Why the study?
Does the non-peptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist TCV-116 reduce blood pressure and affect renal hemodynamics in normotensive and renal hypertensive dogs?
Does the non-peptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist TCV-116 reduce blood pressure and affect renal hemodynamics in normotensive and renal hypertensive dogs?
TCV-116 effectively lowers blood pressure in renal hypertensive dogs while preserving or improving renal hemodynamics, suggesting potential benefits for hypertension treatment.
Supports renal benefits of ARBs in canine models; leaves open translation to human hypertension.
The effects of TCV-116, a new non-peptide angiotensin II receptor antagonist, on systemic and renal hemodynamics were studied in conscious normotensive and renal hypertensive (2-kidney, 1-clip Gold-blatt type) dogs. When orally administered at 0.03 to 1.0 mg/kg, TCV-116 inhibited the pressor response to angiotensin II in conscious normotensive dogs in a dose-dependent fashion. The IC50 and IC100 values were 0.06 mg/kg and 0.86 mg/kg, respectively. TCV-116 at doses of 0.3 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg dose-dependently and persistently decreased systolic and diastolic blood pressure in both dogs with acute renal (hyperreninemic) and those with chronic renal (normoreninemic) hypertension. Even a high dose of TCV-116 (10 mg/kg, p.o.) increased effective renal plasma flow without affecting blood pressure or glomerular filtration rate in normotensive dogs. Furthermore, even at this high dose, TCV-116 did not reduce effective renal plasma flow or glomerular filtration rate in dogs with renal hypertension despite marked reduction in systemic blood pressure. The angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (10 mg/kg, p.o.) had renal hemodynamic effects similar to those of TCV-116. These findings indicate that TCV-116 has potent hypotensive effects not only in dogs with acute renal hypertension but also in those with chronic renal hypertension, but does not appear to adversely affect renal hemodynamics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ito et al. (1995) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: