Effect of endotoxin on the angiotensin II receptor in cultured vascular smooth muscle cells.

1. In some tissues, a decrease in the number of cell surface receptors and alterations of the receptor coupling have been proposed as possible mechanisms mediating the deleterious effects of bacterial endotoxin in septic shock. 2. The effects of bacterial lipopolysaccharide (Escherichia coli 0111-B4; LPS) on vascular angiotensin II and vasopressin receptors have been examined in cultured aortic smooth muscle cells (SMC) of the rat by use of radioligand binding techniques. 3. In vascular SMC exposed to 1 micrograms ml-1 endotoxin for 24 h, a significant increase in angiotensin II binding was found. The change in [125I]-angiotensin II binding corresponded to an increase in the number of receptors whereas the affinity of the receptors was not affected by LPS. In contrast, no change in [3H]-vasopressin binding was observed. 4. The pharmacological characterization of angiotensin II binding sites in control and LPS-exposed cells demonstrated that LPS induced an increase in the AT1 subtype of the angiotensin II receptors. Receptor coupling as evaluated by measuring total inositol phosphates was not impaired by LPS. 5. The effect of LPS on the angiotensin II receptor was dose-, time- and protein-synthesis dependent and was associated with an increased expression of the receptor gene. 6. The ability of LPS to increase angiotensin II binding in cultured vascular SMC was independent of the endotoxin induction of NO-synthase. 7. These results suggest that, besides inducing factors such as cytokines and NO-synthase, endotoxin may enhance the expression of cell surface receptors. The surprising increase in angiotensin II binding in LPS exposed VSM cells may represent an attempt by the cells to compensate for the decreased vascular responsiveness. It may also result from a non-specific LPS-related induction of genes.

Compensatory up-regulation of angiotensin II subtype 1 receptors in alpha ENaC knockout heterozygous mice.

BACKGROUND: In mice, a partial loss of function of the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC), which regulates sodium excretion in the distal nephron, causes pseudohypoaldosteronism, a salt-wasting syndrome. The purpose of the present experiments was to examine how alpha ENaC knockout heterozygous (+/-) mice, which have only one allele of the gene encoding for the alpha subunit of ENaC, control their blood pressure (BP) and sodium balance. METHODS: BP, urinary electrolyte excretion, plasma renin activity, and urinary adosterone were measured in wild-type (+/+) and heterozygous (+/-) mice on a low, regular, or high sodium diet. In addition, the BP response to angiotensin II (Ang II) and to Ang II receptor blockade, and the number and affinity of Ang II subtype 1 (AT1) receptors in renal tissue were analyzed in both mouse strains on the three diets. RESULTS: In comparison with wild-type mice (+/+), alpha ENaC heterozygous mutant mice (+/-) showed an intact capacity to maintain BP and sodium balance when studied on different sodium diets. However, no change in plasma renin activity was found in response to changes in sodium intake in alpha ENaC +/- mice. On a normal salt diet, heterozygous mice had an increased vascular responsiveness to exogenous Ang II (P < 0.01). Moreover, on a normal and low sodium intake, these mice exhibited an increase in the number of AT1 receptors in renal tissues; their BP lowered markedly during the Ang II receptor blockade (P < 0.01) and there was a clear tendency for an increase in urinary aldosterone excretion. CONCLUSIONS: alpha ENaC heterozygous mice have developed an unusual mechanism of compensation leading to an activation of the renin-angiotensin system, that is, the up-regulation of AT1 receptors. This up-regulation may be due to an increase in aldosterone production.

Renal response to the angiotensin II receptor subtype 1 antagonist irbesartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the acute and sustained renal hemodynamic effects on hypertensive patients of 100 mg irbesartan and 20 mg enalapril each once daily. PATIENTS: Twenty patients (aged 35-70 years) with uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate essential hypertension and normal serum creatinine levels completed this study. STUDY DESIGN: After random allocation to treatment (n=10 per group), administration schedule (morning or evening) was determined by further random allocation, with crossover of schedules after 6 weeks' therapy. Treatment and administration assignments were double-blind. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory blood pressure was monitored before and after 6 and 12 weeks of therapy. Renal hemodynamics were determined on the first day of drug administration and 12 and 24 h after the last dose during chronic treatment. RESULTS: Administration of each antihypertensive agent induced a renal vasodilatation with no significant change in glomerular filtration rate. However, the time course appeared to differ: irbesartan had no significant acute effect 4 h after the first dose, but during chronic administration a renal vasodilatory response was found 12 and 24 h after the dose; enalapril was effective acutely and 12 h after administration, but no residual effect was found 24 h after the dose. Both antihypertensive agents lowered mean ambulatory blood pressure effectively, with no significant difference between treatments or between administration schedules (morning versus evening). CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan and enalapril have comparable effects on blood pressure and renal hemodynamics in hypertensive patients with normal renal functioning. However, the time profiles of the renal effects appear to differ, which might be important for long-term renoprotective effects.

Angiotensin II receptor blockade: is there truly a benefit of adding an ACE inhibitor?

We assessed the blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) achieved with 2 angiotensin (Ang) antagonists given either alone at different doses or with an ACE inhibitor. First, 20 normotensive subjects were randomly assigned to 100 mg OD losartan (LOS) or 80 mg OD telmisartan (TEL) for 1 week; during another week, the same doses of LOS and TEL were combined with 20 mg OD lisinopril. Then, 10 subjects were randomly assigned to 200 mg OD LOS and 160 mg OD TEL for 1 week and 100 mg BID LOS and 80 mg BID TEL during the second week. Blockade of the RAS was evaluated with the inhibition of the pressor effect of exogenous Ang I, an ex vivo receptor assay, and the changes in plasma Ang II. Trough blood pressure response to Ang I was blocked by 35+/-16% (mean+/-SD) with 100 mg OD LOS and by 36+/-13% with 80 mg OD TEL. When combined with lisinopril, blockade was 76+/-7% with LOS and 79+/-9% with TEL. With 200 mg OD LOS, trough blockade was 54+/-14%, but with 100 mg BID it increased to 77+/-8% (P<0.01). Telmisartan (160 mg OD and 80 mg BID) produced a comparable effect. Thus, at their maximal recommended doses, neither LOS nor TEL blocks the RAS for 24 hours; hence, the addition of an ACE inhibitor provides an additional blockade. A 24-hour blockade can be achieved with an angiotensin antagonist alone, provided higher doses or a BID regimen is used.

Angiotensin II receptor blockade prevents acute renal sodium retention induced by low levels of orthostatic stress.

BACKGROUND: Depending on its magnitude, lower body negative pressure (LBNP) has been shown to induce a progressive activation of neurohormonal, renal tubular, and renal hemodynamic responses, thereby mimicking the renal responses observed in clinical conditions characterized by a low effective arterial volume such as congestive heart failure. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of angiotensin II receptor blockade with candesartan on the renal hemodynamic and urinary excretory responses to a progressive orthostatic stress in normal subjects. METHODS: Twenty healthy men were submitted to three levels of LBNP (0, -10, and -20 mbar or 0, -7.5, and -15 mm Hg) for 1 hour according to a crossover design with a minimum of 2 days between each level of LBNP. Ten subjects were randomly allocated to receive a placebo and ten others were treated with candesartan 16 mg orally for 10 days before and during the three levels of LBNP. Systemic and renal hemodynamics, renal sodium excretions, and the hormonal response were measured hourly before, during, and for 2 hours after LBNP. RESULTS: During placebo, LBNP induced no change in systemic and renal hemodynamics, but sodium excretion decreased dose dependently with higher levels of LBNP. At -20 mbar, cumulative 3-hour sodium balance was negative at -2.3 +/- 2.3 mmol (mean +/- SEM). With candesartan, mean blood pressure decreased (76 +/- 1 mm Hg vs. 83 +/- 3 mm Hg, candesartan vs. placebo, P < 0.05) and renal plasma flow increased (858 +/- 52 mL/min vs. 639 +/- 36 mL/min, candesartan vs. placebo, P < 0.05). Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was not significantly higher with candesartan (127 +/- 7 mL/min in placebo vs. 144 +/- 12 mL/min in candesartan). No significant decrease in sodium and water excretion was found during LBNP in candesartan-treated subjects. At -20 mbar, the 3-hour cumulative sodium excretion was + 4.6 +/- 1.4 mmol in the candesartan group (P= 0.02 vs. placebo). CONCLUSION: Selective blockade of angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptors with candesartan increases renal blood flow and prevents the antinatriuresis during sustained lower body negative pressure despite a modest decrease in blood pressure. These results thus provide interesting insights into potential benefits of AT1 receptor blockade in sodium-retaining states such as congestive heart failure.

Comparative angiotensin II receptor blockade in healthy volunteers: the importance of dosing.

OBJECTIVES: We have reported previously that 80 mg valsartan and 50 mg losartan provide less receptor blockade than 150 mg irbesartan in normotensive subjects. In this study we investigated the importance of drug dosing in mediating these differences by comparing the AT(1)-receptor blockade induced by 3 doses of valsartan with that obtained with 3 other antagonists at given doses. METHODS: Valsartan (80, 160, and 320 mg), 50 mg losartan, 150 mg irbesartan, and 8 mg candesartan were administered to 24 healthy subjects in a randomized, open-label, 3-period crossover study. All doses were given once daily for 8 days. The angiotensin II receptor blockade was assessed with two techniques, the reactive rise in plasma renin activity and an in vitro radioreceptor binding assay that quantified the displacement of angiotensin II by the blocking agents. Measurements were obtained before and 4 and 24 hours after drug intake on days 1 and 8. RESULTS: At 4 and 24 hours, valsartan induced a dose-dependent "blockade" of AT(1) receptors. Compared with other antagonists, 80 mg valsartan and 50 mg losartan had a comparable profile. The 160-mg and 320-mg doses of valsartan blocked AT(1) receptors at 4 hours by 80%, which was similar to the effect of 150 mg irbesartan. At trough, however, the valsartan-induced blockade was slightly less than that obtained with irbesartan. With use of plasma renin activity as a marker of receptor blockade, on day 8, 160 mg valsartan was equivalent to 150 mg irbesartan and 8 mg candesartan. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that the differences in angiotensin II receptor blockade observed with the various AT(1) antagonists are explained mainly by differences in dosing. When 160-mg or 320-mg doses were investigated, the effects of valsartan hardly differed from those obtained with recommended doses of irbesartan and candesartan.

Comparative vascular and renal tubular effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers combined with a thiazide diuretic in humans.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate whether angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) induce a comparable blockade of AT1 receptors in the vasculature and in the kidney when the renin-angiotensin system is activated by a thiazide diuretic. METHOD: Thirty individuals participated in this randomized, controlled, single-blind study. The blood pressure and renal hemodynamic and tubular responses to a 1-h infusion of exogenous angiotensin II (Ang II 3 ng/kg per min) were investigated before and 24 h after a 7-day administration of either irbesartan 300 mg alone or in association with 12.5 or 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). Irbesartan 300/25 mg was also compared with losartan 100 mg, valsartan 160 mg, and olmesartan 20 mg all in association with 25 mg HCTZ. Each participant received two treatments with a 1-week washout period between treatments. RESULTS: The blood pressure response to Ang II was blocked by more than 90% with irbesartan alone or in association with HCTZ and with olmesartan/HCTZ and by nearly 60% with valsartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ (P < 0.05). In the kidney, Ang II reduced renal plasma flow by 36% at baseline (P < 0.001). Irbesartan +/- HCTZ and olmesartan/HCTZ blocked the renal hemodynamic response to Ang II nearly completely, whereas valsartan/HCTZ and losartan/HCTZ only blunted this effect by 34 and 45%, respectively. At the tubular level, Ang II significantly reduced urinary volume (-84%) and urinary sodium excretion (-65%) (P < 0.01). These tubular effects of Ang II were only partially blunted by the administration of ARBs. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that ARBs prescribed at their recommended doses do not block renal tubular AT1 receptors as effectively as vascular receptors do. This observation may account for the need of higher doses of ARB for renal protection. Moreover, our results confirm that there are significant differences between ARBs in their capacity to induce a sustained vascular and tubular blockade of Ang II receptors.

Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of angiotensin receptor blockade in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of angiotensin II receptor antagonists as a therapeutic class. DESIGN: Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling study. METHODS: The data of 14 phase I studies with 10 different drugs were analysed. A common population pharmacokinetic model (two compartments, mixed zero- and first-order absorption, two metabolite compartments) was applied to the 2685 drug and 900 metabolite concentration measurements. A standard nonlinear mixed effect modelling approach was used to estimate the drug-specific parameters and their variabilities. Similarly, a pharmacodynamic model was applied to the 7360 effect measurements, i.e. the decrease of peak blood pressure response to intravenous angiotensin challenge recorded by finger photoplethysmography. The concentration of drug and metabolite in an effect compartment was assumed to translate into receptor blockade [maximum effect (Emax) model with first-order link]. RESULTS: A general pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model for angiotensin antagonism in healthy individuals was successfully built up for the 10 drugs studied. Representatives of this class share different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Their effects on blood pressure are dose-dependent, but the time course of the effect varies between the drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The characterisation of PK-PD relationships for these drugs gives the opportunity to optimise therapeutic regimens and to suggest dosage adjustments in specific conditions. Such a model can be used to further refine the use of this class of drugs.

Critical review of cancer risk associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy.

The role of drugs in new cancer occurrence and cancer-related death is a major concern. Recently, a meta-analysis raised the possibility that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) might have an adverse effect on patients. This generated a significant debate until the publication of two further meta-analyses, neither of which demonstrated an increased risk of new cancer occurrence or cancer-related death with the use of ARBs in patients with hypertension, heart failure, and/or nephropathy. This illustrates that the results of meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and critically as bias, such as selection bias, might lead to erroneous conclusions. Overall, the bulk of evidence today indicates that ARBs are not associated with increased cancer risk.

Role of bradykinin in the neonatal renal effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition.

The vascular effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are mediated by the inhibition of the dual action of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE): production of angiotensin II and degradation of bradykinin. The deleterious effect of converting enzyme inhibitors (CEI) on neonatal renal function have been ascribed to the elevated activity of the renin-angiotensin system. In order to clarify the role of bradykinin in the CEI-induced renal dysfunction of the newborn, the effect of perindoprilat was investigated in anesthetized newborn rabbits with intact or inhibited bradykinin B2 receptors. Inulin and PAH clearances were used as indices of GFR and renal plasma flow, respectively. Perindoprilat (20 microg/kg i.v.) caused marked systemic and renal vasodilation, reflected by a fall in blood pressure and renal vascular resistance. GFR decreased, while urine flow rate did not change. Prior inhibition of the B2 receptors by Hoe 140 (300 microg/kg s.c.) did not prevent any of the hemodynamic changes caused by perindoprilat, indicating that bradykinin accumulation does not contribute to the CEI-induced neonatal renal effects. A control group receiving only Hoe 140 revealed that BK maintains postglomerular vasodilation via B2 receptors in basal conditions. Thus, the absence of functional B2 receptors in the newborn was not responsible for the failure of Hoe 140 to prevent the perindoprilat-induced changes. Species- and/or age-related differences in the kinin-metabolism could explain these results, suggesting that in the newborn rabbit other kininases than ACE are mainly responsible for the degradation of bradykinin.

Vasopressin dilates the rat carotid artery by stimulating V1 receptors.

The acute effects of various vasopressor agents on the diameter of the common carotid artery were studied in halothane-anesthetized normotensive rats. The animals were infused intravenously for 60 min with equipressor doses of angiotensin II (10 ng/min), the alpha1-stimulant methoxamine (5 microg/min), lysine vasopressin (5 mU/min), or vehicle. The arterial diameter was measured by using a high-resolution ultrasonic echo-tracking device. The three vasoconstrictors increased the carotid artery diameter, but this effect was significantly more pronounced with lysine vasopressin. Even a nonpressor dose of lysine vasopressin (1 mU/min) caused a significant increase in the arterial diameter. The lysine vasopressin-induced vasodilatation could be prevented by the administration of d(CH2)5Tyr(Me)AVP (10 microg, i.v.), a selective V1-vasopressinergic receptor antagonist. These data therefore suggest that a short-term increase in blood pressure induces in rats a distention of the carotid artery. The increase in arterial diameter seems to involve an active mechanism with lysine vasopressin caused by the stimulation of V1-vasopressinergic receptors.

Tasosartan, enoltasosartan, and angiotensin II receptor blockade: the confounding role of protein binding.

Tasosartan is a long-acting angiotensin II (AngII) receptor blocker. Its long duration of action has been attributed to its active metabolite enoltasosartan. In this study we evaluated the relative contribution of tasosartan and enoltasosartan to the overall pharmacological effect of tasosartan. AngII receptor blockade effect of single doses of tasosartan (100 mg p.o. and 50 mg i.v) and enoltasosartan (2.5 mg i.v.) were compared in 12 healthy subjects in a randomized, double blind, three-period crossover study using two approaches: the in vivo blood pressure response to exogenous AngII and an ex vivo AngII radioreceptor assay. Tasosartan induced a rapid and sustained blockade of AngII subtype-1 (AT1) receptors. In vivo, tasosartan (p.o. or i.v.) blocked by 80% AT1 receptors 1 to 2 h after drug administration and still had a 40% effect at 32 h. In vitro, the blockade was estimated to be 90% at 2 h and 20% at 32 h. In contrast, the blockade induced by enoltasosartan was markedly delayed and hardly reached 60 to 70% despite the i.v. administration and high plasma levels. In vitro, the AT1 antagonistic effect of enoltasosartan was markedly influenced by the presence of plasma proteins, leading to a decrease in its affinity for the receptor and a slower receptor association rate. The early effect of tasosartan is due mainly to tasosartan itself with little if any contribution of enoltasosartan. The antagonistic effect of enoltasosartan appears later. The delayed in vivo blockade effect observed for enoltasosartan appears to be due to a high and tight protein binding and a slow dissociation process from the carrier.

Assessment of angiotensin II receptor blockade in humans using a standardized angiotensin II receptor-binding assay.

An in vitro angiotensin II (AngII) receptor-binding assay was developed to monitor the degree of receptor blockade in standardized conditions. This in vitro method was validated by comparing its results with those obtained in vivo with the injection of exogenous AngII and the measurement of the AngII-induced changes in systolic blood pressure. For this purpose, 12 normotensive subjects were enrolled in a double-blind, four-way cross-over study comparing the AngII receptor blockade induced by a single oral dose of losartan (50 mg), valsartan (80 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), and placebo. A significant linear relationship between the two methods was found (r = 0.723, n = 191, P<.001). However, there exists a wide scatter of the in vivo data in the absence of active AngII receptor blockade. Thus, the relationship between the two methods is markedly improved (r = 0.87, n = 47, P<.001) when only measurements done 4 h after administration of the drugs are considered (maximal antagonist activity observed in vivo) suggesting that the two methods are equally effective in assessing the degree of AT-1 receptor blockade, but with a greatly reduced variability in the in vitro assay. In addition, the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis performed with the three antagonists suggest that the AT-1 receptor-binding assay works as a bioassay that integrates the antagonistic property of all active drug components of the plasma. This standardized in vitro-binding assay represents a simple, reproducible, and precise tool to characterize the pharmacodynamic profile of AngII receptor antagonists in humans.

Renin and angiotensin II receptor gene expression in kidneys of renal hypertensive rats.

The aim of this investigation was to examine the interrelation between renal mRNA levels of renin and angiotensin II receptor type 1 (AT1) in a renin-dependent form of experimental hypertension. Rats were studied 4 weeks after unilateral renal artery clipping. Mean blood pressure and plasma renin activity were significantly higher in the hypertensive rats (n = 10 206 +/- mm Hg and 72.4 +/- 20.9 ng/mL-1/h-1, respectively) than in sham-operated controls (n = 10, 136 +/- 3 mm Hg and 3.3 +/- 0.5 ng/mL-1/h, respectively). Northern blot analysis of polyA+ RNA obtained from the kidneys of renal hypertensive rats showed increased levels of renin mRNA in the clipped kidney, whereas a decrease was observed in the unclipped kidney. Plasma renin activity was directly correlated with renin mRNA expression of the poststenotic kidney (r = .94, P < .01). AT1 mRNA expression was lower in both kidneys of the hypertensive rats. This downregulation was specific for the AT1A subtype since the renal expression of the AT1B subtype remained normal in hypertensive rats. The downregulation of the renal AT1A receptor may be due to high circulating angiotensin II levels. This is supported by the significant inverse correlation (r = .71, P < .01) between plasma renin activity and AT1A mRNA expression measured in the clipped kidney of the hypertensive rats.