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

      Antiproteinuric Effect of Losartan in Non-Diabetic Renal Disease Is Not Dependent on ACE Insertion/Deletion Polymorphism

      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

          Background: The antiproteinuric effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors appears to vary depending on the ACE insertion (I)/deletion (D) genotype in non-diabetic nephropathy. This interaction may be overcome by using an angiotensin II receptor blocker. We evaluated the short-term antiproteinuric effect of losartan according to the ACE I/D genotype in patients with non-diabetic proteinuric renal diseases. Methods: Ninety-nine (II/ID/DD: 36/52/11) non-diabetic patients with overt proteinuria were enrolled. The patients received losartan 50 mg daily followed by 100 mg in two treatment periods each lasting 12 weeks. Clinical parameters including proteinuria were measured at baseline and at the end of each period. Results: At baseline each genotype (II/ID/DD) had comparable mean arterial blood pressure (mean ± SD) 103.2 ± 11.1/102.7 ± 10.6/104.1 ± 15.3; proteinuria (geometric mean, 95% CI, mg/day) 1,839 (1,518–2,227)/1,998 (1,683–2,372)/1,613 (1,072–2,427), and creatinine clearance (ml/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>) 65.7 ± 28.4/63.2 ± 27.8/68.8 ± 25.3, respectively. Both doses of losartan significantly lowered blood pressure and proteinuria (p < 0.05 vs. baseline), and losartan 100 mg was more effective than 50 mg in reducing proteinuria (52.5 ± 29.0 vs. 40.5 ± 30.8%, respectively, p = 0.001). No differences in the antiproteinuric effect of losartan was observed among the ACE I/D genotype. Losartan 100 mg demonstrated a comparable degree of mean arterial pressure (mean ± SD, %) (II/ID/DD, 13.3 ± 7.6/10.8 ± 9.8/13.0 ± 11.6, respectively, p = NS) and proteinuria reduction (mean, 95% CI) among the three genotypes (51.4% (40.3–62.5%)/53.4% (45.5–61.4%)/51.4% (40.0–63.8%), respectively, p = NS). Conclusion: Our data suggest that losartan provides a similar short-term antiproteinuric response for all three genotypes of ACE I/D genotype in non-diabetic proteinuric chronic renal disease.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 29

          • 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: not found
            • Article: not found

            Effect of Blood Pressure Lowering and Antihypertensive Drug Class on Progression of Hypertensive Kidney DiseaseResults From the AASK Trial

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

              Renoprotective properties of ACE-inhibition in non-diabetic nephropathies with non-nephrotic proteinuria.

              Stratum 2 of the Ramipril Efficacy in Nephropathy (REIN) study has already shown that in patients with chronic nephropathies and proteinuria of 3 g or more per 24 h, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition reduced the rate of decline in glomerular filtration and halved the combined risk of doubling of serum creatinine or end-stage renal failure (ESRF) found in controls on placebo plus conventional antihypertensives. In REIN stratum 1, reported here, 24 h proteinuria was 1 g or more but less than 3 g per 24 h. In stratum 1 of this double-blind trial 186 patients were randomised to a ramipril or a control (placebo plus conventional antihypertensive therapy) group targeted at achieving a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90 mm Hg. The primary endpoints were change in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and time to ESRF or overt proteinuria (> or =53 g/24 h). Median follow-up was 31 months. The decline in GFR per month was not significantly different (ramipril 0.26 [SE 0.05] mL per min per 1.73m2, control 0.29 [0.06]). Progression to ESRF was significantly less common in the ramipril group (9/99 vs 18/87) for a relative risk (RR) of 2.72 (95% CI 1.22-6.08); so was progression to overt proteinuria (15/99 vs 27/87, RR 2.40 [1.27-4.52]). Patients with a baseline GFR of 45 mL/min/1.73 m2 or less and proteinuria of 1.5 g/24 h or more had more rapid progression and gained the most from ramipril treatment. Proteinuria decreased by 13% in the ramipril group and increased by 15% in the controls. Cardiovascular events were similar. As expected, the rate of decline in GFR and the frequency of ESRF were much lower in stratum 1 than they had been in stratum 2. In non-diabetic nephropathies, ACE inhibition confers renoprotection even to patients with non-nephrotic proteinuria.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                KBR
                Kidney Blood Press Res
                10.1159/issn.1420-4096
                Kidney and Blood Pressure Research
                S. Karger AG
                1420-4096
                1423-0143
                2006
                November 2006
                17 November 2006
                : 29
                : 4
                : 216-224
                Affiliations
                Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Institute of Kidney Disease, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
                Article
                95736 Kidney Blood Press Res 2006;29:216–224
                10.1159/000095736
                16960460
                © 2006 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: 3, References: 41, Pages: 9
                Product
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/95736
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article