Volume 60, Issue 3, Pages (September 2001)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Tazeen H. Jafar, M.D., M.P.H. Professor of Medicine Head, Section of Nephrology Department of Medicine and Community Health Sciences Aga Khan University,
Advertisements

Volume 82, Issue 12, Pages (December 2012)
The SPRINT Research Group
Health and Human Services National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
Copyright © 2011 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.
Low protein diet mediated renoprotection in remnant kidneys: Renal autoregulatory versus hypertrophic mechanisms  Karen A. Griffin, Maria Picken, Anita.
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages (July 2000)
Management of hypertension in patients with chronic kidney disease
Guideline 1: goals of antihypertensive therapy in CKD
Francesco Locatelli, Lucia Del Vecchio, Simeone Andrulli, Sara Colzani 
Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy and strokes  Robert W. Schrier, Raymond.
Volume 57, Issue 5, Pages (May 2000)
Volume 80, Issue 1, Pages (July 2011)
Volume 88, Issue 2, Pages (August 2015)
Volume 82, Issue 12, Pages (December 2012)
I. Introduction American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 81, Issue 7, Pages (April 2012)
Volume 86, Issue 4, Pages (October 2014)
Need for better diabetes treatment for improved renal outcome
GFR Decline as an End Point for Clinical Trials in CKD: A Scientific Workshop Sponsored by the National Kidney Foundation and the US Food and Drug Administration 
Volume 61, Issue 5, Pages (May 2002)
Nuhad Ismail, Bryan Becker, Piotr Strzelczyk, Eberhard Ritz 
The Validity of Drug Effects on Proteinuria, Albuminuria, Serum Creatinine, and Estimated GFR as Surrogate End Points for ESKD: A Systematic Review  Suetonia.
Volume 57, Pages S32-S37 (April 2000)
Volume 79, Issue 12, Pages (June 2011)
Volume 56, Issue 4, Pages (October 1999)
Volume 63, Issue 4, Pages (April 2003)
Volume 66, Issue 3, Pages (September 2004)
GFR Decline as an Alternative End Point to Kidney Failure in Clinical Trials: A Meta- analysis of Treatment Effects From 37 Randomized Trials  Lesley A.
Hemodialysis-associated hypotension as an independent risk factor for two-year mortality in hemodialysis patients  Tatsuya Shoji, Yoshiharu Tsubakihara,
Appendix 1: methods used for guideline development
The online measurement of hemodialysis dose (Kt): Clinical outcome as a function of body surface area  Edmund G. Lowrie, Zhensheng Li, Norma Ofsthun,
Dietary phosphorus is associated with greater left ventricular mass
Long-term study of mycophenolate mofetil treatment in IgA nephropathy
Jennifer E. Flythe, Stephen E. Kimmel, Steven M. Brunelli 
American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume 67, Pages S48-S51 (January 2005)
Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages (June 2004)
Volume 69, Issue 9, Pages (May 2006)
Volume 86, Issue 3, Pages (September 2014)
Aggressive blood pressure reduction and renin–angiotensin system blockade in chronic kidney disease: time for re-evaluation?  Pantelis A. Sarafidis, Luis.
Volume 68, Issue 2, Pages (August 2005)
Volume 74, Issue 4, Pages (August 2008)
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages (January 2005)
Volume 62, Issue 5, Pages (November 2002)
Volume 82, Issue 7, Pages (October 2012)
Linda F. Fried, Trevor J. Orchard, Bertram L. Kasiske 
Proteinuria and hypertensive nephrosclerosis in African Americans
The kidney, a cardiovascular risk marker, and a new target for therapy
Volume 63, Issue 2, Pages (February 2003)
Volume 62, Issue 4, Pages (October 2002)
Volume 73, Issue 8, Pages (April 2008)
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages (September 2000)
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages (July 2000)
Volume 58, Issue 5, Pages (November 2000)
Clinical renoprotection trials involving angiotensin II-receptor antagonists and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors  Barry M. Brenner, Joann Zagrobelny 
Blood pressure and long-term mortality in United States hemodialysis patients: USRDS Waves 3 and 4 Study1  Robert N. Foley, Charles A. Herzog, Allan J.
Volume 53, Issue 6, Pages (June 1998)
Volume 83, Issue 3, Pages (March 2013)
Effect of proteinuria and glomerular filtration rate on cardiovascular risk in essential hypertension  Julian Segura, Carlos Campo, Luis M. Ruilope  Kidney.
Michael R. Lattanzio, Matthew R. Weir  Kidney International 
Volume 75, Issue 1, Pages (January 2009)
Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages (May 1998)
Importance of blood pressure control in hemodialysis patient survival
Giuseppe Remuzzi, Carlos Chiurchiu, Piero Ruggenenti 
Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages (May 1998)
Volume 67, Issue 4, Pages (April 2005)
Volume 57, Pages S44-S48 (April 2000)
Antonio Piccoli, Luana Pillon  Kidney International 
Presentation transcript:

Volume 60, Issue 3, Pages 1131-1140 (September 2001) Proteinuria as a modifiable risk factor for the progression of non-diabetic renal disease  Tazeen H. Jafar, Paul C. Stark, Christopher H. Schmid, Marcia Landa, Guiseppe Maschio, Carmelita Marcantoni, Paul E. De Jong, Dick De Zeeuw, Shahnaz Shahinfar, Piero Ruggenenti, Guiseppe Remuzzi, Andrew S. Levey, for the Aiprd Study Group  Kidney International  Volume 60, Issue 3, Pages 1131-1140 (September 2001) DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.0600031131.x Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Comparison between randomized groups of urine protein excretion during follow-up for each subgroup. Subgroups are defined in Table 2. (A) Subgroup with baseline urine protein> 6.0 g/day (N = 101, mean baseline urine protein = 8.7 g/day). (B) Subgroup with baseline urine protein 3.0 to 6.0 g/day (N = 301, mean baseline urine protein = 4.2 g/day). (C) Subgroup with baseline urine protein 0.5 to 3.0 g/day (N = 728, mean baseline urine protein = 1.5 g/day). (D) Subgroup with baseline urine protein <0.5 g/day (N = 730, mean baseline urine protein = 0.15 g/day). (Note that ranges include the left end point but not the right end point.) Vertical axis depicts mean values for urine protein at baseline and various times after randomization for patients randomized to the ACE inhibitor group versus the control group. Horizontal axis depicts months after randomization. Follow-up measurements were reported more often during the first two years and less often thereafter. Not all patients had follow-up measurements of urine protein excretion at each visit. For statistical analyses, mean urine protein excretion during follow-up was defined as the mean of all available follow-up values for each patient. Change during follow-up (∆) was defined as the baseline value minus the mean follow-up value for each patient. P values are for the comparison of change in urine protein excretion during follow-up between the ACE inhibitor group versus control group. Symbols are: (▴) control; (○) ACE inhibitor. Kidney International 2001 60, 1131-1140DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.0600031131.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Relationship of baseline urine protein excretion to changes in urine protein excretion during follow-up. Vertical axis indicates the decline in urine protein excretion from baseline to follow-up associated with treatment with ACE inhibitors versus control antihypertensive agents (A), lowering systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 10 mm Hg (B), and lowering diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 10 mm Hg (C). Horizontal axis indicates baseline urine protein excretion. Diagonal lines indicate regression coefficient and 95% confidence interval for the relationship between baseline urine protein and decline in urine protein excretion for each intervention (interaction terms). Patients with higher baseline urine protein excretion have a significantly greater decline in urine protein excretion in association with each intervention. Results are derived from a multivariable linear regression model for the decline from baseline in urine protein excretion at each follow-up visit, controlling for gender (reference = male), natural logarithm of age (reference = 55 years), baseline urine protein excretion, reciprocal of serum creatinine (reference serum creatinine = 2.0 mg/dL), interaction between urine protein excretion and reciprocal of serum creatinine, SBP (reference = 150 mm Hg), DBP (reference = 90 mm Hg), treatment assignment (treatment with ACE inhibitors vs. control antihypertensive agents, reference = control), decline in SBP (reference = 0 mm Hg), decline in DBP (reference = 0 mm Hg), and study terms. Interactions were tested in separate models. P < 0.001 in all three panels. Kidney International 2001 60, 1131-1140DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.0600031131.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Relationship of urine protein excretion to the effect of ACE inhibitors on doubling of baseline serum creatinine or ESRD. Vertical axis in all figures is the relative risk of the combined outcome of doubling of serum creatinine or ESRD in the ACE inhibitor group compared with the control group (treatment effect). Horizontal axis is either the baseline level or current level during follow-up of urine protein excretion. Solid and dotted lines indicate point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the relative risks, respectively. (A) The relationship of the treatment effect to baseline urine protein in the multivariable model controlling only for significant baseline patient and study characteristics (modified from Figure 2)7. The beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors is greater (lower relative risk) at higher levels of baseline urine protein excretion. The test for interaction between baseline urine protein excretion and treatment was significant (P < 0.001). (B) The treatment effect after controlling for the change in urine protein excretion in addition to the baseline and study characteristics. The beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors remained significant (relative risk less than 1.0), but was not related to the level of baseline urine protein excretion (interaction P = 0.26). (C) The treatment effect after controlling for current urine protein excretion rather than the change from baseline. The beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors remains significant, but does not vary with current urine protein excretion (interaction P = 0.93). Results are from a multivariable proportional hazards model examining the effect of treatment assignment (ACE inhibitors vs. control antihypertensive agents) on time to doubling of baseline serum creatinine or onset of ESRD, controlling for baseline factors and follow-up factors. Baseline factors in the multivariable model include gender, logarithm of age, reciprocal of serum creatinine, systolic blood pressure, study terms, and urine protein excretion (as indicated). Follow-up factors include decline in systolic blood pressure and change in urine protein excretion or follow-up urine protein excretion (as indicated). Kidney International 2001 60, 1131-1140DOI: (10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.0600031131.x) Copyright © 2001 International Society of Nephrology Terms and Conditions