International consensus definitions of clinical trial outcomes for kidney failure: 2020.

Kidney failure is an important outcome for patients, clinicians, researchers, healthcare systems, payers, and regulators. However, no harmonized international consensus definitions of kidney failure and key surrogates of progression to kidney failure exist specifically for clinical trials. The International Society of Nephrology convened an international multi-stakeholder meeting to develop consensus on this topic. A core group, experienced in design, conduct, and outcome adjudication of clinical trials, developed a database of 64 randomized trials and the 163 included definitions relevant to kidney failure. Using an iterative process, a set of proposed consensus definitions were developed and subsequently vetted by the larger multi-stakeholder group of 83 participants representing 18 different countries. The consensus of the meeting participants was that clinical trial kidney failure outcomes should be comprised of a composite that includes receipt of a kidney transplant, initiation of maintenance dialysis, and death from kidney failure; it may also include outcomes based solely on laboratory measurements of glomerular filtration rate: a sustained low glomerular filtration rate and a sustained percent decline in glomerular filtration rate. Discussion included important considerations, such as (i) recognition of existing nomenclature for kidney failure; (ii) applicability across resource settings; (iii) ease of understanding for all stakeholders; and (iv) avoidance of inappropriate complexity so that the definitions can be used across ranges of populations and trial methodologies. The final definitions reflect the consensus for use in clinical trials.

Correction to: An open-label, single-dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cinacalcet in pediatric subjects aged 28 days to < 6 years with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis.

The original version of this article unfortunately contained three mistakes. In Table 1, the last line under "Key Inclusion Criteria" should read "Normal or clinically acceptable ECGs at screening and at day - 1." In addition, the abbreviation "IP" in the legend to Table 1 stands for "investigational product."

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy and safety of cinacalcet in pediatric patients with chronic kidney disease and secondary hyperparathyroidism receiving dialysis.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of cinacalcet in children with secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) receiving dialysis. METHODS: This study had double-blind and open-label phases. Eligible patients aged 6-< 18 years were randomized to cinacalcet (starting dose ≤ 0.20 mg/kg) or placebo. The primary endpoint was ≥ 30% reduction from baseline in mean intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH). Secondary endpoints included mean iPTH ≤ 300 pg/mL; percentage change from baseline in corrected total serum calcium, phosphorus, and calcium phosphorus product (Ca × P); and safety. RESULTS: The double-blind phase comprised 43 patients (cinacalcet, n = 22; placebo, n = 21). Nineteen months into the study, regulatory authorities were notified of a fatality; the study was subsequently terminated after a 14-month clinical hold. Before the hold, 12 patients (55%) on cinacalcet and four (19%) on placebo achieved the primary endpoint (p = 0.017), and 27% and 24%, respectively, achieved iPTH ≤ 300 pg/mL. The between-group differences (95% CI) in percentage changes for total serum calcium, phosphorus, and Ca × P were - 4% (- 9 to 1%), - 6% (- 21 to 8%), and - 10% (- 23 to 3%). The mean maximum actual weight-adjusted daily cinacalcet dosage administered was 0.99 mg/kg/day. Overall, 82% of patients on cinacalcet and 86% on placebo had ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse event; the most common were vomiting (32%, 24%, respectively), hypocalcemia (23%, 19%), nausea (18%, 14%), and hypertension (14%, 24%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite early termination, efficacy and safety outcomes observed with cinacalcet in children with SHPT on dialysis were consistent with adult observations, suggesting cinacalcet may meet an unmet medical need for this population.

An open-label, single-dose study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cinacalcet in pediatric subjects aged 28 days to < 6 years with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Calcimimetics, shown to control biochemical parameters of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), have well-established safety and pharmacokinetic profiles in adult end-stage renal disease subjects treated with dialysis; however, such studies are limited in pediatric subjects. METHODS: In this study, the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of cinacalcet were evaluated in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and SHPT receiving dialysis. Twelve subjects received a single dose of cinacalcet (0.25 mg/kg) orally or by nasogastric or gastric tube. Subjects were randomized to one of two parathyroid hormone (PTH) and serum calcium sampling sequences: [(1) 2, 8, 48 h; or (2) 2, 12, 48 h] and assessed for 72 h after dosing. RESULTS: Median plasma cinacalcet tmax was 1 h (range 0.5-4.0 h); mean (SD) Cmax and AUClast were 2.83 (1.98) ng/mL and 11.8 (8.74) h*ng/mL, respectively; mean (SD) half-life (t1/2) was 3.70 (2.57) h. Dose adjustments, based upon body weight (mg/kg), minimized the effects of age, body weight, body surface area, and body mass index on cinacalcet PK. Reductions in serum PTH levels from baseline were observed at 2 to 8 h post-dose (median 10.8 and 29.6%, respectively), returned towards baseline by 12-72 h and were inversely related to changes in the plasma cinacalcet PK profile. Single-dose cinacalcet was well-tolerated with no unexpected safety findings and a PK/PD, safety profile similar to adults. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, a single 0.25 mg/kg dose of cinacalcet was evaluated to be a safe starting dose in these children aged < 6 years.

Losartan and enalapril are comparable in reducing proteinuria in children with Alport syndrome.

BACKGROUND: A previous subgroup analysis of a 12-week, double-blind study demonstrated that losartan significantly lowered proteinuria versus placebo and amlodipine and was well tolerated in children (1-17 years old) with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome. The present subgroup analysis of the open-label, extension phase of this study assessed the long-term efficacy and tolerability of losartan versus enalapril. METHODS: Patients who had completed the double-blind study were re-randomized to losartan or enalapril and followed for proteinuria and renal function for up to 3 years. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with Alport syndrome were randomized to losartan (0.44-2.23 mg/kg/day; n = 15) or enalapril (0.07-0.72 mg/kg/day; n = 12). The least-squares (LS) mean percent change from week 12 in urinary protein to creatinine ratio (UPr/Cr was +1.1 % in the losartan group versus a further 13.9 % reduction in the enalapril group (GMR [95 % CI] = 1.2 [0.7, 2.0]); the LS mean change from week 12 in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was -6.4 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in the losartan group versus -9.1 ml/min/1.73 m(2) in the enalapril group. The adverse event incidence was low and comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In children with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome, losartan maintained proteinuria reduction, and enalapril produced a further proteinuria reduction over the 3-year study period. Both agents were generally well tolerated.

Losartan and enalapril are comparable in reducing proteinuria in children.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type I receptor blockers delay progression of chronic kidney disease and have antiproteinuric effects beyond their effects on blood pressure. They are routinely used in adults; however, their efficacy and safety in children, in whom the causes of chronic kidney disease are significantly different relative to adults, is uncertain. Here we assessed an open-label extension of a previous 3-month blinded trial, in which the efficacy and tolerability of losartan was compared to placebo or amlodipine in 306 normotensive and hypertensive children with proteinuria. In this study, 268 children were re-randomized to losartan or enalapril and followed until 100 patients completed 3 years of follow-up for proteinuria and renal function. The least squares percent mean reduction from baseline in the urinary protein/creatinine ratio was 30.01% for losartan and 40.45% for enalapril. The least squares mean change from baseline in eGFR was 3.3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for losartan and 7.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for enalapril. The incidence of specific adverse events such as hyperkalemia and renal dysfunction was low and similar in both groups. Both were generally well tolerated and, overall, fewer drug-related adverse events occurred with losartan than with enalapril. Thus, in children with proteinuria, losartan and enalapril significantly reduced proteinuria without any appreciable changes in eGFR, effects that were maintained throughout the study. Both losartan and enalapril were generally well tolerated.

Relative incidence of ESRD versus cardiovascular mortality in proteinuric type 2 diabetes and nephropathy: results from the DIAMETRIC (Diabetes Mellitus Treatment for Renal Insufficiency Consortium) database.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that patients with chronic kidney disease, including those with diabetic nephropathy, are more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than reach end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This analysis was conducted to determine whether ESRD is a more common outcome than cardiovascular death in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy, significant proteinuria, and decreased kidney function who were selected for participation in a clinical trial. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the DIAMETRIC (Diabetes Mellitus Treatment for Renal Insufficiency Consortium) database derived from 2 prospective randomized controlled clinical trials (IDNT [Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial] and RENAAL [Reduction of Endpoints in Non-Insulin-dependent Diabetes With the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan]). SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 3,228 adult patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy from IDNT and RENAAL were combined to establish the DIAMETRIC database. This is the largest global source of clinical information for patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy who have decreased kidney function and significant proteinuria. INTERVENTION: Angiotensin receptor blocker versus non-angiotensin receptor blocker therapy to slow the progression of type 2 diabetic nephropathy (in the prospective trials). OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: Incidence rates of ESRD, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 2.8 years; 19.5% of patients developed ESRD, approximately 2.5 times the incidence of cardiovascular death and 1.5 times the incidence of all-cause mortality. ESRD was more common than cardiovascular death in all subgroups analyzed with the exception of participants with low levels of albuminuria (albumin excretion <1.0 g/g) and well-preserved levels of kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate >45 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) at baseline. LIMITATIONS: All participants were included in a prospective clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy, characterized by decreased kidney function and significant proteinuria, are more likely to reach ESRD than die during 3 years' mean follow-up. Given the rapidly increasing number of cases of type 2 diabetes worldwide, this has implications for predicting future renal replacement therapy requirements.

An acute fall in estimated glomerular filtration rate during treatment with losartan predicts a slower decrease in long-term renal function.

Intervention in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) is associated with slowing the progressive loss of renal function. During initiation of therapy, however, there may be an acute fall in glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We tested whether this initial fall in GFR reflects a renal hemodynamic effect and whether this might result in a slower decline in long-term renal function. We performed a post hoc analysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial. Patients assigned to losartan had a significantly greater acute fall in estimated (eGFR) during the first 3 months compared to patients assigned to placebo, but a significantly slower long-term mean decline of eGFR thereafter. A large interindividual difference, however, was noticed in the acute eGFR change. When patients were divided into tertiles of initial fall in eGFR, the long-term eGFR slope calculated from baseline was significantly higher in patients with an initial fall compared to those with an initial rise. When eGFR decline was calculated from 3 months to the final visit, excluding the initial effect, patients with a large initial fall in eGFR had a significant lower long-term eGFR slope compared to those with a moderate fall or rise. This relationship was independent of other risk markers or change in risk markers for progression of renal disease such as blood pressure and albuminuria. Thus, the greater the acute fall in eGFR, during losartan treatment, the slower the rate of long-term eGFR decline. Hence, interpretation of trial results relying on slope-based GFR outcomes should separate the initial drug-induced GFR change from the subsequent long-term effect on GFR.

Efficacy and safety of losartan in children with Alport syndrome--results from a subgroup analysis of a prospective, randomized, placebo- or amlodipine-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No prospective, randomized, double-blind trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers have previously been reported in adults or children with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome. METHODS: This 12-week, double-blind multinational study investigated the effects of losartan 0.7-1.4 mg/kg/day compared with placebo (normotensive patients) or amlodipine 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/day up to 5 mg/day (hypertensive patients) on proteinuria [early morning-void urinary protein/creatinine ratio (UPr/Cr), baseline ≥ 34 mg/mmol] in 30 children of up to 17 years of age with Alport syndrome. RESULTS: Twelve weeks of treatment with losartan significantly reduced proteinuria compared with placebo/amlodipine: losartan -14.7 mg/mmol (interquartile range -49.7 to -5.7 mg/mmol) or 31.6% reduction using a mixed model approach versus placebo/amlodipine 2.3 mg/mmol (-26.0 to 18.1 mg/mmol), P = 0.01 or 2.3% increase using a mixed model approach. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable between losartan and placebo/amlodipine groups. CONCLUSIONS: Losartan significantly lowered proteinuria and was well tolerated after 12 weeks of treatment in children aged 1-17 years with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome with or without hypertension, a population that has not previously been rigorously studied.

Comparison of different measures of urinary protein excretion for prediction of renal events.

There are many methods to screen for abnormal amounts of proteinuria to identify patients at risk for progression of renal disease, but which method best predicts renal risk is unknown. Here, we analyzed a subset of 701 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy participating in the Reduction of Endpoints in Non Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial to compare the ability of urinary protein excretion (UPE) and urinary albumin excretion (UAE) from a 24-hour urine collection and urinary albumin concentration (UAC) and the albumin:creatinine ratio (ACR) from a first-morning void in predicting renal events. The primary outcome measure was the time to a doubling of serum creatinine or end-stage renal disease. During follow-up, 202 events occurred. The hazard ratios for the risk of a renal outcome (95% CIs) associated with 1-SD increment in the log-transformed measures were 3.16 (2.60 to 3.86) for UAE, 3.02 (2.53 to 3.62) for UPE, 3.23 (2.67 to 3.91) for UAC, and 4.36 (3.50 to 5.45) for ACR. The area under the ROC curve was significantly higher for ACR compared with the other measures. In conclusion, measurement of the albumin:creatinine ratio in a first-morning void is the superior method to predict renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.

ACE gene polymorphism and losartan treatment in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

Losartan treatment reduced renal outcomes in proteinuric patients with type 2 diabetes in the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study. It is unknown whether an insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism in the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) gene predicts renal outcomes and death and influences the effect of losartan in these patients. Pharmacogenetic analyses were performed comparing losartan with placebo administered with conventional blood pressure-lowering therapy in 1435 (95%) of the 1513 RENAAL study patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of doubling of baseline serum creatinine concentration, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death. Cox regression models were stratified on baseline proteinuria and included treatment, geographic region, ACE/ID genotype, and treatment x genotype interaction. Within the placebo group, subjects with the ID or DD genotype were more likely than those with the II genotype to reach the composite endpoint (by 17.5% and 38.1%, respectively, P = 0.029) or its individual components. Within the losartan group, genotype did not correlate with reaching the composite endpoint. Compared with placebo, however, losartan reduced the risk of reaching the composite endpoint by 5.8% (95% confidence interval, -23.3, 28.0), 17.6% (3.8, 29.4), and 27.9% (7.0, 44.1) among those with the II, ID, and DD genotypes, respectively. Similar trends were demonstrated for the individual endpoints. In conclusion, proteinuric type 2 diabetic patients with the D allele of the ACE gene have an unfavorable renal prognosis, which can be mitigated and even improved by losartan.

Renal function and risk for cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension: the RENAAL and LIFE studies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a threshold exists for cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension, the association between renal function and cardiovascular risk was examined across the entire physiological range of serum creatinine. DESIGN AND METHODS: The RENAAL and LIFE studies enrolled 1513 and 1195 patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension, respectively. The relationship between baseline serum creatinine and the risk for a composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death was examined using Cox regression models. To adjust for heterogeneity between studies and treatment groups, these factors were included as strata when applicable. The analyses were conducted with adjustment for age, gender, smoking, alcohol use, blood pressure, heart rate, total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, hemoglobin, albuminuria and prior cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: The hazard ratios across the baseline serum creatinine categories < 0.9 mg/dl, 0.9-1.2 mg/dl, 1.2-1.6 mg/dl, 1.6-2.8 mg/dl and >or= 2.8 mg/dl were 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.34, 0.74), 0.74 (0.55, 1.00), 1.00 (reference), 1.24 (0.96, 1.59) and 1.67 (1.17, 2.91), respectively. Baseline serum creatinine (per mg/dl) strongly predicted the composite cardiovascular endpoint in LIFE [2.82(1.74,4.56), P < 0.001], RENAAL [1.41(1.12,1.79), P < 0.001], as well as the combined studies [1.51(1.21,1.87), P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: A progressively higher risk for the composite cardiovascular endpoint was observed with incremental baseline serum creatinine in type 2 diabetic patients with hypertension, even within the normal range. Thus, there appears to be no serum creatinine threshold level for an increased cardiovascular risk. Baseline serum creatinine was a major independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (www.ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00308347).

Efficacy and safety of angiotensin II receptor blockade in elderly patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: While national guidelines recommend ACE inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy in patients with diabetes and nephropathy, guidelines concerning elderly patients with diabetes have not endorsed these drugs. We sought to assess the nephroprotective efficacy and safety of ARB therapy in elderly patients by conducting age-specific subgroup analyses using data from the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 1,513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy who randomly received either losartan or placebo. We tested for effect modification by age of the effect of losartan on the incidence of the predefined end points (doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease [ESRD], or death) and the risk of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 1,513 participants, 421 (27.8%) were aged >65 years (maximum age 74 years). Age did not modify the efficacy of losartan in reducing the risk of the primary outcome, a composite of doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD, or death (P(interaction) = 0.66) or its individual components (all P(interaction) > 0.44). In patients aged >65 years, losartan reduced the risk of ESRD by 50% (95% CI 30-81, P = 0.005). We found no evidence that older patients were more likely to experience adverse events from losartan such as a rise in serum creatinine or hyperkalemia than younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients had the same level of benefits and risks as younger patients from treatment with losartan. Underuse of ACEI and ARB therapy in elderly patients because of the perceived lack of efficacy or a greater risk of adverse events appears unjustified.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a combination of once-daily losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg compared with losartan 100-mg monotherapy in the treatment of mild to severe essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with hypertension may require >1 antihypertensive agent to control blood pressure (BP), physicians often prescribe a fixed combination of antihypertensive medications. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of adding low-dose hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (HCTZ12.5) to high-dose losartan 100 mg (L100) in patients with hypertension whose BP was inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy. METHODS: Enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, filter study were patients aged > or =18 years with a mean trough sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg. Patients were treated with L100 QD for 4 weeks. Patients who did not achieve adequate BP control were randomly assigned to receive L100/HCTZ12.5 or L100 QD for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in trough SiDBP from baseline in the 2 groups. Responders were defined as patients with a mean trough SiDBP of <90 mm Hg or patients who had a > or =10-mm Hg decrease in mean trough SiDBP. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between treatment groups. The patients randomized to the double-blind treatment period were mostly white (65.1%) and male (57.5%), with a mean age of 53.8 years. The mean (SD) duration of hypertension at baseline was 9.7 (8.5) years. The proportion of patients previously treated with antihypertensive therapy was 76.7%. Of the 367 patients enrolled in the L100 filter period, 292 patients had BP inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy and were randomized to receive L100 (n = 145) or L100/HCTZ12.5 (n = 147). At week 6 after randomization, mean trough SiDBP was significantly lower in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (-8.3 vs -5.2, respectively; P < 0.001). The between-group difference was -3.0 mm Hg (95 % CI, -4.6 to -1.40; P < 0.001), and the proportion of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (63.0% vs 44.4%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) occurring in >2% of patients during the double-blind period was similar for both groups. AEs occurring in the L100 group and the L100/HCTZ12.5 group included respiratory tract infection (6.2% vs 3.4%, respectively), dizziness (2.1% vs 0.7%), and headache (0.7% vs 3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 weeks of therapy, L100/HCTZ12.5 was associated with greater antihypertensive efficacy than L100, as measured by the change in mean trough SiDBP The percentage of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group.

The impact of losartan on the lifetime incidence of end-stage renal disease and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.

INTRODUCTION: The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy, treatment with losartan plus conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) reduced the relative risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) by 29% versus placebo over the time span of the study (mean patient follow-up of 3.4 years). The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared with placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs (from a US healthcare system perspective). METHODS: To estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, we used a competing risks method to account for the risk of death without ESRD. We estimated the cost (US dollars, year 2002 values) associated with ESRD by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD, the cost of losartan study therapy and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3% per annum. RESULTS: We projected a lower lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in cost associated with ESRD of US dollars 31,803 per patient and a gain of 0.99 life-years per patient (0.70 discounted). After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a lifetime net saving of US dollars 24,632 per patient. CONCLUSION: Treatment with losartan plus CT in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD and is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD and associated costs, and increased survival, versus placebo.

Albuminuria, a therapeutic target for cardiovascular protection in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Albuminuria is an established risk marker for both cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Albuminuria can be reduced with drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We questioned whether the short-term drug-induced change in albuminuria would predict the long-term cardioprotective efficacy of RAS intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from Reduction in Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL), a double-blind, randomized trial in 1513 type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy, focusing on the relationship between the prespecified cardiovascular end point (composite) or hospitalization for heart failure and baseline or reduction in albuminuria. Patients with high baseline albuminuria (> or =3 g/g creatinine) had a 1.92-fold (95% CI, 1.54 to 2.38) higher risk for the cardiovascular end point and a 2.70-fold (95% CI, 1.94 to 3.75) higher risk for heart failure compared with patients with low albuminuria (<1.5 g/g). Among all available baseline risk markers, albuminuria was the strongest predictor of cardiovascular outcome. The association between albuminuria and cardiovascular outcome was driven by those patients who also had a renal event. Modeling of the initial 6-month change in risk parameters showed that albuminuria reduction was the only predictor for cardiovascular outcome: 18% reduction in cardiovascular risk for every 50% reduction in albuminuria and a 27% reduction in heart failure risk for every 50% reduction in albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: Albuminuria is an important factor predicting cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Reducing albuminuria in the first 6 months appears to afford cardiovascular protection in these patients.

Hospitalizations for new heart failure among subjects with diabetes mellitus in the RENAAL and LIFE studies.

We sought to study the risk factors for heart failure (HF) and the relation between antihypertensive treatment with losartan and the first hospitalization for HF in patients with diabetes mellitus in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) and Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) studies. We evaluated 1,195 patients with hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and diabetes from the LIFE study and 1,513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy from the RENAAL study. The comparative treatments were atenolol in the LIFE study and placebo in the RENAAL study. Patients with a history of HF were excluded from this analysis. Losartan significantly reduced the incidence of first hospitalizations for HF versus placebo in the RENAAL study (hazard ratio 0.74, p=0.037) and versus atenolol in the LIFE study (hazard ratio 0.57, p=0.019). Patients enrolled in the RENAAL study were at a higher risk of developing HF (hazard ratio for RENAAL vs LIFE diabetics 3.0, p<0.0001). The significant, independent baseline risk factors for the development of HF in the RENAAL study were urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, age, peripheral vascular disease, the Cornell product, body mass index, and previous angina; in the LIFE study they were the Cornell product, previous myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, baseline atrial fibrillation, alcohol use (inverse relation), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. The beneficial effect of losartan on the reduction of risk for hospitalization for new HF was demonstrated in patients who were at high renal and/or high cardiovascular risk.

A double-blind, dose-response study of losartan in hypertensive children.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the dose-response relationship for losartan, 2.5 to 100 mg, and to assess the safety and tolerability of losartan in hypertensive children 6 to 16 years of age. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, dose-response study. In Period 1, a total of 175 patients were stratified by weight (<50 kg and >/=50 kg) and randomized to one of three dose groups by stratum (low, 2.5/5.0 mg; middle, 25/50 mg; or high, 50/100 mg) for 3 weeks. The ratio of the three dose levels for both weight strata was 1:10:20. In Period 2, patients in each dose group were randomized to continue the same treatment or placebo washout for 2 additional weeks. RESULTS: In Period 1, sitting trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased in a dose-dependent manner (P < .0001). At week 3, changes in DBP from baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-dose groups were -6.0 mm Hg, -11.7 mm Hg, and -12.2 mm Hg, respectively. In Period 2, DBP increased significantly in patients who switched from middle- and high-dose losartan to placebo (mean increase 6.0 mm Hg, P = .003) relative to DBP in patients who remained on active treatment; however, these levels remained stable in those patients who switched from low-dose losartan to placebo (mean increase 1.1 mm Hg, P = .628). CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive children 6 to 16 years of age, losartan given once daily reduced blood pressure in a dose-dependent fashion. A once-daily starting dose of losartan, 0.75 mg/kg (maximum 50 mg) effectively lowered DBP within 3 weeks. Losartan up to a dosage of 1.44 mg/kg (maximum 100 mg) once daily is generally well tolerated.

Losartan and end-organ protection--lessons from the RENAAL study.

BACKGROUND: The Reduction in ENdpoints with the Angiotensin Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study reported that losartan delayed the progression of renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Diabetic or renally impaired patients are at high cardiovascular risk, a risk potentially increased in patients with both conditions. HYPOTHESIS: This post hoc analysis examined whether baseline proteinuria was predictive of cardiovascular outcomes, and whether losartan modifies the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in these patients given its renal-protective effects. METHODS: The RENAAL study compared losartan with placebo (in addition to conventional antihypertensive medications) in type 2 diabetic patients with proteinuria. Morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular causes were ascertained, and the relationship between baseline proteinuria and cardiovascular outcome was determined. The effect of treatment with losartan was examined using three time-to-event analyses of composite cardiorenal outcomes as described below. RESULTS: Increasing baseline proteinuria was associated with significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause or cardiovascular death, but not stroke. Losartan significantly reduced the risk for the combined endpoint of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), MI, stroke, or death by 21% (p < or = 0.005), irrespective of whether all-cause or cardiovascular death was included in the analysis. In addition, losartan reduced the risk for the composite of ESRD or cardiovascular death by 19.2% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, there is an increased risk of MI and cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Treatment with losartan is associated with a reduction in proteinuria, a delay in the onset of ESRD, and no increased risk of cardiovascular events in this pre-ESRD population.

Progression of chronic kidney disease: the role of blood pressure control, proteinuria, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition: a patient-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce blood pressure and urine protein excretion and slow the progression of chronic kidney disease. PURPOSE: To determine the levels of blood pressure and urine protein excretion associated with the lowest risk for progression of chronic kidney disease during antihypertensive therapy with and without ACE inhibitors. DATA SOURCES: 11 randomized, controlled trials comparing the efficacy of antihypertensive regimens with or without ACE inhibitors for patients with predominantly nondiabetic kidney disease. STUDY SELECTION: MEDLINE database search for English-language studies published between 1977 and 1999. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on 1860 nondiabetic patients were pooled in a patient-level meta-analysis. Progression of kidney disease was defined as a doubling of baseline serum creatinine level or onset of kidney failure. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to assess the association of systolic and diastolic blood pressure and urine protein excretion with kidney disease progression at 22 610 patient visits. DATA SYNTHESIS: Mean duration of follow-up was 2.2 years. Kidney disease progression was documented in 311 patients. Systolic blood pressure of 110 to 129 mm Hg and urine protein excretion less than 2.0 g/d were associated with the lowest risk for kidney disease progression. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors remained beneficial after adjustment for blood pressure and urine protein excretion (relative risk, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.84]). The increased risk for kidney progression at higher systolic blood pressure levels was greater in patients with urine protein excretion greater than 1.0 g/d (P < 0.006). CONCLUSION: Although reverse causation cannot be excluded with certainty, a systolic blood pressure goal between 110 and 129 mm Hg may be beneficial in patients with urine protein excretion greater than 1.0 g/d. Systolic blood pressure less than 110 mm Hg may be associated with a higher risk for kidney disease progression.