The effects of candesartan on diabetes glomerulopathy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Long-term dual blockade with candesartan and lisinopril in hypertensive patients with diabetes: the CALM II study. Renal and retinal effects of enalapril and losartan in type 1 diabetes. Randomised placebo-controlled trial of lisinopril in normotensive patients with insulin-dependent diabetes and normoalbuminuria or microalbuminuria. The EUCLID Study Group. Effect of telmisartan on renal outcomes: a randomized trial. Effect of candesartan on microalbuminuria and albumin excretion rate in diabetes: three randomized trials. Evaluation of the efficacy and tolerability of nitrendipine in reducing both pressure and left ventricular mass in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. Renal outcomes with telmisartan, ramipril, or both, in people at high vascular risk (the ONTARGET study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial. Hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes. A comparison between an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and a calcium antagonist. The effects of losartan and fosinopril in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. A randomized, controlled, multicenter study to compare prazosin GITS with enalapril in hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Bombay Hypertension Study Group. Long-term effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and metabolic control in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients. Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes. Effects of cilazapril and amlodipine on kidney function in hypertensive NIDDM patients. Use of enalapril to attenuate decline in renal function in normotensive, normoalbuminuric patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A randomized, controlled trial. Effect of intensive blood pressure control with valsartan on urinary albumin excretion in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes. Lowering blood pressure reduces renal events in type 2 diabetes. Long-term lisinopril therapy reduces exercise-induced albuminuria in normoalbuminuric normotensive IDDM patients. Randomized placebo-controlled trial of perindopril in normotensive, normoalbuminuric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Olmesartan for the delay or prevention of microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes.
Our objective was to study the effects of candesartan on diabetic glomerulopathy in young normoalbuminuric and normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. In 13 patients aged 24 years at baseline, we evaluated blood pressure, kidney biopsies and kidney function tests at baseline and after 5 years of treatment. Kidney biopsies were examined with light and electron microscopy, glomerular filtration rate and effective renal plasma flow determined with inulin and para-aminohippuric acid clearances. Two patients in the placebo group needed antihypertensive treatment because they developed microalbuminuria and/or hypertension, but no patient in the candesartan group did. A significant reduction in mesangial matrix volume and mesangial volume occurred in the candesartan group, although changes in morphological parameters were similar between groups. Office blood pressure was significantly lower in the candesartan group at follow-up than in the placebo group. Deterioration in morphological parameters observed in earlier studies of our patients did not become worse during treatment with candesartan or placebo. The effects of candesartan, with reduction in morphological parameters and lowering of blood pressure, might influence future treatment of glomerulopathy in type 1 diabetes patients. To assess and compare the long-term effects of the combination of candesartan and lisinopril with high-dose lisinopril on systolic blood pressure in patients with hypertension and diabetes.
                This was a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, double-dummy study with a 12-month follow-up. Drug therapy was either lisinopril 40 mg once daily or dual-blockade treatment with candesartan 16 mg once daily and lisinopril 20 mg once daily. The study comprised 75 type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients aged 35-74 years. The main outcome measures were seated and 24-h ambulatory systolic blood pressure.
                Reduction in systolic blood pressure (24-h systolic blood pressure) reduction was obtained in both treatment arms (mean reduction at final follow-up: dual blockade 6 mmHg vs. lisinopril 2 mmHg), but no significant difference was found between dual-blockade and lisinopril 40 mg once daily (P = 0.10). Both treatments were generally well tolerated, and similar low rates of side effects were found in the two groups.
                There was no statistically significant difference between lisinopril 40 mg once daily and lisinopril 20 mg in combination with candesartan 16 mg once daily in reducing systolic blood pressure in hypertensive patients with diabetes. Nephropathy and retinopathy remain important complications of type 1 diabetes. It is unclear whether their progression is slowed by early administration of drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system.
                We conducted a multicenter, controlled trial involving 285 normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes and normoalbuminuria and who were randomly assigned to receive losartan (100 mg daily), enalapril (20 mg daily), or placebo and followed for 5 years. The primary end point was a change in the fraction of glomerular volume occupied by mesangium in kidney-biopsy specimens. The retinopathy end point was a progression on a retinopathy severity scale of two steps or more. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed with the use of linear regression and logistic-regression models.
                A total of 90% and 82% of patients had complete renal-biopsy and retinopathy data, respectively. Change in mesangial fractional volume per glomerulus over the 5-year period did not differ significantly between the placebo group (0.016 units) and the enalapril group (0.005, P=0.38) or the losartan group (0.026, P=0.26), nor were there significant treatment benefits for other biopsy-assessed renal structural variables. The 5-year cumulative incidence of microalbuminuria was 6% in the placebo group; the incidence was higher with losartan (17%, P=0.01 by the log-rank test) but not with enalapril (4%, P=0.96 by the log-rank test). As compared with placebo, the odds of retinopathy progression by two steps or more was reduced by 65% with enalapril (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14 to 0.85) and by 70% with losartan (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.73), independently of changes in blood pressure. There were three biopsy-related serious adverse events that completely resolved. Chronic cough occurred in 12 patients receiving enalapril, 6 receiving losartan, and 4 receiving placebo.
                Early blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in patients with type 1 diabetes did not slow nephropathy progression but slowed the progression of retinopathy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00143949.)
                2009 Massachusetts Medical Society Renal disease in people with insulin-dependent diabetes (IDDM) continues to pose a major health threat. Inhibitors of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) slow the decline of renal function in advanced renal disease, but their effects at earlier stages are unclear, and the degree of albuminuria at which treatment should start is not known.
                We carried out a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the ACE inhibitor lisinopril in 530 men and women with IDDM aged 20-59 years with normoalbuminuria or microalbuminuria. Patients were recruited from 18 European centres, and were not on medication for hypertension. Resting blood pressure at entry was at least 75 and no more than 90 mm Hg diastolic, and no more than 155 mm Hg systolic. Urinary albumin excretion rate (AER) was centrally assessed by means of two overnight urine collections at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.
                There were no difference in baseline characteristics by treatment group; mean AER was 8.0 micrograms/min in both groups; and prevalence of microalbuminuria was 13% and 17% in the placebo and lisinopril groups, respectively. On intention-to-treat analysis at 2 years, AER was 2.2 micrograms/min lower in the lisinopril than in the placebo group, a percentage difference of 18.8% (95% CI 2.0-32.7, p = 0.03), adjusted for baseline AER and centre, absolute difference 2.2 micrograms/min. In people with normoalbuminuria, the treatment difference was 1.0 microgram/min (12.7% [-2.9 to 26.0], p = 0.1). In those with microalbuminuria, however, the treatment difference was 34.2 micrograms/min (49.7% [-14.5 to 77.9], p = 0.1; for interaction, p = 0.04). For patients who completed 24 months on the trial, the final treatment difference in AER was 38.5 micrograms/min in those with microalbuminuria at baseline (p = 0.001), and 0.23 microgram/min in those with normoalbuminuria at baseline (p = 0.6). There was no treatment difference in hypoglycaemic events or in metabolic control as assessed by glycated haemoglobin.
                Lisinopril slows the progression of renal disease in normotensive IDDM patients with little or no albuminuria, though greatest effect was in those with microalbuminuria (AER > or = 20 micrograms/min). Our results show that lisinopril does not increase the risk of hypoglycaemic events in IDDM. Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) blunt progression of advanced diabetic nephropathy, but their long-term renal effects in other patients are not clear.
                To examine the long-term renal effects of telmisartan versus placebo in adults at high vascular risk.
                Randomized trial. Patients were randomly assigned by a central automated system between November 2001 and May 2004 and were followed until March 2008. Participants and investigators were blinded to intervention status.
                Multicenter, multinational study.
                5927 adults with known cardiovascular disease or diabetes with end-organ damage but without macroalbuminuria or heart failure who cannot tolerate angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.
                Telmisartan, 80 mg/d (n = 2954), or matching placebo (n = 2972) plus standard treatment for a mean of 56 months.
                Composite renal outcome of dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine, changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and changes in albuminuria.
                No important difference was found in the composite renal outcome with telmisartan (58 patients [1.96%]) versus placebo (46 patients [1.55%]) (hazard ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.89]; P = 0.20). Among the telmisartan and placebo groups, 7 and 10 patients had dialysis and 56 and 36 patients had doubling of serum creatinine, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.59 [CI, 1.04 to 2.41]; P = 0.031). Albuminuria increased less with telmisartan than with placebo (32% [CI, 23% to 41%] vs. 63% [CI, 52% to 76%]; P < 0.001). Decreases in estimated GFR were greater with telmisartan than with placebo (mean change in estimated GFR, -3.2 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) [SD, 18.3] vs. -0.26 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) [SD, 18.0]; P < 0.001).
                Only 17 participants had dialysis.
                In adults with vascular disease but without macroalbuminuria, the effects of telmisartan on major renal outcomes were similar to those of placebo. Microalbuminuria in diabetes is strongly predictive of nephropathy, end-stage renal disease, and premature cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Effective preventive therapies are therefore a clinical priority.
                To determine whether the angiotensin-receptor blocker candesartan compared with placebo affects microalbuminuria incidence or rate of change in albuminuria in type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
                3 randomized trials of the DIRECT (Diabetic Retinopathy Candesartan Trials) Program.
                309 secondary care centers.
                3326 and 1905 patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. Most were normotensive, and all had normoalbuminuria (median urinary albumin excretion rate, 5.0 microg/min).
                Candesartan, 16 mg/d increasing to 32 mg/d, versus placebo. Assignment was done centrally using an interactive voice-response system. Patients, caregivers, and researchers were blinded to treatment assignment. During a median follow-up of 4.7 years, 793 patients discontinued therapy and 63 were lost to follow-up.
                Urinary albumin excretion rate, assessed annually by 2 overnight collections; if it was 20 microg/min or greater, then 2 further collections were done. The primary end point was new microalbuminuria (3 or 4 collections of urinary albumin excretion rate >or=20 microg/min). The secondary end point was rate of change in albuminuria.
                Individual and pooled results of the 3 trials showed that candesartan had little effect on risk for microalbuminuria (pooled hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.16]; P = 0.60). Pooled results showed that the annual rate of change in albuminuria was 5.53% lower (CI, 0.73% to 10.14%; P = 0.024) with candesartan than with placebo.
                Investigators recruited mainly normotensive patients or patients with well-controlled hypertension who were at low overall vascular risk, which resulted in a low rate of microalbuminuria. Studies were powered for retinal and not renal end points.
                Candesartan, 32 mg/d, for 4.7 years did not prevent microalbuminuria in mainly normotensive patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of nitrendipine in comparison with captopril in hypertensive diabetic patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH).
                A total of 75 patients enrolled in this study presented stable type 2 diabetes (not treated with insulin) and mild-to-moderate hypertension with a left ventricular mass > or = 75 g/m2 by two-dimensional echocardiography. After a 4-week washout period, 38 patients were assigned to treatment with captopril, and 37 patients to nitrendipine (random allocation). The duration of follow-up was 36 weeks.
                Patients of both groups were similar with regard to the duration of diabetes and hypertension, systolic and diastolic blood pressure at rest, degree of LVH, metabolic control, and albumin excretion rate (AER). Both drugs were equally effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure (captopril: from 165 +/- 13/100 +/- 4 to 147 +/- 11/87 +/- 4 mmHg; nitrendipine: from 167 +/- 17/100 +/- 5 to 143 +/- 9/86 +/- 4 mmHg; P < 0.05) and in reversing LVH (nitrendipine: from 87 +/- 2 to 81 +/- 1 g/m2; captopril: from 89 +/- 2 to 85 +/- 2 g/m2; P = 0.0001). Neither the left ventricular end-diastolic volume index nor the left ventricular ejection fraction changed significantly during the treatment period.
                Nitrendipine is as effective as captopril in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure and in reversing LVH. Neither drug showed any negative side effects on fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and both maintain constant AERs. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are known to reduce proteinuria. Their combination might be more effective than either treatment alone, but long-term data for comparative changes in renal function are not available. We investigated the renal effects of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor), telmisartan (an ARB), and their combination in patients aged 55 years or older with established atherosclerotic vascular disease or with diabetes with end-organ damage.
                The trial ran from 2001 to 2007. After a 3-week run-in period, 25 620 participants were randomly assigned to ramipril 10 mg a day (n=8576), telmisartan 80 mg a day (n=8542), or to a combination of both drugs (n=8502; median follow-up was 56 months), and renal function and proteinuria were measured. The primary renal outcome was a composite of dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, and death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101.
                784 patients permanently discontinued randomised therapy during the trial because of hypotensive symptoms (406 on combination therapy, 149 on ramipril, and 229 on telmisartan). The number of events for the composite primary outcome was similar for telmisartan (n=1147 [13.4%]) and ramipril (1150 [13.5%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.09), but was increased with combination therapy (1233 [14.5%]; HR 1.09, 1.01-1.18, p=0.037). The secondary renal outcome, dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine, was similar with telmisartan (189 [2.21%]) and ramipril (174 [2.03%]; HR 1.09, 0.89-1.34) and more frequent with combination therapy (212 [2.49%]: HR 1.24, 1.01-1.51, p=0.038). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined least with ramipril compared with telmisartan (-2.82 [SD 17.2] mL/min/1.73 m(2)vs -4.12 [17.4], p<0.0001) or combination therapy (-6.11 [17.9], p<0.0001). The increase in urinary albumin excretion was less with telmisartan (p=0.004) or with combination therapy (p=0.001) than with ramipril.
                In people at high vascular risk, telmisartan's effects on major renal outcomes are similar to ramipril. Although combination therapy reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than monotherapy, overall it worsens major renal outcomes. The effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme lisinopril were compared with those of the calcium antagonist nifedipine in 162 non-insulin-dependent diabetic hypertensive patients for a 24-week period. In 83 and 79 patients, respectively, lisinopril and slow-release nifedipine produced similar reductions in blood pressure (systolic/diastolic: -16/-13 mmHg supine and -14/-11 mmHg standing after lisinopril; -15/-12 mmHg supine and -14/-11 mmHg standing nifedipine). Fasting and post-prandial plasma glucose, glycosylated haemoglobin and plasma lipids appeared to be unaffected by either agent. Also, 28% of the patients on lisinopril and 30% of those on nifedipine presented microalbuminuria. Both drugs induced a reduction in the albumin excretion rate (AER). The geometric mean x:tolerance factor of the reduction in AER among the 23 microalbuminuric patients on lisinopril (-10.0 x:1.3 micrograms/min) was greater, though not significantly so, than that observed in the 26 on nifedipine (-0.9 x 1.2 micrograms/min). Moreover, lisinopril appeared to be better tolerated than nifedipine in our study population. Microalbuminuria is an important risk factor for cardiovascular mortality in non-insulin-dependent diabetic patients as well as in the general population. To what extent a reduction in the AER could ameliorate diabetic patients is, at present, unknown. Finally, both lisinopril and nifedipine showed a similar antihypertensive effect in these patients which was not associated with significant differences in plasma glucose, insulin or lipid concentrations. The clinical consequences of the insignificant differences in AER remain unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of losartan on blood pressure (BP), creatinine clearance (Ccr) and urinary albumin excretion (UAE), and to assess metabolic parameters in comparison with ACEI. Thirty-three type 2 diabetic hypertensive patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty patients were randomized to receive 50 mg/day losartan and 13 patients to 10 mg/day fosinopril. Patients were studied at baseline and after 1 and 6 months. BP was significantly decreased in both groups at the end of the 1st and 6th month to a similar extent. Ccr had fallen in both groups at the end of 1st and 6th months. The effect of each drug on Ccr was similar (64.2+/-70.6 and 42.8+/-53.8 ml/min, respectively, NS). In the subgroup with microalbuminuria at baseline, UAE rate was lower in both groups at the end of the 1st and 6th months. However, when compared with the end of 1st month, the antiproteinuric effect of losartan was slightly decreased at the end of 6th month. Metabolic parameters did not change with either drug. Both drugs were well tolerated. Thus the antihypertensive effects of the two drugs were comparable. In conclusion, this study confirms the efficacy and safety of losartan as an antihypertensive drug in diabetic patients. To compare the long-term antihypertensive efficacy, tolerability, and metabolic effects of prazosin GITS and enalapril.
                Randomized, controlled, multicenter study of 26 weeks duration.
                Office practices of 20 physicians in Mumbai, India.
                Males and females, aged 30 to 70 yrs, with hypertension of JNC V stage 1 or 2 at the end of a 2-week placebo run-in period, and diabetes mellitus with at least acceptable glycaemic control (FBS < or = 140 mg/dl, 2-hr PMBS < or = 200 mg/dl, and glycosylated hemoglobin < or = 9.5%). Sufficient number of patients recruited so that at least 60 complete the entire study.
                Prazosin GITS (Minipress XL, 2.5-5 mg once daily) or enalapril (Enam, 5-10 mg once daily) for upto 6 weeks; continued upto 24 weeks in those showing a pre-defined response (SBP and/or DBP normalized, or DBP fall of at least 10 mm Hg with actual value of DBP < 95 mm Hg). Patients allocated to either of the two interventions by randomization.
                Percent patients showing pre-defined BP response at week 6; percent patients with DBP < 90 mm Hg, SBP < 140 mm Hg, and both; percent patients with DBP fall > or = 10 mm Hg; mean fall in BP among those receiving treatment for 24 weeks; mean change in serum lipids at the end of weeks 8, 16, and 24 of treatment; mean change in blood sugar and glycosylated hemoglobin at the end of weeks 8, 16, and 24 of treatment; mean change in 12-hr urinary microalbuminuria and laboratory parameters for safety at the end of week 24; frequency and intensity of adverse events judged probably or definitely related to the drug.
                Forty-Eight patients randomized to prazosin GITS group and 41 to enalapril group. Of these, 31 in prazosin GITS group (M 19, F 12; mean age-53.4 yr, SEM 1.68) and 29 in enalapril group (M17, F 12; mean age-54.7 yr, SEM 1.64) completed the entire study. Percent patients with DBP < 90 mm Hg at 24 weeks: prazosin GITS--71.0%, enalapril--72.4%; SBP < 140 mm Hg: prazosin GITS--54.8%, enalapril--55.2; both DBP < 90 mm Hg and SBP < 140 mm Hg: prazosin GITS--54.8%, enalapril--44.8%; percent patients with DBP fall of 10 mm Hg or more at 24 weeks: prazosin GITS--77.4%, enalapril--72.4%. The mean fall in the systolic and diastolic blood pressure from the end-of-placebo-phase values to all the other time points was comparable in the two groups. Treatment with prazosin GITS resulted in a favourable effect on serum triglycerides at the end of 8 weeks (p = 0.017) and 16 weeks (p = 0.011), and no detrimental effect or a marginal beneficial effect on total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol. Enalapril group, on the other hand, showed a significant increase in LDL cholesterol at the end of 24 weeks (p = 0.018), and a marginal increase in total cholesterol, but a beneficial effect on triglycerides at the end of 16 weeks (p = 0.015). Neither drug had any effect on glycosylated hemoglobin and 12-hr urinary microalbuminuria. Treatment with both drugs was associated with an increase in FBS and 2-hr PMBS, but this rise reached statistical significance only in prazosin GITS group. Adverse events probably or definitely related to the drug: prazosin GITS--2 of 44 patients (4.5%), enalapril--6 of 39 patients (15.4%).
                1. In the doses used, prazosin GITS showed comparable antihypertensive efficacy to enalapril. 2. While enalapril had variable effect, prazosin GITS showed a consistent beneficial effect on some of the serum lipid fractions. 3. The 3-fold difference in the incidence of side effects, although not statistically significant for the available sample size, may be clinically relevant. Long-term effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and metabolic control in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients.
                In hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors is associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than those treated with calcium channel-blocking agents. However, the long-term renal effects of ACE inhibitors in these patients remain inconclusive. In 1989, we commenced a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study to examine the anti-albuminuric effects of enalapril versus nifedipine (slow release) in 102 hypertensive, type 2 diabetic patients. These patients have been followed up for a mean trial duration of 5.5 +/- 2.2 years. We examined the determinants, including the effect of ACE inhibition on clinical outcomes in these patients.
                After a six-week placebo-controlled, run-in period, 52 patients were randomized double-blind to receive nifedipine (slow release) and 50 patients to receive enalapril. After the one-year analysis, which confirmed the superior anti-albuminuric effects of enalapril (-54%) over nifedipine (+11%), all patients were continued on their previously assigned treatment with informed consent. They were subdivided into normoalbuminuric (N = 43), microalbuminuric (N = 34), and macroalbuminuric (N = 25) groups based on two of three 24-hour urinary albumin excretion (UAE) measurements during the run-in period. Renal function was shown by the 24-hour UAE, creatinine clearance (CCr), and the regression coefficient of the yearly plasma creatinine reciprocal (beta-1/Cr). Clinical endpoints were defined as death, cardiovascular events, and/or renal events (need for renal replacement therapy or doubling of baseline plasma creatinine).
                In the whole group, patients treated with enalapril were more likely to revert to being normoalbuminuric (23.8 vs. 15.4%), and fewer of them developed macroalbuminuria (19.1 vs. 30.8%) compared with the nifedipine-treated patients (P < 0.05). In the microalbuminuric group, treatment with enalapril (N = 21) was associated with a 13.0% (P < 0.01) reduction in 24-hour UAE compared with a 17.3% increase in the nifedipine group (N = 13). In the macroalbuminuric patients, enalapril treatment (N = 11) was associated with stabilization compared with a decline in renal function in the nifedipine group, as shown by the beta-1/Cr (0.65 +/- 4.29 vs. -1.93 +/- 2.35 1/micromol x 10-3, P < 0.05) after adjustment for baseline values. Compared with the normoalbuminuric and microalbuminuric patients, those with macroalbuminuria had the lowest mean CCr (75.5 +/- 24.1 vs. 63.5 +/- 21.3 vs. 41.9 +/- 18.5 mL/min, P < 0.001) and the highest frequency of clinical events (4.7 vs. 5.9 vs. 52%, P < 0. 001). On multivariate analysis, beta-1/Cr (R2 = 0.195, P < 0.001) was independently associated with baseline HbA1c (beta = -0.285, P = 0.004), whereas clinical outcomes (R2 = 0.176, P < 0.001) were independently related to the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (beta = 2.426, P = 0.018), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (beta = -8.797, P = 0.03), baseline UAE (beta = 0.002, P = 0.04), and mean CCr during treatment (beta = -0.211, P = 0.006).
                In this prospective cohort analysis involving 102 hypertensive, type 2 diabetic patients with varying degrees of albuminuria followed up for a mean duration of five years, we observed the importance of good metabolic and blood pressure control on the progression of albuminuria and renal function. Treatment with enalapril was associated with a greater reduction in albuminuria than with nifedipine in the entire patient group, and especially in those with microalbuminuria. In the macroalbuminuric patients, the rate of deterioration in renal function was also attenuated by treatment with enalapril. Although several important studies have been performed in hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients, it is not known whether lowering blood pressure in normotensive (BP <140/90 mm Hg) patients offers any beneficial results on vascular complications. The current study evaluated the effect of intensive versus moderate diastolic blood pressure (DBP) control on diabetic vascular complications in 480 normotensive type 2 diabetic patients.
                The current study was a prospective, randomized controlled trial in normotensive type 2 diabetic subjects. The subjects were randomized to intensive (10 mm Hg below the baseline DBP) versus moderate (80 to 89 mm Hg) DBP control. Patients in the moderate therapy group were given placebo, while the patients randomized to intensive therapy received either nisoldipine or enalapril in a blinded manner as the initial antihypertensive medication. The primary end point evaluated was the change in creatinine clearance with the secondary endpoints consisting of change in urinary albumin excretion, progression of retinopathy and neuropathy and the incidence of cardiovascular disease.
                The mean follow-up was 5.3 years. Mean BP in the intensive group was 128 +/- 0.8/75 +/- 0.3 mm Hg versus 137 +/- 0.7/81 +/- 0.3 mm Hg in the moderate group, P < 0.0001. Although no difference was demonstrated in creatinine clearance (P = 0.43), a lower percentage of patients in the intensive group progressed from normoalbuminuria to microalbuminuria (P = 0.012) and microalbuminuria to overt albuminuria (P = 0.028). The intensive BP control group also demonstrated less progression of diabetic retinopathy (P = 0.019) and a lower incidence of strokes (P = 0.03). The results were the same whether enalapril or nisoldipine was used as the initial antihypertensive agent.
                Over a five-year follow-up period, intensive (approximately 128/75 mm Hg) BP control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients: (1) slowed the progression to incipient and overt diabetic nephropathy; (2) decreased the progression of diabetic retinopathy; and (3) diminished the incidence of stroke. Contrasting information has been reported concerning the course of renal function in NIDDM with hypertension alone or in association with renal damage. The aim of the present study was to elucidate the course of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in hypertensive NIDDM patients during antihypertensive therapy. Furthermore, we compared the effects of ACE inhibitors (cilazapril, Inibace, Roche, Milan, Italy) and Ca(2+)-channel blockers (amlodipine, Norvasc, Pfizer, Rome, Italy). Of the hypertensive NIDDM patients attending the outpatient's clinic of the internal medicine departments of the University of Padova and Sassari, 44 participated in the present study. Of these patients, 26 were normoalbuminuric and 18 microalbuminuric. They were randomly treated with either cilazapril or amlodipine. The target of antihypertensive treatment was a value < 140 mmHg for systolic and 85 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure (BP). Microalbuminuria was defined as an albumin excretion rate (AER) between 20 and 200 micrograms/min. GFR was measured by plasma clearance of 51Cr-labeled EDTA at baseline and every 6-12 months during a 3-year follow-up interval. A significant decrease was observed in the values of GFR, AER, and systolic and diastolic BP in normoalbuminuric and microalbuminuric patients during antihypertensive therapy. The GFR fall in the overall population of NIDDM patients was significantly and inversely related to the decrease of mean BP (diastolic + 1/3 pulse pressure) (r = -0.80, P < 0.0001) but not to that of HbA1c, triglycerides, and BMI. The GFR decline (mean +/- SE) per year in the normoalbuminuric patient was 2.03 +/- 0.66 ml.min-1 x 1.73 m-2 (95% CI 0.92-3.17) during cilazapril and 2.01 +/- 0.71 ml.min-1 x 1.73 m-2 (95% CI 0.82-3.11) during amlodipine therapy. The GFR decline per year in the microalbuminuric patient was 2.15 +/- 0.69 ml.min-1 x 1.73 m-2 (95% CI 0.86-3.89) during cilazapril and 2.33 +/- 0.83 ml.min-1 x 1.73 m-2 per year (95% CI 1.03-3.67) during amlodipine therapy. Cilazapril and amlodipine lowered AER to a similar extent in normoalbuminuric and microalbuminuric patients. No significant changes were observed concerning other clinical and biochemical features between the two antihypertensive therapies and particularly HbA1c, BMI, triglycerides, and cholesterol plasma values. These results support the tenet that arterial hypertension plays a pivotal role in contributing to renal damage in NIDDM, even when AER is normal. However, the degree of BP control, with both cilazapril and amlodipine, can successfully delay the slope of GFR decline in hypertensive NIDDM patients with or without incipient nephropathy. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors attenuate the decline in renal function in diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. However, no data are available on the use of ACE inhibitors to prevent the decrease in renal function in normotensive, normoalbuminuric patients with type 2 diabetes.
                To evaluate the effect of prolonged ACE inhibition on renal function and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes.
                Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 6-year follow-up.
                Eight outpatient clinics coordinated by a department of medicine in a university hospital.
                156 patients in whom type 2 diabetes was diagnosed after 40 years of age who had a baseline mean blood pressure less than 107 mm Hg and albuminuria (albumin excretion < or = 30 mg/24 h).
                Enalapril, 10 mg/d, or placebo.
                Degree of albuminuria at 24 hours, creatinine clearance, blood pressure, and hemoglobin A1c values.
                Enalapril therapy decreased albumin excretion from a mean +/- SD of 11.6 +/- 7 mg/24 h to 9.7 +/- 6 mg/24 h at 2 years. This was followed by a gradual increase to 15.8 +/- 8 mg/24 h at 6 years. In the placebo group, albumin excretion increased from 10.8 +/- 8 mg/24 h to 26.5 +/- 10 mg/24 h at 6 years (P = 0.001 for enalapril compared with placebo). Transition to microalbuminuria occurred in 15 of 79 (19%) placebo recipients and 5 of 77 (6.5%) enalapril recipients. Enalapril treatment resulted in an absolute risk reduction of 12.5% (95% CI, 2% to 23%; P = 0.042) for development of microalbuminuria. After 6 years, creatinine clearance decreased from 1.78 +/- 0.13 mL/s to 1.63 +/- 0.12 mL/s (mean decrease, 0.025 mL/s per year) in enalapril recipients and from 1.81 +/- 0.15 mL/s to 1.57 +/- 0.17 mL/s (mean decrease, 0.04 mL/s per year) in placebo recipients (P = 0.040). Hemoglobin A1c values decreased modestly in both groups. Mean blood pressure remained normal (< 107 mm Hg) in all patients.
                Enalapril attenuated the decline in renal function and reduced the extent of albuminuria in normotensive, normoalbuminuric patients with type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed to determine whether this treatment forestalls the development of overt nephropathy. Diabetes is the most common cause of renal failure in the United States, and data regarding the effects of aggressive blood pressure (BP) therapy in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes are inadequate.
                A total of 129 type 2 diabetic patients with a BP of <140/80 to 90 mm Hg without overt albuminuria were randomized to either intensive BP control (diastolic BP goal 75 mm Hg) using an angiotensin II receptor blocker, valsartan, versus moderate BP control (diastolic BP 80 to 90 mm Hg with placebo initially) to evaluate the effect on the change in urinary albumin excretion (UAE) from baseline.
                The mean entrance BP was 126 +/- 8.8/84 +/- 2.4 mm Hg. The mean follow-up period was 1.9 +/- 1.0 years. During the follow-up period, the mean BP was 118 +/- 10.9/75 +/- 5.7 for the intensive v 124 10.9/80 6.5 mm Hg for the moderate BP groups (P < .001). No difference was observed in change in creatinine clearance or serum creatinine from baseline between the two groups. An analysis of covariance model for change in log (UAE + 1), adjusting for age, HBA(1c), duration of diabetes, baseline log (UAE + 1), sex, and ethnicity resulted in a significant treatment difference at 2 years (P = .007) with intensive BP control reducing log (UAE+1) compared with moderate BP control.
                Intensive BP control with valsartan to <120/80 mm Hg in normotensive patients with type 2 diabetes and normo- or microalbuminuria significantly decreased the progression of UAE and in some cases caused regression of UAE. BP is an important determinant of kidney disease among patients with diabetes. The recommended thresholds to initiate treatment to lower BP are 130/80 and 125/75 mmHg for people with diabetes and nephropathy, respectively. We sought to determine the effects of lowering BP below these currently recommended thresholds on renal outcomes among 11,140 patients who had type 2 diabetes and participated in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. Patients were randomly assigned to fixed combination perindopril-indapamide or placebo, regardless of their BP at entry. During a mean follow-up of 4.3 yr, active treatment reduced the risk for renal events by 21% (P < 0.0001), which was driven by reduced risks for developing microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria (both P < 0.003). Effects of active treatment were consistent across subgroups defined by baseline systolic or diastolic BP. Lower systolic BP levels during follow-up, even to <110 mmHg, was associated with progressively lower rates of renal events. In conclusion, BP-lowering treatment with perindopril-indapamide administered routinely to individuals with type 2 diabetes provides important renoprotection, even among those with initial BP <120/70 mmHg. We could not identify a BP threshold below which renal benefit is lost. To study the effect of lisinopril on the exercise-induced urinary albumin excretion rate.
                A total of 26 IDDM patients with normoalbuminuria were randomized into two groups, with one group receiving placebo (n = 13, age 36 +/- 3 years, BMI 24.5 +/- 1.1 kg/m2) and the other group receiving an average of 15 mg lisinopril daily (n = 13, age 34 +/- 2 years, BMI 24.4 +/- 0.9 kg/m2). Overnight and exercise-induced urinary albumin excretion rate was measured at baseline and after 1 and 2 years of treatment. Two patients in the placebo group and none in the lisinopril group developed microalbuminuria.
                In the lisinopril group, the exercise-induced urinary albumin excretion rate diminished 46% after the 1st year (P = 0.059) and 66% (P < 0.01) after the 2nd year. However, it remained unchanged in the control group. Systolic blood pressure (sBP) and diastolic blood pressure (dBP) were similar at baseline and after 1 year, but at 2 years, sBP was 13 mmHg lower (P = 0.03) and dBP was 9 mmHg lower (P = 0.052) in the lisinopril group as compared with the control group. The dBP decreased significantly at 1 and 2 years in the lisinopril group, while there was no significant change in the sBP. In the whole group at baseline, the overnight albumin excretion rate correlated with HbA1c (r = 0.50, P < 0.01) and the duration of diabetes (r = 0.39, P < 0.05), and sBP correlated with both the overnight (r = 0.42, P < 0.05) and the exercise-induced (r = 0.48, P < 0.05) albumin excretion rate.
                Glycemic control and blood pressure are directly related to the overnight albumin excretion rate also in normotensive normoalbuminuric IDDM patients. Lisinopril treatment reduces the exercise-induced urinary albumin excretion rate in such patients. These data suggest a protective effect of lisinopril against the development of microalbuminuria. Diabetic nephropathy is one of the leading causes of end-stage renal disease. We examined whether ACE inhibitor treatment may have a nephroprotective effect in normotensive insulin-dependent diabetic patients without microalbuminuria and with normal glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and whether any effect was associated with the ACE genotype. In a prospective double-blind randomized study, normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus with normal serum creatinine and no microalbuminuria were treated with either placebo or perindopril, an ACE inhibitor. Urine albumine/creatinine ratio (ACR), mean blood pressure (MBP) and index of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) based on S-creatinine were determined. ACE genotype was determined by electrophoresis. ACR was higher in the placebo group than in the perindopril group after 4 months, and continued to increase during the study period. After 36 months of observation, ACR in the placebo group was 1.7+/-1.1 mg/mmol, and 0.6+/-0.2 mg/mmol in the ACE-inhibitor-treated group (p<0.001, Mann-Whitney test). During treatment, a significant increase in ACR in the placebo group (p=0.007), Wilcoxon matched paired test) was observed. There were no differences between the groups regarding MBP or GFR. The nephroprotective effects of ACE inhibitor treatment was not associated with the ACE genotype (II, ID, DD). ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists may favorably affect serum lipids and glucose metabolism. The primary aim of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) was to compare the effects of fosinopril and amlodipine on serum lipids and diabetes control in NIDDM patients with hypertension. Prospectively defined cardiovascular events were assessed as secondary outcomes.
                Inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of NIDDM and hypertension (systolic blood pressure of > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of > 90 mmHg). Exclusion criteria included a history of coronary heart disease or stroke, serum creatinine > 1.5 mg/dl, albuminuria > 40 micrograms/min, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, aspirin, or antihypertensive agents other than beta-blockers or diuretics. A total of 380 hypertensive diabetics were randomly assigned to open-label fosinopril (20 mg/day) or amlodipine (10 mg/day) and followed for up to 3.5 years. If blood pressure was not controlled, the other study drug was added.
                Both treatments were effective in lowering blood pressure. At the end of follow-up, between the two groups there was no significant difference in total serum cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, HbA1c, fasting serum glucose, or plasma insulin. The patients receiving fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of the combined outcome of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalized angina than those receiving amlodipine (14/189 vs. 27/191; hazards ratio = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.26-0.95).
                Fosinopril and amlodipine had similar effects on biochemical measures, but the patients randomized to fosinopril had a significantly lower risk of major vascular events, compared with the patients randomized to amlodipine. Microalbuminuria is an early predictor of diabetic nephropathy and premature cardiovascular disease. We investigated whether treatment with an angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) would delay or prevent the occurrence of microalbuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes and normoalbuminuria.
                In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, controlled trial, we assigned 4447 patients with type 2 diabetes to receive olmesartan (at a dose of 40 mg once daily) or placebo for a median of 3.2 years. Additional antihypertensive drugs (except angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors or ARBs) were used as needed to lower blood pressure to less than 130/80 mm Hg. The primary outcome was the time to the first onset of microalbuminuria. The times to the onset of renal and cardiovascular events were analyzed as secondary end points.
                The target blood pressure (<130/80 mm Hg) was achieved in nearly 80% of the patients taking olmesartan and 71% taking placebo; blood pressure measured in the clinic was lower by 3.1/1.9 mm Hg in the olmesartan group than in the placebo group. Microalbuminuria developed in 8.2% of the patients in the olmesartan group (178 of 2160 patients who could be evaluated) and 9.8% in the placebo group (210 of 2139); the time to the onset of microalbuminuria was increased by 23% with olmesartan (hazard ratio for onset of microalbuminuria, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.63 to 0.94; P=0.01). The serum creatinine level doubled in 1% of the patients in each group. Slightly fewer patients in the olmesartan group than in the placebo group had nonfatal cardiovascular events--81 of 2232 patients (3.6%) as compared with 91 of 2215 patients (4.1%) (P=0.37)--but a greater number had fatal cardiovascular events--15 patients (0.7%) as compared with 3 patients (0.1%) (P=0.01), a difference that was attributable in part to a higher rate of death from cardiovascular causes in the olmesartan group than in the placebo group among patients with preexisting coronary heart disease (11 of 564 patients [2.0%] vs. 1 of 540 [0.2%], P=0.02).
                Olmesartan was associated with a delayed onset of microalbuminuria, even though blood-pressure control in both groups was excellent according to current standards. The higher rate of fatal cardiovascular events with olmesartan among patients with preexisting coronary heart disease is of concern. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00185159.).