Why the study?
Do angiotensin II antagonists, particularly losartan, improve clinical outcomes in patients with hypertension, heart failure, or diabetic nephropathy?
Do angiotensin II antagonists, particularly losartan, improve clinical outcomes in patients with hypertension, heart failure, or diabetic nephropathy?
This review summarizes evidence that angiotensin II antagonists improve hard clinical outcomes in cardiovascular and renal disease, while highlighting potential unique pharmacological benefits of losartan.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support AIIA benefits on mortality in these conditions; leaves open losartan's unique advantages pending head-to-head trials.
The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to prevent cardiovascular complications of hypertension, such as heart failure, stroke, end stage renal disease, and death, not just to normalize blood pressure. Recently, several clinical trials investigated the beneficial effects of angiotensin II antagonists (AIIAs) in patients with hypertension, heart failure or diabetic nephropathy utilizing proven clinical outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality) rather than surrogate outcomes (e.g., blood pressure or proteinuria). The AIIAs may offer therapeutic advantages with respect to particular outcomes in certain types of patients. Evidence is also emerging that losartan may possess beneficial pharmacological properties such as effects on uric acid, platelets, sexual dysfunction, and cognitive function, that may set it apart from other members of the AIIA class. However, further studies are needed to delineate fully these potential pharmacological differences among the AIIAs and their possible clinical relevance. This paper reviews recent AIIA outcomes studies in patients with hypertension, heart failure, or diabetic nephropathy and also examines data suggesting that molecular differences exist within the AIIA class, differences that may assist in explaining the outcomes achieved in these recent trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferrario et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: