Antiproteinuric effect of losartan in non-diabetic renal disease is not dependent on ACE insertion/deletion polymorphism

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(2)) 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.     

ACE gene polymorphism and the prognosis and treatment of overt diabetic nephropathy

An insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) gene influences the circulating and renal activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. This Practice Point commentary discusses a 2008 paper by Parving et al. that analyzed the interaction between losartan and the I/D polymorphism in patients in the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study. The investigators found that patients with type 2 diabetes and proteinuria who have the D allele have an unfavorable renal prognosis, which is improved by losartan treatment (vs placebo) when given together with conventional antihypertensive treatment. No significant improvement in outcomes was observed in losartan-treated patients with the II genotype. Previous observational studies had suggested a decreased beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors in patients with type 1 diabetic nephropathy who have the DD genotype. Prospective studies in this area are needed before I/D genotype characterization can be used to guide the choice of therapy in patients with diabetes and proteinuria.     

Renin angiotensin aldosterone system blockade and renal disease in patients with type 2 diabetes: a subanalysis of Japanese patients from the RENAAL study

Background The Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study has previously shown losartan to confer significant benefits to patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. The original study of 1513 patients included 96 Japanese patients; the present study is a post-hoc analysis of the effects of losartan in this Japanese subpopulation. Methods This double-blind, randomized study compared losartan (50 to 100 mg once daily) with placebo. The study medication was taken in addition to conventional antihypertensive treatment, and the mean follow-up period for the Japanese patients was 2.8 years. The primary endpoint was the composite of doubling of serum creatinine, endstage renal disease, or death. Secondary endpoints included changes in proteinuria levels. Safety was also evaluated. Results The primary composite endpoint was reached in fewer Japanese patients receiving losartan than placebo (50.0% versus 65.4%, respectively). The treatment effects of losartan were more robust when data were corrected for differences in proteinuria at baseline – a significant relative risk reduction of 45% with losartan (P = 0.0397) was apparent. Treatment benefit exceeded that attributable to blood pressure changes alone. Levels of proteinuria were reduced with losartan compared with placebo, with an overall losartan treatment effect of 37.8% (P < 0.001). Overall, losartan was similarly well tolerated in both the Japanese patients and the total population. Conclusions In Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy, losartan offers renal protection and is generally well tolerated.     

ACE genotype and ACE inhibitors induced renoprotection in chronic proteinuric nephropathies1

ACE genotype and ACE induced renoprotection in chronic proteinuric nephropathies. BACKGROUND: Whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene polymorphism affects disease progression and response to ACE inhibitor therapy in nondiabetic proteinuric nephropathies is not clearly established. METHODS: The relationship between insertion/deletion (I/D) genotypes and proteinuria, rate of glomerular filtration rate decline (DeltaGFR)-centrally evaluated by repeated measures of iohexol plasma clearance-and incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was prospectively evaluated in 212 patients with nondiabetic proteinuric chronic nephropathies enrolled in the Ramipril Efficacy in Nephropathy (REIN) trial, where patients were randomly assigned to ramipril or conventional treatment. RESULTS: The DeltaGFR +/- SEM (-0.38 +/- 0.09 vs. -0.50 +/- 0.08 vs. -0.36 +/- 0.06 mL/min/1.73 m2 per month) and incidence of ESRD (19 vs. 22 vs. 25%) in the three subgroups with the II, ID, and DD genotypes, respectively, were comparable. Of note, DeltaGFR (-0.28 +/- 0.07 vs. -0.43 +/- 0.09 mL/min/1.73 m2 per month) and incidence of ESRD [14% vs. 36%, P = 0.04, RR (95% CI), 2.62 (1.02 to 6.71)] were lower in ramipril than in conventionally treated patients in the DD genotype, but not in the II and ID genotype. Either at univariate (P = 0.04) or at multivariate (P = 0.01) analysis, ramipril significantly predicted a lower incidence of events in DD, but not in II and ID patients. At three months, ramipril decreased proteinuria more effectively in DD (-38.2%) than in the II (-26.7%) or ID (-19.2%) genotype. In DD (but not in II or ID) ramipril-treated patients, a short-term reduction in proteinuria correlated with DeltaGFR over the entire follow-up period (P = 0.02, r = -0.41). CONCLUSIONS: In nondiabetic proteinuric nephropathies, the ACE I/D polymorphism does not predict disease progression, but is a strong predictor of ACE inhibition-associated renoprotection in that proteinuria, DeltaGFR, and progression to ESRD are effectively reduced in patients with the DD, but not in those with the II or ID genotype.     

Chronic proteinuric nephropathies. II. Outcomes and response to treatment in a prospective cohort of 352 patients: differences between women and men in relation to the ACE gene polymorphism. Gruppo Italiano di Studi Epidemologici in Nefrologia (Gisen)

In the Ramipril Efficacy in Nephropathy study, ramipril decreased the rate of GFR decline (deltaGFR) and progression to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in 352 patients with proteinuric chronic nephropathies. This study investigated whether in these patients disease outcome and response to treatment were affected by gender or insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene. deltaGFR (0.43 +/- 0.05 versus 0.48 +/- 0.08 ml/min per 1.73 m2) and incidence of ESRD (23 and 22%, respectively) were comparable in male and female patients. However, compared to conventional treatment, ramipril decreased deltaGFR (-52% versus -19%) and progression to ESRD (-74% versus -40%) more effectively in women than in men. Thus, the relative risk (95% confidence interval [CI]) of events (ESRD) between conventional and ramipril treatment was 5.52 (1.59 to 19.17, P = 0.003) in women, but only 1.80 (1.08 to 2.97, P = 0.02) in men. This gender-related effect of ramipril was associated with more reduction in proteinuria (-7.8 +/- 4.2% versus -21.9 +/- 5.7%, P = 0.05) and was still evident even after correction for potentially confounding factors such as baseline GFR, daily sodium intake, ramipril dose, BP control, and concomitant treatment with diuretics or dihydropyridinic calcium channel blockers (adjusted RR [95% CI]: women, 5.07 [1.26 to 20.38], P = 0.02; men, 1.44 [0.85 to 2.44], P = 0.17). Ramipril uniformly decreased deltaGFR and incidence of ESRD in women with either DD (-39% and - 100%) or II + ID (-71% and -82%) genotype, and in men (-25% and -50%) with the DD genotype, but had no beneficial effect in men with the II + ID genotype (+18% and +34%). Thus, the relative risk of events (ESRD) between conventional and ramipril-treated men was higher in subjects with the DD genotype (1.85; 0.69 to 4.94) and lower in those with the II +/- ID genotype (0.71; 0.28 to 1.80). Again, in parallel with deltaGFR and events, proteinuria decreased in women with DD (-23.3 +/-8.0%) or II + ID (-16.0 +/- 9.5%) genotype and in men with the DD genotype (-14.8 +/- 7.0%), but did not change in men with II + ID genotype (+ 1.0 +/- 7.8%). Of note, the ACE genotype-related effect of ramipril was still evident even after correction for the above potentially confounding factors (adjusted RR [95% CI]: DD, 2.52 [0.83 to 7.63], P = 0.10; II + ID, 0.35 [0.12 to 1.01], P = 0.05). Thus, among patients with chronic proteinuric nephropathies, men are at increased risk of progression due to their lower response to ACE inhibitor treatment. ACE inhibition is uniformly renoprotective in women regardless of the ACE polymorphism, and in men with the DD genotype, but is virtually devoid of beneficial effects in men with the II or ID genotype. This information may help to guide therapeutic interventions in clinical practice and to interpret the results of prospective trials in chronic renal disease.     

Renoprotective effects of losartan in diabetic nephropathy: interaction with ACE insertion/deletion genotype?

BACKGROUND: The beneficial short- and long-term renoprotective effects of angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition are lower in albuminuric diabetic patients homozygous for the deletion compared to the insertion polymorphism of the ACE gene. In an attempt to overcome this interaction, we evaluated the short-term renoprotective effect in diabetic nephropathy of the angiotensin II receptor antagonist losartan in patients homozygous for the insertion or the deletion allele. METHODS: Fifty-four hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy homozygous for the insertion (I; N = 26) or the deletion (D; N = 28) allele of the ACE/ID polymorphism were included. After four weeks of washout, the patients received losartan 50 mg daily followed by 100 mg in two treatment periods each lasting two months. Patients and investigators were blinded to ACE genotypes. At baseline and in the end of the treatment periods, 24-hour blood pressure, albuminuria and glomerular filtration rate values were determined. RESULTS: At baseline, blood pressure, albuminuria and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) values were similar in the two genotype groups [II vs. DD, 1134 (238 to 5302) vs. 1451 (227 to 8129) mg/24 h, median (range); 156/82 (17/9) vs. 153/80 (17/11) mm Hg, mean (SD); and 86 (22) vs. 88 (24) mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively]. Both doses of losartan significantly lowered blood pressure, albuminuria, and GFR (P < 0.05 vs. baseline). Losartan 100 mg was more effective than 50 mg in reducing albuminuria, 51% (95% CI; 40 to 61) versus 33% (23 to 42), respectively (P < 0.01). No differences in the impact of losartan between the II and DD groups were observed: Losartan 100 mg lowered systolic/diastolic blood pressure by 12/6 and 10/4 mm Hg, whereas albuminuria decreased by 55% (35 to 68) and 46% (28 to 61), in the II and DD groups, respectively (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that losartan offers similar short-term renoprotective and blood pressure lowering effects in albuminuric hypertensive type 1 diabetic patients with the ACE II and DD genotypes. However, the long-term renoprotective effects remain to be evaluated.     

Continuum of renoprotection with losartan at all stages of type 2 diabetic nephropathy: a post hoc analysis of the RENAAL trial results

Renin angiotensin system inhibitor therapy is seldom offered to individuals who have diabetes and advanced chronic kidney disease because of safety concerns. In this post hoc, secondary analysis of the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) trial, angiotensin antagonism risk/benefit profile was assessed in 1513 individuals with type 2 diabetes and overt nephropathy. Incidence of ESRD, hospitalizations for heart failure, withdrawals for adverse events, and proteinuria during losartan or conventional treatment were compared within three tertiles of baseline serum creatinine concentration (highest, 2.1 to 3.6 mg/dl; middle, 1.6 to 2.0 mg/dl; lowest, 0.9 to 1.6 mg/dl). Losartan decreased the risk of ESRD by 24.6, 26.3, and 35.3% in highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, respectively. For every 100 patients with serum creatinine >2.0, 1.6 to 2.0, or <1.6 mg/dl, respectively, 4 yr of losartan therapy was estimated to save 18.9, 8.4, and 2.9 ESRD events and US$1,502,855, US$1,021,770, and US$528,591 costs for renal replacement therapy. Losartan also decreased the hospitalizations for heart failure by 50.2 and 45.1, in the highest and middle tertile, respectively. Withdrawals for adverse events other than heart failure were comparable between tertiles and treatment groups. Proteinuria decreased more on losartan than on placebo in all tertiles (highest, 24 versus -8%; middle, 16 versus -8%; lowest, 15 versus -10%). In proteinuric individuals with type 2 diabetes, losartan therapy reduced ESRD and hospitalizations for heart failure and was well tolerated at all levels of renal function. Angiotensin II antagonism is a suitable and well-tolerated treatment for individuals with type 2 diabetes even with GFR levels approaching renal replacement therapy.     

Treatment of type 2 diabetic patients with kidney disease with AT1-receptor antagonists: lessons from recent trials

Background. As the incidences of type 2 diabetes (non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus; NIDDM) and associated nephropathy increase worldwide at epidemic rates, the occurrence of serious renal outcomes such as end-stage renal disease has become a critical burden to patients and health care systems. Methods. The Irbesartan Diabetic Nephropathy Trial (IDNT), Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL), and Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension (LIFE) trials are reviewed. Results. In the IDNT trial, treatment with irbesartan significantly reduced the composite primary endpoint [doubling of serum creatinine (SCr), end-stage renal disease (ESRD; dialysis, transplantation, or SCr ≥ 6 mg/dl), or death] by 20% compared with placebo (P = 0.02), and by 23% compared with amlodipine (P = 0.006). In the RENAAL study, treatment with losartan resulted in a significant risk reduction of 16% in the primary composite endpoint [doubling of SCr, ESRD (dialysis or transplantation), or death]; P = 0.02. In the diabetic subgroup of LIFE, losartan reduced the risk of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality by 24% (P = 0.031). The risk of cardiovascular mortality was 37% lower in the losartan group than in the atenolol group (P = 0.028). These benefits in IDNT, RENAAL, and LIFE appeared to be beyond the blood pressure effect. Conclusions. The findings from recent clinical trials support the use of angiotensin receptor antagonists in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes, and have shown a significant reduction in the progression towards ESRD (losartan) and proteinuria (losartan, irbesartan), effects that were independent of blood pressure lowering achieved with these agents. Reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality have also been shown in a trial with losartan in diabetics. Collectively, these studies will have worldwide beneficial impact on the treatment of this devastating disease. Received: September 2, 2002 / Accepted: October 23, 2002 Correspondence to:W.F. Keane     

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.     

Enhanced responses of blood pressure, renal function, and aldosterone to angiotensin I in the DD genotype are blunted by low sodium intake

Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) activity is increased in the DD genotype, but the functional significance for renal function is unknown. Blunted responses of BP and proteinuria to ACE inhibition among DD renal patients during periods of high sodium intake were reported. It was therefore hypothesized that sodium status affects the phenotype in the ACE I/D polymorphism. The effects of angiotensin I (AngI) and AngII among 27 healthy subjects, with both low (50 mmol sodium/d) and liberal (200 mmol sodium/d) sodium intakes, were studied. Baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP) values, renal hemodynamic parameters, and renin-angiotensin system parameters were similar for all genotypes with either sodium intake level. With liberal sodium intake, the increases in MAP, renal vascular resistance, and aldosterone levels during AngI infusion (8 ng/kg per min) were significantly higher for the DD genotype, compared with the ID and II genotypes (all parameters presented as percent changes +/- 95% confidence intervals), with mean MAP increases of 22 +/- 2% (DD genotype), 13 +/- 5% (ID genotype), and 12 +/- 6% (II genotype) (P < 0.05), mean increases in renal vascular resistance of 100.1 +/- 19.7% (DD genotype), 73.0 +/- 16.3% (ID genotype), and 63.2 +/- 16.9% (II genotype) (P < 0.05), and increases in aldosterone levels of 650 +/- 189% (DD genotype), 343 +/- 71% (ID genotype), and 254 +/- 99% (II genotype) (P < 0.05). Also, the decrease in GFR was more pronounced for the DD genotype, with mean decreases of 17.9 +/- 4.7% (DD genotype), 8.8 +/- 3.4% (ID genotype), and 6.4 +/- 5.9% (II genotype) (P < 0.05). The effective renal plasma flow, plasma AngII concentration, and plasma renin activity values were similar for the genotypes. In contrast, with low sodium intake, the responses to AngI were similar for all genotypes. The responses to AngII were also similar for all genotypes, with either sodium intake level. In conclusion, the responses of MAP, renal hemodynamic parameters, and aldosterone concentrations to AngI are enhanced for the DD genotype with liberal but not low sodium intake. These results support the presence of gene-environment interactions between ACE genotypes and dietary sodium intake.     

ACE gene insertion/deletion polymorphism and renal scarring in children with urinary tract infections

Urinary tract infection is a common bacterial disease that presents during childhood and may lead to renal scarring. Several studies have shown a strong association between the angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) deletion polymorphism and renal scarring in children with vesicoureteric reflux (VUR). The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible correlation between the ACE deletion polymorphism and renal scarring in 186 children with urinary tract infection (UTI), of whom 90 were renal scar positive and 96 were renal scar negative. The control group consisted of 129 children with no UTI. Renal scars were diagnosed by means of ^99mTc-dimercapto-succinic acid scans, and ACE genotypes were determined as II, ID, and DD by PCR analyses. The ACE genotype distribution was 10% II, 67% ID, and 23% DD in the renal scar-positive group, 18% ΙΙ, 42% ID, and 40% DD in the renal scar-negative group, and 22% II, 47% ID, and 31% DD in the control group. No correlation was found between the DD genotype and renal scar formation in children with UTI. The same results were obtained following strafication of the patients by VUR and age of the first urinary tract infection. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that the DD genotype is not an independent risk factor for renal scarring in children with UTI.     

Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy by lisinopril after renal transplantation: role of ACE gene polymorphism

BACKGROUND: Cardiac complications are the main cause of death in renal transplantation (RT), and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) may play an important role in these patients. The unfavorable genotype of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been associated with cardiovascular disease, including LVH. ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) reduce LVH, but little is known about the effects of ACEIs on LVH in RT patients with different insertion/deletion (I/D) genotypes of the ACE gene. METHODS: We prospectively studied 57 stable nondiabetic RT patients with hypertension and echocardiographic LVH as well as a functional graft for 69.5 +/- 5.6 months. Patients randomly received either lisinopril 10 mg/day (group A, N = 29; 5 were excluded due to reversible acute renal failure) or placebo (group B, N = 28) for 12 months. Echocardiography (M-mode, 2-B, and color flow Doppler) was performed at baseline and 6 and 12 months later by the same examiner without previous knowledge of the genetic typing. The ACE genotype (I or D alleles) was ascertained by polymerase chain reaction (PCR; group A, DD = 10 and ID/II = 14; group B, DD = 15 and ID/II = 13). RESULTS: All patients maintained a good renal function (serum creatinine <2.5 mg/dL) during the follow-up and both groups received a similar proportion of antihypertensive drugs (beta-blockers 83 vs. 79%; Ca antagonists 66 vs. 68%; alpha1-adrenoreceptor antagonists 50 vs. 67%) during the study. As expected, mean arterial blood pressure and hemoglobin levels showed a higher percentage reduction in group A versus group B (-4 +/- 2.8 vs. 2.1 +/- 2.6%, P = 0.07, and -11.5 +/- 1.5 vs. -0.5 +/- 2.3%, P < 0.01, respectively). Group A patients showed a significantly higher decrement in LV mass index (LVMI) than group B at the end of follow-up, after adjusting for age, baseline LVMI, time after grafting and changes in systolic blood pressure, renal function, and hemoglobin levels (group A, -9.5 +/- 3.5% vs. group B, 3 +/- 3.2%, P < 0.05). As a result, 46% of group A and only 7% of group B patients showed a reduction of LVMI >/=15% (P < 0.01). The beneficial effect of lisinopril on LVMI reduction was more evident in DD patients (placebo DD, 8.4 +/- 4.1% vs. lisinopril DD, -7.2 +/- 5.3, P < 0.05), and a trend was observed in patients with other genotypes (placebo ID/II, 2.8 +/- 5.4% vs. lisinopril ID/II, -11.4 +/- 5%, P = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Lisinopril decreases LVM in renal transplant patients with hypertension and LVH, and the ACE gene polymorphism may predict the beneficial effect of this therapy. This finding may be important in targeting prophylactic interventions in this population.     

Angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion/deletion polymorphism and prognosis of IgA nephropathy

BACKGROUND/AIM: Well-known factors for a poor prognosis in IgA nephropathy (IgAN) are hypertension, proteinuria, and renal insufficiency at the time of diagnosis. Also hypertriglyceridemia and hyperuricemia seem to play a role in the progression of IgAN. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene I/D polymorphism has been associated with cardiovascular diseases and with progression of IgAN. We, therefore, investigated the contribution of ACE gene I/D polymorphism in the prognosis of IgAN and its association with the other risk factors affecting the prognosis. METHODS: A total of 168 patients with IgAN were followed up for 6-17 (median 11) years from renal biopsy with respect to progression of renal disease defined as elevation of serum creatinine above 125 microM (1.4 mg/dl) in men or 105 microM (1.2 mg/dl) in women and over 20% from the baseline level. In addition to serum creatinine, the urinary protein excretion was evaluated at the time of renal biopsy and at the assessment visit at the end of the follow-up period. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 26 (15%) patients showed progression of renal disease. Patients with ACE genotype II had a more favorable course than those with genotypes ID or DD. Although there were no significant differences among the ACE genotypes with respect to proteinuria > or =1 g/24 h at the time of renal biopsy, proteinuria > or =1 g/24 h was more frequent in patients with genotypes ID or DD than in those with genotype II at the end of the follow-up period. No associations were found between hypertension, serum lipids or serum urate, and ACE genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that patients with ACE genotype II have a more favorable prognosis than those with genotypes ID/DD. Secondly, proteinuria (> or =1 g/24 h) found in patients with genotype II at diagnosis may improve, while in patients with genotypes ID/DD it is a more constant feature.     

The ACE insertion/deletion polymorphism has no influence on progression of renal function loss in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) shows a variable clinical course that is not fully explained by the genetic heterogeneity of this disease. We looked for a possible genetic modifier, the ACE I/D polymorphism, and its influence on progression towards end-stage renal failure (ESRF). METHODS: Forty-nine ADPKD patients who reached ESRF <40 years, and 21 PKD1 patients who reached ESRF > 60 years or were not on dialysis at 60 years of age were recruited. Clinical data were provided by questionnaires. Blood was collected for the determination of the ACE insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism genotype. The ACE genotype was also determined in a general, control PKD1 group (n=59). RESULTS: Patients who reached ESRF <40 years had significantly more early onset hypertension than patients reaching ESRF >60 years (80% vs 21%; P<0.001). The ACE genotype distribution showed no differences between the groups of the rapid progressors (DD 20%, ID 56%, II 24%), the slow progressors (DD 29%, ID 52%, II 19%) and the general PKD1 control population (DD 31%, ID 47%, II 22%). CONCLUSION: There is no relationship between progression towards ESRD and the ACE I/D polymorphism in ADPKD patients.     

ACE gene polymorphism and disease progression of IgA nephropathy in Asians in Singapore

The deletion polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been considered as a risk factor for IgA nephropathy and for its progression to end-stage renal failure. However, results from various studies are conflicting. We had genotyped the ACE gene in 100 patients with IgA nephropathy, 32 of whom were in end-stage renal failure and in 90 normal adult subjects. All DD cases were subjected to confirmation with a second PCR, performed with the insert-specific forward primer. Similar genotype frequencies were obtained for the 90 normal control subjects (II: 47%, ID: 44%, DD: 9%); for the 68 patients not in end-stage renal failure (ESRF) (II: 47%, ID: 46%, DD: 7%) and for the 32 patients with ESRF (II: 53%, ID: 38%, DD: 9%). The genotype frequencies in all 3 series are in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. These results suggest that ACE gene polymorphism is not a risk factor for IgA nephropathy and is not a predictor for its progression. Definitive proof of association between ACE gene polymorphism and progression in IgA nephropathy will require a prospective study, controlled for important risk factors, with adequate patient numbers and facility for confirming DD genotypes.     

The influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme gene of donor and recipient on the function of transplanted kidney

One of the genes that is supposed to influence renal graft function is the one encoding angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE). It shows polymorphism in the presence (I allele) or absence (D allele) of a 287-base pair fragment. The question arises whether ACE gene polymorphism of the recipient and donor influences renal graft survival. This prospective study included 94 recipients who underwent ACE genotyping (DD, DI, II) and measured their creatinine clearance after cimetidine administration. These factors were correlated with the occurrence of acute or chronic rejection and of pharmacologic treatment of hypertension. In 27 recipients it was possible to obtain the ACE genotype of the donor. Among the recipients, 36 proved to be DD genotype, 38 ID, and 20 II. Among the donors, 10 proved to be DD genotype, 10 ID, and 7 II. The changes in creatinine clearance after cimetidine administration were not significantly different among any of the genotype subgroups. Significantly higher creatinine concentrations were found among recipients with II genotype compared to the combined group of ID and DD among patients not treated with ACE inhibitors, but not among those receiving ACE I after kidney transplantation. No differences were found in the frequency of rejection episodes among the subgroups with different ACE genotypes. No significant influence of donor ACE genotype on renal graft function was observed. In summary, the I/D genotype was not an independent prognostic factor for renal graft survival in the first 4 years after transplantation. Possibly the use of ACE I alters the influence of genotype on some parameters.     

The effect of losartan on hemoglobin concentration and renal outcome in diabetic nephropathy of type 2 diabetes

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers can decrease hemoglobin, causing anemia and this may be an independent risk factor for chronic kidney disease progression. We studied the relationship between a decline in hemoglobin and outcome in 1513 patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease by a post hoc analysis of the RENAAL Study (Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) with an average follow-up of 3.4 years. The relationship between baseline and year-1 hemoglobin and treatment on end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and ESRD or death was evaluated using multivariate Cox models (covariates: baseline hemoglobin, proteinuria, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and year-1 hemoglobin). Compared with placebo, losartan treatment was associated with a significant decrease of hemoglobin, with the largest between-group difference at 1 year. After adjustment, there were significant relative risk reductions for losartan compared with placebo for ESRD and for ESRD or death regardless of the baseline hemoglobin even in those patients with a baseline hemoglobin below 120 g l(-1). Hence, the renoprotective properties of losartan were maintained despite a significant lowering of the hemoglobin concentration.     

ACE DD genotype is more susceptible than ACE II and ID genotypes to the antiproteinuric effect of ACE inhibitors in patients with proteinuric non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: ACE polymorphism, especially genotype DD or D allele, may be involved in the progression of diabetic nephropathy. It may also have different effects on the reduction of proteinuria by ACE inhibitors in patients with proteinuria. We investigated the relationship between ACE gene polymorphism and antiproteinuric effect of ACE inhibitors (Benazepril 10 mg/day or Perindopril 4 mg/day) in 83 NIDDM patients with overt proteinuria (urinary protein excretion over 500 mg/day). METHODS: We recruited NIDDM patients with overt proteinuria from our renal clinic. Before entry, previously used ACE inhibitors were withdrawn for at least 2 weeks and baseline proteinuria and albuminuria were measured. Patients were classified into three groups in accordance with ACE genotypes (17 DD; 33 ID; 33 II) and prospectively followed up for 3 months. Various clinical parameters including age, DM duration, body mass index (BMI), 24-h urine sodium, protein and albumin, BUN, serum creatinine, creatinine clearance (Ccr), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and HbA(1c) were measured in the pre- and post-treatment periods. ACE genotypes were determined by polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinical parameters such as age, DM duration, BMI, BUN, serum creatinine, Ccr, MAP, HbA(1c), and daily urinary excretion of sodium, protein and albumin among three groups (P>0.05). After the 3-month treatment period using ACE inhibitors, there were no significant differences in the reduction of MAP and Ccr among the three groups (P>0.05). However, the percentage reductions in urinary excretion of protein and albumin for DD genotype were significantly higher than in ID and II genotypes (50.9+/-19.2% vs 19.2+/-16.0%, 20.2+/-20.4%; 52.6+/-23.6% vs. 13.5+/-51.8%, 24.8+/-23.9%, P<0.05). There were no statistically significant correlations between the levels of baseline proteinuria and albuminuria and the magnitudes of the reduction of proteinuria and albuminuria under ACE inhibition (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the ACE gene polymorphism might have a role in determining the responsiveness to the antiproteinuric effect of ACE inhibition in proteinuric NIDDM patients.     

Renal risk and renoprotection among ethnic groups with type 2 diabetic nephropathy: a post hoc analysis of RENAAL

Type 2 diabetes is becoming the leading cause of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) worldwide. Prevalence of ESRD and the antihypertensive response to renin-angiotensin system intervention are suggested to vary among different ethnicities. The Reduction in Endpoints in Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study, which included different ethnic groups, demonstrated a renoprotective effect of losartan. A post hoc analysis from RENAAL was performed where we examined in each ethnic group the ESRD risk, identified independent predictors for ESRD, effect of degree of baseline albuminuria, effect of 6-month antiproteinuric response to therapy on ESRD, and renoprotective effect of losartan assessed by albuminuria reduction and ESRD. Baseline albuminuria was the strongest predictor for ESRD in every ethnic group. Albuminuria reduction was associated with reduced risk of ESRD while losartan reduced albuminuria in every ethnic group. When accounting for independent predictors of ESRD, losartan exhibited renoprotection in all ethnic groups. In this type 2 diabetic population with nephropathy, baseline albuminuria is the predominant risk parameter for ESRD; early antiproteinuric effect of losartan predicts long-term renoprotection; and losartan appears to be renoprotective in all ethnic groups. Since the RENAAL study was not powered to determine ethnic responses, these results underline the need for prospective trials where the aim is renal protection among different ethnic groups.     

Losartan in patients with type 2 diabetes and proteinuria: observations from the RENAAL Study

BACKGROUND: Recently, the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) Study demonstrated the benefit of losartan in reducing renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and proteinuria. Additional questions concerning the reduction of proteinuria and its relationship to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) as well as cardio-renal outcomes and the safety and tolerability of losartan remain to be addressed. METHODS: Three analyses were performed: (a) the impact of losartan on the relationship between the reduction of proteinuria and ESRD; (b) a time-to-event analysis of the cardio-renal composite endpoint of ESRD, myocardial infarction, stroke or all-cause death; and (c) additional analyses of adverse events, particularly in patients with serum creatinine >or=2.0 mg/dL. RESULTS: After adjusting the values for proteinuria over the entire study, the reduction of proteinuria accounted for approximately half of the treatment effect of losartan on the risk reduction for ESRD. In addition, losartan was associated with a 21% risk reduction for the composite cardio-renal outcome (P=0.003). The addition of losartan to a conventional antihypertensive regimen did not increase the overall incidence of adverse events, regardless of severity of renal impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Losartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiorenal outcomes and was well tolerated by patients, including those with serum creatinine levels >or=2.0 g/dL. In addition, although this study shows that the reduction of proteinuria does not completely explain the impact of intervention on outcomes such as ESRD, reduction of proteinuria must remain an important consideration when treating patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. However, the reduction of outcomes such as ESRD should remain the goal of therapy when evaluating renal protection in this patient population.