Current Hypertension Reports

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 402–411 | Cite as

Therapeutic trials comparing angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and Angiotensin II receptor blockers

  • William J. Elliott


Two independent pharmacologic methods of specifically interfering with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system have been brought to the marketplace: angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). These agents have the potential not only to be very widely used for a broad variety of clinical indications but also to compete against each other as treatments for hypertension, heart failure, renal impairment, and other conditions. Many short-term comparative studies of these two classes of drugs have now been completed. Most have focused on surrogate endpoints, such as blood pressure, renal function, or cough. These studies have generally concluded that ARBs are better tolerated but that the two drug classes otherwise have similar efficacy. The largest clinical trial comparing ARBs and ACE inhibitors thus far completed, Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE 2), failed to confirm the results of a smaller study; it did not demonstrate a significant improvement in outcomes (death or hospitalization for heart failure) with an ARB used alone, despite better tolerability. Many longer-term outcome studies with survival endpoints are under way, but most will compare the combination against an ACE inhibitor alone. These studies will define the optimal use of these agents in medicine for decades to come.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:145–153. A clinical trial comparing ramipril with placebo in 9297 patients without heart failure, poor left ventricular function, or nephropathy who were older than 55 years of age, had known vascular disease and/ or diabetes, and had at least one other traditional risk factor. The 16% to 32% reduction seen with ramipril in almost every important cardiovascular endpoint was attributed by the authors to this specific ACE inhibitor rather than to the 3/2 mm Hg greater reduction in blood pressure. Some extrapolate these results to advocate an ACE inhibitor for all patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The SOLVD Investigators: Effect of enalapril on mortality and the development of heart failure in asymptomatic patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions. N Engl J Med 1992, 327:685–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maschio G, Alberti D, Janin G, et al.: Effect of the angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor benazepril on the progression of chronic renal insufficiency. The Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition in Progressive Renal Insufficiency Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996, 334:939–945.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Gherardi G, et al.: Renal function and requirement for dialysis in chronic nephropathy patients on long-term ramipril: REIN follow-up trial. Gruppo Italiano di Studi Epidemiologici in Nefrologia (GISEN). Ramipril Efficacy in Nephropathy. Lancet. 1998, 352:1252–1256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, et al.: The effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition in diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 1993, 323:1456–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pfeffer M, Braunwald E, Moye LA, et al.: Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement Trial. N Engl J Med 1992, 327:669–677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ambrosioni E, Borghi C, Magnani B: The effect of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor zofenopril on mortality and morbidity after anterior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1995, 332:80–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kober L, Torp-Pedersen C, Carlsen JE, et al.: A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995, 333:1670–1676.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones JK, Gorkin L, Lian JF, et al.: Discontinuation of and changes in treatment after start of new courses of antihypertensive drugs: a study of a United Kingdom population. BMJ 1995, 311:293–296.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bloom BS: Continuation of initial antihypertensive medication after one year of therapy. Clin Ther 1998, 20:671–681. Records of America‘s largest pharmacy benefits manager were used to estimate the proportion of patients initially filling prescriptions for antihypertensive agents who continued taking the same drug class for 1 year. ARBs were refilled (64%) more than any other drug class (including ACE inhibitors at 58%), suggesting that they might be the best-tolerated drug class.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott-Levin‘s Source Prescription Audit 2000. Top 200 Drugs of 1999. Available at Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gainer JV, Morrow JD, Loveland A, et al.: Effect of bradykininreceptor blockade on the response to angiotensinconverting-enzyme inhibitor in normotensive and hypertensive subjects. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:1285–1292. An important short-term mechanistic study: a specific bradykininreceptor antagonist (that is not commercially available) was given in combination with an ACE inhibitor. This regimen reduced blood pressure less than did the ACE inhibitor alone and to about the same extent as an ARB did. The results indicate that bradykinin plays a role in the acute blood pressure-lowering effects of ACE inhibitors and that ARBs could be less effective than ACE inhibitors because they do not interfere with the bradykinin pathway.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weber MA: Comparison of type 1 angiotensin II receptor blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens 1997, 15(suppl 6):S31-S36.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams B: Efficacy of angiotensin II antagonists: a comparative analysis [abstract]. J Human Hypertens 1999, 13(suppl 3):S32. A pooled analysis (without placebo correction) of 43 randomized clinical trials involving 11,281 patients submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration suggests no significant difference in antihypertensive efficacy between ARBs and ACE inhibitors.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruff D, Gazdick LP, Berman R, et al.: Comparative effects of combination drug therapy regimens commencing with either losartan potassium, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, or enalapril maleate, for the treatment of severe hypertension. J Hypertens 1996, 14:263–270. A multicenter randomized clinical trial starting with enalapril or losartan in 75 patients with diastolic blood pressures between 115 and 130 mm Hg. During the first 4 weeks of treatment (when other drugs were not used), 72% of patients given enalapril continued to receive monotherapy with either the initial or a double dose of medication, compared to 52% of patients given losartan.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roca-Cusachs A, Oigman W, Lepe L, et al.: A randomized, double-blind comparison of the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of once-daily losartan compared to twice-daily captopril in mild to moderate essential hypertension. Acta Cardiol 1997, 52:495–506. A randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing losartan, 50 or 100 mg once daily, with captopril, 25 or 50 mg twice daily, in 396 patients with an initial diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 115 mm Hg. At 12 weeks, losartan displayed significantly greater lowering of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and slightly lower risk for cough (2.6% vs 4.4%).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Byyny RL, Merrill DD, Bradstreet TE, et al.: An inpatient trial of the safety and efficacy of losartan compared with placebo and enalapril in patients with essential hypertension. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 1996, 10:313–319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pool J, Oparil S, Hedner T, et al.: Dose-responsive antihypertensive efficacy of valsartan, a new angiotensin IIreceptor blocker. Clin Therap 1998, 20:1106–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bremner AD, Baur M, Oddou-Stock P, et al.: Valsartan: long-term efficacy and tolerability compared to lisinopril in elderly patients with essential hypertension. Clin Exp Hypertens. 1997, 19:1253–1285.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Black HR, Graff A, Shute D, et al.: Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy, tolerability, and safety compared to an angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril. J Human Hypertens 1997, 11:483–489. A clinical trial of 734 hypertensive patients randomly assigned to valsartan, 80 mg; lisinopril, 10 mg; or placebo, with the possibility of doubling the dose (if needed) after 4 weeks of treatment. Although both active drugs were more effective than placebo, the ACE inhibitor and the ARB did not significantly differ (diastolic blood pressure change, -6.9 mm Hg and -5.3 mm Hg, respectively) except in the frequency of cough (8% vs 1.1%, respectively).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holwerda NJ, Fogari R, Angeli P, et al.: Valsartan, a new angiotensin II antagonist for the treatment of essential hypertension: efficacy and safety compared with placebo and enalapril. J Hypertens 1996, 14:1147–1151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mimran A, Ruilope L, Kerwin L, et al.: A randomised, double-blind comparison of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist, irbesartan, with the full dose range of enalapril for the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Human Hypertens 1998, 12:203–208. This clinical trial compared 75, 150, or 300 mg of irbesartan and 10, 20, or 40 mg of enalapril in 200 hypertensive patients. The doses were uptitrated after 4 weeks if the diastolic blood pressure was not lower than 90 mm Hg. Blood pressure responses did not significantly differ between drugs. At the end of 12 weeks, 24% of the enalapril-treated patients were receiving the top dose, compared with 28% of those treated with irbesartan. Cough was noted in 17% and 10% of patients, respectively.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Larochelle P, Flack JM, Marbury TC, et al.: Effects and tolerability of irbesartan versus enalapril in patients with severe hypertension. Irbesartan Multicenter Investigators. Am J Cardiol 1997, 80:1613–1615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zanchetti A, Omboni S, Di Biagio C: Candesartan cilexitil and enalapril are of equivalent efficacy in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Human Hypertens 1997, 11(suppl 2):S57-S59.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Franke H: Antihypertensive effects of candesartan cilexetil, enalapril and placebo. J Human Hypertens 1997, 11(suppl 2):S61-S62. Short summary of a clinical trial comparing candesartan, 4, 8, or 12 mg; enalapril, 10 mg; and placebo in 337 hypertensive patients. The 4-mg dose was not significantly more effective than placebo, but both the 8-and 12-mg doses were. These doses reduced diastolic blood pressure by about 10 mm Hg, nearly identical to that achieved by 10 mg of enalapril.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Neutel JM, Frishman WH, Oparil S, et al.: Comparison of telmisartan with lisinopril in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am J Therap 1999, 6:161–166. A clinical trial comparing telmisartan (40, 80, or 160 mg/d) with lisinopril (10, 20, or 40 mg/d) was performed for 52 weeks in 578 hypertensive patients. Doses were uptitrated when the diastolic blood pressure exceeded 90 mm Hg. The proportion of patients achieving the goal blood pressure at the end of titration was 67% for telmisartan and 63% for lisinopril, but fewer adverse effects occurred in the telmisartan group (cough: 3% vs 7% for lisinopril; overall side effects: 28% vs 40%). Both cases of angioedema developed in the lisinopril group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Karlberg BE, Lins LE, Hermansson K: Efficacy and safety of telmisartan, a selective AT1 receptor antagonist, compared with enalapril in elderly patients with primary hypertension. TEES Study Group. J Hypertens 1999, 17:293–302.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Elliott WJ: Double-blind comparison of eprosartan and enalapril on cough and blood pressure in unselected hypertensive patients. Eprosartan Study Group. J Human Hypertens 1999, 13:413–417. A 26-week clinical trial of eprosartan (200 or 300 mg twice daily) versus enalapril (5-20 mg/d) on cough and blood pressure enrolled 528 hypertensive patients. Cough was significantly more common with enalapril (5.4% vs 1.5%), and blood pressure control was similar in both groups; however, eprosartan had a slightly higher response rate than enalapril, even before the addition of hydrochlorothiazide.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Andersson OK, Neldam S: The antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of candesartan cilexetil, a new generation angiotensin II antagonist, in comparison with losartan. Blood Press 1998, 7:53–59. A direct comparison of 8 or 16 mg of candesartan with 50 mg of losartan or placebo for 8 weeks in 334 hypertensive patients. Although all active drugs were more effective than placebo, the 16-mg candesartan dose was significantly more effective than 50 mg of losartan, according to analysis of covariance calculations. A summary of this study was also published (J Human Hypertens 1997, 11(suppl 2):S63-S64).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kassler-Taub K, Littlejohn T, Elliott W, et al.: Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/ Losartan Study Investigators. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11:445–453. A clinical trial of 567 hypertensive patients randomly assigned to receive placebo, 100 mg of losartan, or 150 or 300 mg of irbesartan for 8 weeks. Clinic blood pressure was measured 24 hours after dosing. Although all active treatments were more effective than placebo, 300 mg of irbesartan was more effective than 100 mg of losartan; the 150-mg dose of irbesartan was not significantly different from the 100-mg dose of losartan.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oparil S, Guthrie R, Lewin AJ, et al.: An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Clin Therap 1998, 20:398–409. A clinical trial directly comparing irbesartan and losartan, which allowed doubling of the starting dose after 4 weeks of treatment if diastolic blood pressure was > 90 mm Hg. After 8 weeks, the reductions in diastolic blood pressure were greater for irbesartan, as was the proportion of patients “responding” with a diastolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or a reduction in diastolic blood pressure > 10 mm Hg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mallion J, Siche J, Lacourcière Y: ABPM comparison of the antihypertensive profiles of the selective angiotensin II receptor antagonists telmisartan and losartan in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. J Human Hypertens 1999, 13:657–664. A clinical trial of 223 patients randomly assigned to placebo; telmisartan, 40 mg; telmisartan, 80 mg; or losartan, 50 mg for 6 weeks. All active treatments were more effective than placebo, and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was used to assess blood pressure control during the 18 to 24 hours after dosing. During this time, and over the entire 24-hour period, each dose of telmisartan was significantly more effective than losartan, which, in turn, was not significantly different from placebo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lacourcière Y, Asmar R: A comparison of the efficacy and duration of action of candesartan cilexetil and losartan as assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure after a missed dose, in truly hypertensive patients: a placebocontrolled, forced titration study. Candesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Am J Hypertens 1999, 12:1181–1187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mancia G, Dell‘Oro R, Turri C, et al.: Comparison of angiotensin II receptor blockers: impact of missed doses of candesartan cilexetil and losartan in systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1999, 84(suppl 10A):28S-34S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pylypchuk GB: ACE-inhibitor-versus angiotensin II blocker-induced cough and angioedema. Ann Pharmacother 1998, 32:1060–1066. A review of the literature through April 1997 found 10 trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs with regard to cough. All reported a lower incidence of cough with the ARBs, but no angioedema occurred.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lacourcière Y, Brunner H, Irwin R, et al.: Effects of modulators of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system on cough. Losartan Cough Study Group. J Hypertens 1994, 12:1387–1393. The first clinical trial of an ACE inhibitor, ARB, and hydrochlorothiazide (a negative control) to study patients with a history of ACE inhibitor-associated cough. After cough developed in 135 hypertensive patients receiving lisinopril and disappeared with placebo, the patients were randomly assigned to one of the three antihypertensive agents for up to 8 weeks. The incidence and severity of cough (assessed by a variety of methods) were significantly higher with lisinopril than with the other two agents.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ramsey LE, Yeo WW: Double-blind comparison of losartan, lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with a previous angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitorassociated cough. J Hypertens 1995, 13 (suppl 1):S73-S76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Paster RZ, Snavely DB, Sweet AR, et al.: Use of losartan in the treatment of hypertensive patients with a history of cough induced by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Clin Therap 1998, 20:978–989. A clinical trial involving 100 patients with a history of ACE inhibitor-associated cough were randomly assigned to lisinopril, losartan, or placebo for up to 8 weeks. Although the cough appeared during lisinopril challenge and disappeared with placebo, it reappeared in 87% of patients assigned to lisinopril; this percentage was significantly higher than that seen with either losartan (37%) or placebo (31%).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chan P, Tomlinson B, Huang TY, et al.: Double-blind comparison of losartan, lisinopril, and metolazone in elderly hypertensive patients with previous angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor-induced cough. J Clin Pharmacol 1997, 37:253–257. A clinical trial examined lisinopril, losartan, or metolazone in 84 elderly nonsmoking hypertensive Asian patients with a history of ACE inhibitor-associated cough. After challenge with lisinopril and administration of placebo, cough was more common in patients assigned to lisinopril (97%) than in those assigned to losartan (18%) or metolazone (21%).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Benz J, Oshrain C, Henry D, et al.: Valsartan, a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist: a double-blind study comparing the incidence of cough with lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide. J Clin Pharmacol 1997, 37:101–107. A clinical trial involving 129 patients with a history of ACE inhibitor-associated cough were randomly assigned to lisinopril, valsartan, or hydrochlorothiazide for up to 6 weeks. Although the cough appeared during lisinopril challenge and disappeared with placebo, it reappeared in significantly more patients assigned to the lisinopril group (69%) that in those assigned to the valsartan (20%) or hydrochlorothiazide (19%) groups.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lacourcière Y: The incidence of cough: a comparison of lisinopril, placebo, and telmisartan, a novel angiotensin II antagonist. Telmisartan Cough Study Group. Int J Clin Practice. 1999, 53:99–103. A clinical trial involving 88 patients with a history of ACE-inhibitor-associated cough were randomly assigned to lisinopril, telmisartan, or placebo for up to 8 weeks. Although the cough appeared during lisinopril challenge and disappeared with placebo, it reappeared in significantly more patients in the lisinopril group (60%) than patients in the telmisartan (16%) or placebo (10%) groups.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tikkanen I, Omvik P, Jensen HA: Comparison of the angiotensin II angatonist losartan with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with essential hypertension. J Hypertens 1995, 13:1343–1351.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shuster C, Reinhart WH, Hartmann K, Kuhn M: Angioodem unter ACE-Hemmern under Angiotensin-II-Rezeptor-Antagonisten: Analyse von 98 Fallen [Angioedema induced by ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists: Analysis of 98 cases]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1999, 129:362–369. A summary of the 98 cases of angioedema resulting from ACE inhibitors or ARBs reported to the Swiss Drug Monitoring Center: 28 required hospitalization, three required intubation, but only four occurred after administration of an ARB (two immediately after switching from an ACE inhibitor). In 35% of cases, angioedema occurred within 1 week of starting treatment.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sorensen AM, Christensen S, Jonassen TE, et al.: Teratogenic effects of ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists. [In Danish]. Ugeskrift Laeger 1998, 160:1460–1464. A summary of more than 50 cases of fetotoxic effects attributed to maternal use of ACE inhibitors (most common were renal dysplasia, anuria/oligouria, oligohydramnios, intrauterine growth retardation, pulmonary hypoplasia, patent ductus arteriosus, incomplete ossification of the skull, and intrauterine and neonatal death). Although the much briefer clinical experience with ARBs has not yet shown these sorts of abnormalities, animal studies indicate that neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs should be given to pregnant women, especially in the last trimester.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pitt B, Segal R, Martinez FA, et al.: Randomised trial of losartan versus captopril in patients over 65 with heart failure (Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly Study, ELITE). Lancet 1997, 349:747–752. A 48-week clinical trial comparing losartan, 50 mg, with captopril, 50 three times daily, in 722 ACE inhibitor-naive patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction of 40%. The two groups did not significantly differ for the primary (renal impairment) or first secondary (death or hospitalization for heart failure) outcome, but losartan was associated with a significantly higher percentage of patients continuing therapy and a survival advantage.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dasback EJ, Rich MW, Segal R, et al.: The cost-effectiveness of losartan versus captopril in patients with symptomatic heart failure. Cardiology 1999, 91:189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Pitt B, Poole-Wilson P, Segal R, et al.: Effects of losartan versus captopril on mortality in patients with symptomatic heart failure: rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of patients in the Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study — ELITE II. J Cardiac Fail 1999, 5:146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Topol E: ACE-inhibitors still the drug of choice for heart failure — and more. Lancet 1999, 354:1797. A clinical trial with the same design as ELITE (Pitt et al. [47]) enrolled more than 3000 patients with heart failure but used mortality as its primary endpoint. Unlike in ELITE, and despite a higher proportion of patients continuing treatment with losartan, 280 losartan recipients died compared with only 250 captopril recipients.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bisognano JD, Horwitz LD: Combination therapy with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and an angiotensin-II receptor antagonist for refractory essential hypertension. West J Med 1998, 168:272–274. Four case reports in which an ARB was added to ACE inhibitor therapy in hypertensive patients; all had lower blood pressure than was seen when an ACE inhibitor was used alone.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cohn JN, Tognoni G, Glazer RD, et al.: Rationale and design of the Valsartan Heart Failure Trial: a large multinational trial to assess the effects of valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, on morbidity and mortality in chronic congestive heart failure. J Card Fail 1999, 5:155–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Swedberg K, Pfeffer M, Granger C, et al.: Candesartan in Heart Failure — assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM): rationale and design. CHARMProgramme Investigators. J Card Fail 1999, 5:276–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dickstein K, Kjekshus J: Comparison of the effects of losartan and captopril on mortality in patients after acute myocardial infarction: the OPTIMAAL trial design. Optimal Therapy in Myocardial Infarction with the Antiotensin II Antagonist Losartan. Am J Cardiol 1999, 83:477–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pechere-Bertschi A, Nussberger J, Decosterd L, et al.: Renal response to the angiotensin II receptor subtype 1 antagonist irbesartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 1998, 16:385–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Remuzzi A, Perico N, Sangalli F, et al.: ACE-inhibition and ANG II receptor blockade improve glomerular size-selectivity in IgA nephropathy. Am J Physiol 1999, 276:F457-F466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Schulz E, Bech JN, Pedersen EB, et al.: A randomized, double-blind, parallel study on the safety and antihypertensive efficacy of losartan compared to captopril in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and impaired renal function. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 1999, 14(suppl 4):27–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nielsen S, Dollerup J, Nielsen B, et al.: Losartan reduces albuminuria in patients with essential hypertension: an enalapril-controlled 3-month study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997, 12(suppl 2):19–23. A clinical trial involving 93 hypertensive patients randomly assigned to losartan, 50 mg/d, or enalapril, 20 mg/d, for 12 weeks. Compared with values before treatment, blood pressures were reduced by a similar extent with both drugs, and urinary albumin:creatinine ratios were reduced by both drugs, especially in the microalbuminuria range (estimated protein excretion, 30–300 mg/d).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    McLaughlin K, Jardine AG: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor (AT1) antagonists: either or both for primary renal disease? [editorial]. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999, 14:25–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schmitt F, Natov S, Martinez F, et al.: Renal effects of angiotensin 1-receptor blockade and angiotensin convertase inhibition in man. Clin Sci 1996, 90:205–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Russo D, Pisani A, Balletta MM, et al.: Additive antiproteinuric effect of converting enzyme inhibitor and losartan in normotensive patients with IgA nephropathy. Am J Kidney Dis 1999, 33:851–856. A clinical trial involving eight normotensive patients with biopsyproven IgA nephropathy. Each had proteinuria (urinary excretion, 1–3 g/d) and creatinine clearance of 69 to 119 mL/min and was treated sequentially (at multiple dose levels) with an ACE inhibitor, losartan, or a combination. Proteinuria was equally reduced by either monotherapy but was significantly more reduced by the combination. The latter effect appeared to be independent of effects on blood pressure or creatinine clearance.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fogari R, Zoppi A, Corradi L, et al.: Comparative effects of lisinopril and losartan on insulin sensitivity in the treatment of non-diabetic hypertensive patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998, 46:567–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pham D, Laporte S, Perodin J, et al.: What can angiotensin antagonists do that converting-enzyme inhibition can‘t: the case of post-angioplastic restenosis. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1996, 74:867–877.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fuster D, Paz Marco M, Setoain FJ, et al.: A case of renal artery stenosis after transplantation: can losartan be more accurate than captopril renography? Clin Nucl Med 1998, 23:731–734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cotter G, Metzkor-Cotter E, Kaluski E, et al.: Usefulness of losartan, captopril, and furosemide in preventing nitrate tolerance and improving control of unstable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1998, 82:1024–1029.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fogari R, Zoppi A, Lazzari P, et al.: ACE-inhibition, but not angiotensin II antagonism, reduces plasma fibrinogen and insulin resistance in overweight hypertensive patients. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1998, 32:616–620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Yee KM, Struthers AD: Endogenous angiotensin II and baroreceptor dysfunction: a comparative study of losartan and enalapril in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998, 46:583–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Navarro JF, Macia M, Garcia J: Losartan for therapy of posttransplant erythrocytosis [letter]. Clin Nephrol 1997, 48:355.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ducloux D, Saint-Hillier Y, Chalopin JM: Effect of losartan on haemoglobin concentration in renal transplant recipients: a retrospective analysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997, 12:2683–2686.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schwarzbeck A, Wittenmeier KW, Hallfritzsch U: Anaemia in dialysis patients as a side-effect of sartanes [letter]. Lancet 1998, 352:286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc. 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • William J. Elliott
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Preventive MedicineRush Medical College of Rush UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations