| Literature DB >> 27524972 |
Holly Digne-Malcolm1, Matthew C Frise2, Keith L Dorrington3.
Abstract
Though antihypertensive drugs have been in use for many decades, the mechanisms by which they act chronically to reduce blood pressure remain unclear. Over long periods, mean arterial blood pressure must match the perfusion pressure necessary for the kidney to achieve its role in eliminating the daily intake of salt and water. It follows that the kidney is the most likely target for the action of most effective antihypertensive agents used chronically in clinical practice today. Here we review the long-term renal actions of antihypertensive agents in human studies and find three different mechanisms of action for the drugs investigated. (i) Selective vasodilatation of the renal afferent arteriole (prazosin, indoramin, clonidine, moxonidine, α-methyldopa, some Ca(++)-channel blockers, angiotensin-receptor blockers, atenolol, metoprolol, bisoprolol, labetolol, hydrochlorothiazide, and furosemide). (ii) Inhibition of tubular solute reabsorption (propranolol, nadolol, oxprenolol, and indapamide). (iii) A combination of these first two mechanisms (amlodipine, nifedipine and ACE-inhibitors). These findings provide insights into the actions of antihypertensive drugs, and challenge misconceptions about the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic efficacy of many of the agents.Entities:
Keywords: antihypertensive drugs; diuretics; hypertension; renal circulation; vasodilator agents
Year: 2016 PMID: 27524972 PMCID: PMC4965470 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2016.00320
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Figure 1The profile of hydrostatic pressures along the renal vasculature, showing typical normal values. MAP, mean arterial pressure; Pglom, glomerular pressure; Ppc, peritubular capillary pressure. The large arrow labeled “Filtrate” is a cartoon representation of the flow of glomerular filtrate, most of which is reabsorbed from the tubule into the peritubular capillaries. The small fraction of the filtrate that is not reabsorbed is depicted by the arrow labeled “Urine.”
Figure 2Pressure–natriuresis lines for eight hypertensive adult patients before (open circles) and after (closed circles) administration of a thiazide diuretic (mefruside 25 mg daily). Urinary sodium excretion rate was measured after several periods of 7 days of constant daily sodium intake of between 1 and 18 g NaCl and systemic mean arterial pressure plotted as a function of sodium excretion. Data from Saito and Kimura (1996). Note that the untreated hypertensive patients showed a marked dependence of mean arterial pressure (MAP) on sodium excretion, whilst thiazide administration reduced this dependence and also lowered MAP.
The change in human renal hemodynamics after long-term vasodilator treatment for hypertension.
| Prazosin | Koshy et al., | = | = | 8 | 14 | |||
| Preston et al., | = | = | = | RA: | 4 | 10 males | ||
| RE: = | ||||||||
| RV: = | ||||||||
| O'Connor et al., | = | = | = | 4 | 12 males | |||
| Bauer et al., | = | = | = | 3–6 | 14 | |||
| Anderton et al., | = | 10 | 14 | |||||
| Indoramin | Bauer et al., | = | = | = | 3–6 | 11 males | ||
| Clonidine | Cohen et al., | = | = | = | 4 | 13 | ||
| Thananopavarn et al., | = | = | 12 | 16 | ||||
| Golub et al., | = | = | 1 | 16 | ||||
| = | = | 12 | As above | |||||
| Moxonidine | Fauvel et al., | = | = | = | 4 | 20 | ||
| α-Methyldopa | Weil et al., | = | = | 1–3 | 9 | |||
| Mohammed et al., | = | = | 1 | 8 | ||||
| Grabie et al., | = | 1 | 8 | |||||
| Verapamil | Leonetti et al., | = | 1.5 | 12 | ||||
| Sorensen et al., | = | = | = | 6 | 11 | |||
| Katzman et al., | = | = | 8 | 15 | ||||
| Diltiazem | Isshiki et al., | = | RA: | 52 | 7 | |||
| RE: | ||||||||
| Sunderrajan et al., | = | = | = | 8 | 18 | |||
| Manidipine | Ott et al., | = | = | = | RA: | 4 | 54 | |
| RE: | ||||||||
| Nicardipine | Smith et al., | = | = | 6 | 6 | |||
| Kimura et al., | = | 1 | 8 | |||||
| Kimura et al., | = | = | = | RA: | 1 | 8 | ||
| RE: = | ||||||||
| Nitrendipine | Thananopavarn et al., | = | = | 2 | 10 males | |||
| Scaglione et al., | = | = | 8 | 13 | ||||
| Isradipine | Persson et al., | = | 9 | 20 males | ||||
| Amlodipine | Ranieri et al., | = | = | = | 12 | 18 | ||
| Inigo et al., | = | = | RA: | 6 | 17 (renal transplant recipients) | |||
| RE: = | ||||||||
| Delles et al., | = | RA: | 8 | 29 | ||||
| RE: | ||||||||
| Ott et al., | = | = | RA: | 4 | 50 | |||
| RE: | ||||||||
| Nifedipine | Olivari et al., | = | 3 | 27 | ||||
| Guazzi et al., | = | 1 | 14 | |||||
| Reams et al., | = | 4 | 26 | |||||
Participants are individuals with essential hypertension unless otherwise specified. RBF/RPF, renal blood flow/renal plasma flow; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; FF, filtration fraction; RVR, renal vascular resistance; .
Discrepancy between reported result in the text and in the results table—mistake in decimal point placement in results table assumed (Inigo et al., .
Identical data in two publications, one stating n = 10 and one n = 12.
Figure 3The actions on the hydrostatic pressure profile along the renal vasculature of drugs that primarily dilate the afferent arterioles and leave glomerular filtration rate, glomerular capillary pressure (P. MAP, mean arterial pressure; Ppc, peritubular capillary pressure.
The change in human renal hemodynamics after long-term beta-blocker administration.
| Propranolol | Ibsen and Sederberg-Olsen, | 8–12 | 11 | |||||
| Falch et al., | 2 | 11 (males) | ||||||
| Falch et al., | 32 | 13 | ||||||
| O'Connor et al., | = | 4 | 12 (males) | |||||
| Bauer and Brooks, | = | 4 | 8 (normal subjects) | |||||
| Wilkinson et al., | 8 | 15 | ||||||
| Warren et al., | = | 4 | 13 | |||||
| Bauer, | = | = | = | 20–25 | 14 (males) | |||
| Kimura et al., | = | 1 | 8 | |||||
| Malini et al., | = | 12 | 12 | |||||
| O'Connor and Preston, | = | = | 4 | 15 (males) | ||||
| Malini et al., | = | = | 12 | 12 | ||||
| van den Meiracker et al., | = | = | 3 | 10 (males) | ||||
| Nadolol | O'Connor et al., | = | = | = | = | 6 | 10 (males) | |
| Textor et al., | = | = | = | 8 | 15 | |||
| O'Callaghan et al., | = | = | 10 | 10 (elderly) | ||||
| Oxprenolol | Bellini et al., | = | 7 | 7 | ||||
| Atenolol | Wilkinson et al., | = | 8 | 15 | ||||
| Dreslinski et al., | = | = | 4 | 10 | ||||
| Bellini et al., | = | = | 7 | 7 | ||||
| O'Callaghan et al., | = | 12 | 10 (elderly) | |||||
| van den Meiracker et al., | = | = | 3 | 10 (males) | ||||
| Samuelsson et al., | = | = | = | = | 4 | 17 | ||
| De Cesaris et al., | 32 | 10 (hypertensive diabetics) | ||||||
| Leeman et al., | = | = | 4 | 14 | ||||
| Metoprolol | Sugino et al., | = | = | = | = | 5–7 | 9 (males) | |
| Bisoprolol | Leeman et al., | = | = | 4 | 14 | |||
| Parrinello et al., | = | = | = | 52 | 36 | |||
| Labetalol | Rasmussen and Nielsen, | = | 4–15 | 11 | ||||
| Malini et al., | = | 12 | 12 | |||||
Participants are individuals with essential hypertension unless otherwise specified. RBF/RPF, renal blood flow/renal plasma flow; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; FF, filtration fraction; RVR, renal vascular resistance; .
Apparently anomalous results, given that for individual subjects RVR = MAP/RBF, MAP falls significantly, and yet neither RBF nor RVR are found to change significantly; the discrepancy arises from the statistical distribution within the study group.
Figure 4The actions on the hydrostatic pressure profile along the renal vasculature of drugs that primarily redistribute the peritubular capillary pressure (P. MAP, mean arterial pressure; Pglom, glomerular capillary pressure.
The change in human renal hemodynamics after long-term treatment for hypertension with drugs acting on the RAS.
| Captopril | Ando et al., | = | 2 | 12 | ||||
| Shionoiri et al., | = | 5–10 days | 16 | |||||
| “ | 5–10 days | 9 (malignant hypertension) | ||||||
| Kimura et al., | = | 1 | 8 | |||||
| Enalapril | Simon et al., | 16 | 22 | |||||
| Bauer, | = | = | 8 | 16 | ||||
| “ | = | 8 | 10 (subgroup with low GFR) | |||||
| Katzman et al., | = | = | = | = | 8 | 15 | ||
| De Cesaris et al., | 32 | 10 (hypertensive diabetics) | ||||||
| Pechere-Bertschi et al., | = | = | = | 6 | 10 | |||
| De Rosa et al., | = | 156 | 20 | |||||
| Lisinopril | Dupont et al., | = | 12 | 9 | ||||
| Samuelsson et al., | = | = | = | = | 4 | 17 | ||
| Degaute et al., | = | = | = | 12 | 12 | |||
| Ranieri et al., | 12 | 18 | ||||||
| Losartan | Paterna et al., | = | = | 24 | 18 | |||
| Inigo et al., | = | = | = | = | RA: | 6 | 17 (renal transplant recipients) | |
| RE: | ||||||||
| De Rosa et al., | 156 | 22 | ||||||
| Parrinello et al., | = | = | = | 52 | 36 | |||
| Valsartan | Delles et al., | = | = | = | = | RA: | 8 | 29 |
| RE: = | ||||||||
| Candesartan | Fridman et al., | = | = | 6 | 19 | |||
Participants are individuals with essential hypertension unless otherwise specified. RBF/RPF, renal blood flow/renal plasma flow; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; FF, filtration fraction; RVR, renal vascular resistance; .
Discrepancy between reported result in the text and in the results table—mistake in decimal point placement in results table assumed (Inigo et al., .
Apparently anomalous results, given that for individual subjects RVR = MAP/RBF, MAP falls significantly, and yet neither RBF nor RVR are found to change significantly; the discrepancy arises from the statistical distribution within the study group.
Figure 5The actions on the hydrostatic pressure profile along the renal vasculature of drugs that both dilate afferent arterioles and redistribute the peritubular capillary pressure (P. These actions lead to a raised glomerular capillary pressure (Pglom) and a greater pressure drop across the efferent arterioles, either due to efferent arteriolar constriction or an increased renal blood flow. MAP, mean arterial pressure.
The change in human renal hemodynamics after long-term treatment for essential hypertension using diuretics.
| Hydrochlorothiazide | Van Brummelen et al., | = | = | = | 36 | 10 (males) | ||
| O'Connor et al., | = | = | = | 4 | 19 (males) | |||
| Scaglione et al., | = | = | = | 8 | 13 | |||
| Chlorothiazide | Loon et al., | = | = | = | 4 | 9 | ||
| Furosemide | Olshan et al., | = | = | = | = | 4 | 12 | |
| Spironolactone | Falch et al., | = | 12 | 10 | ||||
| Matthesen et al., | = | 4 | 23 | |||||
| Furosemide and spironolactone | Loon et al., | = | = | = | 4 | 6 | ||
| Amiloride | Matthesen et al., | = | 4 | 23 | ||||
| Indapamide | Pickkers et al., | = | 6 | 11 | ||||
RBF/RPF, renal blood flow/renal plasma flow; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; FF, filtration fraction; RVR, renal vascular resistance; .
An apparently anomalous result, given that for individual subjects RVR = MAP/RBF, MAP falls significantly, and yet neither RBF nor RVR are found to change significantly; the discrepancy arises from the statistical distribution within the study group.
Figure 6Kimura's classification of antihypertensive drugs according to their effects of the pressure-natriuresis relationship. Adapted from Dorrington and Pandit (2009).
Figure 7Depiction of the hypothesis that increasing vasodilatory action of diuretics inhibiting tubulo-arteriolar feedback can account for the decrease in gradient of the pressure-natriuresis line brought about by these drugs. A constant degree of afferent arteriolar dilatation leads to a parallel downward shift of the pressure-natriuresis line (as shown in Figure 6). The stack of pressure-natriuresis lines depicted here for diuretics arises because the degree of afferent arteriolar dilatation is hypothesized to depend upon inhibition tubulo-arteriolar feedback, which in turn depends upon the sodium excretion rate.