Dose finding studies with imidapril--a new ACE inhibitor. Tricenter assessment of the efficacy of the ACE inhibitor, moexipril, by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Pharmaceutical care program for patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Report of a double-blind clinical trial with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. Matrix study of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Augmented short- and long-term hemodynamic and hormonal effects of an angiotensin receptor blocker added to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor therapy in patients with heart failure. Vasodilator Heart Failure Trial (V-HeFT) Study Group. Additive effects of verapamil and enalapril in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. Efficacy of ACE inhibitors and ATII receptor blockers in patients with microalbuminuria: a prospective study.
1. We describe an approach involving a smaller, shorter study, leading onto a longer, larger study in which the antihypertensive effects of ascending doses of imidapril, a new ACE inhibitor, were investigated. Both studies were planned prospectively, assuming a clinically useful fall in BP to be 8 mm Hg (s.d. = 9). The studies included patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension (baseline sitting diastolic blood pressure (SDBP) 95-115 mm Hg). After a placebo run-in of 2-3 weeks patients received either placebo or imidapril 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 mg in the 2 week study (n = 91) or imidapril 5, 10, 20 or 40 mg in the 4 week study (n = 162). 2. The overall mean baseline SDBP was 103.4 mm Hg (s.d. 0.62) in the initial study and 101.5 mm Hg (s.d. 0.41) in the 4 week study. 3. Compared with placebo, imidapril 10, 20 and 40 mg significantly reduced SDBP. There was no significant difference between these doses, suggesting that 10 mg achieved maximal ACE inhibition in most patients. The 2.5 mg dose showed no significant effect. The 5 mg dose gave an intermediate effect. In both studies the overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the imidapril and placebo groups, and was not worrying. To assess the efficacy and time-dependent effects of once-daily moexipril, a nonsulfhydryl ester prodrug of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, moexiprilat, we conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 51 hypertensive patients using both clinic and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) recordings. Patients were included in the trial based on a minimum of 40% of the daytime diastolic BPs of 90 mm Hg or more during a placebo baseline phase; and the primary endpoint was change in 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP. Patients were randomized to receive placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, or 15 mg of moexipril once daily. Clinic and ambulatory BPs were taken on the first day and after eight weeks of double-blind therapy. After the 7.5-mg dose, there were no significant changes in the acute or prolonged clinic BPs compared with placebo. Compared with adjusted mean changes for placebo, the 15-mg moexipril dose lowered clinic systolic BP, but not diastolic BP. In contrast, acute (1 day) reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were -2/-3 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -14/-9 mm Hg on placebo, 7.5 mg of moexipril, and 15 mg of moexipril, respectively (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose). Similarly, after long-term dosing for 8 weeks, reductions in 24-hour diastolic BPs were 1/-2 mm Hg, -6/-4 mm Hg, and -12/-9 mm Hg for the respective treatment groups (P < .01 for the 15-mg dose).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) Pharmaceutical care programs may be an option to improve blood pressure (BP) control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of pharmaceutical care programs in treating patients with resistant hypertension.
                In a double-blind randomized clinical trial, 71 patients with uncontrolled BP were enrolled in a pharmaceutical care program or in a control group and underwent a series of cognitive tests. The primary outcome was change in ambulatory BP (ABP) between the baseline evaluation and the final visit 6 months later. The secondary outcomes were the frequency of drug-related problems and adherence as determined by plasma levels of hydrochlorothiazide.
                The delta-values between the intervention and control groups for ABP in the different daily periods, with the corresponding 95% confidence limits, adjusted for age and baseline BP were: 3 (-1 to 5), 2 (-2 to 4), and 5 (-1 to 6) mm Hg for 24 h, daily and nightly systolic BP, respectively. The corresponding values for diastolic BP were 1 (-1 to 3), 0 (-2 to 2), and 3 (-1 to 4) mm Hg, respectively. Hydrochlorothiazide was detected in the plasma in 21 of 27 patients in the intervention group that attended to all appointments and 24 of 30 patients in the control group (P = .904).
                The pharmaceutical care program tested in this trial was feasible and showed a trend for better BP control in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. 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. Hypertension is a leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States, with no known treatment to prevent progressive declines leading to ESRD.
                To compare the effects of 2 levels of blood pressure (BP) control and 3 antihypertensive drug classes on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline in hypertension.
                Randomized 3 x 2 factorial trial with enrollment from February 1995 to September 1998.
                A total of 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) were recruited from 21 clinical centers throughout the United States and followed up for 3 to 6.4 years.
                Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 mean arterial pressure goals, 102 to 107 mm Hg (usual; n = 554) or 92 mm Hg or less (lower; n = 540), and to initial treatment with either a beta-blocker (metoprolol 50-200 mg/d; n = 441), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d; n = 436) or a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, (amlodipine 5-10 mg/d; n = 217). Open-label agents were added to achieve the assigned BP goals.
                Rate of change in GFR (GFR slope); clinical composite outcome of reduction in GFR by 50% or more (or > or =25 mL/min per 1.73 m2) from baseline, ESRD, or death. Three primary treatment comparisons were specified: lower vs usual BP goal; ramipril vs metoprolol; and amlodipine vs metoprolol.
                Achieved BP averaged (SD) 128/78 (12/8) mm Hg in the lower BP group and 141/85 (12/7) mm Hg in the usual BP group. The mean (SE) GFR slope from baseline through 4 years did not differ significantly between the lower BP group (-2.21 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year) and the usual BP group (-1.95 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year; P =.24), and the lower BP goal did not significantly reduce the rate of the clinical composite outcome (risk reduction for lower BP group = 2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -22% to 21%; P =.85). None of the drug group comparisons showed consistent significant differences in the GFR slope. However, compared with the metoprolol and amlodipine groups, the ramipril group manifested risk reductions in the clinical composite outcome of 22% (95% CI, 1%-38%; P =.04) and 38% (95% CI, 14%-56%; P =.004), respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical composite outcome between the amlodipine and metoprolol groups.
                No additional benefit of slowing progression of hypertensive nephrosclerosis was observed with the lower BP goal. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors appear to be more effective than beta-blockers or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in slowing GFR decline. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and antihypertensive dose-response effects of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After a 4- to 5-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 683 patients with seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) between 95 and 110 mm Hg were randomized to receive once-daily dosing with one of 16 different double-blind, fixed combinations of irbesartan (0, 37.5, 100, and 300 mg irbesartan) and HCTZ (0, 6.25, 12.5, and 25 mg HCTZ) for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change from baseline in trough SeDBP after 8 weeks of therapy. Data were analyzed by response surface modeling. At Week 8, mean changes from baseline in trough SeDBP (mm Hg) ranged from -3.5 for placebo, -7.1 to -10.2 for the irbesartan monotherapy groups, -5.1 to -8.3 for the HCTZ monotherapy groups, and -8.1 to -15.0 for the combination groups. Irbesartan plus HCTZ produced additive reductions in both SeDBP and seated systolic BP, with at least one combination producing greater BP reduction than either drug alone (P < .001). All treatments were well tolerated; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events. Irbesartan tended to ameliorate the dose-related biochemical abnormalities associated with HCTZ alone. In conclusion, the combination of HCTZ in doses up to 25 mg with irbesartan, in doses up to 300 mg, is safe and produces dose-dependent reductions in BP. ACE inhibitors may not adequately suppress deleterious levels of angiotensin II in patients with heart failure. An angiotensin receptor blocker added to an ACE inhibitor may exert additional beneficial effects.
                Eighty-three symptomatic stable patients with chronic heart failure receiving long-term ACE inhibitor therapy were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with valsartan 80 mg BID, valsartan 160 mg BID, or placebo while receiving their usual ACE inhibitor therapy. Studies were performed before and after the first dose of the test drug and again after 4 weeks of therapy. A single dose of lisinopril was administered during study days to ensure sustained ACE inhibition. Compared with placebo, the first dose of valsartan 160 mg resulted in a significantly greater reduction in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure at 3, 4, and 8 hours and during the prespecified 4- to 8-hour interval after the dose and in systolic blood pressure at 2, 3, 6, 8, and 12 hours and 4 to 8 hours after the dose. A pressure reduction from valsartan 80 mg did not achieve statistical significance. After 4 weeks of therapy, net reductions in 0-hour trough pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (-4.3 mm Hg; P=0. 16), pulmonary artery diastolic pressure (-4.7 mm Hg; P=0.013), and systolic blood pressure (-6.8 mm Hg; P=0.013) were observed in the valsartan 160 mg group compared with placebo. After 4 weeks of therapy, plasma aldosterone was reduced by valsartan 80 mg BID (-52. 1 pg/mL; P=0.001) and 160 mg BID (-47.8 pg/mL; P<0.001) compared with placebo, and there was a trend for a reduction in plasma norepinephrine (-97 pg/mL; P=0.10). Seventy-four of the 83 patients completed the trial.
                Physiologically active levels of angiotensin II persist during standard long-term ACE inhibitor therapy. A factorial design was applied in this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the calcium-channel blocker verapamil and the ACE inhibitor enalapril to assess the hypotensive effects of the combination compared with monotherapy, to evaluate safety, and to determine the effects on quality of life (QOL) of both drugs, alone and in combination. The study consisted of a 3 x 2 factorial design wherein 186 men and women with a sitting diastolic blood pressure (BP) of between 95 mm Hg and 114 mm Hg, after a 4-week placebo washout, were randomized to one of six treatment groups for 4 weeks of active treatment. Monotherapy with both 240 mg verapamil and 10 mg enalapril reduced systolic and diastolic BP to a similar extent and significantly more than placebo. The 240 mg verapamil + 10 mg enalapril combination was additive for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure; 120 mg verapamil + 10 mg enalapril was additive for systolic BP only. The total number of adverse events reported was similar for all six treatment groups. QOL scores were unchanged from baseline and not different between treatment groups. The combination of 240 mg verapamil and 10 mg enalapril was significantly more effective at reducing BP than either drug alone; this additivity of effect was not linked to a higher rate of adverse experiences or to a deterioration in QOL. Thus, combination therapy at lower doses may offer an alternative treatment option to higher dose monotherapy. We compared the efficacy of treatment protocols with an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor alone (enalapril, 5 mg) or angiotensin II (ATII) receptor blocker (losartan, 50 mg) or both enalapril plus losartan in patients with microalbuminuria in a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Normotensive type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria documented by at least 3 consecutive urinary albumin excretion analyses were recruited for the study. Patients were grouped randomly into one of the protocols which consisted of treatment with 5 mg enalapril daily (group 1; n=12), 50 mg losartan daily (group 2; n=12) or both drugs (group 3; n=10). They were reevaluated with regard to HbA1c levels, lipid profiles, blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion rates (UAER) at 3-month intervals for 12 months. Mean age, duration of diabetes, body mass index, plasma lipid profiles and blood pressure levels were similar at the initial visit. In group 1, UAER returned to normal levels in 10 patients. Normalization of UAER occurred in 8 and 7 patients in groups 2 and 3, respectively. Percentage of reduction in UAERs at the end of 12 months were 58%, 59% and 60% (p=0.0001; p=0.0002; p=0.0003, respectively). The amount of reduction in UAER did not differ significantly among the three groups (p=0.346). ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers have similar efficacy in treating diabetic microalbuminuria, and the combination of the two drugs does not add any further benefit.
There are no clinically meaningful BP lowering differences between different ACE inhibitors. The BP lowering effect of ACE inhibitors is modest; the magnitude of trough BP lowering at one-half the manufacturers' maximum recommended dose and above is -8/-5 mm Hg. 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 ACE inhibitors because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.