Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Subject Collections
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Editorial Fellowship Program
    • Feedback
    • Reprints
    • Impact Factor
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • CJASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Subject Collections
    • JASN Podcasts
    • Archives
    • Saved Searches
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • Subscriptions
  • More
    • About JASN
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Editorial Fellowship Program
    • Feedback
    • Reprints
    • Impact Factor
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Follow JASN on Twitter
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow JASN on RSS
  • Community Forum
Articles
You have accessRestricted Access

Should a Diuretic Always Be the First Choice in Patients with Essential Hypertension? The Case for No

Alberto Morganti
JASN March 2005, 16 (3 suppl 1) S70-S73; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2004110964
Alberto Morganti
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Abstract

A more extensive use of diuretics as first-line drug for the treatment of hypertensive patients has been recommended on the basis of the results of the recent Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial, yet diuretics have numerous drawbacks that may limit their undisputed ability to lower BP. These include the stimulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with the attending negative cardiovascular effects that ensue from this activation and several metabolic alterations, namely those in glucose, lipid, and potassium metabolism. Numerous mechanistic as well as interventional trials indicate that these limitations of diuretics can adversely affect the clinical outcome of patients and their compliance to treatment and consequently the cost of therapy. In addition, there are a number of clinical conditions in which the diuretics are admittedly contraindicated as first-line drugs. Thus, the emphasis should be on obtaining optimal BP control rather on the drug used to achieve it.

The results of the recent megatrial Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) (1), which have shown how a thiazide-based treatment can prevent the major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients to the same extent of treatments that are based on more modern but also more expensive antihypertensive agents, have fueled a lively debate on whether thiazide diuretics should always be chosen as first-line drugs in treating hypertension (2–5). Although it is obvious that diuretics represent an essential part of the combination of treatments that are required to achieve good BP control in most hypertensive patients, it should be equally clear that diuretics have several drawbacks that may prevent or least limit the beneficial cardiovascular effects that result from their undisputed efficacy in reducing BP.

Herein, I focus on two potentially negative effects of this class of drug: The diuretic-induced stimulation of the renin system and the somehow interrelated diuretic-induced metabolic alterations. I also briefly discuss the mechanisms whereby these effects of diuretics may have a negative impact on the clinical outcome of patients and on their compliance to treatment and on the cost of therapy.

Diuretic-Induced Stimulation of the Renin System

Diuretics invariably stimulate renin secretion via the dual mechanism of intrarenal baroreceptor activation and the increase in sodium load presented to the macula densa. This effect may seem trivial, but it is not always fully appreciated that in the many (50%) hypertensive patients who have a “normal” renin profile, the activity of the system is already inappropriately high at baseline in relation to the levels of BP, and this is even more so in the 20 to 25% who have a “high” renin profile (6). Thus, in approximately three of four patients with essential hypertension, the diuretic-induced stimulation of renin secretion results in circulating levels of angiotensin II (Ang II) and of aldosterone, which are abnormally high. An excess of Ang II and of aldosterone, either systemically or locally generated, may be detrimental because, in addition to their well-recognized vasoconstrictive and sodium-retaining actions, they have a number of other negative effects. These include the potentiation of the sympathetic nervous system both centrally and peripherally (7), the stimulation of cardiac myocytes and fibroblasts that favor the development of cardiac hypertrophy (8), the multiple hemodynamic and nonhemodynamic actions that accelerate the progression of renal injury (9), the ability of increasing the generation of the reactive oxygen species in the vessel wall (10), and, finally, the multiple intracellular signaling pathways that interfere with insulin action (11). Thus, it was proposed recently that Ang II may have a pivotal role in amplifying the oxidative stress brought about by a number of risk factors, including high cholesterol, diabetes, smoking, and high BP itself (12).

Obviously, one may wonder whether the activation of all of these deleterious actions actually has a relevant impact on the clinical outcome of patients. In this respect, it worth recalling that already in the early 1990s, Alderman et al. (13) showed that a high renin profile is in itself a risk factor; indeed, they reported that in a large cohort of hypertensive patients who were stratified according to baseline renin levels but had similar levels of glucose, cholesterol, and smoking, those with a high renin profile had a significantly greater incidence of myocardial infarction with respect to those with normal or low renin profile. These findings were more recently confirmed and extended by the same investigators (14).

The idea that the activation of the renin system is harmful for the cardiovascular system is reinforced by the consideration that its antagonism has been proved to be protective in a number of clinical conditions (Table 1), some of which are not even associated with high BP. Also with respect to the selection of the antihypertensive drugs, needless to say that among those recommended as first choice by the recent European and American guidelines, diuretics are the only one to stimulate the renin system, all of the others being either suppressive or neutral.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Clinical conditions in which the antagonist of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system has been proved effective

One very practical reason for not preferring the renin-stimulating drugs is that the reactive rise in Ang II largely blunts the antihypertensive effects of these agents. For instance, Schmidt et al. (15) showed that the long-term reduction of systolic and diastolic BP achievable with the combination of 25 mg/d hydrochlorothiazide with 80 mg of the angiotensin receptor antagonist valsartan is twofold that obtained with the same dose of hydrochlorothiazide administered alone.

Diuretic-Induced Metabolic Alterations

Apart from the inherent limitations of their antihypertensive effects, diuretics can cause several metabolic alterations that may prove to be disadvantageous, particularly in the long term, the most relevant of which is the disturbance in glucose metabolism (16,17). The results of numerous large intervention trials support this concept. The Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment Trial (18) demonstrated that among hypertensive patients who were treated with a combination of hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride, the incidence of new case of diabetes was significantly higher than in those who were treated with the calcium antagonist nifedipine; patients of the former group also had a higher increment of serum uric acid and of lipids than the latter group. Similar results were observed in the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP), in which a converting enzyme inhibitor was compared with a conventional therapy that included diuretics (19), and in the ALLHAT itself (1), in which the incidence of new cases of diabetes at the end of the study was 11.6, 9.8, and 8.1% in the chlorthalidone, amlodipine, and lisinopril groups, respectively. This drawback of diuretics has been stressed further by the results of the recent Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation (ALPINE) Study (20), in which newly detected hypertensive patients who were treated for 1 yr with 25 mg/d hydrochlorothiazide alone or in combination with atenolol had a significantly greater incidence of new cases of diabetes and of metabolic syndrome than a comparison group that was treated with 16 mg/d candesartan alone or in combination with the calcium antagonist felodipine. Moreover, overall, the diuretic-treated group developed some degree of insulin resistance in response to an oral glucose tolerance test, which did not occur in the candesartan-treated group. This alteration was associated with those less evident but also statistically significant in triglycerides and HDL. Along this line in another recent investigation, Grassi et al. (21) showed that hydrochlorothiazide and candesartan administered to obese hypertensive patients in doses similar to those used in the ALPINE Study caused significant and similar reduction in BP; however, the treatment with the Ang II receptor antagonist reduced the muscle sympathetic nerve activity measured by microneurographic recording and increased the insulin sensitivity, expressed as the ratio between insulin and glucose levels during an oral glucose load, whereas the thiazide did not significantly affect the peripheral sympathetic activity and worsened insulin sensitivity.

Again, the question that arises is whether these alterations are clinically relevant, because in the 5 yr of follow-up of the ALLHAT, the greater incidence of new cases of diabetes observed in diuretic-treated patients was not associated with a greater incidence of major cardiovascular events (1). However, 5 yr time may be not enough to disclose the negative consequences of the diuretic-induced metabolic alterations because the incubation period for vascular disease may be very long (22). In this respect, a previous long-term study from Sweden showed that in hypertensive patients who developed new-onset diabetes, the coronary risk was increased by 48% in comparison with those who did not developed it (23). Also, Dunder et al. (24) showed that even small increments of blood glucose are the best predictor of subsequent risk for myocardial infarction in middle-aged hypertensive patients. Even Coutinho et al. (25) reported that a small increase of fasting glucose within the normal range (from 75 to 110 mg/dl) can increase the cardiovascular events by 33% over 12 yr. Alderman et al. (26) in a 6.3-yr follow-up study observed that in hypertensive diabetic patients who were frequent users of diuretics, the incidence of cardiovascular events was greater than in moderate or rare users. Finally, in a very recent study, Verdecchia et al. (27) in a large cohort of hypertensive patients found that the antihypertensive treatment included a diuretic in 53.5% of those who developed new cases of diabetes versus 30.4% of those in whom diabetes did not developed. Moreover, after adjustment for several confounders, the relative risk of events in the group with new diabetes and in the group with diabetes at entry was similarly increased when compared with patients who were persistently free of diabetes, indicating that the treatment-induced diabetes portends a risk not dissimilar from that of previously known diabetes.

Long-term diuretic treatment may also cause hypokalemia, which in the ALLHAT occurred in 12.7% of patients who were receiving thiazide-based treatment against 2.6 and 1.5%, respectively, in patients who were receiving amlodipine- and lisinopril-based treatment. Obviously, the cardiac risk associated with hypokalemia depends on the degree of serum potassium reduction, and it is held that the hypokalemia that ensues from the doses of diuretics commonly used should not do any arm (28); yet in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (29), in which all patients were receiving a diuretic-based treatment, those with serum potassium levels <3.5 mEq/L had no benefit in terms of cardiovascular events despite decreases in BP similar to those observed in patients with ≥3.5 mEq/L, suggesting that even mild hypokalemia may counterbalance, in some way, the beneficial effect of BP lowering.

Compliance and Cost

It is well known that the compliance to diuretic treatment is poor and that after 1 yr of therapy, only one third of patients stay on this drug in comparison with 50 to 60% of those who are treated with the more modern drugs, namely the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the Ang II receptor antagonists. This may be because of the side effects that are associated with the use of this class of drug. In the ALPINE Study (20), the percentage of patients who had serious side effects that led to the change in therapy was almost double that of those who were treated with candesartan. It is also plausible that negative effects on sexual functions contribute the to the low tolerability of diuretics. Indeed, in the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (30), it was reported that after 2 yr of follow-up, 17.1% of male patients who were receiving chlorthalidone were complaining of some degree of sexual disturbance against 8.3 and 9.7%, respectively, of those who were receiving amlodipine and enalapril.

The frequency of side effects with the resultant need to change therapy is known to have a major impact on the cost in that it brings about the expenses for further investigations, occasional hospital admissions, and additional drugs (e.g., potassium supplement, antidiabetic agent) (31); moreover, the change in therapy frequently leads patients to stop whatever antihypertensive treatment they are receiving. Thus, the application of a more expensive treatment at the beginning of therapy may imply a substantial and continued economical saving in the long term, whereas the opposite may turn out to be true for some inexpensive drugs (32).

As a final consideration, it should be said that the debate on the first-choice drug may seem nowadays somehow out of date considering that the vast majority of the hypertensive patients require a combination of at least two drugs to control BP; moreover, even the recent JNC report recognizes not less than 15 special or compelling clinical conditions that justify the use of antihypertensive drugs other than diuretics as first choice (33) (Table 2). Thus, as it has been stated by Jones and Hall (34) in their recent editorial commentary to the JNC guidelines on hypertension, it seems wise to conclude that “the key emphasis should be on the fact that lowering BP is more important than the choice of the antihypertensive agent.”

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Compelling clinical situations that justify the use of antihypertensive drugs other than diuretics as first choice

  • © 2005 American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group: Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering treatment to prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 288 : 2981 –2997, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Moser M: Results of ALLHAT: Is this the final answer regarding initial antihypertensive drug therapy? Arch Intern Med 163 : 1025 –1030, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. Julius S: The ALLHAT Study: If you believe in evidence-based medicine, stick to it! J Hypertens 21 : 453 –454, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. Williams B: It is not how you start but where you end that it matters. J Hypertens 21 : 455 –457, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    McInnes GT: Size is not everything—ALLHAT in perspective. J Hypertens 21 : 459 –461, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Laragh JH, Sealy JE: The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in hypertensive disorders; a key to two forms of arteriolar vasoconstriction and a possible clue to risk of vascular injury (heart attack and stroke) and prognosis. In: Hypertension Pathophysiology, Diagnosis and Management, edited by JH Laragh and BM Brenner, New York, Raven Press, 1990 , pp 1330 –1348
  7. ↵
    Zimmerman BG: Adrenergic facilitation by angiotensin: Does it serve a physiological function? Clin Sci 60 : 343 –348, 1981
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    Kim S, Iwao H: Molecular and cellular mechanisms of angiotensin II mediated cardiovascular and renal disease. Pharmacol Rev 52 : 11 –34, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Tall MW, Brenner BM: Renoprotective benefits of RAS inhibition: From ACEI to angiotensin antagonist. Kidney Int 57 : 1803 –1817, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Touyz RM, Schiffrin EL: Signal transduction mechanisms mediating the physiological and pathophysiological actions of angiotensin II in vascular smooth muscle. Pharmacol Rev 51 : 639 –672, 2000
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Sowers JR, Epstein M, Frolich ED: Diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. An update. Hypertension 37 : 1053 –1059, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Dzau V: Tissue angiotensin and pathobiology of vascular disease. A unifying hypothesis. Hypertension 37 : 1047 –1052, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Alderman M, Madhavan S, Ooi WL, Cohen HW, Sealey JE, Laragh JH: Association of renin sodium profile with the risk of myocardial infarction in patients with hypertension. N Engl J Med 324 : 1098 –1104, 1991
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Alderman M, Cohen HW, Sealey JE, Laragh JH: Plasma renin activity levels in hypertensive persons: Their wide range and lack of suppression in diabetic and most elderly patients. Am J Hypertens 17 : 1 –7, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Schmidt A, Adam SA, Kolloch R, Weidinger B, Handrock R: Antihypertensive effect of valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide combination in essential hypertension. Blood Press 10 : 230 –237, 2001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Lithell HO: Effect of antihypertensive drugs on insulin, glucose and lipid metabolism. Diabetes Care 14 : 203 –209, 1991
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    Elliot W: Glucose and cholesterol elevations during thiazide therapy: Intention to treat versus actual on-therapy experience. Am J Med 99 : 216 –219, 1995
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, de Leeuw PW, Mancia G, Rosenthal T, Ruilope LM: Morbidity and mortality in patients randomized to double-blind treatment with long-acting calcium-channel blocker on diuretic in the International Nifedipine GTS Study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 356 : 366 –372, 2000
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, Lanke J, Hedner T, Niklason A, Luomanmaki K, Dahlof B, de Faire U, Morlin C, Karlberg BE, Wester PO, Bjorck JE: Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 353 : 611 –616, 1999
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Lindholm LH, Persson M, Alanpovic P, Carlberg BO, Svensson A, Samuelsson O: Metabolic outcome during 1 year in newly detected hypertensive: Results of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation (ALPINE). J Hypertens 21 : 1563 –1574, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Grassi G, Seravalle G, Dell’Oro R, Quarti Trevano F, Bombelli M, Scopelliti F, Facchini A, Mancia G: Comparative effects of candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide on blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, and sympathetic drive in obese hypertensive individuals: Results of the CROSS Study. J Hypertens 21 : 1761 –1769, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Rose G: Incubation period of coronary heart disease. BMJ 284 : 1600 –1601, 1982
  23. ↵
    Samuelsson O, Pennert K, Andersson O, Berglund G, Hedner J, Persson B: Diabetes mellitus and raised triglyceride concentration in treated hypertensives. Are they of prognostic importance? BMJ 313 : 223 –224, 1996
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Dunder K, Lind L, Zethelius B, Berglund L, Lithell H: Increase in blood glucose concentration during antihypertensive treatment as a predictor of myocardial infarction: Population based cohort study. BMJ 326 : 681 –684, 2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. ↵
    Coutinho M, Gerstein HC, Yang Y, Yusuf S: The relationship between glucose and incident cardiovascular events. Diabetes Care 22 : 233 –240, 1999
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Alderman M, Cohen H, Madhavan S: Diabetes and cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. Hypertension 33 : 1130 –1134, 1999
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Angeli F, Borgioni C, Gattobigio R, Filipucci L, Norgiolini S, Bracco C, Porcellati C: Adverse prognostic significance of new diabetes in treated hypertensive subjects. Hypertension 43 : 963 –969, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Siscovick DS, Raglunathan TE, Psaty BM, Koepsell TD, Wicklund KG, Lin X: Diuretic therapy for hypertension and the risk of primary cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 330 : 1852 –1857, 1994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Franse LV, Pahor M, Di Bari M, Somes GW, Cushman WC, Applegate WB: Hypokalemia associated with diuretic use and cardiovascular events in the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program. Hypertension 35 : 1025 –1030, 2000
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Grimm RH Jr, Grandits GA, Prineas RJ, McDonald RH, Lewis CE, Flack JM: Long term effects on sexual function of five antihypertensive drugs and nutritional hygienic treatment in hypertensive men and women. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS). Hypertension 29 : 8 –14, 1997
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    McCombs JS, Nichol MB, Newman CM, Selar DA: The cost of interrupting antihypertensive drug treatment in a Medicaid population. Med Care 32 : 214 –226, 1994
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Zanchetti A: Cost of implementing recommendations on hypertension management given in recent guidelines. J Hypertension 21 : 2207 –2209, 2003
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WE, Green LA, Izzo JL, Jones DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright JT, Rocella EJ, and the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Coordinating Committee: Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee of Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 42 : 1206 –1252, 2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    Jones DW, Hall JE: Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 43 : 1 –3, 2004
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 16, Issue 3 suppl 1
1 Mar 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in JASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Should a Diuretic Always Be the First Choice in Patients with Essential Hypertension? The Case for No
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Should a Diuretic Always Be the First Choice in Patients with Essential Hypertension? The Case for No
Alberto Morganti
JASN Mar 2005, 16 (3 suppl 1) S70-S73; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2004110964

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Should a Diuretic Always Be the First Choice in Patients with Essential Hypertension? The Case for No
Alberto Morganti
JASN Mar 2005, 16 (3 suppl 1) S70-S73; DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2004110964
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Diuretic-Induced Stimulation of the Renin System
    • Diuretic-Induced Metabolic Alterations
    • Compliance and Cost
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Impact of Target Organ Damage Assessment in the Evaluation of Global Risk in Patients with Essential Hypertension
  • Prevention and Treatment of Diabetic Nephropathy: The Program for Irbesartan Mortality and Morbidity Evaluation
  • Individual Titration for Maximal Blockade of the Renin-Angiotensin System in Proteinuric Patients: A Feasible Strategy?
Show more Articles

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Annual Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • Editorial Fellowship Program
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • JASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About JASN
  • JASN Email Alerts
  • JASN Key Impact Information
  • JASN Podcasts
  • JASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1046-6673 Online ISSN - 1533-3450

Powered by HighWire