Assessment and management of hypertension in transplant patients.

Hypertension in renal transplant recipients is common and ranges from 50% to 80% in adult recipients and from 47% to 82% in pediatric recipients. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and shortened allograft survival are important consequences of inadequate control of hypertension. In this review, we examine the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management considerations of post-transplant hypertension. Donor and recipient factors, acute and chronic allograft injury, and immunosuppressive medications may each explain some of the pathophysiology of post-transplant hypertension. As observed in other patient cohorts, renal artery stenosis and adrenal causes of hypertension may be important contributing factors. Notably, BP treatment goals for renal transplant recipients remain an enigma because there are no adequate randomized controlled trials to support a benefit from targeting lower BP levels on graft and patient survival. The potential for drug-drug interactions and altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the different antihypertensive medications need to be carefully considered. To date, no specific antihypertensive medications have been shown to be more effective than others at improving either patient or graft survival. Identifying the underlying pathophysiology and subsequent individualization of treatment goals are important for improving long-term patient and graft outcomes in these patients.

Losartan reduces the costs associated with nephropathy and end-stage renal disease from type 2 diabetes: Economic evaluation of the RENAAL study from a Canadian perspective.

BACKGROUND: The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM [non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus] with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study demonstrated the renoprotective effects of losartan in patients with nephropathy from type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE: To perform an economic evaluation of the costs associated with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) from a Canadian public health perspective, based on the clinical outcomes reported in the RENAAL study. METHODS: ESRD-related costs were determined by estimating the mean number of days with ESRD multiplied by the daily cost of ESRD (140 dollars); mean days with ESRD were calculated by subtracting the area under the Kaplan-Meier survival curve for time to the first event of ESRD or all-cause mortality from the area under the curve for all-cause mortality. Daily ESRD cost was determined using Canadian specific data sources. ESRD-related cost savings with losartan were obtained by subtracting the ESRD-related costs of the losartan group from those of the placebo group. Net cost savings were ESRD-related cost savings with losartan minus the drug cost of losartan. RESULTS: Losartan reduced the number of ESRD days by 33.6 per patient over 3.5 years (95% CI 10.9 to 56.3) compared with placebo. Losartan reduced ESRD-related costs by 4,695 dollars per randomized patient over 3.5 years (95% CI 1,523 dollars to 7,868 dollars). After accounting for the drug cost of losartan, net cost savings with losartan were 3,675 dollars per randomized patient over 3.5 years. CONCLUSION: Losartan therapy for patients with nephropathy from type 2 diabetes reduces the clinical incidence of ESRD and can result in considerable cost savings for the Canadian public health system.