Double-blind, crossover, comparative study of doxazosin and enalapril in the treatment of hypertension in renal transplant patients under cyclosporine immunosuppression

Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

The comparative effects of specific blood pressure (BP) lowering treatments on patient-important outcomes following kidney transplantation are uncertain. Our 2009 Cochrane review found that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) improved graft function and prevented graft loss, while the evidence for other BP-lowering treatments was limited. This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different classes and combinations of antihypertensive drugs in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We contacted the Information Specialist and searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 3 July 2024 using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register were identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating any BP-lowering agent in recipients of a functioning kidney transplant for at least two weeks were eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risks of bias and extracted data. Treatment estimates were summarised using the random-effects model and expressed as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) processes. The primary outcomes included all-cause death, graft loss, and kidney function.

MAIN RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies (8706 participants) were included. One study evaluated treatment in children. The overall risk of bias was unclear to high across all domains. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, CCBs probably reduce all-cause death (23 studies, 3327 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) and graft loss (24 studies, 3577 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may make little or no difference to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (11 studies, 2250 participants: MD 1.89 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -0.70 to 4.48; I2 = 48%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (13 studies, 906 participants: RR 10.8, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). CCBs may reduce systolic BP (SBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -5.83 mm Hg, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.42; I2 = 13%; low certainty evidence) and diastolic BP (DBP) (3 studies, 329 participants: MD -3.98 mm Hg, 95% CI -5.98 to -1.99; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). CCBs have uncertain effects on proteinuria. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (7 studies, 702 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.21; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), graft loss (6 studies, 718 participants: RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGFR (4 studies, 509 participants: MD -2.46 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -7.66 to 2.73; I2 = 64%; low certainty evidence) and acute rejection (4 studies, 388 participants: RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.04; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ACEi may reduce proteinuria (5 studies, 441 participants: MD -0.33 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.01; I2 = 67%; low certainty evidence) but had uncertain effects on SBP and DBP. Compared to placebo or standard care alone, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may make little or no difference to all-cause death (6 studies, 1041 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), eGRF (5 studies, 300 participants: MD -1.91 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI -6.20 to 2.38; I2 = 57%; low certainty evidence), and acute rejection (4 studies, 323 participants: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.29; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). ARBs may reduce graft loss (6 studies, 892 participants: RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence), SBP (10 studies, 1239 participants: MD -3.73 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.02 to -0.44; I2 = 63%; moderate certainty evidence) and DBP (9 studies, 1086 participants: MD -2.75 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.32 to -1.18; I2 = 47%; moderate certainty evidence), but has uncertain effects on proteinuria. The effects of CCBs, ACEi or ARB compared to placebo or standard care alone on cardiovascular outcomes (including fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke) or other adverse events were uncertain. The comparative effects of ACEi plus ARB dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone were rarely evaluated. Head-to-head comparisons of ACEi, ARB or thiazide versus CCB, ACEi versus ARB, CCB or ACEi versus alpha- or beta-blockers, or ACEi plus CCB dual therapy versus ACEi or CCB monotherapy were scarce. No studies reported outcome data for cancer or life participation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For kidney transplant recipients, the use of CCB therapy to reduce BP probably reduces death and graft loss compared to placebo or standard care alone, while ARB may reduce graft loss. The effects of ACEi and ARB compared to placebo or standard care on other patient-centred outcomes were uncertain. The effects of dual therapy, alpha-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists compared to placebo or standard care alone and the comparative effects of different treatments were uncertain.

Comparative effectiveness of different antihypertensive agents in kidney transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare benefits and harms of different antihypertensive drug classes in kidney transplant recipients, as post-transplant hypertension (HTN) associates with increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality.

Methods

The Ovid-MEDLINE, PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing all main antihypertensive agents versus placebo/no treatment, routine treatment.

Results

The search identified 71 RCTs. Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (26 trials) reduced the risk for graft loss {risk ratio [RR] 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38–0.89]}, increased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) [mean difference (MD) 3.08 mL/min (95% CI 0.38–5.78)] and reduced blood pressure (BP). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (13 trials) reduced the risk for graft loss [RR 0.62 (95% CI 0.40–0.96)] but decreased renal function and increased the risk for hyperkalaemia. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (10 trials) did not modify the risk of death, graft loss and non-fatal CV events and increased the risk for hyperkalaemia. When pooling ACEI and ARB data, the risk for graft failure was lower in renin–angiotensin system (RAS) blockade as compared with control treatments. In direct comparison with ACEIs or ARBs (11 trials), CCBs increased GFR [MD 11.07 mL/min (95% CI 6.04–16.09)] and reduced potassium levels but were not more effective in reducing BP. There are few available data on mortality, graft loss and rejection. Very few studies performed comparisons with other active drugs.

Conclusions

CCBs could be the preferred first-step antihypertensive agents in kidney transplant patients, as they improve graft function and reduce graft loss. No definite patient or graft survival benefits were associated with RAS inhibitor use over conventional treatment.

Assessment and management of hypertension in transplant patients

Hypertension in renal transplant recipients is common and ranges from 50% to 80% in adult recipients and from 47% to 82% in pediatric recipients. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality and shortened allograft survival are important consequences of inadequate control of hypertension. In this review, we examine the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management considerations of post-transplant hypertension. Donor and recipient factors, acute and chronic allograft injury, and immunosuppressive medications may each explain some of the pathophysiology of post-transplant hypertension. As observed in other patient cohorts, renal artery stenosis and adrenal causes of hypertension may be important contributing factors. Notably, BP treatment goals for renal transplant recipients remain an enigma because there are no adequate randomized controlled trials to support a benefit from targeting lower BP levels on graft and patient survival. The potential for drug-drug interactions and altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the different antihypertensive medications need to be carefully considered. To date, no specific antihypertensive medications have been shown to be more effective than others at improving either patient or graft survival. Identifying the underlying pathophysiology and subsequent individualization of treatment goals are important for improving long-term patient and graft outcomes in these patients.

Antihypertensives for kidney transplant recipients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

In nontransplant populations, effects of different antihypertensive drug classes vary. Relative effects in kidney transplant recipients are uncertain. We performed a systematic review including random effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. We identified 60 trials, enrolling 3802 recipients. Twenty-nine trials (2262 patients) compared calcium channel blockers (CCB) with placebo or no treatment, 10 trials (445 patients) compared angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) with placebo or no treatment, and seven studies (405 patients) compared CCB with ACEi. CCB compared with placebo or no treatment (plus additional agents in either arm as required) reduced graft loss (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.57-0.99) and improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR; mean difference [MD] 4.5 mL/min, 95% CI 2.2-6.7). Data on ACEi versus placebo or no treatment were inconclusive for GFR (MD -8.1 mL/min, 95% CI -18.6-2.4) and inconsistent for graft loss, precluding meta-analysis. In direct comparison with CCB, ACEi decreased GFR (MD 11.5 mL/min, 95% CI 7.2-15.8), proteinuria (MD 0.28 g/day, 95% CI 0.10-0.47), hemoglobin (MD 11.5 g/L, 95% CI 7.2-15.8), and increased hyperkalemia (RR 3.7, 95% CI 1.9-7.7). Graft loss data were inconclusive (RR 7.4, 95% CI 0.4-140). These data suggest that CCB may be preferred as first-line agents for hypertensive kidney transplant recipients.

Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

In some nontransplant populations, effects of different antihypertensive drug classes vary. Relative effects in kidney transplant recipients are uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess comparative effects of different classes of antihypertensive agents in kidney transplant recipients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, conference proceedings and reference lists of identified studies were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of any antihypertensive agent applied to kidney transplant recipients for at least two weeks were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data was extracted by two investigators independently. Study quality, transplant outcomes and other patient centred outcomes were assessed using random effects meta-analysis. Risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Stratified analyses and meta-regression were used to investigate heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 60 studies, enrolling 3802 recipients. Twenty-nine studies (2262 participants) compared calcium channel blockers (CCB) to placebo/no treatment, 10 studies (445 participants) compared angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) to placebo/no treatment and seven studies (405 participants) compared CCB to ACEi. CCB compared to placebo/no treatment (plus additional agents in either arm as required) reduced graft loss (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) and improved glomerular filtration rate (GFR), (MD, 4.45 mL/min, 95% CI 2.22 to 6.68). Data on ACEi versus placebo/no treatment were inconclusive for GFR (MD -8.07 mL/min, 95% CI -18.57 to 2.43), and variable for graft loss, precluding meta-analysis. In direct comparison with CCB, ACEi decreased GFR (MD -11.48 mL/min, 95% CI -5.75 to -7.21), proteinuria (MD -0.28 g/24 h, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10), haemoglobin (MD -12.96 g/L, 95% CI -5.72 to -10.21) and increased hyperkalaemia (RR 3.74, 95% CI 1.89 to 7.43). Graft loss data were inconclusive (RR 7.37, 95% CI 0.39 to 140.35). Other drug comparisons were compared in small numbers of participants and studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that CCB may be preferred as first line agents for hypertensive kidney transplant recipients. ACEi have some detrimental effects in kidney transplant recipients. More high quality studies reporting patient centred outcomes are required.

Renin angiotensin system blockade in kidney transplantation: a systematic review of the evidence

ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) slow the progression of renal disease in non-transplant patients. A systematic review of randomized trials (n = 21 trials with 1549 patients) was conducted to determine the effect of ACE-inhibitor or ARB use following kidney transplantation. With a median follow-up of 27 months, ACE-inhibitor or ARB use was associated with a significant decrease in glomerular filtration rate (-5.8 mL/min; 95% CI -10.6 to -0.99). ACE-inhibitor or ARB use resulted in a lower hematocrit (-3.5%; 95% CI -6.1 to -0.95), reduction in proteinuria (-0.47 gm/d; 95% CI -0.86 to -0.08) but no change in the serum potassium (0.18 mmol/L; 95% CI -0.03 to 0.40). ACE-inhibitor or ARB use results in clinically important reductions in proteinuria, hematocrit and glomerular filtration rate in renal transplant recipients, but there are insufficient data to determine the effect on patient or graft survival. Randomized trials of sufficient power and duration that examine these hard outcomes should be conducted. Until such trials are completed, this study provides quantitative estimates of the risks and benefits of ACE-inhibitor or ARB use that can be used by clinicians considering prescribing these medications to kidney transplant recipients or to researchers designing future trials.

Clinical practice guidelines for managing dyslipidemias in kidney transplant patients: a report from the Managing Dyslipidemias in Chronic Kidney Disease Work Group of the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative

The incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is very high in patients with chronic kidney (CKD) disease and in kidney transplant recipients. Indeed, available evidence for these patients suggests that the 10-year cumulative risk of coronary heart disease is at least 20%, or roughly equivalent to the risk seen in patients with previous CVD. Recently, the National Kidney Foundation's Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) published guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with CKD, including transplant patients. It was the conclusion of this Work Group that the National Cholesterol Education Program Guidelines are generally applicable to patients with CKD, but that there are significant differences in the approach and treatment of dyslipidemias in patients with CKD compared with the general population. In the present document we present the guidelines generated by this workgroup as they apply to kidney transplant recipients. Evidence from the general population indicates that treatment of dyslipidemias reduces CVD, and evidence in kidney transplant patients suggests that judicious treatment can be safe and effective in improving dyslipidemias. Dyslipidemias are very common in CKD and in transplant patients. However, until recently there have been no adequately powered, randomized, controlled trials examining the effects of dyslipidemia treatment on CVD in patients with CKD. Since completion of the K/DOQI guidelines on dyslipidemia in CKD, the results of the Assessment of Lescol in Renal Transplantation (ALERT) Study have been presented and published. Based on information from randomized trials conducted in the general population and the single study conducted in kidney transplant patients, these guidelines, which are a modified version of the K/DOQI dyslipidemia guidelines, were developed to aid clinicians in the management of dyslipidemias in kidney transplant patients. These guidelines are divided into four sections. The first section (Introduction) provides the rationale for the guidelines, and describes the target population, scope, intended users, and methods. The second section presents guidelines on the assessment of dyslipidemias (guidelines 1-3), while the third section offers guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias (guidelines 4-5). The key guideline statements are supported mainly by data from studies in the general population, but there is an urgent need for additional studies in CKD and in transplant patients. Therefore, the last section outlines recommendations for research.

Efficacy and safety of doxazosin GITS in hypertensive renal transplant patients: comparison of 8 and 4 mg

BACKGROUND

Hypertension (HT), a prevalent complication in renal transplant patient (RT), must be accurately treated because cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death and of chronic graft dysfunction. Sympathetic activity may contribute to HT in RT, yielding the rationale to suspect that doxazosin, an alpha1-adrenergic receptor inhibitor, may lower blood pressure (BP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of doxazosin GITS (4 and 8 mg) in RT.

METHODS

Twenty-three hypertensive RT received doxazosin 4 mg once daily for 4 weeks (W4) followed by a 4-week washout (W0) and 17/23 treated with doxazosin 8 mg for 4 more weeks (W8) due to persistent HT. All patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) after W0, W4, and W8. Laboratory tests were performed, adverse events recorded, and prostatic symptomatology examined. Statistical analysis included Saphiro-Wilks, Student t, ANOVA, Wilcoxon, or Friedman tests.

RESULTS

The systolic, diastolic, and mean BP were significantly lowered at W4 in awake (P<.001) and 24 hour period (P<.005) but not sleep recordings. Doxazosin 8 mg had no significant additional effect to lower BP at any period. Normotension was reached in 13% and 21.7% of patients at W4 and W8, respectively. Palpitations were the only reported adverse event after treatment (incidence similar to placebo). There was no significant change in the laboratory values.

CONCLUSIONS

Doxazosin (-4 mg) effectively decreased BP in awake and 24-hour periods without a significant improvement during sleep. A double dose of the drug added little benefit. Optimal BP was reached by an insufficient number of patients. Doxazosin proved to have a good tolerance and safe profile. This results suggest that doxazosin should be considered a good add-on treatment to other antihypertensive drugs in RT.

Doxazosin GITS trough to peak ratio and 24-hour blood pressure monitoring in the management of hypertension in renal transplant patients

We have studied 20 patients, 10 male, 10 female, mean age 52.5+/-10.9 years, who received a cadaver kidney transplant between June 1996 and January 1999. The patients presented with mild or moderate high BP and were treated on a maintained immunosuppression with an anti-calcineurin agent and steroids, associated or not to mycophenolate-mofetil. At baseline, a 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring was performed. General biochemical parameters were determined and doxazosin GITS (Gastro-Intestinal Therapeutic System) in a single dose of 4 mg/d was started. Doxazosin GITS was titrated four weeks after up to 8 mg/d if the BP was greater than 140/90 mm Hg. At week 12, biochemical analysis were repeated as well as the 24-hour BP monitoring and the T/P ratio was calculated.

RESULTS

The patients were divided in responders, T/P index >50%, n=10 or not-responders, T/P index <50%, n=10 patients). No differences in systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP(DBP), plasma creatinine or proteinuria were seen at base-line. DBP was lower in responders than in non-responders (P=ns). Doxazosin doses were 5.5+/-3 mg/d vs 5.8+/-3 and T/P ratio 0.70+/-0.13 vs 0.17+/-0.14, (P=.001). There were no variations in pl. t. cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose or uric acid.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment was safe and efficient, not increasing metabolic adverse effects. Doxazosin GITS is a safe agent which can reduce cardiovascular risk. In our patients, the good T/P ratio has been associated with a best diastolic BP control. This good profile should be taken into account for 24-hour BP control in hypertensive renal transplant patients.