[Microalbuminuria and urinary albumin excretion: clinical practice guidelines]. / Microalbuminurie et excrétion urinaire d'albumine: recommandations pour la pratique clinique.

Measurement of urinary albumin excretion (UAE) may be done on a morning urinary sample or on a 24 hours-urine sample. Values defining microalbuminuria are: 24 hour-urine sample: 30-300 mg/24 hours; morning urine sample: 20-200 mg/ml or 30-300 mg/g creatinine or 2.5-25 mg/mmol creatinine (men) or 3.5-35 mg/mol (women). Timed urine sample: 20-200 microg/min. The optimal use of semi-quantitative urine test-strip is not clearly defined. It is generally believed that microalbuminuria reflects a generalized impairment of the endothelium; however, no definite proof has been shown in humans. IN DIABETIC SUBJECTS: Microalbuminuria is a marker of increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) and renal morbidity and mortality in type 1 and type 2 diabetic subjects. The increase in UAE during follow-up is also a marker of CV and renal risk in type 1 and type 2 diabetic subjects; its decrease during follow-up is associated with lower risks. IN NO DIABETIC SUBJECTS: Microalbuminuria is a marker of increased risk for diabetes mellitus, deterioration of the renal function, CV morbidity and all-cause mortality. It is a marker of increased risk for the development of hypertension in normotensive subjects, and is associated with unfavorable outcome in patients with cancer and lymphoma. Persistence or elevation of UAE overtime is associated with deleterious outcome in some hypertensive subjects. Measurement of UAE may be recommended in hypertensive subjects with one or two CV risk factors in whom CV risk remains difficult to assess, and in those with refractory hypertension: microalbuminuria indicates a high CV risk and must lead to strict control of arterial pressure. Studies focused on microalbuminuria in non-diabetic non-hypertensive subjects are limited; most of them suggest that microalbuminuria predicts CV complications and deleterious outcome as it is in diabetic or hypertensive subjects. Subjects with a history of CV or cerebrovascular disease have an even greater CV risk if microalbuminuria is present than if it is not; however, in all cases, therapeutic intervention must be aggressive regardless of whether microalbuminuria is present or not. It is not recommended to measure UAE in non-diabetic non-hypertensive subjects in the absence of history of renal disease. Monitoring of renal function (UAE, serum creatinine and estimation of GFR) is annually recommended in all subjects with microalbuminuria. MANAGEMENT: In patients with microalbuminuria, weight reduction, sodium restriction (<6 g/day), smoking cessation, strict glucose control in diabetic subjects, strict arterial pressure control are necessary; in diabetic subjects: use of maximal doses of ACEI or ARB are recommended; ACEI/ARB and thiazides have synergistic actions on arterial pressure and reduction of UAE; in non diabetic subjects, any of the five classes of antihypertensive medications (ACEI, ARB, thiazides, calcium channel blockers or betablockers) can be used.

Transforming growth factor-beta in human diabetic nephropathy: effects of ACE inhibition.

OBJECTIVE: Studies in rodent models have suggested that reduction in renal transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta1 may underlie the renoprotective effects of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade. However, the role of the RAS blockade in abrogating TGF-beta in human disease is unknown. Accordingly, we sought to examine TGF-beta gene expression and biological activity in human renal biopsies, before and after ACE inhibition. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: RNA was extracted from renal biopsies taken from participants in the Diabiopsies study, a randomized controlled 2-year trial of 4 mg/day perindopril versus placebo that reported a reduction in proteinuria and cortical matrix expansion in type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Biopsies taken at study entry and at 2 years were obtained in 12 patients (6 placebo and 6 taking perindopril). TGF-beta1 and its receptor mRNA were quantified by real-time PCR, and its biological activity was assessed by examining the activation of its intracellular signaling pathway (phosphorylated Smad2) and the expression TGF-beta-inducible gene H3 (betaig-H3). RESULTS: At baseline, TGF-beta1 expression was similar in both placebo- and perindopril-treated groups and was unchanged over a 2-year period in biopsies of placebo-treated subjects. In contrast, perindopril treatment led to a substantial diminution in TGF-beta1 mRNA (mean 83% reduction, P < 0.05). Phosphorylated Smad2 immunolabeling and betaig-H3 mRNA were similarly reduced with ACE inhibition (P < 0.05) but unchanged in the placebo group. No differences were noted in the gene expression of TGF-beta receptor II in biopsies of either placebo- or perindopril-treated subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that over a 2-year period, treatment with perindopril in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy leads to a reduction in both renal TGF-beta1 gene expression and its downstream activation.

Independent and additive impact of blood pressure control and angiotensin II receptor blockade on renal outcomes in the irbesartan diabetic nephropathy trial: clinical implications and limitations.

Elevated arterial pressure is a major risk factor for progression to ESRD in diabetic nephropathy. However, the component of arterial pressure and level of BP control for optimal renal outcomes are disputed. Data from 1590 hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial performed in 209 clinics worldwide, were examined, and the effects of baseline and mean follow-up systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP and the interaction of assigned study medications (irbesartan, amlodipine, and placebo) on progressive renal failure and all-cause mortality were assessed. Other antihypertensive agents were added to achieve predetermined BP goals. Entry criteria included elevated baseline serum creatinine concentration up to 266 micromol/L (3.0 mg/dl) and urine protein excretion >900 mg/d. Baseline BP averaged 159/87 +/- 20/11 mmHg. Median patient follow-up was 2.6 yr. Follow-up achieved SBP most strongly predicted renal outcomes. SBP >149 mmHg was associated with a 2.2-fold increase in the risk for doubling serum creatinine or ESRD compared with SBP <134 mmHg. Progressive lowering of SBP to 120 mmHg was associated with improved renal and patient survival, an effect independent of baseline renal function. Below this threshold, all-cause mortality increased. An additional renoprotective effect of irbesartan, independent of achieved SBP, was observed down to 120 mmHg. There was no correlation between diastolic BP and renal outcomes. We recommend a SBP target between 120 and 130 mmHg, in conjunction with blockade of the renin-angiotensin system, in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy.

Cost-effectiveness of irbesartan in diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review of published studies.

BACKGROUND: To review published studies on the cost-effectiveness of the use of irbesartan for treatment of advance overt nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: Articles were identified based on a search of the PubMed databases using the keywords 'irbesartan', 'ESRD', 'cost-effectiveness', 'nephropathy' and 'costs', and by personal communication with the authors. Only studies published in the last 10 years were included. All costs data from the cost-effectiveness studies were inflated to 2003 Euros using published governmental conversion tables. RESULTS: Seven published studies were identified, spanning the following country settings: the US, Belgium and France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Spain, and the UK. In each, the same pharmacoeconomic model was adapted using country-specific data to project and evaluate the clinical and cost outcomes of the treatment arms of the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) (irbesartan, amlodipine or standard blood pressure control). Mean time to onset of ESRD was 8.23 years for irbesartan, 6.82 years for amlodipine and 6.88 years for the control (values were the same for Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Spain as transition probabilities for progression to ESRD were all derived from the IDNT). Mean cumulative incidence of ESRD was 36% with irbesartan, 49% with amlodipine and 45% with control treatment. Treatment with irbesartan was projected to improve life expectancy compared to both amlodipine and control in all seven published studies. Analysis of total lifetime costs showed that irbesartan treatment was cost saving compared to the other two treatment regimens, due to the associated reduction in ESRD cases. Cost savings with irbesartan became evident very early; after 2-3 years of treatment in most settings. CONCLUSIONS: Modelling studies based on the IDNT published to date suggest that irbesartan treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and advanced nephropathy is both life- and cost-saving compared to amlodipine or control.

Patient referral is influenced by dialysis centre structure in the Diamant Alpin Dialysis cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Late referral (LR) to the nephrologist of patients with progressing chronic kidney disease (CKD) has numerous deleterious effects and is observed in many countries. The contributing factors associated with LR are controversial and poorly defined. We hypothesized that these factors might be better identified by analysing patients starting dialysis in three distinct European countries within the same area. METHOD: The referral and progression of kidney failure patterns were analysed with demographic, clinical and biological data in 279 non-selected consecutive patients starting dialysis in eight centres of three adjacent regions in France, Italy and Switzerland. RESULTS: Early referral (>6 months before the start of dialysis) was seen in 200 patients (71.6%), intermediate referral (1-6 months) in 42 (15.1%) and LR (<1 month) in 37 (13.3%). However inter-centre variations were between 2 and 19% for LR and 6-50% for combined late and intermediate referral. There were no differences at the national levels, but LR was more frequent in the large city centres than in the private or regional structures, with 31 out of 169 (18.3%), two out of 55 (5.4%) and four out of 55 (7.3%), respectively, of their patients (P<0.01). By multivariate analysis, it appears that, besides the presence of an active cancer and the CKD progression rate, the centre structure and the referring physician (primary care physicians and nephrologists are less responsible for LR than other medical specialists) play a significant role in the practice of LR. CONCLUSIONS: Within a dialysis cohort spread over adjacent regions of three countries, LR has the same global distribution pattern, indicating that different health and social security systems do not play a major role in inducing or preventing this practice. The contributing factors for LR that were identified are the type of the referring physician and the structure of the dialysis unit. Both factors are potential targets for an educational and collaborative approach.

The Diamant Alpin Dialysis cohort study: clinico-biological characteristics and cardiovascular genetic risk profile of incident patients.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and therapeutic characteristics of chronic dialysis patients vary widely at national and/or regional levels. Their increased cardiovascular (CV) mortality is not explained by traditional cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors only. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate and compare the characteristics of patients starting dialysis in a homogeneous Alpin region and possibly to identify new biological parameters (phenotypes or genotypes), which eould be responsible for the increased CVD seen in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. METHODS: A cohort of 279 non-selected consecutive patients entering a dialysis program was prospectively investigated in eight centers of three adjacent regions in France, Italy and Switzerland. In addition to the usual demographic, clinical and biological data, we analyzed at study entry the blood levels of homocysteine, lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) and antioxidized low density lipoprotein (LDL) antibodies, vitamin B12 status, Lp(a) and haptoglobin phenotypes, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), allele epsilon E4 of apolipoprotein (ApoE4) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) genetic polymorphism. RESULTS: At entry, 90.3% of patients were hypertensive, 30% had type 2 diabetes mellitus and 17.6% were current smokers; 42% of patients had already experienced at least one CV event: peripheral artery disease (26% of the cohort), coronary artery disease (22%) or ischemic cerebro-vascular disease (16%). Forty-two patients had had > or =2 CV events or documented atherosclerotic localizations. Anemia was not optimally treated: mean hemoglobin (Hb) was at 97.7 g/L and, while overall 62% of patients received erythropoietin (EPO) prior to dialysis, large national differences were observed. Compared to the reference population, ESRD patients exhibited increased homocysteinemia, Lp(a) levels and ApoE4 allele prevalence. Conversely, the distribution of Lp(a) phenotype, MTHFR TT, ACE DD and PAI-1 4G/4G was equivalent to that of the reference population. In addition, none of the analyzed phenotypical or genotypical parameters, except for the haptoglobin 2.2 phenotype, could be associated with the existence of a previous adverse CV event. CONCLUSIONS: (1) The clinical characteristics of the ESRD patients entering dialysis in our region were comparable to the currently observed dialysis populations in most European countries with the deleterious role of advancing age, diabetes, previous CVD, smoking and hypertension evident (2). Except for anemia therapy, there were no regional or national differences observed at dialysis start. (3) An analysis of the phenotypic and genotypic CV risk factors demonstrated differences with the reference population only for hyperhomocysteinemia, Lp(a) and ApoE4 allele prevalence, with no notable differences among the participating centers.

An economic evaluation of irbesartan in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, hypertension and nephropathy: cost-effectiveness of Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) in the Belgian and French settings.

BACKGROUND: In the Irbesartan in Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT), treatment with irbesartan demonstrated 23 and 20% reductions in the combined endpoint of doubling of serum creatinine (DSC), end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy compared with amlodipine and control, respectively. A simulation model was developed to project long-term cost consequences of the IDNT in Belgium and France. METHODS: A Markov model simulated progression from nephropathy to DSC, ESRD and death in patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Treatment-specific probabilities were derived from IDNT. Country-specific ESRD-related data were retrieved from published sources. Delay in onset of ESRD, life expectancy and mean lifetime costs were calculated for patients with a baseline age of 59 years. Future costs were discounted at 3% per annum (p.a.), and clinical benefits were discounted at 0 and 3% p.a. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Onset of ESRD was delayed with irbesartan by 1.41 and 1.35 years vs amlodipine and control, respectively. When a 10-year time horizon was considered, delay in ESRD onset led to anticipated improvements in life expectancy of 0.13 years vs amlodipine and 0.26 years vs control. Irbesartan was associated with cost savings of 14 949 and 9205/patient in Belgium, and 20 128 and 13 337 in France, vs amlodipine and control, respectively. The results were robust under a wide range of plausible assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Treating patients with hypertension, type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy using irbesartan was both cost- and life-saving compared with amlodipine and control.