Dialysis parameters associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and prognosis in end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic has affected patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Whether dialysis parameters have a prognostic value in ESKD patients with Covid-19 remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated clinical characteristics, blood pressure (BP) and dialysis parameters in ESKD patients undergoing maintenance outpatient hemodialysis, with (Covid-ESKD) and without (No-Covid-ESKD) Covid-19, at four Brazilian hemodialysis facilities. The Covid-ESKD (n = 107; 54% females; 60.8 ± 17.7 years) and No-Covid-ESKD (n = 107; 62% females; 58.4 ± 14.6 years) groups were matched by calendar time. The average BP and dialysis parameters were calculated during the pre-infection, acute infection, and post-infection periods. The main outcomes were Covid-19 hospitalization and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Covid-ESKD patients had greater intradialytic and postdialysis systolic BP and lower predialysis weight, postdialysis weight, ultrafiltration rate, and interdialytic weight gain during acute-illness compared to 1-week-before-illness, while these changes were not observed in No-Covid-ESKD patients. After 286 days of follow-up (range, 276-591), there were 18 Covid-19-related hospitalizations and 28 deaths among Covid-ESKD patients. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that increases in predialysis systolic BP from 1-week-before-illness to acute-illness (OR, 95%CI = 1.06, 1.02-1.10; p = .004) and Covid-19 vaccination (OR, 95%CI = 0.16, 0.04-0.69; p = .014) were associated with hospitalization in Covid-ESKD patients. Multivariable Cox-regression analysis showed that Covid-19-related hospitalization (HR, 95%CI = 5.17, 2.07-12.96; p < .001) and age (HR, 95%CI = 1.05, 1.01-1.08; p = .008) were independent predictors of all-cause mortality in Covid-ESKD patients. CONCLUSION: Acute Covid-19 illness is associated with variations in dialysis parameters of volume status in patients with ESKD. Furthermore, increases in predialysis BP during acute Covid-19 illness are associated with an adverse prognosis in Covid-ESKD patients.

Dialysis parameters were influenced by SARS-CoV-2 infection and may have prognostic value in patients with Covid-19.Increases in blood pressure during acute Covid-19 illness and the lack of vaccination for Covid-19 were predictors of hospitalization for Covid-19.Hospitalization for Covid-19 and age were independent risk factors for all-cause death.

Cardiovascular Safety of Azithromycin in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Prespecified Pooled Analysis of the COALITION I and COALITION II Randomized Clinical Trials.

The cardiovascular safety from azithromycin in the treatment of several infectious diseases has been challenged. In this prespecified pooled analysis of 2 multicenter randomized clinical trials, we aimed to assess whether the use of azithromycin might lead to corrected QT (QTc) interval prolongation or clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias. In the COALITION COVID Brazil I trial, 667 patients admitted with moderate COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine, hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, or standard of care. In the COALITION COVID Brazil II trial, 447 patients with severe COVID-19 were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin. The principal end point for the present analysis was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or ventricular arrhythmias. The addition of azithromycin to hydroxychloroquine did not result in any prolongation of the QTc interval (425.8 ± 3.6 ms vs 427.9 ± 3.9 ms, respectively, mean difference -2.1 ms, 95% confidence interval -12.5 to 8.4 ms, p = 0.70). The combination of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine compared with hydroxychloroquine alone did not result in increased risk of the primary end point (proportion of patients with events at 15 days 17.2% vs 16.0%, respectively, hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.49, p = 0.65). In conclusion, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 already receiving standard-of-care management (including hydroxychloroquine), the addition of azithromycin did not result in the prolongation of the QTc interval or increase in cardiovascular adverse events. Because azithromycin is among the most commonly prescribed antimicrobial agents, our results may inform clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04322123, NCT04321278.

Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE - Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

Background: Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]). Interpretation: In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of nimesulide/pantoprazole compared to naproxen/esomeprazole for pain relief in patients with osteoarticular diseases and dyspeptic symptoms.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination tablets of naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium and nimesulide/pantoprazole to determine if both regimens are equally suited to relieve pain in patients with osteoarticular diseases and dyspeptic symptoms. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either nimesulide/pantoprazole (100 mg/20 mg) twice daily or naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium (500 mg/20 mg) twice daily for 14 days. The primary endpoint was defined as the mean change in modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale. Secondary endpoints were mean visual analog scale score of dyspeptic symptoms (nausea, abdominal discomfort/pain, epigastric burning, postprandial fullness), mean visual analog scale score of individual dyspeptic symptoms, and individual score of dyspeptic symptoms according to patient diary. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01670552. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were enrolled and randomized, and 399 completed treatment (naproxen/esomeprazole, n=201; nimesulide/pantoprazole, n=198). The difference in mean change in the modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score after 7 days of treatment between the two treatment groups was 2.33 mm (95% CI, -1.22 to 5.89 mm). After 14 days of therapy, the difference was 0.45 mm (95% CI, -3.29 to 4.19 mm). The most common adverse events in the pooled group were abdominal discomfort, abdominal distention, dyspepsia, and nausea, but none of these was deemed to be clinically meaningful. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated noninferiority of a 14-day regimen with a fixed-dose combination of nimesulide/pantoprazole compared to naproxen/esomeprazole for the treatment of osteoarticular pain.

Randomized clinical trial of famciclovir or acyclovir for the treatment of herpes zoster in adults.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the safety and efficacy of famciclovir compared to acyclovir in patients with herpes zoster, to determine whether the two regimens are equally effective for the treatment of patients with uncomplicated herpes zoster over a period of 7days. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either famciclovir 500mg (one tablet) three times daily or acyclovir 800mg (two capsules) five times daily for 7 days. The primary endpoint was defined as the time to full crusting of herpes zoster lesions. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients who achieved complete cure and the change in score of signs/symptoms (pain, vesicular lesions, loss of sensitivity, burning pain, and pruritus) according to the patient diary. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01327144). RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four patients were enrolled and randomized; 151 of these patients completed treatment (n=75 famciclovir, n=76 acyclovir). A similar proportion of patients who received acyclovir (94.74%) and famciclovir (94.67%) achieved complete cure. The mean time to full crusting of herpes zoster lesions was 15.033days in the acyclovir group and 14.840days in the famciclovir group (log-rank p-value=0.820). The most common adverse events in the pooled groups were headache, diarrhea, nausea, back pain, cold, and drowsiness, but none of these was deemed to be clinically important. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions obtained high rates of cure and had a similar time to full crusting of lesions. Analysis of the primary efficacy endpoint proved that famciclovir is non-inferior to acyclovir, as the confidence interval for the difference in efficacy did not violate the non-inferior margin. Therefore, the results are not different enough to be clinically relevant.

Association between desloratadine and prednisolone in the treatment of children with acute symptoms of allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, randomized and controlled clinical trial / Associação entre desloratadina e prednisolona no tratamento de crianças com sintomas agudos de rinite alérgica: ensaio clínico duplo-cego, randomizado e controlado

Abstract Introduction: A combination of antihistamines and oral corticosteroids is often used to treat acute symptoms of allergic rhinitis. Objective: To evaluate safety and efficacy of desloratadine plus prednisolone in the treatment of acute symptoms of children (2-12 years) with allergic rhinitis, and to compare it to dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone. Methods: Children with moderate/severe persistent allergic rhinitis and symptomatic (nasal symptoms score [0-12] ≥ 6) were allocated in a double-blind, randomized fashion to receive dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone (n = 105; three daily doses) or desloratadine plus prednisolone (n = 105; single dose followed by two of placebo) for 7 days. At the beginning and end of the evaluation, the following were obtained: nasal symptoms score, extra nasal symptoms score, peak nasal inspiratory flow, blood biochemistry, and electrocardiogram. Ninety-six children of the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group and 98 of the desloratadine plus prednisolone group completed the protocol. Results: The two groups were similar regarding initial and final nasal symptoms scores, extra nasal symptoms scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow. A drop of 76.4% and 79.1% for nasal symptoms score, 86.0% and 79.2% for extra nasal symptoms score, as well as an increase of 25.2% and 24.3% for peak nasal inspiratory flow occurred for those treated with desloratadine plus prednisolone and dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone, respectively. There were no significant changes in blood chemistry. Sinus tachycardia was the most frequent electrocardiogram change, but with no clinical significance. Drowsiness was reported significantly more often among those of dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group (17.14% × 8.57%, respectively). Conclusion: The desloratadine plus prednisolone combination was able to effectively control acute symptoms of rhinitis in children, improving symptoms and nasal function. Compared to the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone combination, it showed similar clinical action, but with a lower incidence of adverse events and higher dosing convenience.

Resumo Introdução: A associação entre anti-histamínicos e corticosteroides orais é frequentemente empregada no tratamento de sintomas agudos de rinite alérgica. Objetivo: Avaliar a segurança e eficácia da associação desloratadina + prednisolona no tratamento de sintomas agudos de crianças (2-12 anos) com rinite alérgica e compará-las com as da associação dexclorfeniramina + betametasona. Método: Crianças com rinite alérgica persistente moderada/grave e sintomáticas (escore de sintomas nasais [0-12] ≥ 6) foram alocadas de modo duplo-cego e randômico para receber dexclorfeniramina + betametasona (n = 105; três doses diárias) ou desloratadina + prednisolona (n = 105; dose única seguida por duas de placebo) por 7 dias. No início e no fim da avaliação foram obtidos: escore de sintomas nasais, escore de sintomas extranasais, pico de fluxo inspiratório nasal, bioquímica sanguínea e eletrocardiograma. Do total, 96 crianças do grupo dexclorfeniramina + betametasona e 98 do grupo desloratadina + prednisolona concluíram o protocolo. Resultados: Os dois grupos foram iguais com relação ao escore de sintomas nasais, escore de sintomas nasais extranasais e pico de fluxo inspiratório nasal iniciais e finais. Observou-se queda de 76,4% e 79,1% nos escores para escore de sintomas nasais, de 86,0% e 79,2% para escore de sintomas extranasais, assim como incremento de 25,2% e de 24,3% para o pico de fluxo inspiratório nasal para os grupos desloratadina + prednisolona e dexclorfeniramina + betametasona, respectivamente. Não houve alterações significativas da bioquímica sanguínea. Taquicardia sinusal foi a alteração do eletrocardiograma mais encontrada, mas sem significância clínica. Sonolência foi significantemente mais referida entre os tratados com dexclorfeniramina + betametasona do que entre os desloratadina + prednisolona (8,57% × 17,14%, respectivamente). Conclusão: A associação desloratadina + prednisolona foi capaz de controlar efetivamente os sintomas agudos de rinite em crianças, melhorou sintomas e a função nasal. Na comparação com a associação dexclorfeniramina + betametasona, demonstrou ação clínica semelhante, mas com menor incidência de eventos adversos e maior comodidade posológica.

Association between desloratadine and prednisolone in the treatment of children with acute symptoms of allergic rhinitis: a double-blind, randomized and controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: A combination of antihistamines and oral corticosteroids is often used to treat acute symptoms of allergic rhinitis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety and efficacy of desloratadine plus prednisolone in the treatment of acute symptoms of children (2-12 years) with allergic rhinitis, and to compare it to dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone. METHODS: Children with moderate/severe persistent allergic rhinitis and symptomatic (nasal symptoms score [0-12]≥6) were allocated in a double-blind, randomized fashion to receive dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone (n=105; three daily doses) or desloratadine plus prednisolone (n=105; single dose followed by two of placebo) for 7 days. At the beginning and end of the evaluation, the following were obtained: nasal symptoms score, extra nasal symptoms score, peak nasal inspiratory flow, blood biochemistry, and electrocardiogram. Ninety-six children of the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group and 98 of the desloratadine plus prednisolone group completed the protocol. RESULTS: The two groups were similar regarding initial and final nasal symptoms scores, extra nasal symptoms scores and peak nasal inspiratory flow. A drop of 76.4% and 79.1% for nasal symptoms score, 86.0% and 79.2% for extra nasal symptoms score, as well as an increase of 25.2% and 24.3% for peak nasal inspiratory flow occurred for those treated with desloratadine plus prednisolone and dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone, respectively. There were no significant changes in blood chemistry. Sinus tachycardia was the most frequent electrocardiogram change, but with no clinical significance. Drowsiness was reported significantly more often among those of dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone group (17.14%×8.57%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The desloratadine plus prednisolone combination was able to effectively control acute symptoms of rhinitis in children, improving symptoms and nasal function. Compared to the dexchlorpheniramine plus betamethasone combination, it showed similar clinical action, but with a lower incidence of adverse events and higher dosing convenience.

Double-blind, randomized, double-dummy clinical trial comparing the efficacy of ketorolac trometamol and naproxen for acute low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most common type of medication used in the treatment of acute pain. Ketorolac trometamol (KT) is a nonnarcotic, peripherally acting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with analgesic effects comparable to certain opioids. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of KT and naproxen (NA) in the treatment of acute low back pain (LBP) of moderate-to-severe intensity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this 10-day, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial, participants with acute LBP of moderate-to-severe intensity as determined through a visual analog scale (VAS) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sublingual KT 10 mg three times daily or oral NA 250 mg three times daily. From the second to the fifth day of treatment, if patient had VAS >40 mm, increased dosage to four times per day was allowed. The primary end point was the reduction in LBP as measured by VAS. We also performed a post hoc superiority analysis. RESULTS: KT was not inferior to NA for the reduction in LBP over 5 days of use as measured by VAS scores (P=0.608 for equality of variance; P=0.321 for equality of means) and by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (P=0.180 for equality of variance test; P=0.446 for equality of means) using 95% confidence intervals. The percentage of participants with improved pain relief 60 minutes after receiving the first dose was higher in the KT group (24.2%) than in the NA group (6.5%; P=0.049). The most common adverse effects were heartburn, nausea, and vomiting. CONCLUSION: KT is not inferior in efficacy and delivers faster pain relief than NA.

Prevention of hypertension with or without renin-angiotensin system inhibition precludes nephrin loss in the early stage of experimental diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several lines of clinical evidence support the concept that the reduction of blood pressure may be useful in the prevention of diabetic kidney disease. In young diabetic spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR), prevention of hypertension reduces several early renal abnormalities including albuminuria. However, the contribution of nephrin loss to albuminuria in this early stage of experimental diabetes is unknown. Therefore, we investigated whether elevation of albuminuria in young diabetic SHR is associated with nephrin loss, and if prevention of hypertension, with or without inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system, precludes these abnormalities. METHODS: Diabetes was induced by streptozotocin injection in 4-week-old still normotensive SHR and their genetically normotensive control, Wistar-Kyoto rats. Diabetic SHR were randomized for no treatment, or treatment with captopril, losartan, or triple therapy (hydrochlorothiazide, reserpine and hydralazine) for 20 days. RESULTS: The increase in systolic blood pressure was equally prevented by all treatments. Albuminuria was higher in diabetic SHR and similarly reduced (p < 0.05) by captopril, losartan, and triple therapy. Glomerular expression of nephrin was significantly reduced in diabetic SHR in comparison with non-diabetic controls. The antihypertensive treatment prevented the reduction in glomerular expression of nephrin. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that the loss of nephrin is associated with albuminuria in a model of genetic hypertension and diabetes, and that the prevention of development of hypertension restores nephrin and prevents albuminuria. This finding suggests a crucial role of blood pressure in diabetes as determinant of nephrin expression and albuminuria.

Effects of tight blood pressure control on glomerular hypertrophy in a model of genetic hypertension and experimental diabetes mellitus.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of prevention of hypertension on glomerular hypertrophy, renal cell replication and accumulation of glomerular fibronectin in a model of genetic hypertension and experimental diabetes. Four-week-old streptozotocin induced spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) were randomized for no treatment, or for treatment with captopril, losartan or triple therapy (hydrochlorothiazide, reserpine and hydralazine) for 20 days. Increase in systolic blood pressure was equally prevented by captopril (118+/-15 mmHg), losartan (111+/-9) and triple therapy (112+/-14, p<0.0001). Glomerular size was higher (p<0.005) in diabetic SHR (27,300+/-2130 microm(2)) compared with non-diabetic SHR (23,800+/-307). The antihypertensive therapy with captopril (23,900+/-175), losartan (23,800+/-120), and triple therapy (23,400+/-210) prevented the glomerular enlargement in diabetic SHR. Glomerular expression of fibronectin was increased in diabetic SHR (7.61+/-1.22 densitometric unit) as compared to the controls (2.27+/-2.15, p<0.0001), and was decreased (p<0.0001 vs diabetic SHR) with captopril (2.49+/-1.42), losartan (1.57+/-1.1) and triple therapy (2.04+/-1.42). The number of replicating glomerular cell significantly decreased in diabetic SHR and it was restored by all three antihypertensive regimes. The glomerular expression of p27(Kip1) was increased in diabetic SHR but it was not modified by antihypertensive treatment. Strict blood pressure control, in diabetic SHR independently of the class of antihypertensive agent, restores glomerular hypertrophy and renal cellular replication, and prevents the increment in glomerular fibronectin.