RESUMO
AIM: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists reduce albuminuria and the risk of kidney failure. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of both agents alone and in combination on markers of the glomerular endothelial glycocalyx and tubular function. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis utilized data of the ROTATE-3 study, a randomized cross-over study in 46 adults with chronic kidney disease and urinary albumin excretion ≥100 mg/24 h, who were treated for 4 weeks with dapagliflozin, eplerenone or its combination. The effects of dapagliflozin, eplerenone and the combination on outcome measures such as heparan sulphate, neuro-hormonal markers and tubular sodium handling were assessed with mixed repeated measures models. RESULTS: The mean percentage change from baseline in heparan sulphate after 4 weeks treatment with dapagliflozin, eplerenone or dapagliflozin-eplerenone was -34.8% (95% CI -52.2, -10.9), -5.9% (95% CI -32.5, 31.3) and -28.1% (95% CI -48.4, 0.1) respectively. The mean percentage change from baseline in plasma aldosterone was larger with eplerenone [38.9% (95% CI 2.8, 87.7)] and dapagliflozin-eplerenone [32.2% (95% CI -1.5, 77.4)], compared with dapagliflozin [-12.5% (95% CI -35.0, 17.8)], respectively. Mean percentage change from baseline in copeptin with dapagliflozin, eplerenone or dapagliflozin-eplerenone was 28.4% (95% CI 10.7, 49.0), 4.2% (95% CI -10.6, 21.4) and 23.8% (95% CI 6.6, 43.9) respectively. Dapagliflozin decreased proximal absolute sodium reabsorption rate by 455.9 mmol/min (95% CI -879.2, -32.6), while eplerenone decreased distal absolute sodium reabsorption rate by 523.1 mmol/min (95% CI -926.1, -120.0). Dapagliflozin-eplerenone decreased proximal absolute sodium reabsorption [-971.0 mmol/min (95% CI -1411.0, -531.0)], but did not affect distal absolute sodium reabsorption [-9.2 mmol/min (95% CI -402.0, 383.6)]. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin and eplerenone exert different effects on markers of glomerular and tubular function supporting the hypothesis that different mechanistic pathways may account for their kidney protective effects.
Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Insuficiência Renal Crônica , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Adulto , Humanos , Compostos Benzidrílicos/farmacologia , Compostos Benzidrílicos/uso terapêutico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/metabolismo , Eplerenona/uso terapêutico , Eplerenona/farmacologia , Taxa de Filtração Glomerular , Heparitina Sulfato/farmacologia , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/complicações , Insuficiência Renal Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Sódio , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/farmacologia , Estudos Cross-OverRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into SSc patients' perspective on quality of care and to survey their preferred quality indicators. METHODS: An online questionnaire about healthcare setting, perceived quality of care (CQ index) and quality indicators, was sent to 2093 patients from 13 Dutch hospitals. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifty patients (mean age 59 years, 75% women, 32% limited cutaneous SSc, 20% diffuse cutaneous SSc) completed the questionnaire. Mean time to diagnosis was 4.3 years (s.d. 6.9) and was longer in women compared with men (4.8 (s.d. 7.3) vs 2.5 (s.d. 5.0) years). Treatment took place in a SSc expert centre for 58%, regional centre for 29% or in both for 39% of patients. Thirteen percent of patients was not aware of whether their hospital was specialized in SSc. The perceived quality of care was rated with a mean score of 3.2 (s.d. 0.5) (range 1.0-4.0). There were no relevant differences between expert and regional centres. The three prioritized process indicators were: good patient-physician interaction (80%), structural multidisciplinary collaboration (46%) and receiving treatment according to SSc guidelines (44%). Absence of disease progression (66%), organ involvement (33%) and digital ulcers (27%) were the three highest rated outcome indicators. CONCLUSION: The perceived quality of care evaluated in our study was fair to good. No differences between expert and regional centres were observed. Our prioritized process and outcome indicators can be added to indicators suggested by SSc experts in earlier studies and can be used to evaluate the quality of care in SSc.