Ajc suppl 1 2009-7

853 views

Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
853
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ajc suppl 1 2009-7

  1. 1. Renin–Angiotensin System Blockade and Cardiovascular and Renal Protection Byron J. Hoogwerf, MD The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) plays an important role in the patho- genesis of a variety of clinical conditions, including atherosclerosis, hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Inhibition of the RAAS with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been shown to be effective in lowering blood pressure and reducing cardio- vascular mortality and morbidity in various at-risk patient populations. A number of studies have shown that these 2 classes are effective in reducing the rate of renal disease progression in patients with diabetic nephropathy, although more long-term vascular outcome studies are needed in patients with chronic kidney disease. The Ongoing Telm- isartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) was the first study to show comparable reno- and cardioprotective effects between an ARB (telmisartan) and ramipril in a broad section of at-risk patients, on top of usual standard care. However, telmisartan showed better tolerability than ramipril in ONTAR- GET, with less cough and angioedema. This difference was obtained despite patients having been selected for tolerability to both drugs at study entry. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2010;105[suppl]:30A–35A) The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) plays a particularly in high-risk patients, including those with renal central role in the control of blood pressure, fluid volume, and heart disease. This article examines the cardioprotec- and sodium balance, and overactivity of this system con- tive and renal protective effects of ARBs and ACE in- tributes to the pathogenesis of a variety of clinical condi- hibitors and considers the impact of the Ongoing Telm- tions, including atherosclerosis, hypertension, left ven- isartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global tricular hypertrophy, myocardial infarction (MI), and Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET), which compared the ARB heart failure.1 As a result, the RAAS represents a logical telmisartan with ramipril, on top of usual standard care, therapeutic target in the management of hypertension, renal including antihypertensive agents and statins.9 disease, and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Currently, 3 classes of RAAS-modulating drugs are available: (1) angio- tensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors block the for- Renal Disease mation of angiotensin II, the principal effector peptide of the Diabetic nephropathy as a cardiovascular risk factor: RAAS, (2) angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) block the The importance of diabetic nephropathy as a major cardio- deleterious effects of angiotensin II at the angiotensin II vascular risk factor has been established by a number of type 1 receptor; and (3) aliskiren inhibits renin. ACE inhib- large epidemiologic and interventional studies. For exam- itors, ARBs, and aliskiren have been shown to be effective ple, in an analysis from the United Kingdom Prospective in lowering elevated blood pressure.2–7 ACE inhibitors and Diabetes Study (UKPDS), which included 5,097 patients ARBs reduce renal disease risk and cardiovascular mortality with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the 10-year prevalence of mi- and morbidity in various at-risk patient populations.1,4 –7 croalbuminuria (defined as a urine albumin concentration of The ACE inhibitor ramipril has been shown to reduce car- 50 –299 mg/L and a plasma creatinine concentration 175 diovascular risk in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evalua- mol/L) was 24.9%, whereas that of macroalbuminuria tion (HOPE) study.8 However, it was not known whether an (urine albumin 300 mg/L and plasma creatinine concen- ARB could match the cardioprotective profile of ramipril, tration 175 mol/L) was 5.3% and that of elevated plasma creatinine ( 175 mol/L) or renal replacement therapy was Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Cleveland 0.8%.10 The annual mortality rate increased progressively Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; and Lilly USA, LLC, (Endocrinology), with the degree of nephropathy, from 1.4% in patients Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. without nephropathy to 19.2% in those with elevated Statement of author disclosure: Please see the Author Disclosures plasma creatinine or renal replacement therapy, largely be- section at the end of this article. cause of an increasing risk of cardiovascular death. The This work was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH. Address for reprints: Byron J. Hoogwerf, MD, 2237 Demington Drive, annual incidence of deaths from CVD was 0.7% in patients Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44106-3320. without nephropathy compared with 2.0% in those with E-mail address: byronhoogwerf@gmail.com. microalbuminuria, 3.5% in those with macroalbuminuria, 0002-9149/10/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. www.AJConline.org doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.009
  2. 2. Hoogwerf/Renin–Angiotensin System Blockade and Cardiovascular and Renal Protection 31A Figure 1. Incidence of cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalization for congestive heart failure) according to degree of albuminuria, expressed as deciles of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio. (Reprinted with permission from JAMA.11) and 12.1% in those with elevated plasma creatinine or renal athy (urinary protein excretion 500 mg/day; serum creat- replacement therapy (p 0.0001 for trend). Similarly, the inine 221 mol/L). During a median of 3 years’ follow- proportion of all deaths that were attributable to CVD in- up, the risk of a doubling of serum creatinine was reduced creased from 51% in patients without nephropathy to 66% by 48% (95% CI, 16 – 69%; p 0.007) among captopril- in those with microalbuminuria and 75% in those with treated patients compared with the placebo group, and the macroalbuminuria.10 risk of death, dialysis, or transplantation was reduced by An analysis of data from the HOPE study, which in- 50% (95% CI, 18 –70%, p 0.006). volved 3,498 patients with and 5,545 without diabetes, with In a further study, 94 normotensive patients with type 2 objective evidence of vascular disease, plus 1 other risk diabetes and microalbuminuria (30 –300 mg per 24 hours) factor, showed that the relation between albuminuria and were treated with enalapril 10 mg or placebo for 5 years.14 cardiovascular risk is continuous and graded, both in indi- Enalapril treatment was associated with an initial decrease viduals with and without diabetes (Figure 1).11 After adjust- in albuminuria, which was followed by a slow increase, ment for other risk factors, the relative risk of major car- such that urine albumin concentrations after 5 years were diovascular events (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke) similar to those at the start of the study. By contrast, in associated with microalbuminuria was 1.83 (95% confi- placebo-treated patients, albuminuria progressed throughout dence interval [CI], 1.64 –2.05), and that for hospitalization the study, resulting in a significant (p 0.005) difference in for congestive heart failure was 3.23 (95% CI, 2.54 – 4.10). urine albumin concentrations between the groups at 5 years. The relative risk of major cardiovascular events increased Renal function, expressed as the mean reciprocal of serum with the degree of nephropathy. Compared with the lowest creatinine, decreased by 13% in the placebo group and quartile of urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), the remained stable (mean change – 1%) in the enalapril group relative risks of major cardiovascular events in the second, (p 0.05). third, and fourth quartiles were 1.11 (95% CI, 0.95–1.30), In the HOPE study, ramipril treatment significantly re- 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19 –1.60), and 1.97 (95% CI, 1.73–2.25), duced the high cardiovascular risk associated with renal respectively (p 0.001 for trend); for every 0.4-mg/mmol impairment.12 The hazard ratio for the combined risk of increase in the UACR, the adjusted risk of major cardio- cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke in ramipril-treated pa- vascular events increased by 5.9% (95% CI, 4.9 –7.0%). A tients with renal insufficiency compared to placebo-treated further analysis showed that the cumulative incidence of patients was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.59 –1.09), whereas in patients cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was significantly without renal impairment, the corresponding figure was higher in patients with mild renal insufficiency (serum 0.79 (95% CI, 0.70 – 0.88, p 0.2 for heterogeneity of creatinine 124 mol/L) than in those without (22.2% vs hazard ratios).12 15.1%, p 0.001), and increased with the serum creati- Several studies have also investigated the effects of ARB nine concentration.12 therapy in patients with diabetic nephropathy. In the Irbe- Effects of RAAS inhibition on diabetic nephropa- sartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT),15 1,715 hyper- thy: In a landmark study, Lewis et al13 compared the effects tensive patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy (se- of the ACE inhibitor captopril and placebo on renal function rum creatinine, 106 –265 mol/L in men and 88 –265 in 409 patients with type 1 diabetes and diabetic nephrop- mol/L in women) were randomized to receive irbesartan
  3. 3. 32A The American Journal of Cardiology (www.AJConline.org) Vol 105 (1A) January 4, 2010 300 mg, amlodipine 10 mg, or placebo, and studied for a sive patients (n 163).19 Similar findings were observed in mean of 2.6 years. Irbesartan significantly reduced the risk A Trial to Compare Telmisartan 40 mg Titrated to 80 mg of the primary end point (a composite of doubling of serum Versus Losartan 100 mg in Hypertensive Type 2 Diabetic creatinine, development of end-stage renal disease, or death Patients with Overt Nephropathy (AMADEO); a larger, from any cause) compared with both amlodipine (p 52-week study of 860 patients with diabetic nephropathy 0.006) and placebo (p 0.02), but had no effect on the risk (serum creatinine 3 mg/dL [women] and 3.2 mg/dL of cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, [men]) and blood pressure 130/80 mm Hg.20 In this study, hospitalization for heart failure, permanent neurologic def- the reduction in the UACR from baseline was significantly icit result from cerebrovascular disease, or lower limb am- greater for telmisartan than losartan (Figure 2), despite com- putation above the ankle); however, the study was not ad- parable reductions in blood pressure. equately powered to detect significant changes in these end More recently, the ONTARGET trial, which was among points. the first large-scale trials to compare an ACE inhibitor with The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angio- ramipril in 25,620 high-risk patients, showed that the inci- tensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study16 compared dence of the primary renal outcome (a composite of dialysis, the effects of losartan 50 –100 mg and placebo in 1,513 doubling of serum creatinine, and death) was comparable patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy (defined as an between telmisartan and ramipril during a median follow-up early morning UACR 300, or a urinary albumin excretion of 56 months (13.4% vs 13.5%, respectively).20 The increase 0.5 g/day and serum creatinine of 115–265 mol/L) who in urinary albumin excretion rate was significantly less with were already receiving standard antihypertensive therapy. telmisartan than ramipril (p 0.04) but the decrease in the Again, ARB therapy significantly reduced the progression estimated glomerular filtration rate was lower for ramipril than of nephropathy compared with placebo but had no signifi- telmisartan ( 2.82 mL/min per 1.73 m2 vs 4.12 mL/min per cant effect on cardiovascular outcomes, except for a 32% 1.73 m2). However, the overall yearly estimated glomerular (p 0.005) reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure. filtration rate decrease in ONTARGET was 1 mL/yr, which Similarly, in the Irbesartan in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes is the level observed in a healthy, age-matched population.21 and MicroAlbuminuria–2 (IRMA-2) study,17 which in- volved 590 patients with hypertension with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria, ARB therapy significantly delayed Heart Disease Risk the development of diabetic nephropathy compared with placebo, but it had no effect on cardiovascular outcomes. Several large trials, including the HOPE study,8 the Euro- The incidence of nonfatal cardiovascular events was higher pean Trial on Reduction of Cardiac Events with Perindopril in the placebo group than in the group receiving irbesartan in Stable Coronary Artery Disease (EUROPA),22 and the 300 mg (8.7% vs 4.5%), but the difference was not statis- Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme tically significant (p 0.11). It should be noted that none of Inhibitors (PEACE) study,23 have shown that ACE inhibitor these nephropathy trials using ARB therapy showed a re- therapy significantly reduces the risk of coronary artery duction in cardiovascular risk; however, none of them had disease (CAD) in various at-risk patient populations. How- sufficient numbers of subjects or study duration to have ever, the available evidence suggests that combination ther- sufficient statistical power to demonstrate any benefit on apy with ACE inhibitors and ARBs may not offer signifi- CVD outcomes. cant benefits in this setting. The Incipient to Overt: Angiotensin II Blocker, Telm- For example, the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarc- isartan, Investigation on Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy tion Trial (VALIANT) compared the effects of captopril (INNOVATION) study was a randomized, multicenter, dou- alone and in combination with valsartan in 14,703 patients ble-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 527 normoten- with acute MI.24 Although there were some questions about sive and hypertensive Japanese patients with microalbumin- the dosages of interventions used in the trial, there was no uria (UACR of 100 300 mg/g creatinine) were randomized significant difference in overall mortality between patients to telmisartan 40 mg or telmisartan 80 mg for 52 weeks.18 receiving valsartan or captopril monotherapy and those re- The transition to overt diabetic nephropathy was signifi- ceiving combination treatment. The hazard ratio for all- cantly lower in the telmisartan 80 mg and telmisartan 40 mg cause mortality in the combination therapy group compared groups compared with placebo (16.7% and 22.6% vs 49.9%, with the captopril monotherapy group was 0.98 (97.5% CI, respectively; p 0.0001) over a 30-month follow-up period. 0.89 –1.09; p 0.73). Valsartan and captopril monothera- In addition, 12.8% of the telmisartan 40 mg group and pies were found to be comparable in terms of all-cause 21.2% of the telmisartan 80 mg group also had microalbu- mortality and a composite end point of fatal and nonfatal minuria remission (UACR 30 mg/g) compared with 1.2% cardiovascular events. A subsequent analysis25 showed that in the placebo group (p 0.001). In a post hoc analysis of the incidence of MI was slightly lower in patients receiving the INNOVATION study, telmisartan 40 or 80 mg was also combination therapy than in either of the monotherapy shown to reduce the transition from microalbuminuria to groups, although the difference was not statistically signif- overt nephropathy compared with placebo in the normoten- icant (p 0.187 vs captopril).
  4. 4. Hoogwerf/Renin–Angiotensin System Blockade and Cardiovascular and Renal Protection 33A Figure 2. The change in the urinary protein-to-creatinine (UPC) ratio for telmisartan- and losartan-treated patients (p 0.027). The values represent mean (SD) at each time point over 52 weeks. (Reprinted with permission from Kidney Int.20) Until ONTARGET was published, there were no large CI, 0.74 – 0.85) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73– 0.84), respectively. studies on the effects of ARBs on CAD risk in patients Similar findings were obtained when the data were stratified without heart failure. In this trial, 25,620 patients with according to the antihypertensive therapy received by pa- vascular disease or high-risk diabetes without heart failure tients in the control groups.26 In the HOPE study, ramipril were randomized to treatment with telmisartan, ramipril, or was associated with a 34% reduction in the risk of new- the combination.9 At a median follow-up of 56 months, the onset diabetes (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51– 0.85; incidence of the primary composite end point (death from p 0.001) compared with placebo in all patient sub- cardiovascular causes, MI, stroke, or hospitalization for groups.27 Importantly, a follow-up trial, HOPE–The Ongo- heart failure) was comparable between telmisartan (16.7%) ing Outcomes (HOPE-TOO), showed that this protective and ramipril (16.5%). The occurrence of any heart failure effect was maintained during long-term follow-up for a event was also comparable between telmisartan and ramipril mean of 7.2 years (Figure 3).28 The relative risk for the (6.7% vs 6.9%, respectively). ONTARGET also showed that development of new-onset diabetes among patients in the the combination of telmisartan and ramipril did not offer ad- ramipril group during this period was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.46 – ditional benefits in terms of cardiovascular protection. 0.95); the overall relative risk during both HOPE and HOPE-TOO was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.56 – 0.86; p 0.0006). The Diabetes Reduction Assessment with Ramipril and Prevention of Diabetes Mellitus Rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) study29 investigated the effect of ramipril on the development of diabetes in Post hoc analyses of both ACE inhibitor and ARB trials 5,269 patients without CVD but with impaired fasting glu- strongly suggest that RAAS blockade is associated with a cose or impaired glucose tolerance. Ramipril treatment had reduction in the incidence of new-onset diabetes. For ex- no significant impact on the risk of death or the develop- ample, in a recent systematic review that included data from ment of diabetes, compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 13 studies involving approximately 67,000 patients, the 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81–1.03; p 0.15) The DREAM study is relative risks for the development of new-onset diabetes in discussed in more detail in an article elsewhere in this patients receiving ACE inhibitors or ARBs were 0.79 (95% supplement.30 In the ONTARGET trial, the development of
  5. 5. 34A The American Journal of Cardiology (www.AJConline.org) Vol 105 (1A) January 4, 2010 Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier plot of the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus during the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study and the HOPE–The Ongoing Outcomes (HOPE-TOO) extension study (p 0.0006). (Reprinted with permission from Circulation.29) new-onset diabetes was largely comparable among the 3 standard care in a broad section of at-risk patients. Both treatment groups: 6.7% (ramipril), 7.5% (telmisartan), and agents had a comparable effect on the composite primary 6.1% (combination therapy).9 It is difficult to determine outcome, which is indicative of comparative cardioprotec- whether treatment in ONTARGET was associated with a tive benefits, even in at-risk patients without heart failure at significant reduction in the risk of diabetes, given the lack of study inclusion. However, further studies of ARBs and ACE a placebo arm. Further analysis of the baseline characteris- inhibitors are still warranted in patients with metabolic tics may help to predict the likelihood of progression to syndrome and in the development of new-onset diabetes. diabetes and other overt conditions in such a high-risk population if aggressive treatment was not administered. ONTARGET also indicates that the combination of an ARB Acknowledgment and an ACE inhibitor was not associated with further re- duction in new-onset diabetes. Further studies of the effects Writing and editorial assistance was provided by Michael of ARBs and combination therapy on the development of new-onset diabetes are currently under way. Shaw, PhD, of PAREXEL MMS, which was contracted by Boehringer Ingelheim for these services. The author(s) meet criteria for authorship as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and were Conclusion fully responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and were involved at all stages of manuscript development. The Cardiovascular and renal benefits have been shown in both authors received no compensation related to the develop- ARB and ACE inhibitor trials. A number of studies have ment of the manuscript. shown that these 2 classes are effective in reducing the rate of renal disease progression in patients with diabetic ne- phropathy, although more long-term vascular outcome stud- ies are needed in patients with chronic kidney disease. Both Author Disclosures the INNOVATION and AMADEO studies showed that the renoprotective effects achieved with telmisartan were inde- The author who contributed to this article has disclosed the pendent of blood pressure. ONTARGET is also among the following industry relationship: first studies to show comparable renoprotective effects be- Byron J. Hoogwerf, MD, has served as a consultant for tween an ARB (telmisartan) and ramipril on top of usual Boehringer Ingelheim.
  6. 6. Hoogwerf/Renin–Angiotensin System Blockade and Cardiovascular and Renal Protection 35A 1. Ferrario CM, Strawn WB. Role of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med system and proinflammatory mediators in cardiovascular disease. Am J 2001;345:870 – 878. Cardiol 2006;98:121–128. 18. Makino H, Haneda M, Babazono T, Moriya T, Ito S, Iwamoto Y, 2. Weir M, Bush C, Anderson D, Zhang J, Keefe D, Satlin A. Antihy- Kawamori R, Takeuchi M, Katayama S, for the INNOVATION Study pertensive efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the oral direct renin Group. Prevention of transition from incipient to overt nephropathy inhibitor aliskiren in patients with hypertension: a pooled analysis. with telmisartan in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2007; J Am Soc Hypertens 2007;1:264 –277. 30:1577–1578. 3. Williams B, Poulter NR, Brown MJ, Davis M, McInnes GT, Potter JF, 19. Makino H, Haneda M, Babazono T, Moriya T, Ito S, Iwamoto Y, Sever PS, McG Thom S. Guidelines for the management of hyperten- Kawamori R, Takeuchi M, Katayama S, for the INNOVATION Study sion: report of the fourth working party of the British Hypertension Group. Microalbuminuria reduction with telmisartan in normotensive Society, 2004 – BHS-IV. J Hum Hypertens 2004;18:139 –185. and hypertensive Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: a post-hoc 4. Pitt B. Clinical trials of angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure: analysis of The Incipient to Overt: Angiotensin II Blocker, Telmisar- what do we know and what will we learn? Am J Hypertens 2002;15: tan, Investigation on Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy (INNOVATION) 22S–27S. study. Hypertension Res 2008;31:657– 664. 5. Kjeldsen SE, Julius S. Hypertension mega-trials with cardiovascular 20. Bakris G, Burgess E, Weir M, Davidai G, Koval S, on behalf of the end points: effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and AMADEO Study Investigators. Telmisartan is more effective than angiotensin receptor blockers. Am Heart J 2004;148:747–754. losartan in reducing proteinuria in patients with diabetic nephropathy. 6. Schmieder RE, Hilgers KF, Schlaich MP, Schmidt BM. Renin-angio- Kidney Int 2008;74:364 –369. tensin system and cardiovascular risk. Lancet 2007;369:1208 –1219. 21. Mann JFE, Schmieder RE, McQueen M, Dyal L, Schumacher H, Poque 7. Giles T. Renin-angiotensin system modulation for treatment and pre- J, Wang X, Maggioni A, Budaj A, Chaithiraphan S, et al, on behalf of the vention of cardiovascular diseases: toward an optimal therapeutic ONTARGET investigators. Renal outcomes with telmisartan, ramipril, or strategy. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2007;8(suppl 2):S14 –S21. both, in people at high vascular risk (the ONTARGET study): a multi- 8. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Ef- centre, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Lancet 2008;372:547– 553. fects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on car- 22. The EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in diovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2000;342:145– stable coronary Artery disease Investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in 153. reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary 9. The ONTARGET Investigators. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in pa- artery disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi- tients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1547– centre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 2003;362:782–788. 1559. 23. The PEACE Trial Investigators. Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhi- 10. Adler AI, Stevens RJ, Manley SE, Bilous RW, Cull CA, Holma RR. bition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351:2058 – Development and progression of nephropathy in type 2 diabetes: the 2068. United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 64). Kidney Int 24. Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJV, Velazquez EJ, Rouleau JL, Køber L, 2003;63:225–232. Maggioni AP, Solomon SD, Swedberg K, Van de Werf F, White H, 11. Gerstein HC, Mann JFE, Yi Q, Zinman B, Dinneen SF, Hoogwerf B, et al. Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction compli- Hallé JP, Young J, Rashkow A, Joyce C, Nawaz S, Yusuf S. Albu- cated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both. N Engl minuria and risk of cardiovascular events, death, and heart failure in J Med 2003;349:1893–1906. diabetic and nondiabetic individuals. JAMA 2001;286:421– 426. 25. McMurray J, Solomon S, Pieper K, Reed S, Rouleau J, Velazquez E, 12. Mann JF, Gerstein HC, Pogue J, Bosch J, Yusuf S. Renal insufficiency White H, Howlett J, Swedberg K, Maggioni A, et al. The effect of as a predictor of cardiovascular outcomes and the impact of ramipril: valsartan, captopril, or both on atherosclerotic events after acute myo- the HOPE randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:629 – 636. cardial infarction: an analysis of the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial 13. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, Rohde RD. The effect of angio- Infarction Trial (VALIANT). J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:726 –733. tensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. N Engl 26. McCall KL, Craddock D, Edwards K. Effect of angiotensin-converting J Med 1993;329:1456 –1462. enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers on the 14. Ravid M, Savin H, Jutrin I, Bental T, Lang R, Lishner M. Long-term rate of new-onset diabetes mellitus: a review and pooled analysis. effect of ACE inhibition on development of nephropathy in diabetes Pharmacotherapy 2006;26:1297–1306. mellitus type II. Kidney Int Suppl 1994;45:S161–S164. 27. Yusuf S, Gerstein H, Hoogwerf B, Pogue J, Bosch J, Wolffenbuttel 15. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T, Pohl MA, Lewis JB, Ritz BH, Zinman B. Ramipril and the development of diabetes. JAMA E, Atkins RC, Rohde R, Raz I. Renoprotective effect of the angioten- 2001;286:1882–1885. sin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to 28. HOPE/HOPE-TOO Study Investigators. Long-term effects of ramipril type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001;345:851– 860. on cardiovascular events and on diabetes: results of the HOPE Study 16. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE, extension. Circulation 2005;112:1339 –1346. Parving HH, Remuzzi G, Snapinn SM, Zhang Z, Shahinfar S. Effects 29. The DREAM Trial Investigators. Effect of ramipril on the incidence of of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type diabetes. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1551–1562. 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2001;345:861– 869. 30. Probstfield JL, O’Brien KD. Progression of cardiovascular damage: 17. Parving HH, Lehnert H, Bröchner-Mortensen J, Gomis R, Andersen S, the role of renin–angiotensin system blockade. Am J Cardiol 2010; Arner P. The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic (suppl 1A):10A–20A.

×