Losartan and Eprosartan Induce a Similar Effect on the Acute Rise in Serum Uric Acid Concentration after an Oral Fructose Load in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome

Abstract

Introduction. Excessive intake of fructose increases serum uric acid concentration. Hyperuricemia induces a negative effect on atherosclerosis and inflammation. Hyperuricemia is common in patients with arterial hypertension. Several antihypertensive drugs including diuretics increase serum uric acid concentration. In contrast, the angiotensin II receptor antagonist (ARB) losartan was found to lower serum uric acid though it may increase renal excretion while other ARBs showed mostly a neutral effect. In this study, effects of two AT1 receptor antagonists losartan and eprosartan on serum uric acid changes induced by oral fructose load were directly compared. Methods. The randomized, crossover, head-to-head comparative study comprised 16 ambulatory patients (mean age $64.5 \pm 9.8$ years). The patients fulfilled AHA/NHLBI 2005 criteria of metabolic syndrome. A daily single morning dose of each study drug (50 mg of losartan or 600 mg of eprosartan) was given during two 3-month periods in a random order separated by 2-week washout time. The oral fructose tolerance test (OFTT) was performed at baseline and after each two 3-onth treatment periods. Before and during OFTT, urine excretion of uric acid and creatinine was assessed in the first morning portion of urine. Blood samples for the measurement of serum uric acid and lipids were taken at baseline and 30, 60, and 120 minutes after oral intake of 75 g of fructose. Results. After 3-month treatment with eprosartan and losartan, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly and to a similar extent. After the treatment, serum uric acid and its baseline and postfructose urine excretion were unchanged. No significant changes of plasma lipids before and after OFTT were observed throughout the study. Conclusions. The study showed that in patients with hypertension and metabolic syndrome, both losartan and eprosartan have a neutral effect on fasting and postfructose load serum uric acid concentration and its urinary excretion. This trial is registered with NCT04954560.

1. Introduction

Hyperuricemia is seen in about 20% of adults in the general population [1] and is mostly a consequence of abnormal purine metabolism caused either by an excessive uric acid production or by its impaired elimination by the kidneys [2].

On the one hand, high uric acid concentration may be an important link in the pathogenesis of hypertension, but on the other hand, in mild and moderate hypertension, uric acid excretion is frequently impaired [3]. A study showed that in the hypertensive patients with hyperuricemia, renal blood flow is reduced compared to that in the patients with arterial hypertension but with normal uric acid concentration [4].

Several studies showed that the prevalence of hyperuricemia in patients with hypertension is much higher than that in the general population and may worsen after the onset of antihypertensive treatment [5]. That may indicate that hyperuricemia may be also caused by antihypertensive drugs. In contrast to diuretics and nonselective beta blockers, the agents that block the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system have had a neutral effect on serum uric acid [5–7]. Several clinical studies showed that losartan in contrast to other AT1 receptor agonists (ARB) may have specific uricosuric properties and thereby can lower uric acid concentration [8–11]. It is not clear whether the effect is clinically relevant and may add to organ protective effects of the drug. It has been speculated that the uricosuric effect could make losartan particularly useful for the treatment of arterial hypertension associated with hyperuricemia and metabolic syndrome [9, 10].

The uricosuric effect of losartan is most likely due to overlapping two different mechanisms regulating the excretion of uric acid. Losartan may increase uric acid tubular secretion in the same way as other inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, but in addition, it may specifically inhibit postsecretory resorption of uric acid in the proximal tubule. The effect may be due to a specific structure of the losartan molecule [11]. The urate-anion transporter is a monoammonium-selective transporter, and the losartan molecule is mainly a monoanion at a normal pH range (as opposed to dianion, e.g., eprosartan) and therefore is a good substrate for the exchanger [12]. However, this concept remains speculative since, e.g., irbesartan which is also a monoanion has no consistent uricosuric effect [13].

An increased accessibility of the high-calorie food contributes to the worldwide epidemic of the metabolic syndrome. The rapidly increasing rate of obesity and metabolic syndrome may be partly related to an excessive consumption of fructose added to sweetened beverages and food [14–16]. Fructose, in contrast to other carbohydrates, causes an increase in serum uric acid concentration, which may facilitate the development of the metabolic syndrome [17–19].

The aim of our study was to directly compare the effect of two AT1 receptor antagonists, losartan and eprosartan, on serum uric acid changes stimulated by an oral fructose load.

2. Material and Methods

The study group included 16 patients (15 F, 1 M, mean age $64.5 \pm 9.8$ years). The patients selected for the study fulfilled the AHA/NHLBI 2005 criteria of the metabolic syndrome [19] and ESC/ESH criteria of arterial hypertension. The exclusion criteria included an antihypertensive therapy with the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis blocking agent used anytime during the last 3 months; current or past therapy with the SGLT2 inhibitor, GLP-1 agonist, or DPP4-inhibitor; suspected or confirmed secondary form of hypertension; $estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml / \min / 1.73 m^{2}$ ; chronic liver disease; acute infection; psychiatric disorders; $mean serum potassium concentration at the last three measurements < 4.0 mmol / l$ , or $aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase or creatinine kinase > \times 1.5$ upper range limit. Seven patients had diabetes mellitus of which 4 were treated with insulin. Twelve patients were receiving metformin. Waist circumference was measured on the initial visit. Plasma lipids and blood glucose were measured in a fasting state during the study.

The study was designed as a randomized, crossover, head-to-head comparative study. Randomization was carried out using an MS Excel random number generator. After qualification, each patient was randomly assigned to receive either losartan (Lorista, KRKA, Slovenia) or eprosartan (Teveten, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Australia). The patients were taking all other previously prescribed drugs in unmodified doses during the whole course of the study. Each study drug was given in a random order as a single morning dose (50 mg of losartan or 600 mg of eprosartan) for two periods each lasting 3 months separated by 2-week washout time.

Losartan (C₂₂H₂₃CIN₆O) is approximately 33% orally bioavailable and has a $T_{\max}$ of 1 hour, and its active metabolite has a $T_{\max}$ of 3-4 hours. The terminal elimination half-life of losartan is 1.5-2.5 hours while the active metabolite has a half-life of 6-9 hours [20].

Eprosartan (C₂₃H₂₄N₂O₄S) has an absolute bioavailability after a single 300 mg oral dose of 13%. Food delays absorption of the drug. Eprosartan is not metabolized by the cytochrome P450 system and is eliminated as unchanged drug. Less than 2% of an oral dose is excreted in the urine. The terminal elimination half-life of eprosartan following oral administration is 5 to 9 hours [21].

Oral fructose tolerance with the administration of 75 g of fructose was conducted 3 times during the study in each patient, i.e., at baseline and after each of the treatment periods. Before the commencement of OFTT, the patients collected the urine for 2 hours for assessment of the urinary excretion of uric acid and creatinine. Other baseline measurements included blood pressure, serum concentration of glucose, uric acid, creatinine and plasma lipids (total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides). Subsequent blood samples were taken three times during each OFTT, i.e., after 30, 60, and 120 minutes from its start to determine serum uric acid concentration. In addition, peripheral blood pressure was measured before the collection of each blood sample. After 120 minutes, blood was also taken to assess plasma lipids. The second timed 2-hour urine collection was obtained during OFTT. The same procedures were repeated after each treatment period. The patients took all their prescribed medication including the study drug in the morning 120 minutes before the beginning of OFTT.

Routine automated laboratory tests were used to assess blood and urine parameters. Blood pressure was taken in a sitting position with the aneroid sphygmomanometer. Blood pressure was measured both at baseline and after 3-month therapy with each study drug. The mean from four measurements obtained between 0 and 120 minutes of OFTT was taken for the analysis. Blood pressure was measured by a designated single member of the staff. Mean blood pressure (MAP) was calculated for all measurements as $diastolic BP + 1 / 3$ of pulse pressure ( $systolic BP - diastolic BP$ ).

The results are expressed as $mean \pm SD$ or median with interquartile range depending on each variable distribution. 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the changes of the parameters caused by the treatment. Statistical significance was defined at $p < 0.05$ . The within-group comparisons were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and $t$ -test for normally distributed variables or alternatively with the nonparametric Wilcoxon test. The normality of the variable distribution was checked with the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient was used to assess the relations between variables depending on their distribution. The area under the curve (AUC) of serum uric acid during oral fructose tolerance test was calculated using the trapezoidal rule.

3. Results

Twenty-two patients were recruited to the study; after screening, 6 patients did not complete the study procedure and therefore were not included in the final per-protocol data analysis; in total, 16 patients were included. All dropouts were due to gastrointestinal intolerance of oral fructose. No side effects of the study drugs were observed. Baseline clinical characteristics of the study population are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline clinical and biochemical characteristics of the study group.

	$Mean \pm SD$
Age (years)	$64.5 \pm 9.8$
Body mass index (kg/m²)	$33.7 \pm 4.6$
Uric acid (mg/dl)	$5.23 \pm 1.4$
Uric acid excretion (mg/dl)	$50.8 \pm 30.2$
Total cholesterol (mg/dl)	$218.4 \pm 42.5$
HDL cholesterol (mg/dl)	$43.7 \pm 13.2$
LDL cholesterol (mg/dl)	$138.7 \pm 26.9$
Triglycerides (mg/dl)	$185.1 \pm 131.3$
Creatinine (mg/dl)	$1.0 \pm 0.2$
Glucose (mg/dl)	$131.3 \pm 74$
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	$139.7 \pm 17.6$
Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	$82.8 \pm 8.4$
Mean arterial pressure (mmHg)	$100.1 \pm 13.8$
Antihypertensive therapy
Ca antagonist	3 (19%)
Loop diuretic	0 (0%)
Thiazide diuretic	5 (31%)
β-Blocker	6 (37%)
α-Blocker	1 (6%)
Antidiabetic therapy
Insulin	4 (25%)
Metformin	12 (74%)
Sulfonylurea	1 (6%)

Table 2 shows the AHA/NHLBI 2005 criteria for metabolic syndrome and the pass criteria by patients in the study group.

Table 2

The AHA/NHLBI 2005 criteria for metabolic syndrome [19] and the pass criteria by patients in the study group.

Patient	Sex	HDL (mg/dl)	Triglyceride (mg/dl)	Waist circumference (cm)	Hypertension or pharmacologic therapy for hypertension	Diabetes mellitus or receiving pharmacologic therapy for elevated fasting glucose levels	Hypolipidemic therapy	Number of metabolic syndrome criteria met
1	F	27.5	329.9	116	Y	Y	Y	5
2	F	53	152	120	Y	Y	N	4
3	F	52.7	281.7	118	Y	Y	N	4
4	F	45	142	112	Y	N	Y	4
5	F	59.7	257	106	Y	N	Y	4
6	F	67	119	111	Y	N	Y	3
7	F	56.3	153.2	92	Y	N	Y	4
8	F	63.2	140.8	114	Y	Y	Y	4
9	F	60	170	124	Y	N	N	3
10	F	44	211	106	Y	Y	N	5
11	M	85.8	129	103	Y	N	Y	3
12	F	53.5	139	90	Y	Y	Y	4
13	F	36	315	90	N	N	Y	4
14	F	41.9	144	111	Y	Y	N	5
15	F	34	442	116	Y	Y	N	5
16	F	46.7	134.3	106	Y	Y	Y	5

The AHA and NHLBI require at least three of the following criteria for the diagnosis of the metabolic syndrome: (i) waist circumference of at least 40 inches (102 cm) in men or 35 inches (89 cm) in women, measured at the top of the iliac crest at the end of a normal expiration; (ii) triglyceride level of at least 150 mg per dl (1.70 mmol per l) or receiving pharmacologic therapy for elevated triglyceride levels; (iii) HDL cholesterol level of less than 40 mg per dl (1.05 mmol per L) in men or less than 50 mg per dl (1.30 mmol per L) in women or receiving pharmacologic therapy for reduced HDL cholesterol levels; (iv) systolic blood pressure of at least 130 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure of at least 85 mmHg or receiving pharmacologic therapy for hypertension; (v) fasting glucose level of at least 100 mg per dl (5.6 mmol per L) or receiving pharmacologic therapy for elevated fasting glucose levels.

Systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure decreased significantly and to a similar extent from baseline after 3 months of eprosartan and losartan administration. Table 3 shows systolic, diastolic, and mean blood pressure values during the study.

Table 3

Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure at baseline and after 12-week treatment with losartan or eprosartan.

	Baseline	After losartan	$p$ value	After eprosartan	$p$ value
Systolic BP (mmHg)	$139.7 \pm 17.6$	$129.3 \pm 24.0$	0.04	$128.7 \pm 12.2$	0.01
Diastolic BP (mmHg)	$82.8 \pm 8.4$	$75.9 \pm 10.4$	0.03	$79.7 \pm 9.4$	0.04
MAP (mmHg)	$100.1 \pm 13.8$	$93.8 \pm 13.7$	0.04	$95.9 \pm 9.1$	0.03

BP: blood pressure; MAP: mean arterial pressure.

No significant changes of blood glucose and serum creatinine were observed throughout the study. Table 4 shows the effect of 3-month treatment with losartan or eprosartan on serum concentration of uric acid and urine uric acid excretion. Serum uric acid concentration and urine uric acid excretion did not significantly change after losartan nor after eprosartan administration.

Table 4

Serum concentration of uric acid and uric acid excretion before and after 12-week treatment with losartan or eprosartan.

	Baseline	After losartan	$p$ value	After eprosartan	$p$ value
Uric acid (mg/dl)	$5.23 \pm 1.4$	$5.44 \pm 1.19$	0.462	$5.1 \pm 1.03$	0.528
Uric acid urinary excretion (mg/dl)	$50.8 \pm 30.2$	$41.9 \pm 21.6$	0.34	$36.8 \pm 11.8$	0.08

Serum uric acid increased significantly during OFTT after the therapy with either losartan or eprosartan ( $p < 0.001$ in both study periods). Figure 1 shows the values of serum uric acid concentration on baseline and after 30, 60, and 120 minutes after OFTT and the changes of serum uric acid from baseline after 30, 60, and 120 minutes after ingestion of an acute oral fructose load. The changes of serum acid caused by oral fructose load during OFTT were comparable after both treatment periods. Urinary uric acid excretion after oral fructose load was not changed after treatment with losartan or eprosartan (Figure 2). AUC of serum uric acid concentration during OFTT after treatment with eprosartan ( $11.6 \pm 2.4$ ) and losartan ( $12.2 \pm 2.4$ ) and at baseline ( $11.9 \pm 2.8$ ) was similar.

Figure 1

Serum uric acid concentration during OFTT (a) and changes of serum uric acid concentration during OFTT (b).

(b)

Figure 2

Urine excretion of uric acid during OFTT.

4. Discussion

The main finding of our study was that the angiotensin receptor blocker, losartan—which is believed to lower UA levels—was associated with similar serum uric acid levels to those of a chemically distinct angiotensin receptor antagonist eprosartan. This lack of difference occurred despite the other ARB not attaching to the same renal receptor to which the losartan molecule attaches and supposedly lowers UA serum levels. From these results, we conclude that losartan did not significantly affect serum concentration and urinary excretion of uric acid, as well as the magnitude of the changes of serum uric acid concentration after the oral fructose load in comparison to other ARBs.

Our results contrasting with the findings of several previous studies have not confirmed a class effect of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) on serum uric acid [22–25]. While most currently available ARBs appear to have a neutral effect on uricemia, losartan was found to specifically increase the urinary excretion of uric acid and thereby caused a significant reduction of serum uric acid [13, 24–27].

Although some research demonstrated an increased urinary uric acid excretion and a decrease in serum uric acid during losartan therapy, there is only a scarce evidence from head-to-head studies in which the effect of the drug was compared to that of other ARBs in the patients with arterial hypertension [24, 27, 28]. The results of these studies were not concordant. In two small studies [24, 28], losartan significantly increased urinary uric acid excretion, but only in one of them, a simultaneous decrease in serum uric acid was observed [28]. Another randomized study [29] carried out in a group of hypertensive patients after kidney transplantation treated with a cyclosporin-based triple immunosuppressive regimen showed only a small and nonsignificant decrease in serum uric acid after losartan.

Unlike our study, all previous studies investigated only the effect of losartan on a fasting serum level of uric acid but did not assess the effect of this drug on the changes of serum uric acid induced by dietary stimuli. That was also the case in the study [24] which compared the effect of 50 mg daily losartan and 600 mg eprosartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. In this study, no significant changes of serum uric acid were reported despite a significant increase in urinary excretion of uric acid seen in the losartan group. The authors hypothesized that a treatment period of only 4 weeks might be a reason for a lack of any significant effect. An additional difficulty in the interpretation of the results was that a low purine diet was observed for only one day before urine was collected.

Our study was designed to address the uncertainty around the effects of different ARBs on uricemia. The crossover design of the study allowed a direct comparison of the effect of both drugs in the same subject and in the same condition [30]. It is of note that several patients, who were qualified to the study, took a small dose of aspirin (75 mg), β-blocker, or diuretic which may have a weak uricosuric activity [7, 31, 32]. These drugs were however administered in an unchanged dose during the whole study and therefore did not have the effect on the comparison between two study drugs.

Schmidt et al. [28] showed that the uricosuric effect of losartan appears to wane over time. In addition, the majority of our patients had only mildly elevated serum uric acid level at baseline which could also limit a potential magnitude of the effect of ARB on its metabolism. The baseline uric acid level in most previous studies was higher than that in our study [23, 25, 28].

Three months of treatment with eprosartan or losartan led to an expected significant decrease in arterial pressure. It should be noted that our patients had a well-controlled blood pressure already at the beginning of the study, so the addition of further antihypertensive drug only had a small effect on blood pressure.

5. Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that losartan did not specifically affect serum concentration and urinary excretion of uric acid, as well as the magnitude of the changes of serum uric acid concentration after the oral fructose load. Therefore, we were not able to confirm the usefulness of losartan compared to other ARBs in the treatment of arterial hypertension in the patients with metabolic syndrome.

Footnotes

Data Availability

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors disclosed the receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: the study was funded by the Medical University of Lodz under grant no. 503/1-151-02/503-01.

References

Zhang

Zeng

Update on the epidemiology, genetics, and therapeutic options of hyperuricemia

American Journal of Translational Research 2020 12

2214978

7 3167 3181

32774692

Wortmann

R. L.

Gout and hyperuricemia

Current opinion in rheumatology 2002 14

2214978

3 281 286

10.1097/00002281-200205000-00015

2-s2.0-0036231531

11981327

Stewart

D. J.

Langlois

Noone

Hyperuricemia and hypertension: links and risks

Integrated blood pressure control 2019 Volume 12

2214978

43 62

10.2147/IBPC.S184685

31920373

Simon

N. M.

Jon

Smucker

M. D.

Differential uric acid excretion in essential and renal hypertension

Circulation 1969 39

2214978

1 121 125

10.1161/01.CIR.39.1.121

2-s2.0-0014438746

5782799

Gill

Cameron

A. C.

Burgess

Doherty

D. J.

Karhunen

Abdul-Rahim

A. H.

Taylor-Rowan

Zuber

Tsao

P. S.

Klarin

VA Million Veteran Program Evangelou

Elliott

Damrauer

S. M.

Quinn

T. J.

Dehghan

Theodoratou

Dawson

Tzoulaki

Urate, blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease

Hypertension 2021 77

2214978

2 383 392

10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.16547

Tykarski

Posadzy-Małaczyńska

Mechanism of hyperuricemic action of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with essential hypertension

Journal of Hypertension 1996 14

2214978

219 224

Burnier

Hagman

Short-term and sustained renal effects of angiotensin II receptor blockade in healthy subjects

Hypertension 1995 25, 4 Part 1

2214978

602 609

10.1161/01.hyp.25.4.602

2-s2.0-0028960065

7721404

Hatch

Freel

Vaziri

Effects of the specific angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan on urate homeostasis and intestinal urate transport

Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 1996 276

2214978

187 193

Tikkanen

Omvik

Jensen

H. A.

Comparison of the angiotensin II antagonist losartan with the angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril in patients with essential hypertension

Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1996 36

2214978

403 408

10.

Goldberg

A. I.

Dunlay

M. C.

Sweet

C. S.

Safety and tolerability of losartan potassium, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, compared with hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, felodipne ER, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for the treatment of systemic hypertension

The American Journal of Cardiology 1995 75

2214978

12 793 795

10.1016/S0002-9149(99)80413-5

2-s2.0-0028935595

7717281

11.

Edwards

R. M.

Trizna

Stack

Weinstock

Interaction of nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor antagonists with the urate transporter in rat renal brush-border membranes

The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 1996 276

2214978

1 125 129

8558420

12.

Portman

O. W.

Lawry

E. Y.

Bruno

Effect of dietary carbohydrate on experimentally induced hypercholesteremia and hyperbetalipoproteinemia in rats

Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 1956 91

2214978

2 321 323

10.3181/00379727-91-22250

2-s2.0-84909504309

13.

Roch-Ramel

Diezi

Schrier

R. W.

Gottschalk

C. W.

Renal transport of organic ions and uric acid

Diseases of the Kidney 1996 6

Boston

Little Brown & Co

231 249

14.

Al-Nagdy

Miller

D. S.

Yudkin

Changes in body composition and metabolism induced by sucrose in the rat

Nutrition and Metabolism 2004 12

2214978

193 219

15.

Sleder

Chen

Y. D.

Cully

M. D.

Reaven

G. M.

Hyperinsulinemia in fructose-induced hypertriglyceridemia in the rat

Metabolism 1980 29

2214978

4 303 305

10.1016/0026-0495(80)90001-3

2-s2.0-0018860024

6990170

16.

Bode

J. C.

Zelder

Rumpelt

H. J.

Wittkamp

Depletion of liver adenosine phosphates and metabolic effects of intravenous infusion of fructose or sorbitol in man and in the rat

*, * *

European Journal of Clinical Investigation 1973 3

2214978

5 436 441

10.1111/j.1365-2362.1973.tb02211.x

2-s2.0-0015835119

4772339

17.

Nair

Chacko

P. V.

Arnold

Diehl

A. M.

Hepatic ATP reserve and efficiency of replenishing: comparison between obese and non-obese normal individuals

The American Journal of Gastroenterology 2003 98

2214978

2 466 470

10.1111/j.1572-0241.2003.07221.x

12591070

18.

Morris

R. C.

Jr. Nigon

Reed

E. B.

Evidence that the severity of depletion of inorganic phosphate determines the severity of the disturbance of adenine nucleotide metabolism in the liver and renal cortex of the fructose-loaded rat

The Journal of Clinical Investigation 1978 61

2214978

1 209 220

10.1172/JCI108920

2-s2.0-0017873254

618911

19.

Grundy

S. M.

Cleeman

J. I.

Daniels

S. R.

Donato

K. A.

Eckel

R. H.

Franklin

B. A.

Gordon

D. J.

Krauss

R. M.

Savage

P. J.

Smith SC Jr Spertus

J. A.

Costa

American Heart Association National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome

Circulation 2005 112

2214978

17 2735 2752

10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.169404

2-s2.0-27444443876

16157765

20.

Chen

Z. L.

Chen

Y. Z.

TTD: therapeutic target database

Nucleic Acids Research 2002 30

2214978

1 412 415

10.1093/nar/30.1.412

11752352

21.

Bottorff

M. B.

Tenero

D. M.

Pharmacokinetics of eprosartan in healthy subjects, patients with hypertension, and special populations

Pharmacotherapy 1999 19

2214978

4 Part 2 73S 78S

10.1592/phco.19.7.73s.30946

22.

Dang

Zhang

Liu

Chen

Song

Wang

Effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia in Chinese population

Journal of Human Hypertension 2006 20

2214978

1 45 50

10.1038/sj.jhh.1001941

2-s2.0-33644966700

16281062

23.

Puig

J. G.

Mateos

Buño

Ortega

Rodriguez

Dal-Ré

Effect of eprosartan and losartan on uric acid metabolism in patients with essential hypertension

Journal of Hypertension 1999 17

2214978

7 1033 1039

10.1097/00004872-199917070-00021

2-s2.0-0032997748

10419078

24.

Rayner

B. L.

Trinder

Y. A.

Baines

Lionel

Effect of losartan versus candesartan on uric acid, renal function, and fibrinogen in patients with hypertension and hyperuricemia associated with diuretics

American Journal of Hypertension 2006 19

2214978

2 208 213

10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.08.005

2-s2.0-33644815752

16448895

25.

Elliott

W. J.

Calhoun

D. A.

D. L.

Gazdick

L. P.

Kerns

D. E.

Zeldin

R. K.

Losartan versus valsartan in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension: data from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week trial

Clinical Therapeutics 2001 23

2214978

8 1166 1179

10.1016/S0149-2918(01)80099-0

2-s2.0-0034878670

11558856

26.

Hamada

Hisatome

Kinugasa

Matsubara

Shimizu

Tanaka

Furuse

Sonoyama

Yamamoto

Ohtahara

Igawa

Effect of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan on uric acid and oxypurine metabolism in healthy subjects

Internal Medicine 2002 41

2214978

10 793 797

10.2169/internalmedicine.41.793

2-s2.0-0036807830

12412998

27.

Würzner

Gerster

J. C.

Chiolero

Maillard

Fallab-Stubi

C. L.

Brunner

H. R.

Burnier

Comparative effects of losartan and irbesartan on serum uric acid in hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia and gout

Journal of Hypertension 2001 19

2214978

10 1855 1860

10.1097/00004872-200110000-00021

2-s2.0-0034817415

11593107

28.

Schmidt

Gruber

Böhmig

Köller

Mayer

The effect of ACE inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor antagonist therapy on serum uric acid levels and potassium homeostasis in hypertensive renal transplant recipients treated with CsA

Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2001 16

2214978

5 1034 1037

10.1093/ndt/16.5.1034

2-s2.0-0035022460

29.

Caspi

Lubart

Graff

Habot

Yaron

Segal

The effect of mini-dose aspirin on renal function and uric acid handling in elderly patients

Arthritis and Rheumatism 2000 43

2214978

1 103 108

10.1002/1529-0131(200001)43:1<103::AID-ANR13>3.0.CO;2-C

30.

Verdecchia

Staessen

J. A.

Angeli

de Simone

Achilli

Ganau

Mureddu

Pede

Maggioni

A. P.

Lucci

Reboldi

Usual versus tight control of systolic blood pressure in non-diabetic patients with hypertension (Cardio-Sis): an open-label randomised trial

Lancet 2009 374

2214978

9689 525 533

10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61340-4

2-s2.0-68349131420

31.

Jelic-Ivanovic

Spasic

Majkic-Singh

Todorovic

Effects of some anti-inflammatory drugs on 12 blood constituents: protocol for the study of in vivo effects of drugs

Clinical Chemistry 1985 31

2214978

7 1141 1143

10.1093/clinchem/31.7.1141

4006182

32.

Bengtsson

Comparison between alprenolol and chlorthalidone as antihypertensive agents

Acta Medica Scandinavica 1972 191

2214978

433 438