Effects of combination treatment with losartan and trandolapril on office and ambulatory blood pressures in non-diabetic renal disease: a COOPERATE-ABP substudy

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for adults with early (stage 1 to 3) non-diabetic chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to widespread laboratory estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting, raised clinical awareness, and international adoption of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classifications. Early recognition and management of CKD affords the opportunity to prepare for progressive kidney impairment and impending kidney replacement therapy and for intervention to reduce the risk of progression and cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are two classes of antihypertensive drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Beneficial effects of ACEi and ARB on kidney outcomes and survival in people with a wide range of severity of kidney impairment have been reported; however, their effectiveness in the subgroup of people with early CKD (stage 1 to 3) is less certain. This is an update of a review that was last published in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of ACEi and ARB or both in the management of people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who do not have diabetes mellitus (DM).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 6 July 2023 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

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effect of ACEi or ARB in people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who did not have DM were selected for inclusion. Only studies of at least four weeks duration were selected. Authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction was carried out by two authors independently, using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. When more than one study reported similar outcomes, data were pooled using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using a Chi² test and the I² test. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) 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: Six studies randomising 9379 participants with CKD stages 1 to 3 (without DM) met our inclusion criteria. Participants were adults with hypertension; 79% were male from China, Europe, Japan, and the USA. Treatment periods ranged from 12 weeks to three years. Overall, studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias across all domains, and the quality of the evidence was poor, with GRADE rated as low or very low certainty. In low certainty evidence, ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo may make little or no difference to death (any cause) (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 15.37; I² = 76%), total cardiovascular events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05; I² = 0%), cardiovascular-related death (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 11.66; I² = 54%), stroke (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03; I² = 0%), myocardial infarction (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; I² = 0%), and adverse events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.41; I² = 0%). It is uncertain whether ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo reduces congestive heart failure (1 study, 8290 participants): RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) or transient ischaemic attack (1 study, 583 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01; I² = 0%) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ARB (losartan 50 mg) compared to placebo (1 study, 226 participants) reduces: death (any-cause) (no events), adverse events (RR 19.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 328.30), eGFR rate of decline (MD 5.00 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI 3.03 to 6.97), presence of proteinuria (MD -0.65 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.52), systolic blood pressure (MD -0.80 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.89 to 2.29), or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.10 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.29 to 1.09) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ACEi (enalapril 20 mg, perindopril 2 mg or trandolapril 1 mg) compared to ARB (olmesartan 20 mg, losartan 25 mg or candesartan 4 mg) (1 study, 26 participants) reduces: proteinuria (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.20), systolic blood pressure (MD -3.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.08 to 0.08) or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.31 to 1.31) because the certainty of the evidence is very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ACEi or ARB in patients with stage 1 to 3 CKD who do not have DM. The available evidence is overall of very low certainty and high risk of bias. We have identified an area of large uncertainty for a group of patients who account for most of those diagnosed as having CKD.

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).

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.

Efficacy and safety of Shenyankangfu tablets for primary glomerulonephritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease is a common disease. Most chronic kidney diseases evolve from primary glomerulonephritis. Proteinuria is an independent risk factor for the progression of chronic kidney disease. The general consensus is that therapy administered to decrease proteinuria should include steroids and/or immunosuppressants, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers. However, the side effects of, and adverse reactions to, these agents reduce the benefits to patients. In addition, the cost of these drugs is relatively high. Therefore, identification of inexpensive and effective drugs to decrease proteinuria is urgently needed. Shenyankangfu tablets have been a widely applied Chinese patent medicine for many years to decrease proteinuria. However, there is a lack of research-derived data regarding the clinical use. Therefore, we designed the present randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the efficacy and safety of Shenyankangfu tablets versus losartan potassium for control of proteinuria in patients with primary glomerulonephritis.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study will be a multicenter, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized controlled clinical trial. We will enroll 720 patients diagnosed with primary glomerulonephritis. The eligible patients will be randomly divided into the following groups at a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio: Shenyankangfu tablets group, losartan potassium 50 mg group, losartan potassium 100 mg group, Shenyankangfu tablets + losartan potassium 50 mg group, and Shenyankangfu tablets + losartan potassium 100 mg group. All groups will be followed up for 48 weeks; follow-up visits will be performed, at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48. The primary efficacy outcome will be the post-treatment change in the 24-hour proteinuria level, and the secondary efficacy outcomes will be the post-treatment changes in the serum creatinine level, estimated glomerular filtration rate, traditional Chinese medicine syndrome score, and serum albumin level.

DISCUSSION

The results of this trial will provide solid data for use in evidence-based medicine with respect to the efficacy and safety of Shenyankangfu tablets for control of proteinuria in patients with primary glomerulonephritis compared to those of losartan potassium. Moreover, we infer that therapy comprising Shenyankangfu tablets + losartan potassium can decrease proteinuria to a larger extent than Shenyankangfu tablets or losartan potassium can alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered on 12 February 2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID number NCT02063100).

Direct renin inhibition: extricating facts from façades

The renin–angiotensin system (RAS) affects vascular tone, cardiac output and kidney function. By these means the RAS plays a key role in the pathogenesis of arterial hypertension. As a result, RAS inhibition is highly effective not only in lowering blood pressure but also in reducing kidney disease progression (particularly when associated with proteinuria) and cardiovascular events.

Among RAS blocking agents, direct renin inhibitors have shown not only excellent efficacy in hypertension control but also pharmacologic tolerance that is comparable with other renin–angiotensin suppressors. Indeed, aliskiren, the only direct renin inhibitor available is effective in controlling blood pressure as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive drugs, irrespective of patient’s age, ethnicity or sex. It is also effective in patients with metabolic syndrome, obesity and diabetes. Long-term studies comparing ‘hard endpoints’ of aliskiren therapy versus treatment with other RAS inhibitors, including cardiac and kidney protection, are currently ongoing. Combined with other antihypertensive agents, aliskiren not only improves their hypotensive response but may also lessen the adverse effects of other drugs. In high-risk patients, however, precautions should be taken when combining two or more renin–angiotensin inhibiting agents, as tissue perfusion may be highly renin-dependent in these patients and serious adverse side effects could take place.

Retracted publications in the drug literature

Recent studies have suggested an increase in the number of retracted scientific publications. It is unclear how broadly the issue of misleading and fraudulent publications pertains to retractions of drug therapy studies. Therefore, we sought to determine the trends and factors associated with retracted publications in drug therapy literature. A PubMed search was conducted to identify retracted drug therapy articles published from 2000-2011. Articles were grouped according to reason for retraction, which was classified as scientific misconduct or error. Scientific misconduct was further divided into data fabrication, data falsification, questions of data veracity, unethical author conduct, and plagiarism. Error was defined as duplicate publication, scientific mistake, journal error, or unstated reasons. Additional data were extracted from the retracted articles, including type of article, funding source, author information, therapeutic area, and retraction issue. A total of 742 retractions were identified from 2000-2011 in the general biomedical literature, and 102 drug studies met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 73 articles (72%) were retracted for a reason classified as scientific misconduct, whereas 29 articles (28%) were retracted for error. Among the 73 articles classified as scientific misconduct, those classified as unethical author conduct (32 articles [44%]) and data fabrication (24 articles [33%]) constituted the majority. The median time from publication of the original article to retraction was 31 months (range 1-130). Fifty percent of retracted articles did not state a funding source, whereas pharmaceutical manufacturer funding accounted for only 13 articles (13%) analyzed. Many retractions were due to repeat offenses by a small number of authors, with nearly 40% of the retracted studies associated with two individuals. We found that a greater proportion of drug therapy articles were retracted for reasons of misconduct and fraud compared with other biomedical studies. It is important for health care practitioners to monitor the literature for retractions so that recommendations for drug therapy and patient management may be modified accordingly.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for adults with early (stage 1 to 3) non-diabetic chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to widespread laboratory estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting, raised clinical awareness, and international adoption of Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) classification. Early recognition and management of CKD affords the opportunity not only to prepare for progressive kidney impairment and impending renal replacement therapy, but also for intervening to reduce the risk of progression and cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are two classes of antihypertensive drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Beneficial effects of ACEi and ARB on renal outcomes and survival in people with a wide range of severity of renal impairment have been reported; however, their effectiveness in the subgroup of people with early CKD (stage 1 to 3) is less certain.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to evaluate the benefits and harms of ACEi and ARB or both in the management of people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who do not have diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH STRATEGY

In March 2010 we searched The Cochrane Library, including The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists of review articles and relevant studies were also checked. The search was conducted using the optimally sensitive strategy developed by the Cochrane Collaboration for the identification of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with input from an expert in trial search strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs reporting the effect of ACEi or ARB in people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who did not have diabetes mellitus were selected for inclusion. Only studies of at least four weeks duration were selected. Authors, working in teams of two, independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts, and whenever necessary the full text of these studies were screened to determine which studies satisfied the inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction was carried out by two authors, independently, using a standard data extraction form and cross checked by two other authors. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross checked by another author. When more than one study reported similar outcomes, data were pooled using the random-effects model, but a fixed-effect model was also analysed to ensure the robustness of the model chosen and to check susceptibility to outliers. Heterogeneity was analysed using a Chi² test on N-1 degrees of freedom, with an alpha of 0.05 used for statistical significance and with the I² test. Where data permitted, subgroup analysis was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. The quality of the evidence was analysed.

MAIN RESULTS

Four RCTs enrolling 2177 participants met our inclusion criteria. Of these, three compared ACEi with placebo and one compared ACEi with ARB. Two studies had an overall low risk of bias, and the other two were considered to be at moderate to high risk of bias. Low to moderate quality of evidence (from two studies representing 1906 patients) suggested that ACEi had no impact on all-cause mortality (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.17 to 19.27, P = 0.63) or cardiovascular events (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.14, P = 0.31) in people with stage 3 CKD. For all-cause mortality, there was substantial heterogeneity in the results. One study (quality assessment: low risk of bias) reported no difference in the risk of end-stage kidney disease in those with an eGFR > 45 mL/min/1.74 m² treated with ACEi versus placebo (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.11, P = 0.99). The (high risk of bias) study that compared ACEi with ARB reported little difference in effect between the treatments when urinary protein, blood pressure or creatinine clearance were compared. No published studies comparing ARB with placebo or ACEi and ARB with placebo were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review demonstrated that there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ACEi or ARB in patients with stage 1 to 3 CKD who do not have diabetes mellitus. We have identified an area of significant uncertainty for a group of patients who account for most of those labelled as having CKD.

Management of resistant arterial hypertension: role of spironolactone versus double blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system

BACKGROUND

Currently there is no consensus regarding which add-on therapy to use in resistant hypertension. This study was designed to compare two treatment options, spironolactone (SPR) versus dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS).

METHODS

Forty-two patients with true resistant hypertension were included in the study. An open-label prospective crossover design was used to add a second RAAS blocker to previous treatment and then SPR following 1 month of wash-out. BP was measured in the office and by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Changes in laboratory tests were also studied for both treatments. The predictive values of aldosterone-renin ratio (ARR) and serum potassium of determining the antihypertensive response were analyzed for both arms.

RESULTS

Following the first stage of dual blockade, SBP dropped significantly both in office (reduction of 12.9 ± 19.2 mmHg)) and by ABPM (reduction of 7.1 ± 13.4 mmHg). Office DBP was unchanged but was significantly reduced as measured by ABPM (3.4 ± 6.2 mmHg). On SPR treatment, office BP was reduced 32.2 ± 20.6/10.9 ± 11.6 mmHg. By ABPM the reduction was 20.8 ± 14.6/8.8 ± 7.3 mmHg (P < 0.001). The BP control was achieved by 25.6% of patients in dual blockade and 53.8% in SPR with office blood pressure. By ABPM, 20.5% were controlled on dual blockade and up to 56.4% with SPR. Serum potassium was a weak inverse predictor of the blood pressure-lowering effect of SPR.

CONCLUSION

SPR has a greater antihypertensive effect than dual blockade of the RAAS in resistant hypertension. SPR at daily doses of 25-50 mg shows a potent antihypertensive effect when added to prior regimes of single RAAS axis blockade in patients with resistant arterial hypertension.

Combination therapy in hypertension: An update

Meticulous control of blood pressure is required in patients with hypertension to produce the maximum reduction in clinical cardiovascular end points, especially in patients with comorbidities like diabetes mellitus where more aggressive blood pressure lowering might be beneficial. Recent clinical trials suggest that the approach of using monotherapy for the control of hypertension is not likely to be successful in most patients. Combination therapy may be theoretically favored by the fact that multiple factors contribute to hypertension, and achieving control of blood pressure with single agent acting through one particular mechanism may not be possible. Regimens can either be fixed dose combinations or drugs added sequentially one after other. Combining the drugs makes them available in a convenient dosing format, lower the dose of individual component, thus, reducing the side effects and improving compliance. Classes of antihypertensive agents which have been commonly used are angiotensin receptor blockers, thiazide diuretics, beta and alpha blockers, calcium antagonists and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Thiazide diuretics and calcium channel blockers are effective, as well as combinations that include renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers, in reducing BP. The majority of currently available fixed-dose combinations are diuretic-based. Combinations may be individualized according to the presence of comorbidities like diabetes mellitus, chronic renal failure, heart failure, thyroid disorders and for special population groups like elderly and pregnant females.

Addition of cyclophosphamide to steroids provides no benefit compared with steroids alone in treating adult patients with severe Henoch Schönlein Purpura

Henoch Schönlein Purpura (HSP) is a common disease in children, usually associated with a good prognosis. In adults there are no prospective studies concerning its prognosis or treatment, especially in cases of severe visceral involvement. Here we compared steroid therapy without or with cyclophosphamide co-treatment in adults with severe HSP in a 12-month, multi-center, prospective, open-label trial that treated 54 adults with biopsy-proven HSP including proliferative glomerulonephritis and severe visceral manifestations. All received steroids; however, 25 were randomized to also receive cyclophosphamide. The primary endpoint that occurred in three patients in each group was complete disease remission defined as zero on the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score with no persistent or new clinical and/or biological vasculitis at 6 months. No patient had active visceral involvement. The secondary endpoints were renal outcome, deaths, and adverse events at 12 months. Renal function, proteinuria, safety data, incidence of diabetes, and severe infections were similar between the two groups. At the last follow-up, renal function remained stable. The small population size of our study does not permit definitive conclusions; however, we suggest that treatment of adults with severe HSP by adding cyclophosphamide provides no benefit compared with steroids alone.

[Glomerulonephritis with IgA mesangial deposits]

IgA nephropathy is the primitive glomerulonephritis the most frequently encountered worldwide. In about one case out of three, it is responsible for the progression from progressive renal failure to end-stage renal failure. The pathophysiological mechanisms of this disease which is mediated by immune complexes remain unclear. The presentation, clinical progression and optical microscope aspect of the renal biopsy may widely vary, making any histological classification very difficult. Most therapeutic studies include the patients only on clinical criteria of severity. The only consensual management is that of patients with a nephropathy and mild glomerular lesions and a nephritic syndrome, or with an extracapillar glomerulonephritis and a rapidly progressive renal failure; corticoids are indicated in former cases while corticoids must be combined with immunosuppressive agents in the latter ones. Corticotherapy may be considered in patients with a proteinuria higher than 1g/day without renal failure. In any patient with primitive IgA nephropathy, the overall management used for chronic glomerulopathy must be initiated, including, in case of arterial hypertension or proteinuria, the renin-angiotensin system blockade.

Aliskiren and valsartan in stage 2 hypertension: subgroup analysis of a randomized, double-blind study

INTRODUCTION

Patients with stage 2 hypertension require large absolute reductions in blood pressure (BP) to achieve recommended BP goals. Combination therapy with the direct renin inhibitor, aliskiren, and the angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan, has been shown to produce greater BP reductions than either agent alone in a double-blind study in 1797 hypertensive patients.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis evaluated the BP-lowering efficacy of aliskiren in combination with valsartan in a subset of patients (n=581) with stage 2 hypertension (baseline mean sitting systolic BP [msSBP] > or =160 mmHg). Patients were randomized to receive aliskiren/valsartan 150/160 mg, aliskiren 150 mg, valsartan 160 mg, or placebo once daily for 4 weeks followed by 4 weeks at double the initial dose. Mean changes from baseline in msSBP and mean sitting diastolic BP were assessed at week-8 endpoint (intent-to-treat population).

RESULTS

Aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg reduced BP from baseline by 22.5/11.4 mmHg at week-8 endpoint. BP reductions with combination therapy were significantly greater than with aliskiren 300 mg (17.3/8.9 mmHg, P<0.05), valsartan 320 mg (15.5/8.3 mmHg, P<0.01), or with placebo (7.9/3.7 mmHg, P<0.0001). BP control rates (<140/90 mmHg) were also significantly higher (P<0.05) with aliskiren/valsartan 300/320 mg (29.8%) compared with either aliskiren 300 mg (19.0%) or valsartan 320 mg (13.8%) monotherapy, or placebo (8.9%). All treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with aliskiren and valsartan provided significantly greater BP reductions over aliskiren or valsartan monotherapy and is an appropriate option for management of BP in patients with stage 2 hypertension.

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.

Treatment of microalbuminuria in hypertensive subjects with elevated cardiovascular risk: Results of the IMPROVE trial

Microalbuminuria independently predicts increased cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients, especially in those with concomitant diabetes or established cardiovascular disease. Drugs that target the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system reduce microalbuminuria regardless of diabetic status. The Irbesartan in the Management of PROteinuric patients at high risk for Vascular Events was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled paralleled group study in which hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria and increased cardiovascular risk were randomized to 20 weeks treatment with ramipril plus irbesartan or to ramipril plus placebo. Patients discontinued or tapered previous antihypertensive therapy during a 14-day placebo lead-in period. Change in albumin excretion rate from baseline to week 20 was the primary end point. Adjusted week 20 baseline geometric ratios for ramipril plus irbesartan and ramipril plus placebo were not significantly different. Although differences in blood pressure reductions were observed between the two treatments, these changes did not affect microalbuminuria. More patients on dual therapy achieved target blood pressure goals at week 20 than with monotherapy. The incidence of adverse effects and treatment-related adverse effects was similar in both groups. Our results suggest that patients with cardiovascular risk and relatively low albumin excretion rates in early-stage disease may only require monotherapy with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blocking agents.

The kidney and cardiovascular risk--implications for management: a consensus statement from the European Society of Hypertension

Cardiovascular and renal diseases share many of the same risk factors. In fact, renal failure is usually accompanied by an increased global cardiovascular risk. Thus, preservation of kidney function might simultaneously protect the heart and the brain and, conversely, addressing cardiovascular risk factors might safeguard the kidney. This review considers the evidence supporting this approach, focusing on the protective effect of blood-pressure lowering and the ancillary actions of antihypertensive agents on renal protection. We review recent evidence on renal protection in individuals with and without diabetes, and the importance of offering a high standard of care also to those with the metabolic syndrome or prediabetes in order to prevent initial forms of renal, and as a consequence, cardiovascular damage. Intervention may be appropriate even in individuals with high-normal blood pressure, if they already have early renal and/or cardiovascular risk markers. As a consequence of these insights, thresholds for starting antihypertensive therapy are gradually falling, whereas awareness of the need for an early intervention in patients at high risk of developing renal damage and simultaneously cardiovascular disease is growing.

Antihypertensive activity of angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists: a systematic review of studies with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of the antihypertensive activity of the angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists (ARB).

METHODS

Studies in which blood pressure (BP) was measured using ambulatory BP monitoring for at least 24 h were collected from MEDLINE. Data for each treatment group, ARB, placebo or the drug used for its comparison were obtained from the selected studies. Only studies with a minimum of quality criteria were selected. The final study group contained 36 publications, with a total of 47 patient cohorts receiving ARB in monotherapy, 10 with placebo, 10 with amlodipine, and five with enalapril. The reduction in clinical and ambulatory BP during 24 h, day, night and the last 4-h period for each of the drugs analysed were calculated and adjusted by age, sex, number of participants and by the initial BP level.

RESULTS

The global antihypertensive activity of ARB differs from that observed with amlodipine in the sense that the magnitude of the reduction in the BP values does not essentially depend on the initial BP values nor on the dose used. When only ARB were considered, the drug used was a determinant for systolic BP reduction, whereas for diastolic BP the influence was on the BP reduction and the duration of the antihypertensive activity. The dose used had a particular influence on the duration of the antihypertensive activity for both systolic and diastolic BP.

CONCLUSION

Among the ARB, the influence is on duration more than on the magnitude of BP reduction. Dose, therefore, is an important factor in the duration of antihypertensive activity.

Efficacy and safety of combined use of aliskiren and valsartan in patients with hypertension: a randomised, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess dual renin system intervention with the maximum recommended doses of aliskiren and valsartan, compared with each drug alone in patients with hypertension.

METHODS

In this double-blind study, 1797 patients with hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure 95-109 mm Hg and 8-h daytime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure > or =90 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to receive once-daily aliskiren 150 mg (n=437), valsartan 160 mg (455), a combination of aliskiren 150 mg and valsartan 160 mg (446), or placebo (459) for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to double the dose to the maximum recommended dose for another 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 8 endpoint. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00219180.

FINDINGS

196 (11%) patients discontinued study treatment before the end of the trial (63 in the placebo group, 53 in the aliskiren group, 43 in the valsartan group, and 37 in the aliskiren/valsartan group), mainly due to lack of therapeutic effect. At week 8 endpoint, the combination of aliskiren 300 mg and valsartan 320 mg lowered mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline by 12.2 mm Hg, significantly more than either monotherapy (aliskiren 300 mg 9.0 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001; valsartan 320 mg, 9.7 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001), or with placebo (4.1 mm Hg decrease, p<0.0001). Rates of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar in all groups.

INTERPRETATION

The combination of aliskiren and valsartan at maximum recommended doses provides significantly greater reductions in blood pressure than does monotherapy with either agent in patients with hypertension, with a tolerability profile similar to that with aliskiren and valsartan alone.

An update on non-peptide angiotensin receptor antagonists and related RAAS modulators

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) is an important regulator of blood pressure and fluid-electrolyte homeostasis. RAAS has been implicated in pathogenesis of hypertension, congestive heart failure, and chronic renal failure. Aliskiren is the first non-peptide orally active renin inhibitor approved by FDA. Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) Inhibitors are associated with frequent side effects such as cough and angio-oedema. Recently, the role of ACE2 and neutral endopeptidase (NEP) in the formation of an important active metabolite/mediator of RAAS, ang 1-7, has initiated attempts towards development of ACE2 inhibitors and combined ACE/NEP inhibitors. Furukawa and colleagues developed a series of low molecular weight nonpeptide imidazole analogues that possess weak but selective, competitive AT1 receptor blocking property. Till date, many compounds have exhibited promising AT1 blocking activity which cause a more complete RAAS blockade than ACE inhibitors. Many have reached the market for alternative treatment of hypertension, heart failure and diabetic nephropathy in ACE inhibitor intolerant patients and still more are waiting in the queue. But, the hallmark of this area of drug research is marked by a progress in understanding molecular interaction of these blockers at the AT1 receptor and unraveling the enigmatic influence of AT2 receptors on growth/anti-growth, differentiation and the regeneration of neuronal tissue. Different modeling strategies are underway to develop tailor made molecules with the best of properties like Dual Action (Angiotensin And Endothelin) Receptor Antagonists (DARA), ACE/NEP inhibitors, triple inhibitors, AT2 agonists, AT1/TxA2 antagonists, balanced AT1/AT2 antagonists, and nonpeptide renin inhibitors. This abstract gives an overview of these various angiotensin receptor antagonists.

Antihypertensive Therapy in the Presence of Proteinuria

The presence of proteinuria is a well-known risk factor for both the progression of renal disease and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and decreases in urine protein excretion level were associated with a slower decrease in renal function and decrease in risk of cardiovascular events. Increased blood pressure has a major role in the development of proteinuria in patients with either diabetic or nondiabetic kidney disease, and all recent guidelines recommend a blood pressure goal less than 130/80 mm Hg in patients with proteinuria to achieve maximal renal and cardiovascular protection. Drugs interfering with the renin-angiotensin system, ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, should be used as first-line antihypertensive therapy in patients with proteinuria because they seem to have a blood pressure-independent antiproteinuric effect, and if blood pressure levels are still out of goal, a diuretic should be added to this regimen. A combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker or other classes of medications shown to decrease protein excretion, such as nondihydropyridine calcium antagonists or aldosterone receptor blockers, should be considered to decrease proteinuria further. This review provides an extended summary of current evidence regarding the associations of blood pressure with proteinuria, the rationale for currently recommended blood pressure goals, and the use of various classes of antihypertensive agents in proteinuric patients.

Add-on therapy with angiotensin II receptor 1 blocker in children with chronic kidney disease already treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

The standard renoprotection is based on the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) by angiotensin convertase inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor 1 blockers (AT1B). The aim of our study was to analyze the effects of the addition of AT1B to ACEi-based renoprotection in children with chronic kidney disease. We examined 11 children with a mean age of 10.5 years (range, 0.5-18 years) with a mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 61+/-61 ml/min/1.73 m(2). In four patients, the primary renal disease was hemolytic uremic syndrome, in three congenital nephrotic syndrome (CNS), in two reflux nephropathy, prune-belly syndrome in one and acute cortical necrosis in one. All patients were treated with complex hypotensive ACEi-based therapy. AT1B losartan was added in a mean dose of 0.9 mg/kg/day. The change in GFR, proteinuria and blood pressure at two 12-month intervals before and after adding AT1B was compared. The results showed that during the 12 months preceding AT1B therapy, there was no change in blood pressure and proteinuria, but the GFR declined in 7 of 11 patients. After the 12th month of add-on therapy with AT1B, there was a significant decrease in both absolute and indexed blood pressure values. Proteinuria decreased in eight patients, did not change in one and increased in two, including one with CNS. The GFR stabilized or increased in eight patients and decreased in three patients with CNS. In 7 of 11 patients, there was a significant, but not threatening increase in serum potassium. In conclusion, add-on renoprotection with AT1B added to ACEi is safe and significantly improves the renoprotective effects of ACEi treatment in children with progressive nephropathies, including patients with advanced CKD.

Rationale and design of a study to evaluate management of proteinuria in patients at high risk for vascular events: the IMPROVE trial

Declining kidney function predicts increasing cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension. Microalbuminuria is a marker for cardiovascular risk and declining kidney function. Agents that block the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS), notably angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), reduce proteinuria and microalbuminuria, lower blood pressure and slow the progression of proteinuric kidney disease. Evidence is accumulating that the combination of an ACE inhibitor and an ARB is the optimal means of RAAS blockade in this setting, slowing the progression of nephropathy independently of blood pressure lowering to a greater degree than can be achieved using maximum approved doses of either agent alone. However, the emerging therapeutic potential of ACE inhibitor/ARB combination therapy in hypertensive kidney disease requires further characterization. The Irbesartan in the Management of PROteinuric patients at high risk for Vascular Events trial aims to determine definitively whether the combination therapy of an ARB, irbesartan and an ACE inhibitor, ramipril, is more effective than ramipril alone in reducing the urinary albumin excretion rate in patients at high cardiovascular risk with hypertension and proteinuria or microalbuminuria.

Diabetic nephropathy: the proteinuria hypothesis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Proteinuria, nearly a universal finding in progressive kidney disease, has been the subject of frequent recent analyses in the renal literature. Proteinuria is a hallmark of diabetic nephropathy: microalbuminuria is the principal early predictor for progression of diabetic glomerulopathy, and proteinuria may be viewed as a measure of the severity and promoter of progression of nephropathy.

METHODS

This article critically reviews for the first time the full scope of diabetic proteinuria--complex molecular mechanisms, natural history, and analysis of treatment trials--in order to address the validity of 'the proteinuria hypothesis', i.e., that diabetic proteinuria is a modifiable determinant of renal progression. This hypothesis is analyzed in detail, including recent studies on the primary therapy of diabetic nephropathy, renin-angiotensin blockade.

RESULTS

As fully developed, this hypothesis consists of three postulates: that higher amounts of proteinuria predict progressive loss of function, that proteinuria reduction correlates with slowing progression, and that proteinuria is a surrogate endpoint for clinical trials. The latter postulate has not before been adequately linked to growing information about the first two postulates as they apply to diabetic kidney disease.

CONCLUSION

While diabetic nephropathy is a disease model for the potential use of proteinuria as a surrogate marker for renal progression, this shift in perspective will require prospective data from additional clinical trials, particularly of non-renin-angiotensin blocking drugs, to be complete.