4.3 Article

A Prospective Single-Blind Randomized Trial of Ramipril, Eplerenone and Their Combination in Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy

期刊

CARDIORENAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 392-401

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000508670

关键词

Diabetic nephropathy; Microalbuminuria; Eplerenone; Ramipril; Hyperkalemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) combined with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were found to have a beneficial effect on patients with chronic kidney disease. Objective: The aim of our clinical trial was to compare the antialbuminuric effect of ramipril monotherapy, eplerenone monotherapy and eplerenone/ramipril combination therapy in patients with stage 1 hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: In a single-blind, randomized clinical trial, 75 hypertensive patients (stage 1 hypertension) with type 2 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 3 groups: ramipril 10 mg monotherapy (25 patients), eplerenone 50 mg monotherapy (25 patients) and combination therapy of eplerenone/ramipril 50/10 mg (25 patients) through a randomized clinical trial. Blood pressure, urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR), serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and serum K level were measured before randomization and after 24 weeks. Results: Ramipril and eplerenone monotherapy showed a significant lowering of UACR compared with baseline levels (p <= 0.0001). The eplerenone/ramipril combination group showed a more significant reduction of UACR compared with the ramipril and eplerenone monotherapy groups (p = 0.0001). There was a more significant lowering of systolic blood pressure in the combination group (p < 0.0001). A nonsignificant change of serum potassium level, serum creatinine and eGFR was found among the 3 groups. Conclusion: Addition of eplerenone to ACEI shows an added antialbuminuric effect without significant change of the serum K level compared with eplerenone or ACEI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据