Çáì ÇáÑßä ÇáÚÑÈì
Username:   
Password:   

Register

  Search
     
All Words Any Words
 
 
EHS
 
Journal

 

RAS Inhibition in Hypertension

M. Mohsen Ibrahim, MD

 

 

Executive Summary

Drugs that inhibit the renin-angiotensin-system (RAS), namely angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor antagnonists (ARA) are gaining increasing popularity as initial medications for the management of hypertensive patients. In the year 2002, ACE-I were the most commonly prescribed drugs for the treatment of hypertension in USA. Though their antihypertensive efficacy as monotherapy is similar to other antihypertensive agents, they have the advantage of better tolerability, limited side effects and a favorable metabolic profile. When compared to other antihypertensive agents (diuretics, beta adrenergic blockers and calcium antagonists) in large clinical trials, ACE-I and ARA provided no additional advantages regarding improvement in cardiovascular and total mortality. With the exception of the superiority of ARA in prevention of stroke, RAS inhibitors have no advantage over other agents in prevention of other cardiovascular morbid events namely, heart failure (though ACE-I are superior to calcium antagonists), coronary heart disease and total cardiovascular events.

However, there is the possibility that these agents have other benefits beyond blood pressure lowering. At equal degrees of blood pressure reduction RAS inhibitors prevent or delay the development of diabetes mellitus and provide better end organ protection, kidneys, blood vessels and the heart when compared with other antihypertensive agents. The combined use of ACE-I and ARA is particularly useful in organ protection.

RAS inhibitors are specifically indicated in treatment of hypertension in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function, diabetes, proteinuria, impaired kidney function, myocardial infarction, multiple cardiovascular risk factors and possibly elderly patients. The main limitation of the ACE-I is cough and rarely allergic reactions. Elderly patients or those who are volume depleted or receiving large doses of diuretics or in heart failure are liable to develop hypotensive reaction and/or deterioration in kidney function.

Introduction

Activation of RAS results in elevation of blood pressure through a number of mechanisms. Angiotensin II (A-II), besides its very potent direct vasoconstrictor action, it increases systemic vascular resistance through sympathetic nervous system stimulation. A-II increases extracellular blood volume through salt and water retention secondary to aldosterone production and antidiuretic hormone stimulation and through direct renal mechanisms. Both expansion of blood volume and increase in vascular resistance produce rise in blood pressure.

In addition to its blood pressure regulatory function, inappropriate activation of RAS, on the other hand, has many deleterious effects. A-II has a proatherogenic potential,1-3 it causes vascular endothelial injury, it increases oxidative stress, stimulates vascular smooth muscle cell and monocyte proliferation and activation. A-II has prothrombotic effects,4,5 it activates blood platelets and inhibits fibrinolysis. A-II increases insulin resistance by acting directly on insulin receptors at the cellular level.6

Inhibition of RAS results in lowering of blood pressure due to reduction in systemic vascular resistance. Vasodilatation occurs through direct action, attenuation of sympathetic nervous system activity and in case of ACE-I through excess bradykinin generation. Vasodilatation following RAS inhibition occurs preferentially in the vital organs (heart, kidney, brain) whose vasculature is more sensitive to the pressor effect of A-II than the vasculature of abdominal viscera and musculocutaneous tissues.7 This leads to redistribution of blood flow with enhanced perfusion of vital organs in the face of falling systemic blood pressure. RAS blockade in the kidney increases effective renal blood flow and alters intrarenal hemodynamics by dilating the efferent more than the afferent arterioles, thus causing a fall in intraglomerular pressure which accounts for the antiproteinuria and nephroprotective effects of RAS blockade,7,8 beyond those attributable to blood pressure lowering per se. The vasodilatation and reduction of blood pressure following RAS blockade is not accompanied by reflex tachycardia due to sympathetic nervous system attenuation and possible increased vagal activity.

The fact that hypertension is not simply a disease of numbers, but in the majority of patients, it is a syndrome where high blood pressure is associated with metabolic and other proathrogenic, procoagulant and other risk factors make agents such as RAS inhibitors particularly advantageous because of their antiatherosclerotic and antithrombotic potentials.

Antihypertensive Response

ACE-Is and ARAs when given as monotherapy to patients with mild to moderate hypertension achieve a satisfactory hypotensive response in 40-60% of patients, similar to other antihypertensive drugs.7,9-14 The antihypertensive response to RAS blockade is more obvious in high renin forms of hypertension whether renal or essential.11 When combined with diuretics, RAS inhibitors can achieve an effective antihypertensive response in up to 85% of patients with mild hypertension.9

The hypotensive action of RAS inhibitors can be influenced by genetic factors, salt intake and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Limited effects of RAS inhibition is present in black patients,12 some low renin forms of hypertension, intake of diet rich in sodium chloride and after NSAIDs intake.13

The duration of hypotensive action varies among different ACE-Is. Short acting preparations such as captopril require 2 to 3 times daily administration, while long acting ACE-Is such as ramipril, perindopril and lisinopril are administered once daily.

Measurement of blood pressure at the peak of hypotensive effect (2 to 3 hours after drug administration and at the trough effect (24 hours after administration) can provide an index of trough to peak ratio (T/P). A T/P greater than 50% is required for once daily administration.15,16 A high T/P indicates a long duration of action and a better achievement of 24 hours blood pressure control. A sustained antihypertensive action has the advantage of attenuating blood pressure variability. Increased fluctuations of blood pressure level are associated with increased risk of target organ damage,17 e.g., left ventricular hypertrophy. Agents with high T/P are perindopril, lisinopril and trandolapril.18 While the significance of the T/P of ACE-Is have not been evaluated in clinical outcome studies, consistent effective control over the entire 24 hours period is desirable.

Comparison of Antihypertensive Efficacy:

Efficacy depends among other factors, upon the dose given, state of salt intake, patients skin color, age which if not accounted for, it will be difficult to compare antihypertensive effects of different RAS inhibitors. Among ACE-Is perindopril achieved a better 24 hour blood pressure control than enalapril.19 Ramipril, captopril and enalapril are approximately equieffective. Among ARAs candisartan was more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure (CANDLE trial, 1999).20

When comparing ACE-Is vs. ARAs, a similar blood pressure reduction is achieved by appropriate doses of both types of agents.

Combination of ACE-Is with calcium antagonists can increase the antihypertensive response rate to 90%.21

 

Potential Advantages of RAS Inhibitors:

  • Better Tolerability: ARAs are possibly the best well tolerated antihypertensive drugs. They have a placebo like side effect profile.

  • Neutral and sometimes favorable metabolic effects. When combined with thiazide diuretics, they correct concomitant electrolyte (K) and metabolic (uric acid, glucose) disturbances.

Sudden discontinuation of RAS inhibits is not followed by rebound hypertension.

Benefits of RAS Inhibitors Beyond Blood Pressure Lowering

Owing to their wide spectrum of pharmacologic activities, it is possible that RAS inhibitors might have additional benefits beyond blood pressure lowering. They proved to be superior to other antihypertensive agents in providing end organ protection and in delaying or preventing new onset diabetes mellitus.

A) End Organ Protection

1. Renal Protection:

At equal levels of blood pressure lowering, RAS inhibitors proved more effective than other antihypertensive agents in retarding progression of renal damage in hypertensive patients with albuminuria.22-26 This advantage was present in both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Furthermore, RAS inhibitors can prevent or delay the development of microalbuminuria. Treatment with ACE-I (trandolapril) significantly reduced the incidence of microalbuminuria in patients with type II diabetes and normal urinary albumin extraction, as compared with placebo (BENEDICT trial, 2004).27 Recent clinical trials suggested that inhibition of RAS may actually prevent nephropathy.28 They decrease glomerular capillary pressure and prevent progression of microalbuminuria to overt proteinuria. ACE-I reduce loss of kidney function in patients with diabetic nephropathy, above and beyond any such effect attributable to a reduction in blood pressure. At similar blood pressures, ACE-Is resulted in 24% greater decrease in the rate of progression to overt nephropathy than did placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and normo or micro albuminuria (HOPE trial, 2001).29 Comparing ACE-I with conventional antihypertensive drugs in patients with proteinuric non-diabetic nephropathy or in black patients with renal impairment, ACE-I improved kidney survival beyond blood pressure reduction (REIN Study, 199730 and AASK Trial, 2001).31 Compared to dihydropyridine calcium antagonists, ACE-I (Fosinopril) administered to patients with renal failure and hypertension due to primary renal disorder slowed the decay in renal function (ESPIRAL Trial, 2001).32 ARAs reduced the number of patients who had progression to end stage renal failure or a doubling of serum creatinine level, independently of a reduction in blood pressure. Compared with conventional treatment alone, ARA (Losartan), combined with the conventional treatment reduced the risk of end stage renal disease by 28% and decreased the level of urinary protein excretion by 35% in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy (RENAAL Study, 2001).33 In another study in patients with diabetic nephropathy, ARA (Irbesartan) reduced the risk of doubling serum creatinine, the onset of end stage renal disease or death by 20% compared with conventional treatment (IDNT Trial, 2001).23

Most of the nephroprotective effect of RAS inhibitors is observed in proteinuric nephropathy and is related to their major efficacy in reducing proteinuria. The antiproteinuric response to treatment is the strongest predictor of long term nephroprotective efficacy.34

The antiproteinuric effects of RAS inhibitors are increased by sodium restriction and by the concomitant administration of diuretics.35

 

2. Vascular Protection - Vessel Wall and Vascular Endothelium:

RAS inhibitors are more effective than other antihypertensive agents in vascular protection. Clinical evaluation of vascular damage is done through study of changes in: (1) intimal medial thickness (IMT) of carotid arteries during carotid duplex ultrasound examination; (2) vascular endothelial function; and (3) arterial compliance. At equal degrees of reduction in blood pressure, RAS inhibitors produced a greater reduction in carotid IMT,36,66 greater improvement in vascular endothelial function assessed non-invasively by flow mediated dilatation in brachial artery18,60 and in arterial compliance18,37 when compared with other antihypertensive agents.

Comparing the effects of beta-adrenergic blocker (atenolol), vs. ACE-I (perindopril) produced an increase in small artery diameter and a reduction in the arterial media/lumen ratio.38 Changes in small artery morphology reflect normalization of vascular remodeling by ACE-I therapy.

 

 

3. Cardiac Protection - Regression of Left Ventricular Hypertrophy:

ACE-Is and ARAs are more effective than other antihypertensive medications in inducing regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. In a meta-analysis of 80 trials (2003)39 comparing the effects of antihypertensive drugs on left ventricular mass, ARAs were shown to induce the greatest reduction in left ventricular mass index. Comparing ARA (losartan) with beta-adrenergic blocker (atenolol), in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, while achieving the same degree of blood pressure lowering, ARA induced a greater decrease in ECG voltage criteria of left ventricular hypertrophy. (LIFE Study, 2002).36 In another Study, ACE-I (ramipril), produced a greater reduction in LVMI assessed by echocardiography than dihydropyridine calcium antagonist (Nifedipine) in spite of achieving same levels of blood pressure (1999).40

B) Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus

Diabetes is more common in hypertensive than normotensive individuals. The incidence of new cases of diabetes mellitus is about 2.5 times greater among hypertensives aged 45-64 years than normotensives of similar age (2.9 vs. 1.2/100 patient year).41 Furthermore, hypertension in diabetics increases mortality up to 5 folds.41 Whether tested against placebo, or against other antihypertensive agents, RAS inhibitors proved effective in delaying or preventing development of diabetes in both normotensive and hypertensive individuals. A number of studies investigated the effects of RAS blockade on the onset of new cases of diabetes. Both ACE-Is = Captopril (CAPP),42 ramipril (HOPE),43 perindopril (EUROPA),44 lisinopril (ALLHAT),45 and enalapril (SOLVD),46 and ARAs: losartan (LIFE),36 candisartan (SCOPE)47 and valsartan (VALUE)48 decreased the incidence of new onset diabetes. Incidence of new onset diabetes was reduced on the average by about 25% by RAS inhibiting agents. On the other hand, RAS inhibitors were found to improve insulin sensitivity.6

 

 

Prevention of Cardiovascular Events and Mortality

The following is a summary of meta analysis of 29 randomized trials from Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration (2003):49

A. Cardiovascular Events

n Stroke: ARAs reduced the risk of stroke by an average of 21% when compared with other antihypertensive regimens. At equal degrees of reductions in blood pressure, ARA (losartan) reduced the risk of stroke by 25% in comparison to beta-adrenergic blocker (atenolol) in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LIFE Trial, 2002).36 On the other hand, ACE-Is were either inferior or comparable to beta-blockers, diuretics and calcium antagnosists regarding prevention stroke.

n Coronary Heart Disease: ACE-I based regimens reduced the risk of CHD (20%) compared with placebo. However, in treated hypertensive patients, there was no clear difference between either ACE-I based or ARA based regimens and other antihypertensive regimens (diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium antagonists).

n Heart Failure: ARA-based treatment reduced the risk of heart failure (16%), compared with control regimens. Effects of regimens based on ACE-Is did not differ significantly from effects of those based on diuretics or beta-blockers. However, compared with regimens based on calcium antagonists, those based on ACE-Is produced greater reductions in risk (18%) of heart failure.

n Major Cardiovascular Events: Comparison of regimens based on ACE-Is with placebo indicated significant reduction in the composite of all major cardiovascular events with active treatment (22%). ARA-based regimens reduced major cardiovascular events more than did control regimens (10%). However, there were no significant differences between regimens based on ACE-Is and other antihypertensive medications.

 

B. Cardiovascular Death and Total Mortality

Compared with placebo, ACE-I based regimens reduced the risk of cardiovascular death (20%), but no clear evidence of difference in risk reduction between ARA-based regimens and control regimens. ACE-I regimens have effects on cardiovascular mortality similar to other antihypertensive regimens. Total mortality did not differ between ARA-based regimens and control regimens or between treatment regimens based on ACE-Is, calcium antagonists, beta-blockers or diuretics. However, comparing ACE-Is with diuretics in elderly hypertensives showed that ACE-Is were superior regarding prevention of all cardiovascular events or death from any cause particularly in male subjects (ANB2 trial, 2003).50

Dual (Combined) RAS Blockade

ACE-I decrease generation of A-II through blockade of ACE. However, A-II can still be generated through other enzymatic pathways.51 Furthermore, a decrease in A-II generation will suppress the A-II negative feedback on renin release, resulting in rise in plasma renin activity and increased A-I generation. A-I is the substrate for the ACE. These two mechanisms explain attenuation of blood pressure response to ACE-I 24 to 48 hours after last drug intake in spite of persistent plasma ACE inhibition. The combination of 2 pharmacological agents that inhibit both ACE and angiotensin receptors can minimize or even overcome the scope observed with single site RAS blockade.

  • Effects on Blood Pressure: Dual RAS blockade was shown to be more effective than doubling the usual dose of ARA. Combination of ACE-I and ARA induces a greater reduction in blood pressure at trough than doses single-site blockade. This was demonstrated in white patients with low-renin hypertension, type 2 diabetes or in patients with progressive renal failure. This combination may have the same blood pressure lowering effect as a combination of a single site RAS blockade with a diuretic.35
  • Nephroprotection: A single study (COOPERATE Trial, 2003),52 showed the superiority of combined RAS blockade on single site RAS blockade in non-diabetic chronic nephropathy and persistent proteinuria. In spite of the same reductions in blood pressure, the combination group (ACE-I + ARA), had a greater proteinuria-reducing effect than either agent alone (losartan or trandolapril).
  •  Risks: There is increased risk of combined RAS blockade in elderly or salt depleted patients, and in patients receiving COX inhibitors, patients with renal artery stenosis and during anesthesia induction. Significant hypotension and creatinine increase are more likely in these patients.

Recommendations: Specific Indications of RAS Inhibitors in Hypertension

  1. Heart failure due to systolic dysfunction. ACE-Is slow the rate of progression of cardiac dysfunction.53-55, 63, 65, 67

  2. Chronic renal failure, both diabetic and non-diabetic. RAS inhibitors slow the rate of loss of renal function.23, 24, 56-58, 65

  3. Renal proteinuria both diabetic and non-diabetic, RAS inhibitors decrease urinary albumin and delay or prevent development of renal failure.8, 23, 24, 58

  4. After a myocardial infarction, with or without impairment in left ventricular systolic function, in which survival is improved.40, 46, 54, 61, 62

  5. High risk patients, i.e., patients with associated atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or diabetic patients with one additional risk factor (age, dyslipidemia, cigarette smoking).43, 54, 57, 58

  6. Elderly patients: RAS inhibitors may be superior to other antihypertensive agents regarding prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality.50 ARAs are particularly effective in prevention of stroke. RAS inhibitors may slow physical decline in muscle strength.36, 47

References
  1. Lottermoser K, Vetter H, Düsing R. Blood pressure-independent atherogenic and thromboembolic mechanisms of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. J Clin Basic Cardiol 2001; 4:89.
  2. Dandona P, Kumar V, Al-Jada A, Ghanim H, Syed T, Hofmayer D, Mohanty P, Tripathy D, Garg R. Angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan supresses reactive oxygen species generation in leukocytes, nuclear factor-k B, in mononuclear cells of normal subjects: Evidence of an antiinflammatory action. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88(9):4496-4501.
  3. Zhuo JL. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1: a key mediator of angiotensin II-induced target organ damage in hypertensive heart disease? J Hypertens 2004; 22:451-454.
  4. Nakamura S, Nakamura I, Vaughan DE, Fogo AB. Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 expression is regulated by the angiotensin type 1 receptor in vivo. Kidney Int. 2000; 58:251-259.
  5. Brown NJ, Agirbasli MA, Williams GH, Litchfield WR, Vaughan DE. Effect of activation and inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system on plasma PAI-1. Hypertension 1998; 32:965-971.
  6. Tomiyama H, Kushiro T, AbetaH, et al. Kinins contribute to the improvement of insulin sensitivity during treatment with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. Hypertension 1994; 23:450.
  7. Gavras I and Gavras H in Harrison’s Advances in Cardiology. McGraw-Hill 2003; 75-79.
  8. Bakris GL, Williams M, Dworkin L, et al. Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: a consensus approach. AM J Kidney Dis 2000; 36:646-61.
  9. Materson BJ, Preston RA. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in hypertension. A dozen years of experience. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154:513.
  10. Neaton JD, Grimm RH Jr, Prineas RJ, et al. Treatment of mild hypertension study: Final results. JAMA 1993; 270:713.
  11. Dickerson JE, Hingorani AD, Ashby MJ, et al. Optimization of antihypertensive treatment by crossover rotation of four major classes. Lancet 1999; 353:2008.
  12. Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Cushman WC, et al. Single-drug therapy for hypertension in men. A comparison for six antihypertensive agents with placebo. NEJM 1993; 328:914.
  13. Townsend RR, Holland OB. Combination of converting enzyme inhibitor with diuretic for the treatment of hypertension. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150:1175.
  14. MacGregor GA, Markandu ND, Singer DR, et al, Moderate sodium restriction with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in essential hypertension: A double blind study. BMJ 1987; 294:531.
  15. White CM. Pharmacologic, pharmacokinetic, and therapeutic differences among ACE inhibitors. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18:588-599.
  16. Zannad F, Matzinger A, Larche J. Trough/peak ratios of once daily angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium antagnonists. Am J Hypertens 1996; 9:633.
  17. Frattola A et al. Prognostic value of 24-hour blood pressure variability. J Hypertens 1993; 11:1133-1137.
  18. Neutel JM. Effect of the renin-angiotensin system on the vessel wall: using ACE inhibition to improve endothelial function. J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18:599-606.
  19. Morgan T, Anderson A. Clinical efficacy of perindopril in hypertension. Pharmacol Physiol 1992; 19:61-65.
  20. Gradman A, Lewin A, Bowling, et al. Comparative effect of candesartan cilexetil and losartan in patients with systemic hypertension. Heart Dis 1999; 1:52-57.
  21. Singer D, Markandu N, Shore et al. Captopril and nifedipine in combination for moderate to severe hypertension. Hypertension 1987; 9:629-633.
  22. Barry M. Brenner, Mark E. Cooper, Dick de Zeeuw, William F. Keane, William E. Mitch, Hans-Henrik Parving, Giuseppe Remuzzi, Steven M. Snapinn, Zhonxin Zhang, Shahnaz Shahinfar, for the RENAAL Study Investigators. Effects of Losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2001;345 (issue 12):861-9.
  23. Lewis E, Hunsicker L, Clarke W, et al. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabets. NEJM 2001; 345:851-60.
  24. Parving H-H, Hovind P, Rossing K, Andersen S. Evolving strategies for renoprotection:diabetic nephropathy. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2001; 10:515-22.
  25. Viberti G, Wheeldon NM, for the MARVAL Study Investigators. Microalbuminuria reduction with valsartan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A blood pressure independent effect. Circulation 2002; 106:672-678.
  26. Wright J, Bakris G, Green T, et al. Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK Trial. JAMA 2002; 288: 2421-31.
  27. Barnett AH and others. Angiotensin-receptor blockade versus converting-enzyme inhibition in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. NEJM 2004; 351 (19):1952-1962.
  28. Ruggenenti P, Fassi A, Ilieva AP, et al. Preventing microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes. NEJM 2004; 351 (19):1941-1952.
  29. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascualr outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE Study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet 2000; 355:253-9.
  30. Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Gherardi G, et al. Ramipril efficacy in nephropathy REIN. Lancet 1997; 349:1875-63.
  31. Agodoa LY, Appel L, Bakris GL, et al. Effect of ramipril vs. amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive hephrosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285:2719-28.
  32. Rafael Marin, Luis M Ruilope, Pedro Aljama, Pedro Aranda, Julian Segura and Javier Diez, on behalf of the investigators of the ESPIRAL Study. A random comparison of fosinopril and nifedipine GITS in patients with primary renal disease. J Hypertens 2001; 19:1871-1876.
  33. Brenner B, Cooper M, De Zeeuw D, et al. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. NEJM 2001; 345:861-69.
  34. The GISEN Group. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of effect of ramipril on decline in glomerular filtration rate and risk of terminal renal failure in proteinuric, non-diabetic nephropathy. Lancet 1997; 349:1857-1863.
  35. Mogensen CE, Neldam S, Tikkenen I, et al. Randomized 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. BMJ 2000; 321:1440-4.
  36. Dahlof B, Devereux R, Kjeldsen S, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomized trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359:995-1003.
  37. Asmar RG et al. Reversal of cardiac hypertrophy and reduced arterial compliance after converting enzyme inhibition in essential hypertension. Circulation 1988; 78:941-50.
  38. Thybo NK et al. Effect of antihypertensive treatment on small arteries of patients with previously untreated essential hypertension. Hypertension 1995; 25 (Part I):474-481.
  39. Klingbeil AU, Schneider M, Martus P, Messerli FH. A meta-analysis of the effects of treatment on left ventricular mass in essential hypertension. AM J Med 2003; 115:41.
  40. Cacciapouti F, et al. J Cardiovasc Diag Proced 1999; 16:15-18.
  41. Mogensen CE. The kidney and hypertension in diabetes mellitus. 5th Edition Boston: Kluwer 2000; 655-706.
  42. Hansson L, Lindholm L, Niskanen K, et al. Effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomized trial. Lancet 1999; 353:611-16.
  43. HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. NEJM 2000; 342:145-53.
  44. The EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 2003; 362: 782-8.
  45. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blockers vs. diuretic. JAMA 2002; 288:2981-97.
  46. The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in a symptomatic patient with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions. NEJM 1992; 327:685-91.
  47. Lithell H, Hansson L, Skogg I, et al. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003; 21:875-86.
  48. S Julius, SE Kjeldsen, M Weber, et al, for the VALUE trial group. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. The Lancet 2004.
  49. Fiona Turnbull, for the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomized trials. Lancet 2003; 362:1527-35.
  50. Wing L, Reid C, Ryan P, e al. A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly. NEJM 2003; 348:583-92.
  51. Aziz M, Ménard J. Combined blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II Type 1 receptor antagonists. Circulation 2004; 109:2492-2499.
  52. Nakao N, Yoshimura A, Morita H, et al. Combination treatment of angiotensin-II receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor in non-diabetic renal disease (COOPERATE): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2003; 361:117-124.
  53. Guidelines Committee. European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 2003; 21:1011-53.
  54. Slieght P and Yusuf S. New evidence on the importance of the renin-angiotensin system in the treatment of higher-risk patients with hypertension. J Hypertens 2003, 21:1599-1608.
  55. Unger T. The role of renin-angiotensin system in the development of cardiovascular disease. AM J Cardiol 2002; 89:3A-10A.
  56. Weber MA. The angiotensin II receptor blockers: opportunities across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2002; 3:183-191.
  57. Yusuf S, Gerstein H, Hoogwerf B, et al. Ramipril and the development of diabetes. JAMA 2001; 286:1882.
  58. Mitch WE. Treating diabetic nephropathy. NEJM 2004; 351 (19):1934-1937.
  59. PROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomized trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 2001; 358:1033-1041.
  60. Wilmink HW, Banga JD, Hijmering M, Erkelens WD, Stroes ES, Radelink TJ: Effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition in angiotensin-II type 1 receptor antagonism in postprandial endothelial function. J Am Coll Cariol 1999; 34:104-105.
  61. Pfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moye LA et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. The SAVE Investigators. NEJM 1992; 327:669-77.
  62. Yusuf S, Pepine CJ, Garces C et al. Effect of enalapril on myocardial infarction and unstable angina in patients with low ejection fraction. Lancet 1993; 340:1173-8.
  63. Remme WJ, Swedberg K et al. For the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure, European Society of Cardiology. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J 2001; 22:1527-60.
  64. The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. NEJM 1991; 325:293-302.
  65. Lopez-Sendon J, for the ESC Expert Consensus document. Expert consensus document on angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in cardiovascular disease. The Task Force on ACE-inhibitors of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 2004; 25: 1454-1470.
  66. Lonn EM, Yusuf S, Dzavik V et al. Effect of ramipril and vitamin E on atherosclerosis. The study to evaluate carotid ultrasound changes in patients treated with ramipril and vitamin E. (SECURE). Circulation 2001; 103:919-25.
  67. Kostis JB. The effect of enalapril on mortal and morbid events in patients with hypertension and left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Hypertens 1995; 8:909-14.

Contents
To the editor Subscribe Now Link to archive
Journal | Newsletter | Books | Guidelines |
EHS Website Group
 
About Us  |  Contact Us  | Designed By Sesamina Inc