy as a second-line drug in patients with primary hypertension

SEARCH STRATEGY

CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966-July 2008), EMBASE (1988-July 2008) and bibliographic citations of articles and reviews were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of a diuretic in combination therapy with another class of anti-hypertensive drugs compared with the respective monotherapy (without a diuretic) for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three double-blind RCTs evaluating a thiazide in 15129 hypertensive patients (baseline BP of 156/101 mmHg) were included. Hydrochlorothiazide was the thiazide used in 49/53 (92%) of the included studies. The additional BP reduction caused by the thiazide as a second drug was estimated by comparing the difference in BP reduction between the combination and monotherapy groups. Thiazides as a second-line drug reduced BP by 6/3 and 8/4 mmHg at doses of 1 and 2 times the manufacturer's recommended starting dose respectively. The BP lowering effect was dose related. The effect was similar to that obtained when thiazides are used as a single agent. Only 3 double-blind RCTs evaluating loop diuretics were identified. These RCTs showed a BP lowering effect of a starting dose of about 6/3 mmHg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Thiazides when given as a second-line drug have a dose related effect to lower blood pressure that is similar to when they are added as a first-line drug. This means that the BP lowering effect of thiazides is additive. Loop diuretics appear to have a similar blood pressure lowering effect as thiazides at 1 times the recommended starting dose. Because of the short duration of the trials and lack of reporting of adverse events, this review does not provide a good estimate of the incidence of adverse effects of diuretics given as a second-line drug.

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.

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.

Evolving treatment options for prevention of cardiovascular events in high-risk hypertensive patients

The identification and treatment of high-risk patients for cardiovascular disease reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality. Significant risk factors for cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients over and above dyslipidemia, smoking, and obesity include coronary heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, cerebrovascular/carotid artery disease, and diabetes. Treatment options for the reduction of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients include diuretics, beta-blockers, alpha-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and aldosterone antagonists. All of these agents, in various combinations, have been found to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, even in high-risk patients. The use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (usually in combination with a diuretic) has proven especially effective in reducing cardiovascular events in diabetes and, although both classes of drugs target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, each has a different mechanism of action. Some investigators believe that combination therapy with an ACE inhibitor and ARB, usually given with other medications, may be more effective than either agent alone with other drugs. The Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination With Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) is evaluating the cardioprotective effect of an ACE inhibitor (ramipril) plus an ARB (telmisartan) in high-risk patients.

Reducing cardiovascular risk by blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system

Many factors contribute to the overall risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a given patient. Activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is pivotal in the pathophysiology of CVD and renal disease and appears to place individuals at high risk for cardiovascular (CV) and renal events. Results from many large-scale, long-term clinical trials have demonstrated that RAAS blockade with an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) can significantly decrease CV and renal morbidity and mortality in a wide range of patients. Some of the clinical benefits derived from use of these agents appears to be independent of their ability to lower blood pressure. The combined use of an ACEI and an ARB for antihypertensive therapy has begun to receive considerable attention. Such an approach may seem counterintuitive, but ACEIs and ARBs have distinct and potentially complementary pharmacologic effects. Results from clinical trials thus far suggest that combination therapy with an ACEI plus an ARB may be a rational choice in patients with chronic activation of the RAAS, including those with heart failure or impaired left ventricular systolic function, diabetes, proteinuria, impaired renal function, recent myocardial infarction, or multiple CV risk factors. Results from ongoing, large-scale, clinical endpoint trials will provide important additional information about the benefits of dual RAAS inhibition in patients at high risk for CV morbidity and mortality.

The role of angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers in the prevention and management of diabetes mellitus

Angiotensin II Receptor blockers (ARBs) are an important addition to the current range of medications available for treating a wide spectrum of diseases including cardiovascular diseases. Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death in the United Kingdom and worldwide. More importantly, the presence of the metabolic syndrome and the likelihood of diabetes mellitus taking on epidemic proportions in the years to come all threaten to maintain the mortality rate due to CHD. This review article focuses on the clinical studies that have helped define the trends in the usage of these agents in the prevention and treatment of diabetes mellitus and its complications and also explores possible mechanisms of action and future developments.

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.

Intraindividual Blood Pressure Responses to Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibition and Angiotensin Receptor Blockade

This study aims to test the hypothesis that in some hypertensive subjects the blood pressure (BP) response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition differs from that to angiotensin receptor blockade (ARB); a responder to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition may not respond to ARB or the opposite. A randomized, open-label, crossover, comparative trial of lisinopril 20 mg compared with telmisartan 80 mg (5 weeks per treatment period) was conducted in 32 untreated hypertensives using 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring. Subjects were classified as "responders" and "nonresponders" using an arbitrary threshold of ambulatory BP response (> or =10 mm Hg systolic or > or =5 diastolic) or the median response achieved by each drug. No difference was detected between the drugs in their effect on ambulatory BP (mean difference 1.2+/-7.1/0.7+/-5.1 mm Hg, systolic/diastolic). Significant correlations were found between the antihypertensive responses to the two drugs (r=0.77, p<0.001). Using the arbitrary response criterion, there was a difference between the drugs in the responses in 28%/13% of subjects (9/4 patients) for systolic/diastolic BP (19%/25% using the median response criterion). These data suggest that in some hypertensive patients the BP response to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition may fail to predict the response to ARB. It appears that there are differences in the antihypertensive action of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs that may be clinically important.

Combination Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Therapy: Its Role in Clinical Practice

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are commonly prescribed for the management of hypertension. In addition, each of these drug classes has been shown to be effective in the treatment of congestive heart failure, proteinuric chronic kidney disease, and most recently the high-cardiac-risk profile patient. The individual success of each of these drug classes has fueled the theory that given together, the overall biologic effect of both would surpass that of either given alone. The foundation of this premise, although biologically plausible, has yet to be proven in a compelling enough fashion to support the everyday use of these two drug classes in combination. Additional clarifying studies are required to establish whether specific patient subsets exist that might benefit from such combination therapy.

Combination ACE Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Therapy-Future Considerations

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are regularly prescribed for the management of hypertension. Each of these drug classes has also been shown to provide survival benefits for patients with heart failure, proteinuric chronic kidney disease, and/or a high cardiac risk profile. The individual gains seen with each of these drug classes have led to speculation that their combination might offer additive if not synergistic outcome benefits. The foundation of this hypothesis, although biologically possible, has thus far not been sufficiently well proven to support the everyday use of these 2 drug classes in combination. Additional outcomes trials, which are currently proceeding to their conclusion, may provide the necessary proof to support an expanded use of these 2 drug classes in combination.

Addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker to full-dose ACE-inhibition: controversial or common sense?

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) interfere with the activity of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in a different way. Theoretically, one might expect beneficial effects when they are used in combination, as a more complete suppression of the RAS can be achieved. But can this additional effect still be seen in patients on full-dose ACE-inhibition? Several controlled trials demonstrated that combination therapy can have additional benefits in hypertensive patients, in chronic heart failure patients, and in both diabetic and non-diabetic nephropathy patients. However, the clinical benefit was not always as pronounced as expected and not every patient will benefit from dual blockade of the RAS. There is some evidence of a less pronounced effect of combination therapy when a full dose of the ACE-inhibitor is given. However, it is well known that ACE-inhibitors cannot completely suppress the formation of angiotensin II, in particular, when the RAS is activated. Indeed, clinical trials indicated that add-on therapy with an ARB was especially of use when the RAS remained activated despite full-dose ACE-inhibitor treatment. In summary, combination of a full-dose ACE-inhibitor and an ARB can be a rational choice in selected patients.

Losartan in cardiovascular disease

Hypertension is a major risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. Numerous placebo-controlled trials have demonstrated that treatment of hypertension results in substantial reduction of hypertension-related vascular events. The benefit of specific therapies beyond their effect on blood pressure is well established. Losartan is an orally-active, selective, nonpeptide, angiotensin II type 1-receptor antagonist (ARB), and it was the first in this class to be marketed. Several large-scale clinical trials have demonstrated that losartan and other ARBs have benefits in preventing cardiovascular disease. The Losartan Intervention For End point reduction in hypertension (LIFE) study demonstrated improved outcomes with losartan as compared with atenolol-based therapies in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, mainly because of stroke prevention. The Reduction of End points in Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study demonstrated that losartan prevented the progression of diabetic nephropathy. In this review, evidence from these and other clinical trials with losartan shall be discussed. The pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of losartan are described to explain its mechanisms of action. Among the ARB class, losartan possesses certain unique properties, which may enhance its cardiovascular protective effects. These include an increase of urinary uric acid excretion and antiatherothrombotic properties. Potential future roles for losartan and other ARBs shall be discussed, in addition to emphasizing areas in which evidence is currently lacking or indecisive, including head-to-head comparisons of ARBs and the effects of combining an ARB with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors.

Systematic Review of Combined Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition and Angiotensin Receptor Blockade in Hypertension

Some evidence suggests that long-term angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition may become less effective, thereby increasing angiotensin II levels, which could be inhibited by the addition of an angiotensin receptor blocker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials with searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Overall, the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an angiotensin receptor blocker reduced ambulatory blood pressure by 4.7/3.0 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9 to 6.5/1.6 to 4.3) compared with ACE inhibitor monotherapy and 3.8/2.9 mm Hg (2.4 to 5.3/0.4 to 5.4) compared with angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy. Clinic blood pressure was reduced by 3.8/2.7 mm Hg (0.9 to 6.7/0.8 to 4.6) and 3.7/2.3 mm Hg (0.4 to 6.9/0.2 to 4.4) compared with ACE inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker, respectively. However, the majority of these studies used submaximal doses or once-daily dosing of shorter-acting ACE inhibitors and, when a larger dose of shorter-acting ACE inhibitor was given or a longer-acting ACE inhibitor was used, there was generally no additive effect of the angiotensin receptor blocker on blood pressure. Proteinuria was reduced by the combination compared with ACE inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy, an effect that was independent of blood pressure in several studies, suggesting that the combination could have benefits in proteinuric nephropathies. None of the studies was of sufficient size and duration to determine whether there may be safety concerns. In conclusion, although there is a small additive effect on blood pressure with an ACE inhibitor-angiotensin receptor blocker combination, the routine use of this combination in uncomplicated hypertension is not recommended until more carefully controlled studies are performed.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the additional antihypertensive effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist and a diuretic in patients whose hypertension is not controlled by full-dose angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) monotherapy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Individuals with an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) that was not controlled by valsartan 160 mg once daily were allocated randomly to two groups: those in group A (n = 35) were assigned randomly to treatment with benazepril 20 mg once daily or chlorthalidone 12.5 mg once daily, whereas patients in group B (n = 29) were assigned randomly to benazepril 20 mg once daily or amlodipine 5 mg once daily. All individuals continued to receive background valsartan 160 mg once daily. After 5 weeks, patients crossed over to the alternative valsartan-based combination treatment of each group for a second 5-week period. Twenty-four-hour ABP monitoring was performed before the random allocation to groups and at the end of each randomized combination pharmacotherapy period.

RESULTS

Sixty-four individuals completed the study: 32 men and 32 women (mean +/- SD age 48.2 +/- 7.9 years, average 24-h ABP on valsartan monotherapy 143.4 +/- 12.6/87.7 +/- 7.8 mmHg). Significant additional antihypertensive effects on the average 24-h ABP were obtained with benazepril (8.6 +/- 8.8/6.3 +/- 6.7 mmHg), amlodipine (15.2 +/- 12.9/9.9 +/- 6.8 mmHg) and chlorthalidone (13.5 +/- 11.6/9.5 +/- 7.7 mmHg) (P < 0.001 for all additional antihypertensive effects). The additional effects of amlodipine and chlorthalidone added to valsartan were approximately 6/3.5 mmHg (P < 0.05) greater than that of benazepril.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients in whom hypertension was not controlled by full-dose ARB monotherapy, a diuretic, a calcium antagonist or an ACE inhibitor provided significant additional antihypertensive effect. The antihypertensive effects of the ARB-diuretic and the ARB-calcium antagonist combinations were superior to that of the ARB-ACE inhibitor combination.

Combined blockade of AT1-receptors and ACE synergistically potentiates antihypertensive effects in SHR

OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN

To check whether antihypertensive effects are additive or synergistic upon blockade of both angiotensin (AT1)-receptors and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) were treated with candesartan-cilexetil (0.1-30 mg/kg per day), ramipril (0.03-10 mg/kg per day), the calcium-antagonist mibefradil (1-150 mg/kg per day) or combinations thereof. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), left ventricular weight (LVW) and the cardiac activity/mRNA levels of ACE were determined.

RESULTS

SBP was decreased by candesartan-cilexetil [inhibitory concentration (IC50) (mg/kg): 2.47], ramipril (1.97), mibefradil (4.41), candesartan-cilexetil/ramipril (0.68), and candesartan-cilexetil/mibefradil (5.68). Combining candesartan-cilexetil with ramipril increased SBP reduction synergistically rather than additively, since the dose-response curve was shifted 6.6-fold leftwards compared to a hypothetically generated additive curve, calculated by summing up the doses and corresponding effects of the ramipril and candesartan-cilexetil monotreatment regimes. A total threshold dose < 5.14 mg/kg (derived from dose-response curves) was found to exert synergistic effects when candesartan-cilexetil was combined with ramipril. Antihypertensive effects of mibefradil can not be increased when combined with candesartan-cilexetil. When LVW was correlated with SBP reduction, regression lines of candesartan-cilexetil, ramipril and their combination were congruent, while that for mibefradil was significantly flatter and became steeper under candesartan-cilexetil co-administration. Cardiac ACE activity was greatly reduced by ramipril independently of SBP reduction and dosage. With SBP-ineffective doses of ramipril, cardiac ACE mRNA levels were doubled, indicating a positive feedback mechanism. The increase in ACE mRNA was renormalized when SPB-effective ramipril doses were applied, suggesting a blood pressure-dependent regulation of cardiac ACE expression.

CONCLUSIONS

Since synergy was observed only after combining low doses of ramipril and candesartan-cilexetil, prospective clinical trials should be performed on a low-dose combination, revealing the antihypertensive/antiproliferative benefits.

Haemodynamic effects of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in spontaneously hypertensive rats: influence of salt

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the mechanisms responsible for the adverse renal effects induced by dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and the role of salt therein.

METHODS

The effects of enalapril, losartan and their combination on blood pressure, renal haemodynamics, renal function and RAS were investigated over a wide range of doses in spontaneously hypertensive rats fed either a low-sodium or a high-sodium diet.

RESULTS

In rats fed the low-sodium diet, the losartan-enalapril combination induced the same dose-dependent haemodynamic and hormonal changes as did three- to 10-fold greater doses of enalapril or losartan alone. When a strong decrease (> 50%) in blood pressure was achieved (with 10 mg/kg enalapril plus 10 mg/kg losartan, 100 mg/kg enalapril or 100 mg/kg losartan), a massive renal vasoplegia occurred and renal insufficiency developed. In addition, because of the huge release of renin, angiotensinogen concentrations were reduced, leading to a decrease in intrarenal angiotensins. In rats fed the high-sodium diet, those treated with the enalapril 30 mg/kg plus losartan 30 mg/kg combination, despite complete functional RAS blockade, exhibited smaller decreases in blood pressure and renal resistance, lesser release of renin and angiotensinogen consumption, and a normal renal function. These effects were similar to those produced by 100 mg/kg of enalapril or losartan in rats fed the high-salt diet, or by 10 mg/kg of enalapril or of losartan in rats fed the low-salt diet.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual RAS blockade could be either beneficial, when sodium intake is unrestricted, or dangerous, when sodium intake is restricted.

Angiotensin receptor blockade in the challenging era of systolic hypertension

Systolic blood pressure is a major cardiovascular risk factor which is often associated with arterial stiffness. Markers of arterial stiffness, such as pulse pressure and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, have been proved independent predictors of cardiovascular risk. Recent evidence suggests that the renin-angiotensin system is involved in the pathogenesis of systolic hypertension and arterial stiffness. Outcome trials have shown impressive cardiovascular protection by reducing systolic blood pressure (BP) with drug treatment. However, in clinical practice systolic hypertension remains largely uncontrolled, first, because systolic BP goal is more difficult to be reached than diastolic and, second, because physicians are often reluctant to intensify treatment in patients with systolic BP close to 150 mmHg. Recent trials have focused on the effects of antihypertensive drugs not only on blood pressure, but also on pulse pressure and pulse-wave velocity. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and more recently angiotensin receptor blockers, has been shown to provide beneficial effects on arterial stiffness that appear to be independent of their antihypertensive effects. Recent outcome trials have shown significant cardiovascular protection with angiotensin receptor blockers. These drugs have an excellent placebolike profile of adverse effects which is maintained when these drugs are combined with low-dose diuretics. Therefore, an angiotensin receptor blocker-based treatment strategy appears to be an attractive and evidence-based approach for the management of systolic hypertension, the reduction of arterial stiffness and the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Combined renin-angiotensin system blockade and dietary sodium restriction impairs cardiomyocyte contractility

INTRODUCTION

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) by combined angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin type 1 receptor (AT(1)) antagonist treatment with reduced dietary sodium intake produces suppression of cardiac growth and regression of cardiac hypertrophy. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether cardiac growth suppression by combined RAS blockade under conditions of dietary sodium restriction is associated with cardiomyocyte atrophy and contractile dysfunction and whether this intervention modifies cardiomyocyte inotropic responsiveness to angiotensin II (Ang II).

METHODS

Rats were fed a high (4% w/w) or low (0.2% w/w) NaCl diet for six days. Both groups were then given a combined intraperitoneal injection of perindopril (6 mg/kg/day) and losartan (10 mg/kg/day) with maintained dietary treatment for another seven days. At the end of the treatment period, animals were anaesthetised and their hearts were removed and weighed. Left ventricular cardiomyocytes were isolated by enzymatic dissociation and cell dimensions were evaluated. A line scan camera and digital imaging technique were used to assess cardiomyocyte contraction and inotropic responses to exogenous Ang II (10 to 10(-8) M).

RESULTS

Dietary treatment alone had no effect on body growth, whereas combined RAS blockade suppressed somatic growth in the low sodium (LS) group, compared with the high sodium (HS) group. This growth suppression in the LS group was also evident in the heart at the organ and cellular level. Studies of cardiomyocyte contraction showed that myocytes from the LS group exhibited contractile instability and depression of contractile performance. Compared with the HS group, myocytes from the LS group showed a significant reduction in maximum cell shortening (6.40+0.17 vs. 7.32+0.16% resting length, p<0.05), and maximum rate of shortening (3.85+0.14 vs. 4.29+0.11 cell length/ms, p<0.05). Myocytes of the HS group exhibited negative inotropic responses to Ang II at all concentrations tested, with a significant reduction in maximum cell shortening by 11 16% after 12 minutes peptide exposure (p<0.05 vs. non-treated control). In comparison, Ang II elicited both positive and negative responses in myocytes from the LS group, with a predominant negative inotropic effect.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence that combined RAS blockade treatment under restricted sodium intake conditions can impair cardiomyocyte contractile function in association with cardiomyocyte growth suppression. Chronic RAS blockade qualitatively alters the intrinsic inotropic status and responsiveness of ventricular cardiomyocytes, and this shift is further modulated by dietary sodium intake conditions.

Dual renin???angiotensin system blockade restores blood pressure???renin dependency in individuals with low renin concentrations

BACKGROUND

The prevailing sodium intake and renin-angiotensin system status influence the blood pressure response to an angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonist or an angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitor, which is known to be reinforced by a low sodium intake or administration of a diuretic.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the possibility that combining both drugs might be more effective in conditions of high sodium intake than blocking the renin-angiotensin system in a single step.

METHODS

In a placebo-controlled, four-period crossover study in 12 normotensive volunteers who received a high sodium chloride intake (more than 250 mmol/day for 6 days), the haemodynamic and renin effects of a single oral dose of irbesartan 150 mg combined with fosinopril 20 mg were compared with those of a usual daily dose of fosinopril (20 mg) and a high dose of irbesartan (300 mg).

RESULTS

The changes in blood pressure induced by fosinopril and irbesartan alone were not different from those of placebo, whereas the combination significantly decreased blood pressure. Simultaneously, it increased plasma active renin and prorenin concentrations to a greater extent than did each single-site blocker.

CONCLUSION

In low-renin conditions, combined renin-angiotensin system blockade enables the demonstration of a persistent renin-dependency of the blood pressure. Through its more efficient blockade of the renin-angiotensin system, demonstrated by the increase in renin and prorenin, combined renin-angiotensin system blockade is more effective than doubling the usual dose of an AT1 receptor antagonist. This may offer an alternative strategy for treating patients with a range of renin concentrations, and may potentially increase the cardio- and nephrotective benefits through a more complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system.

Combination ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for hypertension

OBJECTIVE

To review data concerning combined angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for hypertension.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966-April 2003), IPA (1970-April 2003), and EMBASE (1974-April 2003) with search terms of ACE inhibitor, angiotensin receptor blocker, essential hypertension, and combination therapy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

ACE inhibitors provide incomplete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system, sometimes leading to loss of blood pressure control. Addition of ARBs may in theory further reduce blood pressure. Studies of combined ACE inhibitor and ARB therapy for managing hypertension were evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

While studies have shown statistically significant blood pressure reductions with ACE/ARB combination therapy, clinical significance is lacking. Further trials are needed before routine use of the combination can be recommended.

Arterial hypertension and ischaemic stroke

OBJECTIVES

Arterial hypertension is, besides age, the number one risk factor for ischaemic stroke. Patients with arterial hypertension frequently present with additional coexisting vascular risk factors interacting in a complex way.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This paper reviews the benefit of antihypertensive treatment, as well as different treatment options of arterial hypertension and their side-effects.

RESULTS

Patients with definite arterial hypertension, but also patients with so-called normal or high-normal blood pressure are at increased risk to develop stroke and other cardiovascular complications. Vascular remodelling of small and large vessels provoked by arterial hypertension is the initial step in the development of atherosclerosis and lipohyalinosis. Vascular remodelling can be improved or even normalized by antihypertensive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-I-receptor antagonists showing the most convincing effects. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-I-receptor antagonists have the lowest rate of side-effects, however, economic restraints hinder their general application. Statins are needed to treat dyslipidaemia. They also lower blood pressure and have a synergistic effect with the above two antihypertensive components in lowering blood pressure. In hypertensive patients, risk of stroke and other cardiovascular complications is determined by the blood pressure level and the presence or absence of target organ damage and the interaction with other risk factors, such as cigarette smoking, dyslipidaemia, and diabetes. These high-risk patients should be treated even more aggressively than usual.

CONCLUSIONS

In the vast majority of patients and healthy individuals, target blood pressure should be as high as or below 120/80 mmHg to minimize the occurrence of stroke and other cardiovascular complications.

Combination is better than monotherapy with ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor antagonist at recommended doses

OBJECTIVE

The combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and an angiotensin II (Ang II) receptor antagonist (ARB) could provide a higher degree of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system(RAS) than either agent alone. The primary aim of this study was to look at the effect of three therapeutic regimens (titrated ACE inhibitor (ACE-I) versus titrated ARB versus the combination of an ACE-I and an ARB) on the attainment of adequate blood pressure (BP) control and antiproteinuric effect. Both ACE-I and ARB were titrated as monotherapy up to the maximal recommended dose.

METHODS

A pilot randomised, parallel group open-label study was conducted in 36 patients with primary renal disease, proteinuria above 1.5 g/day and BP >140/90 mmHg while on therapy with an ACE-I. Patients were randomly assigned to (1) benazepril, n=12; (2) valsartan, n=12; or (3) benazepril plus valsartan, n=12. Other antihypertensive therapies could also be added to attain goal BP (<140/90 mmHg). The primary endpoint was the change in proteinuria during six months of follow-up.

RESULTS

In the presence of similar BP decreases and stable creatinine clearance values, mean proteinuria decreases were 0.5+1.7, 1.2+2.0 and 2.5+1.8 g/day in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. When compared with baseline values, only the fall induced by the combination of ARB and ACE-I attained statistical significance (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The antiproteinuric capacity of monotherapy at recommended doses with either an ACE-I or an ARB is lower than that obtained with the combination of the two drugs.

Renin-angiotensin system inhibition: how much is too much of a good thing?

Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) are valuable therapeutic agents for a wide range of clinical conditions. Increasingly, consideration is being given to the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-II receptor (AR) antagonists to obtain more complete inhibition of the RAS than can be achieved by either agent alone. Beta-blockers also inhibit the RAS by inhibiting renin secretion. Whereas the combination of an ACE inhibitor and AR antagonist represents dual RAS inhibition, the combination of both of these agents with beta-blocker therapy represents triple RAS inhibition. Animal studies indicate that complete blockade of the RAS produces adverse effects. Moreover, post-hoc analysis of the recent Valsartan Heart Failure Trial study suggests that the combination of ACE inhibitor and AR antagonist therapies may have an adverse effect in heart failure when combined with beta-blocker therapy. There is therefore a need for caution in the combination of ACE inhibition and AR antagonism, particularly in patients receiving beta-blockers, until the impact of this strategy is evaluated.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers: evidence for and against the combination in the treatment of hypertension and proteinuria

Several treatment guidelines have made strong recommendations to physicians that treatment of nephropathy and hypertension should be based on the use of a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor if tolerated. The recently published clinical trials, based on angiotensin II receptor blockers' effects on diabetic nephropathy and essential hypertension, have also shown significant endpoint reduction. Perhaps the time has come to broaden the recommendations to include the use of a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system altering drug. But what if the treatment goal cannot be reached, and incessant proteinuria and high blood pressure levels persist despite high dosage treatment of either drug? How should this be handled? The dual blockade principle can possibly provide the solution by obtaining the broadest and most efficient blockade of circulating angiotensin II by using the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an angiotensin II receptor blocker. But large clinical trials are yet to come, and at present large endpoint trials have not been published. This article provides an overview of how far we have come with dual blockade treatment in hypertension and nephropathy.

The reno-protective role of AT(1)-receptor blockers

In the 1970s and 1980s it became evident that progression of renal disease and blood pressure are correlated. Subsequently, it was shown that antihypertensive treatment, especially with agents that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), could slow the progression of diabetic renal disease. Several studies, particularly with RAS blockers, have confirmed beneficial effects on urinary albumin excretion in patients with diabetes and microalbuminuria or proteinuria. There are good reasons to explore dual blockade of the RAS with an AT(1)-receptor blocker and an ACE inhibitor. Receptor blockers may block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors; moreover, ACE inhibitors increase bradykinins which may have positive effects on blood pressure and renal function. Such combination treatment has been found to be well tolerated and more effective in reducing blood pressure than either monotherapy. Positive effects on microalbuminuria or proteinuria have also been noted. Studies have shown that treatment with AT(1)-receptor blockers postpones end-stage renal disease and reduces the rate of decline in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Moreover, albuminuria was reduced to a greater extent with AT(1)-receptor blockers than with conventional antihypertensive therapy producing the same blood pressure reductions. In summary, AT(1)-receptor blockers are effective in all stages of diabetic renal disease, and have an excellent tolerability profile. Usually the side-effect profile is comparable with placebo. In certain situations, there may be a slight, readily reversible, increase in serum potassium. There may also be a slight reduction in GFR, reflecting a decrease in glomerular filtration pressure.

Combination ACEI and ARB therapy: additional benefit in renoprotection?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The fact that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers antagonize the renin-angiotensin system at different levels suggests that these agents, already each of confirmed clinical benefit in retarding the progression of chronic renal disease, may have additive effects that result in even greater renoprotection when used in combination. In the light of the persisting need for treatments that afford more effective renoprotection, this Special Commentary examines available experimental and clinical evidence in support of this hypothesis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Experimental studies to date have failed to distinguish clearly between the additive antihypertensive effects of combination therapy and additive intrinsic renoprotective effects. Clinical studies, albeit with relatively small patient numbers and short follow-up periods, have shown that combination therapy results in greater antihypertensive and antiproteinuric effects than monotherapy in diabetic nephropathy and non-diabetic forms of chronic renal disease.

SUMMARY

At present we recommend the addition of angiotensin receptor blocker therapy in patients with continued hypertension or proteinuria despite angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. Further long-term studies are required to evaluate more fully the renoprotective potential of this combination.

The practical aspects of combination therapy with angiotensin receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for the management of hypertension. ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) and, more recently, ARBs have an established track record of success in the treatment of congestive heart failure (CHF), proteinuric renal disease and most recently the hypertensive patient with a high cardiac-risk profile. The individual success of each of these drug classes has fuelled speculation that given together the overall effect of both would exceed that of either given alone. This premise, although biologically plausible, has yet to be proven in a convincing enough fashion to support the routine use of these two drug classes in combination. Additional clarifying studies are needed to establish whether specific patient subsets exist that might benefit from such combination therapy.

Interaction of ACE inhibitors and AT(1)-receptor blockers on maximum blood pressure response in spontaneous hypertensive rats

This study in spontaneous hypertensive rats (SHR) was designed to determine whether a greater fall in blood pressure (BP) could be achieved with the combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) and an AT(1)-receptor blocking drug than with higher doses of either drug alone. The peak effect of captopril occurred 3 4 hours post-dose and a plateau response was achieved with 10 mg/kg. The peak effect of losartan occurred 7 8 hours post-dose and a plateau response was achieved with 10 mg/kg. Increasing the dose of either drug caused no greater fall in BP, but increased the duration of the effect. Captopril, 10 mg/kg, administered with losartan 10 mg/kg caused a greater fall in BP than captopril or losartan, 20 mg/kg. This was present after acute doses or after one week of daily therapy. The combination of ACE-I and AT(1)-blocking drugs is more effective than either therapy alone and may be a useful combination to manage hypertension and/or cardiac failure.