Sustained 24-hour blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: a high dose of a long-acting blocker is as effective as a lower dose combined with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

Résumé en français Jusqu'alors, il n'avait jamais été formellement démontré qu'une forte dose d'un antagoniste de l'angiotensine II à longue durée d'action pouvait être aussi efficace sur le blocage du système rénine-angiotensine que l'association d'un inhibiteur de l'enzyme de conversion avec le même antagoniste de l'angiotensine II à des doses plus faibles. Dans cette étude randomisée en double aveugle, nous avons étudié le blocage du système rénine-angiotensine obtenu avec trois doses d'olmesartan medoxomil (20, 40 et 80 mg) chez 30 volontaires sains que nous avons comparé au blocage obtenu par du lisinopril (20 mg), seul ou associé à de l'olmesartan medoxomil (20 et 40 mg). L'étude s'est déroulée en deux phases selon un design par crossover. A deux reprises, chaque volontaire à reçu durant une semaine l'un des six traitements possibles. Un intervalle d'une semaine a été respecté entre les deux phases (période de washout). L'objectif principal était d'étudier, 24 heures après la dernière dose, le blocage de l'élévation de la pression systolique en réponse à l'administration d'angiotensine I. Ce blocage était de 58% ± 19% (moyenne ± déviation standard) avec 20 mg de lisinopril, de 58% ± 11% avec 20 mg d'olmesartan medoxomil, de 62% ± 16% avec 40 mg d'olmesartan medoxomil, et de 76% ± 12% avec la plus forte dose d'olmesartan medoxomil (80 mg) (P=.016 versus 20 mg de lisinopril et P=.0015 versus 20 mg d'olmesartan medoxomil). Le blocage était de 80% ± 22% avec 20 mg de lisinopril associé à 20 mg d'olmesartan medoxomil et de 83% ± 9% avec 20 mg de lisinopril associé à 40 mg d'olmesartan medoxomil (P= .3 versus 80 mg d'olmesartan medoxomil). Ces résultats montrent, que chez les volontaires sains, une dose suffisamment élevée d'olmesartan medoxomil peut induire un blocage à 24 heures quasi complet de l'élévation de la pression artérielle en réponse à l'administration d'angiotensine I. De même, en terme de blocage de l'effet vasculaire de l'angiotensine I, une dose suffisamment élevée d'un antagoniste de l'angiotensine II de longue durée d'action est tout aussi efficace que ce même antagoniste à des doses plus faibles associé avec à un inhibiteur de l'enzyme de conversion.

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.

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.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor induced angio-oedema: a review of the pathophysiology and risk factors.

Angio-oedema (AE) is a known adverse effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-I) therapy. Over the past several decades, evidence of failure to diagnose this important and potentially fatal reaction is commonly found in the literature. Because this reaction is often seen first in the primary care setting, a review was undertaken to analyse and document the keys to both diagnostic criteria as well as to investigate potential risk factors for ACE-I AE occurrence. A general review of published literature was conducted through Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database, targeting ACE-I-related AE pathomechanism, diagnosis, epidemiology, risk factors, and clinical decision making and treatment. The incidence and severity of AE appears to be on the rise and there is evidence of considerable delay in diagnosis contributing to significant morbidity and mortality for patients. The mechanism of AE due to ACE-I drugs is not fully understood, but some genomic and metabolomic information has been correlated. Additional epidemiologic data and clinical treatment outcome predictors have been evaluated, creating a basis for future work on the development of clinical prediction tools to aid in risk identification and diagnostic differentiation. Accurate recognition of AE by the primary care provider is essential to limit the rising morbidity associated with ACE-I treatment-related AE. Research findings on the phenotypic indicators relevant to this group of patients as well as basic research into the pathomechanism of AE are available, and should be used in the construction of better risk analysis and clinical diagnostic tools for ACE-I AE.