Effects of monotherapy of temocapril or candesartan with dose increments or combination therapy with both drugs on the suppression of diabetic nephropathy.

Division of Nephrology, Endocrinology and Vascular Medicine, Tohoku University School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Hypertension Research (Impact Factor: 2.94). 05/2007; 30(4):325-34. DOI: 10.1291/hypres.30.325
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We examined the effects of increasing the recommended initial doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), or of switching to combination therapy with both drugs, on diabetic nephropathy. Hypertensive type 2 diabetic patients with urinary albumin excretion (ACR) between 100 and 300 mg/g creatinine (Cre) were assigned to the following five groups in which an antihypertensive drug was administered at a recommended initial dose for 48 weeks, and then either the dose was doubled or an additional drugs was added to regimen for the following 48 weeks: N, nifedipine-CR (N) 20 mg/day (initial dose); T, ACEI temocapril (T) 2 mg/day; C, ARB candesartan (C) 4 mg/day; T+C, T first and then addition of C; C+T, C first and then addition of C. ACR decreased in the T (n=34), C (n=40), T+C (n=37) and C+T (n=35) groups, but not in the N group (n=18). However, the anti-proteinuric effect was less in the T than in the C, T+C or C+T groups, while no differences existed among the latter three. In each group, there were significant linear relationships between attained BP and ACR; however, the regression lines were shifted toward lower ACR level in the renin-angiotensin system-inhibition groups compared with the N group. These results indicate that an ACEI and/or ARB is superior to a CCB in retarding diabetic nephropathy, while the combination of low doses of ACEI and ARB has effects similar to those of high-dose ARB. Even among patients treated with an ACEI and/or ARB, lowering BP is important.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Objective: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy (DN). Some studies have suggested that dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system provides additive benefits in DN but others showed increased adverse events. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy for DN. Methods: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CNKI. All trials involved ACEI + ARB (combination therapy), and ACEI or ARB alone (monotherapy) for DN. The outcomes measured were urinary total proteinuria (UTP), urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), hyperkalemia, hypotension, and acute kidney injury (AKI). Results: In the 32 included trials, 2596 patients received combination therapy and 3947 received monotherapy. UTP and UAER were significantly reduced by combined treatment compared with monotherapy. It was notable that low doses of combination therapy reduced UTP more than high doses. Serum creatinine, GFR, and ESRD were not significantly different between the two groups. In severe DN, the occurrence of hyperkalemia and AKI were higher with combination therapy. However, in mild DN, the prevalence of hyperkalemia and AKI were the same in both the groups. In mild DN, the occurrence of hypotension was higher with combination therapy; however, in severe DN, it was not different between the two groups. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that combination therapy can be used on DN with proteinuria, but should be used with caution in those with decreased renal function, especially with severe renal failure.
    Renal Failure 02/2015; DOI:10.3109/0886022X.2015.1012995 · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Annual screening for adults with type 2 diabetes to detect the early onset of kidney disease is widely recommended, but the recommendations are based on a limited methodological approach. In addition, there are continuing uncertainties about underlying rates of progression of the condition and the benefits of treatments with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. We aimed to estimate the clinical value and cost-effectiveness of different screening intervals to diagnose early diabetic kidney disease. We used the following databases for the literature review (searched January 2005 to August 2010): MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Individual patient data were obtained from the Oxford Regional Prospective Diabetes Study and the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study. Data from systematically identified randomised trials reporting the impact on renal outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin 2 receptor blockers for type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients with normoalbuminuria and microalbuminuria were pooled to derive estimates of effect. Individual patient data for type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients were used to obtain parameters describing progression and variability of measurement over time for the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Based on accepted diagnostic thresholds, we modelled whether these tests accurately identified patients who were developing early diabetic kidney disease and required intensification of treatment. Cost-effectiveness analyses were carried out using simulation outcome models to estimate the incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for different screening intervals. In total, 49 trials (n = 34,082 patients) were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. For type 1 diabetes, pooled estimates of urinary albumin excretion (UAE) for treated patients with microalbuminuria were on average 67% [95% confidence interval (CI) 54% to 77%] lower at the end of the trial than for untreated patients. There was no significant treatment effect for patients with normoalbuminuria (p interaction = 0.006). For treated patients with type 2 diabetes and normoalbuminuria or microalbuminuria, UAE was lower by, on average, 21% (95% CI 97% to 32%) or 27% (95% CI 15% to 38%), respectively. The proportion (95% CI) of men and women with type 1 diabetes screened annually for microalbuminuria over 6 years and inaccurately identified as having microalbuminuria would be 48% (43% to 53%) and 55% (48% to 61%), respectively. The corresponding proportions for type 2 diabetes are 36% (32% to 42%) and 48% (41% to 55%). Decreasing the screening interval to 3-yearly would reduce this for men with type 1 diabetes to 38% (33% to 44%), with an increase in those not identified over 6 years from 1.5% (95% CI 1% to 2%) to 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%). For type 1 diabetes, incremental cost per QALY [standard deviation (SD)] of a 5-yearly compared with a 4-yearly screening interval was £3612 (£6586), increasing to £9601 (£34,112) for annual compared with 2-yearly screening. The probability that the intervention is cost saving is around 25%, and it has around an 80% chance of being below a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000. For type 2 diabetes, incremental cost per QALY (SD) of a yearly compared with a 2-yearly screening interval was £606 (£1782). The intervention is almost certainly below a cost-effectiveness threshold of £5000. These results support current UK guidance, which recommends annual screening with ACR to identify early kidney disease in patients with diabetes, despite a high false-positive rate leading to, at worst, unnecessary or, at best, early therapeutic intervention. For type 1 diabetes, screening costs for annual compared with 2-yearly screening are well within the bounds of accepted cost-effectiveness. Annual screening is even more cost-effective in type 2 diabetes than in type 1 diabetes. Identification of alternative markers for developing diabetic nephropathy may improve targeting of treatment for those at high risk. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
    02/2014; 18(14):1-128. DOI:10.3310/hta18140
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Previous work has suggested that dual blockade using inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) would be associated with an increase in side effects compared to monotherapy. We reexamined the safety of dual RAS blockade, especially in patients at risk, and explored the stability of the evidence accumulated over the years. Method: Systematic review with random-effects meta-analyses. We reviewed 15 previously published meta-analyses as the starting point. PubMed/Medline was searched for recent evidence from both observational and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes measures were: mortality (overall and cardiovascular), hyperkalemia, hypotension, renal failure, stroke, and treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects. We calculated relative risks (RR) and confidence intervals (95% CI) Results:Dual RAS blockade was not associated with reduced relative risk (RR) overall mortality (RR:1.00, 0.96-1.05; 21 studies), cardiovascular mortality (RR:1.01, 0.94-1.09; 13 studies) or stroke (RR:1.02; 0.94-1.11; 11 studies) compared to monotherapy. Dual blockade was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia (RR:1.58, 1.37-1.81; 34 studies), hypotension (RR:1.66; 1.41-1.95; 25 studies), renal failure (RR:1.52;1.28-1.81; 29 studies) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (RR:1.26;1.22-1.30; 37 studies). These results were consistent in cohorts of patients with diabetes mellitus, kidney disease or heart failure. Conclusions: Dual RAS blockade increased (vs monotherapy) the risks of hyperkalemia, hypotension, renal failure and treatment discontinuation. Dual RAS blockade did not offer additional benefit in reducing overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality or stroke. These findings are consistent over time.
    Revista Española de Salud Pública 02/2014; 88(1):37-65. · 0.71 Impact Factor


Available from