Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Precision Nephrology Is a Non-Negligible State of Mind in Clinical Research: Remember the Past to Face the Future

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          CKD is a major public health problem. It is characterized by a multitude of risk factors that, when aggregated, can strongly modify outcome. While major risk factors, namely, albuminuria and low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) have been well analyzed, a large variability in disease progression still remains. This happens because (1) the weight of each risk factor varies between populations (general population or CKD cohort), countries, and single individuals and (2) response to nephroprotective drugs is so heterogeneous that a non-negligible part of patients maintains a high cardiorenal risk despite optimal treatment. Precision nephrology aims at individualizing cardiorenal prognosis and therapy. The purpose of this review is to focus on the risk stratification in different areas, such as clinical practice, population research, and interventional trials, and to describe the strategies used in observational or experimental studies to afford individual-level evidence. The future of precision nephrology is also addressed. Observational studies can in fact provide more adequate findings by collecting more information on risk factors and building risk prediction models that can be applied to each individual in a reliable fashion. Similarly, new clinical trial designs can reduce the individual variability in response to treatment and improve individual outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          KDIGO 2012 - Clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            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. 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. 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). 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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Lower estimated GFR and higher albuminuria are associated with adverse kidney outcomes. A collaborative meta-analysis of general and high-risk population cohorts.

              Both a low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria are known risk factors for end-stage renal disease (ESRD). To determine their joint contribution to ESRD and other kidney outcomes, we performed a meta-analysis of nine general population cohorts with 845,125 participants and an additional eight cohorts with 173,892 patients, the latter selected because of their high risk for chronic kidney disease (CKD). In the general population, the risk for ESRD was unrelated to eGFR at values between 75 and 105 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) but increased exponentially at lower levels. Hazard ratios for eGFRs averaging 60, 45, and 15 were 4, 29, and 454, respectively, compared with an eGFR of 95, after adjustment for albuminuria and cardiovascular risk factors. Log albuminuria was linearly associated with log ESRD risk without thresholds. Adjusted hazard ratios at albumin-to-creatinine ratios of 30, 300, and 1000 mg/g were 5, 13, and 28, respectively, compared with an albumin-to-creatinine ratio of 5. Albuminuria and eGFR were associated with ESRD, without evidence for multiplicative interaction. Similar associations were found for acute kidney injury and progressive CKD. In high-risk cohorts, the findings were generally comparable. Thus, lower eGFR and higher albuminuria are risk factors for ESRD, acute kidney injury and progressive CKD in both general and high-risk populations, independent of each other and of cardiovascular risk factors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                NEF
                Nephron
                10.1159/issn.1660-8151
                Nephron
                S. Karger AG
                1660-8151
                2235-3186
                2020
                October 2020
                18 August 2020
                : 144
                : 10
                : 463-478
                Affiliations
                aRenal Unit, Department of Health Sciences, “Magna Graecia” University, Catanzaro, Italy
                bRenal Unit, Department of Advanced Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli,”, Naples, Italy
                cDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                dCenter of Biostatistics for Clinical Epidemiology, School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy
                Author notes
                *Michele Provenzano, Department of Health Sciences, “Magna Graecia” University, IT–88100 Catanzaro (Italy), michiprov@hotmail.it
                Article
                508983 Nephron 2020;144:463–478
                10.1159/000508983
                32810859
                © 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 2, Pages: 16
                Categories
                Clinical Practice: Review Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article