[Angiotensin-II receptor inhibitors in hemodialysed uremia patients with arterial hypertension: candesartan cilexitil versus losartan]. / Inibitori recettoriali dell'angiotensina II in pazienti uremici emodializzati con ipertensione arteriosa: candesartan cilexitil versus losartan.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate, in patients with chronic renal failure in hemodialysis and arterial hypertension, the effectiveness of a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist, the candesartan cilexitil, comparing it with losartan, the first of this new class of drugs. METHODS: We have selected 128 patients with chronic renal failure (92 males and 36 females, mean age 56 +/- 6 years) and arterial hypertension, subjected to hemodialysis 3 times a week, with hemodialytic seniority of 90 +/- 10 months. The inclusion criteria in the study were given from the presence, after 15 days of pharmacological wash-out, of values of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or = 95 mmHg and systolic blood pressure (SBP) > or = 150 mmHg, despite a hemodialysis correctly performed. Patients were divided into two groups whether they received single blind randomized candesartan cilexitil 16 mg or losartan 50 mg at hour 8.00 for a period of 8 weeks at the end of which, after a period of pharmacological wash-out of 15 days, the drugs were administered to inverted groups for other 8 weeks. After 4 and 8 weeks of treatment an evaluation of the anti-hypertensive effectiveness by means of medical complete visit and measurement of blood pressure were made. The statistical analysis was made by means of Student's t test for paired data. RESULTS: All the patients concluded the study. After 4 weeks of treatment SBP and DBP were reduced in the group with candesartan cilexitil with regard to baseline values (SBP 151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 93.6 +/- 4.5 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05). In the losartan group (SBP 151.8 +/- 6.3 vs 158.7 +/- 5.5 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 93.6 +/- 4.5 vs 97.5 +/- 3.8 mmHg, p < 0.05) no significant reduction in blood pressure values was observed compared with baseline values (SBP 158.7 +/- 5.5 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, NS; DBP 97.5 +/- 3.8 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, NS). After 8 weeks of treatment in the candesartan cilexitil group (SBP 128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05) and in the losartan group (SBP 151.7 +/- 5.1 vs 159.8 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 92.7 +/- 3.9 vs 98.1 +/- 3.7 mmHg, p < 0.05) blood pressure values were reduced in the same manner as at baseline. By comparing the two drugs, candesartan cilexitil proved to have a better antihypertensive effectiveness (SBP 128.3 +/- 5.9 vs 151.7 +/- 5.1 mmHg, p < 0.05; DBP 81.5 +/- 4.1 vs 92.7 +/- 3.9 mmHg, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that angiotensin II receptor antagonists may be a therapeutic remarkable option in patients with chronic renal failure in hemodialysis and arterial hypertension; the antihypertensive effect seems to be class-specific. Nevertheless, at least for our data, a better and more rapid antihypertensive results was obtained with candesartan cilexitil.