Why the study?
Does orally administered candesartan cilexetil inhibit central responses to angiotensin II in conscious rats?
Does orally administered candesartan cilexetil inhibit central responses to angiotensin II in conscious rats?
Orally administered candesartan cilexetil effectively inhibits centrally mediated effects of Angiotensin II in rats, indicating central penetration.
Central effects of oral candesartan shown in rats; leaves open translation to human central AT1 blockade.
OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we investigated the ability of the peripherally administered angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonist, candesartan cilexetil, to block central effects of angiotensin II (Ang II) in conscious rats. DESIGN AND METHODS: Candesartan cilexetil was administered orally by gavage at doses of 0.1, 1, 10 and 30 mg/kg. Drinking response, pressor response and release of vasopressin into the circulation following intracerebroventricular (i.c.v.) Ang II (10 or 100 ng) were measured at 0.5, 2, 4 and 24 h following the drug application. The same parameters were measured after chronic treatment with candesartan cilexetil for 1 week. In a separate experiment, the release of vasopressin induced by microinjection of Ang II (100 ng) into the paraventricular nucleus (PVN) was determined 4 h after oral administration of candesartan cilexetil (1 mg/kg) or vehicle. RESULTS: Oral treatment with candesartan cilexetil inhibited all central responses to i.c.v. Ang II in a dose- and time-dependent manner. The Ang II-induced responses were inhibited 4 h after acute or chronic treatment with 0.1 mg/kg candesartan cilexetil, but had returned to control levels 24 h after drug application. In contrast, the highest dose of candesartan cilexetil (30 mg/kg) nearly abolished the central responses to Ang II for 24 h. Candesartan cilexetil completely blocked vasopressin release into the circulation induced by Ang II microinjection into the PVN. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the AT1 receptor antagonist, candesartan cilexetil, very effectively inhibits the centrally mediated effects of Ang II upon peripheral application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gohlke et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: