Reduction of ACE activity is insufficient to decrease microalbuminuria in normotensive patients with type 1 diabetes

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.

The effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors on continuous and binary kidney outcomes in subgroups of patients with diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of kidney failure. Clinical practice guidelines recommend prescribing renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) to prevent diabetic nephropathy at any stage. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of RAASi with placebo and other antihypertensive agents in adults with diabetes on continuous and binary kidney outcomes to provide a comprehensive review of the class effect of RAASi on several subgroups.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search to identify randomized clinical trials of a duration of ≥ 12 months that recruited ≥ 50 adult participants with type 1 or 2 diabetes with any stage of chronic kidney disease and proteinuria was conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane library with no language restriction. Studies were screened against the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers independently.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, evidence was drawn from 26,551 patients with diabetes from 46 studies. Our analysis shows that RAASi were better than placebo in reducing SrCr (the raw mean difference [RMD] = -13.4 μmol/L; 95%CI: -16.78; -10.01) and albuminuria levels (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1; 95%CI: -1.57, -0.44, I2 = 96%). When compared to other active treatments, RAASi did not reduce SrCr (RMD = 0.03 μmol/L; 95%CI: -6.4, 6.10, I2 = 76%), caused a non-significant reduction of GFR levels (RMD = -1.21 mL/min; 95%CI: -4.52, 2.09, I2 = 86%), and resulted in modest reduction of albuminuria levels (SMD = -0.55; 95%CI: -0.95, -0.16, I2 = 90%). RAASi were superior to placebo in reducing the risks of kidney failure (OR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.56, 0.97) and doubling of serum creatinine levels (SrCr; OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.55, 0.91), but not in promoting the regression of albuminuria (OR = 3.00; 95%CI: 0.96, 9.37). RAASi, however, were not superior to other antihypertensives in reducing the risks of these outcomes. Patients with type 2 diabetes, macroalbuminuria and longer duration of diabetes had less risk of developing kidney failure in placebo-controlled trials, while longer duration of diabetes, normal kidney function, and hypertension increased the probability of achieving regression of albuminuria in active-controlled trials.

CONCLUSION

While our findings revealed the non-superiority of RAASi over other antihypertensives and portrayed a class effect on several subgroups of study participants, it raised a challenging question on whether RAASi deserve their place as first-line therapy in managing diabetic nephropathy.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Antihypertensive Agents for Adult Diabetic Patients with Microalbuminuric Kidney Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Antihypertensive treatment mitigates the progression of chronic kidney disease. Here, we comparatively assessed the effects of antihypertensive agents in normotensive and hypertensive diabetic patients with microalbuminuric kidney disease.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral antihypertensive agents in adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria. The primary efficacy outcome was reduction in albuminuria, and the primary safety outcomes were dry cough, presyncope, and edema. Random-effects pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed to produce outcome estimates for all RCTs, only hypertensive RCTs, or only normotensive RCTs. Surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probability rankings were calculated for all outcomes. Sensitivity analyses on type 2 diabetes status, age, or follow-up duration were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 RCTs were included in the meta-analyses. The angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-calcium channel blocker (ACEI-CCB) combination therapy of captopril+diltiazem was most efficacious in reducing albuminuria irrespective of blood pressure status. However, the ACEI-angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI-ARB) combination therapy of trandolapril+candesartan was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while the ACEI-CCB combination therapy of fosinopril+amlodipine was the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. The foregoing combination therapies displayed inferior safety profiles relative to ACEI monotherapy with respect to dry cough, presyncope, and edema. With respect to type 2 diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, the Chinese herbal medicine Tangshen formula followed by the ACEI ramipril were the most efficacious in reducing albuminuria.

CONCLUSIONS

Trandolapril+candesartan appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for normotensive patients, while fosinopril+amlodipine appears to be the most efficacious intervention for reducing albuminuria for hypertensive patients. For practitioners opting for monotherapy, our SUCRA analysis supports the use of trandolapril and fosinopril in normotensive and hypertensive adult diabetic patients with microalbuminuria, respectively.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and Kidney and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With CKD: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

There is much uncertainty regarding the relative effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in populations with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

SETTING & POPULATION

Patients with CKD treated with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors.

SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES

Randomized trials in patients with CKD treated with RAS inhibitors.

PREDICTOR

ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared to each other and to placebo and active controls.

OUTCOME

Primary outcome was kidney failure; secondary outcomes were major cardiovascular events, all-cause death.

RESULTS

119 randomized controlled trials (n = 64,768) were included. ACE inhibitors and ARBs reduced the odds of kidney failure by 39% and 30% (ORs of 0.61 [95% credible interval, 0.47-0.79] and 0.70 [95% credible interval, 0.52-0.89]), respectively, compared to placebo, and by 35% and 25% (ORs of 0.65 [95% credible interval, 0.51-0.80] and 0.75 [95% credible interval, 0.54-0.97]), respectively, compared with other active controls, whereas other active controls did not show evidence of a significant effect on kidney failure. Both ACE inhibitors and ARBs produced odds reductions for major cardiovascular events (ORs of 0.82 [95% credible interval, 0.71-0.92] and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.62-0.89], respectively) versus placebo. Comparisons did not show significant effects on risk for cardiovascular death. ACE inhibitors but not ARBs significantly reduced the odds of all-cause death versus active controls (OR, 0.72; 95% credible interval, 0.53-0.92). Compared with ARBs, ACE inhibitors were consistently associated with higher probabilities of reducing kidney failure, cardiovascular death, or all-cause death.

LIMITATIONS

Trials with RAS inhibitor therapy were included; trials with direct comparisons of other active controls with placebo were not included.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in people with CKD reduces the risk for kidney failure and cardiovascular events. ACE inhibitors also reduced the risk for all-cause mortality and were possibly superior to ARBs for kidney failure, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with CKD, suggesting that they could be the first choice for treatment in this population.

Progressive renal decline as the major feature of diabetic nephropathy in type 1 diabetes

Despite almost universal implementation of renoprotective therapies over the past 25 years, the risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) is not decreasing, and ESRD remains the major cause of excess morbidity and premature mortality [1]. Such a state of affairs prompts a call to action. In this review we re-evaluated the proteinuria-centric model of diabetic nephropathy and showed its deficiencies. On the basis of extensive studies that we have been conducting on the patients attending the Joslin Clinic, we propose that progressive renal decline, not abnormalities in urinary albumin excretion, should be considered as the major feature of disease processes leading to ESRD in T1D. The etiology of diabetic nephropathy should be reconsidered in light of our new findings so our perspective can be broadened regarding new therapeutic targets available for interrupting the progressive renal decline in T1D. Reduction in the loss of glomerular filtration rate, not reduction of albumin excretion rate, should become the measure for evaluating the effectiveness of new therapeutic interventions. We need new accurate methods for early diagnosis of patients at risk of progressive renal decline or, better still, for detecting in advance which patients will have rapid, moderate or minimal rate of progression to ESRD.

Effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on renal outcomes and all-cause mortality in patients with diabetic nephropathy: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In contrast to previous studies, recent data questioned the ability of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers to delay progression of diabetic nephropathy. This study evaluated the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE databases was performed to identify randomized trials published up to June 2007 comparing the effects of ACEIs or ARBs with placebo and/or a regimen not including a RAAS blocker on the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), doubling of serum creatinine (DSC), or death from any cause in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Treatment effects were summarized as relative risks (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Of the 1,028 originally identified studies, 24 fulfilled the inclusion criteria (20 using ACEIs and 4 using ARBs). Use of ACEIs was associated with a trend toward reduction of ESRD incidence (RR 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-1.05) and use of ARBs with significant reduction of ESRD risk (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). Both drug classes were associated with reduction in the risk of DSC (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.56-0.91 for ACEIs and RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68-0.91 for ARBs) but none affected all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.85-1.09 for ACEIs and RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.85-1.16 for ARBs).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of patients with diabetic nephropathy with a RAAS blocker reduces the risks of ESRD and DSC, but does not affect all-cause mortality. These findings are added to the evidence of a renoprotective role of RAAS blockers in such patients.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in diabetic nephropathy

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers in patients with diabetic nephropathy. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on a meta-analysis of studies investigating the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) as part of a treatment regimen on the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in patients with diabetic nephropathy. The primary outcome was the cost to prevent 1 patient from developing ESRD. Cost analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective in 2006 US dollars. As part of a treatment regimen, ARBs significantly reduced the incidence of ESRD and doubling of serum creatinine concentration (P<.05) but not total mortality. The cost to prevent 1 patient from developing ESRD was $31,729 (95% confidence interval, $19,443-$85,442; P<.01), $189,190 (P=.13) and $51,585 (P=.068) for patients receiving ARBs, ACE inhibitors, or either of them, respectively. This study demonstrates that blocking the RAAS, which delays the progression to ESRD, appears to be cost-effective. The current analysis favors ARBs in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Lowering of proteinuria in response to antihypertensive therapy predicts improved renal function in late but not in early diabetic nephropathy: a pooled analysis

In late diabetic nephropathy (DN) the initial lowering of albumin excretion rate (AER) with antihypertensive therapy is proportional to the degree of subsequent preservation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Whether a similar relationship exists between AER and GFR in early diabetes is not known. The present analysis has compared AER and GFR responses to antihypertensive therapy in 33 published studies (77 treatment groups) of early and late DN in type 1 (T1) and type 2 (T2) diabetes, analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Prospective trials were included if the initial change in AER during the first year of therapy and the change in GFR during at least 2 years of follow-up could be estimated from group mean data. The initial % decreases in AER were 5.9 +/- 4.3 (T1), 10.5 +/- 5.4 (T2, normotensive) and 18.4 +/- 6.2 (T2, hypertensive) in early DN and 7.6 +/- 11.1 (T1) and 20.8 +/- 5.5 (T2) in late DN. The corresponding annual % rates of decline of GFR were 2.0 +/- 0.5 (T1), 1.6 +/- 0.5 (T2, normotensive) and 2.1 +/- 0.3 (T2, hypertensive) in early DN and 9.8 +/- 1.5 (T1) and 9.2 +/- 1.1 (T2) in late DN. AER and GFR responses in each treatment group were closely correlated in late nephropathy (T1, r = -0.67, p = 0.03; T2, r = 0.57, p = 0.02) but not in early nephropathy. In contrast to late DN, the initial decrease in AER with antihypertensive therapy was not shown to predict the subsequent rate of decline of GFR in early DN. It follows that assessment of renoprotection during antihypertensive therapy in early nephropathy should be based not only on albuminuria but also on the GFR response.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists for preventing the progression of diabetic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (AIIRA) are considered to be equally effective for patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD), but renal and not mortality outcomes have usually been considered.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms ACEi and AIIRA in patients with DKD.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMBASE (1980 to December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library issue 4 2005) and contacted known investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies comparing ACEi or AIIRA with placebo or each other in patients with DKD were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity among studies was explored using the Cochran Q statistic and the I(2) test, subgroup analyses and random effects metaregression.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty studies (13,215 patients) were identified. Thirty eight compared ACEi with placebo, five compared AIIRA with placebo and seven compared ACEi and AIIRA directly. There was no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality for ACEi versus placebo (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and AIIRA versus placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.17). A subgroup analysis of studies using full-dose ACEi versus studies using half or less than half the maximum tolerable dose of ACEi showed a significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality with the use of full-dose ACEi (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.98). Baseline mortality rates were similar in the ACEi and AIIRA studies. The effects of ACEi and AIIRA on renal outcomes (ESKD, doubling of creatinine, prevention of progression of micro- to macroalbuminuria, remission of micro- to normoalbuminuria) were similarly beneficial. Reliable estimates of effect of ACEi versus AIIRA could not be obtained from the three studies in which they were compared directly because of their small sample size.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the survival benefits of ACEi are known for patients with DKD, the relative effects on survival of ACEi with AIIRA are unknown due to the lack of adequate direct comparison studies. In placebo controlled studies, only ACEi (at the maximum tolerable dose, but not lower so-called renal doses) were found to significantly reduce the risk of all-cause mortality. Renal and toxicity profiles of these two classes of agents were not significantly different.

Early detection of progressive renal dysfunction in patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND

An association between renal hemodynamic dysfunction and coronary artery disease (CAD) has been documented in chronic renal failure; however, no information is available in CAD patients with normal glomerular filtration rate (GFR). This study was aimed at evaluating early abnormalities and outcome of renal function in CAD patients.

METHODS

In 15 nondiabetic patients with normal renal function and no significant stenoses in renal arteries, and having undergone coronary arteriography, we studied systemic and renal hemodynamics before and after a vasodilating stimulus induced by aminoacid (AA) infusion. A control group (C) consisted of 15 sex- and age-matched kidney donors. The statistical adequacy of the sample size was preliminarily verified. Renal clearances were repeated after two years.

RESULTS

At baseline, GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) averaged 81.4 +/- 3.8 in CAD and 83.7 +/- 1.4 in C (P= NS); RPF (mL/min/1.73 m2) was 297 +/- 22 in CAD and 456 +/- 15 in C (P < 0.0001); filtration fraction was higher in CAD (P < 0.001). Plasma renin activity was higher in CAD (P < 0.005). The number of coronary stenoses was inversely correlated with RPF but not with GFR. In CAD, at variance with C, AA did not induce any increment of GFR, while RPF increased without achieving the unstimulated value of C. Blood pressure was comparable in CAD and C at baseline and not modified by AA. After two years, a significant decrease in GFR (-14%, P < 0.001) and RPF (-15%, P < 0.001) occurred only in CAD, and in either group, the response to AA did not differ from that detected at baseline.

CONCLUSION

In CAD patients with normal GFR, reduction in renal perfusion and absence of renal functional reserve likely represent early markers of progressive renal dysfunction.

Early nephropathy in type 1 diabetes: a new perspective on who will and who will not progress

Impaired renal function and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) affect up to a third of patients with type 1 diabetes. Thus, strategies for early detection and for preventative interventions are of critical importance. A model of diabetic nephropathy was developed in the 1980s that placed paramount importance on the finding of microalbuminuria as an early marker of a committed process of progressive kidney disease in diabetes. However, recent studies have provided evidence that microalbuminuria is a marker of dynamic, rather than fixed, kidney injury. Preliminary studies into early renal function decline, a process measured in early nephropathy using a simple assay for cystatin C to calculate the slope of glomerular filtration rate change over time, suggest that it is a more proximal marker than microalbuminuria of a person's trajectory toward impaired renal function and ESRD. Therefore, early renal function decline, rather than microalbuminuria, may be considered as the early marker of the committed process underlying progressive diabetic nephropathy.

ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers: patterns of use and associations with mortality in type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of ACE-I and Calcium channel blockers (CCB) use in type 1 diabetes (T1D), and associations of these medications with mortality.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Data from the Pittsburgh Epidemiology of Diabetes Complications (EDC) Study, a 10-year follow up of childhood onset T1D, were used to document ACE-I and CCB use. Use in subjects who died during follow up was compared to gender, age, duration (+/-5 years), hypertension, and renal status matched living controls.

RESULTS

ACE-I use increased from baseline (1986-1988) to 10 years later (1996-1998) for those with hypertension (20.8-65.8%), and microalbuminuria (2.3-31.5%). However, the majority of patients with microalbuminuria were not on ACE-I at 10 years. CCB use was 2.1% at baseline, increased to 10.4% at 8 years, and fell to 9.5% at 10 years. An increased risk of mortality was apparent for those not treated with either ACE-I or CCB when controlling for cardiovascular status and age (hazard ratio (HR) 2.6, 95% CI 1.1-6.3), while ACE-I use alone was protective (HR=0.26, 0.08-0.79). CCB use with or without ACE-I was not related to mortality status.

CONCLUSIONS

This data suggests that ACE-I use is not optimal, but more favorably associated with decreased mortality than CCB use.

Effects of low dose ramipril on cardiovascular and renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and raised excretion of urinary albumin: randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial (the DIABHYCAR study)

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether a low dose of the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril lowers cardiovascular and renal events in patients with type 2 diabetes who have microalbuminuria or proteinuria.

DESIGN

Randomised, double blind, parallel group trial comparing ramipril (1.25 mg/day) with placebo (on top of usual treatment) for cardiovascular and renal outcomes for at least three years.

SETTING

Multicentre, primary care study conducted mostly by general practitioners in 16 European and north African countries.

PARTICIPANTS

4912 patients with type 2 diabetes aged >50 years who use oral antidiabetic drugs and have persistent microalbuminuria or proteinuria (urinary albumin excretion > or = 20 mg/l in two consecutive samples), and serum creatinine < or = 150 micromol/l.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the combined incidence of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure leading to hospital admission, and end stage renal failure.

RESULTS

Participants were followed for 3 to 6 (median 4) years. There were 362 primary events among the 2443 participants taking ramipril (37.8 per 1000 patient years) and 377 events among the 2469 participants taking placebo (38.8 per 1000 patient years; hazard ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.20, P = 0.65)). None of the components of the primary outcome was reduced. Ramipril lowered systolic and diastolic blood pressures (by 2.43 and 1.06 mm Hg respectively after two years) and favoured regression from microalbuminuria (20-200 mg/l) or proteinuria (> 200mg/l) to normal level (< 20 mg/l) or microalbuminuria (P < 0.07) in 1868 participants who completed the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Low dose (1.25 mg) ramipril once daily has no effect on cardiovascular and renal outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuria, despite a slight decrease in blood pressure and urinary albumin. The cardiovascular benefits of a daily higher dose (10 mg) ramipril observed elsewhere are not found with an eightfold lower daily dose.

Microalbuminuria and hypertension with focus on type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Microalbuminuria and hypertension with Over the past decade, there has been considerable focus on the concept of microalbuminuria, not only because it predicts renal disease in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but also because it relates to premature mortality in the diabetic and in the general population. More importantly, intervention at this stage is now possible with the perspective of preserving glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and ameliorating cardiovascular disease and ensuing strong end-points. INITIAL STUDIES: The concept of microalbuminuria was introduced about 20 years ago and since then there has been a multitude of studies and papers on this subject using the original definition, but not always, in the US. Before that time it was suggested, mainly from the US, that diabetic renal disease was an untreatable relentlessly progressive condition.

GENETIC STUDIES

There is an overwhelming number of studies on genetics and diabetes and also covering the genetics of diabetic complications including nephropathy. However, so far the results are extremely disappointing. Patients at risk cannot be identified and genetic analyses are of no value as a guide to treatment. The notion that the development of complications is controlled mainly by a special genetic pattern is increasingly doubtful. In genetic studies, it is rather phenotypic well-accepted risk factors that dominate. STRUCTURAL BASIS OF MICROALBUMINURIA: Patients with microalbuminuria have significant abnormalities in the kidney, including glomeruli. This is quite clear in patients with type 1 diabetes, but is also seen in type 2 diabetes, where on the other hand, other risk factors such as hypertension and dyslipidaemia also seem to be of importance, including loss of autoregulation. Renal biopsies are generally not indicated in the management of diabetic patients. MICROALBUMINURIA AND EARLY MORTALITY: It is quite clear that microalbuminuria predicts early mortality both in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The association to other risk factors may partly explain this--but this does not account for the whole picture. Endothelial dysfunction as well as inflammatory and arteriosclerotic abnormalities in blood vessels may be a relevant hypothesis that needs to be further explored along with other possibilities. CLINICAL COURSE AND ASSOCIATED ABNORMALITIES: The risk factor for progression in normoalbuminuric patients to microalbuminuria is higher than normal albumin excretion (strongest factor), poor glycaemic control, elevated blood pressure, and to some extent smoking. The clinical course of microalbuminuria is usually progressive, but with the more effective intervention now available we encounter that the so-called natural history (without intervention) is increasingly difficult to study. Microalbuminuria is clearly associated with a number of abnormalities, almost in all organs, but GFR is generally well preserved in spite of more advanced structural lesions. Therefore, microalbuminuria is an important marker for more pronounced diabetic vascular disease in general as well as for nephropathy. Regression to normoalbuminuria only rarely occurs during standard unchanged nonintensive treatment. TREATMENT STRATEGIES: The best possible glycaemic control is important in preventing and ameliorating the course of normo- and micro-albuminuria. Another major treatment strategy, especially in microalbuminuric patients, is antihypertensive treatment including inhibition of the renal angiotensin aldosterone system. Numerous new studies are available, both in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, documenting that not only microalbuminuria but also renal and cardiovascular complications in these patient are also far better controlled by early detection and treatment. Therefore, screening for microalbuminuria should be a strategy in all diabetes management followed by effective intervention as outlined in this paper.

ACE inhibitor intervention in Type 1 diabetes with low grade microalbuminuria

Several clinical trials have consistently shown that antihypertensive treatment, particularly with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) reduces albuminuria in Type 1 diabetic patients. More recently, data on the beneficial effects of ACE-I on the preservation of glomerular filtration rate and renal ultrastructure have emerged. However, in general, these trials have recruited a wide spectrum of diabetics, including some patients with severe albuminuria. Thus, the question of the ideal stage at which to instigate what is likely to be lifelong therapy in young people still remains unanswered. Exercise is known to significantly increase both blood pressure (BP) and urinary albumin excretion (UAE), both of which are important determinants of progression of nephropathy in diabetes. Thus, it is possible that exercise may have an adverse effect on diabetic renal disease. The effects of ACE-I on exercise-BP and exercise-UAE in microalbuminuric Type 1 diabetic patients has not been examined in long-term placebo-controlled studies. In the second part of this two-part review, we examine the effects of the ACE-I, lisinopril, 20 mg o.d. for two years, in comparison with placebo, on UAE, 24-hour ambulatory BP, exercise-BP, exercise-UAE and renal haemodynamics in 22 patients with Type 1 diabetes and low-grade microalbuminuria. We further discuss the effects of ACE-I on nephropathy and other complications of diabetes.

Microalbuminuria in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus: evidence with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for treating early and preventing clinical nephropathy

A cumulative incidence of diabetic nephropathy of 25% to 40% has been documented after duration of diabetes of at least 25 years in both type 1 and type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetic nephropathy has become the leading cause (25%-44%) of end-stage renal failure in Europe, the United States, and Japan. Until the early 1980s, no renoprotective treatment was available for use in diabetic nephropathy. Death occurred on average 5 to 7 years after the onset of persistent proteinuria. The two main treatment strategies for prevention of diabetic nephropathy are improved glycemic control and blood pressure lowering, particularly using drugs blocking the renin-angiotensin system. Megatrials and meta-analyses have clearly demonstrated the beneficial effect of both the above-mentioned treatment modalities. Secondary prevention, that is, treatment modalities applied to diabetic patients at high risk for developing diabetic nephropathy (eg, those with microalbuminuria) has been documented, applying angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockade. The renoprotective effects of these drugs are independent of their beneficial reduction in blood pressure.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme activity is involved in the mechanism of increased endogenous nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The renin-angiotensin system plays an important role in the elevation of asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), an endogenous inhibitor of nitric oxide synthase, in hypertensive patients, so the present study was designed to examine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) activity is also involved in the mechanism of ADMA elevation in type 2 diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). A crossover study was performed to determine if ACE inhibition with perindopril (4 mg/day) for 4 weeks decreases serum ADMA concentration and plasma von Willebrand factor (vWF) level (a marker of endothelial injury) in 11 patients with NIDDM. None of the patients was treated with insulin or oral hypoglycemic drugs, and none had major diabetic complications. Before the protocol began, serum ADMA and plasma vWF were significantly higher in the 11 NIDDM patients, when compared with 8 control subjects without diabetes. Perindopril did not affect blood pressure or glucose metabolism, but did significantly decrease serum ADMA and plasma vWF. These results suggest that endothelial injury associated with ADMA elevation may be present even in patients with non-complicated NIDDM, and that increased activity of ACE may be involved in such endothelial dysfunction.