Comparison of Efficacy of Long-term Oral Treatment with Telmisartan and Benazepril in Cats with Chronic Kidney Disease

Background: The efficacy and benefits of telmisartan in cats with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have not previously been reported. Hypothesis: Long-term treatment of cats with CKD using telmisartan decreases urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UP/C) similar to benazepril. Animals: Two-hundred and twenty-four client-owned adult cats with CKD. Methods: Prospective, multicenter, controlled, randomized, parallel group, blinded clinical trial with noninferiority design. Cats were allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to either telmisartan (1 mg/kg; n = 112) or benazepril (0.5-1.0 mg/kg; n = 112) PO q24 h. The primary endpoint was prospectively defined as the change in proteinuria (benazepril:telmisartan) based on a log transformed weighted average of UP/C change from baseline (AUC 0?t/t) as a percentage compared using a confidence interval (CI) approach. Changes of UP/C from baseline were assessed on all study days and corrected for multiple comparisons. Results: Telmisartan proved noninferior to benazepril in controlling proteinuria (CI, À0.035 to 0.268). At Day 180, UP/C compared to baseline in the telmisartan group was significantly lower (À0.05 AE 0.31; P = .016), whereas in the benazepril group the change (À0.02 AE 0.48) was not statistically significant (P = .136). Similar results were obtained at all assessment points with significant decrease in UP/C occurring with telmisartan but not benazepril. Conclusion and Clinical Importance: Both telmisartan and benazepril were well tolerated and safe. Telmisartan proved to be noninferior to benazepril and significantly decreased proteinuria relative to baseline at all assessment points whereas benazepril did not

Variety of Methodological Approach in Economics

It has been argued by some that the distinction between orthodox economics and heterodox economics does not fit the growing variety in economic theory, unified by a common methodological approach. On the other hand, it remains a central characteristic of heterodox economics that it does not share this methodological approach, but rather represents a range of alternative methodological approaches. The paper explores the evidence, and arguments, for variety in economics at different levels, and a range of issues which arise. This requires in turn a discussion of the meaning of variety in economics at the different levels of reality, methodology, method and theory. It is concluded that there is scope for more, rather than less, variety in economic methodologies, as well as within methodologies. Further, if variety is not to take the form of “anything goes”, then critical discussion by economists of different approaches to economics, and of variety itself, is required