UNLABELLED: The clinical importance of selection of different antihypertensive drugs for the treatment of diabetic patients is still unclear. Thus we performed a randomised, controlled study in 105 hypertensive non-insulin-dependent diabetic (NIDDM) patients with microalbuminuria over 1 year. Patients received either the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril (2.5-5.0 mg/day; in addition 24% of patients also received felodipine) or the beta blocking agent atenolol (50-100 mg/day; in addition 24% of patients also received hydrochlorothiazide). Blood pressure, metabolic control, lipid levels and albumin excretion rate were studied during the follow-up. After 1 year an almost identical fall (p < 0.001) in blood pressure was observed with ramipril (170/100 vs 150/ 85 mmHg, median) and atenolol (180/100 vs 150/ 80 mmHg, median). With ramipril a reduction of total cholesterol (6.3 vs 5.9 mmol/l), of LDL cholesterol (3.8 vs 3.6 mmol/l) and HDL cholesterol (1.3 vs 1.2 mmol/l) was found, whereas triglycerides slightly increased (1.8 vs 2.0 mmol/l). With atenolol a similar reduction of total cholesterol (6.3 vs 5.9 mmol/l), LDL cholesterol (3.8 vs 3.7 mmol/l) and HDL cholesterol (1.4 vs 1.2 mmol/l) and an increase of triglycerides (1.4 vs 1.7 mmol/l) was noted. Metabolic control of the patients was maintained with both ramipril and atenolol treatment. With ramipril treatment urinary albumin creatinine ratio (14.4 vs 13.8 mg/mmol) and creatinine clearance (82 vs 84 ml/min) were constant, but with atenolol an increase of albumin creatinine ratio (13.9 vs 19 mg/mmol, p < 0.001) and a slight decrease of creatinine clearance (80 vs 66 ml/min, p < 0.05, not significant after Bonferroni correction) was observed. IN CONCLUSION: 1-year treatment of NIDDM patients withramipril or atenolol does not influence metabolic control, the changes in serum lipids were similar. Despite almost identical blood pressure reduction in both groups the albumin creatinine ratio was constant under ramipril, but increased under atenolol treatment.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: The clinical importance of selection of different antihypertensive drugs for the treatment of diabeticpatients is still unclear. Thus we performed a randomised, controlled study in 105 hypertensive non-insulin-dependent diabetic (NIDDM) patients with microalbuminuria over 1 year. Patients received either the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril (2.5-5.0 mg/day; in addition 24% of patients also received felodipine) or the beta blocking agent atenolol (50-100 mg/day; in addition 24% of patients also received hydrochlorothiazide). Blood pressure, metabolic control, lipid levels and albumin excretion rate were studied during the follow-up. After 1 year an almost identical fall (p < 0.001) in blood pressure was observed with ramipril (170/100 vs 150/ 85 mmHg, median) and atenolol (180/100 vs 150/ 80 mmHg, median). With ramipril a reduction of total cholesterol (6.3 vs 5.9 mmol/l), of LDL cholesterol (3.8 vs 3.6 mmol/l) and HDL cholesterol (1.3 vs 1.2 mmol/l) was found, whereas triglycerides slightly increased (1.8 vs 2.0 mmol/l). With atenolol a similar reduction of total cholesterol (6.3 vs 5.9 mmol/l), LDL cholesterol (3.8 vs 3.7 mmol/l) and HDL cholesterol (1.4 vs 1.2 mmol/l) and an increase of triglycerides (1.4 vs 1.7 mmol/l) was noted. Metabolic control of the patients was maintained with both ramipril and atenolol treatment. With ramipril treatment urinary albumin creatinine ratio (14.4 vs 13.8 mg/mmol) and creatinine clearance (82 vs 84 ml/min) were constant, but with atenolol an increase of albumin creatinine ratio (13.9 vs 19 mg/mmol, p < 0.001) and a slight decrease of creatinine clearance (80 vs 66 ml/min, p < 0.05, not significant after Bonferroni correction) was observed. IN CONCLUSION: 1-year treatment of NIDDMpatients with ramipril or atenolol does not influence metabolic control, the changes in serum lipids were similar. Despite almost identical blood pressure reduction in both groups the albumin creatinine ratio was constant under ramipril, but increased under atenolol treatment.
Authors: James P Corsetti; Ron T Gansevoort; Stephan J L Bakker; Charles E Sparks; Priya Vart; Robin P F Dullaart Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-05-22 Impact factor: 10.121