Michele Provenzano

Independent Role of Underlying Kidney Disease on Renal Prognosis of Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease under Nephrology Care

Primary kidney disease is suggested to affect renal prognosis of CKD patients; however, whether nephrology care modifies this association is unknown. We studied patients with CKD stage I-IV treated in a renal clinic and with established diagnosis of CKD cause to evaluate whether the risk of renal event (composite of end-stage renal disease and eGFR decline ≥40%) linked to the specific diagnosis is modified by the achievement or maintenance in the first year of nephrology care of therapeutic goals for hypertension (BP ≤130/80 mmHg in patients with proteinuria ≥150 mg/24h and/or diabetes and ≤140/90 in those with proteinuria <150 mg/24h and without diabetes) anemia (hemoglobin, Hb ≥11 g/dL), and proteinuria (≤0.5 g/24h). Survival analysis started after first year of nephrology care. We studied 729 patients (age 64±15 y; males 59.1%; diabetes 34.7%; cardiovascular disease (CVD) 44.9%; hypertensive nephropathy, HTN 53.8%; glomerulonephritis, GN 17.3%; diabetic nephropathy, DN 15.9%; tubule-interstitial nephropathy, TIN 9.5%; polycystic kidney disease, PKD 3.6%). During first year of Nephrology care, therapy was overall intensified in most patients and prevalence of main therapeutic goals generally improved. During subsequent follow up (median 3.3 years, IQR 1.9-5.1), 163 renal events occurred. Cox analysis disclosed a higher risk for PKD (Hazard Ratio 5.46, 95% Confidence Intervals 2.28–10.6) and DN (1.28,2.99–3.05), versus HTN (reference), independently of age, gender, CVD, BMI, eGFR or CKD stage, use of RAS inhibitors and achievement or maintenance in the first year of nephrology care of each of the three main therapeutic goals. No interaction was found on the risk of CKD progression between diagnostic categories and month-12 eGFR (P=0.737), as with control of BP (P=0.374), Hb (P=0.248) or proteinuria (P=0.590). Therefore, in CKD patients under nephrology care, diagnosis of kidney disease should be considered in conjunction with the main risk factors to refine renal risk stratification.

Prognostic role of LDL cholesterol in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease: Multicenter prospective study in Italy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The prognostic role of LDL in non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD) is still undefined. We addressed this question in a multicenter prospective study including patients referred to nephrologist for management. METHODS AND RESULTS 1306 patients with CKD stage III-V were studied at basal visit in 79 Italian nephrology clinics in 2004-2006, and then followed for survival analyses. Study endpoints were incident cardiovascular -CV events (fatal and major non-fatal) and renal events (start of renal replacement therapy or eGFR halving). Mean age was 67.6 ± 11.8 years, male 65%, diabetes 25%, CV disease 27%, and eGFR 35.8 ± 12.5 mL/min/1.73 m(2). LDL was 119 ± 40 mg/dL, with high levels in 50.1% and 82.8% defined on the basis of the individual CV risk profile estimated according to ATPIII 2001 and ESC 2012 guidelines (LDL 100 to 160, and >70 or >100 mg/dL, respectively). Over a median follow up of 2.87 years, 178 CV and 181 renal events occurred. At multivariable Cox analyses, CV risk linearly increased with higher LDL (hazard ratio-HR per 40 mg/dL higher LDL: 1.20, 95% confidence intervals-CI 1.03-1.39); risk doubled when considering high LDL defined according to ESC 2012 (HR 2.37, 95%CI 1.39-4.03) while this association was not significant when considering the higher threshold levels of ATPIII 2001 (HR 1.10, 95%CI 0.82-1.49). No association emerged between LDL and renal risk. CONCLUSION In non-dialysis CKD patients, CV risk increases linearly with higher LDL and is more than doubled when considering the lower threshold values currently indicated for defining optimal LDL level.

Epidemiology of low-proteinuric chronic kidney disease in renal clinics

CKD patients with low-grade proteinuria (LP) are common in nephrology clinics. However, prevalence, characteristics, and the competing risks of ESRD and death as the specific determinants, are still unknown. We analyzed epidemiological features of LP status in a prospective cohort of 2,340 patients with CKD stage III-V referred from ≥6 months in 40 nephrology clinics in Italy. LP status was defined as proteinuria <0.5 g/24h according to current KDIGO guidelines. Patients with higher proteinuria constituted the control group (CON). LP patients were 54.5% of the whole cohort. As compared to CON, LP were older (70.0±12.1 vs 65.4±14.1 y), and less likely to be male (55.8 vs 62.0%) and diabetic (27.6 vs 34.1%), and had hypertension as the most common cause of CKD (39.8%). They had higher eGFR (34.8±13.5 vs 26.8±13.2 mL/min/1.73m2) and hemoglobin (12.7±1.7 vs 12.3±1.7 g/dL), while systolic blood pressure (137±18 vs 140±18 mmHg) and serum phosphorus (3.7±0.8 vs 3.9±0.8 mg/dL) were lower [P<0.001 for all comparisons]. Over a median follow-up of 48 months, an inverse relative risk of ESRD and death was observed in LP (death>>ESRD; P = 0.002) versus CON (ESRD>>death; P<0.0001). Modifiable risk factors were also different in LP, with smoking, lower hemoglobin, and proteinuria being associated with higher mortality risk while lower BMI and higher phosphorus predicting ESRD at multivariable Cox analyses [P<0.05 for all]. Therefore, in nephrology clinics, LP patients are the majority and show distinctive basal features. More important, they are more exposed to death than ESRD and do present specific modifiable determinants of either outcome; indeed, in LP, while smoking plays a role for mortality, lower BMI and higher phosphorus levels -even if in the normal range- are predictors of ESRD. These data support the need to further study the low proteinuric CKD population to guide management.

Reassessment of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Improves Renal Risk Stratification in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney Disease: Long-Term Cohort Study

In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) performs better than clinic BP in predicting outcome, but whether repeated assessment of ABP further refines prognosis remains ill-defined. We recruited 182 consecutive hypertensive patients with nondialysis chronic kidney disease who underwent 2 ABPs 12 months apart to evaluate the enhancement in risk stratification provided by a second ABP obtained 1 year after baseline on the risk (hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval) of composite renal end point (death, chronic dialysis, and estimated glomerular filtration rate decline ≥40%). The difference in daytime and nighttime systolic BP between the 2 ABPs (daytime and nighttime bias) was added to a survival model including baseline ABP. Net reclassification improvement was also calculated. Age was 65.6±13.4 years; 36% had diabetes mellitus and 36% had previous cardiovascular event; estimated glomerular filtration rate was 42.2±19.6 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and clinic BP was 145±18/80±11 mm Hg. Baseline ABP (daytime, 131±16/75±10 and nighttime, 122±18/66±10 mm Hg) and daytime/nighttime BP goals (58.2% and 43.4%) did not change at month 12. Besides baseline ABP values, bias for daytime and nighttime systolic BP linearly associated with renal outcome (1.12, 1.04–1.21 and 1.18, 1.08–1.29 for every 5-mm Hg increase, respectively). Classification of patients at risk improved when considering nighttime systolic level at second ABP (net reclassification improvement, 0.224; 95% confidence interval, 0.005–0.435). Patients with first and second ABPs above target showed greater renal risk (2.15, 1.29–3.59 and 1.71, 1.07–2.72, for daytime and nighttime, respectively). In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, reassessment of ABP at 1 year further refines renal prognosis; such reassessment should specifically be considered in patients with uncontrolled BP at baseline.

Prognosis and determinants of serum PTH changes over time in 1-5 CKD stage patients followed in tertiary care

International Guidelines for mineral bone disorders recommend that in Non Dialytic-Chronic Kidney Disease (ND-CKD) clinical decisions should be based on the trend of serum PTH changes over time rather than on a single value. However, the prognostic impact of these changes in ND-CKD patients remains unknown. We performed a multicenter cohort study in ND-CKD patients (stage 1–5) followed for 36 months in 24 Italian Nephrology Units. PTH changes (ΔPTH) were defined as the absolute differences between all available PTH measurements following the first control and basal value. Primary endpoint in this subanalysis was renal death (End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) or all-causes death before ESRD). Association between renal death and ΔPTH was assessed by time-dependent Cox model for repeated measurements. Out of the original cohort (N = 884), we selected 543 patients (66.3±15.4 ys, 58.4% males) with at least two serum PTH measurements. At baseline, eGFR was 36 (IQR: 22.4–56.8) mL/min/1.73m2 and serum PTH 46 (IQR: 28–81) pg/mL. ΔPTH was in median 0 (IQR:-18/18) pg/mL. Basal predictors of longitudinal PTH increments were higher serum phosphate, more advanced CKD stages and lower serum PTH. Fully adjusted Cox model with ΔPTH quartiles as discrete time-dependent covariate showed a significant risk of renal death in the highest quartile (HR: 1.91; 95%CI:1.08–3.38; P = 0.026). Considering ΔPTH, as continuous time-dependent variable, (HR:1.02; 95%C.I.: 1.01–1.04; P = 0.004), risk of renal death progressively rose as ΔPTH increased. An increment in serum PTH over time is associated with a worse prognosis in ND-CKD patients, independently from baseline or any absolute concentration of serum PTH and phosphate.

Dietary Salt Restriction in Chronic Kidney Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background. A clear evidence on the benefits of reducing salt in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is still lacking. Salt restriction in CKD may allow better control of blood pressure (BP) as shown in a previous systematic review while the effect on proteinuria reduction remains poorly investigated. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of low versus high salt intake in adult patients with non-dialysis CKD on change in BP, proteinuria and albuminuria. Results. Eleven RCTs were selected and included information about 738 CKD patients (Stage 1–4); urinary sodium excretion was 104 mEq/day (95%CI, 76–131) and 179 mEq/day (95%CI, 165–193) in low- and high-sodium intake subgroups, respectively, with a mean difference of −80 mEq/day (95%CI from −107 to −53; p <0.001). Overall, mean differences in clinic and ambulatory systolic BP were −4.9 mmHg (95%CI from −6.8 to −3.1, p <0.001) and −5.9 mmHg (95%CI from −9.5 to −2.3, p <0.001), respectively, while clinic and ambulatory diastolic BP were −2.3 mmHg (95%CI from −3.5 to −1.2, p <0.001) and −3.0 mmHg (95%CI from −4.3 to −1.7; p <0.001), respectively. Mean differences in proteinuria and albuminuria were −0.39 g/day (95%CI from −0.55 to −0.22, p <0.001) and −0.05 g/day (95%CI from −0.09 to −0.01, p = 0.013). Conclusion. Moderate salt restriction significantly reduces BP and proteinuria/albuminuria in patients with CKD (Stage 1–4).

Effect of Increased Convection Volume by Mid-Dilution Hemodiafiltration on the Subclinical Chronic Inflammation in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients

Mid-dilution hemodiafiltration (MID) is a dialytic technique that might improve systemic inflammation of patients in chronic hemodialysis (HD) by increasing substitution volumes. To verify this hypothesis, we performed a prospective cross-over study comparing the effect on inflammatory biomarkers of higher convection by MID versus standard convection by post-dilution hemodiafiltration (HDF). Patients under chronic HD were therefore treated by MID and HDF by crossover design. Each treatment period lasted 4 months, with 1 month of wash-out where patients were treated by HD, for a total of 9 months. Primary outcome was the change of serum pre-dialytic C-Reactive Protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), IL-1, IL-10, transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), tumor necrosis factor-α, albumin and pre-albumin. Samples were obtained monthly. Ten HD patients were enrolled (age: 64.9 ± 12.6 years; 70% males; dialytic vintage: 10.6 [2.7–16.2] years). Mean convection volume was 40.1 ± 2.5 L/session in MID and 20.1 ± 2.6 L/session in HDF. A significant reduction of β2-Microglobulin was detected as a result of either treatment. In MID, CRP decreased from 11.3 (3.2–31.0) to 3.1 (1.4–14.4) mg/L (p = 0.007), IL-6 from 12.7 (5.0–29.7) to 8.3 (4.4–14.0) pg/mL (p = 0.003), and TGF-β from 10.6 (7.4–15.6) to 7.4 (5.9–9.3) ng/mL (p = 0.001). A significant reduction of CRP from 8.5 (3.2–31.0) to 4.6 (3.2–31.0) mg/L was also detected in HDF (p = 0.037), whereas no significant reduction of IL-6 (p = 0.147) and TGF-β (p = 0.094) was found. Percentage reduction of IL-6 correlated with mean convective volume in HDF (R = 0.666; p = 0.036) and in MID (R = 0.760; p = 0.020). Therefore, MID and HDF are associated with an attenuation of inflammatory pattern that is correlated with a high convective volume.

Reassessment of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Improves Renal Risk Stratification in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney Disease

In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) performs better than clinic BP in predicting outcome, but whether repeated assessment of ABP further refines prognosis remains ill-defined. We recruited 182 consecutive hypertensive patients with nondialysis chronic kidney disease who underwent 2 ABPs 12 months apart to evaluate the enhancement in risk stratification provided by a second ABP obtained 1 year after baseline on the risk (hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval) of composite renal end point (death, chronic dialysis, and estimated glomerular filtration rate decline ≥40%). The difference in daytime and nighttime systolic BP between the 2 ABPs (daytime and nighttime bias) was added to a survival model including baseline ABP. Net reclassification improvement was also calculated. Age was 65.6±13.4 years; 36% had diabetes mellitus and 36% had previous cardiovascular event; estimated glomerular filtration rate was 42.2±19.6 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and clinic BP was 145±18/80±11 mm Hg. Baseline ABP (daytime, 131±16/75±10 and nighttime, 122±18/66±10 mm Hg) and daytime/nighttime BP goals (58.2% and 43.4%) did not change at month 12. Besides baseline ABP values, bias for daytime and nighttime systolic BP linearly associated with renal outcome (1.12, 1.04–1.21 and 1.18, 1.08–1.29 for every 5-mm Hg increase, respectively). Classification of patients at risk improved when considering nighttime systolic level at second ABP (net reclassification improvement, 0.224; 95% confidence interval, 0.005–0.435). Patients with first and second ABPs above target showed greater renal risk (2.15, 1.29–3.59 and 1.71, 1.07–2.72, for daytime and nighttime, respectively). In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, reassessment of ABP at 1 year further refines renal prognosis; such reassessment should specifically be considered in patients with uncontrolled BP at baseline.

Reassessment of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Improves Renal Risk Stratification in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney DiseaseNovelty and Significance

In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) performs better than clinic BP in predicting outcome, but whether repeated assessment of ABP further refines prognosis remains ill-defined. We recruited 182 consecutive hypertensive patients with nondialysis chronic kidney disease who underwent 2 ABPs 12 months apart to evaluate the enhancement in risk stratification provided by a second ABP obtained 1 year after baseline on the risk (hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval) of composite renal end point (death, chronic dialysis, and estimated glomerular filtration rate decline ≥40%). The difference in daytime and nighttime systolic BP between the 2 ABPs (daytime and nighttime bias) was added to a survival model including baseline ABP. Net reclassification improvement was also calculated. Age was 65.6±13.4 years; 36% had diabetes mellitus and 36% had previous cardiovascular event; estimated glomerular filtration rate was 42.2±19.6 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and clinic BP was 145±18/80±11 mm Hg. Baseline ABP (daytime, 131±16/75±10 and nighttime, 122±18/66±10 mm Hg) and daytime/nighttime BP goals (58.2% and 43.4%) did not change at month 12. Besides baseline ABP values, bias for daytime and nighttime systolic BP linearly associated with renal outcome (1.12, 1.04–1.21 and 1.18, 1.08–1.29 for every 5-mm Hg increase, respectively). Classification of patients at risk improved when considering nighttime systolic level at second ABP (net reclassification improvement, 0.224; 95% confidence interval, 0.005–0.435). Patients with first and second ABPs above target showed greater renal risk (2.15, 1.29–3.59 and 1.71, 1.07–2.72, for daytime and nighttime, respectively). In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, reassessment of ABP at 1 year further refines renal prognosis; such reassessment should specifically be considered in patients with uncontrolled BP at baseline.

Reassessment of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Improves Renal Risk Stratification in Nondialysis Chronic Kidney DiseaseNovelty and Significance: Long-Term Cohort Study

In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) performs better than clinic BP in predicting outcome, but whether repeated assessment of ABP further refines prognosis remains ill-defined. We recruited 182 consecutive hypertensive patients with nondialysis chronic kidney disease who underwent 2 ABPs 12 months apart to evaluate the enhancement in risk stratification provided by a second ABP obtained 1 year after baseline on the risk (hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval) of composite renal end point (death, chronic dialysis, and estimated glomerular filtration rate decline ≥40%). The difference in daytime and nighttime systolic BP between the 2 ABPs (daytime and nighttime bias) was added to a survival model including baseline ABP. Net reclassification improvement was also calculated. Age was 65.6±13.4 years; 36% had diabetes mellitus and 36% had previous cardiovascular event; estimated glomerular filtration rate was 42.2±19.6 mL/min per 1.73 m2, and clinic BP was 145±18/80±11 mm Hg. Baseline ABP (daytime, 131±16/75±10 and nighttime, 122±18/66±10 mm Hg) and daytime/nighttime BP goals (58.2% and 43.4%) did not change at month 12. Besides baseline ABP values, bias for daytime and nighttime systolic BP linearly associated with renal outcome (1.12, 1.04–1.21 and 1.18, 1.08–1.29 for every 5-mm Hg increase, respectively). Classification of patients at risk improved when considering nighttime systolic level at second ABP (net reclassification improvement, 0.224; 95% confidence interval, 0.005–0.435). Patients with first and second ABPs above target showed greater renal risk (2.15, 1.29–3.59 and 1.71, 1.07–2.72, for daytime and nighttime, respectively). In nondialysis chronic kidney disease, reassessment of ABP at 1 year further refines renal prognosis; such reassessment should specifically be considered in patients with uncontrolled BP at baseline.