Effect of ramipril vs amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive nephrosclerosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Lawrence Y. Agodoa, Lawrence Appel, George L. Bakris, Gerald Beck, Jacques Bourgoignie, Josephine P. Briggs, Jeanne Charleston, De Anna Cheek, William Cleveland, Janice G. Douglas, Margaret Douglas, Donna Dowie, Marquetta Faulkner, Avril Gabriel, Jennifer Gassman, Tom Greene, Yvette Hall, Lee Hebert, Leena Hiremath, Kenneth JamersonCarolyn J. Johnson, Joel Kopple, John Kusek, James Lash, Janice Lea, Julia B. Lewis, Michael Lipkowitz, Shaul Massry, John Middleton, Edgar R. Miller, Keith Norris, Daniel O'Connor, Akinlou Ojo, Robert A. Phillips, Velvie Pogue, Mahboob Rahman, Otelio S. Randall, Stephen Rostand, Gerald Schulman, Winifred Smith, Denyse Thornley-Brown, C. Craig Tisher, Robert D. Toto, Jackson T. Wright, Shichen Xu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Context Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased in recent decades, but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure is unknown, especially among African Americans. Objective To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ramipril), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and a β-blocker (metoprolol) on hypertensive renal disease progression. Design, Setting, and Participants Interim analysis of a randomized, doubleblind, 3 × 2 factorial trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m2) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998. This report compares the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine intervention in September 2000. Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, 5 to 10 mg/d (n=217), ramipril, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n=436), or metoprolol, 50 to 200 mg/d (n=441), with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR; the main secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction in GFR of more than 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2end-stage renal disease, or death. Results Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of >0.22 (corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d), the ramipril group had a 36% (2.02 [SE, 0.74] mL/min per 1.73 m2/y) slower mean decline in GFR over 3 years (P=.006) and a 48% reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group (95% confidence interval [Cl], 20%-66%). In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups (P=.38). However, compared with the amlodipine group, after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38% reduced risk of clinical end points (95 % Cl, 13 %-56%), a 36% slower mean decline in GFR after 3 months (P=.002), and less proteinuria (P<.001). Conclusion Ramipril, compared with amlodipine, retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2719-2728
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of the American Medical Association
Volume285
Issue number21
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 6 2001
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Effect of ramipril vs amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive nephrosclerosis: A Randomized Controlled Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this