Current Hypertension Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 5, pp 446–453

The case for combining angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers

  • Addison A. Taylor
  • Sarat Sunthornyothin


Tight blood pressure control among diabetic and nondiabetic patients with hypertension is perhaps the single most effective intervention used to delay progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The renoprotective actions of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in patients with diabetic and hypertensive nephropathy is well established. Drugs of this class fairly uniformly reduce glomerulosclerosis, delay the deterioration in renal function, and improve proteinuria, a predictive surrogate marker for renal injury. Calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) in the phenylalkylamine (verapamil) and benzothiazepine (diltiazem) classes also improve proteinuria and delay the progression of renal disease in diabetic and nondiabetic hypertensive nephropathy beyond that attributable to blood pressure control. The short-acting dihydropyridine CCBs worsen proteinuria and accelerate renal injury in both animal models and humans with hypertension or diabetes. A very limited number of studies in animals or humans with hypertension or diabetes have demonstrated at least an additive renoprotective effect when the combination of ACE inhibitors and nondihydropyridine CCBs has been compared with each agent administered as monotherapy. Because patients with impaired renal function and either hypertension or diabetes appear to benefit from aggressive blood pressure reduction, many of these patients will require two or more drugs to achieve the currently recommended blood pressure goals. Combinations of ACE inhibitor and CCB are attractive because they may provide better blood pressure control, appear to be better tolerated with fewer side effects than either drug alone, and may exert a greater renoprotective effect in patients at risk for renal failure than either an ACE inhibitor or a CCB.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. Br Med J 1998, 317:703–713. This substudy of a large clinical trial to evaluate treatment of type II diabetes in 4297 patients focused on a comparison of aggressive versus more lax control of blood pressure. Tight blood pressure control was associated with a significant reduction in deaths and complications of diabetes, including progression of diabetic nephropathy.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hebert LA, Kusek JW, Greene T, et al.: Effects of blood pressure control on progressive renal disease in blacks and whites. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Hypertension 1997, 30:428–435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bakris GL: Progression of diabetic nephropathy: a focus on arterial pressure level and methods of reduction. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1998, 39(suppl):S35-S42. This is an excellent recent review of the data supporting the value of aggressive blood pressure control among patients with diabetes in delaying the progression of nephropathy.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, et al.: The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 1993, 329:1456–1462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gansevoort RT, Sluiter WJ, Hemmelder MH, et al.: Antiproteinuric effect of blood-pressure-lowering agents: a meta-analysis of comparative trials. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1995, 10:1963–1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Johnston CI, Risvanis J, Naitoh M, et al.: Mechanism of progression of renal disease: current hemodynamic concepts. J Hypertens 1998, 16(suppl 4):S3-S7. This publication succinctly reviews the known and proposed hemodynamic mechanisms that are involved in hypertensive nephropathy. It is one of a series of reviews in the same journal (see Benigni and Remuzzi [7]).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benigni A, Remuzzi G: Mechanisms of progression of renal disease: growth factors and related mechanisms. J Hypertens 1998, 16(suppl 4):S9-S12. The focus of this short review is on mechanisms by which protein in the tubule is thought to be toxic and on the potential role of endothelin in the development of glomerulosclerosis, independent of its vasoconstrictor effects.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tarif N, Bakris GL: Preservation of renal function: the spectrum of effects by calcium-channel blockers. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1997, 12:2244–2250.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein M: The benefits of ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists in slowing progressive renal failure: focus on fixeddose combination antihypertensive therapy. Ren Fail 1996, 18:813–832.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Epstein M: Calcium antagonists and renal protection: emerging perspectives. J Hypertens 1998, 16(suppl 4):S17-S25. A comprehensive review of the mechanisms thought to contribute to the progression of renal disease and of the documented and potential therapeutic benefits of ACE inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers in modulating that progression in both experimental animal and human investigations.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tesfamariam B, Cohen RA: Free radicals mediate endothelial cell dysfunction caused by elevated glucose. Am J Physiol 1992, 263:H32-H326.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bakris GL, Williams B: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium antagonists alone or combined: does the progression of diabetic renal disease differ? J Hypertens 1995, 13(suppl 2):S95-S101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carmines PK, Navar LG: Disparate effects of Ca channel blockade on afferent and efferent arteriolar response to Ang II. Am J Physiol 1989, 256:F1015-F1020.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fujiwara Y, Kitamura E, Ueda N, et al.: Mechanism of action of angiotensin II on isolated rat glomeruli. Kidney Int 1989, 36:985–991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orth SR, Nobiling R, Bönisch S, Ritz E: Inhibitory effect of calcium channel blockers on human mesangial cell growth: evidence for actions independent of L-type Ca2+ channels. Kidney Int 1996, 49:868–879.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Welch WJ, Wilcox CS, Thomson SC: Nitric oxide and tubuloglomerular feedback. Semin Nephrol 1999, 19:251–262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schnackenberg CG, Granger JP: Verapamil abolishes the preglomerular response to ANG II during intrarenal nitric oxide synthesis inhibition. Am J Physiol 1997, 272:R1670-R1676.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang X, Hintze TH: Amlodipine releases nitric oxide from canine coronary microvessels: an unexpected mechanism of action of a calcium channel-blocking agent. Circulation 1998, 97:576–580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mason RP, Walter MF, Trumbore MW, et al.: Membrane antioxidant effects of the charged dihydropyridine calcium antagonist amlodipine. J Mol Cell Cardiol 1999, 31:275–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karam H, Heudes D, Bruneval P, et al.: Endothelin antagonism in end-organ damage of spontaneously hypertensive rats: comparison with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and calcium antagonism. Hypertension 1996, 28:379–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Huang S, Simonson MS, Dunn MJ: Manidipine inhibits endothelin-1-induced [Ca2+]i signaling but potentiates endothelin’s effect on c-fos and c-jun induction in vascular smooth muscle and glomerular mesangial cells. Am Heart J 1993, 125:589–597.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    d’Uscio LV, Shaw S, Barton M, et al.: Losartan but not verapamil inhibits angiotensin II-induced tissue endothelin-1 increase: role of blood pressure and endothelial function. Hypertension 1998, 31:1305–1310.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Anderson S, Rennke HG, Brenner BM: Therapeutic advantage of converting enzyme inhibitors in arresting progressive renal disease associated with systemic hypertension in the rat. J Clin Invest 1986, 77:1993–2000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Anderson S, Rennke HG, Garcia DL, et al.: Short and long term effects of antihypertensive therapy in the diabetic rat. Kidney Int 1989, 36:526–536.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Mosconi L, et al.: Urinary protein excretion rate is the best independent predictor of ESRF in non-diabetic proteinuric chronic nephropathies. Kidney Int 1998, 53:1209–1216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brown SA, Walton CL, Crawford P, et al.: Long-term effects of antihypertensive regimens on renal hemodynamics and proteinuria. Kidney Int 1993, 43:1210–1218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stefanski A, Amann K, Ritz E: To prevent progression: ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists or both? Nephrol Dial Transplant 1995, 10:151–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gallego B, Flores O, Lopez-Novoa JM, et al.: Renal effects of antihypertensive therapy in uninephrectomized diabetic rats. Res Exp Med (Berl) 1997, 197:199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Munter K, Hergenroder S, Jochims K, et al.: Individual and combined effects of verapamil or trandolapril on attenuating hypertensive glomerulopathic changes in the stroke-prone rat. J Am Soc Nephrol 1996, 7:681–686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fioretto P, Frigato F, Velussi M, et al.: Effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium antagonists on atrial natriuretic peptide release and action and on albumin excretion rate in hypertensive insulin-dependent diabetic patients. Am J Hypertens 1992, 5:837–846.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bakris G, Barnhill BW, Sadler R: Treatment of arterial hypertension in diabetic humans: importance of therapeutic selection. Kidney Int 1992, 41:912–919.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bakris GL, Weir MR, Dequattro V, McMahon FG: Effects of an ACE inhibitor/calcium antagonist combinationon proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int 1998, 54:1283–1289. This open-label clinical trial of combined ACE inhibitor (trandolapril) and calcium-channel blocker (verapamil) versus monotherapy with each agent in hypertensive diabetics with proteinuria demonstrated a greater reduction in proteinuria with the combination than with either agent alone. This additive effect appeared to be independent of the blood pressure because the reduction in blood pressure was not greater with the combination than with either agent alone. The results differ from those obtained by Hemmelder et al. [33•].PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hemmelder MH, De Zeeuw D, De Jong PE: Antiproteinuric efficacy of verapamil in comparison to trandolapril in non-diabetic renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999, 14:98–104. This recent study compares the antiproteinuric effect of an ACE inhibitor (trandolapril)--calcium channel blocker (verapamil) combination with each drug alone in patients with renal disease, most of whom were normotensive. The findings suggest that the antiproteinuric effect of verapamil may be related entirely to its effect on systemic blood pressure, whereas the reduction in protein excretion that occurred with trandopapril was greater than that attributable to its antihypertensive effect.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Weir MR: The rationale for combination versus single-entity therapy in hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11:163S-169S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gasowski J, Staessen JA, Celis H, et al.: Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) trial phase 2: objectives, protocol, and initial progress. J Hum Hypertens 1999, 13:135–145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Cushman WC, et al.: Single-drug therapy for hypertension in men: a comparison of six antihypertensive agents with placebo. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents [published erratum appears in N Engl J Med 1994, 330:1689.] N Engl J Med 1993, 328:914–921.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bakris GL: The role of combination antihypertensive therapy and the progression of renal disease hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11:158S-162S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kuschnir E, Acuna E, Sevilla D, et al.: Treatment of patients with essential hypertension: amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 20 mg compared with amlodipine 5 mg, benazepril 20 mg, and placebo. Clin Ther 1996, 18:1213–1224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frishman WH, Ram CV, McMahon FG, et al.: Comparison of amlodipine and benazepril monotherapy to amlodipine plus benazepril in patients with systemic hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The Benazepril/Amlodipine Study Group. J Clin Pharmacol 1995, 35:1060–1066.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gradman AH, Cutler NR, Davis PJ, et al.: Combined enalapril and felodipine extended release (ER) for systemic hypertension. Enalapril-Felodipine ER Factorial Study Group. Am J Cardiol 1997, 79:431–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dal Ponte DB, Fogt DL, Jacob S, et al.: Interactions of captopril and verapamil on glucose tolerance and insulin action in an animal model of insulin resistance. Metabolism 1998, 47:982–987. This is one of the few studies to compare the effects of ACE inhibitor-calcium-channel blockers combined therapy versus monotherapy on metabolic parameters. The combination of captopril and verapamil improved insulin sensitivity in obese Zucker rats more than either agent alone. Less dramatic results were obtained in diabetics (see Rett et al. [42]).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rett K, Jacob S, Wicklmayr M: Possible synergistic effect of ACE inhibition and calcium-channel blockade on insulin sensitivity in insulin-resistant type II diabetic hypertensive patients. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1994, 23(suppl 1):S29-S33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Perico N, Amuchastegui CS, Malanchini B, et al.: Angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibition and calcium channel blockade both normalize early hyperfiltration in experimental diabetes, but only the former prevents late renal structural damage. Exp Nephrol 1994, 2:220–228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rumble JR, Doyle AE, Cooper ME: Comparison of effects of ACE inhibition with calcium channel blockade on renal disease in a model combining genetic hypertension and diabetes. Am J Hypertens 1995, 8:53–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Anderson S, Meyer TW, Rennke HG, et al.: Control of glomerular hypertension limits glomerular injury in rats with reduced renal mass. J Clin Invest 1985, 76:612–619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gaber L, Walton C, Brown S, Bakris G: Effects of different antihypertensive treatments on morphologic progression of diabetic nephropathy in uninephrectomized dogs. Kidney Int 1994, 46:161–169.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Meyer TW, Anderson S, Rennke HG, et al.: Converting enzyme inhibitor therapy limits progressive glomerular injury in rats with renal insufficiency. Am J Med 1985, 79:31–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Flores O, Arevalo M, Gallego B, et al.: Beneficial effect of the long-term treatment with the combination of an ACE inhibitor and a calcium channel blocker on renal injury in rats with 5/6 nephrectomy. Exp Nephrol 1998, 6:39–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kanno Y, Okada HSH, Ikenaga H, et al.: Does combined therapy of Ca-channel blocker and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor exceed monotherapy in renal protection against hypertensive injury in rats? Clin Exp Hypertens 1996, 18:243–256.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bakris GL: Renal effects of calcium antagonists in diabetes mellitus: an overview of studies in animal models and in humans. Am J Hypertens 1991, 4(suppl):487S-493S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kvam FI, Ofstad J, Iversen BM: Effects of antihypertensive drugs on autoregulation of RBF and glomerular capillary pressure in SHR. Am J Physiol 1998, 275:F576-F584.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kanno Y, Suzuki H, Okada H, et al.: Renal protective effects of amlodipine on partially nephrectomized spontaneously hypertensive rats fed a high-salt diet. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1994, 23:480–484.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Dworkin LD, Tolbert E, Recht PA, et al.: Effects of amlodipine on glomerular filtration, growth, and injury in experimental hypertension. Hypertension 1996, 27:245–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jyothirmayi GN, Reddi AS: Effect of diltiazem on glomerular heparan sulfate and albuminuria in diabetic rats. Hypertension 1993, 21:795–802.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Girardi G, Elias MM: Verapamil protection against mercuric chloride-induced renal glomerular injury in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1998, 152:360–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bakris GL, Griffin KA, Picken MM, et al.: Combined effects of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium antagonist on renal injury. J Hypertens 1997, 15:1181–1185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wenzel UO, Helmchen U, Schoeppe W, et al.: Combination treatment of enalapril with nitrendipine in rats with renovascular hypertension. Hypertension 1994, 23:114–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Francischetti A, Ono H, Frohlich ED: Renoprotective effects of felodipine and/or analapril in spontaneously hypertensive rats with and without L-NAME. Hypertension 1998, 31:801.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Llinas MT, Gonzalez JD, Rodriguez F, et al.: Renal changes induced by nitric oxide and prostaglandin synthesis reduction: effects of trandolapril and verapamil. Hypertension 1998, 31:657–664.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Crepaldi G, Carta Q, Deferrari G, et al.: Effects of lisinopril and nifedipine on the progression to overt albuminuria in IDDM patients with incipient nephropathy and normal blood pressure. The Italian Microalbuminuria Study Group in IDDM. Diabetes Care 1998, 21:104–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Agardh CD, Garcia-Puig J, Charbonnel B, et al.: Greater reduction of urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive type II diabetic patients with incipient nephropathy by lisinopril than by nifedipine. J Hum Hypertens 1996, 10:185–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bohlen L, de Courten M, Weidmann P: Comparative study of the effect of ACE-inhibitors and other antihypertensive agents on proteinuria in diabetic patients. Am J Hyperten 1994, 7:84S-92S.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fogari R, Zoppi A, Corradi L, et al.: Long-term effects of ramipril and nitrendipine on albuminuria in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes and impaired renal function. J Hum Hypertens 1999, 13:47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rudberg S, Osterby R, Bangstad HJ, et al.: Effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or beta blocker on glomerular structural changes in young microalbuminuric patients with Type I (insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus. Diabetologia 1999, 42:589–595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Nankervis A, Nicholls K, Kilmartin G, et al.: Effects of perindopril on renal histomorphometry in diabetic subjects with microalbuminuria: a 3-year placebo-controlled biopsy study. Metabolism 1998, 47:12–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Maschio G, Alberti D, Locatelli F, et al.: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and kidney protection: the AIPRI trial. The ACE Inhibition in Progressive Renal Insufficiency (AIPRI) Study Group. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1999, 33(suppl 1):S16-S20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Benini R, et al.: Effects of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition, and blood pressure control on chronic, nondiabetic nephropathies. Gruppo Italiano di Studi Epidemiologici in Nefrologia (GISEN). J Am Soc Nephrol 1998, 9:2096–2101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Maschio G, Marcantoni C: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in nondiabetic renal disease. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 1998, 7:253–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ihle BU, Whitworth JA, Shahinfar S, et al.: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in nondiabetic progressive renal insufficiency: a controlled double-blind trial. Am J Kidney Dis 1996, 27:489–495.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    O’Donnell MJ, Rowe BR, Lawson N, et al.: Comparison of the effects of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium antagonist in hypertensive, macroproteinuric diabetic patients: a randomised double-blind study. J Hum Hypertens 1993, 7:333–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bilo H, Kluitman E, van Ballegooie E, et al.: Long term use of captopril or nifedipine in normotensive microalbuminuric patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Res 1993, 23:115–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Jansen JJWM, Gans ROB, Van der Meulen J, et al.: Comparison between the effects of amlodipine and lisinopril on proteinuria in nondiabetic renal failure. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11:1074–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Smith AC, Toto R, Bakris GL: Differential effects of calcium channel blockers on size selectivity of proteinuria in diabetic glomerulopathy. Cardiology 1997, Kidney Int 1998, 54:889–896.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dequattro V, Lee DP: Equivalent reduction of proteinuria in hypertensives by either nifedipine GITS or enalapril: disparate effects on neurohormones and ambulatory blood pressure and the influence of salt. Cardiology 1997, 88(suppl 3):38–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Hemmelder MH, De Zeeuw D, De Jong PE: Antiproteinuric efficacy of verapamil in comparison to trandolapril in non-diabetic renal disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1999, 14:98–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bakris G, White D: Effects of an ACE inhibitor combined with a calcium channel blocker on progression of diabetic nephropathy. J Hum Hypertens 1997, 11:35–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science, Inc 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Addison A. Taylor
    • 1
  • Sarat Sunthornyothin
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MedicineBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations