↓ Skip to main content

Optimal Antagonism of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Optimal Antagonism of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System
Published in
Drugs, September 2012
DOI 10.2165/11537910-000000000-00000
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Werner, Janine Pöss, Michael Böhm

Abstract

The cardiovascular and cardiorenal disease continuum comprises the transition from cardiovascular risk factors to endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, to clinical complications such as myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, to the development of persistent target-organ damage and, ultimately, to chronic congestive heart failure (CHF), end-stage renal disease or premature death. The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is involved in all steps along this pathway, and RAAS blockade with ACE inhibitors or angiotensin AT(1)-receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs) has turned out to be beneficial for patient outcomes throughout the disease continuum. Both ACE inhibitors and ARBs can prevent or reverse endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis, thereby reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. These drugs have further been shown to reduce end-organ damage in the heart, kidneys and brain. Aldosterone antagonists such as spironolactone and eplerenone are increasingly recognized as a third class of RAAS inhibitor with potent risk-reducing properties, especially but not solely with respect to the inhibition of cardiac remodelling and the possible prevention of heart failure. In secondary prevention, head-to-head comparisons of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, such as the recent ONTARGET study, provided evidence that, in addition to better tolerability, ARBs are non-inferior to ACE inhibitors in the prevention of clinical endpoints such as MI and stroke in cardiovascular high-risk patients. However, the combination of both ramipril and telmisartan at the maximally tolerated dosage achieved no further benefits and was associated with more adverse events such as symptomatic hypotension and renal dysfunction. In acute MI complicated by heart failure, the VALIANT trial has shown similar effects of ACE inhibition with captopril and ARB treatment with valsartan, but dual RAAS blockade did not further reduce events. In CHF, meta-analyses of RESOLVD, ValHeFT and CHARM-ADDED have shown that combined RAAS inhibition with an ACE inhibitor and ARB significantly reduced the morbidity endpoint in certain patient subgroups compared with standard therapy. However, in clinical practice, dual RAAS blockade is rarely employed, as seen, for instance, in the CORONA trial. The RALES and EPHESUS trials, investigating the effects of aldosterone blockade on cardiovascular outcomes in CHF patients, revealed that the addition of an aldosterone antagonist to standard heart failure therapy conferred powerful relative risk reductions for both morbidity and mortality. Future studies will elucidate whether this also holds true for patients who are asymptomatic or who have heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. In selected patients with renal disease, several studies have suggested that combined RAAS blockade brings about additional renoprotective antiproteinuric effects independent of blood pressure reduction, and large trials with robust endpoints are underway. In summary, combined therapy with several RAAS inhibitors is not recommended for all patients along the cardiorenovascular continuum. Patients with CHF with incomplete neuroendocrine blockade, as indicated, for example, by repetitive cardiac decompensation or refractory symptoms, might benefit from dual therapy as long as safety issues are well controlled. Finally, novel pharmacological agents such as the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren may provide additional therapeutic tools, but their role has yet to be established.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
India 1 1%
Slovakia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
Unknown 84 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 10%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 12 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 16 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#8,681,963
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,531
of 3,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,153
of 189,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#585
of 1,515 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 189,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,515 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.