Diabetic nephropathy. Its relationship to hypertension and means of pharmacological intervention

Hypertension and diabetes mellitus are common chronic conditions which frequently coexist. Diabetic nephropathy is a major cause of elevated blood pressure in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Diabetic nephropathy, arterial sclerosis, obesity and association of essential hypertension can be the causes of hypertension in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has revealed that the nocturnal fall of blood pressure is blunted in patients with diabetic nephropathy. A blunted diurnal blood pressure variation is seen in microalbuminuric diabetic patients and even in some normoalbuminuric patients. Accumulating data suggest that normalisation of blood pressure in hypertensive IDDM patients is most important to minimise the loss of kidney function. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been reported to be effective in postponing the development of nephropathy and in slowing its progression. Whether only ACE inhibitors have such beneficial renal effects on diabetic nephropathy is under discussion. While many studies have suggested that insulin resistance and hyperinsulinaemia are related to an elevated blood pressure in hypertensive patients, there does not seem to be enough evidence to prove that insulin per se can raise blood pressure in humans. Neither an insulin infusion within a physiological range nor sustained hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance (e.g. patients with insulinoma, cystic ovary syndrome) have been associated with an elevated blood pressure. Insulin resistance in some hypertensive patients may be a consequence of a decreased blood flow due to an increased peripheral resistance. Preliminary evidence suggests that low birth weight or impaired fetal growth is related to hypertension and NIDDM. Familial clustering of diabetic nephropathy suggests the contribution of genetic susceptibility and/or environmental inheritance. The frequent association of nephropathy with hypertension has led to research on the genes related to hypertension (ACE, angiotensinogen). Nevertheless, to date no reliable and clinically useful genetic marker has been found. Attempts to correct the metabolic abnormalities derived from diabetes are a new topic in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. The effects of HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (antihypercholesterolaemic drugs), aldose reductase inhibitors (inhibitors of the polyol pathway) and glycation inhibitors (inhibitors of formation of advanced glycosylation end-products) on diabetic nephropathy have been evaluated in animal studies and in some clinical trials. Thus far, results with HMG CoA reductase and aldose reductase inhibitors have been somewhat conflicting. The potential therapeutic role of glycation inhibition in the treatment of diabetes deserves further study.     

Renal protection and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition in microalbuminuric type I and type II diabetic patients

BACKGROUND: Many studies have emphasized the role of antihypertensive drugs and in particular angiotension converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in the retardation of diabetic nephropathy. Although these studies have focused predominantly on patients with overt proteinuria, more recently a number of investigators have explored the role of ACE inhibitors in both type I and type II diabetic patients with an earlier phase of diabetic renal disease known as microalbuminuria. These agents are now being considered as renoprotective agents not only in hypertensive patients but also in those with 'normal' blood pressure. Initially, studies in type I diabetic patients showed that ACE inhibition was effective in retarding the increase in albuminuria which was observed in placebo treated groups. More recently, several multi-centre placebo controlled studies have been performed suggesting that prolonged treatment not only reduced albuminuria but also preserved renal function. The role of ACE inhibition in microalbuminuric type II diabetic patients is less well characterised although several studies have recently described beneficial effects of ACE inhibition on albuminuria and possibly on renal function. REVIEW: Although ACE inhibitors have been clearly shown to reduce urinary albumin excretion in diabetic patients, the issue as to whether they confer a specific benefit over other classes of antihypertensive agents remains controversial. Several meta-analyses have suggested that ACE inhibitors are more potent at decreasing albuminuria or proteinuria than other antihypertensive agents, for a given reduction in blood pressure. The Melbourne Diabetic Nephropathy Study Group has instituted a study which is placebo-controlled and is confined to normotensive type I and type II diabetic patients. The ACE inhibitor perindopril has been compared not only with placebo but also with the dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, nifedipine. Preliminary analysis reveals that after 12 and 24 months of treatment, perindopril is more effective in reducing albuminuria than placebo or nifedipine. CONCLUSION: ACE inhibitors are a promising class of antihypertensive agents in diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. These drugs should be considered as first line agents in such patients, even in the absence of systemic hypertension.     

Antihypertensive and natriuretic effects of CGS 30440, a dual inhibitor of angiotensin-converting enzyme and neutral endopeptidase 24.11

Dual angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)/neutral endopeptidase (NEP) inhibitors, by decreasing angiotensin-II production and by preventing the degradation of atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), may be useful for the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure. The thiol dipeptide CGS 30440 (prodrug of CGS 30008, IC50: ACE/NEP = 19/2 nM) administered to rats (10 mg/kg p.o.) inhibited lung tissue ACE activity by 98% and 61% at 1 and 24 hr (P < .001) and inhibited the angiotensin-I pressor response by 75 to 90% for more than 6 hr. Renal tissue NEP activity was reduced by 80% at 1 hr and 73% at 24 hr (P < .001). In rats supplemented with exogenous ANP, CGS 30440 (1 mg/kg p.o.) elevated the concentration of circulating ANP (133%, P < .025) for 4 hr and increased the excretion of urine (300%, P < .001), sodium (194%, P < .025) and cyclic GMP (238%, P < .005). CGS 30440 (10 mg/kg p.o.) administered to hypertensive rats with aortic ligation between the renal arteries (mean arterial blood pressure, 209 +/- 4 mm Hg) produced a 48 mm Hg blood pressure reduction (P < .001) within 4 hr. CGS 30440 given to cynomolgus monkeys at 2 mg/kg inhibited plasma ACE activity by 96% within 1 hr (P < .001), and this inhibition was maintained for 7 and 21 days in monkeys receiving the compound orally at 2.5 mg/kg b.i.d. These studies demonstrate that CGS 30440 is an orally active agent which produces tissue ACE and NEP inhibition in rats and plasma ACE inhibition in primates and suggest that the compound may be useful in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure.     

The antiproteinuric action of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in chronic glomerulonephritis and diabetic nephropathy

Antiproteinuria effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors was studied in 23 patients with chronic nephritis (CN) and 32 patients with diabetic nephropathy (DN). CN patients received Capoten, DN patients were given enalapril. The drugs were also examined for the action on systemic arterial pressure, renal function and intrarenal hemodynamics. Significantly decreased urinary excretion of protein occurred in DN patients on the treatment month 1, in CN subjects on month 3. In both groups ACE inhibitors produced marked hypotensive effect, did not affect renal function, noticeably improved intraglomerular hemodynamics. Hypotensive and antiproteinuria activity of the drugs were unrelated. The mechanism of antiproteinuria action of ACE inhibitors works via normalization of intrarenal hemodynamics. Systemic arterial hypertension seems to be an additional factor aggravating disturbances of intrarenal circulation and provoking proteinuria.     

Influence of a history of arterial hypertension and pretreatment blood pressure on the effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition after acute myocardial infarction. Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation Study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of a history of arterial hypertension and the level of pretreatment blood pressure on the efficacy of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor trandolapril on mortality and morbidity in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and left ventricular dysfunction. METHODS: Data from the Trandolapril Cardiac Event study, in which 1749 patients with an enzyme verified AMI and echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular dysfunction were randomized in a double-blind manner to treatment with trandolapril or placebo, were retrospectively analysed. Follow up time was 24-50 months (mean 26 months). RESULTS: Four hundred patients (23%) had a history of arterial hypertension. A total of 173 (43%) patients with a history of hypertension died during follow up versus 500 (37%) patients in the normotensive group. Treatment with trandolapril in the hypertensive individuals was associated with a reduction in the relative risk of death to 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.44-0.80), versus 0.85 (0.72-1.02) in the normotensive individuals. The significant reduction in mortality in hypertensive individuals persisted after multivariate analysis controlling for a broad spectrum of potential confounders. Also, benefit from ACE inhibition increased with increasing blood pressure at the time of randomization. Significant interactions between benefit from ACE inhibition and hypertension history, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were found. CONCLUSION: ACE inhibition after AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction may be of particular importance in patients with a history of arterial hypertension or a relatively high pretreatment blood pressure. However, further investigations are necessary to establish the clinical impact of these results.     

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the progression of nondiabetic renal disease: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibition and Progressive Renal Disease Study Group

BACKGROUND: The effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in slowing the decline in renal function in nondiabetic renal disease varies among studies. PURPOSE: To use meta-analysis to assess the effect of ACE inhibitors on the development of end-stage renal disease caused by factors other than diabetes. DATA SOURCES: The English-language medical literature, identified by a MEDLINE search and unpublished studies. STUDY SELECTION: All randomized studies that compared ACE inhibitors with other antihypertensive agents and had at least 1 year of planned follow-up were selected. Studies of diabetic renal disease and renal transplants were excluded. A total of 1594 patients in 10 studies was included. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on end-stage renal disease, death, drop out, and blood pressure were extracted. Study investigators confirmed results and provided additional data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among 806 patients receiving ACE inhibitors, 52 (6.4%) developed end-stage renal disease and 17 (2.1%) died; in the 788 controls, the respective values were 72 (9.1%) and 12 (1.5%). The pooled relative risks were 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51 to 0.97) for end-stage renal disease and 1.24 (CI, 0.55 to 2.83) for death; the studies were not significantly heterogeneous. The decreases in weighted mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures during follow-up were 4.9 and 1.2 mm Hg greater, respectively, in the patients who received ACE inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are more effective than other antihypertensive agents in reducing the development of end-stage nondiabetic renal disease, and they do not increase mortality. It could not be determined whether this beneficial effect is due to the greater decline in blood pressure or to other effects of ACE inhibition.     

ACE inhibitors and proteinuria

This review discusses the clinical consequences of urinary protein loss and the effects of inhibitors of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) on this clinical finding. Proteinuria appears to be an important risk factor for renal function deterioration and for cardiovascular mortality. ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce proteinuria more effectively than other antihypertensives. Their antiproteinuric effect seems to be independent of the underlying renal disease, and is mediated by a specific, not yet fully elucidated mechanism. Urinary protein loss related phenomena, such as hypoalbuminemia and aberrant lipoprotein profile, tend to improve also during ACE inhibitor treatment. Furthermore, ACE inhibition has been shown to prevent the renal function deterioration that is frequently observed in patients with renal disease. Interestingly, it has recently been shown that in proteinuric patients with renal disease the initial proteinuria lowering response to ACE inhibition predicts long-term renal function outcome during this treatment the more proteinuna is lowered during the first months, the better renal function will be preserved over the following years. Because of these favorable effects ACE inhibitors have become a widely used class of agents in nephrology. They are not only prescribed for lowering blood pressure in the hypertensive renal patient, but also as symptomatic treatment of patients with proteinuria, and to prevent renal function loss in patients with both diabetic and non-diabetic renal disease.     

The molecular biology of chitin digestion

A beneficial effect in blood pressure control is presumed for patients on an intensive preoperative antihypertensive regimen who undergo empiric renal revascularization. Nonetheless, a noticeable decline in surgical cure rates for hypertension has been recently observed in patients with generalized atherosclerosis. The outcome of patients on multiple preoperative antihypertensive agents who underwent combined aortic and renal artery reconstruction was reviewed. The study population comprised 43 patients who underwent concomitant renal artery and aortic reconstruction for atherosclerotic disease between 1983 and 1995 and who were taking two or more antihypertensive medications and had a serum creatinine of less than or equal to 1.7 mg/dL. Operative management included an aortic reconstruction with either unilateral (n = 22) or bilateral (n = 19) aortorenal bypass or renal endarterectomy (n = 2). Operative mortality was 4.7% (2 of 43). The estimated 5-yr probability of survival was 83% (95% C.I. 0.70, 0.99). Late follow-up data on blood pressure control were available for review in 32 patients at a median follow-up of 37 months. Hypertension was cured in 1 (3%) and improved in an additional 15 (47%) patients. The numbers of antihypertensive medications taken preoperatively (mean = 2.7) declined at late follow-up (mean = 1.6). Notably, the largest reduction was observed with beta blockers (p = 0.006), central sympatholytics (p = 0.041), and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (p = 0.052). The number of preoperative antihypertensive medications was not significantly related to survival or to blood pressure improvement. However, uncontrolled preoperative hypertension despite antihypertensive therapy was associated with a favorable blood pressure response to operation (p < 0.001). Patients on an intensive antihypertensive regimen can safely undergo concomitant renal artery and aortic reconstruction for the empiric management of hypertension. Poorly controlled preoperative hypertension in the presence of multiple antihypertensive agents is a favorable marker for improved postoperative blood pressure control.     

Screening for renovascular hypertension in a population with relatively low prevalence

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy and cost-efficacy of the diagnostic procedure and treatment for renovascular hypertension. SETTING AND PATIENTS: A total of 519 patients referred to the university clinic for hypertension were screened for renovascular hypertension with 405 captopril challenge tests (CCT) and 450 captopril renographies (CRG). INTERVENTIONS: Abdominal angiography was performed on 84 patients for positive screening. Fifteen patients underwent angiography for a sole suspicious clinical presentation. The angiography revealed 17 renal artery stenoses and five occlusions in 20 patients. Fifteen technically successful angioplasties and three nephrectomies were performed. RESULTS: In the patients who underwent angiography, CCT had a specificity of 39% and a sensitivity of 67% for renovascular hypertension. CRG had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 68%. In the whole study population, the estimated specificity of CCT was 88% and that of CRG 95%. Invasive treatment reduced systolic/diastolic blood pressure from 157/99 to 140/87 mmHg and the number of antihypertensive drugs used from 2.6 to 1.4 in 16 patients (mean age 49 years). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition was effective in four elderly patients. Cost-efficacy analysis Screening with CRG and invasive treatment cost US$15400 per successful invasive treatment Equally effective pharmacological treatment would have cost US$10400. Limiting the screening with CRG to the 173 patients with no obvious renal parenchymal disease and with hypertension at a younger age (< or =30 years) or unresponsive to two antihypertensive drugs (diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg) would have yielded a prevalence of 12% and missed only one elderly patient who responded to ACE inhibition. The limited screening, along with invasive treatment, would have cost US$7300 per patient CONCLUSIONS: CRG is superior to CCT for screening of renovascular hypertension. Screening with CRG is cost-effective when limited to patients with no obvious renal parenchymal disease and with hypertension that does not respond to two antihypertensive drugs or is detected in patients no older than 30 years.     

Response of hypertension to conventional antihypertensive treatment and/or steroidogenesis inhibitors in Cushing's syndrome

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of conventional antihypertensive drugs and/or inhibitors of steroid production in the management of hypertension in Cushing's syndrome. DESIGN: A retrospective open clinical study with pre- and post-treatment assessment. SETTING: A university hospital, where patients were initially admitted and then followed-up in an ambulatory clinic over a period of 6 years. SUBJECTS: Forty consecutive hypertensive patients with Cushing's syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into two groups according to the different management of hypertension. The first group (group 1) of 28 patients included those treated with antihypertensive drugs at full dose (diuretics, calcium antagonists, angiotensin converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, as single agents or in combination). The second group (group 2) of 12 patients received ketoconazole alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood pressure variations compared to pre-treatment levels. RESULTS: Blood pressure normalization was obtained in four of the 28 patients of group 1. In 12 of the remaining patients, ketoconazole, an inhibitor of steroid production, was subsequently added and this normalized blood pressure in all but the one in whom cortisol was not decreased. In the 12 patients of group 2, ketoconazole alone lowered blood pressure within normal limits in all but one who had long-standing hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive patients with Cushing's syndrome, conventional antihypertensive therapy is mostly ineffective. Blood pressure response is satisfactory only after the restoration of normal cortisol levels, indicating the need for a specific treatment for hypertension in this disorder.     

The effect of ionic conditions on the conformations of supercoiled DNA. I. Sedimentation analysis

Valsartan competitively and selectively inhibits the actions of angiotensin II at the AT1 receptor subtype which is responsible for most of the known effects of angiotensin II. In clinical trials in patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension valsartan was as effective as losartan, lisinopril, enalapril, amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide. Addition of the latter reduced blood pressure in patients who did not respond sufficiently to valsartan monotherapy. Preliminary data also suggest valsartan may be effective in patients with severe essential hypertension. The drug was as effective as lisinopril as treatment for mild to moderate essential hypertension in patients with renal insufficiency and did not worsen renal function. Headache, dizziness and fatigue were the most common adverse events in placebo-controlled studies; the incidence of these adverse events was not significantly different between placebo and valsartan recipients. Compared with ACE inhibitors, valsartan was associated with a significantly lower incidence of dry cough. Thus, valsartan is an effective treatment for mild to moderate essential hypertension and may be particularly useful in patients who experience persistent cough during ACE inhibitor therapy.     

Pathology of preinvasive and excellent prognosis breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Erythropoietin (EPO) therapy is a common and effective treatment for the correction of anemia in patients with end-stage renal disease. Simultaneous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors for the control of hypertension and/or heart failure is often necessary. Recent reports in the literature have raised concern about a potential interaction between these drugs, with a resultant decreased EPO efficacy. METHODS: To investigate whether this interaction occurs in chronic dialysis patients, we retrospectively reviewed the records of 175 patients receiving chronic dialysis. All study patients were treated with EPO for at least 3 months, and had normal iron indices. Patients were treated with ACE inhibitors for at least 3 months, at a constant daily dose for at least 1 month (group 1, n = 32), or did not receive ACE inhibitors (group 2, n = 143). Patients with infections or overt iron deficiency were excluded. Total weekly EPO doses and hematocrit (Hct)/hemoglobin (Hgb) values in the two groups were compared. Variables known to affect response to EPO were compared, including ferritin, transferrin saturation, dialysis dose and serum aluminum. RESULTS: Total weekly EPO dose was 17,358 +/- 6,871 units in group 1 and 17,612 +/- 7,744 units in group 2 (p = 0.854). The achieved Hct was 32.1 +/- 4.4% (group 1) and 30.5 +/- 4.0% (group 2) (p = 0.079). Similarly, Hgb, ferritin, transferrin saturation, Kt/V, and serum aluminum were not different. The dose or duration of ACE inhibitor therapy did not affect Hgb or Hct. Thus, ACE inhibitor therapy does not appear to affect response to EPO in chronic dialysis patients.     

Modern trends in the treatment of hypertension

The main problem of treatment of hypertension in this country as well as abroad is the fact that only less than one quarter of hypertensive patients are treated effectively and have thus normal blood pressure readings. More effective treatment of hypertension is thus one of the main tasks of health care systems in different countries. The objective of treatment of hypertension is to achieve a normal blood pressure. Evidence has been provided that diuretics and beta-blockers markedly reduce cerebrovascular and cardiovascular mortality, in particular in the elderly. ACE inhibitors are the drugs of choice in patients with heart failure or asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction and in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Unsuitable for treatment of hypertension are short acting calcium channel blockers, in particular nifedipine. On the other hand, long-acting calcium channel blockers reduce the cerebrovascular mortality in elderly hypertensive patients. A number of questions still remain the subject of research: a) should diastolic pressure be reduced to values lower than 90 mm Hg; so far it is necessary only in hypertensive subjects with diabetes mellitus and in juvenile hypertensives; b) is the influence of new groups of antihypertensive drugs, in particular calcium channel blockers, similar, better or worse than that of diuretics and beta-blockers in the prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality?; c) is it wise to recommend acetylsalicylic acid also to hypertensive patients without clinical signs of IHD or atherosclerotic affection of other vessels?; d) what is the value of combined antihypertensive and hypolipidaemic pharmacological treatment? Will this combination be not much more valuable in the prevention of IHD?; e) is the prognosis of hypertensive subjects with left ventricular hypertrophy better when ACE inhibitors are used as compared with other antihypertensive drugs?; f) do ACE inhibitors influence the prognosis of diabetic patients more favourably than beta-blockers?     

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors

ACE inhibitors have achieved widespread usage in the treatment of cardiovascular and renal disease. ACE inhibitors alter the balance between the vasoconstrictive, salt-retentive, and hypertrophic properties of angiotensin II (Ang II) and the vasodilatory and natriuretic properties of bradykinin and alter the metabolism of a number of other vasoactive substances. ACE inhibitors differ in the chemical structure of their active moieties, in potency, in bioavailability, in plasma half-life, in route of elimination, in their distribution and affinity for tissue-bound ACE, and in whether they are administered as prodrugs. Thus, the side effects of ACE inhibitors can be divided into those that are class specific and those that relate to specific agents. ACE inhibitors decrease systemic vascular resistance without increasing heart rate and promote natriuresis. They have proved effective in the treatment of hypertension, they decrease mortality in congestive heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction, and they delay the progression of diabetic nephropathy. Ongoing studies will elucidate the effect of ACE inhibitors on cardiovascular mortality in essential hypertension, the role of ACE inhibitors in patients without ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction, and the role of ACE inhibitors compared with newly available angiotensin AT1 receptor antagonists.     

Therapeutic interventions for nephropathy in type I diabetes mellitus

Diabetic nephropathy is the single most common cause of end-stage renal disease in the United States. Recently, several major therapeutic interventions have been developed and shown to slow or halt the progression of renal failure in patients with diabetes and diabetic kidney disease. Studies have shown that in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and proteinuria, lowering systemic blood pressure slows the rate of decline in renal function and improves patients' survival. In the recently completed trial of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition in diabetic nephropathy, ACE inhibitors were specifically shown to decrease dramatically the risk of doubling of serum creatinine or reaching a combined outcome of end-stage renal disease or death independent of their effect on systemic blood pressure. In studies with small numbers of patients, dietary protein restriction has also been shown to slow the rate of decline of renal function. New potential interventions currently undergoing study include treatment with aldose reductase inhibitors, treatment with inhibitors of the formation of advanced glycosylation end-products, treatment of dyslipidemia, and a variety of other less well-studied interventions.     

Treatment of hypertension associated with diabetes mellitus

The number of patients with non-insulin-dependent-diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) is dramatically increasing in Japan and estimated to be 6 million, more than one of ten adults. It is well known that more than a half of diabetics are hypertensive. Therefore, it is very important to treat hypertension to reduce cardiovascular events as well as end-stage renal disease. At first, life style modification such as body weight reduction, exercise and restriction of salt and alcohol intake will be recommended. Improved glycemic control by such a non-pharmacological therapy will lower blood pressure. Recent studies demonstrated that hypoglycemic agents improving insulin resistance such as metformin and troglitazone reduce blood pressure. If these maneuvers do not lower blood pressure, hypotensive medication will be necessary. As a first line therapy, ACE inhibitor, alpha 1-blocker or Ca-channel blocker will be selected. In diabetics with proteinuria or micro-albuminuria, ACE inhibitors will be effective to delay the progression of diabetic nephropathy.     

Trandolapril. An update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in cardiovascular disorders

Trandolapril is an orally administered angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor that has been used in the treatment of patients with hypertension and congestive heart failure (CHF), and after myocardial infarction (MI). Trandolapril is a nonsulfhydryl prodrug that is hydrolysed to the active diacid trandolaprilat. Trandolapril 2 mg once daily provides effective control of blood pressure (BP) over 24 hours in patients with mild to moderate hypertension, with a trough/peak ratio of BP reduction (as determined by 24-hour ambulatory monitoring) consistently > or = 50%. Trandolapril has similar antihypertensive efficacy to enalapril as indicated by several clinical trials. Combined therapy with trandolapril and sustained-release verapamil has a significantly greater antihypertensive effect than either agent alone. Only limited data are available on the use of trandolapril in patients with CHF, although ACE inhibitors as a class are recommended as first line therapy in such patients. In the Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) study, trandolapril 1 to 4 mg once daily resulted in an early and long term reduction in all-cause mortality, including cardiovascular mortality, in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction after an MI. Trandolapril therapy was commenced a mean 4.5 days after acute MI and continued for 24 to 50 months. At study end, the relative risk of death from any cause with trandolapril versus placebo was 0.78 (p = 0.001). The tolerability profile of trandolapril is similar to that of other ACE inhibitors. Most adverse events are mild and transient in nature, and include cough, asthenia, dizziness, headache and nausea. Trandolapril has no adverse effect on lipid or carbohydrate metabolism. Conclusions: trandolapril has a favourable pharmacological profile and an antihypertensive efficacy at least comparable to that of other ACE inhibitors. The pharmacological characteristics of trandolapril allow it to provide good 24-hour control of BP with once-daily administration. Trandolapril has also demonstrated some efficacy in a small number of patients with CHF. In addition, trandolapril provides long term protection against all-cause mortality in patients with LV dysfunction after MI. The results of the Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) study will determine its potential as a cardioprotective agent in patients with coronary artery disease and preserved LV function. Thus, trandolapril represents an effective, well-tolerated and convenient treatment option for patients with mild to moderate hypertension or LV systolic dysfunction after MI.     

Renal side effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are used widely in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure. An increasing number of patients with chronic renal failure is treated with ACE inhibitors because of their antiproteinuric effect. In patients with diabetic nephropathy ACE inhibitors also slow the progression of renal failure. Direct drug related nephrotoxic effects, like the induction of proteinuria, glucosuria or an interstitial nephritis are rare events. The often observed reduction of the glomerular filtration rate after the induction of an ACE inhibitor therapy is due to the specific intrarenal action of these agents and therefore not an adverse drug reaction.     

Blood pressure outcome of angioplasty in atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: a randomized trial. Essai Multicentrique Medicaments vs Angioplastie (EMMA) Study Group

Data for the effects on blood pressure of renal artery balloon angioplasty are mostly from uncontrolled studies. The aim of this study was to document the efficacy and safety of angioplasty for lowering blood pressure in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis. Patients were randomly assigned antihypertensive drug treatment (control group, n = 26) or angioplasty (n = 23). Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure, the primary end point, was measured at baseline and at termination. Termination took place 6 months after randomization or earlier in patients who developed refractory hypertension. In those allocated angioplasty, antihypertensive treatment was discontinued after the procedure but was subsequently resumed if hypertension persisted. Secondary end points were the treatment score and the incidence of complications. Two patients in the control group and 6 in the angioplasty group suffered procedural complications (relative risk, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8 to 15.1). Early termination was required for refractory hypertension in 7 patients in the control group. Antihypertensive treatment was resumed in 17 patients in the angioplasty group. Mean ambulatory blood pressure at termination did not differ between control (141+/-15/84+/-11 mm Hg) and angioplasty (140+/-15/81+/-9 mm Hg) groups. Angioplasty reduced by 60% the probability of having a treatment score of 2 or more at termination (relative risk, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.7). There was 1 case of dissection with segmental renal infarction and 3 of restenosis in the angioplasty group. No patient suffered renal artery thrombosis. In unilateral atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis, angioplasty is a drug-sparing procedure that involves some morbidity. Previous uncontrolled and unblinded assessments of angioplasty overestimated its potential for lowering blood pressure.