Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Protective effects of renin–angiotensin blockade beyond blood pressure control

Abstract

Antihypertensive drugs exert a number of blood pressure-independent benefits. However, demonstrating the clinical significance of these effects may be difficult for a number of reasons. First, blood pressure can be measured in the clinic, at home and over the 24-h period by ambulatory monitoring. Second, differences between these measures mean that achieving equivalent blood pressure reductions in two treatment arms may be difficult, if not impossible. Furthermore, even small differences in blood pressure can translate into significant effects on cardiovascular risk, especially in the later stages of the cardiovascular continuum. In large clinical trials, other errors limiting the sensitivity to treatment differences include high patient dropouts and unplanned crossover. In addition, as so many patients fail to achieve blood pressure goals even in clinical trials where patient's and physician's motivation is high, the need for cardiovascular protection beyond blood pressure control is unequivocal. Clinical trials of angiotensin II receptor blockers have suggested significant effects beyond blood pressure control, which are observed throughout and with greater consistency in the early phases of the cardiovascular continuum. There may also be differences between angiotensin II receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Conclusive demonstration that these blood pressure-independent effects do exist will require, however, a much more accurate and extended assessment of the blood pressure effects of the drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mancia G, Parati G . Guiding antihypertensive treatment decisions using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Curr Hypertens Rep 2006; 8: 330–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Zanchetti A, Bond G, Hennig M, Neiss A, Mancia G, Dal Palù C et al. European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis investigators. Calcium antagonist lacidipine slows down progression of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis. Principal results of the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis (ELSA), a randomized, double-blind, long-term trial. Circulation 2002; 106: 2422–2427.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mancia G, Parati G, Bilo G, Maronati A, Omboni S, Baurecht H et al. Assessment of long-term antihypertensive treatment by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure: data from the European Lacidipine Study on Atherosclerosis. J Hypertens 2007; 25: 1087–1094.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mancia G, Omboni S, Parati G, Clement DL, Haley WE, Rahman SN et al. Twenty-four hour ambulatory blood pressure in the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study. J Hypertens 2001; 19: 1755–1763.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mancia G, Brown M, Castaigne A, de Leeuw P, Palmer CR, Rosenthal T et al. Outcomes with nifedipine GITS or Co-amilozide in hypertensive diabetics and nondiabetics in Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension (INSIGHT). Hypertension 2003; 41: 431–436.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zanchetti A, Crepaldi G, Bond MG, Gallus G, Veglia F, Mancia G et al. Different effects of antihypertensive regimens based on fosinopril or hydrochlorothiazide with or without lipid lowering by pravastatin on progression of asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis: principal results of PHYLLIS—a randomized double-blind trial. Stroke 2004; 35: 2807–2812.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Staessen JA, Li Y, Thijs L, Wang JG . Blood pressure reduction and cardiovascular prevention: an update including the 2003–2004 secondary prevention trials. Hypertens Res 2005; 28: 385–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Williams B . Recent hypertension trials: implications and controversies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45: 813–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Cesana G, Corrao G, Grassi G et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population. Circulation 2005; 111: 1777–1783.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mancia G, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, Grassi G, Sega R . Long-term risk of mortality associated with selective and combined elevation in office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure. Hypertension 2006; 47: 846–853.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mancia G . Effective ambulatory blood pressure control in medical practice. Good news to be taken with caution. Hypertension 2007; 49: 17–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kario K, Pickering TG, Umeda Y, Hoshide S, Hoshide Y, Morinari M et al. Morning surge in blood pressure as a predictor of silent and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study. Circulation 2003; 107: 1401–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Frattola A, Parati G, Cuspidi C, Albini F, Mancia G . Prognostic value of 24-h blood pressure variability. J Hypertens 1993; 11: 1133–1137.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Morgan T, Lauri J, Bertram D, Anderson A . Effect of different antihypertensive drug classes on central aortic pressure. Am J Hypertens 2004; 17: 118–123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Williams B, Lacy PS, Thom SM, Cruickshank K, Stanton A, Collier D et al. Differential impact of blood pressure-lowering drugs on central aortic pressure and clinical outcomes: principal results of the Conduit Artery Function Evaluation (CAFE) study. Circulation 2006; 113: 1213–1225.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grassi G . Intermediate versus hard end points in clinical trials on hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep 2005; 7: 294–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Einhorn PT, Davis BR, Massie BM, Cushman WC, Piller LB, Simpson LM, et al., ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) Heart Failure Validation Study: diagnosis and prognosis. Am Heart J 2007; 153: 42–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, Julius S, Beevers G, de Faire U, et al., LIFE Study Group. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bang LE, Wiinberg N, Wachtell K, Larsen J, Olsen MH, Tuxen C et al. Losartan versus atenolol on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure. A LIFE substudy. Blood Press 2007; 16: 392–397.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schrader J, Luders S, Kulschewski A, Hammersen F, Plate K, Berger J, et al., MOSES Study Group. Morbidity and mortality after stroke, eprosartan compared with nitrendipine for secondary prevention: principal results of a prospective randomized controlled study (MOSES). Stroke 2005; 36: 1218–1226.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mochizuki S, Dahlof B, Shimizu M, Ikewaki K, Yoshikawa M, Taniguchi I, et al., Jikei Heart Study group. Valsartan in a Japanese population with a hypertension and other cardiovascular disease (Jikei Heart Study): a randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint morbidity-mortality study. Lancet 2007; 369: 1431–1439.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. López-Farré A, Sánchez de Miguel L, Montón M, Jiménez A, Lopez-Bloya A, Gómez J et al. Angiotensin II AT(1) receptor antagonists and platelet activation. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2001; 16 (Suppl 1): 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Petnehazy T, Stokes KY, Russell JM, Granger DN . Angiotensin II type-1 receptor antagonism attenuates the inflammatory and thrombogenic responses to hypercholesterolemia in venules. Hypertension 2005; 45: 209–215.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Siragy HM . Evidence for benefits of angiotensin receptor blockade beyond blood pressurecontrol. Curr Hypertens Rep 2008; 10: 261–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Strauss MH, Hall AS . Angiotensin receptor blockers may increase risk of myocardial infarction: unraveling the ARB-MI paradox. Circulation 2006; 114: 838–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ceriello A, Assaloni R, Da Ros R, Maier A, Piconi L, Quagliaro L et al. Effect of atorvastatin and irbesartan, alone and in combination, on postprandial endothelial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and inflammation in type 2 diabetic patients. Circulation 2005; 111: 2518–2524.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Landmesser U, Drexler H . Effect of angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonism on endothelial function: role of bradykinin and nitric oxide. J Hypertens (Suppl) 2006; 24: S39–S43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Mancia G, Dell'Oro R, Quarti-Trevano F, Scopelliti F, Grassi G . Angiotensin-sympathetic system interactions in cardiovascular and metabolic disease. J Hypertens(Suppl) 2006; 24: S51–S56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mancia G, Grassi G, Zanchetti A . New-onset diabetes and antihypertensive drugs. J Hypertens 2006; 24: 3–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Julius S, Nesbitt SD, Egan BM, Weber MA, Michelson EL, Kaciroti N et al. Trial of Preventing Hypertension (TROPHY) Study Investigators. Feasibility of treating prehypertension with an angiotensin-receptor blocker. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1685–1697.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee VC, Rhew DC, Dylan M, Badamgarav E, Braunstein GD, Weingarten SR . Meta-analysis: angiotensin-receptor blockers in chronic heart failure and high-risk acute myocardial infarction. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 693–704.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Volpe M, Mancia G, Trimarco B . Angiotensin II receptor blockers and myocardial infarction: deeds and misdeeds. J Hypertens 2005; 23: 2113–2118.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Tsuyuki RT, McDonald MA . Angiotensin receptor blockers do not increase risk of myocardial infarction. Circulation 2006; 114: 855–860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration Turnbull F, Neal B, Pfeffer M, Kostis J, Algert C, Woodward M et al. Blood pressure-dependent and independent effects of agents that inhibit the renin–angiotensin system. J Hypertens 2007; 25: 951–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Angeli F, Gattobigio R, Bentivoglio M, Thijs L et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers for coronary heart disease and stroke prevention. Hypertension 2005; 46: 386–392.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus. Results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 1410–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schrader J, Kulschewski A, Dendorfer A . Inhibition of the renin–angiotensin system and the prevention of stroke. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2007; 7: 25–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Yusuf S, Teo KK, Pogue J, Dyal L, Copland I, Schumacher H et al. Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1547–1559.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Yusuf S, Teo K, Anderson C, Pogue J, Dyal L, Copland I et al. Effects of the angiotensin-receptor blocker telmisartan on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 372: 1174–1183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Schneider MP, Klingbeil AU, Delles C, Ludwig M, Kolloch RE, Krekler M et al. Effect of irbesartan versus atenolol on left ventricular mass and voltage: results of the CardioVascular Irbesartan Project. Hypertension 2004; 44: 61–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Dahlof B, Zanchetti A, Diez J, Nicholls MG, Yu CM, Barrios V et al. Effects of losartan and atenolol on left ventricular mass and neurohormonal profile in patients with essential hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy. J Hypertens 2002; 20: 1855–1864.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cuspidi C, Muiesan ML, Valagussa L, Salvetti M, Di Biagio C, Agabiti-Rosei E et al. Comparative effects of candesartan and enalapril on left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with essential hypertension: the candesartan assessment in the treatment of cardiac hypertrophy (CATCH) study. J Hypertens 2002; 20: 2293–2300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Yasunari K, Maeda K, Watanabe T, Nakamura M, Yoshikawa J, Asada A . Comparative effects of valsartan versus amlodipine on left ventricular mass and reactive oxygen species formation by monocytes in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 2116–2123.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Devereux RB, Dahlöf B, Gerdts E, Boman K, Nieminen MS, Papademetriou V et al. Regression of hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy by losartan compared with atenolol: the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) trial. Circulation 2004; 110: 1456–1462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Duprez DA . Role of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system in vascular remodeling and inflammation: a clinical review. J Hypertens 2006; 24: 983–991.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mulvany MJ . Resistance vessel growth and remodelling: cause or consequence in cardiovascular disease. J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9: 479–485.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Schiffrin EL, Park JB, Intengan HD, Touyz RM . Correction of arterial structure and endothelial dysfunction in human essential hypertension by the angiotensin receptor antagonist losartan. Circulation 2000; 101: 1653–1659.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Schiffrin EL, Park JB, Pu Q . Effect of crossing over hypertensive patients from a beta-blocker to an angiotensin receptor antagonist on resistance artery structure and on endothelial function. J Hypertens 2002; 20: 71–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Rizzoni D, Porteri E, De Ciuceis C, Sleiman I, Rodella L, Rezzani R et al. Effect of treatment with candesartan or enalapril on subcutaneous small artery structure in hypertensive patients with noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Hypertension 2005; 45: 659–665.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Yusuf S, Diener HC, Sacco RL, Cotton D, Ounpuu S, Lawton WA et al. Telmisartan to prevent recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1225–1237.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Turnbull F, Neal B, Algert C, Chalmers J, Chapman N, Cutler J et al. Effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165: 1410–1419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Reboldi G, Angeli F, Cavallini C, Gentile G, Mancia G, Verdecchia P . Comparison between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and death: a meta-analysis. J Hypertens 2008; 26: 1282–1289.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G Mancia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mancia, G., Giannattasio, C., Seravalle, G. et al. Protective effects of renin–angiotensin blockade beyond blood pressure control. J Hum Hypertens 23, 570–577 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2008.171

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2008.171

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links