Donald E. Hricik

Cardiovascular Outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Overt Nephropathy

Context Previously published results of this randomized, double-blind trial showed that high-risk patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy had better renal protection if they were treated with irbesartan rather than amlodipine in addition to conventional antihypertensive therapy. Contribution These detailed analyses showed no differences in overall cardiovascular outcomes between patients given irbesartan or amlodipine. Fewer patients given irbesartan had heart failure and fewer patients given amlodipine had heart attacks. Cautions The trial had limited power to detect important differences between groups in mortality or strokes, and most patients received several antihypertensive agents. The Editors Patients with diabetes have an increased risk for cardiovascular complications and death (1). Studies that analyzed the effects of inhibition of the reninangiotensin system on the risk for cardiovascular complications included a substantial number of patients with diabetes (2-5) or were done exclusively in patients with diabetes (6-8). The meta-analysis of these studies (9), the analysis of the diabetic cohorts in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study (2), and the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension (LIFE) trial (5) demonstrated that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (2, 9) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (5) had a statistically significant advantage over placebo or alternative agents in decreasing the risk for several cardiovascular events. These studies randomly assigned few patients with renal involvement and overt proteinuria. Overt proteinuria occurred in fewer than 20% of the 470 patients in the Appropriate Blood Pressure Control in Diabetes (ABCD) trial (6), and only 11% of the 1195 patients in the LIFE trial (5). The Captopril Prevention Project (CAPP) (3) and the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 (STOP Hypertension-2) (4) did not state the number of patients with diabetes and overt proteinuria. There were no such patients in the Fosinopril versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Trial (FACET) (7), and patients with dipstick-positive albuminuria were excluded from the HOPE trial (2). Since proteinuria is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (10, 11), the data obtained in the aforementioned trials cannot be extrapolated to patients with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Trials performed in such patients have reported a blood pressureindependent effect of two different angiotensin-receptor blocker agents to protect against nephropathy (12, 13) without a change in all-cause mortality. Apart from studies in heart failure, few cardiovascular data exist for receptor blockers compared with either placebo or calcium-channel blockers. We report on the analysis of the cardiovascular end points that were monitored as secondary end points in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) (12) and assess whether an angiotensin II receptor blocker or a calcium-channel blocker alters the risk for cardiovascular events beyond those observed by blood pressure reduction alone without such agents. Methods Patients The IDNT was a randomized, double-blind study on the effect of treatment with irbesartan or amlodipine compared with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy. The protocol of this study has been published (12, 14). Entry criteria required that patients be between 30 and 70 years of age and have type 2 diabetes mellitus and overt nephropathy, as evidenced by current treatment for hypertension or by a protein excretion rate of 900 mg/d or greater, serum creatinine level of 89 mol/L (1.0 mg/dL) to 266 mol/L (3.0 mg/dL) in women or of 106 mol/L (1.2 mg/dL) to 266 mol/L (3.0 mg/dL) in men, and baseline seated blood pressure greater than 135/85 mm Hg. The institutional review boards of each center approved the protocol. All patients gave written informed consent. Treatment and Randomization Patients were randomly assigned centrally by computer to receive treatment with irbesartan, 300 mg/d (Avapro, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey); amlodipine, 10 mg/d (Norvasc, Pfizer, New York); or matched placebo. To minimize any center effect, randomization was blocked by center. All patients had blood pressure controlled to the same blood pressure goal of less than 135/85 mm Hg by using antihypertensive agents other than ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blocking agents, or calcium-channel blockers. For the analysis of cardiovascular end points, patients were followed to initiation of treatment for end-stage renal failure (dialysis or renal transplantation), reaching a serum creatinine level of 530.4 mol/L (6.0 mg/dL) or higher, death, or administrative censoring in December 2000. Outcomes We prospectively established cardiovascular outcomes, defined in the Appendix Table. Appendix Table. Classification for Fatal and Nonfatal Cardiovascular Events Ascertainment of Cardiovascular Events Information about hospitalizations and adverse events were screened at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New Jersey, by trained, blinded clinical research associates to identify potential cardiovascular events. Investigators used study forms to report and characterize all cardiovascular outcomes. For all potential events, records, including laboratory values, electrocardiograms, and radiographic reports were obtained for clarification. Since myocardial infarctions may go unrecognized, a central electrocardiogram reading center was established at Brigham and Womens Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, where two cardiologists reviewed every electrocardiogram. Electrocardiography was performed at baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and annually thereafter. A total of 5698 electrocardiograms were reviewed at the center. When a new Q-wave infarction was found, the cardiologists asked whether a clinical myocardial infarction was reported. Even when myocardial infarctions were not clinically reported, these Q-wave infarctions were adjudicated as myocardial infarctions. Adjudication of Cardiovascular Events Investigators at each center reported cardiovascular events, defined in the Appendix Table. The information on all potential events was referred to one member of the Outcomes Confirmation and Classification Committee (Appendix). If the committee member agreed with the judgment of the center investigator, their combined judgment was accepted. If the center investigator and the committee member differed, the case material was reviewed by the membership of the committee, whose decision was accepted. Deaths were adjudicated by a Mortality Committee (Appendix). Each death was reviewed by two members of the committee and presented to the membership, whose decision was accepted as final. Statistical Analysis For graphical presentation (Figure) and overall testing for statistically significant differences among the three treatment groups, time to the first occurrence of either a specific cardiovascular outcome or one of the composite outcomes was analyzed by product-limit survival curves and the log-rank test (15). We used proportional hazards modeling to determine hazard ratios. For the cardiovascular death outcome, which could occur only once, we used the standard proportional hazards model (16), with treatment assignment as the only independent covariate. For other cardiovascular outcomes, which could occur more than once, we used the AndersonGill formulation of the proportional hazards model (17), in which patients are considered at risk for the first event from randomization to the first event, at risk for the second event from the day following the first event to the second event, and so forth, permitting use of all the data. In accordance with the method of Lee and colleagues (18), we used a robust variance estimate that accounts for the possibility of correlation of risk for several events within a patient. We believed that occurrence of a first event of a given type increases the likelihood of a subsequent similar event. Therefore, both treatment assignment and a time-dependent covariate indicating whether the event was the first of its type or a subsequent event were included in these analyses. The time-dependent covariate was statistically significant in each case, confirming the above assumption. There was no statistically significant interaction between treatment and the time-dependent covariatethe effects of treatment assignment were similar for first and subsequent eventsand inclusion of the time-dependent covariate did not change either the estimates of the treatment effect or their statistical significances. Figure. Time to first cardiovascular composite event as a function of treatment assignment. P Data management and computations were done by using SAS software for Windows, version 8 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina), or S-Plus for Windows, version 6.0 (Insightful Corp., Seattle, Washington). Statistical tests were two sided. A P value of 0.05 or less, unadjusted for the multiple comparisons, was considered statistically significant. Role of the Funding Sources The funding sources were involved in the data collection but not in the analysis or interpretation or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Results The baseline characteristics of the three groups are shown in Table 1. A flow diagram of the study is shown in the Appendix Figure. Table 1. Baseline Characteristics Appendix Figure. Flow diagram for the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial. Clinical Management During the study, the blood pressure decreased from the baseline values to 140/77 mm Hg in the irbesartan group, 141/77 mm Hg in the amlodipine group, and 144/80 mm Hg in the placebo group. Blood pressure in the two active treatment groups did not differ; values in both groups were statistically significantly lower than in the placebo group (P = 0.001). The distribution of nonstudy drugs used to achieve the target blood pressure was similar i

Impact of achieved blood pressure on cardiovascular outcomes in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial.

Elevated arterial pressure enhances the risk for cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with diabetic nephropathy. The optimal BP and the component of the elevated BP that affect the risk have not been defined. A post hoc analysis was performed to assess the impact of achieved systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressures on CV outcomes in 1590 adults who had overt diabetic nephropathy and were enrolled in the Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT) and had a baseline serum creatinine above the normal range, up to 266 micromol/L (3.0 mg/dL), 24-h urine protein >900 mg/d, and at least 6 mo of follow-up. Patients were randomized to irbesartan, amlodipine, or placebo, with other antihypertensive agents to a BP goal of < or =135/85 mmHg. Progressively lower achieved systolic BP (SBP) to 120 mmHg predicted a decrease in CV mortality and congestive heart failure (CHF) but not myocardial infarctions (MI). A SBP below this threshold was associated with increased risk for CV deaths and CHF events. Achieved diastolic BP <85 mmHg was associated with a trend to increase in all-cause mortality, significant increase in MI, but decreased risk for strokes. Increased pulse pressure predicted increased all-cause mortality, CV mortality, MI, and CHF. It is concluded that achieved SBP approaching 120 mmHg and diastolic BP of 85 mmHg are associated with the best protection against CV events in these patients. BP < or =120/85 may be associated with an increase in CV events.

Comparison of sirolimus vs. mycophenolate mofetil on surgical complications and wound healing in adult kidney transplantation.

Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and sirolimus impair wound healing. We compared sirolimus vs. MMF to determine the relative impact on surgical complications and wound healing in adult kidney transplant recipients. This retrospective, single center study of 235 adult kidney transplants performed between 1 January 2000 and 31 January 2002 identified 158 adult, kidney‐only recipients treated with tacrolimus and prednisone, from which two groups were defined: group 1 (n = 84) received MMF, group 2 (n = 74) received sirolimus. The incidence of fluid collections, wound problems, dehiscence, and urine leak were compared. A multivariate stepwise logistical regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors. The overall incidence of complications was 21.5%, with rates significantly lower in group 1 (2.4%) vs. group 2 (43.2%, p < 0.0001). Regression analysis showed only sirolimus (p < 0.001) and hypo‐albuminemia (p = 0.006) to independently correlate with complication occurrence. In subanalyses, lymphoceles correlated only with sirolimus (p = 0.003), while other wound problems also correlated with higher body mass index (p = 0.067). The use of sirolimus, tacrolimus and prednisone was associated with a greater incidence of lymphoceles, non‐lymphocele perinephric fluid collections and other consequences of poor wound healing, as compared to contemporary patients treated with MMF, tacrolimus and prednisone.

Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Spot (ELISPOT) Assay for Interferon‐Gamma Independently Predicts Renal Function in Kidney Transplant Recipients

Post‐transplant monitoring of cellular immunity might be useful in predicting long‐term outcomes of kidney transplant recipients. We used an enzyme linked immunoabsorbent spot (ELISPOT) assay to serially measure the frequency of peripheral blood lymphocytes producing interferon‐gamma in response to stimulator cells from donors or third parties in 55 primary kidney transplant recipients. Mean frequencies measured during the first 6 months after transplantation correlated significantly with the serum creatinine concentration at both 6 and 12 months following transplantation. The mean frequencies were higher in patients with acute rejection than in those without acute rejection. Multiple regression analyses indicated that the correlations between the early ELISPOT measurements of interferon‐gamma and serum creatinine were independent of acute rejection, delayed graft function, or the presence of panel reactive antibodies before transplantation. Patients with low mean frequencies of interferon‐producing cells in the early post‐transplant period were generally free from acute rejection and exhibited excellent renal function at 6 and 12 months post‐transplant. In conclusion, using the ELISPOT assay, we show an independent correlation between early cellular alloreactivity and long‐term renal function. Increased levels of early alloreactivity measured with this assay may serve as a surrogate for chronic allograft dysfunction.

Urinary-Cell mRNA Profile and Acute Cellular Rejection in Kidney Allografts

BACKGROUND The standard test for the diagnosis of acute rejection in kidney transplants is the renal biopsy. Noninvasive tests would be preferable. METHODS We prospectively collected 4300 urine specimens from 485 kidney-graft recipients from day 3 through month 12 after transplantation. Messenger RNA (mRNA) levels were measured in urinary cells and correlated with allograft-rejection status with the use of logistic regression. RESULTS A three-gene signature of 18S ribosomal (rRNA)-normalized measures of CD3ε mRNA and interferon-inducible protein 10 (IP-10) mRNA, and 18S rRNA discriminated between biopsy specimens showing acute cellular rejection and those not showing rejection (area under the curve [AUC], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.91; P<0.001 by receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis). The cross-validation estimate of the AUC was 0.83 by bootstrap resampling, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated good fit (P=0.77). In an external-validation data set, the AUC was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.61 to 0.86; P<0.001) and did not differ significantly from the AUC in our primary data set (P=0.13). The signature distinguished acute cellular rejection from acute antibody-mediated rejection and borderline rejection (AUC, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.89; P<0.001). It also distinguished patients who received anti-interleukin-2 receptor antibodies from those who received T-cell-depleting antibodies (P<0.001) and was diagnostic of acute cellular rejection in both groups. Urinary tract infection did not affect the signature (P=0.69). The average trajectory of the signature in repeated urine samples remained below the diagnostic threshold for acute cellular rejection in the group of patients with no rejection, but in the group with rejection, there was a sharp rise during the weeks before the biopsy showing rejection (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS A molecular signature of CD3ε mRNA, IP-10 mRNA, and 18S rRNA levels in urinary cells appears to be diagnostic and prognostic of acute cellular rejection in kidney allografts. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.).

Use of Sirolimus in Solid Organ Transplantation

Sirolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor that inhibits cell cycle progression and has proven to be a potent immunosuppressive agent for use in solid organ transplant recipients. The drug was initially studied as an adjunct to ciclosporin (cyclosporine) to prevent acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients. Subsequent studies have shown efficacy when combined with a variety of other immunosuppressive agents. The most common adverse effects of sirolimus are hyperlipidaemia and myelosuppression. The drug has unique antiatherogenic and antineoplastic properties, and may promote immunological tolerance and reduce the incidence of chronic allograft nephropathy. Although sirolimus is relatively non-nephrotoxic when administered as monotherapy, it pharmacodynamically enhances the toxicity of calcineurin inhibitors. Ironically, the drug has been used to facilitate calcineurin inhibitor-free protocols designed to preserve renal function after solid organ transplantation. Whether sirolimus can be used safely over the long term with low doses of calcineurin inhibitors requires further study. The use of sirolimus as a corticosteroid-sparing agent also remains to be proven in controlled trials. Postmarketing studies have revealed a number of unforeseen adverse effects including impaired wound healing and possibly proteinuria, oedema, pneumonitis and thrombotic microangiopathy. Overall, sirolimus is a powerful agent when used judiciously with other available immunosuppressants. As is true for all immunosuppressive drugs available for treatment of solid organ transplant recipients, the efficacy of the drug must be balanced against its considerable adverse effects.

Effects of steroid withdrawal on posttransplant diabetes mellitus in cyclosporine-treated renal transplant recipients.

Posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) traditionally has been attributed to therapy with steroids--however, several lines of evidence suggest that cyclosporine also is diabetogenic. A retrospective review revealed that PTDM developed in 9 of 70 previously nondiabetic kidney transplant recipients (12.9%) maintained on prednisone, azathioprine, and CsA compared with 8 of 83 nondiabetics (9.6%) maintained on azathioprine and prednisone alone in an earlier era (P = NS). Among patients maintained on triple-drug therapy, complete withdrawal of prednisone was attempted in 7 renal transplant recipients with PTDM and in 1 recipient of a combined kidney-pancreas transplant who exhibited evidence of type II diabetes mellitus. Seven of the 8 patients were able to discontinue insulin or oral hypoglycemic agents within 4 months of discontinuing steroids. Mean glycohemoglobin level declined from 10.6 +/- 3.6% prior to steroid withdrawal to 6.0 +/- 1.3% within 1 month of steroid cessation, while mean CsA dose and trough CsA blood levels remained unchanged. In 2 patients, mild rejection episodes prompted a return to steroid therapy. Although CsA may be diabetogenic, evidence from this study suggests that withdrawal of steroid therapy is a safe and effective approach to the management of PTDM in patients subsequently maintained on CsA and azathioprine.

Pre-Transplant IFN-γ ELISPOTs Are Associated with Post-Transplant Renal Function in African American Renal Transplant Recipients

Final crossmatch testing is routinely used to assess the risk of antibody‐mediated graft injury/rejection post‐transplant. Analogously, we postulated that quantitative measurements of anti‐donor effector/memory T cells pre‐transplant would independently assess post‐transplant risk. To address this hypothesis, we determined the frequencies of pre‐transplant, donor‐specific interferon‐γ (IFN‐γ) enzyme‐linked immunosorbent spots (ELISPOTs) and correlated the results with post‐transplant outcomes in 37 African American recipients of deceased donor kidney transplants treated with tacrolimus‐ and sirolimus‐based immunosuppression.

Withdrawal of steroids after renal transplantation : clinical predictors of outcome

Withdrawal of steroid therapy in renal transplant recipients is associated with a risk of acute allograft rejection. To define clinical risk factors for rejection associated with steroid withdrawal, we analyzed the clinical characteristics of 107 patients with drawn from steroid therapy at various times after transplantation. Both univariate and multivariate analyses suggested that the timing of steroid withdrawal is an important predictor of steroid withdrawal failure. Withdrawal of steroids was successful in only 13 of 32 patients (41%) in whom prednisone was discontinued shortly after transplantation. In contrast, steroid withdrawal has been successful in 59 of 75 patients (79%) in whom prednisone was discontinued at least 6 months after transplantation. Black race and donor-recipient racial mismatch also were significant predictors of rejection associated with steroid withdrawal. In patients undergoing steroid withdrawal at least 6 months posttransplant, serum creatinine concentration also correlated independently with the risk of rejection. Neither age, sex, HLA match, pretransplant PRA, source of the allograft (cadaver vs. living relative), acute tubular necrosis, nor the presence of diabetes was predictive of the outcome of steroid withdrawal.

Factors influencing vertebral bone density after renal transplantation.

In an effort to determine the influence of immunosuppressive therapy and other clinical variables on posttransplant osteopenia, vertebral bone density was measured at least 6 months after transplantation in 65 adult primary renal transplant recipients receiving a variety of immunosuppressive regimens. Fifteen of the 65 patients (23%) had vertebral bone densities below a fracture threshold of 1.0 g hydroxyapatite/cm2. Multivariate analyses indicated that cumulative steroid dose and female gender were the major independent predictors of low vertebral bone density. In women, postmenopausal status also was associated with osteopenia. There was no correlation between cumulative cyclosporine dose and bone density. Results of this study indicate that posttransplant osteopenia is common in renal transplant recipients, including those treated with CsA. Although CsA has allowed the use of lower cumulative doses of steroids, concomitant steroid therapy remains the preeminent factor accounting for loss of bone density.