Randomized, controlled study of the effects of losartan versus enalapril in small doses on proteinuria and tubular injury in primary glomerulonephritis

Department of Nephrology, Medical University of Gdańsk, 80-211 Gdańsk, Poland.
Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research (Impact Factor: 1.43). 04/2005; 11(4):PI31-7.
Source: PubMed


Pharmacological blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosteron system ameliorates glomerular and tubulointerstitial damage. For optimal renoprotection, high doses of angiotensin II converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor antagonists are commonly recommended, but cannot always be administered. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of low-dose (25 mg) losartan on proteinuria and tubular injury extent.
This was an open, randomized, 12-month study on the effects of 25 mg of losartan (n=19) vs. 10 mg of enalapril (n=14) as a control on proteinuria, urinary excretion of N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), and blood pressure in patients with primary glomerulonephritis. The second part of the study was an uncontrolled assessment of the renal effects of 50-mg administration of losartan.
There were no significant differences between the groups in the effects on proteinuria and NAG excretion. Losartan and enalapril reduced proteinuria by 32.8% (p<0.029) and 40.9% (p<0.021), respectively, but did not affect NAG excretion. The antiproteinuric effect of losartan, achieved without changes in blood pressure, was particularly evident in subjects with proteinuria >1.5 g/24 h and normal blood pressure. 50 mg of losartan caused a significant decrease in NAG excretion vs. the baseline (p<0.027).
25 mg of losartan and 10 mg of enalapril equally reduce proteinuria. The significant antiproteinuric effect of losartan was achieved despite no changes in blood pressure. There were no differences between the drugs regarding their influence on tubular injury extent. 50 mg of losartan seems to be the minimal dose to improve tubular status.

6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade is currently the best-documented treatment strategy to delay the progression of chronic nephropathies. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (CEIs) or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) should be used in every normotensive and hypertensive patient with chronic proteinuric nephropathy of both diabetic and non-diabetic origin. The therapy should be initiated as early as possible, bearing in mind that the renoprotection is more effective if used before overt proteinuria or a reduction in kidney function is present. The therapy should be offered to all patients, regardless of renal function, as well as to subjects with severely impaired glomerular filtration. CEIs and ARBs should be administered in therapeutic doses as high as possible to achieve maximal possible proteinuria reduction and systemic blood pressure target <130/80 mm Hg, and 125/75 mm Hg in those subjects with renal insufficiency who present with proteinuria above 1 g/24 h. The combined therapy with the concomitant use of CEIs and ARBs should be offered to all patients with proteinuric non-diabetic chronic nephropathies who do not achieve full and persistent remission of proteinuria with CEI or ARB alone. The article reviews an evidence-based approach on the use of RAAS-inhibiting agents in kidney diseases, considers treatment strategies in different clinical situations and discusses some perspectives related to the implementation of the RAAS blockade in renal protection.
    Kidney and Blood Pressure Research 12/2005; 28(4):230-42. DOI:10.1159/000087842 · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The renoprotective effects of agents inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system in renal transplant recipients have been supposed but not finally proven. To shed more light on this issue, we performed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study to evaluate the influence of the AT-1 angiotensin II receptor blocker, losartan, on the surrogate marker of kidney injury, albuminuria, in patients after renal transplantation. The safety of this therapy was also evaluated. Fourteen of 16 patients (nine male, five female), age 45.36 +/- 3.04 years, 65.5 +/- 10.0 months after kidney transplantation, with hypertension and stable serum creatinine 123 +/- 4 micromol/L without proteinuria, completed the protocol. Each patient underwent two 8-week treatment periods (one with losartan 50-100 mg and one with carvedilol 12.5-25 mg) in random order, allowing an 8-week placebo washout between treatments. The target office trough blood pressure was below 130/85 mmHg. The ambulatory blood pressure did not differ in the treatment periods. Losartan significantly reduced albuminuria relative to placebo and carvedilol (27.62+/-17.58 vs. 49.55 +/- 25.33 v. 44.77 +/- 21.9 mg/g creatinine; P < 0.01). A significant but not clinically relevant decrease in hemoglobin level after losartan was observed (losartan: 129 +/- 3.1 g/l, placebo: 134.2 +/- 3.2, carvedilol: 137.1 +/- 3.7; P < 0.001). Serum potassium, creatinine, creatinine clearance, and trough blood cyclosporine levels were unaffected. Losartan decreases microalbuminuria in renal transplant recipients with clinically minimal side effects.
    Transplantation 02/2006; 81(1):52-6. DOI:10.1097/ · 3.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reduction of proteinuria is associated with delayed progression of chronic kidney disease. Reports suggest that angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce proteinuria, but results are variable. The relative effect of ARBs and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and their combined administration, remains uncertain. To establish the effect of ARBs versus placebo and alternative treatments, and the effect of combined treatment with ARBs and ACE inhibitors, on proteinuria. English-language studies in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (January 1990 to September 2006), reference lists, and expert contacts. Randomized trials of ARBs versus placebo, ACE inhibitors, calcium-channel blockers, or the combination of ARBs and ACE inhibitors in patients with or without diabetes and with microalbuminuria or proteinuria for whom data were available on urinary protein excretion at baseline and at 1 to 12 months. Two investigators independently searched and abstracted studies. Forty-nine studies involving 6181 participants reported results of 72 comparisons with 1 to 4 months of follow-up and 38 comparisons with 5 to 12 months of follow-up. The ARBs reduced proteinuria compared with placebo or calcium-channel blockers over 1 to 4 months (ratio of means, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.68] and 0.69 [CI, 0.62 to 0.77], respectively) and 5 to 12 months (ratio of means, 0.66 [CI, 0.63 to 0.69] and 0.62 [CI, 0.55 to 0.70], respectively). The ARBs and ACE inhibitors reduced proteinuria to a similar degree. The combination of ARBs and ACE inhibitors further reduced proteinuria more than either agent alone: The ratio of means for combination therapy versus ARBs was 0.76 (CI, 0.68 to 0.85) over 1 to 4 months and 0.75 (CI, 0.61 to 0.92) over 5 to 12 months; for combination therapy versus ACE inhibitors, the ratio of means was 0.78 (CI, 0.72 to 0.84) over 1 to 4 months and 0.82 (CI, 0.67 to 1.01) over 5 to 12 months. The antiproteinuric effect was consistent across subgroups. Most studies were small, varied in quality, and did not provide reliable data on adverse drug reactions. Proteinuria reduction is only a surrogate for important progression of renal failure. The ARBs reduce proteinuria, independent of the degree of proteinuria and of underlying disease. The magnitude of effect is similar regardless of whether the comparator is placebo or calcium-channel blocker. Reduction in proteinuria from ARBs and ACE inhibitors is similar, but their combination is more effective than either drug alone. Uncertainty concerning adverse effects and outcomes that are important to patients limits applicability of findings to clinical practice.
    Annals of internal medicine 02/2008; 148(1):30-48. · 17.81 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications