Safety, tolerability, and outcomes of losartan use in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies on the use of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System blockade in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been informative but conflicting, and prospective studies are required to demonstrate the safety, tolerability, and outcomes of initiating these agents in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hypertension. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is a single center feasibility study encompassing two cohorts: (1) prospective cohort (April 21, 2020 to May 29, 2020) and (2) retrospective cohort (March 7, 2020 to April 1, 2020) of hospitalized patients with real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal swab. Key inclusion criteria include BP > 130/80 and a requirement of supplemental oxygen with FiO2 of 25% or higher to maintain SpO2 > 92%. Key exclusion criteria included hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury (AKI) at the time of enrollment. Prospective cohort consisted of de novo initiation of losartan and continuation for a minimum of 7 days and assessed for adverse events (AKI, hyperkalemia, transaminitis, hypotension) and clinical outcomes (change in SpO2/FiO2 and inflammatory markers, need for ICU admission and mechanical ventilation). Retrospective cohort consisted of continuation of losartan (prior-to-hospitalization) and assessment of similar outcomes. In the prospective cohort, a total of 250 hospitalized patients were screened and inclusion/exclusion criteria were met in 16/250 patients and in the retrospective cohort, a total of 317 hospitalized patients were screened and inclusion/exclusion criteria were met in 14/317 patients. Most common adverse event was hypotension, leading to discontinuation in 3/16 (19%) and 2/14 (14%) patients in the prospective and retrospective cohort. No patients developed AKI in the prospective cohort as compared to 1/14 (7%) patients in the retrospective cohort, requiring discontinuation of losartan. Hyperkalemia occurred in 1/16 (6%) and 0/14 patients in the prospective and retrospective cohorts, respectively. In the prospective cohort, 3/16 (19%) and 2/16 (13%) patients required ICU admission and mechanical ventilation. In comparison, 3/14 (21%) required ICU admission and mechanical ventilation in the retrospective cohort. A majority of patients in both cohorts (14/16 (88%) and 13/14 (93%) patients from the prospective and retrospective cohort) were discharged alive from the hospital. A total of 9/16 (prospective) and 5/14 (retrospective) patients completed a minimum 7 days of losartan. In these 9 patients in the prospective cohort, a significant improvement in SpO2/FiO2 ratio was observed from day 1 to 7. No significant changes in inflammatory markers (initiation, peak, and day 7) were observed in either cohort. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study we demonstrate that losartan was well-tolerated among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and hypertension. We also demonstrate the feasibility of patient recruitment and the appropriate parameters to assess the outcomes and safety of losartan initiation or continuation, which provides a framework for future randomized clinical trials.

Effects of sacubutril/valsartan on nutritional status in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition commonly occurs in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sacubitril/valsartan, which is an AT1 neprilysin inhibitor, has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization in patients with HFrEF. However, its effects on nutritional status remain unclear. METHODS: Sacubitril/valsartan was initiated in 164 symptomatic patients with HFrEF receiving an optimal medical treatment with angiotensin inhibition (mean age: 63 ±â€Š20 years; 120 males, 60% ischemic cause). The New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and nutritional statuses of the patients were evaluated at the switching to AT1 neprilysin inhibitor and at the 6th-month follow-up of the maximum sacubitril/valsartan dose using the geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI), controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score, prognostic nutritional index (PNI), and prealbumin. RESULTS: After the sacubutril/valsartan treatment, a significant reduction in the number (%) of malnourished patients was observed according to CONUT (before 47% vs. after 7%, P < 0.001), GNRI (before 39% vs. after 19%, P < 0.001), PNI scores (before 36% vs. after 12%, P = 0.002), and prealbumin (before 41% vs. after 12%, P < 0.001). Also significant changes were observed at the baseline and follow-up in the mean scores of the three different nutritional indexes and prealbumin levels [CONUT: 2.68 ±â€Š2.5, 1.02 ±â€Š1.0 (P < 0.001); GNRI: 97.1 ±â€Š9.7, 101.2 ±â€Š5.9 (P < 0.001); PNI: 38.8 ±â€Š4.8, 41.6 ±â€Š3.7 (P < 0.001); prealbumin: 14.6 ±â€Š6.9 mg/dl, 17.1 ±â€Š5.2 mg/dl (P < 0.001)]. Overall, the patients exhibited a significant functional improvement following the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan: 23% of the patients improved by two NYHA classes, 48% improved by one NYHA class, and 39% remained stable. CONCLUSION: In patients with HFrEF, the switch from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker therapy to sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a significant improvement in both nutritional and functional statuses.

Upward Shift and Steepening of the Blood Pressure Response to Exercise in Hypertensive Subjects at High Altitude.

BACKGROUND: Acute exposure to high-altitude hypobaric hypoxia induces a blood pressure rise in hypertensive humans, both at rest and during exercise. It is unclear whether this phenomenon reflects specific blood pressure hyperreactivity or rather an upward shift of blood pressure levels. We aimed at evaluating the extent and rate of blood pressure rise during exercise in hypertensive subjects acutely exposed to high altitude, and how these alterations can be counterbalanced by antihypertensive treatment. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-five subjects with mild hypertension, double-blindly randomized to placebo or to a fixed-dose combination of an angiotensin-receptor blocker (telmisartan 80 mg) and a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine slow release 30 mg), performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test at sea level and after the first night's stay at 3260 m altitude. High-altitude exposure caused both an 8 mm Hg upward shift (P<0.01) and a 0.4 mm Hg/mL/kg per minute steepening (P<0.05) of the systolic blood pressure/oxygen consumption relationship during exercise, independent of treatment. Telmisartan/nifedipine did not modify blood pressure reactivity to exercise (blood pressure/oxygen consumption slope), but downward shifted (P<0.001) the relationship between systolic blood pressure and oxygen consumption by 26 mm Hg, both at sea level and at altitude. Muscle oxygen delivery was not influenced by altitude exposure but was higher on telmisartan/nifedipine than on placebo (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive subjects exposed to high altitude, we observed a hypoxia-driven upward shift and steepening of the blood pressure response to exercise. The effect of the combination of telmisartan/nifedipine slow release outweighed these changes and was associated with better muscle oxygen delivery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01830530.

Chinese herbal medicine Shenzhuo Formula treatment in patients with macroalbuminuria secondary to diabetic kidney disease: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a serious complication associated with diabetes mellitus and can cause end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is widely used in China to treat DKD, and in particular microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria. This study will address the efficacy and safety of Shenzhuo Formula (SZF), a frequently prescribed TCM, in DKD patients with macroalbuminuria. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a 24-week, randomized, multi-center, double-blinded, double-dummy, controlled, clinical trial that will include 120 DKD patients aged 18 to 80 years old with a 24-h urinary protein (24-h UP) level of between 0.5 g and 3 g and serum creatinine (SCr) ≤ 133 µmol/L (1.5 mg/dL) and compare SZF to irbesartan. The 24-h UP change from baseline to week 24 will represent the primary endpoint with secondary endpoints including SCr, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), TCM symptoms, urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), etc. Safety assessments will also be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This study will provide initial evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of SZF relative to irbesartan in the treatment of DKD patients with macroalbuminuria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ChiCTR-ICR-15006311 . Registered on 15 April 2015.

Future drug discovery in renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs), including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), are the cornerstone for the treatment of cardiovascular and renal diseases. Areas covered: The authors searched MEDLINE, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify eligible full-text English language papers. Herein, the authors discuss AT2-receptor agonists and ACE2/angiotensin-(1-7)/Mas-receptor axis modulators, direct renin inhibitors, brain aminopeptidase A inhibitors, biased AT1R blockers, chymase inhibitors, multitargeted drugs, vaccines and aldosterone receptor antagonists as well as aldosterone synthase inhibitors. Expert opinion: Preclinical studies have demonstrated that activation of the protective axis of the RAAS represents a novel therapeutic strategy for treating cardiovascular and renal diseases, but there are no clinical trials supporting our expectations. Non-steroidal MRAs might become the third-generation of MRAs for the treatment of heart failure, diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. The main challenge for these new drugs is that conventional RAASIs are safe, effective and cheap generics. Thus, the future of new RAASIs will be directed by economical/strategic reasons.

Rationale and design of the Helping Ease Renal failure with Bupi Yishen compared with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (HERBAAL) trial: a randomized controlled trial in non-diabetes stage 4 chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health problem. Currently, as for advanced CKD populations, medication options limited in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), which were partially effective. A Chinese herbal compound, Bupi Yishen formula, has showed renal protective potential in experiments and retrospective studies. This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bupi Yishen formula (BYF) in patients with CKD stage 4. DESIGN: In this double blind, double dummy, randomized controlled trial (RCT), there will be 554 non-diabetes stage 4 CKD patients from 16 hospitals included and randomized into two groups: Chinese medicine (CM) group or losartan group. All patients will receive basic conventional therapy. Patients in CM group will be treated with BYF daily while patients in control group will receive losartan 100 mg daily for one year. The primary outcome is the change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of endpoint events, liver and kidney function, urinary protein creatinine ratio, cardiovascular function and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first multi-center, double blind RCT to assess whether BYF, compared with losartan, will have beneficial effects on eGFR for non-diabetes stage 4 CKD patients. The results will help to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Number: ChiCTR-TRC-10001518 .

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy of high-dose losartan and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of high-dose losartan (100 mg/day) and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ, 12.5 mg/day) compared with those of the combination of high-dose telmisartan (80 mg/day) and HCTZ (12.5 mg/day). METHODS: Forty hypertensive patients who received a combination of high-dose telmisartan and HCTZ were enrolled. We applied a changeover strategy with switching from a combination of high-dose telmisartan and HCTZ to high-dose losartan and HCTZ. We divided the patients into two groups; those who achieved the target blood pressure (controlled group) and those who did not reach the target blood pressure (uncontrolled group) before the changeover and performed further analysis. RESULTS: The uncontrolled group showed a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (143±12 mmHg to 126±11 mmHg at three months). In addition, serum uric acid significantly decreased in all subjects, and in each of the controlled and uncontrolled groups. There were no significant changes in other biochemical parameters, such as potassium and hemoglobin A1c, at three months after the changeover in all subjects. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with high-dose losartan and HCTZ was superior to the combination of telmisartan and HCTZ with respect to significant decreases in systolic blood pressure and serum uric acid in hypertensive patients.

A randomized, open-label, dose-response study of losartan in hypertensive children.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Once-daily losartan reduces BP in a dose-dependent manner and is well tolerated in hypertensive children aged 6-16 years. This study assessed the dose-response relationship, safety, and tolerability of losartan in hypertensive children aged 6 months to 6 years. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This was a 12-week, randomized, open-label, dose-ranging study, with a 2-year extension. Patients were randomized to losartan at the following dosages: 0.1 mg/kg per day (low), 0.3 mg/kg per day (medium), or 0.7 mg/kg per day (high). Losartan was titrated to the next dose level (to a 1.4 mg/kg per day maximum dosage, not exceeding 100 mg/d, which was not one of the three original doses offered at randomization) at weeks 3, 6, and 9 for patients who did not attain their goal BP and were not taking the highest dose. Dose response was evaluated by analyzing the slope of change in sitting systolic BP (SBP; primary end point) and diastolic BP (DBP; secondary end point) after 3 weeks compared with baseline. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout. RESULTS: Of the 101 patients randomized, 99 were included in the analysis (low dose, n=32; medium dose, n=34; and high dose, n=33). Mean sitting BP decreased from baseline in the low-, medium-, and high-dose groups by 7.3, 7.6, and 6.7 mmHg, respectively, for SBP and 8.2, 5.1, and 6.7 mmHg, respectively, for DBP after 3 weeks. No dose-response relationship was established by the slope analysis on SBP (P=0.75) or DBP (P=0.64). The BP-lowering effect was observed throughout the 2-year extension. The incidence of AEs was low and comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive children aged 6 months to 6 years treated with losartan 0.1-0.7 mg/kg per day had clinically significant decreases from baseline in SBP and DBP, yet no dose-response relationship was evident. Losartan, at a dosage up to 1.4 mg/kg per day, was well tolerated.

Comprehensive overview: efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of irbesartan.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension represents a major health problem, affecting more than one billion adults worldwide. Irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, is considered to be a highly effective treatment in the management of hypertension. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability profile, and cost-effectiveness of treatment with irbesartan in hypertension. METHODS: A review of the literature was conducted using the electronic PubMed and Cochrane Library databases and the Health Economic Evaluations Database of search terms relating to irbesartan efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness, and the results were utilized. RESULTS: Findings from the present analysis show that irbesartan either as monotherapy or in combination with other antihypertensive agents can achieve significant reductions in blood pressure, both systolic and diastolic, compared with alternative treatment options. Irbesartan was also found to have a renoprotective effect independent of its blood pressure-lowering in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Furthermore, irbesartan demonstrated an excellent safety and tolerability profile, with either lower or equal adverse events compared with placebo and other alternative treatments. In terms of economic analyses, compared with other antihypertensive therapy alternatives, irbesartan was found to be a preferred option, that is less costly and more effective. CONCLUSION: The evidence indicates that treating patients with hypertension alone or with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy using irbesartan can control hypertension, prolong life, and reduce costs in relation to existing alternatives.

Long-term safety and efficacy of telmisartan/amlodipine single pill combination in the treatment of hypertension.

The use of multiple drug regimens is increasingly recognized as a tacit requirement for the management of hypertension, a necessity fueled in part by rising rates of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. By targeting complementary pathways, combinations of antihypertensive drugs can be applied to provide effective blood pressure control while minimizing side effects and reducing exposure to high doses of individual medications. In addition, combination therapies, including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), have the added benefit of reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity over other dual therapies while providing equivalent blood pressure control. It is possible that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which unlike ACE inhibitors are minimally affected by upregulation of alternative pathways for angiotensin II accumulation following long-term treatment, would also provide such outcome benefits. At issue, however, is maintaining patient compliance, as adding medications is known to reduce adherence to treatment regimens. The purpose of this review is to summarize existing trial data for the long-term safety and efficacy of a recent addition to the armamentarium of dual-antihypertensive therapeutic options, the telmisartan/amlodipine single pill combination. The areas where long-term data are lacking, notably clinical information regarding minorities and women, will also be discussed.

Anemia in kidney transplants without erythropoietic agents: levels of erythropoietin and iron parameters.

AIM: To study the association between hemoglobin, endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) levels and ferric parameters in kidney recipients not treated with EPO-stimulating agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Transverse study of 219 kidney transplant outpatients. The median time after transplantation was 54 months (P(25-75), 23-107). We assessed blood counts, ferric parameters, EPO levels, renal function (MDRD-4), and adjuvant treatment. We performed a linear regression analysis to predict hemoglobin. RESULTS: Median EPO values were 14.05 mUI/mL (P(25-75) = 10.2-19.7). Applying the formulas described by Beguin, kidney transplant recipients showed a low observed/expected ratio of erythropoietin and of transferrin. Considering anemia to be an hemoglobin of < 12 g/dL in women and < 13 g/dL in men, 24.2% of subjects were anemic (n = 53), including 2.3% with hemoglobin < 11 g/dL. Anemic patients displayed worse renal function (49.2 ± 18.5 versus 55.46 ± 16.58 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in nonanemic; P = .021). There were no differences in C-reactive protein. The patients receiving a combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) showed the highest prevalence of anemia compared with other groups (42.9%, P = .027). EPO levels were significantly lower among patients treated with these drugs (P = .041), without differences in transferrin and ferritin. The percentage of anemic patients treated with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) was 31% versus 22.2% among those not receiving these immunosuppressants (P = .23). Although there were no differences in hemoglobin levels, patients treated with mTORi, showed higher EPO levels (P = .005) and lower mean corpuscular volume (P < .001). Regarding the etiology of chronic kidney disease, less frequently anemic patients were those with polycystic kidney disease (8.6% versus 26.7% in the rest, P = .021). The formula obtained by multiple linear regression to calculate hemoglobin was: hemoglobin = 11829-0909 log (EPG level) - 0455 (if female) + 0.010 0.013 transferrin + 0.013 creatinine clearance (r = .424, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ACEI and/or ARBs seemed to produce a defect in the synthesis of EPO, while those treated with mTORi, a hyporesponsive state.

Renal protection of losartan 50 mg in normotensive Chinese patients with nondiabetic chronic kidney disease.

AIMS: Nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the leading major cause of end-stage renal disease in developing countries including China. Among the 5 stages of CKD, it is critical to retard the progression of stage 3 because renal disorder could accelerate aggravation behind that stage. Data suggest that high dosages of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could retard the progression of renal disease in hypertensive and/or diabetic patients. Nevertheless, in daily practice of nephrology, quite a number of nondiabetic patients with CKD who are normotensive do not tolerate even moderate dosages of ARBs because of adverse effects such as systemic hypotension, epically for Chinese patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the renoprotective effects of relatively low dosages of ARBs in normotensive Chinese patients with nondiabetic stage 3 CKD. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, parallel-group, open-label study was performed over a period of 12 months. A total of 238 enrolled patients were randomly allocated to treatment with losartan 50 mg (n = 119) or placebo (n = 119). All patients were followed up at 2-month intervals. At each visit, blood pressure was measured, and urinalysis and serum biochemistry tests were performed. RESULTS: Finally, 112 patients given losartan and 114 patients given placebo completed the study. In the losartan group, there was a significant and biphasic time-dependent decline in proteinuria during therapy (1.72 ± 0.47 to 0.99 ± 0.48 g/d; P < 0.001). Conversely, placebo did not simultaneously change the amount of proteinuria (1.73 ± 0.49 to 1.64 ± 0.50 g/d; P = 0.337). Estimated glomerular filtration rate remained stable during the entire study period in the patients given losartan (44.8 ± 8.1 to 44.1 ± 7.7 mL/min per 1.73 m; P = 0.120) but were significantly reduced in the placebo group (44.5 ± 8.5 to 39.1 ± 7.4 mL/min per 1.73 m, P < 0.001). The changes in blood pressure were kept constant in the 2 groups. All adverse events were minimal and nonfatal. CONCLUSIONS: For normotensive patients with nondiabetic stage 3 CKD, therapy with a daily dose of losartan, 50 mg, may perform effective renoprotection without changing blood pressure and be generally safe and well tolerated.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose amlodipine/losartan and losartan in hypertensive patients inadequately controlled with losartan: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combination drugs may enhance blood pressure (BP) goal attainment through complementary effects and reduced side effects, which leads to better compliance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of once-daily combination amlodipine/losartan versus losartan. METHODS: This was an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase III study conducted in outpatient hospital clinics. Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg were administered amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination versus losartan 100 mg. The main outcome measures were changes in sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and sitting systolic blood pressure (SBP) and BP response rate from baseline values, which were assessed after 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: At week 8, both groups achieved significant reductions from baseline in DBP (11.7 ± 7.0 and 3.2 ± 7.9 mmHg), which was significantly greater in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination (n = 70) group (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg combination group achieved significantly greater reductions in SBP at week 8 and in SBP and DBP at week 4 compared with the losartan 100 mg (n = 72) group (all p < 0.0001). Response rates were significantly higher in the amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg group versus the losartan 100 mg group (81.4% vs 63.9% at week 4, p < 0.0192; 90.0% vs 66.7% at week 8, p < 0.001). Both treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Switching to a fixed-dose combination therapy of amlodipine/losartan 5 mg/100 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in BP and superior achievement of BP goals compared with a maintenance dose of losartan 100 mg in Korean patients with essential hypertension inadequately controlled on losartan 100 mg. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at Clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00940680.

Hyperkalemia associated with use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers.

The aims of this article are to review the current understanding of hyperkalemia associated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy. This includes reviewing the pathophysiology of how these agents affect potassium handling within the kidney, risk factors for developing hyperkalemia, incidence, clinical signs and symptoms, and providing a practical approach to treatment of the patient who is either at risk of, or experiencing, hyperkalemia. ACEi and ARB are effective therapeutic agents used in a variety of clinical scenarios. However, related to their effects on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, their use can be associated with hyperkalemia, particularly in patients who have chronic renal insufficiency. Published incidence estimates of hyperkalemia associated with ACEi or ARB vary, but up to 10% of patients may experience at least mild hyperkalemia. Important considerations when initiating ACEi or ARB therapy include obtaining an estimate of glomerular filtration rate and a baseline serum potassium concentration, as well as assessing whether the patient has excessive potassium intake from diet, supplements, or drugs that can also increase serum potassium. Serum potassium monitoring shortly after initiation of therapy can assist in preventing hyperkalemia. If hyperkalemia does develop, prompt recognition of cardiac dysrhythmias and effective treatment to antagonize the cardiac effects of potassium, redistribute potassium into cells, and remove excess potassium from the body is important.Understanding the mechanism of action of ACEi and ARB coupled with judicious drug use and clinical vigilance can minimize the risk to the patient of developing hyperkalemia. Should hyperkalemia occur, prompt recognition and management can optimize clinical outcome.

Safety and efficacy of administering the maximal dose of candesartan in renal transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The regular dose of an angiotensin II type-1 receptor blocker (ARB) in renal transplant patients for hypertension is shown to be safe and effective; however, information on the appropriate dosing of ARBs in renal transplant patients is limited. We evaluate the efficacy and safety of the maximal dose of candesartan administered to renal transplant patients. METHODS: Sixty-nine recipients were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into three groups based on the basal dose of candesartan: patients not taking candesartan (Group A); patients taking a low to medium dose of candesartan (2-4 mg/day; Group B); and patients taking a high dose of candesartan (8 mg/day; Group C). During the course of the study, the dose of candesartan was gradually increased to a final dose of 12 mg/day. Physiological and biochemical parameters were measured before and after the 12-month study period. RESULTS: Ninety-one percent of patients succeeded in continuing their administration of candesartan for 1 year and 75% tolerated the administration of the maximal dose of candesartan. Significant differences in proteinuria, albuminuria, serum creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) level among the groups were detected. In Group A, candesartan reduced systolic blood pressure, decreased the levels of proteinuria, albuminuria, eGFR, and hemoglobin and increased plasma potassium, creatinine level, and plasma renin activity. CONCLUSION: The gradual increase of an ARB to its maximal dose in renal transplant patients is safe when carefully monitored. We were able to demonstrate the impact of maximal renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade on both proteinuria and albuminuria, which indicates the need for future, long-term randomized prospective trials to further establish the impact of maximal RAS blockade on renal and cardiovascular protection in transplant patients.

Combination therapy for hypertension: focus on high-dose olmesartan medoxomil (40 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide.

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Cardiovascular disease is a major cause of premature death and disability worldwide, and effective blood pressure (BP) control is crucial for the reduction of cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension. Despite this, many will fail to attain recommended BP goals. A reappraisal of European guidelines led to revised recommendations for BP reduction to values within the SBP/DBP range of 130 - 139/80 - 85 mmHg in all patients with hypertension, including higher-risk groups such as those with diabetes. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: The majority of hypertensive patients will require the enhanced blood-pressure-lowering effects of at least two antihypertensive drugs with complementary mechanisms of action to achieve these goals. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: The angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) olmesartan medoxomil and the thiazide diuretic hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) provide greater antihypertensive efficacy when used in combination than as monotherapy with either component, with a similar tolerability profile. In addition, there is evidence that higher doses of olmesartan may prolong the antihypertensive effect of this ARB, and a number of US 'treat-to-target' and European add-on clinical trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of high-dose olmesartan plus HCTZ in a wide range of patients with mild-to-severe hypertension. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Combination therapy with olmesartan, including the high 40-mg dose, plus HCTZ is an effective and safe treatment option for controlling BP in patients with mild-to-severe hypertension, particularly those who fail to achieve recommended BP goals with monotherapy.

Efficacy of fixed-dose combination therapy in the treatment of patients with hypertension: focus on amlodipine/valsartan.

Early initiation of rational and effective combination therapy consisting of antihypertensive drugs with two different and complementary mechanisms of actions is increasingly becoming accepted in clinical practice and by guidelines as a first-line approach to control blood pressure (BP) and prevent cardiovascular outcomes in patients with hypertension. Once-daily combination therapy provides more rapid control of BP, which is important for preventing cardiovascular events, with similar or improved tolerability compared with the component monotherapies, and improved adherence because of regimen simplification. Combination therapy with a calcium channel antagonist (calcium channel blocker [CCB]) and an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is a rational approach to achieve BP goals and provide protection against renal and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. A number of CCB/RAAS inhibitor combinations, including CCB/angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and CCB/ angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist (angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]) combinations are available as fixed-dose formulations. There is substantial evidence for the BP-lowering efficacy of CCB/RAAS inhibitor combinations in diverse patient populations, and their use in combination is associated with favourable tolerability and fewer adverse metabolic effects than some other combination therapies. Recent evidence from large outcome trials supports the use of CCB/RAAS inhibitor combinations for reducing the risk of cardiovascular and renal events, particularly in high-risk patients, together with evidence that the benefits of CCB/RAAS inhibitor combinations may extend beyond their efficacy in lowering BP in terms of protecting against fatal and nonfatal stroke, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular-related deaths. The efficacy of the CCB amlodipine and the ARB valsartan in lowering BP and protecting against cardiovascular events and stroke across a range of hypertensive patient populations has been established over many years. Fixed-dose amlodipine/valsartan combinations are available in many countries and have shown greater BP reductions and better BP control than the respective monotherapies in diverse patient populations, together with a favourable tolerability profile. Once-daily amlodipine/valsartan is a rational and convenient treatment option for the effective management of patients with hypertension, improving adherence to antihypertensive medication and protecting against cardiovascular and renal morbidity and mortality.

Special considerations for antihypertensive agents in dialysis patients.

Hypertension is present in most patients with end-stage renal disease and likely contributes to the premature cardiovascular disease in dialysis patients. Previous practice guidelines have recommended that, in patients on chronic dialysis, blood pressure (BP) should be reduced below 130/80 mm Hg. This is based on opinions but not strong evidence, since no concrete information exists about which BP values should be the parameter to follow and which should be the target BP values. The majority of the antihypertensive agents can be used in this population, but the pharmacokinetics altered by the impaired kidney function and dialyzability influence the appropriate dosage as well as the time and frequency of administration. Combination therapy using multiple agents is often necessary. Because of the prevalence of overactivity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic tone as well as the high calcium influx in vascular smooth muscle cells in dialysis patients, drugs acting in these three specific systems may potentially have additional cardioprotective benefits beyond their BP-lowering effect. Thus, antihypertensive regimens should preferably be based on these classes of drugs, alone or in combination. Other antihypertensive drug classes can play a complementary role.