Impaired Myofibroblast Proliferation is a Central Feature of Pathologic Post-Natal Alveolar Simplification.

Premature infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) have impaired alveolar gas exchange due to alveolar simplification and dysmorphic pulmonary vasculature. Advances in clinical care have improved survival for infants with BPD, but the overall incidence of BPD remains unchanged because we lack specific therapies to prevent this disease. Recent work has suggested a role for increased transforming growth factor-beta (TGFß) signaling and myofibroblast populations in BPD pathogenesis, but the functional significance of each remains unclear. Here, we utilize multiple murine models of alveolar simplification and comparative single-cell RNA sequencing to identify shared mechanisms that could contribute to BPD pathogenesis. Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals a profound loss of myofibroblasts in two models of BPD and identifies gene expression signatures of increased TGFß signaling, cell cycle arrest, and impaired proliferation in myofibroblasts. Using pharmacologic and genetic approaches, we find no evidence that increased TGFß signaling in the lung mesenchyme contributes to alveolar simplification. In contrast, this is likely a failed compensatory response, since none of our approaches to inhibit TGFb signaling protect mice from alveolar simplification due to hyperoxia while several make simplification worse. In contrast, we find that impaired myofibroblast proliferation is a central feature in several murine models of BPD, and we show that inhibiting myofibroblast proliferation is sufficient to cause pathologic alveolar simplification. Our results underscore the importance of impaired myofibroblast proliferation as a central feature of alveolar simplification and suggest that efforts to reverse this process could have therapeutic value in BPD.

Effect of low versus high dialysate sodium concentration on blood pressure and endothelial-derived vasoregulators during hemodialysis: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypertension affects ∼15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. While intradialytic hypertension is associated with increases in endothelin 1 relative to nitric oxide (NO), the cause of these imbalances is unknown. In vitro evidence suggests that altering plasma sodium levels could affect endothelial-derived vasoregulators and blood pressure (BP). Thus, we hypothesized that compared to high dialysate sodium, low dialysate sodium concentration would lower endothelin 1 levels, increase NO release, and reduce BP. STUDY DESIGN: 3-week, 2-arm, randomized, crossover study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 16 patients with intradialytic hypertension. INTERVENTION: Low (5 mEq/L below serum sodium) versus high (5 mEq/L above serum sodium) dialysate sodium concentration. OUTCOMES: Endothelin 1, nitrite (NO2(-)), and BP. MEASUREMENTS: Mixed linear regression was used to compare the effect of dialysate sodium (low vs high) and randomization arm (low-then-high vs high-then-low) on intradialytic changes in endothelin 1, NO2(-), and BP values. RESULTS: The average systolic BP throughout all hemodialysis treatments in a given week was lower with low dialysate sodium concentrations compared with treatments with high dialysate sodium concentrations (parameter estimate, -9.9 [95% CI, -13.3 to -6.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). The average change in systolic BP during hemodialysis also was significantly lower with low vs high dialysate sodium concentrations (parameter estimate, -6.1 [95% CI, -9.0 to -3.2] mm Hg; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in intradialytic levels of endothelin 1 or NO2(-) with low vs high dialysate sodium concentrations. LIMITATIONS: Carryover effects limited the power to detect significant changes in endothelial-derived vasoregulators, and future studies will require parallel trial designs. CONCLUSIONS: Low dialysate sodium concentrations significantly decreased systolic BP and ameliorated intradialytic hypertension. Longer studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of low dialysate sodium concentrations on BP and clinical outcomes.

Potassium handling with dual renin-angiotensin system inhibition in diabetic nephropathy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are the cornerstones of pharmacologic therapy in diabetic nephropathy. Mineralocorticoid receptor blockers reduce proteinuria as single agents or add-on therapy to other renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system-inhibiting drugs in these patients. The long-term benefits and ultimate role of mineralocorticoid receptor blockers in diabetic nephropathy remain unknown. A clinical trial previously showed that the kalemic effect of spironolactone is higher than losartan when added to lisinopril in patients with diabetic nephropathy. The purpose of this study was to investigate if renal potassium handling was primarily responsible for that observation. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: In a blinded, randomized, three-arm placebo-controlled clinical trial, 80 participants with diabetic nephropathy taking lisinopril (80 mg) were randomized to spironolactone (25 mg daily), losartan (100 mg daily), or placebo (trial dates from July of 2003 to December of 2006). Serum potassium, aldosterone, and 24-hour urine sodium, potassium, and creatinine were measured over 48 weeks. Differences were analyzed with repeated measures mixed models. RESULTS: Mean follow-up serum potassium was 5.0 mEq/L for spironolactone, 4.7 mEq/L for losartan (P=0.05 versus spironolactone), and 4.5 mEq/L for placebo (P<0.001 versus spironolactone; P=0.03 versus losartan). The difference in serum potassium was 0.23 mEq/L for losartan versus placebo (P=0.02), 0.43 mEq/L for spironolactone versus placebo (P<0.001), and 0.2 mEq/L for spironolactone versus losartan (P=0.05). Serum and urine potassium excretion and secretion rates were similar between groups throughout the study. CONCLUSION: Spironolactone raised serum potassium more than losartan in patients with diabetic nephropathy receiving lisinopril, despite similar renal sodium and potassium excretion. This finding suggests that extrarenal potassium homeostasis contributes to hyperkalemia in these patients. A better understanding of extrarenal potassium homeostasis will provide an opportunity to use this drug more safely in patients with diabetic nephropathy as well as other patient populations.

The landscape of clinical trials in nephrology: a systematic review of Clinicaltrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Well-designed trials are of paramount importance in improving the delivery of care to patients with kidney disease. However, it remains unknown whether contemporary clinical trials within nephrology are of sufficient quality and quantity to meet this need. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & POPULATION: Studies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Interventional (ie, nonobservational) studies (both randomized and nonrandomized) registered between October 2007 and September 2010 were included for analysis. Studies were reviewed independently by physicians and classified by clinical specialty. PREDICTOR: Nephrology versus cardiology versus other trials. OUTCOMES: Select clinical trial characteristics. RESULTS: Of 40,970 trials overall, 1,054 (2.6%) were classified as nephrology. Most nephrology trials were for treatment (75.4%) or prevention (15.7%), with very few diagnostic, screening, or health services research studies. Most nephrology trials were randomized (72.3%). Study designs included 24.9% with a single study group, 64.0% that included parallel groups, and 9.4% that were crossover trials. Nephrology trials, compared with 2,264 cardiology trials (5.5% overall), were more likely to be smaller (64.5% vs 48.0% enrolling≤100 patients), phases 1-2 (29.0% vs 19.7%), and unblinded (66.2% vs 53.3%; P<0.05 for all). Nephrology trials also were more likely than cardiology trials to include a drug intervention (72.4% vs 41.9%) and less likely to report having a data monitoring committee (40.3% vs 48.5%; P<0.05 for all). Finally, there were few trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH; 3.3%, nephrology; 4.2%, cardiology). LIMITATIONS: Does not include all trials performed worldwide, and frequent categorization of funding source as university may underestimate NIH support. CONCLUSIONS: Critical differences remain between clinical trials in nephrology and other specialties. Improving care for patients with kidney disease will require a concerted effort to increase the scope, quality, and quantity of clinical trials within nephrology.