Search

Background: Renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors - including angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) - slow the progression of mild or moderate chronic kidney disease. However, the results of some studies have suggested that the discontinuation of RAS inhibitors in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease may increase the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or slow its decline., Methods: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with advanced and progressive chronic kidney disease (eGFR, <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m 2 of body-surface area) either to discontinue or to continue therapy with RAS inhibitors. The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years; eGFR values that were obtained after the initiation of renal-replacement therapy were excluded. Secondary outcomes included the development of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD); a composite of a decrease of more than 50% in the eGFR or the initiation of renal-replacement therapy, including ESKD; hospitalization; blood pressure; exercise capacity; and quality of life. Prespecified subgroups were defined according to age, eGFR, type of diabetes, mean arterial pressure, and proteinuria., Results: At 3 years, among the 411 patients who were enrolled, the least-squares mean (±SE) eGFR was 12.6±0.7 ml per minute per 1.73 m 2 in the discontinuation group and 13.3±0.6 ml per minute per 1.73 m 2 in the continuation group (difference, -0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.5 to 1.0; P = 0.42), with a negative value favoring the outcome in the continuation group. No heterogeneity in outcome according to the prespecified subgroups was observed. ESKD or the initiation of renal-replacement therapy occurred in 128 patients (62%) in the discontinuation group and in 115 patients (56%) in the continuation group (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.65). Adverse events were similar in the discontinuation group and continuation group with respect to cardiovascular events (108 vs. 88) and deaths (20 vs. 22)., Conclusions: Among patients with advanced and progressive chronic kidney disease, the discontinuation of RAS inhibitors was not associated with a significant between-group difference in the long-term rate of decrease in the eGFR. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council; STOP ACEi EudraCT number, 2013-003798-82; ISRCTN number, 62869767.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: A polypill that includes key medications associated with improved outcomes (aspirin, angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitor, and statin) has been proposed as a simple approach to the secondary prevention of cardiovascular death and complications after myocardial infarction., Methods: In this phase 3, randomized, controlled clinical trial, we assigned patients with myocardial infarction within the previous 6 months to a polypill-based strategy or usual care. The polypill treatment consisted of aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg). The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, or urgent revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, or nonfatal ischemic stroke., Results: A total of 2499 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a median of 36 months. A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02). A key secondary-outcome event occurred in 101 patients (8.2%) in the polypill group and in 144 (11.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.90; P = 0.005). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Medication adherence as reported by the patients was higher in the polypill group than in the usual-care group. Adverse events were similar between groups., Conclusions: Treatment with a polypill containing aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin within 6 months after myocardial infarction resulted in a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than usual care. (Funded by the European Union Horizon 2020; SECURE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02596126; EudraCT number, 2015-002868-17.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking., Methods: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first., Results: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group., Conclusions: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: There is concern about the potential of an increased risk related to medications that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), because the viral receptor is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2)., Methods: We assessed the relation between previous treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on Covid-19 testing as well as the likelihood of severe illness (defined as intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death) among patients who tested positive. Using Bayesian methods, we compared outcomes in patients who had been treated with these medications and in untreated patients, overall and in those with hypertension, after propensity-score matching for receipt of each medication class. A difference of at least 10 percentage points was prespecified as a substantial difference., Results: Among 12,594 patients who were tested for Covid-19, a total of 5894 (46.8%) were positive; 1002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. A history of hypertension was present in 4357 patients (34.6%), among whom 2573 (59.1%) had a positive test; 634 of these patients (24.6%) had severe illness. There was no association between any single medication class and an increased likelihood of a positive test. None of the medications examined was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of severe illness among patients who tested positive., Conclusions: We found no substantial increase in the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19 or in the risk of severe Covid-19 among patients who tested positive in association with five common classes of antihypertensive medications., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: A potential association between the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has not been well studied., Methods: We carried out a population-based case-control study in the Lombardy region of Italy. A total of 6272 case patients in whom infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was confirmed between February 21 and March 11, 2020, were matched to 30,759 beneficiaries of the Regional Health Service (controls) according to sex, age, and municipality of residence. Information about the use of selected drugs and patients' clinical profiles was obtained from regional databases of health care use. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between drugs and infection, with adjustment for confounders, were estimated by means of logistic regression., Results: Among both case patients and controls, the mean (±SD) age was 68±13 years, and 37% were women. The use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more common among case patients than among controls, as was the use of other antihypertensive and non-antihypertensive drugs, and case patients had a worse clinical profile. Use of ARBs or ACE inhibitors did not show any association with Covid-19 among case patients overall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.86 to 1.05] for ARBs and 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07] for ACE inhibitors) or among patients who had a severe or fatal course of the disease (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.10] for ARBs and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.21] for ACE inhibitors), and no association between these variables was found according to sex., Conclusions: In this large, population-based study, the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more frequent among patients with Covid-19 than among controls because of their higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. However, there was no evidence that ACE inhibitors or ARBs affected the risk of COVID-19., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Among adolescents with type 1 diabetes, rapid increases in albumin excretion during puberty precede the development of microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria, long-term risk factors for renal and cardiovascular disease. We hypothesized that adolescents with high levels of albumin excretion might benefit from angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and statins, drugs that have not been fully evaluated in adolescents., Methods: We screened 4407 adolescents with type 1 diabetes between the ages of 10 and 16 years of age and identified 1287 with values in the upper third of the albumin-to-creatinine ratios; 443 were randomly assigned in a placebo-controlled trial of an ACE inhibitor and a statin with the use of a 2-by-2 factorial design minimizing differences in baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and duration of diabetes. The primary outcome for both interventions was the change in albumin excretion, assessed according to the albumin-to-creatinine ratio calculated from three early-morning urine samples obtained every 6 months over 2 to 4 years, and expressed as the area under the curve. Key secondary outcomes included the development of microalbuminuria, progression of retinopathy, changes in the glomerular filtration rate, lipid levels, and measures of cardiovascular risk (carotid intima-media thickness and levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and asymmetric dimethylarginine)., Results: The primary outcome was not affected by ACE inhibitor therapy, statin therapy, or the combination of the two. The use of an ACE inhibitor was associated with a lower incidence of microalbuminuria than the use of placebo; in the context of negative findings for the primary outcome and statistical analysis plan, this lower incidence was not considered significant (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.94). Statin use resulted in significant reductions in total, low-density lipoprotein, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, in triglyceride levels, and in the ratio of apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A1, whereas neither drug had significant effects on carotid intima-media thickness, other cardiovascular markers, the glomerular filtration rate, or progression of retinopathy. Overall adherence to the drug regimen was 75%, and serious adverse events were similar across the groups., Conclusions: The use of an ACE inhibitor and a statin did not change the albumin-to-creatinine ratio over time. (Funded by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation and others; AdDIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01581476 .).

Background: Among patients with chronic heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the role of a renin inhibitor in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test superiority or at least noninferiority) and with the combination of the two treatments (to test superiority) in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction., Methods: After a single-blind run-in period, we assigned patients, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three groups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to receive aliskiren at a dose of 300 mg once daily, and 2340 to receive both treatments (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure., Results: After a median follow-up of 36.6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 770 patients (32.9%) in the combination-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03). The primary outcome occurred in 791 patients (33.8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified test for noninferiority was not met. There was a higher risk of hypotensive symptoms in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.005), as well as higher risks of an elevated serum creatinine level (4.1% vs. 2.7%, P=0.009) and an elevated potassium level (17.1% vs. 12.5%, P<0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with chronic heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase in benefit. Noninferiority was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril. (Funded by Novartis; ATMOSPHERE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00853658.).

Background: Angioedema induced by treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors accounts for one third of angioedema cases in the emergency room; it is usually manifested in the upper airway and the head and neck region. There is no approved treatment for this potentially life-threatening condition., Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized phase 2 study, we assigned patients who had ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema of the upper aerodigestive tract to treatment with 30 mg of subcutaneous icatibant, a selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist, or to the current off-label standard therapy consisting of intravenous prednisolone (500 mg) plus clemastine (2 mg). The primary efficacy end point was the median time to complete resolution of edema., Results: All 27 patients in the per-protocol population had complete resolution of edema. The median time to complete resolution was 8.0 hours (interquartile range, 3.0 to 16.0) with icatibant as compared with 27.1 hours (interquartile range, 20.3 to 48.0) with standard therapy (P=0.002). Three patients receiving standard therapy required rescue intervention with icatibant and prednisolone; 1 patient required tracheotomy. Significantly more patients in the icatibant group than in the standard-therapy group had complete resolution of edema within 4 hours after treatment (5 of 13 vs. 0 of 14, P=0.02). The median time to the onset of symptom relief (according to a composite investigator-assessed symptom score) was significantly shorter with icatibant than with standard therapy (2.0 hours vs. 11.7 hours, P=0.03). The results were similar when patient-assessed symptom scores were used., Conclusions: Among patients with ACE-inhibitor-induced angioedema, the time to complete resolution of edema was significantly shorter with icatibant than with combination therapy with a glucocorticoid and an antihistamine. (Funded by Shire and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01154361.).

Background: Hyperkalemia increases the risk of death and limits the use of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in high-risk patients. We assessed the safety and efficacy of patiromer, a nonabsorbed potassium binder, in a multicenter, prospective trial., Methods: Patients with chronic kidney disease who were receiving RAAS inhibitors and who had serum potassium levels of 5.1 to less than 6.5 mmol per liter received patiromer (at an initial dose of 4.2 g or 8.4 g twice a day) for 4 weeks (initial treatment phase); the primary efficacy end point was the mean change in the serum potassium level from baseline to week 4. Eligible patients at the end of week 4 (those with a baseline potassium level of 5.5 to <6.5 mmol per liter in whom the level decreased to 3.8 to <5.1 mmol per liter) entered an 8-week randomized withdrawal phase in which they were randomly assigned to continue patiromer or switch to placebo; the primary efficacy end point was the between-group difference in the median change in the serum potassium level over the first 4 weeks of that phase., Results: In the initial treatment phase, among 237 patients receiving patiromer who had at least one potassium measurement at a scheduled visit after day 3, the mean (±SE) change in the serum potassium level was -1.01±0.03 mmol per liter (P<0.001). At week 4, 76% (95% confidence interval, 70 to 81) of the patients had reached the target potassium level (3.8 to <5.1 mmol per liter). Subsequently, 107 patients were randomly assigned to patiromer (55 patients) or placebo (52 patients) for the randomized withdrawal phase. The median increase in the potassium level from baseline of that phase was greater with placebo than with patiromer (P<0.001); a recurrence of hyperkalemia (potassium level, ≥5.5 mmol per liter) occurred in 60% of the patients in the placebo group as compared with 15% in the patiromer group through week 8 (P<0.001). Mild-to-moderate constipation was the most common adverse event (in 11% of the patients); hypokalemia occurred in 3%., Conclusions: In patients with chronic kidney disease who were receiving RAAS inhibitors and who had hyperkalemia, patiromer treatment was associated with a decrease in serum potassium levels and, as compared with placebo, a reduction in the recurrence of hyperkalemia. (Funded by Relypsa; OPAL-HK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01810939.).

Background: We compared the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients., Methods: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 8442 patients with class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure, but the trial was designed to detect a difference in the rates of death from cardiovascular causes., Results: The trial was stopped early, according to prespecified rules, after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for an overwhelming benefit with LCZ696 had been crossed. At the time of study closure, the primary outcome had occurred in 914 patients (21.8%) in the LCZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.87; P<0.001). A total of 711 patients (17.0%) receiving LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93; P<0.001); of these patients, 558 (13.3%) and 693 (16.5%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89; P<0.001). As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure by 21% (P<0.001) and decreased the symptoms and physical limitations of heart failure (P=0.001). The LCZ696 group had higher proportions of patients with hypotension and nonserious angioedema but lower proportions with renal impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group., Conclusions: LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Novartis; PARADIGM-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01035255.).

Background: Combination therapy with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) decreases proteinuria; however, its safety and effect on the progression of kidney disease are uncertain. Methods We provided losartan (at a dose of 100 mg per day) to patients with type 2 diabetes, a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 300, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30.0 to 89.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area and then randomly assigned them to receive lisinopril (at a dose of 10 to 40 mg per day) or placebo. The primary end point was the first occurrence of a change in the estimated GFR (a decline of ≥ 30 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) if the initial estimated GFR was ≥ 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) or a decline of ≥ 50% if the initial estimated GFR was <60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2)), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), or death. The secondary renal end point was the first occurrence of a decline in the estimated GFR or ESRD. Safety outcomes included mortality, hyperkalemia, and acute kidney injury. Results The study was stopped early owing to safety concerns. Among 1448 randomly assigned patients with a median follow-up of 2.2 years, there were 152 primary end-point events in the monotherapy group and 132 in the combination-therapy group (hazard ratio with combination therapy, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.12; P=0.30). A trend toward a benefit from combination therapy with respect to the secondary end point (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.05; P=0.10) decreased with time (P=0.02 for nonproportionality). There was no benefit with respect to mortality (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.49; P=0.75) or cardiovascular events. Combination therapy increased the risk of hyperkalemia (6.3 events per 100 person-years, vs. 2.6 events per 100 person-years with monotherapy; P<0.001) and acute kidney injury (12.2 vs. 6.7 events per 100 person-years, P<0.001). Conclusions Combination therapy with an ACE inhibitor and an ARB was associated with an increased risk of adverse events among patients with diabetic nephropathy. (Funded by the Cooperative Studies Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development; VA NEPHRON-D ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00555217.).

Background: Although inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system delays the progression of renal failure in adults with chronic kidney disease, the blood-pressure target for optimal renal protection is controversial. We assessed the long-term renoprotective effect of intensified blood-pressure control among children who were receiving a fixed high dose of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitor., Methods: After a 6-month run-in period, 385 children, 3 to 18 years of age, with chronic kidney disease (glomerular filtration rate of 15 to 80 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area) received ramipril at a dose of 6 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day. Patients were randomly assigned to intensified blood-pressure control (with a target 24-hour mean arterial pressure below the 50th percentile) or conventional blood-pressure control (mean arterial pressure in the 50th to 95th percentile), achieved by the addition of antihypertensive therapy that does not target the renin-angiotensin system; patients were followed for 5 years. The primary end point was the time to a decline of 50% in the glomerular filtration rate or progression to end-stage renal disease. Secondary end points included changes in blood pressure, glomerular filtration rate, and urinary protein excretion., Results: A total of 29.9% of the patients in the group that received intensified blood-pressure control reached the primary end point, as assessed by means of a Kaplan-Meier analysis, as compared with 41.7% in the group that received conventional blood-pressure control (hazard ratio, 0.65; confidence interval, 0.44 to 0.94; P=0.02). The two groups did not differ significantly with respect to the type or incidence of adverse events or the cumulative rates of withdrawal from the study (28.0% vs. 26.5%). Proteinuria gradually rebounded during ongoing ACE inhibition after an initial 50% decrease, despite persistently good blood-pressure control. Achievement of blood-pressure targets and a decrease in proteinuria were significant independent predictors of delayed progression of renal disease., Conclusions: Intensified blood-pressure control, with target 24-hour blood-pressure levels in the low range of normal, confers a substantial benefit with respect to renal function among children with chronic kidney disease. Reappearance of proteinuria after initial successful pharmacologic blood-pressure control is common among children who are receiving long-term ACE inhibition. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00221845.), (2009 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Nephropathy and retinopathy remain important complications of type 1 diabetes. It is unclear whether their progression is slowed by early administration of drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system., Methods: We conducted a multicenter, controlled trial involving 285 normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes and normoalbuminuria and who were randomly assigned to receive losartan (100 mg daily), enalapril (20 mg daily), or placebo and followed for 5 years. The primary end point was a change in the fraction of glomerular volume occupied by mesangium in kidney-biopsy specimens. The retinopathy end point was a progression on a retinopathy severity scale of two steps or more. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed with the use of linear regression and logistic-regression models., Results: A total of 90% and 82% of patients had complete renal-biopsy and retinopathy data, respectively. Change in mesangial fractional volume per glomerulus over the 5-year period did not differ significantly between the placebo group (0.016 units) and the enalapril group (0.005, P=0.38) or the losartan group (0.026, P=0.26), nor were there significant treatment benefits for other biopsy-assessed renal structural variables. The 5-year cumulative incidence of microalbuminuria was 6% in the placebo group; the incidence was higher with losartan (17%, P=0.01 by the log-rank test) but not with enalapril (4%, P=0.96 by the log-rank test). As compared with placebo, the odds of retinopathy progression by two steps or more was reduced by 65% with enalapril (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14 to 0.85) and by 70% with losartan (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.73), independently of changes in blood pressure. There were three biopsy-related serious adverse events that completely resolved. Chronic cough occurred in 12 patients receiving enalapril, 6 receiving losartan, and 4 receiving placebo., Conclusions: Early blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in patients with type 1 diabetes did not slow nephropathy progression but slowed the progression of retinopathy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00143949.), (2009 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Prolonged lowering of blood pressure after a stroke reduces the risk of recurrent stroke. In addition, inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system in high-risk patients reduces the rate of subsequent cardiovascular events, including stroke. However, the effect of lowering of blood pressure with a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor soon after a stroke has not been clearly established. We evaluated the effects of therapy with an angiotensin-receptor blocker, telmisartan, initiated early after a stroke., Methods: In a multicenter trial involving 20,332 patients who recently had an ischemic stroke, we randomly assigned 10,146 to receive telmisartan (80 mg daily) and 10,186 to receive placebo. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. Secondary outcomes were major cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, or new or worsening heart failure) and new-onset diabetes., Results: The median interval from stroke to randomization was 15 days. During a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, the mean blood pressure was 3.8/2.0 mm Hg lower in the telmisartan group than in the placebo group. A total of 880 patients (8.7%) in the telmisartan group and 934 patients (9.2%) in the placebo group had a subsequent stroke (hazard ratio in the telmisartan group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.04; P=0.23). Major cardiovascular events occurred in 1367 patients (13.5%) in the telmisartan group and 1463 patients (14.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.01; P=0.11). New-onset diabetes occurred in 1.7% of the telmisartan group and 2.1% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.04; P=0.10)., Conclusions: Therapy with telmisartan initiated soon after an ischemic stroke and continued for 2.5 years did not significantly lower the rate of recurrent stroke, major cardiovascular events, or diabetes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.), (2008 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Whether the treatment of patients with hypertension who are 80 years of age or older is beneficial is unclear. It has been suggested that antihypertensive therapy may reduce the risk of stroke, despite possibly increasing the risk of death., Methods: We randomly assigned 3845 patients from Europe, China, Australasia, and Tunisia who were 80 years of age or older and had a sustained systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or more to receive either the diuretic indapamide (sustained release, 1.5 mg) or matching placebo. The angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor perindopril (2 or 4 mg), or matching placebo, was added if necessary to achieve the target blood pressure of 150/80 mm Hg. The primary end point was fatal or nonfatal stroke., Results: The active-treatment group (1933 patients) and the placebo group (1912 patients) were well matched (mean age, 83.6 years; mean blood pressure while sitting, 173.0/90.8 mm Hg); 11.8% had a history of cardiovascular disease. Median follow-up was 1.8 years. At 2 years, the mean blood pressure while sitting was 15.0/6.1 mm Hg lower in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. In an intention-to-treat analysis, active treatment was associated with a 30% reduction in the rate of fatal or nonfatal stroke (95% confidence interval [CI], -1 to 51; P=0.06), a 39% reduction in the rate of death from stroke (95% CI, 1 to 62; P=0.05), a 21% reduction in the rate of death from any cause (95% CI, 4 to 35; P=0.02), a 23% reduction in the rate of death from cardiovascular causes (95% CI, -1 to 40; P=0.06), and a 64% reduction in the rate of heart failure (95% CI, 42 to 78; P<0.001). Fewer serious adverse events were reported in the active-treatment group (358, vs. 448 in the placebo group; P=0.001)., Conclusions: The results provide evidence that antihypertensive treatment with indapamide (sustained release), with or without perindopril, in persons 80 years of age or older is beneficial. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122811 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)., (Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: In patients who have vascular disease or high-risk diabetes without heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular causes, but the role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the ARB telmisartan, and the combination of the two drugs in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes., Methods: After a 3-week, single-blind run-in period, patients underwent double-blind randomization, with 8576 assigned to receive 10 mg of ramipril per day, 8542 assigned to receive 80 mg of telmisartan per day, and 8502 assigned to receive both drugs (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure., Results: Mean blood pressure was lower in both the telmisartan group (a 0.9/0.6 mm Hg greater reduction) and the combination-therapy group (a 2.4/1.4 mm Hg greater reduction) than in the ramipril group. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 1412 patients in the ramipril group (16.5%), as compared with 1423 patients in the telmisartan group (16.7%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.09). As compared with the ramipril group, the telmisartan group had lower rates of cough (1.1% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001) and angioedema (0.1% vs. 0.3%, P=0.01) and a higher rate of hypotensive symptoms (2.6% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001); the rate of syncope was the same in the two groups (0.2%). In the combination-therapy group, the primary outcome occurred in 1386 patients (16.3%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07); as compared with the ramipril group, there was an increased risk of hypotensive symptoms (4.8% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001), syncope (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.03), and renal dysfunction (13.5% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001)., Conclusions: Telmisartan was equivalent to ramipril in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes and was associated with less angioedema. The combination of the two drugs was associated with more adverse events without an increase in benefit. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153101 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)., (Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy is contraindicated because of their association with an increased risk of fetopathy. In contrast, first-trimester use of ACE inhibitors has not been linked to adverse fetal outcomes. We conducted a study to assess the association between exposure to ACE inhibitors during the first trimester of pregnancy only and the risk of congenital malformations., Methods: We studied a cohort of 29,507 infants enrolled in Tennessee Medicaid and born between 1985 and 2000 for whom there was no evidence of maternal diabetes. We identified 209 infants with exposure to ACE inhibitors in the first trimester alone, 202 infants with exposure to other antihypertensive medications in the first trimester alone, and 29,096 infants with no exposure to antihypertensive drugs at any time during gestation. Major congenital malformations were identified from linked vital records and hospitalization claims during the first year of life and confirmed by review of medical records., Results: Infants with only first-trimester exposure to ACE inhibitors had an increased risk of major congenital malformations (risk ratio, 2.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.72 to 4.27) as compared with infants who had no exposure to antihypertensive medications. In contrast, fetal exposure to other antihypertensive medications during only the first trimester did not confer an increased risk (risk ratio, 0.66; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.25 to 1.75). Infants exposed to ACE inhibitors were at increased risk for malformations of the cardiovascular system (risk ratio, 3.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.89 to 7.30) and the central nervous system (risk ratio, 4.39; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.37 to 14.02)., Conclusions: Exposure to ACE inhibitors during the first trimester cannot be considered safe and should be avoided., (Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors provide renal protection in patients with mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency (serum creatinine level, 3.0 mg per deciliter or less). We assessed the efficacy and safety of benazepril in patients without diabetes who had advanced renal insufficiency., Methods: We enrolled 422 patients in a randomized, double-blind study. After an eight-week run-in period, 104 patients with serum creatinine levels of 1.5 to 3.0 mg per deciliter (group 1) received 20 mg of benazepril per day, whereas 224 patients with serum creatinine levels of 3.1 to 5.0 mg per deciliter (group 2) were randomly assigned to receive 20 mg of benazepril per day (112 patients) or placebo (112 patients) and then followed for a mean of 3.4 years. All patients received conventional antihypertensive therapy. The primary outcome was the composite of a doubling of the serum creatinine level, end-stage renal disease, or death. Secondary end points included changes in the level of proteinuria and the rate of progression of renal disease., Results: Of 102 patients in group 1, 22 (22 percent) reached the primary end point, as compared with 44 of 108 patients given benazepril in group 2 (41 percent) and 65 of 107 patients given placebo in group 2 (60 percent). As compared with placebo, benazepril was associated with a 43 percent reduction in the risk of the primary end point in group 2 (P=0.005). This benefit did not appear to be attributable to blood-pressure control. Benazepril therapy was associated with a 52 percent reduction in the level of proteinuria and a reduction of 23 percent in the rate of decline in renal function. The overall incidence of major adverse events in the benazepril and placebo subgroups of group 2 was similar., Conclusions: Benazepril conferred substantial renal benefits in patients without diabetes who had advanced renal insufficiency. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00270426.), (Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are effective in reducing the risk of heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction or heart failure. ACE inhibitors have also been shown to reduce atherosclerotic complications in patients who have vascular disease without heart failure., Methods: In the Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) Trial, we tested the hypothesis that patients with stable coronary artery disease and normal or slightly reduced left ventricular function derive therapeutic benefit from the addition of ACE inhibitors to modern conventional therapy. The trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 8290 patients were randomly assigned to receive either trandolapril at a target dose of 4 mg per day (4158 patients) or matching placebo (4132 patients)., Results: The mean (+/-SD) age of the patients was 64+/-8 years, the mean blood pressure 133+/-17/78+/-10 mm Hg, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction 58+/-9 percent. The patients received intensive treatment, with 72 percent having previously undergone coronary revascularization and 70 percent receiving lipid-lowering drugs. The incidence of the primary end point--death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization--was 21.9 percent in the trandolapril group, as compared with 22.5 percent in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the trandolapril group, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.06; P=0.43) over a median follow-up period of 4.8 years., Conclusions: In patients with stable coronary heart disease and preserved left ventricular function who are receiving "current standard" therapy and in whom the rate of cardiovascular events is lower than in previous trials of ACE inhibitors in patients with vascular disease, there is no evidence that the addition of an ACE inhibitor provides further benefit in terms of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization., (Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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.)

Background: The Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study (RALES) demonstrated that spironolactone significantly improves outcomes in patients with severe heart failure. Use of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors is also indicated in these patients. However, life-threatening hyperkalemia can occur when these drugs are used together., Methods: We conducted a population-based time-series analysis to examine trends in the rate of spironolactone prescriptions and the rate of hospitalization for hyperkalemia in ambulatory patients before and after the publication of RALES. We linked prescription-claims data and hospital-admission records for more than 1.3 million adults 66 years of age or older in Ontario, Canada, for the period from 1994 through 2001., Results: Among patients treated with ACE inhibitors who had recently been hospitalized for heart failure, the spironolactone-prescription rate was 34 per 1000 patients in 1994, and it increased immediately after the publication of RALES, to 149 per 1000 patients by late 2001 (P<0.001). The rate of hospitalization for hyperkalemia rose from 2.4 per 1000 patients in 1994 to 11.0 per 1000 patients in 2001 (P<0.001), and the associated mortality rose from 0.3 per 1000 to 2.0 per 1000 patients (P<0.001). As compared with expected numbers of events, there were 560 (95 percent confidence interval, 285 to 754) additional hyperkalemia-related hospitalizations and 73 (95 percent confidence interval, 27 to 120) additional hospital deaths during 2001 among older patients with heart failure who were treated with ACE inhibitors in Ontario. Publication of RALES was not associated with significant decreases in the rates of readmission for heart failure or death from all causes., Conclusions: The publication of RALES was associated with abrupt increases in the rate of prescriptions for spironolactone and in hyperkalemia-associated morbidity and mortality. Closer laboratory monitoring and more judicious use of spironolactone may reduce the occurrence of this complication., (Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as captopril reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity among patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both. In a double-blind trial, we compared the effect of the angiotensin-receptor blocker valsartan, the ACE inhibitor captopril, and the combination of the two on mortality in this population of patients., Methods: Patients receiving conventional therapy were randomly assigned, 0.5 to 10 days after acute myocardial infarction, to additional therapy with valsartan (4909 patients), valsartan plus captopril (4885 patients), or captopril (4909 patients). The primary end point was death from any cause., Results: During a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 979 patients in the valsartan group died, as did 941 patients in the valsartan-and-captopril group and 958 patients in the captopril group (hazard ratio in the valsartan group as compared with the captopril group, 1.00; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.11; P=0.98; hazard ratio in the valsartan-and-captopril group as compared with the captopril group, 0.98; 97.5 percent confidence interval, 0.89 to 1.09; P=0.73). The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the comparison of the valsartan group with the captopril group was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with regard to mortality (P=0.004) and with regard to the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (P<0.001). The valsartan-and-captopril group had the most drug-related adverse events. With monotherapy, hypotension and renal dysfunction were more common in the valsartan group, and cough, rash, and taste disturbance were more common in the captopril group., Conclusions: Valsartan is as effective as captopril in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular events after myocardial infarction. Combining valsartan with captopril increased the rate of adverse events without improving survival., (Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society)

Background: Previous research has suggested that thiazide diuretics and beta-blockers may promote the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the results of previous studies have been inconsistent, and many studies have been limited by inadequate data on outcomes and by potential confounding., Methods: We conducted a prospective study of 12,550 adults 45 to 64 years old who did not have diabetes. An extensive health evaluation conducted at base line included assessment of medication use and measurement of blood pressure with a random-zero sphygmomanometer. The incidence of new cases of diabetes was assessed after three years and after six years by measurement of serum glucose concentrations while the subjects were fasting., Results: After simultaneous adjustment for age, sex, race, education, adiposity, family history with respect to diabetes, physical-activity level, other health-related behavior, and coexisting illnesses, subjects with hypertension who were taking thiazide diuretics were not at greater risk for the subsequent development of diabetes than were subjects with hypertension who were not receiving any antihypertensive therapy (relative hazard, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.73 to 1.13). Likewise, subjects who were taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and calcium-channel antagonists were not at greater risk than those not taking any medication. In contrast, subjects with hypertension who were taking beta-blockers had a 28 percent higher risk of subsequent diabetes (relative hazard, 1.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.57)., Conclusions: Concern about the risk of diabetes should not discourage physicians from prescribing thiazide diuretics to nondiabetic adults who have hypertension. The use of beta-blockers appears to increase the risk of diabetes, but this adverse effect must be weighed against the proven benefits of beta-blockers in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events.

Background: It has recently been reported that the use of calcium-channel blockers for hypertension may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications. Because this issue remains controversial, we studied the incidence of such complications in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension who were randomly assigned to treatment with either the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine or the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril as part of a larger study., Methods: The Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) Trial is a prospective, randomized, blinded trial comparing the effects of moderate control of blood pressure (target diastolic pressure, 80 to 89 mm Hg) with those of intensive control of blood pressure (diastolic pressure, 75 mm Hg) on the incidence and progression of complications of diabetes. The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as a first-line antihypertensive agent in terms of the prevention and progression of complications of diabetes. In the current study, we analyzed data on a secondary end point (the incidence of myocardial infarction) in the subgroup of patients in the ABCD Trial who had hypertension., Results: Analysis of the 470 patients in the trial who had hypertension (base-line diastolic blood pressure, > or = 90 mm Hg) showed similar control of blood pressure, blood glucose and lipid concentrations, and smoking behavior in the nisoldipine group (237 patients) and the enalapril group (233 patients) throughout five years of follow-up. Using a multiple logistic-regression model with adjustment for cardiac risk factors, we found that nisoldipine was associated with a higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarctions (a total of 24) than enalapril (total, 4) (risk ratio, 9.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 2.7 to 33.8)., Conclusions: In this population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, we found a significantly higher incidence of fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction among those assigned to therapy with the calcium-channel blocker nisoldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril. Since our findings are based on a secondary end point, they will require confirmation.