Gilbert W. Gleim

Albuminuria Is a Target for Renoprotective Therapy Independent from Blood Pressure in Patients with Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy: Post Hoc Analysis from the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) Trial

Albuminuria reduction could be renoprotective in hypertensive patients with diabetic nephropathy. However, the current use of renin-angiotensin-system intervention is targeted to BP only. Therefore, this study investigated the adequacy of this approach in 1428 patients with hypertension and diabetic nephropathy from the placebo-controlled Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study. Investigated were the extent of discordance in treatment effects on systolic BP (SBP) and albuminuria and its association with renal outcome in a multivariate Cox model. Among patients with a reduced SBP during treatment, a lack of albuminuria reduction was observed in 37, 26, and 51% (total, losartan, and placebo, respectively) at month 6. SBP or albuminuria reduction was associated with a lower risk for ESRD, whereas combined SBP and albuminuria reduction was associated with the lowest risk for events. Across all categories of SBP change, a progressively lower ESRD hazard ratio was observed with a larger albuminuria reduction. A lower residual level of albuminuria was also associated with lower ESRD risk. In conclusion, changes in albuminuria are not concordant in a substantial proportion of patients when titrated for BP. Meanwhile, the ESRD risk showed a clear dependence on albuminuria reduction. The ESRD risk also showed dependence on the residual level of albuminuria, even in patients who reached the current SBP target. Antihypertensive treatment that is aimed at improving renal outcomes in patients with diabetic nephropathy may therefore require a dual strategy, targeting both SBP and albuminuria reduction.

Fixed-dose combinations in the management of hypertension: defining the place of angiotensin receptor antagonists and hydrochlorothiazide.

We discuss combination therapy with angiotensin receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers; ARBs) and thiazide diuretics in light of the independent actions of both types of agents, and the adverse effects of both agents independently and in the context of the physiologic synergy achieved in using these agents together. ARBs counteract many of the adverse events associated with the use of thiazide diuretics and have been shown to reduce the occurrence of new-onset diabetes mellitus. We also review outcome trials in patients with hypertension (such as LIFE [Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension], VALUE [Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation], and SCOPE [Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly]), in which losartan, valsartan, and candesartan cilexetil were used in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. Fixed combination ARB/hydrochlorothiazide agents make sense as initial therapy for patients in whom BP is >20/ 10mm Hg above goal.

The effect of baseline physical activity on cardiovascular outcomes and new-onset diabetes in patients treated for hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study

Objectives.  Physical activity (PA) is a preventive strategy for cardiovascular disease and for managing cardiovascular risk factors. There is little information on the effectiveness of PA for the prevention of cardiovascular outcomes once cardiovascular disease is present. Thus, we studied the relationship between PA at baseline and cardiovascular events in a high‐risk population.

Importance of Baseline Distribution of Proteinuria in Renal Outcomes Trials: Lessons from the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) Study

A key issue in the analysis of outcome trials is the adjustment for baseline covariates that influence the primary outcome. Imbalance of an important covariate between treatment groups at baseline is of considerable concern if one treatment group is favored over another with respect to the hypothesis testing outcome. With the use of the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study database as an example, the influence of baseline proteinuria on the primary composite endpoint, ESRD, and ESRD or death after adjusting for baseline proteinuria as a continuous covariate was examined. Increasing baseline proteinuria was associated with increased risk for renal events, confirming that proteinuria is an important covariate for renal outcomes. When the randomization was stratified according proteinuria <2000 mg/g or >/=2000 mg/g, within the higher proteinuria stratum (>/=2000 mg/g), patients in the losartan group had a higher baseline mean proteinuria value. When the imbalance was adjusted, an increase in the magnitude and the significance of the risk reduction with losartan for each outcome was observed. No apparent interaction between treatment effect and baseline proteinuria was found, and there was no heterogeneity in the treatment response in patients with different baseline proteinuria levels. After proteinuria was adjusted as a continuous variable, greater treatment effects were observed in the RENAAL study. This effect was due solely to the imbalance in baseline proteinuria. Considering the importance of proteinuria as a risk factor, adjustment for baseline proteinuria as a continuous covariate should be prespecified in the design and analysis of clinical trials involving renal outcomes, even when patients are stratified on the basis of level of proteinuria.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study of Losartan in Children with Proteinuria

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES No large, randomized, double-blind trials in children with proteinuria treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers have previously been reported. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS This 12-week, double-blind, multinational study investigated the effects of losartan 0.7 to 1.4 mg/kg per day compared with placebo (normotensive stratum) or amlodipine 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg per day up to 5 mg/d (hypertensive stratum) on proteinuria (morning-void urinary protein-creatinine ratio, baseline > or =0.3 g/g) in 306 children up to 17 years of age. RESULTS Twelve weeks of treatment with losartan significantly reduced proteinuria compared with amlodipine/placebo: losartan -35.8% (95% confidence interval: -27.6% to -43.1%) versus amlodipine/placebo 1.4% (95% confidence interval: -10.3% to 14.5%), P < or = 0.001. Significance remained after adjustment for differences across treatment groups in change in BP (losartan produced incremental systolic and diastolic BP reductions versus amlodipine of 5.4 and 4.6 mmHg, respectively; and versus placebo of 3.8 and 4.0 mmHg, respectively). Proteinuria reduction was consistently observed in the normotensive (-34.4% losartan; 2.6% placebo) and hypertensive (-41.5% losartan; 2.4% amlodipine) strata, and in all prespecified subgroups, including age, gender, race, Tanner stage, weight, prior therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, as well as among the most common etiologies of proteinuria. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable in all groups. CONCLUSIONS Losartan significantly lowered proteinuria and was well tolerated after 12 weeks in children aged 1 to 17 years with proteinuria with or without hypertension, a population that has not previously been rigorously studied.

Efficacy and safety of losartan in children with Alport syndrome—results from a subgroup analysis of a prospective, randomized, placebo- or amlodipine-controlled trial

BACKGROUND No prospective, randomized, double-blind trials of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers have previously been reported in adults or children with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome. METHODS This 12-week, double-blind multinational study investigated the effects of losartan 0.7-1.4 mg/kg/day compared with placebo (normotensive patients) or amlodipine 0.1-0.2 mg/kg/day up to 5 mg/day (hypertensive patients) on proteinuria [early morning-void urinary protein/creatinine ratio (UPr/Cr), baseline ≥ 34 mg/mmol] in 30 children of up to 17 years of age with Alport syndrome. RESULTS Twelve weeks of treatment with losartan significantly reduced proteinuria compared with placebo/amlodipine: losartan -14.7 mg/mmol (interquartile range -49.7 to -5.7 mg/mmol) or 31.6% reduction using a mixed model approach versus placebo/amlodipine 2.3 mg/mmol (-26.0 to 18.1 mg/mmol), P = 0.01 or 2.3% increase using a mixed model approach. Adverse event incidence was low and comparable between losartan and placebo/amlodipine groups. CONCLUSIONS Losartan significantly lowered proteinuria and was well tolerated after 12 weeks of treatment in children aged 1-17 years with proteinuria secondary to Alport syndrome with or without hypertension, a population that has not previously been rigorously studied.

Losartan and enalapril are comparable in reducing proteinuria in children

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II type I receptor blockers delay progression of chronic kidney disease and have antiproteinuric effects beyond their effects on blood pressure. They are routinely used in adults; however, their efficacy and safety in children, in whom the causes of chronic kidney disease are significantly different relative to adults, is uncertain. Here we assessed an open-label extension of a previous 3-month blinded trial, in which the efficacy and tolerability of losartan was compared to placebo or amlodipine in 306 normotensive and hypertensive children with proteinuria. In this study, 268 children were re-randomized to losartan or enalapril and followed until 100 patients completed 3 years of follow-up for proteinuria and renal function. The least squares percent mean reduction from baseline in the urinary protein/creatinine ratio was 30.01% for losartan and 40.45% for enalapril. The least squares mean change from baseline in eGFR was 3.3 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for losartan and 7.0 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for enalapril. The incidence of specific adverse events such as hyperkalemia and renal dysfunction was low and similar in both groups. Both were generally well tolerated and, overall, fewer drug-related adverse events occurred with losartan than with enalapril. Thus, in children with proteinuria, losartan and enalapril significantly reduced proteinuria without any appreciable changes in eGFR, effects that were maintained throughout the study. Both losartan and enalapril were generally well tolerated.

Use of losartan in diabetic patients in the primary care setting: review of the results in LIFE and RENAAL

SUMMARY Objective: To review outcomes of diabetic patients treated with losartan in two recent randomized, double-blind, clinical trials and compare outcomes to similar studies in diabetics. Methods: The Reduction in ENdpoints with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study recruited 1513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction (LIFE) study recruited 9193 hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) including 1195 with diabetes mellitus. The maximum losartan dose in both studies was 100 mg daily. All study patients could receive additional antihypertensive medications, excluding angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and other angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), if blood pressures (BP) < 140/90 mmHg were not achieved. In RENAAL, the control group received placebo whereas in LIFE, controls received atenolol. BP reductions were comparable in the treatment and control groups of both studies. In RENAAL, the primary outcome was the composite of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease, or death. In LIFE, the primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death and non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke. Results: In RENAAL, losartan reduced the primary composite end-point 16% ( p = 0.02) and the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) 28% ( p = 0.002). In LIFE, the primary composite endpoint among diabetics was reduced 24% ( p = 0.03), cardiovascular mortality was reduced 37% ( p = 0.03) and total mortality was reduced 39% ( p = 0.002). Discussion: In diabetic patients with nephropathy, losartan reduces progression to end-stage renal disease. In hypertensive diabetic patients with LVH, losartan reduces cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and total mortality. Angiotensin receptor blockade with losartan appears to confer benefits beyond BP reduction in diabetic patients at high-risk for cardiovascular and renal events.

Effects of coadministered extended-release niacin/laropiprant and simvastatin on lipoprotein subclasses in patients with dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND The use of extended-release niacin and the prostaglandin D₂ receptor antagonist laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) reduces niacin-induced flushing in patients while preserving its lipid-modifying effects. OBJECTIVE This predefined exploratory analysis examined the individual and combined effects of ERN/LRPT and simvastatin (SIM) on lipoprotein subclasses. METHODS This double-blind study randomized 1398 dyslipidemic patients equally to ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg, SIM (10, 20, or 40 mg), or ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIM (10, 20, or 40 mg) once daily for 4 weeks. At week 5, doses were doubled, except SIM 40 mg (unchanged) and ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIM 40 mg (switched to ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg + SIM 40 mg). Cholesterol associated with lipoprotein subclasses was quantified by vertical auto profile II (VAP II). RESULTS ERN/LRPT + SIM and SIM alone lowered LDL-C 1 and 3, whereas the effects were variable for ERN/LRPT; all three treatments increased LDL-C 4. ERN/LRPT + SIM and ERN/LRPT raised HDL-C 2 and 3, with greater relative percent changes in HDL 2 than HDL 3. ERN/LRPT + SIM for 12 weeks produced substantial reductions in IDL-C, which was additive compared with each monotherapy. CONCLUSION Coadministered ERN/LRPT + SIM produced marked reductions in atherogenic lipoproteins, with the greatest effect on IDL-C, and increases in protective HDL subclasses.

The impact of morbid events on survival following hospitalization for complicated myocardial infarction.

Little is known about the importance of morbid events with respect to longer term survival following MI hospital discharge.