Achievement and safety of a low blood pressure goal in chronic renal disease. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group

Chronic Kidney Disease Progression and Transition Probabilities in a Large Preventive Cohort in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Variability in chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression is a well-known phenomenon that underlines the importance of characterizing the said outcome in specific populations. Our objectives were to evaluate changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time and determine the frequency of dialysis admission and factors associated with this outcome, to estimate the rate of program's loss-to-follow-up and the probability of transition between CKD stages over time.

METHODS

The study type was an observational analytic retrospective cohort in patients treated in a CKD prevention program in Bogota, Colombia, between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2013, with follow-up until December 31, 2018. Adult participants of 18 years of age or older with diagnosed CKD stages G3 or G4 were enrolled into a prevention program. For each patient, the rate of progression of CKD in ml/min/1.73 m2/year was estimated using the ordinary least-squares method. Dialysis initiation and program's loss-to-follow-up rates were calculated. Heat maps were used to present probabilities of transitioning between various CKD stages over time. Survival model with competing risks was used to evaluate factors associated with dialysis initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 2752 patients met inclusion criteria and contributed with 14133 patient-years of follow-up and 200 dialysis initiation events, which represents a rate of 1.4 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI 1.2 to 1.6). The median change of the eGFR for the entire cohort was -0.47 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year, and in the diabetic population, it was -1.55 ml/min/1.73 m2 per year. The program's loss-to-follow-up rate was 2.6 events per 100 patient-years (95% CI 2.3 to 2.9). Probabilities of CKD stage transitions are presented in heat maps. Female sex, older age, baseline eGFR, and serum albumin were associated with lower risk of dialysis initiation while CKD etiology diabetes, cardiovascular disease history, systolic blood pressure, blood urea nitrogen, and LDL cholesterol were associated with a higher likelihood of dialysis initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

A CKD secondary prevention program's key indicator is reported here, such as dialysis initiation, progression rate, and program drop-out; CKD progression appears to be correlated with diabetic status and timing of referral into the preventive program.

COVID-19 in Chronic Kidney Disease: The Impact of Old and Novel Cardiovascular Risk Factors

Cardiovascular disease is a frequent complication and the most common cause of death in patients with CKD. Despite landmark medical advancements, mortality due to cardiovascular disease is still 20 times higher in CKD patients than in the general population, which is mainly due to the high prevalence of risk factors in this group. Indeed, in addition to traditional cardiovascular risk factors, CKD patients are exposed to nontraditional ones, which include metabolic, hormonal, and inflammatory alterations. The global severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has brought novel challenges for both cardiologists and nephrologists alike. Emerging evidence indicates that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases the risk of cardiovascular events and that several aspects of the disease may synergize with pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors in CKD patients. A better understanding of these mechanisms is pivotal for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular events in this context, and we believe that additional clinical and experimental studies are needed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in CKD patients with COVID-19. In this review, we provide a summary of traditional and nontraditional cardiovascular risk factors in CKD patients, discussing their interaction with SARS-CoV-2 infection and focusing on CO-VID-19-related cardiovascular complications that may severely affect short- and long-term outcomes in this high-risk population.

Low protein diets for non-diabetic adults with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined as reduced function of the kidneys present for 3 months or longer with adverse implications for health and survival. For several decades low protein diets have been proposed for participants with CKD with the aim of slowing the progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and delaying the onset of renal replacement therapy. However the relative benefits and harms of dietary protein restriction for preventing progression of CKD have not been resolved. This is an update of a systematic review first published in 2000 and updated in 2006, 2009 and 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of low protein diets in preventing the natural progression of CKD towards ESKD and in delaying the need for commencing dialysis treatment in non-diabetic adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 7 September 2020 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 Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi RCTs in which adults with non-diabetic CKD (stages 3 to 5) not on dialysis were randomised to receive a very low protein intake (0.3 to 0.4 g/kg/day) compared with a low protein intake (0.5 to 0.6 g/kg/day) or a low protein intake compared with a normal protein intake (≥ 0.8 g/kg/day) for 12 months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes (death, all causes), requirement for dialysis, adverse effects) the risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and summary statistics estimated using the random effects model. Where continuous scales of measurement were used (glomerular filtration rate (GFR), weight), these data were analysed as the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales had been used. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 studies with 2996 analysed participants (range 19 to 840). Four larger multicentre studies were subdivided according to interventions so that the review included 21 separate data sets. Mean duration of participant follow-up ranged from 12 to 50 months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were considered at low risk of bias in eleven and nine studies respectively. All studies were considered at high risk for performance bias as they were open-label studies. We assessed detection bias for outcome assessment for GFR and ESKD separately. As GFR measurement was a laboratory outcome all studies were assessed at low risk of detection bias. For ESKD, nine studies were at low risk of detection bias as the need to commence dialysis was determined by personnel independent of the study investigators. Five studies were assessed at high risk of attrition bias with eleven studies at low risk. Ten studies were at high risk for reporting bias as they did not include data which could be included in a meta-analysis. Eight studies reported funding from government bodies while the remainder did not report on funding. Ten studies compared a low protein diet with a normal protein diet in participants with CKD categories 3a and b (9 studies) or 4 (one study). There was probably little or no difference in the numbers of participants who died (5 studies 1680 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.18; 13 fewer deaths per 1000; moderate certainty evidence). A low protein diet may make little or no difference in the number of participants who reached ESKD compared with a normal protein diet (6 studies, 1814 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.53; 7 more per 1000 reached ESKD; low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain whether a low protein diet compared with a normal protein intake impacts on the outcome of final or change in GFR (8 studies, 1680 participants: SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.38; very low certainty evidence). Eight studies compared a very low protein diet with a low protein diet and two studies compared a very low protein diet with a normal protein diet. A very low protein intake compared with a low protein intake probably made little or no difference to death (6 studies, 681 participants: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.54; 10 more deaths per 1000; moderate certainty evidence). However it probably reduces the number who reach ESKD (10 studies, 1010 participants: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; 165 per 1000 fewer reached ESKD; moderate certainty evidence). It remains uncertain whether a very low protein diet compared with a low or normal protein intake influences the final or change in GFR (6 studies, 456 participants: SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.52; very low certainty evidence). Final body weight was reported in only three studies. It is uncertain whether the intervention alters final body weight (3 studies, 89 participants: MD -0.40 kg, 95% CI -6.33 to 5.52; very low certainty evidence).Twelve studies reported no evidence of protein energy wasting (malnutrition) in their study participants while three studies reported small numbers of participants in each group with protein energy wasting. Most studies reported that adherence to diet was satisfactory. Quality of life was not formally assessed in any studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found that very low protein diets probably reduce the number of people with CKD 4 or 5, who progress to ESKD. In contrast low protein diets may make little difference to the number of people who progress to ESKD. Low or very low protein diets probably do not influence death. However there are limited data on adverse effects such as weight differences and protein energy wasting. There are no data on whether quality of life is impacted by difficulties in adhering to protein restriction. Studies evaluating the adverse effects and the impact on quality of life of dietary protein restriction are required before these dietary approaches can be recommended for widespread use.

Low protein diets for non-diabetic adults with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is defined as reduced function of the kidneys present for 3 months or longer with adverse implications for health and survival. For several decades low protein diets have been proposed for participants with CKD with the aim of slowing the progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and delaying the onset of renal replacement therapy. However the relative benefits and harms of dietary protein restriction for preventing progression of CKD have not been resolved. This is an update of a systematic review first published in 2000 and updated in 2006 and 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of low protein diets in preventing the natural progression of CKD towards ESKD and in delaying the need for commencing dialysis treatment in non-diabetic adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 2 March 2018 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 Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi RCTs in which adults with non-diabetic chronic kidney disease (stages 3 to 5) not on dialysis were randomised to receive a very low protein intake (0.3 to 0.4 g/kg/d) compared with a low protein intake (0.5 to 0.6 g/kg/d) or a low protein intake compared with a normal protein intake (≥ 0.8 g/kg/d) for 12 months or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes (death, all causes), requirement for dialysis, adverse effects) the risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and summary statistics estimated using the random effects model. Where continuous scales of measurement were used (glomerular filtration rate (GFR), weight), these data were analysed as the mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales had been used. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified an additional six studies to include 17 studies with 2996 analysed participants (range 19 to 840). Four larger multicentre studies were subdivided according to interventions so that the review included 21 separate data sets. Mean duration of participant follow-up ranged from 12 to 50 months.Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were considered at low risk of bias in eleven and nine studies respectively. All studies were considered at high risk for performance bias as they were open-label studies. We assessed detection bias for outcome assessment for GFR and ESKD separately. As GFR measurement was a laboratory outcome all studies were assessed at low risk of detection bias. For ESKD, nine studies were at low risk of detection bias as the need to commence dialysis was determined by personnel independent of the study investigators. Five studies were assessed at high risk of attrition bias with eleven studies at low risk. Ten studies were at high risk for reporting bias as they did not include data which could be included in a meta-analysis. Eight studies reported funding from government bodies while the remainder did not report on funding.Ten studies compared a low protein diet with a normal protein diet in participants with CKD categories 3a and b (9 studies) or 4 (one study). There was probably little or no difference in the numbers of participants who died (5 studies 1680 participants: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.18; 13 fewer deaths per 1000; moderate certainty evidence). A low protein diet may make little or no difference in the number of participants who reached ESKD compared with a normal protein diet (6 studies, 1814 participants: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.53; 7 more per 1000 reached ESKD; low certainty evidence). It remains uncertain whether a low protein diet compared with a normal protein intake impacts on the outcome of final or change in GFR (8 studies, 1680 participants: SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.75 to 0.38; very low certainty evidence).Eight studies compared a very low protein diet with a low protein diet and two studies compared a very low protein diet with a normal protein diet. A very low protein intake compared with a low protein intake probably made little or no difference to death (6 studies, 681 participants: RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.54; 10 more deaths per 1000; moderate certainty evidence). However it probably reduces the number who reach ESKD (10 studies, 1010 participants: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; 165 per 1000 fewer reached ESKD; moderate certainty evidence). It remains uncertain whether a very low protein diet compared with a low or normal protein intake influences the final or change in GFR (6 studies, 456 participants: SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.52; very low certainty evidence).Final body weight was reported in only three studies. It is uncertain whether the intervention alters final body weight (3 studies, 89 participants: MD -0.40 kg, 95% CI -6.33 to 5.52; very low certainty evidence).Twelve studies reported no evidence of protein energy wasting (malnutrition) in their study participants while three studies reported small numbers of participants in each group with protein energy wasting. Most studies reported that adherence to diet was satisfactory. Quality of life was not formally assessed in any studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found that very low protein diets probably reduce the number of people with CKD 4 or 5, who progress to ESKD. In contrast low protein diets may make little difference to the number of people who progress to ESKD. Low or very low protein diets probably do not influence death. However there are limited data on adverse effects such as weight differences and protein energy wasting. There are no data on whether quality of life is impacted by difficulties in adhering to protein restriction. Studies evaluating the adverse effects and the impact on quality of life of dietary protein restriction are required before these dietary approaches can be recommended for widespread use.

Optimal Blood Pressure Goals in Patients With Hypertension at High Risk for Cardiovascular Events

Existing epidemiologic and clinical trial data suggest that the blood pressure in patients with hypertension at high risk for cardiovascular events because of coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, stroke, or heart failure should be reduced to <140/90 mm Hg in patients younger than 80 years and the systolic blood pressure be reduced to 140-145 mm Hg if tolerated in patients aged 80 years and older. Studies from patients with coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, stroke, and heart failure will be discussed that support a blood pressure goal of <140/90 mm Hg in patients younger than 80 years at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Blood Pressure Goals and Targets in the Elderly

OPINION STATEMENT

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) 2011 expert consensus document on hypertension in the elderly recommends that the blood pressure be reduced to less than 140/90 mmHg in adults aged 60-79 years and the systolic blood pressure to 140 to 145 mmHg if tolerated in adults aged 80 years and older. I strongly support these guidelines based on clinical trial data, especially from the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly trial and from the Hypertension in the Very Elderly trial (HYVET). Other guidelines supporting reducing the blood pressure to less than 140/90 mmHg in adults aged 60 to 79 years of age include the European Society of Hypertension (ESH)/European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2013 guidelines, the minority report from the 2013 Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8) guidelines, the 2013 Canadian Hypertension Education Program guidelines, the 2011 UK guidelines, the 2014 American Society of Hypertension (ASH)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) guidelines, and the 2015 AHA/ACC/ASH scientific statement on treatment of hypertension in patients with coronary artery disease. I support these guidelines. In adults aged 80 years and older, a blood pressure below 150/90 mm Hg has been recommended by these guidelines, with a target goal of less than 140/90 mmHg considered in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. I support these guidelines. The 2013 JNC 8 guidelines recommend reducing the blood pressure to less than 140/90 mmHg in adults aged 60 years and older with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease but to less than 150/90 mmHg in adults aged 60 years and older without diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease. I strongly disagree with this recommendation and am very much concerned that the higher systolic blood pressure goal recommended by JNC 8 guidelines in adults aged 60 years and older without diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease will lead to an increase in cardiovascular events and mortality in these adults.

Lipids, blood pressure and kidney update 2014

This paper is an effort to review all the most important studies and guidelines in the topics of lipid, blood pressure and kidney published in 2014. Irrespective of advances, the options for improving simultaneous hypercholesterolemia and hypertension management (as well as its complication - chronic kidney disease) remain a problem. Recommending hypolidemic, hypotensive and kidney disease drugs to obtain therapy targets in cardiovascular, diabetic, elderly and kidney disease (=high risk) patients might strengthen risk factor control, improve compliance and the therapy efficacy, and in the consequence reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality rate. That is why the authors have decided to summary and discuss the recent scientific achievements in the field of lipid, blood pressure and kidney.

Systolic blood pressure and outcomes in stage 3-4 chronic kidney disease patients: evidence from a Taiwanese cohort

BACKGROUND

Systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is ≤140mm Hg. However, the SBP target provides no suggested lower limit, and some studies indicate that a lower SBP target may be harmful. We aimed to investigate the J-shaped relationship between SBP and clinical outcomes in CKD patients and the factors that modify this relationship.

METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled 2,144 CKD stage 3-4 patients between November 2002 and May 2009 and followed them until July 2010 or death. Patients included were also enrolled within the Integrated CKD Care Program for Delaying Dialysis in a medical center and its branch hospital. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and disease variables at baseline and end of observation were measured.

RESULTS

In diabetic CKD patients, the hazard ratio (HR) at SBP 96-110mm Hg vs. 111-120mm Hg was 2.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.13-5.58) for cardiovascular outcomes and was 3.14 (95% CI = 1.16-8.49) for renal outcomes. In nondiabetic CKD patients, this J-shaped relationship was not seen. Heavy proteinuria was further found to modify the J-shaped relationship in diabetic CKD patients. The HR for renal outcomes at SBP 96-110mm Hg vs. 111-120mm Hg was 4.07 (95% CI = 1.18-13.99) in diabetic CKD patients with heavy proteinuria vs. 1.72 (95% CI = 0.13-22.5) in those without heavy proteinuria.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetic CKD patients have a J-shaped relationship between SBP and cardiovascular or renal outcomes, but nondiabetic CKD patients do not. The optimal SBP range might be narrower in the diabetic CKD patients.

Developing hypertension guidelines: an evolving process

Hypertension guidelines provide up-to-date information and recommendations for hypertension management to healthcare providers, and they facilitate translation of new knowledge into clinical practice. Guidelines represent consensus statements by expert panels, and the process of guideline development has inherent vulnerabilities. Between 1977 and 2003, under the direction of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC) issued 7 reports. The evolution of the JNC recommendations reflects the acquisition of observational and clinical trial data and the availability of newer antihypertensive drugs. Despite 5 years in preparation, NIH did not release a JNC 8 report and recently made the decision to withdraw from issuing guidelines. The responsibility for issuing hypertension-related guidelines was transferred to the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology. Without the endorsement of the NIH or the AHA, JNC 8 committee members recently published their guideline report. Notably, there have been discrepancies of JNC recommendations over time as well as discrepancies with recommendations of other professional organizations. The Institute of Medicine recently recommended criteria for "trustworthy" guidelines. Criticisms of the guideline process, and of the guidelines themselves, should not obscure their likely contribution to improved hypertension control and to decreases of mortality rates of stroke and cardiovascular disease over the past several decades. Nevertheless, translation of guidelines into clinical practice remains a challenge.

The impact of pay for performance on the control of blood pressure in people with chronic kidney disease stage 3-5

BACKGROUND

The implementation of national estimated glomerular filatration rate reporting and the inclusion of renal-specific indicators in a primary care pay for performance (P4P) system since April 2006 has promoted identification and better management of risk factors related to chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the UK, the P4P framework is known as the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). One of the key targets for intervention in primary care was hypertension. It is clear that hypertension is a major predictor of development and progression of CKD; thus, targeting better blood pressure control is likely to have a positive impact on outcomes in CKD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of renal indicators outlined in P4P on the management of hypertension in primary care. To estimate the cost implications of the resulting changes in prescribing patterns of antihypertensive medication following introduction of such indicators.

METHODS

We performed a prospective cohort study using a large primary care database. This cohort was taken from a database collated as part of a clinical decision support system used to assist the management of CKD in primary care. We investigated a total population of 90 250 individuals on general practitioner (GP) registers with a valid serum creatinine estimation in the 6-year study period. A total of 10 040 patients had confirmed stage 3-5 CKD in the 2 years pre-QOF and formed the study cohort. Patients were studied over three time periods, pre-QOF (1 April 2004 to 31 March 2006), 2 years post-QOF (1 April 2006 to 31 March 2008) and finally the two subsequent years (1 April 2008 to 31 March 2010). The mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BP) together with antihypertensive medication were analysed over the three time periods. Cost calculation was based on 2009 British National Formulary list prices for antihypertensives.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort at the start of the study period was 64.8 years, 55% were female. In those patients with stage 3-5 CKD 83.9% were hypertensive, defined by a pre-P4P BP of >140/85 or currently taking antihypertensive medication. The proportion of patients with CKD 3-5 attaining the BP target of 145/80 increased from 41.5% in the pre-QOF period to 50.0% in the post-QOF period. This increase was even more marked for those with hypertension in the pre-QOF period (28.8-45.1%). In the hypertensive patients, mean BP fell from 146/79 mmHg to 140/76 in the first 2 years post-P4P [P < 0.01, analysis of variance (ANOVA)]. This BP reduction was sustained in the last 2 years of the study, 139/75 (P < 0.01, ANOVA). The proportion of hypertensive patients taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin blockers increased, this was also sustained in the third time period. An increase in the prescribing of diuretics, calcium channel blockers and β-blockers was also observed. The additional cost of increased prescribing was calculated to be €25.00 per hypertensive patient based on GP prescription data.

CONCLUSIONS

Population BP control has improved since the introduction of P4P renal indicators, and this improvement has been sustained. This was associated with a significant increase in the use of antihypertensive medication, resulting in increased prescription cost. Longer-term follow-up will establish whether or not this translates to improved outcomes in terms of progression of CKD, cardiovascular disease and patient mortality.

Hypertension and kidney disease: what do the data really show?

Hypertension is the most common co-morbidity in chronic kidney disease (CKD) and the optimal target BP to prevent CKD progression has been hotly debated. Prior recommendations by various groups for BP targets for CKD in the range of less than 130/80 mm Hg have been based on the assumed benefits of lower BP in this population with exceedingly high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although there is suggestive data that lower BP may be helpful in patients with proteinuria and CKD, studies not directly link a treatment-related reduction in proteinuria to a benefit in kidney outcomes. There are ongoing studies which will provide more data on BP targets in CKD. Based on the currently available data we recommend a BP goal of less than 140/90 mm Hg in all patients with CKD.

What should the blood pressure goal be in patients with hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease?

Epidemiologic and clinical trial data suggest that blood pressure in patients with hypertension who are at high risk for cardiovascular events because of coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, stroke, or heart failure should be reduced to < 140/90 mm Hg in patients aged < 80 years, and that systolic blood pressure should be reduced to 140 to 145 mm Hg, if tolerated, in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Studies on patients with coronary artery disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, stroke, and heart failure are discussed, supporting a blood pressure goal of < 140/90 mm Hg in patients aged < 80 years who are at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Blood pressure effects of high-dose amlodipine-benazepril combination in Black and White hypertensive patients not controlled on monotherapy

Background

Black hypertensive patients are more resistant to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor monotherapy than White patients. This resistance can be overcome with the combination of ACE inhibitors with diuretics or calcium-channel blockers (CCBs).

Objectives

The objective of this clinical investigation was to evaluate the antihypertensive effectiveness of monotherapy with the ACE inhibitor benazepril or the CCB amlodipine and their combination in Black and White hypertensive patients in two separate studies.

Methods

This was a post hoc analysis of data from two separate studies, pooled because of their similarities, to increase the sample size. Outpatient Black and White hypertensive patients were selected for these studies. In study H2303, 201 patients of both sexes and races, whose mean seated diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with benazepril 40mg/day, were randomized into two groups. Group 1 received benazepril 40mg/day and group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 5/40mg/day, which was uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day at week 4 of the study. In study H2304, 812 similar patients, whose MSDBP was ≥95 mmHg after 4 weeks of single-blind treatment with amlodipine 10 mg/day, were randomized into three groups. Group 1 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day, uptitrated to amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day after 2 weeks. Group 2 received amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day. Group 3 received amlodipine 10 mg/day. All three groups were followed up for 6 additional weeks.

Results

This report presents the results of post hoc analysis of pooled data from two separate but similar studies. Combination therapy resulted in greater lowering of MSDBP and mean seated systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) than monotherapy with either benazepril or amlodipine (p< 0.001). With respect to combination therapy, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/20 mg/day resulted in greater blood pressure (BP) reductions in White patients than in Black patients (p<0.004). In contrast, the combination of amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day resulted in similar BP reductions in both Black and White hypertensive patients. There were no serious clinical or metabolic side effects noted, with the exception of pedal edema, which was more common with amlodipine monotherapy.

Conclusion

This study showed that combination therapy with amlodipine/benazepril is more effective in BP lowering than monotherapy with the component drugs. Black hypertensive patients are responsive to the combination of amlodipine/benazepril; however, they require higher dose combinations for BP reductions similar to those achieved in White hypertensive patients.

Prehypertension and chronic kidney disease: the ox or the plow?

Nearly ten years ago, practice recommendations supported use of the clinical classification of 'prehypertension' for people with systolic blood pressure of 120-139 mm Hg or diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg. This recommendation was based on observations that these ranges of blood pressure were associated with enhanced cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risks compared with blood pressure less than 120/80 mm Hg. Recent observations, including the report by Yano and colleagues, also suggest that prehypertension is an important risk factor for the development of chronic kidney disease.

Evidence and consequences of the central role of the kidneys in the pathophysiology of sympathetic hyperactivity

Chronic elevation of the sympathetic nervous system has been identified as a major contributor to the complex pathophysiology of hypertension, states of volume overload – such as heart failure – and progressive kidney disease. It is also a strong determinant for clinical outcome. This review focuses on the central role of the kidneys in the pathogenesis of sympathetic hyperactivity. As a consequence, renal denervation may be an attractive option to treat sympathetic hyperactivity. The review will also focus on first results and the still remaining questions of this new treatment option.

Fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril in the management of hypertension: focus on patient preference and adherence

Hypertension is one of the most important and widespread risk factors for the development of cardiovascular disease. Once, combination therapy was traditionally reserved as a third-line or fourth-line approach in the management of hypertension. However, several major intervention trials in high-risk patient populations have shown that an average of 2-4 antihypertensive agents are required to achieve effective blood pressure control. Combination treatment should be considered as a first choice in patients at high cardiovascular risk and in individuals for whom blood pressure is markedly above the hypertension threshold (eg, more than 20 mmHg systolic or 10 mmHg diastolic), or when milder degrees of blood pressure elevation are associated with multiple risk factors, subclinical organ damage, diabetes, renal failure, or associated cardiovascular disease. A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that a fixed combination of lercanidipine and enalapril has better efficacy and tolerability than monotherapy with either agents. The fixed-dose formulation of lercanidipine-enalapril was well tolerated in all clinical trials, with an adverse event rate similar to that of the component drugs as monotherapy. The advantages of combination therapy include improved adherence to therapy and minimization of blood pressure variability. In addition, combining two antihypertensive agents with different mechanisms of action may provide greater protection against major cardiovascular events and the development of end-organ damage.

Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy in the chronic kidney disease patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Left-ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) represents an important marker of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Numerous noninterventional studies in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) revealed a consistent relationship of LVH with modifiable risk factors attributable to failing renal function, particularly anemia and hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

Given the clear role for anemia in initiating or accelerating LVH, it seems imperative to correct renal anemia with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). A few nonrandomized studies have described a regression of LVH with correction of anemia, but prospective randomized trials showed no evidence that ESA treatment is able to improve cardiac prognosis in the CKD patient. Current data alert physicians that normalization of hemoglobin in patients with advanced CKD is harmful. Recent studies are now trying to clarify the mechanisms for harm focussing on the influence of comorbidities, ESA doses, and hemoglobin variability. The pathogenesis of hypertension in CKD is multifactorial and only a small percentage of CKD patients have controlled their blood pressure, indicating poor medication adherence, insufficient control of volume overload and undertreatment.

SUMMARY

This review provides an update of ESA treatment, hypertension and LVH in the CKD patient, indicating that pathogenesis of LVH in this population is currently not completely understood. In addition, the impact of pharmacological interventions targeted to prevent or reduce LVH in anemic or hypertensive CKD patients is not well defined. As adoption of the Framingham approach seems not feasible in the CKD patient, evidence from large-scale randomized clinical trials is mandatory to resolve this dilemma.

[Blood pressure goals on the test bench]

There is little evidence from controlled prospective studies to support the low blood pressure goals stipulated for the treatment of hypertension by present guidelines, especially in high-risk patients with diabetes, renal insufficiency or coronary heart disease. Aim of this review is to scrutinize the potential benefit and risk of low blood pressure on the basis of recent studies and secondary analyses of older studies.

RESULTS

In patients with coronary heart disease or equivalent or with diabetes lowering systolic blood pressure to 130 to 135 mmHg reduced primary or secondary cardiovascular endpoints in the majority of studies. Between 120 and 129 mmHg some positive effects could be shown in patients with coronary heart disease but not in patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome. In patients with diabetic or nondiabetic nephropathy including those with proteinurea no convincing data exist which show a better outcome with systolic blood pressure below 130 versus below 140 mmHg. However, several studies suggest that the risk of stroke may decrease by lowering systolic pressure to 120 mmHg or even lower. Below 120 mmHg an increased risk of cardiac and noncardiac events or death was shown in quite a number of studies. In patients between 70 and 80 years, current evidence suggests lowering systolic blood pressure to 135 to 145 mmHg and in those above 80 years to 145 to 155 mmHg. No evidence was found to justify different diastolic pressure goals for different groups of patients; optimal values fall between 70 and 85 mmHg. Limitations of recent studies are short follow-up, few event rates and small differences in achieved pressure between groups leaving uncertainty about long-term effects.

PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

Apart from prevention of stroke there is sparse evidence that lowering systolic blood pressure below 130 mmHg may be beneficial. Current evidence suggests that lowering systolic and diastolic pressure into a range of 130 to 140/70 to 85 may be adequate for all patients with the exception of children, adolescents and patients over 80 years. Further lowering of systolic pressure seems to offer little additional benefit and lowering diastolic pressure below 70 mmHg might increase risk.

Renoprotection, renin inhibition, and blood pressure control: the impact of aliskiren on integrated blood pressure control

Hypertension (HTN) is an important factor in progressive loss of renal function. The kidney can be both a contributor to and a target of HTN. The functional integrity of the kidney is vital for the maintenance of cardiovascular homeostasis. Chronic activation of the renin system causes HTN and, ultimately, end-organ damage. Direct renin inhibitors (DRIs) inhibit plasma renin activity (PRA), thereby preventing the conversion of angiotensinogen to angiotensin I; consequently, the levels of both Ang I and Ang II are reduced. There is no compensatory increase in PRA activity with DRIs as seen with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). There are reasons to speculate that renin inhibition might prove to be a superior strategy for blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system compared with ACEIs or ARBs. Evidence for the efficacy of aliskiren (a DRI) is considered to be relatively strong, based on published, short-term, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials showing that aliskiren is as effective as other antihypertensive agents in reducing blood pressure (BP), with no rebound effects on BP after treatment withdrawal. When combined with diuretics, fully additive BP reduction is seen. When given with an ACEI or ARB, aliskiren produces significant additional BP reduction indicative of complimentary pharmacology and more complete renin-angiotensin system blockade.

Longitudinal measurements of renal function

Cross-sectional studies have long suggested that renal function declines with age among adults. However, there are limited longitudinal studies with data on within-individual changes in renal function over time. The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging provided some of the first data on within-person changes in renal function over time. In a subsample of this cohort without renal disease, followed up to 23 years, creatinine clearance declined by a mean of -0.75 mL/min/1.73 m(2) per year. Interestingly, 35% of individuals in this study did not experience a decline in renal function. Similar findings from longitudinal studies of patients with established chronic kidney disease have been reported. Among 1,094 participants with up to 10 years of follow-up evaluation in the African-American Study of Kidney Disease, the mean annual rates of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate were -2.11 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and -1.50 mL/min/1.73 m(2) during the trial and observational phases, respectively. Of participants with at least 7 years of follow-up evaluation, 33.5% experienced a mean annual decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than -1 mL/min/1.73 m(2). More studies are needed to better define longitudinal changes in renal function. Such data will provide important information for guiding treatment choices for patients, research endeavors, and health policy.

Blood pressure control in diabetes: temporal progress yet persistent racial disparities: national results from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study

OBJECTIVE

Despite widespread dissemination of target values, achieving a blood pressure of <130/80 mmHg is challenging for many individuals with diabetes. The purpose of the present study was to examine temporal trends in blood pressure control in hypertensive individuals with diabetes as well as the potential for race, sex, and geographic disparities.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed baseline data from the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, a national, population-based, longitudinal cohort study of 30,228 adults (58% European American and 42% African American), examining the causes of excess stroke mortality in the southeastern U.S. We calculated mean blood pressure and blood pressure control rates (proportion with blood pressure <130/80 mmHg) for 5,217 hypertensive diabetic participants by year of enrollment (2003-2007) using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Only 43 and 30% of European American and African American diabetic hypertensive participants, respectively, demonstrated a target blood pressure of <130/80 mmHg (P < 0.001). However, a temporal trend of improved control was evident; the odds of having a blood pressure <130/80 mmHg among diabetic hypertensive participants of both races enrolled in 2007 (as compared with those enrolled in 2003) were approximately 50% greater (P < 0.001) in multivariate models.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest temporal improvements in blood pressure control in diabetes that may reflect broad dissemination of tighter blood pressure control targets and improving medication access. However, control rates remain low, and significant racial disparities persist among African Americans that may contribute to an increased risk for premature cardiovascular disease.

Treatment blood pressure targets for hypertension

BACKGROUND

When treating elevated blood pressure, doctors need to know what blood pressure (BP) target they should try to achieve. The standard of clinical practice for some time has been </= 140 - 160/ 90 - 100 mmHg. New guidelines are recommending BP targets lower than this standard. It is not known whether attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard reduces mortality and morbidity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if lower BP targets (</= 135/85 mmHg) are associated with reduction in mortality and morbidity as compared with standard BP targets (</= 140-160/ 90-100 mmHg).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic search of MEDLINE (1966-2008), EMBASE (1980-2008), and CENTRAL (up to June 2008); references from review articles, clinical guidelines, and clinical trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing patients randomized to lower or to standard BP targets and providing data on any of the primary outcomes below.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers (JAA, MIP) independently assessed the included trials and data entry. Primary outcomes were total mortality; total serious adverse events; total cardiovascular events; myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure and end stage renal disease. Secondary outcomes were achieved mean systolic and diastolic BP and withdrawals due to adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

No trials comparing different systolic BP targets were found. Seven trials (22,089 subjects) comparing different diastolic BP targets were included. Despite a -4/-3 mmHg greater achieved reduction in systolic/diastolic BP, p< 0.001, attempting to achieve "lower targets" instead of "standard targets" did not change total mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-1.15), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74-1.09), stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79-1.25) , congestive heart failure (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59-1.32), major cardiovascular events (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07), or end-stage renal disease (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.27). The net health effect of lower targets cannot be fully assessed due to lack of information regarding all total serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse effects in 6 of 7 trials. A sensitivity analysis in diabetic patients and in patients with chronic renal disease also did not show a reduction in any of the mortality and morbidity outcomes with lower targets as compared to standard targets.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Treating patients to lower than standard BP targets, </=140-160/90-100 mmHg, does not reduce mortality or morbidity. Because guidelines are recommending even lower targets for diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease, we are currently conducting systematic reviews in those groups of patients.

The effects of high‐dose amlodipine/benazepril combination therapies on blood pressure reduction in patients not adequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy

BACKGROUND

This study compared the efficacy and safety of amlodipine/benazepril (10/40 mg/day and 10/20 mg/day) with amlodipine 10 mg/day in patients whose blood pressure (BP) was not adequately controlled with amlodipine monotherapy.

METHODS

After a lead-in period with amlodipine monotherapy, 812 non-responder patients (mean sitting diastolic BP > or =95 mmHg) were randomized to one of three treatment groups. Ambulatory BP monitoring was conducted in 276 patients.

RESULTS

Treatment with amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day and 10/20 mg/day resulted in a decrease of mean sitting systolic and mean sitting diastolic BP by 13.3/12.7 mmHg and 12.1/11.6 mmHg, respectively, compared with monotherapy (6.6/8.5 mmHg) (p < 0.0001). Both combinations resulted in more responders than monotherapy (74% and 65% vs. 54%; p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0085, respectively). Amlodipine/benazepril 10/40 mg/day and 10/20 mg/day decreased ambulatory systolic and diastolic BP by 9.9/6.7 mmHg and 7.4/5.2 mmHg compared with monotherapy (p < 0.0001). The incidence of pedal edema was lower in the amlodipine/benazepril combinations compared with monotherapy (4.5%, 5.5% vs. 9.2%, respectively, p=NS). No significant metabolic side-effects were noted among the combination groups.

CONCLUSION

Amlodipine/benazepril combinations were well tolerated and resulted in significant BP reductions and better BP responder rates than amlodipine monotherapy.

Fixed combinations in the management of hypertension: perspectives on lercanidipine-enalapril

Although achieving blood pressure (BP) control is critical to improve cardiovascular prognosis in hypertensive patients, many of them fail to achieve BP goals. The majority of hypertensive patients need more than one antihypertensive agent to attain BP targets. Combination therapy is required when monotherapy fails to attain BP objectives and as a first-line treatment in certain situations, such as markedly elevated BP values, when lower targets are required in high or very high cardiovascular risk patients. The advantages of combination therapy are well documented, with an increased antihypertensive efficacy as a result of the simultaneous inhibition of different mechanisms of action and with a lesser incidence of adverse events, because of the possible compensatory responses and the lower doses used. Calcium channel blockers are effective drugs in the treatment of hypertension. The efficacy of lercanidipine has been evaluated in several noncomparative and in comparative studies showing a great efficacy with a good tolerability. On the other hand, the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system appears to be very beneficial in the treatment of patients with hypertension. Enalapril is an effective and well tolerated angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. Although there are several fixed-combination drugs, the combination lercanidipine plus enalapril appears to be one of the most promising therapies in the treatment of hypertension. The aim of this manuscript is to update the published data about the efficacy and safety of this fixed combination.

Effective management of hypertension with dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker-based combination therapy in patients at high cardiovascular risk

The increasing prevalence of hypertension, owing to modern lifestyles and the increasing elderly population, is contributing to the global burden of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Although effective antihypertensive therapies are available, blood pressure (BP) is generally poorly controlled. In addition, the full benefits of antihypertensive therapy can only be realised when target BP is achieved. International guidelines and clinical trial evidence support the use of combination therapy to manage hypertension. In high-risk patients, such as those with coronary artery disease, diabetes and renal dysfunction, BP targets are lower and there is a need for intensive management with combination therapy to control BP and provide additional CV risk reduction benefits. Combinations of antihypertensive agents with different but complementary modes of action improve BP control and may also provide vascular-protective effects. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) have been shown to be effective in combination with a range of antihypertensive drugs and in different patient populations. As part of a first-line combination strategy, CCBs can provide CV benefits beyond BP control, even in patients at increased CV risk. Benefits include protection against end-organ damage and serious CV events. Indeed, in major intervention trials, these benefits have already been clearly demonstrated. Ongoing studies will provide further data to support the clinical benefits of combination therapy as a first-line treatment approach. Implementation of this approach in clinical practice, together with adherence to global hypertension management guidelines will help ensure patients achieve and sustain BP targets, and reduce the risk of CV events.

Is renoprotection by angiotensin receptor blocker dependent on blood pressure?: the Saitama Medical School, Albuminuria Reduction in Diabetics with Valsartan (STAR) study

To explore the effects of various antihypertensive regimes on microalbuminuria, an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), valsartan, was substituted for or added to treatment with a calcium channel blocker (CCB). After a 6-month CCB baseline period, 28 Japanese hypertensive patients with incipient diabetic nephropathy (defined as a urinary albumin excretion [UAE] of 30-300 mg/g creatinine), were assigned to two groups according to their blood pressure (BP) levels: in patients with a BP of more than 130/85 mmHg (n=17), valsartan was added to the CCB (Group A), while in patients with a BP <130/85 mmHg, valsartan alone was given (Group B: n=11) for 12 months. UAE was determined before and at 3, 6 and 12 months after the initiation of ARB. Although the initial BP was significantly higher in Group A (150/83 mmHg) than Group B (127/77 mmHg), BP was decreased to 141/78 mmHg in Group A and slightly, but not significantly, increased to 130/82 mmHg in Group B. In both groups, UAE was significantly decreased after ARB treatment (to 89% of the basal value in Group A and to 40.5% of the basal value in Group B) and did not differ each other and the amount of decrease did not differ significantly between the two groups. These results suggest that combination therapy with an ARB and CCB is very effective in lowering BP and UAE in cases in which BP is not well controlled, while, even in patients with a sufficient BP control of <130/85 mmHg, the use of ARB singly resulted in a significant decrease in UAE without a further decrease in BP, implying that the ARB had a renoprotective action independent of changes in BP.

Prerenal success in chronic kidney disease

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and diuretics are commonly prescribed to patients with chronic kidney disease to reduce systemic blood pressure. The renin-angiotensin inhibitors also reduce intraglomerular pressure. The lower pressures may result in initial increases in the serum creatinine. The long-term renoprotection provided by these therapies establishes the basis for tolerating the initial increases. However, physicians are sometimes reluctant to continue these treatments when the serum creatinine increases. Several reasons for this reluctance are discussed, including the failure to distinguish between hemodynamic- and parenchymal-mediated changes in kidney function. In addition, the lack of a formal term and place in our diagnostic algorithm for increases in serum creatinine that derive from ultimately beneficial hemodynamic alterations may be a hindrance. The term "prerenal success" is proposed to describe hemodynamic alterations associated with improved prognosis and is placed in a new algorithm. Finally, recent literature describing harmful effects of increases in serum creatinine in other cohorts is reviewed; these cohorts are sufficiently different from the stable chronic kidney disease patient that the results ought not to be extrapolated.

Dispelling the Myth of “Aggressive” Antihypertensive Therapy

Data from well designed randomized trials have proven the effectiveness of an intensive approach to hypertension management in reducing morbidity and mortality. Based on these data, guidelines recommend a blood pressure goal of <140/90 mm Hg in the general population, with lower goals for high-risk patients. Clinical trials also show that most patients will require at least two antihypertensive agents to reach goal. Despite this evidence base, only about one third of individuals with hypertension receive sufficient therapy to attain a blood pressure of <140/90 mm Hg. Physicians may be reluctant to use multiple antihypertensive agents to achieve this goal because they may consider it to be "aggressive" and not always in the best interests of the patient, especially in those deemed at low risk. Such perceptions may be founded on several myths: 1) the approach demands a complex, time-consuming titration-to-response strategy, during which the patient may be lost to follow-up; 2) it increases the pill burden, which will decrease patient compliance; 3) it increases treatment-related side effects; and 4) it is not cost-effective. The availability of fixed-dose combinations containing two antihypertensive agents should help to dispel these myths. Careful selection of efficacious, well tolerated, once-daily, fixed-dose combinations allows goal blood pressure to be achieved quickly in a broad range of patients and encourages patient concordance with therapy. Such formulations are also cost-effective. Thus, reducing blood pressure using multiple drugs as fixed-dose combinations is a strategy that recognizes the multiple pathophysiologic changes that lead to hypertension.

Hypertension in children: an update on treatment strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hypertension is among the more prevalent treatable diseases that afflict children. Pediatric hypertension carries significant short-term morbidity and long-term risk for the development of cardiovascular disease. This review addresses issues significant to the chronic management of hypertension and discusses common pharmacological agents currently used to treat elevated blood pressure in children.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent change in the Federal 2002 Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act has led to the study and approval of new antihypertensive medications for use in pediatrics. Several antihypertensive medications are commercially available in liquid form or can be extemporaneously compounded for flexible dosing and ease of administration.

SUMMARY

The availability of normative blood pressure data and several pharmacologic antihypertensive agents makes early detection and treatment of hypertension in children a realizable goal. The long-term effect of chronic antihypertensive therapy on growth, as well as the prevention of future development of cardiovascular disease, is not fully understood.

[Proteinuria]

Several health organizations recommend that people be regularly checked for proteinuria to detect and treat kidney disease before it progresses. Proteinuria detected by a simple dipstick test should be confirmed by a quantitative measurement to assess persistent proteinuria. Most proteins are too big to pass through the kidneys' filters into the urine unless the kidneys are damaged. Markers of kidney damage in addition to proteinuria include abnormalities in the urine sediment, ultrasound of the kidneys and estimation of kidney function (creatinemia to calculate glomerular filtration rate). These assessments provide clues to the type (diagnosis) of chronic kidney disease and will the risk for developing progressive kidney failure. Thus, early detection of kidney disease will result in a more timely introduction of therapy that may slow the course of kidney disease. Microalbuminuria (albumin excretion above the normal range) that a marker of microvascular lesions in diabetes and hypertension is associated with a worth cardiovascular prognosis. Level of proteinuria in excess of 3,0 g/d in glomerular disease strongly determines the extent of kidney damage and renal prognosis.

Prognostic importance of ambulatory blood pressure recordings in patients with chronic kidney disease

Ambulatory systolic blood pressure (BP) correlates better with risk factors for progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) compared to clinic measured BP, but its role in predicting end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and death in patients with CKD is unknown. In a cohort study of 217 Veterans with CKD BP was measured by ambulatory monitoring and in the clinic. Twenty-four hour ambulatory BP was 133.5 +/- 16.6/73.1 +/- 11.1 mm Hg and clinic BP was 155.2 +/- 25.6/84.7 +/- 14.2 mm Hg. The composite renal end point of ESRD or death over a median follow-up of 3.5 years occurred in 75 patients (34.5%), death occurred in 52 patients (24.0%), and ESRD in 36/178 patients (20.2%). Thirty-nine patients died before reaching ESRD. One standard deviation (s.d.) increase in systolic BP increased the risk of composite outcome to 1.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32-2.17) for standard clinic measurement and to 1.88 (95% CI 1.48-2.39) for 24 h ambulatory BP recording. One s.d. increase in 24 h ambulatory systolic BP increased the risk of ESRD to 3.04 (95% CI 2.13-4.35) and to 2.20 (95% CI 1.43-3.39) when adjusted for standard clinic systolic BP. Non-dipping was associated with increased risk of total mortality and composite end point. In patients with CKD, BPs obtained by ambulatory monitoring are a stronger predictor of ESRD or death compared to BPs obtained in the clinic. Systolic ambulatory BP and nondipping are independent predictors for ESRD after adjusting for clinic BP. However, adjustment for other risk factors for CKD progression removes the independent prognostic value of ambulatory BP.

Total cardiovascular risk: a new treatment concept

Recognition that cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, dyslipidaemia and diabetes mellitus, often cluster together has focused attention on the concept of total cardiovascular risk. Most current hypertension management guidelines emphasize the importance of assessing and managing the total risk in an individual patient. Due to the presence of additional risk factors, target-organ damage and associated clinical conditions, patients may be at high risk of cardiovascular events even when their blood pressure is normal or high-normal (systolic blood pressure 130-139 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure 80-89 mmHg). Such high-risk patients, although common in clinical practice, are often under-diagnosed. Intensive hypertensive therapy is recommended for high-risk patients. In most cases, this will necessitate combination therapy with two or more drugs. Moreover, antihypertensive therapy should form one component of a multifactorial approach aimed at treating all reversible risk factors. In the future, research should be aimed at controlling or reversing subclinical target-organ damage, the ultimate aim being to prevent the progression of cardiovascular risk in individuals at low or medium risk.

The effects of blood pressure and lipid control on kidney allograft outcome

Despite the improvement in short- and long-term kidney allograft survival in recent years, a significant number of grafts are lost because of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN) or death secondary to cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is growing evidence that both hypertension and hyperlipidemia play important roles in the progression of CAN and CVD in kidney transplant recipients. Large, randomized, controlled studies to determine the optimal target levels for BP and serum lipids, as well as the choice of drug therapy, are lacking. However, based on the available data, we suggest that currently recommended target levels in non-transplant patients should also be used after transplantation. We believe that achieving these target levels for BP and serum lipids are of primary importance, and that the non-lipid-lowering effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors might exert additional benefits in prolonging graft survival.

Renal Protective Effects of the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockade: From Evidence-Based Approach to Perspectives

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade is currently the best-documented treatment strategy to delay the progression of chronic nephropathies. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (CEIs) or angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) should be used in every normotensive and hypertensive patient with chronic proteinuric nephropathy of both diabetic and non-diabetic origin. The therapy should be initiated as early as possible, bearing in mind that the renoprotection is more effective if used before overt proteinuria or a reduction in kidney function is present. The therapy should be offered to all patients, regardless of renal function, as well as to subjects with severely impaired glomerular filtration. CEIs and ARBs should be administered in therapeutic doses as high as possible to achieve maximal possible proteinuria reduction and systemic blood pressure target <130/80 mm Hg, and 125/75 mm Hg in those subjects with renal insufficiency who present with proteinuria above 1 g/24 h. The combined therapy with the concomitant use of CEIs and ARBs should be offered to all patients with proteinuric non-diabetic chronic nephropathies who do not achieve full and persistent remission of proteinuria with CEI or ARB alone. The article reviews an evidence-based approach on the use of RAAS-inhibiting agents in kidney diseases, considers treatment strategies in different clinical situations and discusses some perspectives related to the implementation of the RAAS blockade in renal protection.

Improving glucose management: ten steps to get more patients with type 2 diabetes to glycaemic goal

Despite increasingly stringent clinical practice guidelines for glycaemic control, the implementation of recommendations has been disappointing, with over 60% of patients not reaching recommended glycaemic goals. As a result, current management of glycaemia falls significantly short of accepted treatment goals. The Global Partnership for Effective Diabetes Management has identified a number of major barriers that can prevent individuals from achieving their glycaemic targets. This article proposes 10 key practical recommendations to aid healthcare providers in overcoming these barriers and to enable a greater proportion of patients to achieve glycaemic goals. These include advice on targeting the underlying pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes, treating early and effectively with combination therapies, adopting a holistic, multidisciplinary approach and improving patient understanding of type 2 diabetes. Implementation of these recommendations should reduce the risk of diabetes-related complications, improve patient quality of life and impact more effectively on the increasing healthcare cost related to diabetes.

Earlier intervention in type 2 diabetes: the case for achieving early and sustained glycaemic control

In type 2 diabetes, the onset and progression of complications is significantly delayed by improving glycaemic control. However, the proportion of patients reaching and sustaining guideline recommendations for glycaemic targets remains unacceptably low. Recent clinical trials and predictive physiologically based mathematical simulations (Archimedes model) indicate that benefits can be enhanced with earlier intervention and timely achievement of glycaemic targets. This article reviews the evidence for early intervention, showing that intensive approaches, including earlier introduction of combination therapy, allow more patients to achieve glycaemic targets and hence reduce complications and delay disease progression.