Blog
About

1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Differential Effects of Antihypertensive Drugs on Renal and Glomerular Hemodynamics and Injury in the Chronic Nitric-Oxide-Suppressed Rat

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background/Aims: Prolonged nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibition with N<sup>ω</sup>-nitro- L-arginine methylester in normotensive and hypertensive rats has been demonstrated to produce severe systemic and glomerular hypertension with glomerular sclerosis, and these changes have become a useful experimental model of hypertensive nephrosclerosis. This review summarizes data from our serial studies as well as work of others who are also investigating the effects of the commonly used antihypertensive drugs (including calcium antagonist, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, aldosterone antagonist and thiazide diuretic) on renal and glomerular hemodynamics, renal function and glomerular histopathology using this model. Methods: A Medline search was performed to identify the relevant literature describing renal effects of antihypertensive drugs in models of hypertension and nephrosclerosis produced or exacerbated by NOS inhibition. Results: Existing data have indicated that most of these drug classes have produced dramatic renoprotective effects, structurally or functionally, on nephrosclerosis induced by prolonged NOS inhibition. Conclusion: This review of experimental studies has provided strong evidence supporting the clinical benefits of antihypertensive drugs for hypertensive patients with renal impairment particularly those with endothelial dysfunction associated with NOS deficiency.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Angiotensin-receptor blockade versus converting-enzyme inhibition in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.

          Few studies have directly compared the renoprotective effects of angiotensin II-receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in persons with type 2 diabetes. In this prospective, multicenter, double-blind, five-year study, we randomly assigned 250 subjects with type 2 diabetes and early nephropathy to receive either the angiotensin II-receptor blocker telmisartan (80 mg daily, in 120 subjects) or the ACE inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily, in 130 subjects). The primary end point was the change in the glomerular filtration rate (determined by measuring the plasma clearance of iohexol) between the baseline value and the last available value during the five-year treatment period. Secondary end points included the annual changes in the glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine level, urinary albumin excretion, and blood pressure; the rates of end-stage renal disease and cardiovascular events; and the rate of death from all causes. After five years, the change in the glomerular filtration rate was -17.5 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 (where the minus sign denotes a decrement) in the telmisartan-treated subjects, as compared with -15.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the enalapril-treated subjects; the treatment difference was thus -2.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 (95 percent confidence interval, -7.1 to 2.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2)[corrected] The lower boundary of the confidence interval, in favor of enalapril, was greater than the predefined margin of -10.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2, indicating that telmisartan was not inferior to enalapril. The effects of the two agents on the secondary end points were not significantly different after five years. Telmisartan is not inferior to enalapril in providing long-term renoprotection in persons with type 2 diabetes. These findings do not necessarily apply to persons with more advanced nephropathy, but they support the clinical equivalence of angiotensin II-receptor blockers and ACE inhibitors in persons with conditions that place them at high risk for cardiovascular events. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting--enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly.

            Treatment of hypertension with diuretics, beta-blockers, or both leads to improved outcomes. It has been postulated that agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system confer benefit beyond the reduction of blood pressure alone. We compared the outcomes in older subjects with hypertension who were treated with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors with the outcomes in those treated with diuretic agents. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label study with blinded assessment of end points in 6083 subjects with hypertension who were 65 to 84 years of age and received health care at 1594 family practices. Subjects were followed for a median of 4.1 years, and the total numbers of cardiovascular events in the two treatment groups were compared with the use of multivariate proportional-hazards models. At base line, the treatment groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, and blood pressure. By the end of the study, blood pressure had decreased to a similar extent in both groups (a decrease of 26/12 mm Hg). There were 695 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the ACE-inhibitor group (56.1 per 1000 patient-years) and 736 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the diuretic group (59.8 per 1000 patient-years; the hazard ratio for a cardiovascular event or death with ACE-inhibitor treatment was 0.89 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.00]; P=0.05). Among male subjects, the hazard ratio was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.97; P=0.02); among female subjects, the hazard ratio was 1.00 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.21; P=0.98); the P value for the interaction between sex and treatment-group assignment was 0.15. The rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events and myocardial infarctions decreased with ACE-inhibitor treatment, whereas a similar number of strokes occurred in each group (although there were more fatal strokes in the ACE-inhibitor group). Initiation of antihypertensive treatment involving ACE inhibitors in older subjects, particularly men, appears to lead to better outcomes than treatment with diuretic agents, despite similar reductions of blood pressure. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Randomised controlled trial of dual blockade of renin-angiotensin system in patients with hypertension, microalbuminuria, and non-insulin dependent diabetes: the candesartan and lisinopril microalbuminuria (CALM) study.

              To assess and compare the effects of candesartan or lisinopril, or both, on blood pressure and urinary albumin excretion in patients with microalbuminuria, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes. Prospective, randomised, parallel group, double blind study with four week placebo run in period and 12 weeks' monotherapy with candesartan or lisinopril followed by 12 weeks' monotherapy or combination treatment. Tertiary hospitals and primary care centres in four countries (37 centres). 199 patients aged 30-75 years. Candesartan 16 mg once daily, lisinopril 20 mg once daily. Blood pressure and urinary albumin:creatinine ratio. At 12 weeks mean (95% confidence interval) reductions in diastolic blood pressure were 9.5 mm Hg (7.7 mm Hg to 11.2 mm Hg, P<0.001) and 9.7 mm Hg (7.9 mm Hg to 11.5 mm Hg, P<0.001), respectively, and in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio were 30% (15% to 42%, P<0.001) and 46% (35% to 56%, P<0.001) for candesartan and lisinopril, respectively. At 24 weeks the mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure with combination treatment (16.3 mm Hg, 13.6 mm Hg to 18.9 mm Hg, P<0. 001) was significantly greater than that with candesartan (10.4 mm Hg, 7.7 mm Hg to 13.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) or lisinopril (mean 10.7 mm Hg, 8.0 mm Hg to 13.5 mm Hg, P<0.001). Furthermore, the reduction in urinary albumin:creatinine ratio with combination treatment (50%, 36% to 61%, P<0.001) was greater than with candesartan (24%, 0% to 43%, P=0.05) and lisinopril (39%, 20% to 54%, P<0.001). All treatments were generally well tolerated. Candesartan 16 mg once daily is as effective as lisinopril 20 mg once daily in reducing blood pressure and microalbuminuria in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Combination treatment is well tolerated and more effective in reducing blood pressure.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AJN
                Am J Nephrol
                10.1159/issn.0250-8095
                American Journal of Nephrology
                S. Karger AG
                0250-8095
                1421-9670
                2005
                April 2005
                18 May 2005
                : 25
                : 2
                : 138-152
                Affiliations
                Hypertension Research Laboratories, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, La., USA
                Article
                85358 Am J Nephrol 2005;25:138–152
                10.1159/000085358
                15855741
                © 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, References: 117, Pages: 15
                Product
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/85358
                Categories
                In-Depth Topic Review

                Comments

                Comment on this article