T/L-type calcium channel blocker reduces the composite ranking of relative risk according to new KDIGO guidelines in patients with chronic kidney disease

Amlodipine Compared with Benidipine in the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Benidipine and amlodipine are two well-known drugs used in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

AIM

In this systematic review we aimed to compare benidipine and amlodipine in terms of efficacy in the management of hypertensive patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and excluded observational studies. Quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE and we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. Data were pooled as mean differences (MD) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Eight studies were eligible for our meta-analysis. We found no significant difference between both drugs regarding systolic (MD = - 0.21 [- 1.48, 1.89], (P = 0.81) and diastolic (MD = 0.01[- 0.51, 0.53], (P = 0.97)) blood pressure measurements. The overall heart rate did not differ as well (MD = - 0.03 [- 1.63, 1.57], (P = 0.97)). We found that benidipine was statistically better than amlodipine in terms of eGFR (MD = 1.07 [0.43, 1.71], (P = 0.001)), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (MD = - 43.41 [- 53.53, - 33.29], (P < 0.00001)).

CONCLUSIONS

Finally we conclude that benidipine seems to show more positive and promising results in the management of hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease.

Association between gain in adiposity and diabetic kidney disease worsening in type 2 diabetes is mediated by deteriorating glycaemic control: A 3-year follow-up analysis

AIMS

Increased adiposity confers elevated risk for diabetic kidney disease (DKD) progression in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This 3-year prospective study examined whether worsening of metabolic control e.g. development of uncontrolled diabetes mediated the relationship between increased adiposity and DKD deterioration.

METHODS

T2DM subjects who had adequately controlled diabetes (HbA1c < 8%) at initial recruitment were analysed (N = 853). HbA1c ≥ 8% at follow-up was classified as development of uncontrolled T2DM. Absolute changes in body weight (ΔWeight), body mass index (ΔBMI), and body fat mass (ΔBFM) were calculated by subtracting baseline from follow-up values. DKD deterioration (outcome) was defined as an increase in the composite ranking of relative risk by glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria levels (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes 2009).

RESULTS

Subjects with deteriorated DKD displayed lower reduction in body composition at follow-up than those who remained stable or/improved (all P < 0.05). In separate regression models, ΔWeight (risk ratio (RR):1.04, 95% CI:1.01-1.06), ΔBMI (RR:1.07, 95% CI:1.01-1.13), and ΔBFM (RR:1.03, 95% CI:1.01-1.06) were independently associated with worsened DKD. The associations were attenuated after accounting for the loss of glycaemic control. Binary mediation analysis revealed that the development of uncontrolled diabetes explained 41.7%, 45.4% and 39.7%, respectively, of the effects of ΔWeight, ΔBMI and ΔBFM on the outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Among T2DM individuals who had adequately-controlled T2DM at initial recruitment, the relationship between gain in adiposity and DKD deterioration is mediated by the development of poor glycaemic control over time. Therefore, preventing worsening adiposity and hyperglycaemia is pivotal to impede DKD progression.

Comparative Effect of Calcium Channel Blockers on Glomerular Function in Hypertensive Patients with Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate and compare the longitudinal effect of monotherapy with L-, L/T-, L/N-, and L/N/T-type calcium channel blockers (CCBs) on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and to investigate the association of treatment duration with eGFR in diabetic patients with hypertension.

METHODS

Using a clinical database, we identified new users of five CCBs, i.e. amlodipine (L-type, n = 693), nifedipine (L-type, n = 189), azelnidipine (L/T-type, n = 91), benidipine (L/N/T-type, n = 183), and cilnidipine (L/N-type, n = 61). We used a multivariable regression model to evaluate and compare the effects of these drugs on eGFR and serum creatinine, up to 12 months after initiation of study drug administration.

RESULTS

There was no significant association between treatment duration and both eGFR and serum creatinine level with all CCB types. In addition, there was no significant difference in mean change in eGFR among the five CCBs, with any treatment duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that monotherapy with an L-, L/T-, L/N/T-, or L/N-type CCB may have little influence on renal function parameters and may be safely used in hypertensive patients with diabetes.

Urinary angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 increases in diabetic nephropathy by angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker olmesartan

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a member of the renin-angiotensin system that degrades angiotensin (Ang) II to the seven-amino acid peptide fragment Ang-(1-7). We evaluated the changes in urinary ACE2 levels in response to treatment with the angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker olmesartan in diabetes patients with nephropathy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective, open-label, interventional study was conducted with 31 type 2 diabetes patients with nephropathy. After initial evaluation, patients received 20 mg/day olmesartan, which was increased to 40 mg/day over a 24-week period.

RESULTS

In diabetes patients with chronic kidney disease, olmesartan significantly increased urinary ACE2 levels independently of blood pressure and plasma aldosterone levels and reduced albuminuria, urinary liver-type fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP), and plasma aldosterone levels. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that the change in urinary L-FABP levels was an independent predictor of increased urinary ACE2 levels.

CONCLUSION

Olmesartan may have the unique effect of increasing urinary ACE2 levels. However, whether this contributes to olmesartan's renoprotective effect must be examined further.