PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Shahnaz Shahinfar

Publications and source records attributed to Shahnaz Shahinfar.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

A multicenter study of the pharmacokinetics of lisinopril in pediatric patients with hypertension.

The pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of lisinopril were obtained in 46 children aged 6 months to 15 years. A lisinopril suspension (0.15 mg/kg per day) was administered to patients <6 years of age; the remaining children received lisinopril tablets, the daily dose being adjusted according to body weight, i.e., 2.5 mg if <25 kg, 5 mg if 25-45 kg, and 10 mg if >45 kg. Blood was drawn predose and on eight occasions postdose in children aged 4-15 years, and on five occasions in those aged <4 years. PK data are reported for the 46 children in terms of age groups: Group I (n=9), aged 6-23 months; Group II (n=8), aged 2-5 years; Group III (n=12), aged 6-11 years; Group IV (n=17), aged 12-15 years. The dose of lisinopril ranged from 3.07 mg/m(2) per day in Group I to 4.78 mg/m(2) per day in Group IV. C(max) of lisinopril, which occurred 5-6 h postdose, varied from 22 ng/ml in Groups I and II to 44 ng/ml in Groups III and IV; AUC(0-24 h) ranged from 301-311 ng.h/ml in Groups I and II to 550-570 ng.h/ml in Groups III and IV. No serious adverse events related to lisinopril were reported.

Adolescent↗

Renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockade and renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a subanalysis of Japanese patients from the RENAAL study.

BACKGROUND: The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study has previously shown losartan to confer significant benefits to patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The original study of 1513 patients included 96 Japanese patients; the present study is a post-hoc analysis of the effects of losartan in this Japanese subpopulation. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized study compared losartan (50 to 100 mg once daily) with placebo. The study medication was taken in addition to conventional antihypertensive treatment, and the mean follow-up period for the Japanese patients was 2.8 years. The primary endpoint was the composite of doubling of serum creatinine, endstage renal disease, or death. Secondary endpoints included changes in proteinuria levels. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: The primary composite endpoint was reached in fewer Japanese patients receiving losartan than placebo (50.0% versus 65.4%, respectively). The treatment effects of losartan were more robust when data were corrected for differences in proteinuria at baseline--a significant relative risk reduction of 45% with losartan (P=0.0397) was apparent. Treatment benefit exceeded that attributable to blood pressure changes alone. Levels of proteinuria were reduced with losartan compared with placebo, with an overall losartan treatment effect of 37.8% (P<0.001). Overall, losartan was similarly well tolerated in both the Japanese patients and the total population. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, losartan offers renal protection and is generally well tolerated.

Adult↗

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial of the antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of a combination of once-daily losartan 100 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg compared with losartan 100-mg monotherapy in the treatment of mild to severe essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Because patients with hypertension may require >1 antihypertensive agent to control blood pressure (BP), physicians often prescribe a fixed combination of antihypertensive medications. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of adding low-dose hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (HCTZ12.5) to high-dose losartan 100 mg (L100) in patients with hypertension whose BP was inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy. METHODS: Enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, filter study were patients aged > or =18 years with a mean trough sitting diastolic BP (SiDBP) of 95 to 120 mm Hg. Patients were treated with L100 QD for 4 weeks. Patients who did not achieve adequate BP control were randomly assigned to receive L100/HCTZ12.5 or L100 QD for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy measure was the mean change in trough SiDBP from baseline in the 2 groups. Responders were defined as patients with a mean trough SiDBP of <90 mm Hg or patients who had a > or =10-mm Hg decrease in mean trough SiDBP. RESULTS: Demographic characteristics were similar between treatment groups. The patients randomized to the double-blind treatment period were mostly white (65.1%) and male (57.5%), with a mean age of 53.8 years. The mean (SD) duration of hypertension at baseline was 9.7 (8.5) years. The proportion of patients previously treated with antihypertensive therapy was 76.7%. Of the 367 patients enrolled in the L100 filter period, 292 patients had BP inadequately controlled with L100 monotherapy and were randomized to receive L100 (n = 145) or L100/HCTZ12.5 (n = 147). At week 6 after randomization, mean trough SiDBP was significantly lower in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (-8.3 vs -5.2, respectively; P < 0.001). The between-group difference was -3.0 mm Hg (95 % CI, -4.6 to -1.40; P < 0.001), and the proportion of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group (63.0% vs 44.4%; P < 0.001). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) occurring in >2% of patients during the double-blind period was similar for both groups. AEs occurring in the L100 group and the L100/HCTZ12.5 group included respiratory tract infection (6.2% vs 3.4%, respectively), dizziness (2.1% vs 0.7%), and headache (0.7% vs 3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: After 6 weeks of therapy, L100/HCTZ12.5 was associated with greater antihypertensive efficacy than L100, as measured by the change in mean trough SiDBP The percentage of responders was significantly greater in the L100/HCTZ12.5 group than in the L100 group.

Adult↗

Losartan: lessons learned from the RENAAL study.

Renal and cardiovascular diseases associated with Type 2 diabetes are increasing at rapid rates, and are significant burdens to patients and healthcare systems. The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study was conducted from 1996 to 2001. This landmark clinical trial provided the opportunity to study renal and cardiovascular outcomes, as well as risk predictors, in a relatively large number of patients with Type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The RENAAL study also provided information that will be valuable to those designing future clinical trials in this patient population. This review highlights key findings from the RENAAL study.

Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers↗

The impact of losartan on the lifetime incidence of end-stage renal disease and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.

INTRODUCTION: The RENAAL (Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study demonstrated that, in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and nephropathy, treatment with losartan plus conventional antihypertensive therapy (CT) reduced the relative risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) by 29% versus placebo over the time span of the study (mean patient follow-up of 3.4 years). The objective of this study was to project the effect of losartan compared with placebo on the lifetime incidence of ESRD and associated costs (from a US healthcare system perspective). METHODS: To estimate lifetime incidence of ESRD, we used a competing risks method to account for the risk of death without ESRD. We estimated the cost (US dollars, year 2002 values) associated with ESRD by combining the cumulative incidence of ESRD with the lifetime cost associated with ESRD. Total cost was estimated as the sum of the cost associated with ESRD, the cost of losartan study therapy and other costs (non-ESRD/non-losartan) expected for patients with type 2 diabetes. Survival was estimated by weighting the life expectancies with and without ESRD by the cumulative risk of ESRD. Costs and outcomes were discounted by 3% per annum. RESULTS: We projected a lower lifetime incidence of ESRD for losartan patients (66%) compared with placebo patients (83%). This reduction in ESRD resulted in a decrease in cost associated with ESRD of US dollars 31,803 per patient and a gain of 0.99 life-years per patient (0.70 discounted). After accounting for the cost of losartan and the additional cost associated with greater survival, we projected that treatment with losartan would result in a lifetime net saving of US dollars 24,632 per patient. CONCLUSION: Treatment with losartan plus CT in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy reduced the within-trial incidence of ESRD and is projected to result in lifetime reductions in ESRD and associated costs, and increased survival, versus placebo.

Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers↗

Efficacy and safety of angiotensin II receptor blockade in elderly patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: While national guidelines recommend ACE inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy in patients with diabetes and nephropathy, guidelines concerning elderly patients with diabetes have not endorsed these drugs. We sought to assess the nephroprotective efficacy and safety of ARB therapy in elderly patients by conducting age-specific subgroup analyses using data from the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 1,513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy who randomly received either losartan or placebo. We tested for effect modification by age of the effect of losartan on the incidence of the predefined end points (doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease [ESRD], or death) and the risk of adverse events. RESULTS: Of 1,513 participants, 421 (27.8%) were aged >65 years (maximum age 74 years). Age did not modify the efficacy of losartan in reducing the risk of the primary outcome, a composite of doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD, or death (P(interaction) = 0.66) or its individual components (all P(interaction) > 0.44). In patients aged >65 years, losartan reduced the risk of ESRD by 50% (95% CI 30-81, P = 0.005). We found no evidence that older patients were more likely to experience adverse events from losartan such as a rise in serum creatinine or hyperkalemia than younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients had the same level of benefits and risks as younger patients from treatment with losartan. Underuse of ACEI and ARB therapy in elderly patients because of the perceived lack of efficacy or a greater risk of adverse events appears unjustified.

Aged↗

Hospitalizations for new heart failure among subjects with diabetes mellitus in the RENAAL and LIFE studies.

We sought to study the risk factors for heart failure (HF) and the relation between antihypertensive treatment with losartan and the first hospitalization for HF in patients with diabetes mellitus in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) and Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) studies. We evaluated 1,195 patients with hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and diabetes from the LIFE study and 1,513 patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy from the RENAAL study. The comparative treatments were atenolol in the LIFE study and placebo in the RENAAL study. Patients with a history of HF were excluded from this analysis. Losartan significantly reduced the incidence of first hospitalizations for HF versus placebo in the RENAAL study (hazard ratio 0.74, p=0.037) and versus atenolol in the LIFE study (hazard ratio 0.57, p=0.019). Patients enrolled in the RENAAL study were at a higher risk of developing HF (hazard ratio for RENAAL vs LIFE diabetics 3.0, p<0.0001). The significant, independent baseline risk factors for the development of HF in the RENAAL study were urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, age, peripheral vascular disease, the Cornell product, body mass index, and previous angina; in the LIFE study they were the Cornell product, previous myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, baseline atrial fibrillation, alcohol use (inverse relation), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. The beneficial effect of losartan on the reduction of risk for hospitalization for new HF was demonstrated in patients who were at high renal and/or high cardiovascular risk.

Adrenergic beta-Antagonists↗

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.

Adult↗

Losartan and end-organ protection--lessons from the RENAAL study.

BACKGROUND: The Reduction in ENdpoints with the Angiotensin Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study reported that losartan delayed the progression of renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. Diabetic or renally impaired patients are at high cardiovascular risk, a risk potentially increased in patients with both conditions. HYPOTHESIS: This post hoc analysis examined whether baseline proteinuria was predictive of cardiovascular outcomes, and whether losartan modifies the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in these patients given its renal-protective effects. METHODS: The RENAAL study compared losartan with placebo (in addition to conventional antihypertensive medications) in type 2 diabetic patients with proteinuria. Morbidity and mortality due to cardiovascular causes were ascertained, and the relationship between baseline proteinuria and cardiovascular outcome was determined. The effect of treatment with losartan was examined using three time-to-event analyses of composite cardiorenal outcomes as described below. RESULTS: Increasing baseline proteinuria was associated with significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause or cardiovascular death, but not stroke. Losartan significantly reduced the risk for the combined endpoint of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), MI, stroke, or death by 21% (p < or = 0.005), irrespective of whether all-cause or cardiovascular death was included in the analysis. In addition, losartan reduced the risk for the composite of ESRD or cardiovascular death by 19.2% (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, there is an increased risk of MI and cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Treatment with losartan is associated with a reduction in proteinuria, a delay in the onset of ESRD, and no increased risk of cardiovascular events in this pre-ESRD population.

Adult↗

A double-blind, dose-response study of losartan in hypertensive children.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the dose-response relationship for losartan, 2.5 to 100 mg, and to assess the safety and tolerability of losartan in hypertensive children 6 to 16 years of age. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, dose-response study. In Period 1, a total of 175 patients were stratified by weight (<50 kg and >/=50 kg) and randomized to one of three dose groups by stratum (low, 2.5/5.0 mg; middle, 25/50 mg; or high, 50/100 mg) for 3 weeks. The ratio of the three dose levels for both weight strata was 1:10:20. In Period 2, patients in each dose group were randomized to continue the same treatment or placebo washout for 2 additional weeks. RESULTS: In Period 1, sitting trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) decreased in a dose-dependent manner (P < .0001). At week 3, changes in DBP from baseline in the low-, middle-, and high-dose groups were -6.0 mm Hg, -11.7 mm Hg, and -12.2 mm Hg, respectively. In Period 2, DBP increased significantly in patients who switched from middle- and high-dose losartan to placebo (mean increase 6.0 mm Hg, P = .003) relative to DBP in patients who remained on active treatment; however, these levels remained stable in those patients who switched from low-dose losartan to placebo (mean increase 1.1 mm Hg, P = .628). CONCLUSIONS: In hypertensive children 6 to 16 years of age, losartan given once daily reduced blood pressure in a dose-dependent fashion. A once-daily starting dose of losartan, 0.75 mg/kg (maximum 50 mg) effectively lowered DBP within 3 weeks. Losartan up to a dosage of 1.44 mg/kg (maximum 100 mg) once daily is generally well tolerated.

Adolescent↗

Albuminuria, a therapeutic target for cardiovascular protection in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Albuminuria is an established risk marker for both cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Albuminuria can be reduced with drugs that block the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We questioned whether the short-term drug-induced change in albuminuria would predict the long-term cardioprotective efficacy of RAS intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data from Reduction in Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL), a double-blind, randomized trial in 1513 type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy, focusing on the relationship between the prespecified cardiovascular end point (composite) or hospitalization for heart failure and baseline or reduction in albuminuria. Patients with high baseline albuminuria (> or =3 g/g creatinine) had a 1.92-fold (95% CI, 1.54 to 2.38) higher risk for the cardiovascular end point and a 2.70-fold (95% CI, 1.94 to 3.75) higher risk for heart failure compared with patients with low albuminuria (<1.5 g/g). Among all available baseline risk markers, albuminuria was the strongest predictor of cardiovascular outcome. The association between albuminuria and cardiovascular outcome was driven by those patients who also had a renal event. Modeling of the initial 6-month change in risk parameters showed that albuminuria reduction was the only predictor for cardiovascular outcome: 18% reduction in cardiovascular risk for every 50% reduction in albuminuria and a 27% reduction in heart failure risk for every 50% reduction in albuminuria. CONCLUSIONS: Albuminuria is an important factor predicting cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy. Reducing albuminuria in the first 6 months appears to afford cardiovascular protection in these patients.

Aged↗

The renoprotective effects of structured care in a clinical trial setting in type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: The RENAAL Study has confirmed the renoprotective effects of Losartan in type 2 diabetes. In this subgroup analysis from the RENAAL Study, we hypothesized that the intensive care received by patients in a clinical trial setting also reduced the rate of decline in renal function through optimization of all risk factors. METHODS: We compared the rate of deterioration in renal function, expressed as the regression coefficient of the monthly serum creatinine (SeCr) reciprocal (beta-1/Cr) in 55 Chinese type 2 diabetic patients before and after entry into the RENAAL Study. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients, 44 had at least three out-patient SeCr measurements both before (2.9+/-2.4 years) and after (3.3+/-0.8 years) entry into the study for evaluation. In the Losartan group (n = 24), the median beta-1/Cr fell from -11.4 x 10(-5) l micro mol(-1) month(-1) before entry into the trial to -4.7 x 10(-5) l micro mol(-1) month(-1) following entry (P = 0.001). The respective figures were -9.1 x 10(-5) and -5.0 x 10(-5) l micro mol(-1) month(-1) (P = 0.01) in the placebo group (n = 20). A decrease in beta-1/Cr was observed in 21 (87.5%) and 14 (70.0%) patients in the Losartan and placebo groups, respectively. Spot urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio was reduced by 56% (P = 0.001) in the Losartan group but the change was not significant in the placebo group. At the end of the study, patients in both groups had lower blood pressure and better lipid control. The frequency of patient visits to doctors and nurses were doubled. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of renal function decline was significantly reduced in the majority of patients allocated to either Losartan or placebo following entry into the RENAAL study. These results suggest that in patients with diabetic nephropathy, implementation of a structured care protocol in a clinical trial setting facilities intensive treatment of risk factors confering renoprotective effects in addition to those resulting from Losartan treatment.

Aged↗

Continuum of renoprotection with losartan at all stages of type 2 diabetic nephropathy: a post hoc analysis of the RENAAL trial results.

Renin angiotensin system inhibitor therapy is seldom offered to individuals who have diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease because of safety concerns. In this post hoc, secondary analysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial, angiotensin antagonism risk/benefit profile was assessed in 1513 individuals with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Incidence of ESRD, hospitalizations for heart failure, withdrawals for adverse events, and proteinuria during losartan or conventional treatment were compared within three tertiles of baseline serum creatinine concentration (highest, 2.1 to 3.6 mg/dl; middle, 1.6 to 2.0 mg/dl; lowest, 0.9 to 1.6 mg/dl). Losartan decreased the risk of ESRD by 24.6, 26.3, and 35.3% in highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, respectively. For every 100 patients with serum creatinine >2.0, 1.6 to 2.0, or <1.6 mg/dl, respectively, 4 yr of losartan therapy was estimated to save 18.9, 8.4, and 2.9 ESRD events and US$1,502,855, US$1,021,770, and US$528,591 costs for renal replacement therapy. Losartan also decreased the hospitalizations for heart failure by 50.2 and 45.1, in the highest and middle tertile, respectively. Withdrawals for adverse events other than heart failure were comparable between tertiles and treatment groups. Proteinuria decreased more on losartan than on placebo in all tertiles (highest, 24 versus -8%; middle, 16 versus -8%; lowest, 15 versus -10%). In proteinuric individuals with type 2 diabetes, losartan therapy reduced ESRD and hospitalizations for heart failure and was well tolerated at all levels of renal function. Angiotensin II antagonism is a suitable and well-tolerated treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes even with GFR levels approaching renal replacement therapy.

Aged↗

Proteinuria, a target for renoprotection in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy: lessons from RENAAL.

BACKGROUND: Proteinuria or albuminuria is an established risk marker for progressive renal function loss. Albuminuria can be effectively lowered with antihypertensive drugs that interrupt the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We investigated whether albuminuria could not only serve as a marker of renal disease, but also function as a monitor of the renoprotective efficacy of RAS intervention by the angiotensin II (Ang II) antagonist, losartan, in patients with diabetic nephropathy. METHODS: The data from the RENAAL (Reduction in End Points in Noninsulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study, a double-blind, randomized trial, were used to examine the effects of losartan on the renal outcome [i.e., the primary composite end point of doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death] in 1513 type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy. We examined the effect of the degree of albuminuria at baseline, initial antiproteinuric response to therapy, and the degree of remaining (residual) albuminuria on renal outcome (either the primary composite end point of RENAAL or ESRD). We also evaluated the contribution to renal protection of the antiproteinuric effect of losartan independently of changes in blood pressure. RESULTS: Baseline albuminuria is almost linearly related to renal outcome, and is the strongest predictor among all measured well-known baseline risk parameters. After adjusting for baseline risk markers of age, gender, race, weight, smoking, sitting diastolic blood pressure, sitting systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, serum creatinine, albuminuria, hemoglobin, and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) patients with high baseline albuminuria (> or =3.0 g/g creatinine) showed a 5.2-fold (95% CI 4.3-6.3) increased risk for reaching a renal end point, and a 8.1-fold (95% CI 6.1-10.8) increased risk for progressing to ESRD, compared to the low albuminuria group (<1.5 g/g). The changes in albuminuria in the first 6 months of therapy are roughly linearly related to the degree of long-term renal protection: every 50% reduction in albuminuria in the first 6 months was associated with a reduction in risk of 36% for renal end point and 45% for ESRD during later follow-up. Albuminuria at month 6, designated residual albuminuria, showed a linear relationship with renal outcome, almost identical to the relationship between baseline albuminuria and renal risk. Losartan reduced albuminuria by 28% (95% CI -25% to -36%), while placebo increased albuminuria by 4% (95% CI +8% to -1%) in the first 6 months of therapy. The specific (beyond blood pressure lowering) renoprotective effect of the Ang II antagonist, losartan, in this study is for the major part explained by its antialbuminuric effect (approximately 100% for the renal end point, and 50% for ESRD end point). CONCLUSION: Albuminuria is the predominant renal risk marker in patients with type 2 diabetic nephropathy on conventional treatment; the higher the albuminuria, the greater the renal risk. Reduction in albuminuria is associated with a proportional effect on renal protection, the greater the reduction the greater the renal protection. The residual albuminuria on therapy (month 6) is as strong a marker of renal outcome as is baseline albuminuria. The antiproteinuric effect of losartan explains a major component of its specific renoprotective effect. In conclusion, albuminuria should be considered a risk marker for progressive loss of renal function in type 2 diabetes with nephropathy, as well as a target for therapy. Reduction of residual albuminuria to the lowest achievable level should be viewed as a goal for future renoprotective treatments.

Aged↗

Anemia and end-stage renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic nephropathy is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Anemia is common in diabetics with nephropathy; however, the impact of anemia on progression to ESRD has not been carefully examined. METHODS: We studied the relationship between baseline hemoglobin concentration (Hb) and progression of diabetic nephropathy to ESRD in 1513 participants enrolled in Reduction in Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan study and followed for an average of 3.4 years. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the relationship between Hb and ESRD, after adjusting for predictors for ESRD. Analyses were performed with Hb stratified by quartile: first quartile <11.3 g/dL, second quartile 11.3 to 12.5 g/dL, third quartile 12.6 to 13.8 g/dL, and fourth quartile >/=13.8 g/dL (reference) and as a continuous variable. RESULTS: Baseline hemoglobin concentration was correlated with subsequent development of ESRD. After adjustment for predictors of ESRD, the hazard ratios for the first, second, and third Hb quartiles were 1.99 (95% CI, 1.34-2.95), 1.61 (95% CI 1.08-2.41), and 1.87 (95% CI 1.25-2.80). With hemoglobin as a continuous variable, the adjusted hazard ratio was 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.96, P= 0.0013). The average increase in adjusted relative risk was 11% for each 1 g/dL decrease in hemoglobin concentration. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that even mild anemia, Hb <13.8 g/dL increases risk for progression to ESRD. Hemoglobin is an independent risk factor for progression of nephropathy to ESRD in type 2 diabetes.

Aged↗

Detecting and managing patients with type 2 diabetic kidney disease: proteinuria and cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) places more patients at risk for developing chronic kidney disease (CKD) or cardiovascular (CV) events. Effective therapy for CKD or CV disease (CVD) requires a method of identifying affected patients and monitoring the effectiveness of therapy. METHODS: We tested the predictive value of proteinuria for identifying patients at risk for progressive CDK and CVD, and monitoring treatment was determined using RENAAL study results. RESULTS: Baseline proteinuria identified patients at risk for progressive CKD and CVD. Suppression of proteinuria was associated with decreased likelihood of CKD or CVD. CONCLUSION: Proteinuria identifies the risk of CKD and CVD, and can be used to monitor the effectiveness of therapy.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗

Losartan and the United States costs of end-stage renal disease by baseline albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study provided the opportunity to estimate costs associated with ESRD by baseline albuminuria from a United States perspective. METHODS: Costs for ESRD in patients with diabetes were estimated by baseline albuminuria using the U.S. Renal Data System by using the number of days each patient experienced ESRD and the daily estimated U.S. cost of ESRD. RESULTS: The losartan-based antihypertensive therapy group experienced a 28.6% (P=0.002) reduction in the risk of the development of ESRD compared with placebo-based conventional antihypertensive therapy. The previously estimated annual ESRD-related cost saving in the losartan group was 5,144 dollars (95% CI 1,701-8,586 dollars, P=0.003) at 3.5 years. With the cost of losartan, the net savings in the losartan group was estimated at 3,522 dollars (143-6,900 dollars, P=0.041) by 3.5 years. More ESRD-free days were observed and reduced ESRD costs estimated with losartan-based treatment over all levels of baseline albuminuria. CONCLUSION: Treatment with losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy in the RENAAL study not only reduces the incidence of ESRD, but is also estimated from a U.S. perspective to result in substantial cost savings over the 3.5-year duration of the trial across all levels of baseline albuminuria.

Albuminuria↗