Angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor blockers and renal function.

Blood pressure reduction is the most significant factor in delaying onset and progression of renal disease. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) delays renal disease progression. More recently, agents that block the RAS by preventing angiotensin II from binding to its subtype 1 receptor (ARBs) have been developed in an effort to prevent deleterious consequences of pathologic levels of angiotensin II and to reduce the adverse effects of RAS blockade associated with ACEIs. Human studies with a variety of ARBs have clearly demonstrated the antihypertensive and antiproteinuric efficacy of these agents in patients with progressive renal diseases. Moreover, the effects of ARBs are similar or identical to those of ACEIs. Ongoing long-term clinical trials are designed to determine whether ARBs also preserve renal function similar to ACEIs. Specifically, the role of ARBs in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes is being evaluated in 3 large trials, including Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes-Part 2 With Valsartan, the Losartan Renal Protection Study, and the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial. Definitive evidence of the long-term protective effects of ARBs in chronic progressive renal disease is expected from these important studies.     

Type 2 diabetes: RENAAL and IDNT--the emergence of new treatment options

The Reduction in End Points in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study and the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) are two recently reported trials with hard end points, conducted in patients in advanced stages of diabetic nephropathy. Two other studies—the Irbesartan Microalbuminuria Study (IRMA)‐2 and the Microalbuminuria Reduction with Valsartan study (MARVAL)—were trials conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes with microalbuminuria, a cardiovascular risk factor associated with early‐stage diabetic nephropathy. These trials all had a common theme—that is, does an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) interfere with the natural history of diabetic nephropathy in a blood pressure‐independent fashion? Without question, the results of these trials legitimatize the use of the ARB class in forestalling the deterioration in renal function, which is almost inevitable in the patient with untreated diabetic nephropathy. These data can now be added to the vast array of evidence supporting angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use in patients with nephropathy associated with type 1 diabetes. It now appears a safe conclusion that the patient with diabetic nephropathy should receive therapy with an agent that interrupts the renin‐angiotensin system. These studies have not resolved the question as to whether an ACE inhibitor or an ARB is the preferred agent in people with nephropathy from type 1 diabetes, though the optimal doses of these drugs remain to be determined. Head‐to‐head studies comparing ACE inhibitors to ARBs in diabetic nephropathy are not likely to occur, so it is unlikely that comparable information will be forthcoming with ACE inhibitors. An evidence‐based therapeutic approach derived from these trials would argue for ARBs to be the foundation of therapy in the patient with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.     

Targeting the renin−angiotensin signaling pathway in COVID-19: Unanswered questions,opportunities, and challenges

The role of the renin−angiotensin signaling (RAS) pathway in COVID-19 has received much attention. A central mechanism for COVID-19 pathophysiology has been proposed: imbalance of angiotensin converting enzymes (ACE)1 and ACE2 (ACE2 being the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] virus “receptor”) that results in tissue injury from angiotensin II (Ang II)-mediated signaling. This mechanism provides a rationale for multiple therapeutic approaches. In parallel, clinical data from retrospective analysis of COVID-19 cohorts has revealed that ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may be beneficial in COVID-19. These findings have led to the initiation of clinical trials using approved drugs that target the generation (ACEIs) and actions (ARBs) of Ang II. However, treatment of COVID-19 with ACEIs/ARBs poses several challenges. These include choosing appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria, dose optimization, risk of adverse effects and drug interactions, and verification of target engagement. Other approaches related to the RAS pathway might be considered, for example, inhalational administration of ACEIs/ARBs (to deliver drugs directly to the lungs) and use of compounds with other actions (e.g., activation of ACE2, agonism of MAS1 receptors, β-arrestin−based Angiotensin receptor agonists, and administration of soluble ACE2 or ACE2 peptides). Studies with animal models could test such approaches and assess therapeutic benefit. This Perspective highlights questions whose answers could advance RAS-targeting agents as mechanism-driven ways to blunt tissue injury, morbidity, and mortality of COVID-19.     

Antihypertensive,antiproteinuric therapy and myocardial infarction and stroke prevention

Proteinuria is a graded marker for kidney damage, as well as the risk for future cardiovascular events. Angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensinreceptor blockers (ARBs) reduce urinary protein excretion and slow progression of renal impairment, independent of blood pressure lowering. Both the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) and the Reduction in Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study were large, randomized, prospective studies in type 2 diabetic patients with proteinuria. There was no reduction in the incidence of myocardial infarction or stroke with the ARBs compared to placebo in either trial. A broader overview of clinical trials comparing ACEIs and ARBs with other antihypertensive drugs fails to show any substantive blood pressure-independent effects on stroke or myocardial infarction with these classes of drugs. Therefore, for cardiovascular end points (as opposed to renal end points), it may be more important that the blood pressure is reduced, rather than how the process is started.     

Clinical experience with angiotensin receptor blockers with particular reference to valsartan

The angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), are highly selective for the AT1 subtype and will block the effects of angiotensin II on peripheral vessels. Several short- and long-term studies have shown these agents to be safe and effective antihypertensive drugs. Since monotherapy of hypertension may be ineffective in lowering the blood pressure to goal, the use of an ARB, especially in combination with a diuretic or another medication, is frequently necessary to bring the blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg among people with diabetes mellitus or chronic renal failure), according to JNC 7 guidelines. Besides hypertension, the ARBs have been shown to reduce left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients. Other benefits of these medications, as well as the angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), include a decrease in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure, or hypertensive diabetic nephropathy with proteinuria. Some of the beneficial effects noted with the ACEIs and ARBs (congestive heart failure, left ventricular hypertrophy), have also been demonstrated with the use of b blockers alone and in combination with a diuretic. These drugs, i.e., b blockers, ARBs, and ACEIs, seem to exert their beneficial action through the blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. The role of this system in cardiovascular remodeling and its blockade will be discussed in this review, which will specifically summarize data with the ARB, valsartan.     

Reporting on sex-based analysis in clinical trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker efficacy

BACKGROUND:

Clinical practice recommendations for hypertension do not make recommendations specific to men or women. However, the sex hormones appear to modulate differently the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), which plays a central role in the regulation of blood pressure. Today, little is known about the effects of sex on the efficacy of therapies that antagonize the RAS, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).

OBJECTIVE:

To identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of ACEIs and ARBs in preventing major cardiovascular outcomes, determine what proportion of the trial participants were female, and evaluate whether there was any evidence of a sex difference in the efficacy of these agents.

METHODS:

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that used either ACEIs or ARBs for the treatment of hypertension.

RESULTS:

Thirteen ACEI trials and nine ARB trials were identified. Sex-specific outcome data were available in six of the ACEI trials and three of the ARB trials. These trials enrolled 74,105 patients; 39.1% were women. Seven of the nine trials indicated that ACEIs or ARBs may be slightly more beneficial in men. The magnitude of these differences, in most trials, was small.

CONCLUSIONS:

Sex-specific data are reported in 43% of large hypertension clinical trials. Review of the trials reporting sex-specific effect sizes indicates that ACEIs and ARBs may be more effective in men.     

Role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in the management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common clinical arrhythmia, and is difficult to treat. Current treatment strategies are far from optimal. Antiarrhythmic drug therapy to maintain sinus rhythm is limited by inadequate efficacy and potentially serious side effects. New areas of research include targeting the AF substrate and examining whether drugs can produce atrial structural and/or electrophysiological remodelling, and whether this results in a reduction in AF burden. There are two approaches to the treatment of AF. The first approach is cardioversion and treatment with antiarrhythmic drugs to maintain sinus rhythm. The other approach is the use of rate-controlling drugs allowing AF to persist. In both approaches, the use of anticoagulant drugs is recommended. There is an increasing interest in novel therapeutic approaches that target AF-substrate development. Recent trials suggest that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) may be useful, particularly in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, hypertension, chronic heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction. While experimental studies have shown that the pathogenic structural and electrical remodelling of the atria are prevented by inhibition of angiotensin II, the clinical potential and mechanisms of this approach are still under active investigation. The present article will discuss information pertaining to the mechanism of action and clinical use of ACEIs and ARBs in AF. It will also review the current data on the use of ACEIs and ARBs in a high-risk group of AF patients (heart failure, hypertensive with left ventricular hypertrophy, and myocardial infarction), together with the potential benefit of this class type of pharmacological therapy in direct current cardioversion and after radiofrequency catheter ablation.     

The Neurohormonal Network in the RAAS Can Bend Before Breaking

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) has evolved in humans as one of the main physiological networks by which blood pressure and blood flow to vital organs is maintained. The RAAS has evolved to circumvent life-threatening events such as hemorrhage and starvation. Although short-term activation of this system had been well suited to counteract such catastrophes of early man, excessive chronic activation of the RAAS plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of cardiovascular disease in modern man. The RAAS is an intricate network comprising a number of major organ systems (heart, kidney, and vasculature) and signaling pathways. The main protagonists are renin, angiotensinogen (Ang), angiotensin I (Ang I), angiotensin II (Ang II), and aldosterone (Aldo). The study and delineation of each of these substances has allowed modern medicine to create targets by which cardiovascular disease can be treated. The main modulators that have been synthesized in this respect are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), mineralocorticoid receptor blockers (MRBs), and direct renin inhibitors (DRIs). Over the past few decades, each of these substances has proven efficacious to varying degrees amongst a number of clinical settings. Additionally, there exists data for and against the use of these agents in combination. The use of these agents in combination poses a larger question conceptually: can excessive pharmacological inhibition of the RAAS lead to patient harm? This perspective will examine the concept of a neurohormonal inhibition ceiling in pertinent experimental and clinical trials.     

Fifteen years of LIFE (Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension)—Lessons learned for losartan: An “old dog playing good tricks”

There is an unmet need to prevent cardiovascular disease and chronic kidney disease development and progression worldwide. Losartan, the first angiotensin receptor blocker, was shown to exert significant cardioprotective and renoprotective effects in the LIFE (Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension) and RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM With the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) trials. Losartan significantly prevented stroke and decreased serum uric acid levels and the rates of new‐onset diabetes mellitus and atrial fibrillation. The present review discusses the LIFE (and its subanalyses) and RENAAL trials and the translation of their results to clinical practice. The place of losartan in the current guidelines for hypertension management is also discussed. Losartan still represents an efficacious, safe, and cost‐effective therapeutic option in patients with hypertension who have left ventricular hypertrophy. Losartan is a useful antihypertensive agent for stroke prevention and in the management of patients with chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, albuminuria, and hyperuricemia.     

Clinical update: the role of angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (Part II of II)

Almost 5 million individuals in the United States have chronic heart failure (HF), which is increasing in prevalence. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are standard therapies for HF, although more than 10% of patients with HF are unable to tolerate these agents. Furthermore, ACE inhibitors may not provide complete blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in the long term. Because angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may block the RAS more completely than ACE inhibitors and are better tolerated, several large-scale ARB trials have been performed exploring their potential role in treating patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The Losartan Heart Failure Survival Study (ELITE II) demonstrated no significant differences in morbidity and mortality between the ARB losartan and the ACE inhibitor captopril among elderly patients with HF. The Valsartan Heart Failure Trial (Val-HeFT) demonstrated reductions in hospitalizations for HF with the ARB valsartan when added to standard HF therapy, with no effect on mortality. Both trials suggested a potential negative interaction between ARB and beta-blocker therapy. The Candesartan in Heart failure-Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program demonstrated significant reductions in morbidity and mortality with the ARB candesartan in patients with HF due to systolic dysfunction, with or without ACE inhibitors and with or without beta blockers. Thus, the addition of ARBs to the treatment regimen of patients with symptomatic HF should be strongly considered.     

Angiotensin type-1 receptor blockers in heart failure

Chronic heart failure is a common condition with a poor prognosis, usually associated with poor exercise tolerance and debilitating symptoms despite optimal modern therapy. Standard therapy includes diuretics, digoxin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and beta-blockers. Despite this, many patients remain symptomatic, and interest is high as to whether the angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) would offer further advantage to a patient already receiving quadruple therapy. In addition, some patients are intolerant of ACEIs, and for this group the ARBs seem a logical choice. This article reviews the evidence for the use of ARBs as a class in heart failure concentrating on clinical recommendations and clinical needs and evidence rather than purely on statistical issues of significance in trials. The trials to date have demonstrated clearly similar hemodynamic effects to those seen with ACEIs and variety of ancillary benefits such as improvements in endothelial function, anti-thrombotic effects, and effects on neurohormonal inhibition. There is consistent evidence of a preservation of exercise tolerance when patients with heart failure are crossed over from stable ACEI therapy, and when added to ACEIs exercise tolerance appears to increase with ARBs. In terms of major outcomes, the two largest trials, Elite-II and Val-Heft, demonstrate that angiotensin receptor blockers probably have a clinical role in improving mortality and morbidity as an alternative to ACEIs in those patients unable to tolerate these agents, which remain, however, the first choice in unselected patients with heart failure. There is a worrying suggestion of a negative interaction when ARBs are added to beta-blockers, which is a reason for caution in using the ARBs, not a reason not to use beta-blockers.     

Have angiotensin receptor blockers lived up to expectations?

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were introduced after clinical trials showed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) to have extensive clinical benefits in a wide range of diseases. Consequently, it has been more difficult for clinical trials to demonstrate similar, enhanced or additive benefits of ARBs. However, ARBs were introduced with the hypothesis that they were likely a more effective method of interrupting the renin-angiotensin system and would result in enhanced outcomes. Clinical trials in high-risk vascular patients (after myocardial infarction), patients with heart failure and patients with nephropathy show the benefits of ACE inhibition. ARBs likely have similar benefits as ACEIs when used after myocardial infarction, in patients with heart failure and for management of diabetic nephropathy. However, ARBs generally remain a second-line treatment because it has been more difficult to demonstrate that ARBs prevent acute vascular events, such as myocardial infarction, together with the greater clinical trial evidence for ACE inhibition. The primary application of ACEIs over ARBs is reflected in the Canadian clinical guidelines for the management of patients with diabetes, hypertension, heart failure and following myocardial infarction. Until the completion of clinical trials, such as the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET), that examine whether ARBs have vascular protective properties similar to ACEIs, it is unlikely that the clinical guidelines will change.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis: renin-Angiotensin system inhibitors in the prevention of atrial fibrillation recurrences: an unfulfilled hope

Purpose  

To analyze the published data on the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARBs) in secondary prevention of AF. Some post-hoc analyses from trials in different clinical scenarios suggested the efficacy of ACEIs and ARBs in the prevention of new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), while their efficacy in preventing AF recurrences is notably controversial.     

Target‐organ protection with combination renin‐angiotensin‐system blockade

Pharmacologic blockade of the renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAS) has antihypertensive, anti‐atherogenic, antioxidant, and anti‐inflammatory effects. Treatment with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been demonstrated to prevent atrial fibrillation and new‐onset diabetes, and provide cardiac, cerebral, and renal protection. Combination therapy with ACEIs and ARBs, compared with monotherapy, provides enhanced reno‐ and cardioprotection, although available data indicate that combination RAS blockade may be beneficial only in select patient groups, such as those with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure (HF). In certain high‐risk patients, the use of ARBs provides comparable efficacy to that observed with ACEIs. The efficacy of these agents may stem from pleiotropic effects beyond blood pressure (BP) reduction. Several studies demonstrate achievement of clinical endpoints without significant effects on BP. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in nephropathy from type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease in the United States, and type 2 diabetes has been shown to be a myocardial infarction equivalent in regard to risk of death from a cardiovascular event. Proteinuria is a surrogate marker for renal disease progression, and although data favor both the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing proteinuria, data for renal outcomes, such as time to dialysis, only exist for the ARBs, which clearly increase the duration to dialysis. Conversely, ACE inhibitors have overwhelming data that show substantial risk reduction from cardiovascular events and death in people with type 2 diabetes. Similar data on cardiovascular risk reduction are not yet available with ARBs, although two trials of renal disease progression did have cardiovascular endpoints as secondary outcomes. There were no significant differences between the ARB and control group except for first hospitalization with heart failure, where losartan reduced the risk by 32%, but there was a trend, albeit not significant, toward reduction of myocardial infarction. The first information regarding ARB effects on cardiovascular events as primary outcomes will come from the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint (LIFE) Reduction in Hypertension study. Therefore, as of this writing, all patients with type 2 diabetes and no evidence of nephropathy, ie, proteinuria and an elevated creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL, should be placed on an ACE inhibitor for cardiovascular risk reduction. If nephropathy is present, the evidence would support an ARB for therapy in concert with a a-blocker for cardiovascular risk reduction and renoprotection.     

Angiotensin receptor blockers: evidence for preserving target organs

Hypertension is a major problem throughout the developed world. Although current antihypertensive treatment regimens reduce morbidity and mortality, patients are often noncompliant, and medications may not completely normalize blood pressure. As a result, current therapy frequently does not prevent or reverse the cardiovascular remodeling that often occurs when blood pressure is chronically elevated. Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is effective in controlling hypertension and treating congestive heart failure. Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) inhibit the activity of the RAS, but these two classes of antihypertensive medications have different mechanisms of action and different pharmacologic profiles. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors block a single pathway in the production of angiotensin II (Ang II). In addition, angiotensin I is not the only substrate for ACE. The ACE inhibitors also block the degradation of bradykinin that may have potential benefits in cardiovascular disease. Bradykinin is, however, the presumed cause of cough associated with ACE inhibitor therapy. Data from clinical trials on ACE inhibitors serve to support the involvement of the RAS in the development of cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin receptor blockers act distally in the RAS to block the Ang II type 1 (AT1) receptor selectively. Thus, ARBs are more specific agents and avoid many side effects. Experimental and clinical trials have documented the efficacy of ARBs in preserving target-organ function and reversing cardiovascular remodeling. In some instances, maximal benefit may be obtained with Ang II blockade using both ARBs and ACE inhibitors. This review describes clinical trials that document the efficacy of ARBs in protecting the myocardium, blood vessels, and renal vasculature.     

Prevention of atrial fibrillation with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to identify all randomized clinical trial data evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF), to estimate the magnitude of this effect and to identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit. BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure, vascular disease, and hypertension. Several reports suggest that they may also prevent the development of AF. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify all reports of the effect of ACEIs or ARBs on the development of AF. Eligible studies had to be randomized, controlled, parallel-design human trials of an ACEI or ARB that collected data on the development of AF. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies, which included 56,308 patients, were identified: 4 in heart failure, 3 in hypertension, 2 in patients following cardioversion for AF, and 2 in patients following myocardial infarction. Overall, ACEIs and ARBs reduced the relative risk of AF by 28% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15% to 40%, p = 0.0002). Reduction in AF was similar between the two classes of drugs (ACEI: 28%, p = 0.01; ARB: 29%, p = 0.00002) and was greatest in patients with heart failure (relative risk reduction [RRR] = 44%, p = 0.007). Overall, there was no significant reduction in AF in patients with hypertension (RRR = 12%, p = 0.4), although one trial found a significant 29% reduction in patients with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. In patients following cardioversion, there appears to be a large effect (48% RRR), but the confidence limits are wide (95% CI 21% to 65%). CONCLUSIONS: Both ACEIs and ARBs appear to be effective in the prevention of AF. This benefit appears to be limited to patients with systolic left ventricular dysfunction or LV hypertrophy. The use of these drugs following cardioversion appears promising but requires further study.     

Therapeutic trials comparing angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and Angiotensin II receptor blockers

Two independent pharmacologic methods of specifically interfering with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system have been brought to the marketplace: angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). These agents have the potential not only to be very widely used for a broad variety of clinical indications but also to compete against each other as treatments for hypertension, heart failure, renal impairment, and other conditions. Many short-term comparative studies of these two classes of drugs have now been completed. Most have focused on surrogate endpoints, such as blood pressure, renal function, or cough. These studies have generally concluded that ARBs are better tolerated but that the two drug classes otherwise have similar efficacy. The largest clinical trial comparing ARBs and ACE inhibitors thus far completed, Evaluation of Losartan in the Elderly (ELITE 2), failed to confirm the results of a smaller study; it did not demonstrate a significant improvement in outcomes (death or hospitalization for heart failure) with an ARB used alone, despite better tolerability. Many longer-term outcome studies with survival endpoints are under way, but most will compare the combination against an ACE inhibitor alone. These studies will define the optimal use of these agents in medicine for decades to come.     

Management of diabetic hypertensives

Hypertension occurs twice as commonly in diabetics than in comparable nondiabetics. Patients with both disorders have a markedly higher risk for premature microvascular and macrovascular complications. Aggressive control of blood pressure (BP) reduces both micro- and macrovascular complications. In diabetic hypertensives, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are the first line in management of hypertension, and can be replaced by angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) if patients are intolerant of them. Recent studies suggest ARBs to be on par with ACEI in reducing both macro- and microvascular risks. Adding both these agents may have a beneficial effect on proteinuria, but no extra macrovascular risk reduction. Thiazides can also be used as first line drugs, but are better used along with ACEI/ARBs. Beta-blockers [especially if the patient has coronary artery disease] and calcium channel blockers are used as second line add-on drugs. Multidrug regimens are commonly needed in diabetic hypertensives. Achieving the target BP of <130/80 is the priority rather than the drug combination used in order to arrest and prevent the progression of macro- and microvascular complications in diabetic hypertensives.     

Management of IgA nephropathy

The best treatment of IgA nephropathy (Berger's disease) is not well defined and at present no causal therapy is available. Although initially considered benign, we now recognize it as a common cause of end-stage renal disease and the natural history of IgA nephropathy is quite variable. Standard care includes angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and corticosteroids, in some cases combined with immunosuppressive drugs. The antiproteinuric and renoprotective effects of ACEIs and ARBs in IgA nephropathy have been firmly established. Treatment with corticosteroids is effective in reducing proteinuria and renal injury. The addition of cytotoxic immunosuppressive agents (cyclophosphamide and azathioprine) can be of benefit in patients with a rapidly progressive disease course. Little information is available about the clinical efficacy of tonsillectomy on long-term renal survival in patiens with IgA nephropathy; at present it cannot be recommended. The treatment of the disease is a work in progress; only better knowledge of its pathogenesis will eventually offer novel therapeutic approaches.