PURPOSE: This article seeks to objectively review the clinical trial evidence to determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) have special cardiovascular protective effects.
METHODS: An objective review of the clinical trial evidence.
RESULTS: Clinical trials in hypertensive patients comparing ACEI and ARB with other drugs generally showed no difference in the primary cardiovascular outcome (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Group, Captopril Prevention Project, Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension 2, Japan Multicenter Investigation for Cardiovascular Diseases-B Randomized Trial, Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, Second Australian National Blood Pressure Study Group, Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation). Where the primary, or major secondary, cardiovascular end-point favors one of the treatment arms, it was always the arm with the lower achieved blood pressure that saw the better clinical result as in Losartan Intervention For Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study, Captopril Prevention Project, Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, and Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation. Trials comparing ACEI or ARB against placebo in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events have not showed a consistent result; cardiovascular outcomes were reduced in Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation, European Trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in Stable Coronary Artery Disease, and the Jikei Heart Study, but were not significantly reduced in Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study, Comparison of Arnlodipine vs Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis Trial, Prevention of Events with ACEIs Trial, Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE-Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease Trial, and Prevention Regimen for Effectively Avoiding Second Strokes Trial. In the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial, combining ACEIs with ARBs in high-risk patients did not reduce cardiovascular or renal outcomes compared with ACEI monotherapy alone. This absence of a reduction in cardiovascular outcome from the ACEI and ARB combination arm is further evidence suggesting that these drugs do not have any special cardiovascular protective effect. This objective review thus shows that the rennin-angiotensin antagonists do not have special cardiovascular protective properties.
CONCLUSION: The key to reducing cardiovascular outcome is to appropriately control blood pressure as well as to treat all other coronary risk factors.
Matched MeSH terms: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/therapeutic use*
Since hypertension is generally asymptomatic, in treating hypertension we are actually seeking to prevent target organ damage and reduce adverse clinical outcome. There have been numerous large clinical trials addressing the question of whether any antihypertensive drug has special protective effects on the cardiovascular and renal systems in addition to the benefit from blood pressure (BP) reduction1-15. In seeking to correctly interpret the message from these trials, it is important to avoid the confusion that can occur when pharmaceutical companies seek to make the results suit their marketing needs 16-18. The aim of this article is thus to provide an unbiased review of the value of the different antihypertensive drugs for the clinician treating essential hypertension in Malaysia.
Matched MeSH terms: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/therapeutic use
BACKGROUND: Data comparing the effect of losartan and perindopril on aortic stiffness among hypertensive subjects without A(1166)C polymorphism was not available.
METHODS: The short-term and long-term effects of losartan (50 mg) and perindopril (4 mg) on aortic stiffness measured as carotid femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) were compared in 39 middle-aged Malay subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension in a 4-month, double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-design study.
RESULTS: Four-month treatment with both drugs showed a significant reduction in blood pressure (BP) (P < .005) and PWV (P < .05) as compared to the baseline. On the other hand 1-month treatment showed a significant reduction in BP only in perindopril group (P < .05) but not in the losartan group. There was no significant reduction in pulse pressure and PWV after 1 month treatment by both drugs. No significant difference was seen in reduction in BP after 1 month and 4 months treatment between the two drugs. Similarly no significant difference was seen in reduction in PWV between the two drugs after 1 month (P = .613) and 4 months (P = .521) of treatment. Reduction in PWV by losartan (r = 0.470) and perindopril (r = 0.457) correlated significantly only with reduction in DBP (P < .05) and remained significant even after controlling for reduction in DBP (P < .05). Reduction in PWV by both losartan and perindopril was independent of reduction in BP by these drugs.
CONCLUSIONS: These results showed that long-term treatment with losartan shows similar pressure independent reduction in PWV as perindopril among Malay hypertensive subjects with a homogenous "AA" genotype for angiotensin II type 1 receptor and may serve as a suitable alternative to perindopril.
Matched MeSH terms: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/therapeutic use*
High levels of angiotensin receptor antibodies (ATRab) are associated with acute cellular and humoral rejection, vascular occlusion, de novo human leucocyte antigen donor specific antibody (HLA DSA) and poor graft survival in kidney transplant recipients (KTR). Since 2015 we proactively managed patients "at risk" (AR) with ATRab >17 U/ml with perioperative plasma exchange (PLEX) and/or angiotensin receptor blockade (ARB). 44 patients were treated with this protocol. 265 KTR with ATRab ≤17 U/ml deemed "low risk" (LR) were transplanted under standard conditions. PLEX and ARB were not associated with increased risk of: delayed graft function requiring haemodialysis (HDx), hyperkalaemia >5.5 mmol/l requiring HDx, and the combined clinical end-point of severe hypotension, blood transfusion and re-operation for bleeding. Rejection rates were similar at 90 days: 8/44 (18%) in the AR group and 36/265 (14%) in the LR group (p = 0.350). Death censored graft survival was the same between the AR and LR groups with a 94% 48-month graft survival - hazard ratio (log-rank) 1.16 [95% CI 0.2-5.8] p = 0.844. Proactive treatment of ATRab >17 U/ml with PLEX and/or ARB is not associated with increased rates of perioperative complications and comparable rates of rejection and death censored graft survival at 4 years compared to KTR <17 U/ml ATRab.
Matched MeSH terms: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/therapeutic use*
INTRODUCTION: Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) by either the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) or the angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) has been shown to reduce albuminuria and delay the progression of diabetic nephropathy. This study evaluated the effect of dual blockade of the RAAS by adding an ACEI or an ARB to the administration of either drug alone on albuminuria in Asian type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.
METHODS: 34 patients were randomly assigned to receive either enalapril 20 mg or losartan 100 mg once daily for eight weeks. Following this, all patients received a combination of enalapril 10 mg and losartan 50 mg daily for eight weeks, followed by enalapril 20 mg and losartan 100 mg daily for another eight weeks. The blood pressure and 24-hour urinary albumin excretion (UAE) were monitored.
RESULTS: Following monotherapy with enalapril, there was a mean and standard error (SE) reduction in the UAE and mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 9.8 (SE 6.8) percent (p-value is 0.061) and 5.3 (SE 2.2) mmHg (p-value is 0.026), respectively; the reduction in UAE and MAP following monotherapy with losartan was by 10.9 (SE 14.1) percent (p-value is 0.053) and 4.5 (SE 1.9) mmHg (p-value is 0.034), respectively. Combination therapy with enalapril and losartan further reduced the UAE (11.2 [SE 8.7] percent, p-value is 0.009] despite there being no significant change in the MAP (-1.2 [SE 1.47] mmHg, p-value is 0.42). The adverse effects included dry cough (seven [19.4 percent] patients, resulting in the withdrawal of medication in two patients), and transient hyperkalaemia (two [six percent] patients).
CONCLUSION: Dual blockade of the RAAS is safe and effective in reducing albuminuria in Asian type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.
Matched MeSH terms: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/therapeutic use
To evaluate losartan and conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) compared with CT alone on the cost associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Taiwan.
Matched MeSH terms: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/therapeutic use*