Low dose angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition and glomerular permselectivity in renal transplant recipients

A retrospective study of canine idiopathic renal haematuria: clinical findings and outcome following medical treatment

OBJECTIVES

To characterise and document the progression of idiopathic renal haematuria in a large cohort of medically managed UK dogs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 41 client-owned dogs with confirmed (n=14), or suspected (n=27) idiopathic renal haematuria from 4 UK-based referral centres. Clinical findings and outcomes of dogs (2001 to 2018) were determined from the review of medical records and telephone follow-up.

RESULTS

Median survival time from diagnosis was long [1482 (152 to 1825) days] irrespective of treatment and clinical response. Only 1 case was euthanased due to idiopathic renal haematuria, and anaemia or azotaemia occurred infrequently. In total, 25 dogs received angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, of which 23 received benazepril [0.44 (0.19 to 0.82) mg/kg/24 hours], two received enalapril (0.40 and 0.78 mg/kg/24 hours) and one received telmisartan (1 mg/kg/24 hours). In cases with follow-up urinalyses, complete resolution of haematuria was documented in eight of 19 (42%) dogs following angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker treatment, with partial improvement in five of 19 (26%) and no improvement in six of 19 (31%). Conversely, of the two untreated dogs where outcome was available, one had partial improvement and the other had no improvement.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In this study, idiopathic renal haematuria was associated with a good prognosis and low complication rate. Resolution or improvement in haematuria occurred in both angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker-treated and untreated dogs, indicating that further studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these interventions.

The prevalence of immunologic injury in renal allograft recipients with de novo proteinuria

Post-transplant proteinuria is a common complication after renal transplantation; it is associated with reduced graft and recipient survival. However, the prevalence of histological causes has been reported with considerable variation. A clinico-pathological re-evaluation of post-transplant proteinuria is necessary, especially after dismissal of the term “chronic allograft nephropathy,” which had been considered to be an important cause of proteinuria. Moreover, urinary protein can promote interstitial inflammation in native kidney, whether this occurs in renal allograft remains unknown. Factors that affect the graft outcome in patients with proteinuria also remain unclear. Here we collected 98 cases of renal allograft recipients who developed proteinuria after transplant, histological features were characterized using Banff scoring system. Cox proportional hazard regression models were used for graft survival predictors. We found that transplant glomerulopathy was the leading (40.8%) cause of post-transplant proteinuria. Immunological causes, including transplant glomerulopathy, acute rejection, and chronic rejection accounted for the majority of all pathological causes of proteinuria. Nevertheless, almost all patients that developed proteinuria had immunological lesions in the graft, especially for interstitial inflammation. Intraglomerular C3 deposition was unexpectedly correlated with the severity of proteinuria. Moreover, the severity of interstitial inflammation was an independent risk factor for graft loss, while high level of hemoglobin was a protective factor for graft survival. This study revealed a predominance of immunological parameters in renal allografts with post-transplant proteinuria. These parameters not only correlate with the severity of proteinuria, but also with the outcome of the graft.

Proteinuria >0.5 g/d, a prevalent prognostic factor for patient and graft survival in kidney transplantation

Proteinuria >0.5 g/d (HP) and serum creatinine (Scr) >120 micromol/L (HSC) at three months, two and five yr were compared as prognostic factors in kidney transplantation. We retrospectively analyzed 454 first transplants (follow-up: 100 +/- 3.2 months). Donor/recipient age, sex, panel reactive antibody (PRA), HLA mismatches, cold ischemia time, delayed graft function, acute rejection, blood pressure and its treatment, diabetes and anti-calcineurin use were also evaluated. Cox proportional hazard regression with time-dependent covariates to control for potentially confounding factors was used to analyze survival. The Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimate for survival according to urine protein excretion (< or = or >0.5 g/d) or Scr (< or = or >120 micromol/L) along with the log-rank test for all comparisons were computed. Statistical significance was set with p-value < 0.05.

RESULTS

HSC is a prognostic factor of graft survival (HR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.98-3.10; p < 0.01) only at five yr, but it does not predict mortality at any period. HP at three months (HR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.70-2.43; p < 0.001) and at two yr 3.03 (2.54-3.51; p < 0.001) significantly predicts graft failure. HP at two yr is the prevailingly prognostic factor of patient survival in kidney transplantation (HR: 3.30; 95% CI: 1.94-5.62; p < 0.0001).

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.

Effects of Candesartan on Glomerular Hemodynamics and Permselectivity in Patients with Favorable Renal Allograft Function

BACKGROUND

Distinct effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers on glomerular perfusion and permselectivity are important determinants of the substances nephroprotective quality. In renal allograft recipients, however, specific effects of angiotensin antagonism on glomerular function have not been evaluated so far.

METHODS

Twenty patients with favorable allograft function were included into a prospective study within the first year after renal transplantation. Glomerular filtration rate, renal plasma flow, albuminuria, and the fractional clearances of neutral dextrans were determined at baseline and after 3 months of treatment with candesartan. Ten individuals after renal donation served as controls for the baseline evaluation.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, the allograft recipients had a higher renal-vascular resistance and a lower glomerular filtration rate. Albuminuria was significantly higher; however, the difference in the dextran sieving curve was not statistically significant. Apart from mild changes in biochemical parameters, the therapy with candesartan led to a rise in serum creatinine along with a nonsignificant drop in the glomerular filtration rate. There was a highly significant drop in filtration fraction and albuminuria. Glomerular permselectivity clearly improved for a range of dextran molecular diameters from 43 Angstrom up to 73 Angstrom.

CONCLUSION

A therapy with candesartan has distinct effects on glomerular function in patients after renal transplantation. A drop in filtration fraction along with an improvement in glomerular permselectivity and albuminuria point to a nephroprotective quality that should lead to a systematic clinical evaluation of candesartan even in patients with favorable renal allograft function.

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.

Early glomerular dysfunction in human renal allografts

BACKGROUND

The long-term outcome of renal allografts is characterized by a progressive deterioration of renal function and graft loss. Our aim was to determine early glomerular functional abnormalities, before they become clinically apparent.

METHODS

Glomerular hemodynamics and dextran sieving were characterized in 21 well-functioning cadaveric renal allograft recipients [normal glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and albumin excretion rate (AER), who also had a kidney biopsy with normal or minimal histological changes] and in 15 uninephrectomized kidney donors. Both groups were one to three years after transplantation or uninephrectomy.

RESULTS

The GFR and renal plasma flow (RPF) were similar in both groups (62 +/- 3 vs. 63 +/- 4, and 343 +/- 26 vs. 334 +/- 21 mL/min/1.73 m2 for GFR and RPF, in cadaveric recipients vs. donors, respectively), the AER was normal in both groups, but the mean arterial pressure was higher in renal recipients (103 +/- 3 vs. 94 +/- 3 mm Hg in uninephrectomy controls, P < 0.05). Despite similar levels of overall glomerular function in the two groups, the dextran sieving curve was uniformly elevated in the renal allograft recipients versus uninephrectomy controls (P < 0.05 for dextrans 38 to 66 A). Using a log-normal glomerular pore-size distribution model to analyze potential mechanisms, the elevation in the dextran sieving curve resulted from a shift in the distribution of glomerular filtering pores to a larger size (mean glomerular pore size 46 +/- 2 vs. 43 +/- 2 A for uninephrectomy controls, P < 0.05), resulting in a larger fraction of filtrate volume permeating very large pores. By morphometric analysis, the thickness of the glomerular basement membrane was increased in kidney allograft as compared to 2-kidney biopsy controls (614 +/- 33 vs. 427 +/- 22 nm, respectively, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in "well functioning" renal allografts there is a glomerular dysfunction characterized by increased permeability to macromolecules resulting from a shift of the glomerular pores to a larger size. These changes could be mediated by ultrastructural alterations at the glomerular capillary or by alterations in intraglomerular hemodynamics. Early allograft dysfunction may contribute to the progressive renal insufficiency of renal allografts.

Proteinuria after renal transplantation affects not only graft survival but also patient survival

BACKGROUND

Proteinuria is associated with an increased risk of renal failure. Moreover, proteinuria is associated with an increased death risk in patients with diabetes mellitus or hypertension and even in the general population.

METHODS

One year after renal transplantation, we studied the influence of the presence of proteinuria on the risk of either graft failure or death in all 722 recipients of a kidney graft in our center who survived at least 1 year with a functioning graft. Proteinuria was analyzed both as a categorical variable (presence versus absence) and as a continuous variable (quantification of 24 hr urine). Other variables included in this analysis were: donor/recipient age and gender, original disease, race, number of HLA-A and HLA-B mismatches, previous transplants, postmortal or living related transplantation, and transplantation year. At 1 year after transplantation, we included: proteinuria, serum cholesterol, serum creatinine, blood pressure, and the use of antihypertensive medication.

RESULTS

In the Cox proportional hazards analysis, proteinuria at 1 year after transplantation (both as a categorical and continuous variable) was an important and independent variable influencing all endpoints. The influence of proteinuria as a categorical variable on graft failure censored for death showed no interaction with any of the other variables. There was an adverse effect of the presence of proteinuria on the graft failure rate (RR=2.03). The influence of proteinuria as a continuous variable showed interaction with original disease. The presence of glomerulonephritis, hypertension, and systemic diseases as the original disease significantly increased the risk of graft failure with an increasing amount of proteinuria at 1 year. The influence of proteinuria as a categorical variable on the rate ratio for patient failure was significant, and there was no interaction with any of the other significant variables (RR=1.98). The death risk was almost twice as high for patients with proteinuria at 1 year compared with patients without proteinuria. The influence of proteinuria as a continuous variable was also significant and also without interaction with other variables. The death risk increased with increasing amounts of proteinuria at 1 year. Both the risks for cardiovascular and for noncardiovascular death were increased.

CONCLUSION

Proteinuria after renal transplantation increases both the risk for graft failure and the risk for death.

The effect of ACE inhibitor and angiotensin II receptor antagonist therapy on serum uric acid levels and potassium homeostasis in hypertensive renal transplant recipients treated with CsA

BACKGROUND

The angiotensin II (AT II) type I receptor antagonist losartan has been reported to increase urinary uric acid and potassium excretion. These effects might be beneficial in cyclosporin (CsA)-treated renal transplant recipients, who frequently suffer from hyperuricaemia and hyperkalaemia.

METHODS

In this prospective, open, randomized, two-way cross-over study we included 13 hypertensive CsA-treated patients after renal transplantation and administered either the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors enalapril or losartan. Laboratory parameters, 24-h urinary protein excretion, and mean 24-h arterial blood pressure (MAP) were checked after 3 weeks treatment with enalapril, after a wash-out period of 2 weeks, and before and after a 3-week treatment course with losartan.

RESULTS

Both drugs slightly reduced MAP (losartan from 97+/-6 to 94+/-9 and enalapril to 93+/-8 mmHg). Serum potassium levels significantly increased during enalapril therapy (from 4.3+/-0.5 to 4.8+/-0.4 mmol/l, P<0.05), as did, although not significantly, uric acid concentrations (from 7.8+/-1.9 to 8.2+/-1.8 mg/dl, P=0.5). Losartan, on the contrary, only mildly affected serum potassium (4.3+/-0.5 vs 4.5+/-0.5 mmol/l, P=0.25) and serum uric acid decreased (from 7.8+/-2.4 to 7.3+/-1.8 mg/dl, P=0.6). Serum aldosterone and urinary aldosterone excretion were significantly reduced only during ACE inhibitor treatment, which might explain the variable effects on potassium homeostasis.

CONCLUSION

Losartan may be a useful agent to reduce blood pressure and serum uric acid levels in renal transplant recipients treated with CSA: Furthermore, in this high-risk population, the effects on serum potassium levels are less marked with losartan than with enalapril.

Recommendations for the outpatient surveillance of renal transplant recipients. American Society of Transplantation

Many complications after renal transplantation can be prevented if they are detected early. Guidelines have been developed for the prevention of diseases in the general population, but there are no comprehensive guidelines for the prevention of diseases and complications after renal transplantation. Therefore, the Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee of the American Society of Transplantation developed these guidelines to help physicians and other health care workers provide optimal care for renal transplant recipients. The guidelines are also intended to indirectly help patients receive the access to care that they need to ensure long-term allograft survival, by attempting to systematically define what that care encompasses. The guidelines are applicable to all adult and pediatric renal transplant recipients, and they cover the outpatient screening for and prevention of diseases and complications that commonly occur after renal transplantation. They do not cover the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and complications after they become manifest, and they do not cover the pretransplant evaluation of renal transplant candidates. The guidelines are comprehensive, but they do not pretend to cover every aspect of care. As much as possible, the guidelines are evidence-based, and each recommendation has been given a subjective grade to indicate the strength of evidence that supports the recommendation. It is hoped that these guidelines will provide a framework for additional discussion and research that will improve the care of renal transplant recipients.