CARDIOVASCULAR DRUGS IN DIABETES Should all diabetic patients receive an ACE inhibitor? Results from recent trials CLAIRE MCDOUGALL, GILLIAN MARSHALL, ADRIAN JB BRADY, MILES FISHER Br J Cardiol 2005;12:130–4 C O PY R Many studies have confirmed the excessive cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in people with diabetes.1,2 In addition, between 25–50% of diabetic patients develop kidney disease. Only a proportion of these will require dialysis or transplantation Diabetes Clinic, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 84 Castle Street, Glasgow, G4 0SF. Claire McDougall, Research Fellow Miles Fisher, Consultant Physician Department of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth Building, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, G4 0SF. Gillian Marshall, Research Fellow Adrian JB Brady, Consultant Cardiologist Correspondence to: Dr M Fisher (email: [email protected]) 130 D IT E IG H R TM EP R ED O IN D E U W C S TI ( O C N A PR RD O IO H LO IB G IT Y ED ) Key word s : diabetes, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blocker. Introduction as many die from premature cardiovascular disease prior to needing renal replacement therapy.3 Diabetic nephropathy is a progressive condition with early glomerular hyperfiltration followed by microalbuminuria, which progresses to frank proteinuria and end-stage renal disease. Microalbuminuria is also an independent marker of cardiovascular risk in patients with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes. We discuss the rationale for inhibition of the re n i n angiotensin system using angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes, and examine the benefits of blockade of the renin-angiotensin system on the progression of diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular disease. We pose the question “should all diabetic patients receive an ACE inhibitor?” M D iabetes is associated with both premature cardiovascular disease and renal disease. The presence of microalbuminuria is itself an independent risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors were initially shown to slow the progression of established renal disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. Subsequent trials have demonstrated a similar benefit in patients with type 2 diabetes and with the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). The use of ACE inhibitors to prevent cardiovascular events in patients with established cardiovascular disease but not left ventricular dysfunction was established in two large randomised trials – HOPE and EUROPA. These benefits were maintained within the diabetic subgroups of these trials and appear to be independent of blood pressure lowering. The LIFE trial also provides evidence of the benefits of ARBs in reducing cardiovascular events in a high-risk population of diabetic patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. Ideally, therefore, all diabetic patients with renal or cardiovascular disease should be treated with ACE inhibitors or ARBs. LI Abstract Landmark studies ACE inhibitors were introduced initially for the treatment of hypertension. Early trials measuring microalbuminuria suggested that ACE inhibitors were reno-protective independent of their hypotensive actions. The Collaborative Study Group examined the effects of captopril on the progression of renal disease in patients with type 1 diabetes and overt proteinuria.4 The study demonstrated a significant reduction in the primary end point of a two-fold increase in serum creatinine, although there was a small but greater mean blood pressure reduction in the treatment group of 2–3 mmHg. Reductions were also seen in the combined end point of dialysis, renal transplantation and death. The reductions in both the primary and secondary end points were maintained after correction for blood pressure differences. The benefits of ACE inhibitor therapy in reducing cardiovascular end points in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or left ventricular (LV) dysfunction have been demonstrated in many studies e.g. the SAVE (Survival And Ventricular Enlargement), AIRE (Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy) and ISIS-4 (Fourt h I n t e rnational Study of Infarct Survival) studies, including post-hoc subgroup analyses in diabetic patients.5-7 The HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) study examined the potential benefits of ramipril in a wider population of patients with vascular disease but no history of LV systolic dysfunction.8 Patients with diabetes and at least one other cardiovascular risk factor were also eligible. Analysis of the diabetic cohort of the 3,577 patients (38% of total) enrolled in the HOPE study demonstrated a statistically significant 25% relative risk reduction in the combined prim a ry end point of MI, stroke and cardiovascular death (p=0.0004). These reductions were seen re g a rdless of whether the patients had type 1 or type 2 diabetes (although the vast THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY Table 1. Results of end points for all subjects and subjects with diabetes in recent cardiovascular and renal studies with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers Drug Total subjects n Diabetic subjects n (%) Primary end point all Primary end point diabetes Perindopril 8 mg or placebo 12,218 1,502 (12%) Reduced CV events Reduced CV (CV death, MI, cardiac events from arrest) from 9.9% to 8.0% 15.5% to 12.6% PEACE Trandolapril 4 mg or placebo 8,290 17% No effect on combined end point (CV death, MI, coronary revascularisation) LIFE Losartan-based vs. atenolol-based treatment 9,193 1,195 (13%) Reduced composite end point (CV death, MI, stroke) from 13% with atenolol to 11% with losartan Other events all Other events diabetes Comments Cardiovascular studies D Data not provided IDNT Reduced composite Reduced stroke Reduced CV end point from (fatal and non-fatal) mortality 23% with atenolol with losartan with to 18% with losartan losartan IG H R TM EP R ED O IN D E U W C S TI ( O C N A PR RD O IO H LO IB G IT Y ED ) Renal studies Open label ACE inhibitors for diabetes patients with overt proteinuria or hypertension and microalbuminuria LI M IT E EUROPA/ PERSUADE Irbesartan 300 mg vs. amlodipine 10 mg vs. placebo 1,715 1,715 (100%) Reduced combined end point (doubling of creatinine, end-stage renal disease, death) from 39% placebo, 41% amlodipine to 33% Ditto No effect on all-cause mortality Ditto No significant reduction in CV composite RENAAL Losartan 100 mg vs. placebo 1,513 1,513 (100%) Reduced combined end point (doubling of creatinine, end-stage renal disease, death) from 47% to 43% Ditto No effect on all-cause mortality Ditto No significant reduction in CV composite, reduced first hospitalisation with heart failure DETAIL Telmisartan 80 mg vs. enalapril 20 mg 250 250 (100%) No difference in the change in glomerular filtration rate Ditto No difference in CV events or all-cause mortality PY R Key: EUROPA = EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Artery disease; PERSUADE = PERindopril SUbstudy in coronary Artery DiseasE and diabetes; PEACE = Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition; LIFE = Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension; IDNT = Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial; RENAAL = Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan; DETAIL = Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan and Enalapril; CV = cardiovascular; MI = myocardial infarction; ACE = angiotensin-converting enzyme C O majority of patients had type 2 diabetes), previous cardiovascular events, hypertension or microalbuminuria. The reduction in the primary end point remained significant after adjustment for the slight reduction in blood pressure seen in the treatment group. In addition to HOPE, the MICRO-HOPE substudy examined the effects of ramipril on the development of renal disease within the same diabetic cohort.9 There was a 24% relative risk reduction (p=0.027) in the development of overt nephropathy, defined as an albumin:creatinine ratio of > 36 mg/mmol. The incidence of overt nephropathy was reduced even in those patients without microalbuminuria at baseline but this was not statistically significant. When the incidence of other micro v a s c ular complications were analysed, ramipril was shown to cause a significant reduction in the combined incidence of overt VOLUME 12 ISSUE 2 . MARCH/APRIL 2005 nephropathy, requirement for dialysis and laser treatment for retinopathy (RRR 16% p=0.036). Recent cardiovascular studies The EUROPA (EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Art e ry disease) trial studied the effects of perindopril, a long-acting ACE inhibitor, on cardiovascular events in 12,218 male and female patients with documented history of coronary art e ry disease but no clinical evidence of heart failure.10 Over a mean follow-up of 3.7 years there was a 20% relative risk reduction in the composite primary end point of cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI and successfully resuscitated cardiac arrest (table 1), (p=0.0003). The PERSUADE (PERindopril SUbstudy in coronary Art e ry 131 reduction was observed in the overall study. Significant reductions were seen in cardiovascular and total mortality compared to atenolol, but reductions in stroke and myocardial infarction were not significant. Recent nephropathy studies LI M IT E D Blockade of angiotensin II has also been shown to have beneficial effects on the progression of diabetic nephropathy. The IRMA 2 (Irbesartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria study group) showed that treatment with 150 mg or 300 mg irbesartan significantly reduced the rate of pro g ression from microalbuminuria to diabetic nephropathy (defined by urinary albumin excretion rate of > 200 µg/minute on three non-consecutive occasions) when compared to placebo, with minor differences in blood pressure noted between the two groups.16 The MicroAlbuminuria Reduction with VALsartan in patients with type 2 diabetes (MARVAL) study, also showed that treatment with valsartan over a 24-week period significantly reduced urinary albumin excretion rate in patients with microalbuminuria at baseline, while treatment with amlodipine had only minor effects despite similar control of blood pressure in both treatment groups.17 Definite benefits in terms of reductions in cardiovascular outcomes, separate from renal outcomes, have not been shown using ARBs. Two studies have examined these drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes and established diabetic nephropathy. In the IDNT (Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial) study, irbesart a n was compared with amlodipine and placebo,18 and in the RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study losartan was compared with placebo.19 Both examined a composite end point of doubling of seru m creatinine, development of end-stage renal disease, or cardiovascular death. In IDNT irbesartan but not amlodipine reduced the composite end point, and in RENAAL losartan was better than placebo. When the components of the end point were examined, both irbesartan and losartan reduced the doubling of creatinine and development of end-stage renal disease, but neither affected cardiovascular deaths, although numbers were small and these were not primary end points (table 1). There was no significant benefit in a secondary end point that comprised a large number of cardiovascular outcomes. These studies, therefore, demonstrated a significant reduction in renal outcomes but not cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes and renal disease. DETAIL (Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan and Enalapril) is the first study to compare the effects of ACE inhibitors versus ARBs on renal function in type 2 diabetes. This small study compared the effects of telmisartan versus enalapril on the decline of renal function in 250 patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. There were no diff e rences in either the primary end point of overall change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR), or secondary end points of annual change in GFR, albumin excretion rate or s e rum creatinine between the two groups.20 However, this study was not large enough to make any comparisons between these two groups in terms of their effects on vascular outcomes. C O PY R IG H R TM EP R ED O IN D E U W C S TI ( O C N A PR RD O IO H LO IB G IT Y ED ) DiseasE and diabetes) study is due to be published in the near future and reports the results of the 1,502 subjects who had diabetes at time of entry into EUROPA.11 The relative risk reduction with perindopril on primary and secondary end points was similar to that in the main EUROPA population but as there was a higher event rate in diabetic patients, the absolute risk reduction was greater. The ‘number needed to treat’ (NNT) was more favourable for diabetic patients. To prevent one cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI, 27 diabetic patients would need to be treated for four years, as opposed to 40 patients in the main study cohort. In addition, as in non-diabetic subjects, the protective effects of perindopril were independent of blood pressure at baseline, and independent of the blood pressure reduction achieved by the drug, suggesting that perindopril may exert its protective effect via other mechanisms e.g. accumulation of bradykinin, or improvements in endothelial function. The PEACE (Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition) trial compared the effects of placebo versus trandolapril on the prevention of cardiovascular events in a cohort of 8,290 patients (17% of whom had diabetes) with established cardiovascular disease and normal or only slightly reduced left ventricular function.12 Surprisingly, there were no significant reductions in cardiovascular end points, which contrasts to the HOPE and EUROPA studies. There are several possible explanations for this. The PEACE patients were at lower risk of cardiovascular events than patients in previous studies; there were fewer events during the trial from which to draw conclusions. Secondly, two years before PEACE finished the steering committee advised the investigators to substitute open-label ACE inhibitors for the masked study treatment in patients with diabetes and either overt proteinuria or hypertension and microalbuminuria. This dilutes the treatment effect within the trial. Thirdly, patient compliance and dose achievement was not as good in PEACE as in EUROPA and HOPE. One positive finding in PEACE was a reduction in the onset of new diabetes in the trandolapril group, as has been seen in several other trials with ACE inhibitors and ARBs.13 The LIFE (Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension) study compared the effects of losartan versus atenolol-based treatment on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Losartan exerts potential beneficial effects not only via its antihypertensive properties but also as a result of its blockade of angiotensin II. For example, this should have a greater benefit on re g ression of left ventricular hypert rophy.14 The LIFE study demonstrated a 13% relative risk reduction in the composite prim a ry end point of cardiovascular death, MI and stroke. There were no significant reductions in MI, but a highly significant re lative risk reduction of 24.9% in the incidence of stroke in the losartan-treated group over the mean follow-up of 4.8 years. The results from the LIFE diabetes subgroup of 1,195 individuals were published separately15 and were even more dramatic. In subjects with diabetes, treatment with losartan caused a 5% reduction in the composite end point compared to atenolol, whereas a 2% 132 THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY ● Evidence supports the use of ACE inhibitor therapy for type 1 diabetic patients with nephropathy (microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria) ● Evidence supports the use of ARB therapy for type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy (microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria) in reducing renal outcomes, and for patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in reducing cardiovascular outcomes ● HOPE and EUROPA/PERSUADE demonstrate the benefits of reducing cardiovascular events in diabetic patients with existing cardiovascular disease or microalbuminuria ● We recommend the use of ACE inhibitors in all diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, nephropathy, h y p e rtension or previous cardiovascular disease; ARBs should be used in patients who have LVH or who are intolerant of ACE inhibitors ARB yes no Hypertension yes yes CCF yes yes Microalbuminuria type 1 type 2 Macroalbuminuria type 1 type 2 Cardioprotection yes no evidence IG H R TM EP R ED O IN D E U W C S TI ( O C N A PR RD O IO H LO IB G IT Y ED ) LI Cough D ACE inhibitor Key messages IT E Evidence for use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in people with diabetes. For patients with type 1 diabetes, evidence favours use of ACE inhibitors in microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. For patients with type 2 diabetes, evidence favours use of ARBs in microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria for renal outcomes M Table 2. Discussion O PY R The Collaborative Study Group and other studies show there is no doubt that manipulation of the renin-angiotensin system slows the rate of decline of renal function in patients with type 1 diabetes and proteinuria (table 2). ACE inhibitors are widely prescribed in type 1 diabetes and have been shown to be cost effective given both the financial and human benefits of delaying the need for renal replacement therapy in patients. M i c roalbuminuria is also a predictor of renal decline in patients with type 2 diabetes, and the best evidence base for delaying this decline lies with angiotensin receptor blockade as shown by the IRMA and MARVAL studies, although there are several smaller studies with ACE inhibitors in type 2 diabetic patients that show similar renal effects. However, the best evidence for prevention of cardiovascular disease in this group of patients with microalbuminuria currently lies with ACE inhibitors rather than ARBs.21 Given that the risk of cardiovascular disease is much higher than that of diabetic nephropathy in patients with microalbuminuria, ACE inhibitors are probably the tre a tment of choice. This argument is given further weight by evidence from the DETAIL study, which suggests that ACE inhibitors are equivalent to ARBs in delaying progression of nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, patients with hypert e nsion and documented left ventricular hypertrophy should pro b ably have losartan, based on the results of LIFE. C Combined blockade of RAS Despite the controversy over which is the best agent to use in blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), there is some evidence to suggest that use of both together can act in synerg y and have increased beneficial effects. Combined use of ACE inhibition and angiotensin receptor blockade has been shown to have a number of beneficial effects in both experimental models and clinical models. Short-term clinical studies have shown that a combination of two agents at lower doses is superior in term s of blood pressure lowering to single-site RAS blockade.22,23 In h e a rt failure, the CHARM-Added study demonstrated that addi- VOLUME 12 ISSUE 2 . MARCH/APRIL 2005 tion of candesartan to an ACE inhibitor in patients with heart failure resulted in significant reductions in death due to cardiovascular disease and hospital admissions for heart failure.24 In addition, the VALIANT (Va l s a rtan in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, which studied the combined effect of valsartan and captopril on a number of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with h e a rt failure, also showed a reduction in the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure in the group receiving combination therapy.25 Similarly, clinical studies have shown greater antihypertensive and antiproteinuric effects of combined RAS blockade than either ACE inhibition or angiotensin receptor blockade alone.26 Should all diabetic patients receive an ACE inhibitor? For the small subset of patients of diabetes who do not have hypertension, cardiovascular disease or microalbuminuria, is there any case for treating these patients with ACE inhibitors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease? A small subset of the diabetic patients in the MICROHOPE study were of this phenotype and ramipril was of benefit regardless of whether or not patients were hypertensive, or had pre-existing cardiovascular disease or microalbuminuria. The numbers in each group, however, were small, with wide confidence intervals, and widespread treatment with ACE inhibition for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes is not common practice. Controlling hypertension and reducing risk using statin therapy have been shown to be more effective strategies.27 In conclusion, ACE inhibitors should be given to all type 1 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria or nephropathy, and to type 2 patients with hypertension, microalbuminuria, or existing cardiovascular disease. All diabetic patients with hypertension 133 and left ventricular hypertrophy should have an ARB such as l o s a rtan as first-line therapy. Conflict of interest C O PY R M IG H R TM EP R ED O IN D E U W C S TI ( O C N A PR RD O IO H LO IB G IT Y ED ) 1. Wingard DL, Barrett-Connor EL, Scheidt-Nave C, McPhillips JB. P revalence of cardiovascular and renal complications in older adults with n o rmal or impaired glucose tolerance or NIDDM. A population-based study. Diabetes Care 1993;16:1022-5. 2. Lee WL, Cheung AM, Cape D, Zinman B. Impact of diabetes on coronary a rt e ry disease in women and men: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Diabetes Care 2000;23: 9 6 2 - 8 . 3. Trevisan R, Vi b e rti G. Diabetic Nephropathy. In: Turner HE, Wass JAH (eds). Oxford textbook of endocrinology and diabetes, 1st edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 4. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP et al., for the Collaborative Study Group. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. N Engl J Med 1 9 9 3 ;329:1456-62. 5. St John Sutton M, Pfeffer MA, Moye L et al. Cardiovascular death and left ventricular remodeling two years after myocardial infarction: baseline predictors and impact of long-term use of captopril: information from the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) trial. Circulation 1997; 96: 3 2 9 4 - 9 . 6. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators. Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocard i a l infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. Lancet 1993;342: 8 2 1 - 8 8 . 7. ISIS-4 (Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. ISIS-4: a randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1 9 9 5 ;345: 6 6 9 - 8 5 . 8. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J et al. for the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. Effects of an angiotensin-convertingenzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2000;342: 1 4 5 - 5 3 . 9. Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study Investigators. E ffects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet 2 0 0 0 ;355: 2 5 3 - 9 . 10. The EURopean trial On reduction of cardiac events with Perindopril in stable coronary Art e ry disease investigators. Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary a rt e ry disease: randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 2 0 0 3 ;362:782-8. 11. Daly CA, Foxc KM, Remme WJ et al. The effects of perindopril on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the EUROPA study: Results from the PERSUADE substudy. Eur Heart J 2005; (in press). LI References IT E D CM and GM – none. MF has served on advisory panels for Aventis plus received speaker's fees from Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Synthélabo, Servier, and Takeda. AB has received research grants from AstraZeneca UK, Merck Sharp & Dohme UK, and Boehringer Ingelheim Germany, plus served on speakers' bureau/advisory boards for AstraZeneca UK, Merck Sharp & Dohme UK, Pfizer UK, Bristol-Myers Squibb UK, Bayer Germany, Sanofi UK, and Servier France. 12. The PEACE Trial Investigators. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in stable coro n a ry art e ry disease. N Engl J Med 2 0 0 4 ;351:2058-68. 13. McDougall C, Fisher M. Prevention of diabetes in cardiovascular studies: implications for the aetiology of type 2 diabetes. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis 2002;2:384-9. 14. Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE et al. for the LIFE study group. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002;359: 9 9 5 - 1 0 0 3 . 15. Lindholm LH, Ibsen H, Dahlof B et al. for the LIFE study group. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with diabetes in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2 0 0 2 ;359:1004-10. 16. Parving H-H, Lehnert H, Brochner- M o rtensen et al. for the Irbesartan in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Microalbuminuria Study Group. The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2 0 0 1 ;345:870-8. 17. Vi b e rti G, Wheeldon NM; MicroAlbuminuria Reduction With VALsartan (MARVAL) Study Investigators. Microalbuminuria reduction with valsartan in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a blood pressure-independent effect. Circulation 2002;106: 6 7 2 - 8 . 18. Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR et al. for the Collaborative Study Group. Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2 0 0 1 ;345: 8 5 1 - 6 0 . 19. Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D et al. for the RENAAL Study Investigators. Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2 0 0 1 ;345: 861-9. 20. B a rnett AH, Bain SC, Bouter P et al. For the Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan and Enalapril Study Group. Angiotensin-receptor blockade versus converting-enzyme inhibition in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 2 0 0 4 ;351: 1 9 5 2 - 6 1 . 21. Strippoli GF, Craig M, Deeks JJ, Schena FP, Craig JC. Effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists on mortality and renal outcomes in diabetic nephropathy: systematic review. BMJ 2 0 0 4 ;329:828-31. 22. Azizi M, Linhart A, Alexander J et al. Pilot study of combined blockade of the renin-angiotensin system in essential hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 2000;18:1139-47. 23. Mogensen CE, Neldam S, Tikkanen I et al. Randomised controlled trial of dual blockade of renin-angiotensin system in patients with hypertension, microalbuminuria, and non-insulin dependent diabetes: the Candesartan And Lisinopril Microalbuminuria (CALM) Study. BMJ 2000;321:1440-4. 24. M c M u rray JJ, Osterg ren J, Swedberg K et al. for the CHARM Investigators and Committees. Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced left-ventricular systolic function taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors: the CHARM-Added trial. Lancet 2 0 0 3 ;362:767-71. 25. Pfeffer MA, McMurray JJ, Velazquez EJ et al. for the Va l s a rtan in Acute Myocardial Infarction Trial Investigators. Va l s a rtan, captopril or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction or both. N Engl J Med 2 0 0 3 ;349: 1 8 9 3 - 9 0 6 . 26. Azizi M, Menard J. Combined blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type 1 receptors antagonists. Circulation 2 0 0 4 ;109:2492-9. 27. Marshall G, McDougall C, Brady A, Fisher M. Should all diabetic patients receive a statin? Results from recent trials. Br J Cardiol 2 0 0 4 ;11: 4 5 5 - 6 0 . 134 THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
© Copyright 2024