Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0020538 (hypertension)
 170,190 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are now widely used for the treatment of hypertension and heart failure. They are of particular value in treating hypertensive patients with left ventricular dysfunction, and in diabetics where they have been shown to delay the progression of diabetic nephropathy. Differences in the metabolism, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics between the various ACE inhibitors generally do not translate into significant clinical differences in the majority of patients. However, fosinopril may be the preferred ACE inhibitor in patients with significant renal dysfunction because of a reduced requirement for dosage reduction. The duration of action of ACE inhibitors is determined by two properties, the plasma half-life and the affinity of binding to tissue ACE. All of the ACE inhibitors (with the possible exception of captopril) can provide satisfactory 24-hour blood pressure control in the majority of patients with mild to moderate hypertension when given once daily. Lisinopril provides consistently better 24-hour control of blood pressure than either captopril or enalapril. Evidence for superior 24-hour blood pressure control over enalapril has not been as well established for the other ACE inhibitors. Captopril may be preferred for initiating therapy in patients with severe heart failure who are at risk of first dose hypertension because of its rapid onset of action and relatively short duration of action. There is evidence, however, that perindopril may have a low risk of first dose hypertension in heart failure because of its gradual onset of action. Long-acting ACE inhibitors may be preferable for chronic therapy of heart failure. All of the ACE inhibitors have a low incidence of adverse effects in both young and elderly patients, and there is no convincing evidence of differences in tolerability between the drugs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Critical assessment of ACE inhibitors. Part 2. 777 72

We compared the systemic and regional hemodynamic effects of nifedipine and lisinopril in 26 elderly hypertensive patients with the use of the pulsed Doppler ultrasound technique. Nifedipine is a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist, and lisinopril is an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor. The study had a single-blind crossover design: nifedipine and lisinopril were given for 8 weeks each after washout periods of 4 weeks. Both nifedipine and lisinopril significantly reduced mean arterial pressure to the same extent (P < .01); cardiac output remained unchanged in both nifedipine- and lisinopril-treated groups. Lisinopril increased renal flow significantly (P < .01), but nifedipine did not. Common carotid, vertebral, celiac, and superior mesenteric arterial and diaphragmatic and terminal aortic flows did not show a significant change with either nifedipine or lisinopril. The specific action of lisinopril on the thoracic aorta was a marked improvement of aortic compliance compared with nifedipine, which might be partly responsible for an increase in renal flow. Lisinopril may provide more desirable regional hemodynamic effects and additional benefits for elderly hypertensive patients.
Hypertension 1995 Mar
PMID:Lisinopril improves aortic compliance and renal flow. Comparison with nifedipine. 787 57

Lisinopril has been compared with slow-release nifedipine in a 16-week double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study involving 102 patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressures were reduced 6 and 5 mmHg more by lisinopril than by nifedipine over 12 weeks monotherapy. After 12 weeks a greater proportion of patients taking lisinopril was controlled (sitting diastolic blood pressure below 95 mm Hg) than in those taking nifedipine. As a result, 17% of those taking lisinopril and 38% of those taking nifedipine required additional therapy with hydrochlorothiazide. The addition of hydrochlorothiazide resulted in similar response rates in the lisinopril and nifedipine groups (89% and 75% respectively). The rate of reporting of adverse events considered to be drug-related and the rate of withdrawals were similar for both treatments. Cough was more often reported with lisinopril and headache, sweating, and hot flushes with nifedipine. We conclude that once-daily titrated doses of lisinopril produced better control of blood pressure than twice-daily titrated doses of nifedipine.
 ...
PMID:A comparison of lisinopril and nifedipine in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. A multicentre study. 799 12

Arterial hypertension is nowadays no longer considered an isolated disorder of blood pressure regulation but a multifactorial disease with metabolic and cellular deviations. From the therapeutic aspect of thus conceived hypertension today inhibitors of the angiotensin converting enzyme seem most promising. With regard to their assumed comprehensive effect, the authors investigated simultaneously selected pressor and depressor humoral indicators and other indicators in 21 hypertensive patients with stage I and II of essential hypertension before and after three-month treatment with an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril (Prinivil, Merck, Sharp and Dohme) and compared them with findings in 21 normotensive healthy subjects. Hypertensive subjects before treatment had, as compared with normotensives, significantly lower urinary kallikrein (7.8 +/- 1.2 < 18.0 +/- 4.2 EU/24hr, a significantly higher basal plasma adrenalin (1.27 +/- 0.20 > 0.54 +/- 0.20 pmol/ml) and adrenalin after a glucose load (1.26 +/- 0.22 > 0.51 +/- 0.12) and a higher relative plasma viscosity (1.74 +/- 0.02 > 1.67 +/- 0.01). The two groups did not differ significantly as to the plasma renin activity, plasma aldosterone and fibrinogen concentration and the level of urinary prostaglandins per 24 hr: 6-keto-prostaglandin F1a, thromboxane B2 and prostaglandins E and F2a. The 75 g glucose load produced an increased plasma renin, aldosterone and noradrenaline activity in normotensives as well as hypertensives before and after lisinopril treatment.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:[Changes in humoral pressor and depressor factors in essential hypertension during lisinopril therapy]. 802 67

A total of 4676 patients and 1759 patients were treated with lisinopril and nifedipine respectively in a post-marketing surveillance study conducted in general practice in the UK. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Most of the lisinopril patients had hypertension, but a small number (180) had heart failure. Most of the nifedipine patients had uncomplicated hypertension, but some (22.57%) had other cardiovascular disease with or without hypertension. Lisinopril and nifedipine were equally effective in reducing blood pressure. During the study, 1.5% of hypertensive patients assigned to lisinopril died compared with 1.8% of patients assigned to nifedipine, and 15.1% of lisinopril patients compared with 19.7% of patients in the nifedipine group withdrew because of adverse events. Cough, malaise and fatigue, nausea and vomiting were more frequent causes of withdrawal from lisinopril than nifedipine. Conversely, headaches, pallor and flushing, oedema and palpitations caused more frequent withdrawals from nifedipine. Anaemia was more often encountered on nifedipine treatment than on lisinopril. In hypertensive patients, the frequency of first-dose hypotension was similar on both treatments. Serious events occurred in 0.8% and 0.5% of patients given lisinopril and nifedipine respectively. Lisinopril was well tolerated by heart failure patients: 16 patients (8.88%) died and an incidence of 4.44% of serious adverse events was reported, a pattern to be anticipated in such patients; dizziness, giddiness, dyspnoea, cough, nausea and vomiting were the most frequent causes of withdrawal; the incidence of first-dose hypotension was low (2.22%).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Post-marketing surveillance of lisinopril in general practice in the UK. 811 50

We examined the dose-related effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on circulating and tissue levels of angiotensin and bradykinin peptides by administering perindopril or lisinopril to rats in drinking water for 7 days. A reduction in the ratio of plasma angiotensin II (Ang II) to Ang I was seen for 0.006 mg/kg per day perindopril, with an increase in plasma renin and Ang I at 0.017 mg/kg per day. Plasma Ang II levels did not decrease until 1.4 mg/kg per day perindopril, at which dose plasma Ang I levels reached a plateau of an approximate 25-fold increase. The effects of perindopril on Ang II and Ang I levels in heart, lung, aorta, and brown adipose tissue were parallel to those observed for plasma. By contrast, renal Ang I levels did not increase, and renal Ang II levels decreased by 40% at 0.017 mg/kg per day, the same threshold seen for the increase in plasma renin. Perindopril increased circulating bradykinin-(1-9) levels approximately eightfold, with a threshold dose of 0.052 mg/kg per day, and increased bradykinin-(1-9) levels in kidney, heart, and lung in parallel with the changes observed for plasma. By contrast, aortic and brown adipose tissue bradykinin-(1-9) and bradykinin-(1-7) levels increased severalfold for perindopril doses as low as 0.006 mg/kg per day. Lisinopril also increased aortic bradykinin-(1-9) and bradykinin-(1-7) levels at doses below the threshold for the decrease in the ratio of Ang II to Ang I. These data indicate that renal Ang II levels and vascular bradykinin-(1-9) levels respond to low doses of converting enzyme inhibitor and may be important mediators of the effects of these compounds. The parallel increases in bradykinin-(1-9) and bradykinin-(1-7) levels in aorta and brown adipose tissue, at inhibitor doses below the threshold for inhibition of Ang I conversion, may result from a mechanism different from inhibition of "classic" angiotensin-converting enzyme.
Hypertension 1994 Apr
PMID:Effects of converting enzyme inhibitors on angiotensin and bradykinin peptides. 814 13

Transgenic (TG) rats carrying the mouse Ren-2 gene (Ren-2d)27 are a newly established monogenetic model in hypertension research. To gain an insight into the mechanisms of this form of hypertension we determined the effects of a 13-day therapy with losartan (10 mg/kg) or lisinopril (20 mg/kg) on the blood pressure (BP) and plasma levels of angiotensin (ANG) peptides of mature female TG hypertensive and Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats. The contribution of endothelium-derived nitric oxide (NO) to the maintenance of their hypertension and the response to therapy was evaluated by systemic injection of either NG-monomethyl-L-arginine (L-NMMA) or endothelin-1. Hypertension in TG rats was associated with decreased plasma ANG I, no differences in plasma ANG II, and plasma ANG-(1-7) near the detectable level. Lisinopril lowered BP more than losartan in both TG hypertensive and normotensive controls. In both strains, the chronic fall in BP produced by lisinopril was accompanied by significant increases in plasma ANG I and ANG-(1-7), while losartan augmented plasma ANG I and ANG II in both strains and plasma ANG-(1-7) in TG rats. Inhibition of NO synthase reversed the fall in BP produced by either lisinopril or losartan in SD controls. In contrast, administration of L-NMMA to TG rats given the same therapy did not. The transient endothelium-mediated relaxing phase of the depressor response to systemic injections of endothelin-1 was attenuated by losartan and lisinopril in TG rats. These studies indicate that hypertension in female TG rats is mediated by the RAS.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Mechanisms of hypertension in transgenic rats expressing the mouse Ren-2 gene. 818 72

The efficacy of lisinopril 10-40 mg once daily was compared with that of nifedipine tablets 20-40 mg twice daily in a multicentre double-blind randomized parallel group study of 16 weeks duration involving 127 patients with mild to moderate hypertension. The groups randomized to lisinopril or to nifedipine were not significantly different with respect to any demographic variable. An analysis of the pooled data from all centres demonstrated a significantly greater fall in both lying and standing systolic blood pressure (SBP) on lisinopril than on nifedipine treatment (difference between treatments 7.70 +/- 3.34 mmHg; P = 0.02 and 10.2 +/- 3.30 mmHg; P = 0.003 for lying and standing SBP, respectively). However, this difference may be accounted for by the slightly higher mean SBP in the lisinopril treatment groups compared with the nifedipine group at the end of the placebo run-in period. Both treatments lowered lying and standing diastolic blood pressures (DBP) to the same extent and the response rates to the two treatments were the same. The effects of the two drugs on heart rate were indistinguishable from each other. There were six lisinopril and 12 nifedipine-treated patients withdrawn during randomized treatment (P = 0.22). Nineteen per cent of lisinopril patients reported an adverse event compared with 36% of nifedipine patients. The relative risk of an adverse event on lisinopril compared with nifedipine was 0.42 (confidence limits 1.027-0.172) a difference which approached statistical significance (P = 0.0573). Lisinopril produced a greater reduction in both lying and standing SBP than nifedipine and both were associated with equivalent reductions in DBP. Lisinopril may be better tolerate than nifedipine.
 ...
PMID:ACE inhibition versus calcium antagonism in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: a multicentre study. Ireland-Netherlands Lisinopril-Nifedipine Study Group. 820 41

Lisinopril is a new, long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor formulated for once-daily treatment of hypertension. This study assessed the 24-h efficacy and tolerability of lisinopril in Chinese patients with mild to moderate hypertension of World Health Organization Stages I to II. A total of 30 patients aged 30 to 60 years (mean 47 +/- 9) entered a 2-week washout period. All patients had ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (BP) > 90 mmHg and were given active treatment with lisinopril for 4 to 7 weeks. The dose of lisinopril was titrated from 10 to 40 mg daily (at 8-9 A.M.). In each patient, 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitoring (SpaceLabs 90202) was performed twice, once before and once following treatment. Mean 24-hour systolic/diastolic BPs after lisinopril were significantly decreased compared with baseline values (132 +/- 12/86 +/- 7 vs. 150 +/- 11/98 +/- 7 mmHg; p < 0.0005/0.0005). The average dose of lisinopril was 14.5 +/- 5 mg daily after a titration period of 5 weeks of treatment. Mean daytime (6 A.M. to 6 P.M.) BP decreased from 152 +/- 11/100 +/- 8 to 134 +/- 12/87 +/- 8 mmHg (p < 0.0005/0.0005) and nighttime (6 P.M. to 6 A.M.) BP from 147 +/- 14/95 +/- 9 to 128 +/- 14/83 +/- 8 mmHg (p < 0.0005/0.0005). BP reduction was more pronounced during the night. Before treatment, the circadian variation showed a peak BP at 11 A.M. and nadir at 3 P.M. After treatment, significant BP reduction (p < 0.0005/0.0005) was seen throughout the 24-h period.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
 ...
PMID:Efficacy of once-daily lisinopril monotherapy in systemic hypertension. 838 23

Fifty patients with mild or moderate hypertension were assessed for the influence on peripheral hemodynamics of 10 months of treatment with lisinopril (25 patients) or metoprolol (25 patients). Two-dimensional Doppler flowmetry was used for the evaluation. Responding patients (blood pressure < 150/90 mm Hg) were monitored for another 4 weeks after treatment withdrawal to determine whether changes in forearm hemodynamics, if any, persisted. Twenty-two patients from either group (88%) were considered to be responders. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients receiving lisinopril dropped by 6% and 15%, respectively (p < 0.001), in those receiving metoprolol the decrease was 5.9% and 14%, respectively (p < 0.001). Forearm hemodynamics was not significantly different before treatment and improved in patients receiving lisinopril, with increased compliance (p < 0.001) and lower vascular resistance (p < 0.001). No significant changes were observed with metoprolol. After withdrawal, blood pressure returned to baseline values in both groups. However, improvement in forearm hemodynamics persisted in the lisinopril group. Hemodynamics changes were statistically different on lisinopril versus metoprolol both after treatment and after withdrawal. Lisinopril, but not metoprolol, seems capable to induce regression of functional and/or structural changes of large arteries in patients with hypertension.
 ...
PMID:Forearm arterial distensibility in patients with hypertension: comparative effects of long-term ACE inhibition and beta-blocking. 838 96


<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >>