Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on renal and mortality outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes and proteinuria

Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The comparative effects of specific blood pressure (BP) lowering treatments on patient-important outcomes following kidney transplantation are uncertain. Our 2009 Cochrane review found that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) improved graft function and prevented graft loss, while the evidence for other BP-lowering treatments was limited. This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different classes and combinations of antihypertensive drugs in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 3 July 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating any BP-lowering agent in recipients of a functioning kidney transplant for at least two weeks were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risks of bias and extracted data. Treatment estimates were summarised using the random-effects model and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) processes. The primary outcomes included all-cause death, graft loss, and kidney function.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies (8706 participants) were included. One study evaluated treatment in children. The overall risk of bias was unclear to high across all domains. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, CCBs probably reduce all-cause death (23 studies, 3327 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) and graft loss (24 studies, 3577 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may make little or no difference to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (11 studies, 2250 participants: MD 1.89 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -0.70 to 4.48; I2 = 48%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (13 studies, 906 participants: RR 10.8, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may reduce systolic BP (SBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -5.83 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.42; I2 = 13%; low certainty evidence) and diastolic BP (DBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -3.98 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.98 to -1.99; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). CCBs have uncertain effects on proteinuria. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (7 studies, 702 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.21; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), graft loss (6 studies, 718 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGFR (4 studies, 509 participants: MD -2.46 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -7.66 to 2.73; I2 = 64%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (4 studies, 388 participants: RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.04; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ACEi may reduce proteinuria (5 studies, 441 participants: MD -0.33 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.01; I2 = 67%; low certainty evidence) but had uncertain effects on SBP and DBP. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (6 studies, 1041 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGRF (5 studies, 300 participants: MD -1.91 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -6.20 to 2.38; I2 = 57%; low certainty evidence), and acute rejection (4 studies, 323 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.29; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ARBs may reduce graft loss (6 studies, 892 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), SBP (10 studies, 1239 participants: MD -3.73 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.02 to -0.44; I2 = 63%; moderate certainty evidence) and DBP (9 studies, 1086 participants: MD -2.75 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.32 to -1.18; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty evidence), but has uncertain effects on proteinuria. The effects of CCBs, ACEi or ARB compared to placebo or standard care alone on cardiovascular outcomes (including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke) or other adverse events were uncertain. The comparative effects of ACEi plus ARB dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone were rarely evaluated. Head-to-head comparisons of ACEi, ARB or thiazide versus CCB, ACEi versus ARB, CCB or ACEi versus alpha- or beta-blockers, or ACEi plus CCB dual therapy versus ACEi or CCB monotherapy were scarce. No studies reported outcome data for cancer or life participation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For kidney transplant recipients, the use of CCB therapy to reduce BP probably reduces death and graft loss compared to placebo or standard care alone, while ARB may reduce graft loss. The effects of ACEi and ARB compared to placebo or standard care on other patient-centred outcomes were uncertain. The effects of dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone and the comparative effects of different treatments were uncertain.

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers for preventing the progression of diabetic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I2 = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I2 = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I2 = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I2 = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I2 = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I2 = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I2 = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I2 = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I2 = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I2 = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I2 = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.

Current updates on metabolites and its interlinked pathways as biomarkers for diabetic kidney disease: A systematic review

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a major microvascular complication of diabetes mellitus (DM) that poses a serious risk as it can lead to end-stage renal disease (ESRD). DKD is linked to changes in the diversity, composition, and functionality of the microbiota present in the gastrointestinal tract. The interplay between the gut microbiota and the host organism is primarily facilitated by metabolites generated by microbial metabolic processes from both dietary substrates and endogenous host compounds. The production of numerous metabolites by the gut microbiota is a crucial factor in the pathogenesis of DKD. However, a comprehensive understanding of the precise mechanisms by which gut microbiota and its metabolites contribute to the onset and progression of DKD remains incomplete. This review will provide a summary of the current scenario of metabolites in DKD and the impact of these metabolites on DKD progression. We will discuss in detail the primary and gut-derived metabolites in DKD, and the mechanisms of the metabolites involved in DKD progression. Further, we will address the importance of metabolomics in helping identify potential DKD markers. Furthermore, the possible therapeutic interventions and research gaps will be highlighted.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Mycophenolate Mofetil and Cyclophosphamide in Lupus Nephritis: Evidence from a Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Both mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (CYC) have been recommended in the induction therapy of lupus nephritis (LN) for years; nevertheless, their effectiveness and safety in a real-world setting are extremely lacking. Therefore, we decided to conduct this real-world study.

METHODS

A total of 195 Chinese patients with LN who were initially treated with MMF (n = 98), or intravenous CYC (n = 97) as induction therapy were enrolled. All of the patients were followed up to 12 months. Complete renal remission (CRR) was defined as 24-h urinary protein (24 h-UTP) < 0.5 g, and partial renal remission (PRR) was defined as ≥ 50% reduction in 24 h-UTP to the subnephrotic level, however > 0.5 g, both with a change of serum creatinine (SCr) within 10% from baseline. The proportions of CRR, PRR, and total renal remission (TRR), as well as adverse events, were compared by Chi-square test and Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank test). Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used for propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression analyses were employed.

RESULTS

The cumulative proportion of TRR in 6 months (79.4 vs. 63.8%, p = 0.026) and CRR in 12 months (72.8 vs. 57.6%, p = 0.049) in MMF group were significantly higher than CYC group, and the above conclusions were further confirmed by IPTW. The proportions of PRR, CRR, and TRR at other time points were equivalent between two groups. Further subgroup analysis in 111 patients with biopsy-proven III-V LN also showed a significantly higher proportion of TRR at 6 months in the MMF group than in the CYC group (78.3 vs. 56.9%, p = 0.026). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis and after IPTW, the MMF group showed better TRR and CRR responses than CYC group in 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression analyses revealed that MMF use was the only predictor of CRR (HR 2.12, 95% CI 1.90-4.09, p = 0.026), while low complement level was also a predictor, albeit risk was reduced (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.86, p = 0.019). Moreover, compared to the CYC group, MMF group patients were more likely to have significantly lower SCr (μmol/l) [72.5 (62.5, 86.5) vs. 79.0 (71.1, 97.5), p = 0.001] and daily dose of prednisone (mg/day) (15.7 ± 5.2 vs. 18.6 ± 11.3, p = 0.022) at 6 months; lower 24 h-UTP (g) [0.1 (0.1, 0.3) vs. 0.2 (0.1, 0.9), p = 0.005] and daily dose of prednisone (mg/day) (9.6 ± 3.3 vs. 11.2 ± 5.5, p = 0.023) at 12 months. Infection was the most common adverse event. Pneumonia and gastrointestinal discomfort were more frequently observed in the CYC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world data are a key component of the evidence supporting the effectiveness of drugs and are of interest to all stakeholders. Our comparative study demonstrated the effectiveness of MMF in LN induction therapy was at least equivalent to intravenous CYC, with superior tolerance.

Treatment patterns of antidiabetic and kidney protective therapies among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease in Colombia. The KDICO descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is one of the most common causes of chronic kidney disease (CKD) worldwide and prevalence of 1.75 per 100 inhabitants in Colombia. The aim of this study was to describe the treatment patterns of a group of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CKD in an outpatient setting from Colombia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CKD identified in the Audifarma S.A. administrative healthcare database between April 2019 and March 2020 was performed. Sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacological variables were considered and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 14,722 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CKD were identified, predominantly male (51%), with a mean age of 74.7 years. The most common treatment patterns of type 2 diabetes mellitus included the use of metformin monotherapy (20.5%), followed by the combination of metformin + dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (13.4%). Regarding the use of drugs with nephroprotective properties, the most prescribed treatments were angiotensin receptor blockers (67.2%), angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (15.8%), sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) (17.0%) and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs (GLP1a) (5.2%).

CONCLUSION

In Colombia, the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and CKD identified in this study were treated with antidiabetic and protective medications to ensure adequate metabolic, cardiovascular, and renal control. The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus and CKD may be improved if the beneficial properties of new groups of antidiabetics (SGLT2i, GLP1a), as well as novel mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, are considered.

Cellular mechanism of action of forsythiaside for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease

Background: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) becomes the leading cause of death for end-stage renal disease, whereas the potential mechanism is unclear and effective therapy is still rare. Our study was designed to investigate the cellular mechanism of Forsythiaside against DKD. Materials and Methods: The targets of Forsythiaside and the DKD-related targets were obtained from databases. The overlapping targets in these two sets were regarded as potential targets for alleviation of DKD by Forsythiaside. The targets of diabetic podocytopathy and tubulopathy were also detected to clarify the mechanism of Forsythiaside ameliorating DKD from the cellular level. Results: Our results explored that PRKCA and RHOA were regarded as key therapeutic targets of Forsythiaside with excellent binding affinity for treating DKD podocytopathy. Enrichment analysis suggested the underlying mechanism was mainly focused on the oxidative stress and mTOR signaling pathway. The alleviated effects of Forsythiaside on the reactive oxidative species accumulation and PRKCA and RHOA proteins upregulation in podocytes were also confirmed. Conclusion: The present study elucidates that Forsythiaside exerts potential treatment against DKD which may act directly RHOA and PRKCA target by suppressing the oxidative stress pathway in podocytes. And Forsythiaside could be regarded as one of the candidate drugs dealing with DKD in future experimental or clinical researches.

Pharmacotherapy to delay the progression of diabetic kidney disease in people with type 2 diabetes: past, present and future

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among people living with diabetes, and is one of the most important causes of end stage renal disease worldwide. In order to reduce progression of DKD, important management goals include treatment of hypertension, glycaemia and control of cardiovascular risk factors such as lipids, diet, smoking and exercise. Use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers has an established role in prevention of progression of DKD. A number of other agents such as endothelin-1 receptor antagonists and bardoxolone have had disappointing results. Recent studies have, however, suggested that newer antidiabetic agents such as sodium-glucose transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) and glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues have specific beneficial effects in patients with DKD. Indeed most recent guidance suggest that SGLT-2i drugs should be used early in DKD, irrespective of glucose control. A number of pathways are hypothesised for the development and progression of DKD, and have opened up a number of newer potential therapeutic targets. This article aims to discuss management of DKD with respect to seminal trials from the past, more recent trials informing the present and potential new therapeutic options that may be available in the future.

Identification of copper-related biomarkers and potential molecule mechanism in diabetic nephropathy

BACKGROUND

Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is a chronic microvascular complication in patients with diabetes mellitus, which is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease. However, the role of copper-related genes (CRGs) in DN development remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CRGs were acquired from the GeneCards and NCBI databases. Based on the GSE96804 and GSE111154 datasets from the GEO repository, we identified hub CRGs for DN progression by taking the intersection of differentially expressed CRGs (DECRGs) and genes in the key module from Weighted Gene Co-expression Network Analysis. The Maximal Clique Centrality algorithm was used to identify the key CRGs from hub CRGs. Transcriptional factors (TFs) and microRNAs (miRNAs) targeting hub CRGs were acquired from publicly available databases. The CIBERSORT algorithm was used to perform comparative immune cell infiltration analysis between normal and DN samples.

RESULTS

Eighty-two DECRGs were identified between normal and DN samples, as were 10 hub CRGs, namely PTGS2, DUSP1, JUN, FOS, S100A8, S100A12, NAIP, CLEC4E, CXCR1, and CXCR2. Thirty-nine TFs and 165 miRNAs potentially targeted these 10 hub CRGs. PTGS2 was identified as the key CRG and FOS as the most significant gene among all of DECRGs. RELA was identified as the hub TF interacting with PTGS2 by taking the intersection of potential TFs from the ChEA and JASPAR public databases. let-7b-5p was identified as the hub miRNA targeting PTGS2 by taking the intersection of miRNAs from the miRwalk, RNA22, RNAInter, TargetMiner, miRTarBase, and ENCORI databases. Similarly, CREB1, E2F1, and RELA were revealed as hub TFs for FOS, and miR-338-3p as the hub miRNA. Finally, compared with those in healthy samples, there are more infiltrating memory B cells, M1 macrophages, M2 macrophages, and resting mast cells and fewer infiltrating activated mast cells and neutrophils in DN samples (all p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The 10 identified hub copper-related genes provide insight into the mechanisms of DN development. It is beneficial to examine and understand the interaction between hub CRGs and potential regulatory molecules in DN. This knowledge may provide a novel theoretical foundation for the development of diagnostic biomarkers and copper-related therapy targets in DN.

Understanding molecular upsets in diabetic nephropathy to identify novel targets and treatment opportunities

Diabetes and related complications are becoming a global encumbrance. Diabetic nephropathy (DN) is a major cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The available therapeutic modalities related to DN do not treat DN at the molecular level, proposing further amendments in the management of DN based on the pathogenesis of DN. This manuscript discusses the concept and applications of nanomedicine for the treatment of DN that can improve renal targeting, retention and localization. This review also highlights the current issues related to targeting DN, challenges and allied opportunities toward the development of next-generation drugs and treatments for the management of DN.