ライフサイエンスコーパス: enalapril

1 otensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (5 mg/kg enalapril).

2 angiotensin system inhibition (losartan plus enalapril).

3 ype natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril.

4 oved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril.

5 ctomy reproduced antiinflammatory effects of enalapril.

6 de-isosorbide dinitrate with placebo or with enalapril.

7 ficant, treatment effects were observed with enalapril.

8 icating that telmisartan was not inferior to enalapril.

9 ropyl]-L-ala-L-pro, which has the trade name enalapril.

10 red by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison to enalapril.

11 cant for Prevention trial patients receiving enalapril.

12 ldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril.

13 eive sacubitril-valsartan and 441 to receive enalapril.

14 iated with retained but reduced benefit from enalapril.

15 term reduction in HbA1c than those receiving enalapril.

16 d by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison with enalapril.

17 educed morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril.

18 ed to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril.

19 307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril.

20 ril/valsartan would remain cost-effective vs enalapril.

21 was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril.

22 cquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril.

23 ortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril.

24 jection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril.

25 veness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril.

26 s following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril.

27 ion did not alter the benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril.

28 l/valsartan on biomarkers were compared with enalapril.

29 r HF than those receiving standard care with enalapril.

30 atio of change with sacubitril-valsartan vs. enalapril, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0

31 8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified

32 rately severe chronic heart failure received enalapril 10 mg and losartan 50 mg on 2 separate occasio

33 zed to double-blind crossover treatment with enalapril 10 mg BID followed by losartan 25 mg BID, or t

34 lapril 40 mg daily, or eplerenone 200 mg and enalapril 10 mg daily.

35 itril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily versus enalapril 10 mg twice daily and followed for a median of

36 ing sequential, single-blind run-in periods (enalapril 10 mg twice daily for 2 weeks followed by LCZ6

37 tricular EF of 40% or less to treatment with enalapril 10 mg twice daily or sacubitril/valsartan 97/1

38 lind treatment with either the ACE inhibitor enalapril (10 mg BID, n=2884) or to the ACE-NEP inhibito

39 mg/kg twice daily, n=7) (H-NCT), L-NCT plus enalapril (10 mg twice daily, n=8) (L-NCT+ENA), or place

40 o, felodipine (5 mg), metoprolol (50 mg), or enalapril (10 mg).

41 eated with oral valsartan (50 mg/kg/d), oral enalapril (10 mg/kg/d), and complete intravenous blockag

42 Group 1 received vehicle, group 2 received enalapril (12.5 mg/kg body wt per d), group 3 received B

43 ] patients) compared with patients receiving enalapril (153 [10%]; hazard ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.9

44 ent with both placebo (13+/-1%, P=0.006) and enalapril (17+/-6%, P=0.05).

45 baseline (-14.5+/-3.36 g; n=50) similarly to enalapril (-19.7+/-3.20 g; n=54; P=0.258), but eplerenon

46 ntrolled diabetes on chronic ACE inhibition (enalapril 20 mg/day) were randomized to add-on therapy o

47 the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart fail

48 assigned to receive losartan (100 mg daily), enalapril (20 mg daily), or placebo and followed for 5 y

49 daily, in 120 subjects) or the ACE inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily, in 130 subjects).

50 , 6 healthy subjects received, 4 hours after enalapril (20 mg) or placebo, an intra-arterial infusion

51 ere randomized to receive amlodipine, 10 mg; enalapril, 20 mg; or placebo.

52 baseline (eplerenone, -23.8 and -11.9 mm Hg; enalapril, -24.7 and -13.4 mm Hg; and eplerenone/enalapr

53 le (n=11), NCX 899 (NCX, 25 mg/kg, n=10), or enalapril (25 mg/kg, n=10).

54 rtan (group III, n = 8), or a combination of enalapril (25 mg/L) + losartan (180 mg/L) (group IV, n =

55 9.7+/-3.20 g; n=54; P=0.258), but eplerenone/enalapril (-27.2+/-3.39 g; n=49) was more effective than

56 april, -24.7 and -13.4 mm Hg; and eplerenone/enalapril, -28.7 and -14.4 mm Hg, P=0.048, in systolic b

57 as follows: Uremic + vehicle (UC), uremic + enalapril (30 mg/L in drinking water; E), uremic + paric

58 %, P=0.01 by the log-rank test) but not with enalapril (4%, P=0.96 by the log-rank test).

59 compared monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor enalapril 40 mg daily (n=87) versus the vasopeptidase (d

60 ension who received eplerenone 200 mg daily, enalapril 40 mg daily, or eplerenone 200 mg and enalapri

61 ACE inhibitor therapy was standardized to enalapril 40 mg/d or the maximally tolerated dose.

62 vels similar to losartan (127 +/- 3 mmHg) or enalapril (40 mg/L) alone (124 +/- 5 mmHg) (P < 0.05 ver

63 5 mg, aspirin 81 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, and enalapril 5 mg).

64 o, which included valsartan 40 mg instead of enalapril 5 mg.

65 ubling, and addition of atenolol 25-50 mg or enalapril 5-10 mg.

66 onic cough occurred in 12 patients receiving enalapril, 6 receiving losartan, and 4 receiving placebo

67 due to changes in urine flow rate induced by enalapril, a group of animals was injected with BEA, and

68 PRESERVE) study was designed to test whether enalapril achieves greater left ventricular (LV) mass re

69 verse events were comparable between S/V and enalapril across all 4 subgroups.

70 By 6 years on enalapril, all six patients who had had congestive heart

71 effects of NO-releasing enalapril (NCX) vs. enalapril alone to enhance vascular effects, increase LV

72 In addition, a higher dose of enalapril also failed to prevent hypertension and renal

73 is) and pK(trans) of 2.6 and 3.1, and of the enalapril amine group, pK(cis) and pK(trans) of 5.9 and

74 L-158,809 (an AT(1) blocker; AT(1)), enalapril (an ACEI), and hydralazine (a vasodilator) wer

75 tic rats that were treated for 12 weeks with enalapril, an ACE inhibitor, or L-158809, an angiotensin

76 agonist, with and without pretreatment with enalapril, an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor.

77 Treatment with enalapril and a low-NaCl diet for 7 days led to a 35-fol

78 were randomly assigned to a group receiving enalapril and carvedilol (n = 45) or to a control group

79 Combined treatment with enalapril and carvedilol may prevent LVSD in patients wi

80 his study sought to evaluate the efficacy of enalapril and carvedilol to prevent chemotherapy-induced

81 tcomes included comparisons of amlodipine vs enalapril and enalapril vs placebo.

82 Enalapril and losartan each reduced hypertension, protei

83 n the rate of change in MCI per year between enalapril and placebo groups (0.30 v 0.18 L/min/m(2); P

84 or-age z score was not different between the enalapril and placebo groups (mean+/-SE -0.62+/-0.13 ver

85 were 24 and 21 withdrawals or deaths in the enalapril and placebo groups, respectively (P=0.74).

86 After combined administration of enalapril and study drug for 4 h and six weeks, changes

87 Both enalapril and telmisartan were less effective at reducin

88 00 microg/kg), and group 4 received both the enalapril and the high dose of BMP-7.

89 evels were increased only in NCX (P<0.05 vs. enalapril and vehicle).

90 an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (enalapril) and an angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker

91 study was to compare the effects of an ACEI (enalapril) and AT1RA (losartan), alone or in combination

92 d mortality from heart failure compared with enalapril, and guidelines now recommend substitution of

93 the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril, and improves peripheral insulin sensitivity i

94 he selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone, enalapril, and their combination in patients with hypert

95 ative analysis of three drugs (promethazine, enalapril, and verapamil) using deuterated analogues of

96 NP below specific partition values more than enalapril, and whether the relationship between changes

97 Overall, enalapril- and losartan-treated TSLPtg mice survived sig

98 RAAS inhibition by enalapril (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or l

99 with greater decreases in the S/V versus the enalapril arm (p < 0.001).

100 cing improvements in cardiac function in the enalapril arm of SOLVD.

101 mouse model of permanent coronary ligation, enalapril arrested the release of monocytes from the spl

102 The study also compared nisoldipine with enalapril as a first-line antihypertensive agent in term

103 oninferior) renoprotection to 10 to 20 mg of enalapril as determined by the change from baseline in G

104 the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor enalapril as part of a larger study.

105 .8% in LCZ696-assigned subjects and 21.0% in enalapril-assigned subjects (odds ratio: 0.74; 95% confi

106 oups: 2336 patients were assigned to receive enalapril at a dose of 5 or 10 mg twice daily, 2340 to r

107 group of animals was injected with BEA, and enalapril at the above dose was begun 1 wk later.

108 LCZ696 (at a dose of 200 mg twice daily) or enalapril (at a dose of 10 mg twice daily), in addition

109 Treating mice with enalapril attenuated CS-induced increases in urinary alb

110 no treatment, while a second group received enalapril beginning at 35 d following ischemia.

111 observed in the enalapril group, nor was an enalapril benefit on survival detectable in patients rec

112 ngiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor enalapril, but not the anti-hypertensive hydralazine, de

113 rotic solvent on the isomeric composition of enalapril can be measured under uniform analytical condi

114 rams indicate that the two isomeric forms of enalapril can be separated with baseline resolution at 1

115 pH values in the dissociation ranges of the enalapril carboxyl group, pK(cis) and pK(trans) of 2.6 a

116 le-blind, multicenter, randomized, parallel, enalapril-controlled study was conducted in 116 patients

117 /s to 0.012 +/- 0.003 (p < 0.01), after 1 wk enalapril, despite much lower baseline values.

118 reaking Diabetics Exposed to Telmisartan And enalaprIL (DETAIL) trial was designed to address the abs

119 Although oral treatment with enalapril did not reduce focal tracer uptake, oral valsa

120 rEF with sacubitril-valsartan, compared with enalapril, did not significantly reduce central aortic s

121 ng LCZ696 and 835 patients (19.8%) receiving enalapril died (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 0

122 upstream angiotensin-converting enzyme with enalapril does not affect AT1R density.

123 88 after pretreatment with the ACE inhibitor enalapril (E) or placebo.

124 In the BEA animals treated with enalapril, ED-1-positive cells, alpha-smooth muscle acti

125 Even at maximal doses of enalapril, elevated serum aldosterone and plasma AT-II l

126 studied before and after seven days of oral enalapril (EN), which was titrated from 2.5 to 20 mg dai

127 omapatrilat (OMA) was compared with that of enalapril (ENA) in male Munich-Wistar rats subjected to

128 the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (Enal; 100 mg/L) in their drinking water for 4

129 $35512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness

130 A separate group (n = 8), treated with enalapril for 1 week before peritonitis and until study

131 alter the hazard ratio favoring LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary end point of cardiovascular de

132 The benefit of LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary endpoint was similar across th

133 Chronic treatment with either enalapril, furosemide, hydralazine, or losartan were all

134 ween the placebo group (0.016 units) and the enalapril group (0.005, P=0.38) or the losartan group (0

135 in the combination-therapy group than in the enalapril group (13.8% vs. 11.0%, P=0.005), as well as h

136 the nisoldipine group (237 patients) and the enalapril group (233 patients) throughout five years of

137 17.5+/-4.4%) in NCX and was unchanged in the enalapril group (both P<0.01 vs. vehicle).

138 CZ696 group and 1117 patients (26.5%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio in the LCZ696 group, 0.80;

139 tion-therapy group and in 808 (34.6%) in the enalapril group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence inte

140 (P<.001), a trend toward progression in the enalapril group (P = .08), and no progression in the aml

141 valsartan group as compared with 0.75 in the enalapril group (percent change, -46.7% vs. -25.3%; rati

142 ased from 213.2 to 214.4 dyne x s/cm5 in the enalapril group (treatment difference, -2.2 [95% CI, -17

143 trations decreased by 0.16% (SD 1.40) in the enalapril group and 0.26% (SD 1.25) in the sacubitril/va

144 dverse events occurred in 88 patients in the enalapril group and 87 in the placebo group.

145 nd point was achieved in 973 patients in the enalapril group and in 914 patients in the omapatrilat g

146 1.13 versus -0.14; P<0.001) in comparison to enalapril group and significantly less proportion of pat

147 n the sacubitril/valsartan group than in the enalapril group over the 3-year follow-up (between-group

148 rate of change in LVESWS was greater in the enalapril group than in the placebo group (-8.59 v 1.85

149 In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required

150 APA use and survival was not observed in the enalapril group, nor was an enalapril benefit on surviva

151 impairment, hyperkalemia, and cough than the enalapril group.

152 patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group.

153 reased more in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group.

154 duction in estimated LVESWS by year 5 in the enalapril group.

155 n the sacubitril-valsartan group than in the enalapril group; the ratio of the geometric mean of valu

156 m Hg and 4.9/2.4 mm Hg in the amlodipine and enalapril groups, respectively (P<.001 for both vs place

157 and UprotV of treatment with 25 and 40 mg/L enalapril (groups I and II; both n = 7), 180 mg/L losart

158 Patients on the ACE inhibitor enalapril had a lower hazard of 6% or more weight loss t

159 is study was undertaken to determine whether enalapril had comparable efficacy in black and white pat

160 on of HAE-FXII during intake of quinapril or enalapril had no further HAE-FXII attacks after disconti

161 Overall, the sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril hazard ratio for the primary composite end poi

162 Enalapril improved histologic healing biomarkers and red

163 In previous studies, enalapril improved survival in such patients.

164 ere seen with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril in all others, including left atrial volume (f

165 Eplerenone was as effective as enalapril in LVH regression and blood pressure control.

166 in receptor-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 with enalapril in patients who had heart failure with a reduc

167 ects of long-term, high-dose versus low-dose enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

168 scular morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduce

169 re, as well as blood pressure, compared with enalapril in patients with heart failure, reduced ejecti

170 In the quantitative analysis of the drug enalapril in pooled human plasma with ramipril as an int

171 Telmisartan is not inferior to enalapril in providing long-term renoprotection in perso

172 Telmisartan was not inferior to enalapril in reducing the decline in GFR: Mean annual de

173 LCZ696 was superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and of hospital

174 s generally well tolerated and comparable to enalapril in terms of exercise tolerance in this short-t

175 rate a difference between high- and low-dose enalapril in terms of serum aldosterone and plasma AT-II

176 CE activity was inhibited equally by NCX and enalapril in the CM hamster, and plasma nitrate levels w

177 d in diabetics, diabetics after 5 d of ACEI (enalapril in the drinking water), and weight-matched con

178 demonstrate that the vasodilating effects of enalapril in the skeletal muscle circulation of patients

179 roban on the chronic vasodilating effects of enalapril in the skeletal muscle circulation of patients

180 feriority hypothesis (based on the effect of enalapril in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction

181 ized trial do not support the routine use of enalapril in this population.

182 Side effects from enalapril included dizziness or hypotension (22% v 3% in

183 Enalapril increased the odds of incident anemia (hematoc

184 ted long-term survivors of childhood cancer, enalapril-induced improvement in LV structure and functi

185 and improved clinical outcomes compared with enalapril irrespective of previous HF history or ACE inh

186 LCZ696 was beneficial compared with enalapril, irrespective of glycemic status.

187 As compared with enalapril, LCZ696 also reduced the risk of hospitalizati

188 patients for 2 years with LCZ696 instead of enalapril led to 7 fewer patients in the highest quintil

189 heart failure, the addition of aliskiren to enalapril led to more adverse events without an increase

190 conclude that the renoprotective effects of enalapril, losartan, or combination therapy are similar

191 Enalapril markedly reduced proteinuria (78 +/- 17 mg/d t

192 ) rats), and the other group did not receive enalapril (MCT(+)/ACEI(-) rats).

193 31; target dosage, 97/103 mg twice daily) vs enalapril (n = 233; target dosage, 10 mg twice daily) fo

194 -hospital initiation of S/V (n = 440) versus enalapril (n = 441).

195 The superior effects of NO-releasing enalapril (NCX) vs. enalapril alone to enhance vascular

196 cific ACE activity and monthly pre- and post-enalapril neurohormonal levels were compared.

197 ced neutrophil accumulation to the lung with enalapril occurred through both an increase in bradykini

198 by two steps or more was reduced by 65% with enalapril (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI

199 ent (p = 0.880) and the effect of S/V versus enalapril on cardiovascular death or rehospitalization f

200 (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect of NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized

201 F (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-pro BNP in Patients Stabilized

202 F (comParIson Of sacubitril/valsartaN versus Enalapril on Effect on nt-pRo-bnp in patients stabilized

203 te the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril on HbA1c and time to first-time initiation of

204 he Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Enalapril on Morbidity and Mortality of Patients With Ch

205 r blockade reversed the inhibitory effect of enalapril on neutrophil recruitment.

206 The efficacy of enalapril on pulmonary and renal lesions was assessed in

207 Treatment of diabetic rats (all groups) with enalapril or L-158809 completely prevented/reversed the

208 In group 1, treatment of diabetic rats with enalapril or L-158809 partially prevented the diabetes-i

209 Treatment of diabetic rats with enalapril or L-158809 reduced the superoxide level in th

210 Treatment with enalapril or L-158809 was also effective in improving im

211 Once-daily antihypertensive treatment with enalapril or long-acting nifedipine, plus adjunctive hyd

212 Treatment with enalapril or losartan also decreased renal plasminogen a

213 is, Hoe-140 had no discernible effects after enalapril or losartan.

214 ients randomized to intensive treatment with enalapril or nisoldipine had a mean 4-year blood pressur

215 t anemic at entry and who were randomized to enalapril or placebo.

216 tory of it were randomly assigned to receive enalapril or placebo.

217 erone tended to be paradoxically higher with enalapril or telmisartan in diabetic eNOSKO mice, wherea

218 torvastatin, hydrochlorothiazide, and either enalapril or valsartan for primary and secondary prevent

219 ax) was significantly greater in NCX than in enalapril or vehicle, while relaxation (Tau) was shorten

220 eeks of therapy with an ACE inhibitor (10 mg enalapril) or placebo.

221 ch was repeated after 2 years of amlodipine, enalapril, or placebo therapy.

222 7/s (p < 0.05), after 1 wk ingestion of 5 mg enalapril orally once a day (the scans were performed 24

223 with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan vs enalapril over 30 years.

224 /day, n = 37) or low-dose (5 mg/day, n = 38) enalapril over six months.

225 absolute benefit from LCZ696, compared with enalapril, over a relatively short treatment period.

226 oved congestion to a greater extent than did enalapril (P=0.011).

227 microg/kg, three times a week), and uremic + enalapril + paricalcitol (E + 19-nor).

228 y reduced vasodilatation to bradykinin after enalapril (peak, 192+/-35%) and losartan (peak, 66+/-13%

229 dykinin caused profound vasodilatation after enalapril (peak, 357+/-67%) and less after losartan (pea

230 in period, including 1102 (10.5%) during the enalapril phase and 977 (9.3%) during the LCZ696 phase.

231 Enalapril prevented injury in both classes of glomeruli.

232 Omapatrilat compared with enalapril produced greater reductions in peripheral (-8.

233 ed that in this model of papillary necrosis, enalapril protects renal function and decreases intersti

234 Acute administration of losartan but not of enalapril reduced plasma t-PA (11%; P=0.003) and PAI-1 (

235 me-lapse intravital microscopy revealed that enalapril reduces monocyte motility in the spleen.

236 .3 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) with telmisartan and enalapril, respectively.

237 tients treated with sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril, respectively.

238 Compared with enalapril, sacubitril-valsartan reduces cardiovascular m

239 The Prospective Randomized Enalapril Study Evaluating Regression of Ventricular Enl

240 ears) enrolled in the Prospective Randomized Enalapril Study Evaluating Regression of Ventricular Enl

241 jects treated with omapatrilat compared with enalapril suggest that aortic stiffness is maintained by

242 e-ventricle physiology randomized to receive enalapril (target dose 0.4 mg . kg(-1) . d(-1)) or place

243 ril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or enalapril (target dose, 10 mg twice daily).

244 more common in patients randomly assigned to enalapril than to sacubitril/valsartan (3.1 vs 2.2 per 1

245 ed more common in those randomly assigned to enalapril than to those randomly assigned to sacubitril/

246 Cough was more common with enalapril than with eplerenone (P=0.033), and elevated p

247 kalemia is more likely during treatment with enalapril than with sacubitril/valsartan.

248 had congestive heart failure at the start of enalapril therapy had either died or undergone cardiac t

249 duces cardiovascular mortality compared with enalapril therapy in patients with heart failure with re

250 However, randomization to enalapril therapy significantly reduced the combined end

251 Over the first 6 years of enalapril therapy, there was progressive improvement tow

252 eduction in the NT-proBNP concentration than enalapril therapy.

253 ements in sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril through 36 months.

254 The addition of enalapril to fenoldopam restored the natriuretic effect

255 Administration of enalapril to infants with single-ventricle physiology in

256 pharmacologically prevented, we administered enalapril to inhibit ACE during the 6 months of glucose

257 the CAMELOT (Comparison of Amlodipine Versus Enalapril to Limit Occurrences of Thrombosis) trial were

258 e-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing enalapril to placebo in 135 long-term survivors of pedia

259 tril/valsartan was nearly twice as likely as enalapril to reduce NT-proBNP to values </=1,000 pg/ml.

260 Use of the ACE inhibitor enalapril, together with a program of PR, in patients wi

261 myocardial infarctions (a total of 24) than enalapril (total, 4) (risk ratio, 9.5; 95 percent confid

262 try in an intention-to-treat analysis of 113 enalapril-treated and 122 nifedipine-treated patients re

263 After 1 mo, the enalapril-treated animals showed the same improvement in

264 I, 0.54-0.88 [P = .003]), and in 136 (20.2%) enalapril-treated patients (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.67-1.07

265 ly lower 1 month after randomization than in enalapril-treated patients, and it fell to </=1,000 pg/m

266 with -15.0 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 in the enalapril-treated subjects; the treatment difference was

267 More enalapril-treated than nifedipine-treated patients requi

268 e, one group received MCT concomitantly with enalapril treatment (MCT(+)/ACEI(+) rats), and the other

269 Enalapril treatment abolishes the deleterious effects of

270 Enalapril treatment did not influence exercise performan

271 d monocyte recruitment and was reversible by enalapril treatment.

272 whereas their expression was preserved with enalapril treatment.

273 Compared with enalapril, treatment with LCZ696 reduces 30-day readmiss

274 with sacubitril-valsartan vs 33 to 35% with enalapril; treatment difference, 0.6% [95% CI, -0.4% to

275 /- 0.25, and 1.26 +/- 0.10 for no treatment, enalapril, valsartan, and SK-1080, respectively).

276 Primary end point comparison for enalapril vs amlodipine was not significant (HR, 0.81; 9

277 d comparisons of amlodipine vs enalapril and enalapril vs placebo.

278 laxation (Tau) was shortened in both NCX and enalapril vs. vehicle.

279 Treatment with enalapril was also associated with a comparable reductio

280 Randomization to enalapril was associated with a comparable reduction in

281 ng for incident and prevalent anemia, use of enalapril was associated with a survival benefit.

282 The combination of a beta-blocker and enalapril was associated with a synergistic reduction in

283 Enalapril was associated with increased odds of developi

284 ound (NCX 899), a NO-releasing derivative of enalapril was characterized, and its actions were evalua

285 LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan) compared with enalapril was consistent across the range of HbA1c in th

286 white patients for the progression of ALVD, enalapril was equally efficacious in reducing the risk o

287 ntration with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril was evident as early as week 1 (ratio of chang

288 The combination of eplerenone and enalapril was more effective in reducing LV mass and sys

289 In groups 2-4, intervention with enalapril was more effective in reversing the diabetes-i

290 Enalapril was protective of overall mortality after adju

291 The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril was similar to the primary outcome for the exp

292 ortality with use of both a beta-blocker and enalapril was suggested in the Prevention trial.

293 dary of the confidence interval, in favor of enalapril, was greater than the predefined margin of -10

294 both death and HF hospitalization more than enalapril, were a subset of 10 521 patients entering seq

295 s) receptor for AGEs (RAGE) pathway, and (3) enalapril (which has antioxidant properties) limits the

296 giotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) enalapril, which limits signaling through both receptors

297 the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, enalapril, which significantly lowered blood pressure.

298 d six weeks after combined administration of enalapril with either aspirin, ifetroban or placebo in a

299 We compared the ACE inhibitor enalapril with the renin inhibitor aliskiren (to test su

300 l/valsartan compared with those treated with enalapril, with consistency in most domains, and persist