Benazepril slows progression of renal dysfunction in patients with non-diabetic renal disease

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced cough compared with placebo, and other antihypertensives: A systematic review, and network meta-analysis

Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.

Combination of leflunomide and benazepril reduces renal injury of diabetic nephropathy rats and inhibits high-glucose induced cell apoptosis through regulation of NF-κB, TGF-β and TRPC6

Objective: To investigate effects of combination use of leflunomide and benazepril on diabetic nephropathy (DN) both in vivo and in vitro.

Methods: The streptozotocin (STZ) induced Sprague-Dawley rats were treated with leflunomide (15 mg/kg/d), benazepril (15 mg/kg/d) or both the two drugs. Fasting blood glucose (FBG) and renal function indexes including blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (Scr), and proteinuria and kidney/body weight ratio (KW/BW) were measured. HE staining was used for histological analysis. The rat glomerular mesangial cells (RMCs) were treated with high-glucose (150 mg/ml) and the leflunomide and benazepril with both concentrations of 50 μmol/l were used to treat the high-glucose induced cells. TUNEL assay was used for measurement of cell apoptosis. Western blotting was conducted to determine expression of nuclear factor Kappa B (NF-κB), transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) and transient receptor potential canonical 6 (TRPC6).

Results: The body weight was significantly lower and all indexes of FBG, BUN, Scr, proteinuria and KW/BW ratio, GFR, as well as inflammatory factors TNF-α and IL-6 were significantly increased in the DN group after STZ treatment for 4 weeks. The treatment with leflunomide, benazepril or the both dramatically reduced the above effects induced by STZ, and the alteration was the most significant in the combination group. Treatment of leflunomide and benazepril significantly reduced expression levels of NF-κB, TGF-β and TRPC6 in renal tissues of DN rats as well as in high-glucose induced RMCs. It was also observed leflunomide and benazepril reduced high-glucose induced cell apoptosis of RMCs.

Conclusion: The combination use of leflunomide and benazepril could improve the renal function and reduce the renal injury of DN rats and could reduce the levels of NF-κb, TGF-β and TRPC6 in both DN rats and high-glucose induced RMCs.

Scleroderma: An insight into causes, pathogenesis and treatment strategies

Scleroderma is an autoimmune disorder, characterized by morphological changes in skin followed by visceral organs. The pathogenesis of scleroderma involves immune imbalance and generation of auto antibodies. The major causes of scleroderma include multitude of factors such as immune imbalance, oxidative stress, genetics and environment factors. A constant effort has been made to treat scleroderma through different approaches and necessitates life time administration of drugs for maintenance of a good quality life. It has been reported more in women compared to men. Traditional treatment strategies are restricted by limited therapeutic capability due to associated side effects. Advancement in development of novel drug delivery approaches has opened a newer avenue for efficient therapy. Current review is an effort to reflect scleroderma in provisions of its pathogenesis, causative factors, and therapeutic approaches, with concern to mode of action, pharmacokinetics, marketed products, and side effects of drugs.

Antihypertensive therapy in nondiabetic chronic kidney disease: a review and update

Hypertension is an important contributor to progression of nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD). Compelling observational evidence indicates that the divergence of blood pressure (BP) away from an ideal range in either direction is associated with a progressive rise in the risk of mortality and cardiovascular and renal disease progression. To date, various clinical trials and meta-analyses examining strict versus less intensive BP control in nondiabetic CKD have not conclusively demonstrated a renal advantage of one BP-lowering approach over another, except in certain subgroups such as proteinuric patients where evidence is circumstantial. As recent data have come to light suggesting that intensive BP control yields superior survival and cardiovascular outcomes in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease, interest in the prospect of whether such benefit extends to individuals with CKD has surged. This review is a comprehensive analysis of antihypertensive literature in nondiabetic renal disease, with a particular emphasis on BP target.

The therapeutic advantage of combination antihypertensive drug therapy using amlodipine and irbesartan in hypertensive patients: Analysis of the post-marketing survey data from PARTNER (Practical combination therapy of Amlodin and angiotensin II Receptor blocker; safety and efficacy in patients with hypertension) study

Two-thirds of hypertensive patients need a combination antihypertensive therapy to achieve the target blood pressure (BP). The PARTNER (Practical combination therapy of Amlodin and angiotensin II Receptor blocker; Safety and efficacy in paTieNts with hypERtension) study is a prospective specific clinical use survey examining the efficacy and safety of 12-week treatment with amlodipine (AML) and Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker (ARB) in 5900 hypertensive patients. The current analysis was performed as to the BP control, adverse reactions, and the effects on laboratory data in patients treated with the combination of AML and irbesartan (IRB), namely the patients added AML to already taking IRB (AML add-on group, n = 1202) and the patients added IRB to AML (IRB add-on group, n = 1050). Both study groups showed distinct decreases in office BP at 4 week (p < 0.001) and the antihypertensive effects were sustained to 12 week (p < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving BP < 140/90 mmHg was ∼70% in either group. Proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were significantly improved in hypertensive patients with baseline eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Serum uric acid was reduced either by adding AML or IRB, and the reductions were prominent in patients with serum uric acid >7 mg/dl. The incidence of adverse reactions was as few as 1.11% and there were no severe adverse reactions which hampered the continuation of combination therapy. In conclusion, combination antihypertensive therapy with AML and IRB effectively lowers BP without particular safety problems, reduces serum uric acid especially in patients with hyperuricemia and exhibits renoprotective effects in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Antihypertensive and organ-protective effects of benazepril

Benazepril is a nonsulfhydryl ACE inhibitor with favorable pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, well-established antihypertensive effects and a good tolerability profile. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated that patients treated with benazepril alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide or amlodipine may achieve beneficial renal outcomes that extend beyond blood pressure control. Furthermore, the recent Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living with Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial showed decreased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality with benazepril when administered as a cotreatment. An additional novel therapeutic area for benazepril is atrial fibrillation. Differences between combination therapies have implications for which patients may be best suited to particular interventions, and further studies are required to fully ascertain this potential.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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