BACKGROUND: The added benefits of angiotensin II type I receptor (AT(1)) blockers (ARBs) to ACE inhibition suggests that recommended doses of ACE inhibitors provide only partial inhibition of ACE in chronic heart failure (CHF). Accordingly, the level of ACE inhibition was assessed by the pressor response to angiotensin (Ang) I in patients who had been treated with recommended doses of ACE inhibitors. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-two patients with CHF receiving 40 mg/d of a long-acting ACE inhibitor or 150 mg of captopril were studied. Radial artery systolic pressure (RASP, mm Hg) was monitored noninvasively. The pressor response to ascending doses of Ang I was evaluated in all patients before and after administration of the ARB valsartan. The pressor response to Ang I before and after valsartan was also reevaluated in 11 patients after the dose of ACE inhibitor was doubled for 1 week. RASP increased linearly with significantly ascending doses of Ang I despite treatment with ACE inhibitors. The pressor response to Ang I was blunted significantly by valsartan. Ang I-induced increase in RASP did not correlate with duration of ACE inhibitor therapy. After the dose of ACE inhibitors was doubled, the pressor response to Ang I was no longer different from that noted after valsartan. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended doses of ACE inhibitors do not fully inhibit ACE in CHF. The level of ACE inhibition achieved is not related to duration of ACE inhibitor therapy. Greater ACE inhibition is also achieved at twice the recommended doses of ACE inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The antiproteinuric effect of combining the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor lisinopril and the angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist losartan was compared to that of the optimal antiproteinuric doses of monotherapy. METHODS: To this purpose, lisinopril and losartan were studied in 9 nondiabetic renal patients with median proteinuria 4.5 g/day (95% CI, 3.5, 6.4), creatinine clearance of 80 mL/min (95% CI, 66, 96), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 102 mm Hg (95% CI, 93, 112). First, in two protocols with six-week treatment periods per dose, the optimal antiproteinuric dose of each drug was established in each patient. Losartan and lisinopril were used in randomized order, each preceded by a baseline period without medication. The doses of losartan (mg/day) were 50, 100, 150, and again 50. The lisinopril doses were 10, 20, 40, and again 10. After the second protocol, patients were treated with a combination, using the optimal antiproteinuric doses established for the individual drugs. RESULTS: The antiproteinuric response by losartan was optimal at 100 mg (-46%; 95% CI,-60,-24%), being larger than at the 50 mg dose (-27%; 95% CI,-42,-4%, P < 0.05), but not different from the 150 mg dose (-46%; 95% CI,-58;-20%). Proteinuria decreased further at each up-titration step of lisinopril to -75%(95% CI,-85,-43%) at the 40 mg dose. Combination therapy reduced proteinuria more effectively (-85%; 95% CI,-96,-58) than monotherapy with losartan, and to a lesser extent than with lisinopril. Optimal blood pressure responses were obtained at similar doses. CONCLUSIONS: Dose-titration with a renin-angiotensin system blocker, followed by add-on therapy is highly effective in order to reduce proteinuria. The safety of this regimen needs to be addressed in future studies.

Chronic renal diseases progress to organ insufficiency, which may require replacement therapy within one to three decades even independently of the type of initial insults. In the majority of cases, the degrees of proteinuria and interstitial leukocyte infiltration and scarring are strictly correlated with the rate of disease progression. This study tests the hypothesis that excess intrarenal protein traffic may cause lymphocyte-dependent interstitial injury that, while not fully controlled by antiproteinuric therapy, can be further inhibited by concomitant immunosuppression. A primarily nonimmune model was used to reproduce progressive renal disease due to a critical loss of nephron mass. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor limited proteinuria, interstitial inflammation, MHC class II antigen expression, and severe lesions. Combined treatment with ACE inhibitor and a specific antilymphocyte agent, mycophenolate mofetil, dramatically attenuated macrophage and T cell infiltration, MHC-class II overexpression, dendritic cells, and all manifestations of the disease. Evidence of lymphocyte-mediated renal injury in the setting of excess protein traffic provides the basis for combining ACE inhibition and immunosuppression to halt progression of proteinuric kidney disease and minimize the need for dialysis or transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate markers that predict modes of death in patients with chronic heart failure. DESIGN: Randomised, double blind, three period, comparative, parallel group study (ATLAS, assessment of treatment with lisinopril and survival). PATIENTS: 3164 patients with mild, moderate, or severe chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association functional class II-IV). INTERVENTIONS: High dose (32.5 or 35 mg) or low dose (2.5 or 5 mg) lisinopril once daily for a median of 46 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden death, and chronic heart failure death related to prognostic factors using competing risks analysis. Mode of death was classified by trialists and by an independent end point committee. RESULTS: Age, male sex, pre-existing ischaemic heart disease, increasing heart rate, creatinine concentration, and certain drugs taken at randomisation were markers of increased risk of all cause mortality and cardiovascular death. There were risk markers for sudden death that were different from the risk markers for death from chronic heart failure. Low systolic blood pressure at baseline, raised creatinine, reduced serum sodium or haemoglobin, and increased heart rate were associated with chronic heart failure death. Use of beta blockers or antiarrhythmic agents (mainly amiodarone) was associated with a reduced risk of sudden death, whereas long acting nitrates and previous use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors were markers for increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: The use of competing risks analysis on the data from the ATLAS study has identified variables associated with certain modes of death in heart failure patients. This approach to analysing outcomes may make it possible to predict which patients might benefit most from particular therapeutic interventions.

AIMS: An analysis was designed to determine whether chronic heart failure patients at high cardiovascular risk benefited to the same extent from high-dose lisinopril as the whole ATLAS population. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective analysis was performed on high-risk heart failure patients in the Assessment of Treatment with Lisinopril And Survival (ATLAS) trial (total number of patients 3164) comparing highdose (32.5-35 mg. day(-1)) vs low-dose (2.5-5 mg. day(-1)) lisinopril for a median of 46 months. These high-risk patients included those with hypotension, hyponatraemia, compromised renal function, the elderly and patients with diabetes mellitus at baseline. In the whole study population, high-dose lisinopril led to a trend in risk reduction of all-cause mortality (primary end-point P=0.128) and a significant risk reduction in all-cause mortality plus hospitalization (principal secondary end-point P=0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed for these end-points. There were no consistent interactions between age, baseline sodium, creatinine or potassium values, and treatment effect. Diabetics showed a beneficial response to high-dose therapy that was at least as good as that in non-diabetics. The underlying higher morbidity/mortality rates in diabetics mean that high-dose lisinopril has potential for a larger absolute clinical impact in these patients. CONCLUSION: Long-term high-dose lisinopril was as effective and well-tolerated in high-risk patients, including those with diabetes mellitus, as for the ATLAS study population as a whole.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac complications are the main cause of death in renal transplantation (RT), and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) may play an important role in these patients. The unfavorable genotype of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been associated with cardiovascular disease, including LVH. ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) reduce LVH, but little is known about the effects of ACEIs on LVH in RT patients with different insertion/deletion (I/D) genotypes of the ACE gene. METHODS: We prospectively studied 57 stable nondiabetic RT patients with hypertension and echocardiographic LVH as well as a functional graft for 69.5 +/- 5.6 months. Patients randomly received either lisinopril 10 mg/day (group A, N = 29; 5 were excluded due to reversible acute renal failure) or placebo (group B, N = 28) for 12 months. Echocardiography (M-mode, 2-B, and color flow Doppler) was performed at baseline and 6 and 12 months later by the same examiner without previous knowledge of the genetic typing. The ACE genotype (I or D alleles) was ascertained by polymerase chain reaction (PCR; group A, DD = 10 and ID/II = 14; group B, DD = 15 and ID/II = 13). RESULTS: All patients maintained a good renal function (serum creatinine <2.5 mg/dL) during the follow-up and both groups received a similar proportion of antihypertensive drugs (beta-blockers 83 vs. 79%; Ca antagonists 66 vs. 68%; alpha1-adrenoreceptor antagonists 50 vs. 67%) during the study. As expected, mean arterial blood pressure and hemoglobin levels showed a higher percentage reduction in group A versus group B (-4 +/- 2.8 vs. 2.1 +/- 2.6%, P = 0.07, and -11.5 +/- 1.5 vs.-0.5 +/- 2.3%, P < 0.01, respectively). Group A patients showed a significantly higher decrement in LV mass index (LVMI) than group B at the end of follow-up, after adjusting for age, baseline LVMI, time after grafting and changes in systolic blood pressure, renal function, and hemoglobin levels (group A,-9.5 +/- 3.5% vs. group B, 3 +/- 3.2%, P < 0.05). As a result, 46% of group A and only 7% of group B patients showed a reduction of LVMI >/=15%(P < 0.01). The beneficial effect of lisinopril on LVMI reduction was more evident in DD patients (placebo DD, 8.4 +/- 4.1% vs. lisinopril DD,-7.2 +/- 5.3, P < 0.05), and a trend was observed in patients with other genotypes (placebo ID/II, 2.8 +/- 5.4% vs. lisinopril ID/II,-11.4 +/- 5%, P = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Lisinopril decreases LVM in renal transplant patients with hypertension and LVH, and the ACE gene polymorphism may predict the beneficial effect of this therapy. This finding may be important in targeting prophylactic interventions in this population.

In this study, telmisartan, a new angiotensin AT ( 1 ) receptor antagonist given as monotherapy and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), was compared with lisinopril as monotherapy and in combination with HCTZ. This 52-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, dose-titration study of 578 patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension (mean diastolic blood pressure [DBP],>/=95 mm Hg), compared the efficacy and safety of telmisartan (n = 385) with lisinopril (n = 193). Dosage could be increased for both telmisartan (40 --> 80 --> 160 mg) and lisinopril (10 --> 20 --> 40 mg) at each of the first 2 monthly visits if DBP control (<90 mm Hg) had not been established. Once DBP control was established, patients entered the 48-week maintenance period. During this period, the dose of the study drug was fixed, although open-label HCTZ at 12.5 mg or 25 mg was added, when needed, to regain DBP control. At the end of the titration period, DBP control was achieved on monotherapy by 67% and 63% of the telmisartan and lisinopril patients, respectively. At the end of the maintenance period, supine DBP was controlled in 83% and 87% of the telmisartan and lisinopril patients, respectively, with systolic blood pressure over DBP reductions of 23.8/16.6 mm Hg for telmisartan and 19.9/15.6 mm Hg for lisinopril. Treatment-related side effects occurred in fewer telmisartan-treated patients (28%) than in lisinopril-treated patients (40%; P =.001). Significantly fewer patients (P =.018) receiving telmisartan experienced treatment-related cough (3% v 7%), and cough led to discontinuation significantly less often (P =.007) with telmisartan treatment than with lisinopril treatment (0.3% v 3.1%). In addition, two cases of angioedema were observed, both in the lisinopril group. The selective AT (1) receptor antagonist, telmisartan, is extremely effective in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension both as monotherapy and in combination with HCTZ and is at least comparable in efficacy to lisinopril, with a tolerability profile that may offer advantages in terms of a reduced incidence of adverse events.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ACE inhibitors in congestive heart failure (CHF) might be affected by the pathophysiological status present at the onset of treatment. We compared in a rat model the effects of ACE inhibition (lisinopril, 10 mg.kg-1.d-1) initiated early (1 week) or late (3 months) after myocardial infarction (i.e., at time points corresponding to moderate or severe CHF without or with established cardiac remodeling). METHODS AND RESULTS: Survival was improved by early treatment at 3 months (from 76% to 95%) and by both early and delayed treatment at 9 months (placebo, 28%; early, 90%; delayed, 61%). Delayed treatment was initiated in a more severe pathophysiological context of CHF than early treatment, illustrated in untreated rats by higher left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic and central venous pressures and by increased LV weight and LV cavity circumference. After 9 months, early and delayed treatments reduced systolic, LV end-diastolic, and central venous pressures. Both treatments also similarly decreased LV weight, LV cavity circumference, and LV collagen density. CONCLUSIONS: In this rat model of CHF, early and delayed ACE inhibitor treatments both increase survival and exert similar beneficial effects on cardiac hemodynamics and remodeling. Although early treatment prevents the development of ventricular dysfunction and remodeling, delayed treatment is capable of reversing cardiac hypertrophy and remodeling, as well as ventricular dysfunction. Thus, ACE inhibitors exert marked beneficial effects even when treatment is initiated late into the evolution of heart failure (ie, at a time of established ventricular dysfunction and remodeling).

BACKGROUND: Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduces mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), but most affected patients are not receiving these agents or are being treated with doses lower than those found to be efficacious in trials, primarily because of concerns about the safety and tolerability of these agents, especially at the recommended doses. The present study examines the safety and tolerability of high- compared with low-dose lisinopril in CHF. METHODS: The Assessment of Lisinopril and Survival study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial in which patients with or without previous ACE inhibitor treatment were stabilized receiving medium-dose lisinopril (12.5 or 15.0 mg once daily [OD]) for 2 to 4 weeks and then randomized to high-(35.0 or 32.5 mg OD) or low-dose (5.0 or 2.5 mg OD) groups. Patients with New York Heart Association classes II to IV CHF and left ventricular ejection fractions of no greater than 0.30 (n = 3164) were randomized and followed up for a median of 46 months. We examined the occurrence of adverse events and the need for discontinuation and dose reduction during treatment, with a focus on hypotension and renal dysfunction. RESULTS: Of 405 patients not previously receiving an ACE inhibitor, doses in only 4.2% could not be titrated to the medium doses required for randomization because of symptoms possibly related to hypotension (2.0%) or because of renal dysfunction or hyperkalemia (2.3%). Doses in more than 90% of randomized patients in the high- and low-dose groups were titrated to their assigned target, and the mean doses of blinded medication in both groups remained similar throughout the study. Withdrawals occurred in 27.1% of the high- and 30.7% of the low-dose groups. Subgroups presumed to be at higher risk for ACE inhibitor intolerance (blood pressure,<120 mm Hg; creatinine,> or =132.6 micromol/L [> or =1.5 mg/dL]; age,> or =70 years; and patients with diabetes) generally tolerated the high-dose strategy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that ACE inhibitor therapy in most patients with CHF can be successfully titrated to and maintained at high doses, and that more aggressive use of these agents is warranted.

OBJECTIVE: To test the antihypertensive and metabolic effects of lisinopril, 10 mg/d (L); hydrochlorothiazide, 12.5 and 25 mg/d (H12.5 and H25); and its combination with lisinopril (L/H12.5 and L/H25) against placebo in patients with mild to moderate (stage I and stage II) hypertension. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled outpatient study of 12 weeks' duration. PATIENTS: After 4 weeks of single-blind placebo treatment, 505 patients whose sitting diastolic blood pressure was 100 to 114 mm Hg were randomized into the study--467 patients completed it (placebo, 71; L, 80; H12.5, 79; H25, 77; L/H12.5, 79; and L/H25, 81). The patients were seen in the clinic every 2 weeks, where measurements of their sitting and upright blood pressure and heart rate were taken 24 +/- 2 hours after drug administration. Complete blood cell counts with differential cell counts, blood chemistry studies, urinalyses, and electrocardiograms were done at baseline and during the study. Roentgenograms were done once at baseline. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, all drug regimens decreased sitting and upright blood pressure (P <.001) and had no effect on sitting and upright heart rate. The greatest effect was obtained with the combinations of L/H12.5 and L/H25. There was no difference between L/H12.5 and L/H25 or between H12.5 and H25. There were no serious clinical side effects except cough, which was slightly higher with L, L/H12.5, and L/H25. The only metabolic side effects were in serum potassium level, which was lower with H25 (P <.01), and serum glucose level, which was higher with H25 and L/H25 (P <.01). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that (1) monotherapy of hypertension with L, H12.5, H25, L/H12.5, and L/H25 was effective and well tolerated;(2) the best results were achieved with L/H12.5 and L/H25;(3) lower doses of hydrochlorothiazide either alone or in combination with lisinopril were equipotent with higher doses and were free of metabolic side effects.