Antihypertensive and Renal Protective Effects of Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade in Uremic Rats Treated With Erythropoietin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Correcting anemia with recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO) in chronic renal failure has been associated with an increased blood pressure (BP), which may accelerate the decline in renal function. This has been attributed, in part, to the activation of the renin-angiotensin system. The present study was designed to investigate the protective effect of the angiotensin II-receptor blocker losartan compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril and conventional triple therapy (TRx) in uremic rats receiving rhEPO therapy. METHODS: Renal failure was induced by renal mass ablation followed by a 3-week stabilization period. Uremic rats were then divided into five groups with similar systolic BP: vehicle; rhEPO (100 U/kg, subcutaneously, three times per week); rhEPO + losartan (20 mg/kg/d); rhEPO + captopril (20 mg/kg/d); and rhEPO + TRx (reserpine 5 mg/L, hydralazine 80 mg/L, hydrochlorothiazide 20 mg/L). Systolic BP as well as blood and renal parameters were assessed before and after a 3-week treatment period. Renal histology was evaluated at the end of the study. RESULTS: The uremic rats developed hypertension, anemia, proteinuria, and increased urinary endothelin-1 (ET-1) excretion. The rhEPO corrected the anemia but aggravated the hypertension (P < .01), glomerular sclerosis, tubular atrophy, and interstitial fibrosis. Treatment with losartan, captopril, and the TRx prevented the rhEPO-induced increased in systolic BP. The TRx was less effective in preventing histologic injuries despite similar systolic BP reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Blockade of the renin-angiotensin system is highly effective in preventing both hypertension and renal histologic damage in rhEPO-treated uremic rats and this benefit seems to extend beyond the antihypertensive effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".