Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: is there room for dual blockade in the cardiorenal continuum?

Antagonism of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is exerted through angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor antagonists, renin inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. These drugs have been successfully tested in numerous trials and in different clinical settings. The original indications of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers have progressively expanded from the advanced stages to the earlier stages of cardiorenal continuum. To optimize the degree of blockade of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, dose uptitrations of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists or the use of a dual blockade, initially identified with the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor antagonists, have been proposed. The data from the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) study do not support this specific dual blockade approach. However, the dual blockade of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor antagonists with direct renin inhibitors is currently under investigation while that based on an aldosterone blocker with any of the previous three drugs requires more evidence beyond heart failure. In this review, we revisited potential advantages of dual blockade of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in arterial hypertension and diabetes.

N-Terminal Modifications Improve the Receptor Affinity and Pharmacokinetics of Radiolabeled Peptidic Gastrin-Releasing Peptide Receptor Antagonists: Examples of 68Ga- and 64Cu-Labeled Peptides for PET Imaging.

Gastrin-releasing peptide receptors (GRPrs) are overexpressed on a variety of human cancers, providing the opportunity for peptide receptor targeting via radiolabeled bombesin-based peptides. As part of our ongoing investigations into the development of improved GRPr antagonists, this study aimed at verifying whether and how N-terminal modulations improve the affinity and pharmacokinetics of radiolabeled GRPr antagonists. METHODS: The potent GRPr antagonist MJ9, Pip-d-Phe-Gln-Trp-Ala-Val-Gly-His-Sta-Leu-NH2 (Pip, 4-amino-1-carboxymethyl-piperidine), was conjugated to 1,4,7-triazacyclononane, 1-glutaric acid-4,7 acetic acid (NODAGA), and 1,4,7-triazacyclononane-1,4,7-triacetic acid (NOTA) and radiolabeled with (68)Ga and (64)Cu. The GRPr affinity of the corresponding metalloconjugates was determined using (125)I-Tyr(4)-BN as a radioligand. The labeling efficiency of (68)Ga(3+) was compared between NODAGA-MJ9 and NOTA-MJ9 in acetate buffer, at room temperature and at 95°C. The (68)Ga and (64)Cu conjugates were further evaluated in vivo in PC3 tumor xenografts by biodistribution and PET imaging studies. RESULTS: The half maximum inhibitory concentrations of all the metalloconjugates are in the high picomolar-low nanomolar range, and these are the most affine-radiolabeled GRPr antagonists we have studied so far in our laboratory. NODAGA-MJ9 incorporates (68)Ga(3+) nearly quantitatively (>98%) at room temperature within 10 min and at much lower peptide concentrations (1.4 × 10(-6) M) than NOTA-MJ9, for which the labeling yield was approximately 45% under the same conditions and increased to 75% at 95°C for 5 min. Biodistribution studies showed high and specific tumor uptake, with a maximum of 23.3 ± 2.0 percentage injected activity per gram of tissue (%IA/g) for (68)Ga-NOTA-MJ9 and 16.7 ± 2.0 %IA/g for (68)Ga-NODAGA-MJ9 at 1 h after injection. The acquisition of PET images with the (64)Cu-MJ9 conjugates at later time points clearly showed the efficient clearance of the accumulated activity from the background already at 4 h after injection, whereas tumor uptake still remained high. The high pancreas uptake for all radiotracers at 1 h after injection was rapidly washed out, resulting in an increased tumor-to-pancreas ratio at later time points. CONCLUSION: We have developed 2 GRPr antagonistic radioligands, which are improved in terms of binding affinity and overall biodistribution profile. Their promising in vivo pharmacokinetic performance may contribute to the improvement of the diagnostic imaging of tumors overexpressing GRPr.

Changes in Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity in Hypertensive Postmenopausal Women: Comparison Between a Calcium Channel Blocker vs Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Regimen.

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:773-778. ©2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Postmenopausal women are at greater risk for hypertension-related cardiovascular disease. Antihypertensive therapy may help alleviate arterial stiffness that represents a potential modifiable risk factor of hypertension. This randomized controlled study investigated the difference between an angiotensin receptor blocker and a calcium channel blocker in reducing arterial stiffness. Overall, 125 postmenopausal hypertensive women (age, 61.4±6 years; systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP], 158±11/92±9 mm Hg) were randomized to valsartan 320 mg±hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) (n=63) or amlodipine 10 mg±HCTZ (n=62). The primary outcome was carotid-to-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Both treatments lowered peripheral blood pressure (BP) (-22.9/-10.9 mm Hg for valsartan and -25.2/-11.7 mm Hg for amlodipine, P=not significant) and central BP (-15.7/-7.6 mm Hg for valsartan and -19.2/-10.3 mm Hg for amlodipine, P<.05 for central DBP). Both treatments similarly reduced the carotid-femoral PWV (-1.9 vs -1.7 m/s; P=not significant). Amlodipine was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral edema compared with the valsartan group (77% vs 14%, P<.001). BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness as assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV to a similar degree after 38 weeks of treatment despite differences in central BP lowering, suggesting that the effect of valsartan on PWV is mediated through nonhemodynamic effects.

Changes in Aortic Pulse Wave Velocity in Hypertension Post-Menopausal Women: Comparison Between Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) Vs Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) Regimen

Objective: To compare effects of a non-renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker, using a CCB, or a RAS blocker, using an ARB regimen on the arterial stiffness reduction in postmenopausal hypertensive women. Methods: In this prospective study, a total of 125 hypertensive women (age: 61.4_6 yrs; 98% Caucasian; BW: 71.9_14 kg; BMI: 27.3_5 kg/m2; SBP/ DBP: 158_11/92_9 mmHg) were randomized between ARB (valsartan 320mg_HCTZ) and CCB (amlodipine 10mg _ HCTZ). The primary outcome was carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) changes after 38 weeks of treatment. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline demographic data between the two groups. Both treatments effectively lowered BP at the end of the study with similar (p>0.05) reductions in the valsartan (_22.9/_10.9 mmHg) and amlodipine based (_25.2/_11.7 mmHg) treatment groups. Despite a lower (p<0.05 for DBP) central SBP/DBP in the CCB group (_19.2/_10.3 mmHg) compared to the valsartan group (_15.7/_7.6 mmHg) at week 38, a similar reduction in carotid-femoral PWV (_1.7 vs _1.9 m/sec; p>0.05) was observed between both groups. The numerically larger BP reduction observed in the CCB group was associated with a much higher incidence of peripheral edema (77% vs 14%) than the valsartan group. Conclusion: In summary, BP lowering in postmenopausal women led to a reduction in arterial stiffness assessed by PWV measurement. Both regimens reduced PWV at 38 weeks of treatment to a similar degree, despite differences in BP lowering suggesting that the effect of RAS blockade to influence PWV may partly be independent of BP.

Angiotensin receptor blockers are not associated with reduced inflammatory markers in the general population.

OBJECTIVE: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been suggested to reduce inflammation in randomized controlled trials. We assessed the association between ARBs and inflammatory markers in a general population setting. METHODS: This is a population-based prospective study conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland. Baseline data from 933 participants on antihypertensive drugs (424 on ARBs) was collected in 2003-2006. Follow-up data from 1120 participants (572 on ARBs) was collected in 2009-2012. C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukins 1β and 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) were assessed and categorized in quartiles. RESULTS: At baseline, no differences were found between participants taking or not taking ARBs for all inflammatory markers studied, and this association persisted after multivariate adjustment: odds ratios (ORs) and (95% confidence interval) for being in the highest quartile of interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, TNF-α and CRP for participants on ARB compared to participants not on ARB were 1.23 (0.89-1.70), 1.26 (0.93-1.70), 1.14 (0.85-1.53) and 1.27 (0.96-1.69) respectively (P > 0.05). These findings were further replicated in the follow-up study: OR and (95% CI) of 1.10 (0.78-1.55), 0.87 (0.64-1.19), 0.83 (0.61-1.14) and 0.91 (0.68-1.22) for interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, TNF-α and CRP respectively (P > 0.05). Finally, no effect of ARBs was found when comparing participants who received ARBs throughout the 5.4-year follow-up with participants on other antihypertensive drugs: OR and (95% CI) of 0.93 (0.61-1.42), 0.80 (0.54-1.17), 0.86 (0.59-1.25) and 0.95 (0.67-1.35) for interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, TNF-α and CRP respectively (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: ARBs are not associated with reduced levels of inflammatory markers in the general population.

Cardiorenal end points in a trial of aliskiren for type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to determine whether use of the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren would reduce cardiovascular and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, or both. METHODS: In a double-blind fashion, we randomly assigned 8561 patients to aliskiren (300 mg daily) or placebo as an adjunct to an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin-receptor blocker. The primary end point was a composite of the time to cardiovascular death or a first occurrence of cardiac arrest with resuscitation; nonfatal myocardial infarction; nonfatal stroke; unplanned hospitalization for heart failure; end-stage renal disease, death attributable to kidney failure, or the need for renal-replacement therapy with no dialysis or transplantation available or initiated; or doubling of the baseline serum creatinine level. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely after the second interim efficacy analysis. After a median follow-up of 32.9 months, the primary end point had occurred in 783 patients (18.3%) assigned to aliskiren as compared with 732 (17.1%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.20; P=0.12). Effects on secondary renal end points were similar. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were lower with aliskiren (between-group differences, 1.3 and 0.6 mm Hg, respectively) and the mean reduction in the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was greater (between-group difference, 14 percentage points; 95% CI, 11 to 17). The proportion of patients with hyperkalemia (serum potassium level, ≥6 mmol per liter) was significantly higher in the aliskiren group than in the placebo group (11.2% vs. 7.2%), as was the proportion with reported hypotension (12.1% vs. 8.3%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of aliskiren to standard therapy with renin-angiotensin system blockade in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high risk for cardiovascular and renal events is not supported by these data and may even be harmful. (Funded by Novartis; ALTITUDE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549757.).

Medical treatment of hypertension in Switzerland. The 2009 Swiss Hypertension Survey (SWISSHYPE).

OBJECTIVES: Despite a broad and efficient pharmacological antihypertensive armamentarium, blood pressure (BP) control is suboptimal and heterogeneous throughout Europe. Recent representative data from Switzerland are limited. The goal of the present survey was therefore to assess the actual control rate of high BP in Switzerland in accordance with current guidelines. The influence of risk factors, target organ damage and medication on BP levels and control was also evaluated.METHODS : A cross-sectional visit-based survey of ambulatory hypertensive patients was performed in 2009 in Switzerland. 281 randomly selected physicians provided data on 5 consecutive hypertensive patients attending their practices for BP follow-up. Data were anonymously collected on demographics, comorbidities and current medication, and BP was recorded. Subsequent modification of pharmacological antihypertensive therapy was assessed.RESULTS : Data from 1376 patients were available. Mean age was 65 +/- 12 years, 53.9% were male subjects. 26.4% had complicated hypertension. Overall, BP control (<140/90 mm Hg for uncomplicated and <130/80 mm Hg for complicated hypertension) was achieved in 48.9%. Compared to patients with complicated hypertension, BP control was better in patients with uncomplicated hypertension (59.4% vs. 19.2%, p < 0.001). As a monotherapy the most prescribed drug class were angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB, 41%), followed by angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (21.5%), betablockers (20.8%) and calcium channel blockers (CCB, 10.8%). The most prescribed drug combinations were ARB + diuretic (30.1%) and ACE inhibitors + diuretic (15.3%). 46% were receiving a fixed drug combination. In only 32.7% of patients with uncontrolled hypertension was a change in drug therapy made.CONCLUSION : This representative survey on treated adult hypertensive patients shows that, compared to earlier reports, the control rate of hypertension has improved in Switzerland for uncomplicated but not for complicated, particularly diabetes-associated hypertension. ARBs and ACE inhibitors are the most prescribed antihypertensive drugs for monotherapy, whereas diuretics and ARBs were the most used for combination therapy.

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.

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.

Studies of the renal effects of angiotensin II receptor blockade: the confounding factor of acute water loading on the action of vasoactive systems.

The acute renal tubular effects of two pharmacologically distinct angiotensin II receptor antagonists have been evaluated in normotensive volunteers on various salt diets. In the first study, the renal response to a single oral dose of losartan (100 mg) was assessed in subjects on a low (50 mmol Na/d) and on a high (200 mmol Na/d) salt intake. In a second protocol, the renal effects of 50 mg irbesartan were investigated in subjects receiving a 100 mmol Na/d diet. Both angiotensin II antagonists induced a significant increase in urinary sodium excretion. With losartan, a modest, transient increase in urinary potassium and a significant increase in uric acid excretion were found. In contrast, no change in potassium and uric acid excretions were observed with irbesartan, suggesting that the effects of losartan on potassium and uric acid are due to the intrinsic pharmacologic properties of losartan rather than to the specific blockade of renal angiotensin II receptors. Assessment of segmental sodium reabsorption using lithium as a marker of proximal tubular reabsorption demonstrated a decreased distal reabsorption of sodium with both antagonists. A direct proximal tubular natriuretic effect of the angiotensin II antagonist could be demonstrated only with irbesartan. This apparent discrepancy allowed us to reveal the importance of acute water loading as a possible confounding factor in renal studies. The results of the present analysis show that acute water loading per se may enhance renal sodium excretion and hence modify the level of activity of the renin-angiotensin system expected from a given sodium diet. Since acute water loading is a common practice in clinical renal studies, this confounding factor should be taken into account when investigating the renal effects of vasoactive systems.

DuP 532, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist: first administration and comparison with losartan.

We investigated the tolerability and angiotensin II antagonist activity of oral DuP 532 in healthy male subjects. DuP 532 (1 to 200 mg) was well tolerated, with no effect on blood pressure or heart rate. Compared with losartan (100 mg), DuP 532 (200 mg) was a weak antagonist of pressor responses to intravenous angiotensin II. Maximum inhibition of diastolic pressor response was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84%, 88%) approximately 4.6 hours after losartan and 48% (95% CI, 38%, 56%) 8.7 hours after DuP 532. Twenty-four hours after dosing, inhibition by losartan and DuP 532 was similar (40% to 45%). DUP 532 is extensively bound in human plasma, with an in vitro free fraction of 0.06. Although DuP 532 and EXP3174 (losartan's active metabolite) have similar AT1-receptor potency, and plasma concentrations of DuP 532 were much greater than losartan/EXP3174, the level of antagonism was much less for DuP 532. These results indicate that multiple factors determine the in vivo potency of angiotensin II antagonists, including affinity for and distribution to the receptor as modulated by plasma binding.

Novel angiotensin II inhibitors in cardiovascular medicine.

Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone cascade is now recognised as a very effective approach to treat hypertensive, heart failure and high cardiovascular risk patients and to retard the development of renal failure. The purpose of this review is to discuss the state of development of currently available drugs blocking the renin-angiotensin system, such as angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, renin inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists, with a special emphasis on the results of the most recent trials conducted with AT(2) receptor antagonists in heart failure and Type 2 diabetes. In addition, the future perspectives of drugs with dual mechanisms of action, such as NEP/ACE inhibitors, also named vasopeptidase inhibitors, are presented.

Treatment of essential hypertension with calcium channel blockers: what is the place of lercanidipine?

In all actual clinical guidelines, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (CCBs) belong to the recommended first line antihypertensive drugs to treat essential hypertension. Several recent large clinical trials have confirmed their efficacy not only in lowering blood pressure but also in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients with a normal or high cardiovascular risk profile. In clinical trials such as ALLHAT, VALUE or ASCOT, an amlodipine-based therapy was at least as effective, when not slightly superior, in lowering blood pressure and sometimes more effective in preventing target organ damages than blood pressure lowering strategies based on the use of diuretics, beta-blockers and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. One of the main clinical side effects of the first and second generation CCBs including amlodipine is the development of peripheral edema. The incidence of leg edema can be markedly reduced by combining the CCB with a blocker of the renin-angiotensin system. This strategy has now led to the development of several fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Another alternative to lower the incidence of edema is to use CCBs of the third generation such as lercanidipine. Indeed, although no major clinical trials have been conducted with this compound, clinical studies have shown that lercanidipine and amlodipine have a comparable antihypertensive efficacy but with significantly less peripheral edema in patients receiving lercanidipine. In some countries, lercanidipine is now available in a single-pill association with an ACE inhibitor thereby further improving its efficacy and tolerability profile.