Tomas Berl

Radioimmunoassay of Plasma Arginine Vasopressin in Hyponatremic Patients with Congestive Heart Failure

HYPONATREMIA occurs frequently in patients with congestive heart failure who have moderate fluid intakes (1 to 3 liters per day).1 It is not clear whether persistent release of arginine vasopressin...

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.

Evidence for an in vivo antagonism between vasopressin and prostaglandin in the mammalian kidney.

These studies were undertaken to examine whether an antagonism between vasopressin and prostaglandin occurs in vivo in the mammalian kidney. All experiments were performed in steroid-replaced hypophysectonized dogs undergoing a water diuresis. In the first group of studied the effect of two consecutive intravenous doses (100 mU) of vasopressin was examined. The second dose of vasopressin was preceded by an injection of the carrier solution for solubilizing indomethacin or neclofenamate. No enhancement of the antidiuretic effect of the second dose of vasopressin was observed as urinary osmolality (Uosm) increased from 92 +/- 5 to 252 +/- 18 mosmol/kg H2O (P less than 0.0001) after the first dose and from 109 +/- 8 to 209 +/- 10 mosmol/kg H2O (P less than 0.001) after the second dose of vasopressin. In another group of studies the second dose of vasopressin was preceded by the administration of a potent inhibitor of prostaglandin synthesis, indomethacin (2 mg/kg). The Uosm increased from 93 +/- 9 to 244 +/- 33 mosmol/kg H2O (P less than 0.001) after the first dose of vasopressin, but after the second dose of vasopressin the Uosm increased to a significantly greater degree from 106 +/- 14 to 702 +/- 69 mosmol/kg H2O (P less than 0.001). In a third group of studies the antidiuretic effect of the same 100-mU dose of vasopressin was examined before and after the administration of meclofenamate (2 mg/kg), an inhibitor of prostaglandin synthesis which is chemically dissimilar from indomethacin. Uosm increased from 83+/-7 to 216+/-16 mosmol/kg H2O (P less than 0.001) after the first dose and from 101 +/- 8 to 734 +/- 86 mosomol/kg H2O (P less than 0.001) after the second dose of vasopressin. As in the indomethacin studies this enhancement in the antidiuretic effects of vasopressin after inhibition of prostaglanding synthesis was highly significant (P less than 0.001). These results therefore implicate a physiological role of prostaglandin in modulating the hydroosmotic effect of vasopressin in the mammalian kidney.

Oral Tolvaptan Is Safe and Effective in Chronic Hyponatremia

Vasopressin antagonists increase the serum sodium concentration in patients who have euvolemia and hypervolemia with hyponatremia in the short term (</=30 days), but their safety and efficacy with longer term administration is unknown. SALTWATER was a multicenter, open-label extension of the Study of Ascending Levels of Tolvaptan in Hyponatremia (SALT-1 and SALT-2). In total, 111 patients with hyponatremia received oral tolvaptan for a mean follow-up of 701 days, providing 77,369 patient-days of exposure. All patients had hyponatremia at randomization in SALT-1 and SALT-2, and 85% continued to have hyponatremia at entry in SALTWATER. The most common adverse effects attributed to tolvaptan were pollakiuria, thirst, fatigue, dry mouth, polydipsia, and polyuria. Six drug-related adverse effects led to study discontinuation. The increase in serum sodium exceeded the desired 1 mmol/L per h at initiation in five patients. Hypernatremia (>145 mmol/L) led to discontinuation in one patient. Mean serum sodium increased from 130.8 mmol/L at baseline to >135 mmol/L throughout the observation period (P < 0.001 versus baseline at most points). Responses were comparable between patients with euvolemia and those with heart failure but more modest in patients with cirrhosis. In conclusion, prolonged administration of tolvaptan maintains an increased serum sodium with an acceptable margin of safety.

Effect of intensive blood pressure control on the course of type 1 diabetic nephropathy

Diabetic nephropathy is the most common cause of end-stage renal disease in the United States. We undertook a study to assess the impact of assignment to different levels of blood pressure control on the course of type 1 diabetic nephropathy in patients receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor therapy. We also examined the long-term course of this well-characterized cohort of patients receiving ACE inhibitor therapy. One hundred twenty-nine patients with type 1 diabetes and diabetic nephropathy who had previously participated in the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition in Diabetic Nephropathy Study who had a serum creatinine level less than 4.0 mg/dL were randomly assigned to a mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) goal of 92 mm Hg or less (group I) or 100 to 107 mm Hg (group II). Patients received varying doses of ramipril as the primary therapeutic antihypertensive agent. All patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Outcome measures included iothalamate clearance, 24-hour creatinine clearance, creatinine clearance estimated by the Cockcroft and Gault formula, and urinary protein excretion. The average difference in MAP between groups was 6 mm Hg over the 24-month follow-up. The median iothalamate clearance in group I was 62 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at baseline and 54 mL/min/1.73 m(2) at the end of the study compared with a baseline of 64 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and final 58 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in group II. There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of decline in renal function between groups. There was a significant difference in follow-up total urinary protein excretion between group I (535 mg/24 h) and group II (1,723 mg/24 h; P = 0.02). Thirty-two percent of 126 patients achieved a final total protein excretion less than 500 mg/24 h. Patients from groups I and II had equivalent rates of adverse events. In patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and diabetic nephropathy, the MAP goal should be 92 mm Hg or less for optimal renoprotection, if defined as including decreased proteinuria. With the combination of ACE inhibition and intensive blood pressure control, many patients can achieve regression or apparent remission of clinical evidence of diabetic nephropathy.

Kidney-Heart Interactions: Epidemiology, Pathogenesis, and Treatment

Heart disease accounts for approximately half of the deaths of patients with ESRD (1–3). In the past 5 yr, there has been increasing recognition of both coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in ESRD patients, as these are the two typical presentations of heart disease in ESRD patients. It is also clear that many patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and a GFR of <60 ml/min are at risk for heart disease; many of these patients succumb to heart disease before reaching dialysis (4–6). This review includes a brief overview of the problem, a discussion of CAD and LVH, and an examination of the benefits of reducing BP and proteinuria on both the heart and the kidney and concludes with a brief section on treatment options for individuals with this disorder. A growing awareness of heart disease in individuals with kidney disease as a major public health concern has increased sharply because of the revelation that there are millions of Americans with reduced kidney function (2). This fact, coupled with the understanding that many individuals with CKD do not reach dialysis because they die of heart disease (6), has expanded the concern about heart disease in both patients with CKD and patients with ESRD. Of interest is that whereas many superb prospective, randomized clinical trials have defined the scope of the appropriate therapy for heart disease in patients with normal kidney function, relatively few trials have addressed the issue in patients with kidney disease. Thus, the literature on cardiovascular disease (CVD) has focused on individuals without kidney disease, and guidelines regarding the management of heart disease in patients with ESRD in CKD, therefore, are largely opinion based (7). The two clinical presentations of heart disease in patients with kidney disease are atherosclerotic …

American Society of Nephrology Renal Research Report

In the spring of 2004, the Board of Advisors and the Council of the American Society of Nephrology believed it necessary to conduct a series of research retreats to steer priorities appropriately in an era of limited resources. In this regard, retreats were conducted by five working groups in areas that were identified to require distinct attention: acute renal failure, diabetic nephropathy, hypertension, transplantation, and uremic cardiovascular toxicity. The goal of each retreat was to join experts, both within and outside the renal community, to identify areas of basic science and clinical research that should receive highest priority in the next five years. The five retreat summaries with their individual listings of research priorities allow for the distillation of three overriding recommendations that strongly emanate from them: Continued support and expansion of investigator initiated research projects. In each of the five subjects on which this report is focused, there are areas of investigation that require the support of investigator-initiated projects if ultimately progress is to be made in the understanding of the basic mechanisms that underlie the diseases processes on which we want to have an impact in the next decade. It is recommended that there be an expansion of support for research in the areas highlighted in this report that lend themselves to this mechanism of funding by encouraging applications with appropriate program announcements and requests for proposals. In addition to vigorous support for RO1 grants, continued funding of Concept Development and R21/R33 grants is essential to support development of investigator-initiated clinical studies in these areas of high priority. Support for the development of a collaborative research infrastructure. The reader of this article cannot but be impressed by the common theme that independently emerged from each report regarding the urgent need to develop an infrastructure for kidney research. This infrastructure requires the development of core facilities for the centralized processing of biologic materials (genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics), in vivo imaging, development and distribution of antibodies and other molecular reagents, development and distribution and phenotyping of mouse models, and perhaps others. These need to be complemented with core bioinformatics centers that collect and analyze data and finally with a network of clinical study coordinating centers. Expansion of kidney research infrastructure can be achieved by vigorous funding of a program of kidney research core centers. Specifically, we propose that the number of kidney centers be increased with the goal of providing core facilities to support collaborative research on a local, regional, and national level. It should be emphasized that such a program of competitively reviewed kidney core centers would facilitate investigator-initiated research in both laboratory and patient-oriented investigation. This approach is also very much in line with the collaborative research enterprise conceived in the National Institutes of Healths Road Map. Support programs that have an impact on the understanding of the relationship between renal and cardiovascular disease (CVD). It is now widely recognized that chronic kidney dysfunction is an important risk factor for the development of CVD. It therefore is not surprising that essentially every one of the retreat reports emphasizes the urgency to examine this relationship. It is recommended that the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) work cooperatively to support both basic and clinical science projects that will shed light on the pathogenesis of this relationship and to support the exploration of interventions that can decrease cardiovascular events in patients with chronic kidney disease. Thus, we specifically propose that the NHLBI support investigator-initiated research (RO1, Concept Development, and R21/R33) grants in areas of kidney research with a direct relationship to CVD. Similarly, the NHLBI should work collaboratively with the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to support the proposed program of kidney core research centers. This subject provides an excellent opportunity to foment a collaboration between two institutes, along the lines of the present-day overall philosophy of the National Institutes of Health.

DETERMINANTS OF SURVIVAL AND RECOVERY IN ACUTE RENAL FAILURE PATIENTS DIALYZED IN INTENSIVE-CARE UNITS

The survival rate of critically ill patients who develop acute renal failure is extremely low, in spite of the sophisticated support systems, including dialysis. Therefore, it would be advantageous to identify, early in the disease course, those few survivors. We reviewed the clinical course of 43 consecutive critically ill patients who developed acute renal failure and were first dialyzed in an intensive-care unit setting to define comorbid conditions, present at the time of first dialysis, that were predictive of outcome. Mortality rate was 88%. Adult respiratory distress syndrome (p less than 0.05), requirement for antibiotics (p less than 0.01) and ventilatory failure (p less than 0.01) impacted negatively on recovery of renal function. The most powerful predictor of mortality was the need for ventilatory support (p less than 0.001). The presence of ventilatory failure at the initiation of dialysis predicted a 100% mortality (89-100%; 95% confidence limits). The initiation of dialysis in intensive-care unit patients with acute renal failure requiring ventilatory support did not alter the uniformly fatal outcome.

In vivo effect of indomethacin to potentiate the renal medullary cyclic AMP response to vasopressin.

In a previous study we demonstrated that indomethacin potentiated the hydro-osmotic action of vasopressin in vivo. It was hypothesized that this action of indomethacin was due to its ability to suppress renal medullary prostaglandin synthesis, since in vitro studies have suggested that prostaglandins interfere with the ability of vasopressin to stimulate production of its intracellular mediator, cyclic AMP. In the present study this hypothesis was tested in vivo. Anesthetized rats undergoing a water diuresis were studied. In a control group, bolus injections of 200 muU of vasopressin caused a rise in urinary osmolality (Uosm) from 124 +/- 6 to 253 +/- 20 mosmol/kg H2O (P less than 0.005). In a group treated with 2 mg/kg of indomethacin the same dose of vasopressin caused a significantly greater (P less than 0.001) rise in Uosm from 124 +/- 7 to 428 +/- 19 mosmol/kg H2O. Medullary tissue cyclic AMP rose from 9.4 +/- 0.9 to 13.4 +/- 1.7 (P less than 0.05) pmol/mg tissue protein after vasopressin administration in animals receiving no indomethacin, while in indomethacin-treated animals there was a significantly greater rise (P less than 0.001) in medullary cyclic AMP from 10.4 +/- 0.9 to 21.6 +/- 2.1 pmol/mg tissue protein in response to the vasopressin injections. In neither control animals nor indomethacin-treated animals were there significant changes in renal hemodynamics, as measured by clearance techniques. Indomethacin, when given alone, had no effect on Uosm or medullary tissue cyclic AMP. Indomethacin did, however, reduce medullary prostaglandin E content from 84.7 +/- 15.0 to 15.6 +/- 4.3 pg/mg tissue. This study has shown that indomethacin, in a dose which suppresses medullary prostaglandin content, potentiates the ability of vasopressin to increase the tissue content of its intracellular mediator, cyclic AMP. Indomethacin caused no demonstrable inhibition of cyclic AMP phosphodiesterase. Therefore, it seems likely that indomethacin enhanced the ability of vasopressin to increase medullary cyclic AMP levels by causing an increased production rather than decreased destruction of the nucleotide. We conclude that this action of indomethacin contributes to its ability to potentiate the hydro-osmotic action of vasopressin in vivo. A corollary to this conclusion is that endogenous medullary prostaglandin Es may be significant physiological modulators of the renal response to vasopressin.