Administration-time-dependent effects of olmesartan on the ambulatory blood pressure of essential hypertension patients. Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil compared with amlodipine for mild-to-moderate hypertension. Distinct time courses of renal protective action of angiotensin receptor antagonists and ACE inhibitors in chronic renal disease. Beneficial effects of adding spironolactone to recommended antihypertensive treatment in diabetic nephropathy: a randomized, double-masked, cross-over study. Efficacy and safety of valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, in hypertension after renal transplantation: a randomized multicenter study. A controlled, prospective study of the effects of atorvastatin on proteinuria and progression of kidney disease. A randomized trial comparing losartan with amlodipine as initial therapy for hypertension in the early post-transplant period. Evaluation of blood pressure response to the combination of enalapril (single dose) and diltiazem ER (four different doses) in systemic hypertension. Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. The effects of the long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor cilazapril on casual, exercise, and ambulatory blood pressure. Effects of candesartan cilexetil in patients with systemic hypertension. Candesartan Cilexetil Study Investigators.
Previous studies established that a single daily dose of olmesartan remains effective for the entire 24 h without alteration of the day-night blood pressure (BP) pattern. On the other hand, the administration of valsartan or telmisartan at bedtime, as opposed to upon wakening, improves the sleep-time relative BP decline toward a greater dipper pattern without loss of 24 h efficacy. Yet to be determined is whether this administration-time-dependent efficacy is a class-related feature, characteristic of all angiotensin-receptor-blocker (ARB) medications. We studied 123 grade 1 and 2 hypertensive patients, 46.6+/-12.3 yrs of age, randomly assigned to receive olmesartan (20 mg/day) as a monotherapy either upon awakening or at bedtime for three months. BP was measured by ambulatory monitoring for 48 consecutive hours before and after treatment. The 24 h BP reduction was similar for both treatment times. Administration of olmesartan at bedtime, however, was significantly more efficient than morning administration in reducing the nocturnal BP mean. The sleep-time relative BP decline was slightly reduced with olmesartan ingestion upon awakening but significantly increased with ingestion at bedtime, thus reducing the prevalence of non-dipping from baseline by 48%. Olmesartan administration at bedtime, as opposed to in the morning, improved the awake/asleep BP ratio toward a greater dipper pattern without loss of 24 h efficacy. Nocturnal BP regulation was significantly better achieved with bedtime as compared to morning dosing of olmesartan. These effects are comparable to those previously reported for valsartan and telmisartan, thus suggesting that they may be class-related features of ARB medications in spite of differences in their half-life kinetics. These administration-time-dependent effects should be taken into account when prescribing ARB medications for treatment of essential hypertension. The antihypertensive efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor blocker olmesartan medoxomil has been shown to compare favourably with that of other antihypertensive agents. This randomized, double-blind study compared the antihypertensive efficacy of the starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil with that of the calcium channel blocker amlodipine besylate (amlodipine) in subjects with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Following a 4-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period, 440 subjects aged >/=18 years were randomized to the starting dose of olmesartan medoxomil (20 mg/day), amlodipine (5 mg/day), or placebo for 8 weeks. Subjects were evaluated by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and by seated cuff blood pressure (BP) measurements at trough. The primary end point was the change from baseline in mean 24-h diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by ABPM at Week 8. Secondary end points included change from baseline in mean 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 8 weeks, change from baseline in mean seated trough cuff DBP and SBP measurements, and response and control rates for DBP <90 and <85 mmHg. Control rates for SBP <140 and <130 mmHg were also calculated. Olmesartan medoxomil and amlodipine produced significantly greater reductions in ambulatory and seated DBP and SBP compared with placebo. Mean reductions in ambulatory and seated BP were similar between the two active agents; however, in the olmesartan medoxomil group, significantly more patients achieved the SBP goal of <130 mmHg and the DBP goal of <85 mmHg. Both drugs were well tolerated at the recommended starting dose. Although amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of oedema, this did not reach statistical significance. Olmesartan medoxomil is an effective antihypertensive agent, with BP-lowering efficacy at the starting dose similar to that of amlodipine, and is associated with more patients achieving the rigorous BP goals of SBP <130 mmHg and DBP <85 mmHg. Although the angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB) shares the angiotensin-II-blocking activity with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I), pharmacological mechanisms of action of these agents differ. We evaluated the temporal profiles of action of ACE-I and ARB on urinary protein excretion and nitrate/nitrate (NO(x)) excretion in hypertensive (140 and/or 90 mmHg) patients with chronic renal disease (serum creatinine < 265 (range, 44-265) micromol/l or creatinine clearance > 30 (range, 30-121) ml/min). Patients with mild (<1 g/day; range, 0.4-1.0) and moderate proteinuria (>1 g/day; range, 1.1-6.9) were randomly assigned to ACE-I- and ARB-treated groups, and were treated with ACE-I (trandolapril or perindopril) or ARB(losartan or candesartan) for 48 weeks. In all groups, treatment with ACE-I or ARB decreased blood pressure to the same level, but had no effect on creatinine clearance. In patients with mild proteinuria, neither ACE-I nor ARB altered urinary protein excretion. In patients with moderate proteinuria, ACE-I caused 44 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria (from 2.7 +/- 0.5 to 1.5 +/- 0.4 g/day, n = 14) at 12 weeks, and this beneficial effect persisted throughout the protocol (48 weeks, 1.2 +/- 0.2 g/day). In contrast, ARB did not produce a significant decrease in proteinuria at 12 weeks (23 +/- 8%, n = 13), but a 41 +/- 6% reduction in proteinuria was observed at 48 weeks. Similarly, although early (12 weeks) increases in urinary NO(x) excretion were observed with ACE-I (from 257 +/- 70 to 1111 +/- 160 micromol/day) and ARB (from 280 +/- 82 to 723 +/- 86 micromol/day), the ARB-induced increase in NO(x) excretion was smaller than that by ACE-I (P < 0.05). In conclusion, although both ACE-I and ARB reduce blood pressure similarly, the effect of these agents on proteinuria differs in chronic renal disease with moderate proteinuria. Relatively early onset of the proteinuria-reducing effect was observed with ACE-I, which paralleled the increase in urinary NO(x) excretion. Conversely, ARB decreased proteinuria and increased urinary NO(x) excretion gradually. These time course-dependent changes in proteinuria and urinary NO(x) may reflect the pharmacological property of ACE-I and ARB, with regard to the action on bradykinin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and short-term effect of adding spironolactone to conventional antihypertensive treatment including diuretics and maximally recommended doses of an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) on albuminuria and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.
                Twenty-one type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy were enrolled in a randomized, double-masked, cross-over study. Patients were treated in random order with spironolactone 25 mg once daily and matched placebo for 8 weeks, respectively, in addition to ongoing antihypertensive treatment including diuretics and maximally recommended doses of an ACE inhibitor and/or an ARB. At the end of each treatment period, albuminuria, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were determined.
                During the addition of placebo, values were as follows: albuminuria (geometric mean [range]) 1,566 [655-7,762] mg/24 h, ABP (mean +/- SE) 138 +/- 3/71 +/- 1 mmHg, and GFR (mean +/- SE) 74 +/- 6 ml/min per 1.73 m2. During the addition of spironolactone, albuminuria was reduced by 33% (95% CI 25-41) (P < 0.001), fractional clearance of albumin by 40% (24-53) (P < 0.001), and 24-h ABP by 6 mmHg (2-10) for systolic and 4 mmHg (2-6) for diastolic (P < 0.001 for both). The change in albuminuria did not correlate with the change in systolic 24-h ABP (r = 0.19, P = 0.42) or diastolic 24-h ABP (r = 0.01, P = 0.96). Spironolactone treatment induced an insignificant reversible reduction in GFR of 3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (-0.3 to 6) (P = 0.08). One patient was excluded from the study due to hyperkalemia. Otherwise treatment was well tolerated.
                Our study suggests that spironolactone safely adds to the reno- and cardiovascular protective benefits of treatment with maximally recommended doses of ACE inhibitor and ARB by reducing albuminuria and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. The prevalence of posttransplant hypertension is high, and it appears to be a major risk factor for graft and patient survival. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), in the treatment of posttransplant hypertension.
                A multinational, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was performed on the treatment of hypertension (systolic blood pressure [BP] >/= 140 and/or diastolic BP >/= 90 mm Hg) in adult cyclosporin-treated renal transplant recipients randomized to receive either valsartan (80 mg once daily) or a matching placebo for 8 weeks. After the first 4 weeks, furosemide 20 mg twice daily was added on a open basis if systolic BP remained >/= 130 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP remained >/= 85 mm Hg.
                One hundred fifteen (valsartan = 57, placebo = 58) uncontrolled hypertensive patients despite monotherapy for hypertension, other than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or ARB, were randomized. In the valsartan group, significant decreases were seen in systolic BP (from 153 +/- 11 to 140.9 +/- 18.35 mm Hg at 4 weeks, and 136.5 +/- 15 mm Hg at 8 weeks) and diastolic BP (from 93 +/- 9 to 85.2 +/- 11.28 mm Hg at 4 weeks, and 83.8 +/- 9.2 mm Hg at 8 weeks). There was no significant change in the placebo group. In the valsartan group, a statistically but not clinically significant reduction was observed in the mean hemoglobin concentration (12.9 +/- 1.6 g/dL versus 13.8 +/- 1.6 g/dL at 4 weeks, P < .01; and 12.3 +/- 1.6 versus 13.8 +/- 1.7 at 8 weeks; P < .001) as well as a significant increase in serum potassium (4.4 +/- 0.5 mmol/L versus 4.1 +/- 0.4 mmol/L at 4 weeks, P < .01) vs placebo.
                Valsartan is effective in the treatment of posttransplant hypertension and is well tolerated. Chronic kidney diseases, particularly if presenting with significant proteinuria, are commonly associated with substantial alteration of serum lipid levels. Experimental evidence suggests that lipid abnormalities may contribute to the progression of kidney disease. However, studies in humans on the subject are scarce.
                In a prospective, controlled open-label study, the authors have evaluated the effects of one-year treatment with atorvastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methyglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, versus no treatment on proteinuria and progression of kidney disease in 56 patients with chronic kidney disease. Before randomization, all patients had already been treated for one year with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin AT1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) and other antihypertensive drugs.
                By the end of one-year treatment, urine protein excretion decreased from 2.2 +/- 0.1 to 1.2 +/- 1.0 g every 24 hours (P < 0.01) in patients treated with atorvastatin in addition to ACE inhibitor and ARBs. By contrast, urinary protein excretion decreased only from 2.0 +/- 0.1 to 1.8 +/- 0.1 g every 24 hours (P value not significant) in patients who did not receive atorvastatin in addition to ACE inhibitor or ARBs. During this time, creatinine clearance decreased only slightly and not significantly (from 51 +/- 1.8 to 49.8 +/- 1.7) in patients treated with atorvastatin. By contrast, during the same period of observation, creatinine clearance decreased from 50 +/- 1.9 to 44.2 +/- 1.6 mL/min (P < 0.01) in patients who did not receive atorvastatin.
                This study has shown that treatment with atorvastatin in addition to a regimen with ACE inhibitors or ARBs may reduce proteinuria and the rate of progression of kidney disease in patients with chronic kidney disease, proteinuria, and hypercholesterolemia. The benefits appear to occur in addition to those of treatment with ACE inhibitor and ARBs.
                Copyright 2003 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the early post-transplant period remains controversial. Angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARB) have many benefits to the patient with chronic kidney disease and these benefits may also apply to the renal transplant recipient (RTR). Additionally, there are theoretical benefits of ARB use in RTR. This study was designed to investigate the safety of early ARB use after renal transplantation.
                RTR with serum creatinine levels <3.0 mg/dl were randomized to receive either ARB (n = 29) or calcium-channel blocker (CCB; n = 27) as initial therapy for post-transplant hypertension. Differences in potassium, creatinine and haemoglobin concentrations were compared at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months after transplantation.
                Withdrawal from the assigned treatment was high: 12 in the ARB group (due to hyperkalaemia in six) and 17 in the CCB group (due to intractable oedema in seven and post-transplant erythrocytosis requiring an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in seven). There were no differences in blood pressure, haemoglobin or creatinine concentration at any time-points. Mean potassium concentrations were only slightly higher in the ARB vs CCB group (range: 4.2-4.3 vs 3.7-3.8 mEq/l, respectively, but clinically significant) and the number of patients with potassium values >6.0 mEq/l was higher in ARB (n = 7) vs CCB (n = 1).
                These data suggest that hyperkalaemia is the major complication that occurs with the use of ARB in the immediate post-transplant period. ARB use does not affect renal function or complicate the post-transplant management of RTR. Other than reducing the incidence of post-transplant erythrocytosis, ARB use does not cause an excess incidence of anaemia. Strategies to reduce the risk of hyperkalaemia may allow increased use of ARB immediately after kidney transplantation. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium antagonists are 2 classes of antihypertensive agents frequently used either as monotherapy or in combination. A 6-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in essential hypertensive patients (diastolic blood pressures [BP] when seated, 95-115 mm Hg) to evaluate the efficacy, dose response, and safety profiles of enalapril combined with a new once-daily formulation of diltiazem. BP and heart rate were measured at 5 (peak) and 24 (trough) hours after dose to assess the efficacy and pharmacodynamic profile of the combination given once daily. There were 336 patients randomly assigned to either enalapril 5 mg plus 1 of 4 dose levels of diltiazem ER (60, 120, 180, or 240 mg), enalapril 5 mg alone, or placebo. Each combination dose level produced statistically significant reductions (p <0.05) in trough diastolic BP when seated, compared with placebo (-6.8, -8.3, -10.1, and -10.3 mm Hg for the diltiazem ER doses of 60, 120, 180, and 240 mg, respectively). The 3 highest combination dose levels resulted in statistically significant (p <0.05) decreases in trough diastolic BP when seated, compared with placebo. There was a significant (p <0.001) linear dose-response relation. A trough-to-peak ratio > or = 0.5 was shown for the 3 highest combination doses. Drug-related adverse events were seen in 8.9% to 19% of the combination patients, 14.3% of the enalapril patients, and 8.6% of the placebo patients. The frequency and type of adverse events were those currently noted with each drug studied when used as monotherapy. BP is an important determinant of kidney disease among patients with diabetes. The recommended thresholds to initiate treatment to lower BP are 130/80 and 125/75 mmHg for people with diabetes and nephropathy, respectively. We sought to determine the effects of lowering BP below these currently recommended thresholds on renal outcomes among 11,140 patients who had type 2 diabetes and participated in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed combination perindopril-indapamide or placebo, regardless of their BP at entry. During a mean follow-up of 4.3 yr, active treatment reduced the risk for renal events by 21% (P < 0.0001), which was driven by reduced risks for developing microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (both P < 0.003). Effects of active treatment were consistent across subgroups defined by baseline systolic or diastolic BP. Lower systolic BP levels during follow-up, even to <110 mmHg, was associated with progressively lower rates of renal events. In conclusion, BP-lowering treatment with perindopril-indapamide administered routinely to individuals with type 2 diabetes provides important renoprotection, even among those with initial BP <120/70 mmHg. We could not identify a BP threshold below which renal benefit is lost. We assessed blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) responses in a double-blind, randomized study comparing cilazapril, a long-acting, nonsulfhydryl-group converting enzyme inhibitor, with placebo in 18 patients with mild to moderate (sitting diastolic BP, 95 to 114 mm Hg) essential hypertension. The BP and HR parameters were evaluated at rest (casual, 24 hours after administration), during treadmill exercise testing (Bruce protocol), and with 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring. These assessments were made after a 4-week drug washout period and after 8 to 12 weeks of therapy. After 8 weeks of therapy with cilazapril (mean dose 3.6 +/- 0.9 mg/day), casual BP decreased 19/11 mm Hg (p less than 0.01), whereas placebo lowered BP by 4/5 mm Hg (difference not significant) compared with the baseline period. The casual HR was modestly (7 beats/min) but significantly (p less than 0.05) lowered by cilazapril monotherapy. Exercise BP was reduced by cilazapril (reduction at peak HR, 23/11 +/- 10/5 mm Hg; p less than 0.05), and exercise HR was unchanged. Compared with baseline, the duration of exercise was improved with cilazapril but not with placebo (1.0 minute vs -0.2 minute; p less than 0.05). Twenty-four-hour mean, awake, and sleep BPs were reduced with cilazapril with the most impressive reduction occurring during the awake period (19/12 mm Hg; p less than 0.01). These data demonstrate that cilazapril lowers casual, exercise, and ambulatory BP with a modest but significant improvement in exercise time. Thus cilazapril may be particularly effective in the physically active hypertensive patient. The objectives of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel-arm, placebo-controlled study were to evaluate the dose-related efficacy, tolerability, and safety of candesartan cilexetil, a potent, AT1 selective, long-acting angiotensin II receptor blocker, in 365 adult patients with systemic hypertension and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95 to 114 mm Hg. Patients received either placebo or candesartan cilexetil 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 mg once daily for 8 weeks. All doses of candesartan cilexetil reduced trough (24 hours after treatment) sitting diastolic and systolic BP significantly compared with placebo (p < 0.005). A significant (p < or = 0.0001) dose response was evident, with greater decreases in BP at higher doses. Mean changes in BP were -10.7/-7.8 mm Hg and -12.6/-10.2 mm Hg in the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively, versus -0.3/-2.6 mm Hg in the placebo group. The 16- and 32-mg doses were consistently significantly superior to placebo in antihypertensive effect with regard to all BP measurements, including peak (6 hours after treatment), trough, sitting, and standing measurements of diastolic and systolic BP. Responder rates (trough sitting diastolic BP < 90 or > or = 10 mm Hg BP decrease) were 54% and 64% for the 16- and 32-mg groups, respectively. Tolerability and safety profiles were similar to placebo at all doses. In conclusion, candesartan cilexetil administered once daily effectively reduces BP in a dose-related manner while maintaining safety and tolerability; doses of 16 and 32 mg are most effective for treatment of hypertension.
The evidence from this review suggests that there are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between available ARBs. The BP lowering effect of ARBs is modest and similar to ACE inhibitors as a class; the magnitude of average trough BP lowering for ARBs at maximum recommended doses and above is -8/-5 mmHg.  Furthermore, 60 to 70% of this trough BP lowering effect occurs with recommended starting doses. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with ARBs because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.