ライフサイエンスコーパス: enalapril

1 angiotensin system inhibition (losartan plus enalapril).

2 (6) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (enalapril).

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

4 term reduction in HbA1c than those receiving enalapril.

5 ctomy reproduced antiinflammatory effects of enalapril.

6 de-isosorbide dinitrate with placebo or with enalapril.

7 educed morbidity and mortality compared with enalapril.

8 ficant, treatment effects were observed with enalapril.

9 icating that telmisartan was not inferior to enalapril.

10 ed to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril.

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

12 307 (54.8%) occurred in subjects assigned to enalapril.

13 cant for Prevention trial patients receiving enalapril.

14 ldipine than among those assigned to receive enalapril.

15 iated with retained but reduced benefit from enalapril.

16 ngiotensin converting enzyme inhibition with enalapril.

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

18 was not shown for aliskiren as compared with enalapril.

19 d by sacubitril/valsartan in comparison with enalapril.

20 cquisition cost for sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril.

21 ortality, and hospitalizations compared with enalapril.

22 jection fraction to treatment with LCZ696 or enalapril.

23 veness of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril.

24 s following HF hospitalization compared with enalapril.

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

26 r HF than those receiving standard care with enalapril.

27 ype natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril.

28 nd, placebo-controlled crossover trial using enalapril (0.2 to 0.3 mg x kg[-1] x d[-1], maximum 15 mg

29 8%) in the aliskiren group (hazard ratio vs. enalapril, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10); the prespecified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40 tients to 3 months of CsA versus 3 months of enalapril (10 to 30 mg daily), separated by a 1-month wa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 , 6 healthy subjects received, 4 hours after enalapril (20 mg) or placebo, an intra-arterial infusion

50 y (n = 38); losartan, 50 mg/day (n = 40); or enalapril, 20 mg/day (n = 38).

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

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

65 performance) on optimal current therapy (97% enalapril, 89% diuretics) were randomly assigned to doub

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

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

68 We conclude that enalapril administration for 10 weeks does not alter abn

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

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

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

72 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

80 creases in HDL cholesterol were greater with enalapril and doxazosin, least with acebutolol.

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

82 Cotreatment of the animals with enalapril and L-NAME reversed the beneficial effect of e

83 Enalapril and losartan each reduced hypertension, protei

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

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

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

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

88 Both enalapril and telmisartan were less effective at reducin

89 00 microg/kg), and group 4 received both the enalapril and the high dose of BMP-7.

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

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

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

93 age, sex, treatment assignment to placebo or enalapril, and cause of heart failure, we examined wheth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 in patients with heart failure treated with enalapril, but the only possible long-term benefit was a

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

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

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

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

118 differ between treatment groups in V-HeFT I, enalapril decreased overall mortality versus hydralazine

119 For physiologic variables in V-HeFT II, enalapril decreased ventricular tachycardia at follow-up

120 Finally, enalaprilat, but not the prodrug enalapril, decreased internalization of the receptor fro

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

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

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

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

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

126 88 after pretreatment with the ACE inhibitor enalapril (E) or placebo.

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

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

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

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

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

132 effect of ACE inhibitors on renal fibrosis, enalapril, enalapril plus NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl est

133 $35512 and 0.78, respectively, compared with enalapril, equating to an incremental cost-effectiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

141 17.5+/-4.4%) in NCX and was unchanged in the enalapril group (both P<0.01 vs. vehicle).

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

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

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

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

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

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

148 1.13 versus -0.14; P<0.001) in comparison to enalapril group and significantly less proportion of pat

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

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

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

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

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

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

155 patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

177 and L-NAME reversed the beneficial effect of enalapril in the obstructed kidney for all parameters.

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 azine/isosorbide dinitrate was compared with enalapril in V-HeFT II for mortality, clinical course an

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

184 Enalapril increased the odds of incident anemia (hematoc

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

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

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

188 riglycerides were greater with doxazosin and enalapril, least with acebutolol.

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

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

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

192 Although enalapril lowered arterial pressure by 8 mm Hg (P < 0.01

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

206 ration was significantly increased by either enalapril or L-arginine treatment, whereas L-NAME signif

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

208 Treatment with enalapril or losartan also decreased renal plasminogen a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

217 7/s (p < 0.05), after 1 wk ingestion of 5 mg enalapril orally once a day (the scans were performed 24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

225 ACE inhibitors on renal fibrosis, enalapril, enalapril plus NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME)

226 Enalapril prevented injury in both classes of glomeruli.

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

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

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

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

231 ts (REM), REM rats treated with losartan and enalapril (REM AIIA), and REM AIIA rats infused with exo

232 .3 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) with telmisartan and enalapril, respectively.

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

234 The Prospective Randomized Enalapril Study Evaluating Regression of Ventricular Enl

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

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

237 ectivity; (2) lack of comparable efficacy of enalapril suggests that the antiproteinuric effect of Cs

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

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

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

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

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

243 ntly decreased in subjects after 10 weeks of enalapril therapy (102+/-34% [enalapril] versus 125+/-34

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

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

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

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

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

249 The addition of enalapril to fenoldopam restored the natriuretic effect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

262 More enalapril-treated than nifedipine-treated patients requi

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

264 Enalapril treatment abolishes the deleterious effects of

265 Enalapril treatment did not influence exercise performan

266 Enalapril treatment significantly blunted the increase i

267 whereas their expression was preserved with enalapril treatment.

268 d monocyte recruitment and was reversible by enalapril treatment.

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

270 /- 0.25, and 1.26 +/- 0.10 for no treatment, enalapril, valsartan, and SK-1080, respectively).

271 er 10 weeks of enalapril therapy (102+/-34% [enalapril] versus 125+/-34% [placebo]; P<.02).

272 m2 [placebo]), oxygen consumption (18.3+/-9 [enalapril] versus 20.5+/-7 mL x min[-1] x kg[-1] [placeb

273 L/min [placebo]), and total work (247+/-181 [enalapril] versus 261+/-197 W [placebo]) were not differ

274 maximal exercise, cardiac index (3.5+/-0.9 [enalapril] versus 3.8+/-0.9 L x min[-1] x m2 [placebo]),

275 ] [placebo]), minute ventilation (57.5+/-17 [enalapril] versus 55.4+/-19 L/min [placebo]), and total

276 rcise duration was not different (6.4+/-2.6 [enalapril] versus 6.7+/-2.6 minutes [placebo]).

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

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

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

280 Treatment with enalapril was also associated with a comparable reductio

281 Randomization to enalapril was associated with a comparable reduction in

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

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

284 Enalapril was associated with increased odds of developi

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

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

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

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