[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is more likely to progress to kidney failure (end-stage renal disease) in African Americans, although the reasons for this are unclear. Metabolic syndrome is a risk factor for the development of diabetes and cardiovascular disease and recently was linked to incident CKD. The purpose of this study is to examine whether metabolic syndrome is associated with kidney disease progression in hypertensive African Americans.
The current study design is a secondary analysis of the African-American Study of Hypertension and Kidney Disease, a randomized controlled trial of blood pressure goal and agents in hypertensive African Americans with CKD.
Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the modified National Cholesterol Education Program guidelines.
Decrease in glomerular filtration rate of 50% or 25 mL/min/1.73 m(2), end-stage renal disease (initiation of dialysis therapy or transplantation), death, or a composite outcome of all 3.
842 subjects were included in this analysis, and 41.7% met criteria for metabolic syndrome. Subjects meeting criteria for metabolic syndrome had greater levels of proteinuria. Cox regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, glomerular filtration rate, and other significant covariates except for proteinuria indicated a 31% increased risk, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.03 to 1.7 (P = 0.03) for time to reach the composite outcome in those with metabolic syndrome. Adjusting for proteinuria, the effect was abated to 16% (95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.5), no longer remained significant (P = 0.2), and was unchanged by adjusting randomized treatment group (blood pressure goal or antihypertensive drug).
Lack of waist circumference as a better surrogate of abdominal obesity.
In summary, metabolic syndrome is associated with proteinuria in hypertensive African Americans, but is not independently associated with CKD progression.
American Journal of Kidney Diseases 05/2008; 51(5):732-40. DOI:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.01.013 · 5.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: It has yet to be determined whether genotyping at the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) locus is predictive of blood pressure response to an ACE inhibitor.
Participants from the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension trial randomized to the ACE inhibitor ramipril (n = 347) were genotyped at three polymorphisms on ACE, just downstream from the ACE insertion/deletion polymorphism (Ins/Del): G12269A, C17888T, and G20037A. Time to reach target mean arterial pressure (</=107 mmHg) was analyzed by genotype and ACE haplotype using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models.
Individuals with a homozygous genotype at G12269A responded significantly faster than those with a heterozygous genotype; the adjusted (average number of medications and baseline mean arterial pressure) hazard ratio (homozygous compared to heterozygous genotype) was 1.86 (95% confidence limits 1.32-3.23; P < 0.001 for G12269A genotype). The adjusted hazard ratio for participants with homozygous ACE haplotypes compared to those heterozygous ACE haplotypes was 1.40 (1.13-1.75; P = 0.003 for haplotype). The ACE genotype effects were specific for ACE inhibition (i.e., not seen among those randomized to a calcium channel blocker), and were independent of population stratification.
African-Americans with a homozygous genotype at G12269A or homozygous ACE haplotypes responded to ramipril significantly faster than those with a heterozygous genotype or heterozygous haplotypes, suggesting that heterosis may be an important determinant of responsiveness to an ACE inhibitor. These associations may be a result of biological activity of this polymorphism, or of linkage disequilibrium with nearby variants such as the ACE Ins/Del, perhaps in the regulation of ACE splicing.
Journal of Hypertension 10/2007; 25(10):2082-92. DOI:10.1097/HJH.0b013e3282b9720e · 4.72 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Whereas much research has investigated equations for obtaining estimated GFR (eGFR) from serum creatinine in cross-sectional settings, little attention has been given to validating these equations as outcomes in longitudinal studies of chronic kidney disease. A common objective of chronic kidney disease studies is to identify risk factors for progression, characterized by slope (rate of change over time) or time to event (time until a designated decline in kidney function or ESRD). The relationships of 35 baseline factors with eGFR-based outcomes were compared with the relationships of the same factors with iothalamate GFR (iGFR)-based outcomes in the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK; n = 1094). With the use of the AASK equation to calculate eGFR, results were compared between time to halving of eGFR or ESRD and time to halving of iGFR or ESRD (with effect sizes expressed per 1 SD) and between eGFR and iGFR slopes starting 3 mo after randomization. The effects of the baseline factors were similar between the eGFR- and iGFR-based time-to-event outcomes (Pearson R = 0.99, concordance R = 0.98). Small but statistically significant differences (P < 0.05, without adjustment for multiple analyses) were observed for seven of the 35 factors. Agreement between eGFR and iGFR was somewhat weaker, although still relatively high for slope-based outcomes (Pearson R = 0.93, concordance R = 0.92). Effects of covariate adjustment for age, gender, baseline GFR, and urine proteinuria also were similar between the eGFR and iGFR outcomes. Sensitivity analyses including death in the composite time-to-event outcomes or using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation instead of the AASK equation provided similar results. In conclusion, the data from the AASK provide tentative support for use of outcomes that are based on an established eGFR formula using serum creatinine as a surrogate for measured iGFR-based outcomes in analyses of risk factors for the progression of kidney disease.
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 10/2006; 17(10):2900-9. DOI:10.1681/ASN.2005101106 · 9.34 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension was a multicenter trial of African Americans with hypertensive kidney disease randomized to an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril), a beta-blocker (metoprolol succinate), or a calcium channel blocker (amlodipine besylate). We compared the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and the composite outcome of impaired fasting glucose or DM (IFG/DM) for the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension interventions.
Cox regression models were used to evaluate (post hoc) the association of the randomized interventions and the relative risk (RR) of DM and IFG/DM and to assess the RR of DM and IFG/DM by several prerandomization characteristics.
Among 1017 participants, 147 (14.5%) developed DM; 333 (42.9%) of 776 participants developed IFG/DM. Respective DM event rates were 2.8%, 4.4%, and 4.5% per patient-year in the ramipril-, amlodipine-, and metoprolol-treated groups. The RRs of DM with ramipril treatment were 0.53 (P = .001) compared with metoprolol treatment and 0.49 (P = .003) compared with amlodipine treatment. Respective IFG/DM event rates were 11.3%, 13.3%, and 15.8% per patient-year in the ramipril-, amlodipine-, and metoprolol-treated groups. The RRs of IFG/DM with ramipril treatment were 0.64 (P<.001) compared with metoprolol treatment and 0.76 (P = .09) compared with amlodipine treatment. The RRs of DM and IFG/DM with amlodipine treatment compared with metoprolol treatment were 1.07 (P = .76) and 0.84 (P = .26), respectively.
Ramipril treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of DM in African Americans with hypertensive kidney disease than amlodipine or metoprolol treatment.
Archives of Internal Medicine 05/2006; 166(7):797-805. DOI:10.1001/archinte.166.7.797 · 17.33 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Accurate assessment of renal function is important in the management of patients with kidney disease yet is often difficult to obtain. Formulae, designed for clinical use, have been developed to predict glomerular filtration rate (GFR) utilizing serum creatinine (Scr). Additional parameters are included in these formulae to account for variations in Scr due to differences in total body lean mass in kg (LM). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to derive a simple formula to predict GFR based on Scr and direct quantification of LM.
Ten subjects with a wide range of renal function had GFRs determined by [125I]iothalamate clearance and LM determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry as well as fasting measurements of Scr, serum and 24 h urine urea nitrogen, and albumin.
The following formula was derived using LM (kg) and Scr (mg/dl): predicted GFR=(2.4xLM)-(0.75xLMxScr). The correlation coefficient for this formula was 0.97, when compared with [125I]iothalamate clearances, and similar to the MDRD formulae (R=0.87-0.95).
Although further validation is necessary, these findings suggest that total body non-invasive measurement of LM along with Scr can be used to accurately predict GFR.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension examined the effect on renal function decline of 2 blood pressure (BP) goals (low mean arterial pressure [MAP] < or =92 versus usual MAP 102 to 107 mm Hg) and 3 antihypertensives (ramipril versus amlodipine versus metoprolol). We previously reported that in all drug groups combined the BP intervention had similar effects on the primary outcome of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) slope or the main secondary clinical composite outcome of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), death, or GFR decline by 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2. This report examines the effect of the BP intervention separately in the 3 drug groups. The BP effect was similar among the drug groups for either GFR slope or the main clinical composite. However, the BP effect differed significantly among the drug groups for the composite of ESRD or death (P=0.035) and ESRD alone (P=0.021). Higher event rates for amlodipine patients assigned to the usual BP goal (0.087 per patient-year for ESRD or death and 0.064 per patient-year for ESRD) were seen compared with the remaining groups of the factorial design (range, 0.041 to 0.050 for ESRD or death; and range, 0.027 to 0.036 for ESRD). The low BP goal was associated with reduced risk of ESRD or death (risk reduction 51%; 95% confidence interval, 13% to 73%) and ESRD (54%; 8% to 77%) for amlodipine patients, but not for patients assigned to the other drug groups. These secondary analyses suggest a benefit of the low BP goal among patients assigned to amlodipine, but they must be interpreted cautiously.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Hypertension is a leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in the United States, with no known treatment to prevent progressive declines leading to ESRD.
To compare the effects of 2 levels of blood pressure (BP) control and 3 antihypertensive drug classes on glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline in hypertension.
Randomized 3 x 2 factorial trial with enrollment from February 1995 to September 1998.
A total of 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) were recruited from 21 clinical centers throughout the United States and followed up for 3 to 6.4 years.
Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 mean arterial pressure goals, 102 to 107 mm Hg (usual; n = 554) or 92 mm Hg or less (lower; n = 540), and to initial treatment with either a beta-blocker (metoprolol 50-200 mg/d; n = 441), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d; n = 436) or a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, (amlodipine 5-10 mg/d; n = 217). Open-label agents were added to achieve the assigned BP goals.
Rate of change in GFR (GFR slope); clinical composite outcome of reduction in GFR by 50% or more (or > or =25 mL/min per 1.73 m2) from baseline, ESRD, or death. Three primary treatment comparisons were specified: lower vs usual BP goal; ramipril vs metoprolol; and amlodipine vs metoprolol.
Achieved BP averaged (SD) 128/78 (12/8) mm Hg in the lower BP group and 141/85 (12/7) mm Hg in the usual BP group. The mean (SE) GFR slope from baseline through 4 years did not differ significantly between the lower BP group (-2.21 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year) and the usual BP group (-1.95 [0.17] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per year; P =.24), and the lower BP goal did not significantly reduce the rate of the clinical composite outcome (risk reduction for lower BP group = 2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -22% to 21%; P =.85). None of the drug group comparisons showed consistent significant differences in the GFR slope. However, compared with the metoprolol and amlodipine groups, the ramipril group manifested risk reductions in the clinical composite outcome of 22% (95% CI, 1%-38%; P =.04) and 38% (95% CI, 14%-56%; P =.004), respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical composite outcome between the amlodipine and metoprolol groups.
No additional benefit of slowing progression of hypertensive nephrosclerosis was observed with the lower BP goal. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors appear to be more effective than beta-blockers or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in slowing GFR decline.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 11/2002; 288(19):2421-31. DOI:10.1001/jama.288.19.2421 · 35.29 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Renal function measurements were obtained in 1,703 African Americans with presumed hypertensive nephrosclerosis who were screened for entry into the African-American Study of Hypertension and Kidney Disease (AASK). We examined the effect of race on relationships involving renal variables by comparing African Americans enrolled into the AASK with non-African Americans enrolled into the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study. We examined the effect of gender on renal variables by comparing African American men and women. We compared various methods for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) with iodine 125-labeled ((125)I)-iothalamate GFR. AASK data were also used to derive a new formula for estimating GFR in African Americans. After adjusting for age, sex, and baseline GFR, African American patients on the AASK study were heavier and had larger body surface areas and body mass indices than either MDRD African Americans or non-African Americans. African Americans had greater serum creatinine levels and urinary creatinine excretions for any given level of GFR. Mean GFR was greater in African American men than African American women (59.7 versus 51.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), although serum creatinine levels were also greater in men (1.91 versus 1.73 mg/dL). Seventy-eight percent of women with serum creatinine levels between 1.2 and 1.5 mg/dL had GFRs less than 65 mL/min/1.73 m(2). For African Americans in the AASK, GFR was overestimated by the 24-hour creatinine clearance and underestimated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula. A prediction formula developed in the MDRD study more accurately predicted GFR in AASK patients than these measurements. AASK data were also used to derive a new five-term formula for estimating GFR that was slightly more accurate in the African Americans in the AASK than the MDRD formula (median percentage of error, 12.4% for the MDRD formula versus 12.1% for the AASK formula). Important differences exist in renal variables between African Americans and non-African Americans and between African American men and African American women. Formulas using demographic data and readily measured serum values estimate (125)I-iothalamate GFR.
American Journal of Kidney Diseases 11/2001; 38(4):744-53. DOI:10.1053/ajkd.2001.27691 · 5.90 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased in recent decades, but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure is unknown, especially among African Americans.
To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ramipril), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and a beta-blocker (metoprolol) on hypertensive renal disease progression.
Interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, 3 x 2 factorial trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998. This report compares the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine intervention in September 2000.
Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, 5 to 10 mg/d (n = 217), ramipril, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 436), or metoprolol, 50 to 200 mg/d (n = 441), with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals.
The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR; the main secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction in GFR of more than 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m(2), end-stage renal disease, or death.
Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of >0.22 (corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d), the ramipril group had a 36% (2.02 [SE, 0.74] mL/min per 1.73 m(2)/y) slower mean decline in GFR over 3 years (P =.006) and a 48% reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-66%). In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups (P =.38). However, compared with the amlodipine group, after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38% reduced risk of clinical end points (95% CI, 13%-56%), a 36% slower mean decline in GFR after 3 months (P =.002), and less proteinuria (P<.001).
Ramipril, compared with amlodipine, retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 06/2001; 285(21):2719-28. DOI:10.1001/jama.285.21.2719 · 35.29 Impact Factor