Comparison between the angiotensin II receptor antagonist candesartan cilexetil and the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in microalbuminuria of patients with early diabetic nephropathy

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for preventing the progression of diabetic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I2 = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I2 = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I2 = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I2 = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I2 = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and combined therapy in patients with micro- and macroalbuminuria and other cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A recent clinical trial showed harmful renal effects with the combined use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARB) in people with diabetes or vascular disease. We examined the benefits and risks of these agents in people with albuminuria and one or more cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Renal Health Library were searched for trials comparing ACEI, ARB or their combination with placebo or with one another in people with albuminuria and one or more cardiovascular risk factor.

RESULTS

Eighty-five trials (21,708 patients) were included. There was no significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality or fatal cardiac-cerebrovascular outcomes with ACEI versus placebo, ARB versus placebo, ACEI versus ARB or with combined therapy with ACEI + ARB versus monotherapy. There was a significant reduction in the risk of nonfatal cardiovascular events with ACEI versus placebo but not with ARB versus placebo, ACEI versus ARB or with combined therapy with ACEI + ARB versus monotherapy. Development of end-stage kidney disease and progression of microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria were reduced significantly with ACEI versus placebo and ARB versus placebo but not with combined therapy with ACEI + ARB versus monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

ACEI and ARB exert independent renal and nonfatal cardiovascular benefits while their effects on mortality and fatal cardiovascular disease are uncertain. There is a lack of evidence to support the use of combination therapy. A comparative clinical trial with ACE, ARB and its combination in people with albuminuria and a cardiovascular risk factor is warranted.

Microalbuminuria screening in patients with hypertension: recommendations for clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Correlations between renal and cardiovascular (CV) pathologies in advanced kidney or heart disease are well characterised, but less clearly defined in the early stages. Microalbuminuria, in addition to being an early sign of kidney damage, is often found in patients with essential hypertension, suggesting that it may reflect early vascular abnormalities.

EVIDENCE FROM LITERATURE

Studies have shown that even very low levels of microalbuminuria strongly correlate with CV risk: albumin excretion rates as low as 4.8 microg/min, well below the microalbuminuria thresholds stated in current clinical guidelines, are associated with increased risk of CV and cerebrovascular disease, independent of the presence of other risk factors. Increased microalbuminuria indicates endothelial dysfunction or developing atherosclerosis and predicts end-organ damage, major cardio or cerebrovascular events and death.

CLINICAL ASPECTS

Available tests for screening microalbuminuria are sensitive, reliable and accessible; current European and US guidelines advocate annual screening in patients with diabetes and wherever possible in non-diabetic patients with hypertension. Early identification of high-risk patients through detection of microalbuminuria allows selection of aggressive treatment to slow disease progression.

THERAPEUTIC IMPLICATIONS

Antihypertensive agents providing angiotensin II blockade are recommended for the treatment of hypertensive patients with microalbuminuria, regardless of diabetes and/or early or overt nephropathy. Treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers provides effective reduction of microalbuminuria and blood pressure, and long-term prevention of CV events beyond blood pressure reduction. In addition, pharmacoeconomic studies have shown that these long-term benefits translate into a substantially reduced burden on healthcare resources.

Angiotensin receptor blockers as anti-hypertensive treatment for patients with diabetes mellitus: meta-analysis of controlled double-blind randomized trials

AIMS

To assess the evidence for possible reduction of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and end-stage renal disease in diabetic patients treated with angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) as an anti-hypertensive treatment.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind controlled trials of at least 1 year's duration. ARBs were used in the intervention group vs. placebo or standard anti-hypertensive treatment in the control group. The main outcome measures were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and end-stage renal disease.

RESULTS

Three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Separate analyses were conducted for comparisons of ARBs with groups given placebo and those given standard anti-hypertensive treatment. There was no significant difference in mortality between the ARBs and placebo groups, with an estimated odds ratio (OR) of 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81, 1.20]. There was a non-significant difference in patients treated with ARBs compared with standard anti-hypertensive treatment, with an OR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.45, 1.36). No statistically significant difference in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality between the intervention and placebo groups was found, with an OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.77, 1.08). When ARBs were compared with standard treatment, the OR was estimated at 0.85 (0.54, 1.33). Data on end-stage renal disease were available for two studies comparing ARBs vs. placebo and showed a statistically significant advantage of ARBs, with an OR of 0.73 (95% CI 0.6, 0.89). As only one study compared end-stage renal disease outcome for ARBs vs. standard treatment, a meta-analysis was not possible. This study reported a considerable benefit of ARBs [OR = 0.73 (0.54, 1.01)] compared with the calcium channel blocker amlodipine.

CONCLUSIONS

ARBs failed to show significant reduction in total mortality and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients. The only statistical benefit was the reduction of end-stage renal disease compared with placebo. Therefore, at this time ARBs have not proved to be superior to standard anti-hypertensive treatment in diabetic patients.

Trandolapril: a newer angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

BACKGROUND

Trandolapril is a newer angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypertension and for use in stable patients who have evidence of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction or symptoms of chronic heart failure within the first 2 days after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The fixed-dose combination of trandolapril and verapamil extended release (ER) is approved for the treatment of hypertension only.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety profile of trandolapril as monotherapy and in fixed-dose combination with verapamil ER.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified through a MEDLINE/PubMed search of the English-language literature published between January 1983 and August 2002 and a review of the bibliographies of identified articles.

RESULTS

Trandolapril has a sufficient duration of inhibition of plasma ACE activity to allow once-daily dosing. It is converted by esterases to the active trandolaprilat metabolite, with mean terminal disposition half-lives of < 1 and approximately 75 hours for the prodrug and metabolite, respectively. In comparative trials in the management of hypertension, trandolapril 1 to 4 mg/d was statistically indistinguishable from or superior to captopril 100 mg/d, enalapril 10 or 20 mg/d, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg/d, nifedipine ER 30 or 40 mg/d, nitrendipine 20 mg/d, perindopril 4 mg/d, and verapamil ER 120 to 240 mg/d. In the Trandolapril Cardiac Evaluation, trandolapril also significantly reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden death, and progression to severe chronic heart failure in patients with evidence of LV systolic dysfunction after AMI. In comparative trials in the management of hypertension, the combination of trandolapril 1 or 2 mg/d and verapamil ER 180 mg/d was statistically indistinguishable from or superior to the combinations of atenolol 50 or 100 mg/d plus chlorthalidone 12.5 or 25 mg/d, captopril 50 mg/d plus HCTZ 25 mg/d, lisinopril 20 mg/d plus HCTZ 12.5 mg/d, and metoprolol 100 mg/d plus HCTZ 12.5 mg/d. The most common adverse effects of trandolapril monotherapy in clinical trials of < or = 1 year's duration included cough, dizziness, and diarrhea (frequency < or = 1.9%). The most common adverse effects of trandolapril/verapamil ER therapy in clinical trials of < or = 1 year's duration included first-degree atrioventricular block, bradycardia, constipation, cough, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, and dyspnea (frequency < or = 4.6%). Based on the literature search, there are no published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of trandolapril alone or combined with verapamil ER in the US health care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the literature, trandolapril is a well-tolerated and effective antihypertensive agent, whether used alone or in combination with verapamil ER. These products may be valuable in patients with LV systolic dysfunction after AMI, although the combination product is approved for the management of hypertension only.