Blog
About

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

      Does the Hyperfiltration of Minoxidil Result in Increased Proteinuria and Loss of Renoprotection Conferred by Angiotensin Inhibition?

      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

          The objective of the present study was to retrospectively examine whether the addition of minoxidil to patients who were already treated with maximum doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers but who had not achieved target blood pressures, has any detrimental effect on proteinuria or renal function or whether its effect on blood pressure prove salutary. The clinical records of the patients seen at the Hypertension, Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Clinic from June 1982 through May 2005 were reviewed to identify 54 patients (78% men, 82% African-American) who had taken minoxidil (with and without angiotensin inhibition and blockade) and who had documented 24-hour urines for creatinine clearance and quantification of proteinuria before the initiation of minoxidil and after the blood pressure had stabilized on its final dose. The study was done at the Hypertension, Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation Clinic, the regional referral center for renal problems in eastern Alabama, USA. Minoxidil, whether alone or in combination with maximum doses of ACEIs and ARBs, was very successful in reduction of mean arterial pressure, but there was a tendency towards an increase in proteinuria. When minoxidil was given alone, patients demonstrated a trend towards reduction of proteinuria associated with blood pressure reduction; however, when minoxidil was added after the maximal doses of ACEIs and ARBs had been reached there was a significant increase in proteinuria (p = 0.017) on paired comparison in the same patients whose proteinuria had already demonstrated a significant decrease (p = 0.02) on the ACEI and ARB alone despite further significant reduction of blood pressure with the minoxidil (p = 0.003). Renal function deterioration to end stage renal disease correlated with increase in proteinuria (p = 0.03). We conclude that minoxidil was very effective in lowering systemic blood pressure but when given to patients already on maximum doses of ACEI and ARBs, there was an increase in proteinuria which could be interpreted as a detrimental effect having in mind that the blood pressure was significantly lowered.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • 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

            Elevated blood pressure and risk of end-stage renal disease in subjects without baseline kidney disease.

            Many cases of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are ascribed to hypertension. However, because renal disease itself can raise blood pressure, some investigators argue that ESRD seen in patients with hypertension is due to underlying primary renal disease. Previous cohort studies of the relationship between blood pressure and ESRD did not uniformly screen out baseline kidney disease. We conducted a historical cohort study among members of Kaiser Permanente of Northern California, a large integrated health care delivery system. The ESRD cases were ascertained by matching with the US Renal Data System registry. A total of 316 675 adult Kaiser members participated in the Multiphasic Health Checkups from 1964 to 1985. All subjects had estimated glomerular filtration rates of 60 mL /min per 1.73 m(2) or higher and negative dipstick urinalysis results for proteinuria or hematuria. During 8 210 431 person-years of follow-up, 1149 cases of ESRD occurred. Compared with subjects with a blood pressure less than 120/80 mm Hg, the adjusted relative risks for developing ESRD were 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.07) for blood pressures of 120 to 129/80 to 84 mm Hg, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.55-2.52) for blood pressures of 130 to 139/85 to 89 mm Hg, 2.59 (95% CI, 2.07-3.25) for blood pressures of 140 to 159/90 to 99 mm Hg, 3.86 (95% CI, 3.00-4.96) for blood pressures of 160 to 179/100 to 109 mm Hg, 3.88 (95% CI, 2.82-5.34) for blood pressures of 180 to 209/110 to 119 mm Hg, and 4.25 (95% CI, 2.63-6.86) for blood pressures of 210/120 mm Hg or higher. Similar associations between blood pressure level and ESRD risk were seen in all subgroup analyses. Even relatively modest elevation in blood pressure is an independent risk factor for ESRD. The observed relationship does not appear to be due to confounding by clinically evident baseline kidney disease.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Atenolol in hypertension: is it a wise choice?

              Atenolol is one of the most widely used beta blockers clinically, and has often been used as a reference drug in randomised controlled trials of hypertension. However, questions have been raised about atenolol as the best reference drug for comparisons with other antihypertensives. Thus, our aim was to systematically review the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. Reports were identified through searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, relevant textbooks, and by personal communication with established researchers in hypertension. Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of atenolol on cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with primary hypertension were included. We identified four studies that compared atenolol with placebo or no treatment, and five that compared atenolol with other antihypertensive drugs. Despite major differences in blood pressure lowering, there were no outcome differences between atenolol and placebo in the four studies, comprising 6825 patients, who were followed up for a mean of 4.6 years on all-cause mortality (relative risk 1.01 [95% CI 0.89-1.15]), cardiovascular mortality (0.99 [0.83-1.18]), or myocardial infarction (0.99 [0.83-1.19]). The risk of stroke, however, tended to be lower in the atenolol than in the placebo group (0.85 [0.72-1.01]). When atenolol was compared with other antihypertensives, there were no major differences in blood pressure lowering between the treatment arms. Our meta-analysis showed a significantly higher mortality (1.13 [1.02-1.25]) with atenolol treatment than with other active treatment, in the five studies comprising 17671 patients who were followed up for a mean of 4.6 years. Moreover, cardiovascular mortality also tended to be higher with atenolol treatment than with other antihypertensive treatment. Stroke was also more frequent with atenolol treatment. Our results cast doubts on atenolol as a suitable drug for hypertensive patients. Moreover, they challenge the use of atenolol as a reference drug in outcome trials in hypertension.
                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
                June 2006
                06 June 2006
                : 29
                : 1
                : 54-59
                Affiliations
                Hndt, Auburn University, Opelika, Ala., USA
                Article
                92947 Kidney Blood Press Res 2006;29:54–59
                10.1159/000092947
                16645303
                © 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: 5, Tables: 2, References: 21, Pages: 6
                Product
                Self URI (application/pdf): https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/92947
                Categories
                Original Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article