Ramipril, compared with amlodipine, retards renal disease progression in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer benefit to patients without proteinuria.

BACKGROUND In observational studies, the relationship between blood pressure and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is direct and progressive. The burden of hypertension-related chronic kidney disease and ESRD is especially high among black patients. Yet few trials have tested whether intensive blood-pressure control retards the progression of chronic kidney disease among black patients. METHODS We randomly assigned 1094 black patients with hypertensive chronic kidney disease to receive either intensive or standard blood-pressure control. After completing the trial phase, patients were invited to enroll in a cohort phase in which the blood-pressure target was less than 130/80 mm Hg. The primary clinical outcome in the cohort phase was the progression of chronic kidney disease, which was defined as a doubling of the serum creatinine level, a diagnosis of ESRD, or death. Follow-up ranged from 8.8 to 12.2 years. RESULTS During the trial phase, the mean blood pressure was 130/78 mm Hg in the intensive-control group and 141/86 mm Hg in the standard-control group. During the cohort phase, corresponding mean blood pressures were 131/78 mm Hg and 134/78 mm Hg. In both phases, there was no significant between-group difference in the risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio in the intensive-control group, 0.91; P = 0.27). However, the effects differed according to the baseline level of proteinuria (P = 0.02 for interaction), with a potential benefit in patients with a protein-to-creatinine ratio of more than 0.22 (hazard ratio, 0.73; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS In overall analyses, intensive blood-pressure control had no effect on kidney disease progression. However, there may be differential effects of intensive blood-pressure control in patients with and those without baseline proteinuria. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and others.)

Abstract-Ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring provides unique information about day-night patterns of blood pressure (BP). The objectives of this article were to describe ABP patterns in African Americans with hypertensive kidney disease, to examine the joint distribution of clinic BP and ABP, and to determine associations of hypertensive target organ damage with clinic BP and ABP. This study is a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the African American Study of Kidney Disease Cohort Study. Masked hypertension was defined by elevated daytime (Ն135/ 85 mm Hg) or elevated nighttime (Ն120/70 mm Hg) ABP in those with controlled clinic BP (Ͻ140/90 mm Hg); nondipping was defined by a Յ10% decrease in mean nighttime systolic BP; reverse dipping was defined by a higher nighttime than daytime systolic BP. Of the 617 participants (mean age: 60.2 years; 62% male; mean estimated glomerular filtration rate: 43.8 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 ) with both clinic BP and ABP, 498 participants (80%) had a nondipping or reverse dipping profile. Of the 377 participants with controlled clinic BP (61%), 70% had masked hypertension. Compared with those with controlled clinic BP or white-coat hypertension, target organ damage (proteinuria and left ventricular hypertrophy) was more common in those with elevated nighttime BP, masked hypertension, or sustained hypertension. In conclusion, clinic BP provides an incomplete and potentially misleading assessment of the severity of hypertension in African Americans with hypertensive kidney disease, in large part because of increased nighttime BP. Whether lowering nighttime BP improves clinical outcomes is unknown but should be tested given the substantial burden of BP-related morbidity in this population.

Hypertension is common, difficult to diagnose, and poorly controlled among patients with ESRD. However, controversy surrounds the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. Here, we describe the diagnosis, epidemiology, and management of hypertension in dialysis patients, and examine the data sparking debate over appropriate methods for diagnosing and treating hypertension. Furthermore, we consider the issues uniquely related to hypertension in pediatric dialysis patients. Future clinical trials designed to clarify the controversial results discussed here should lead to the implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic techniques that improve long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ESRD. Hypertension is common among patients with ESRD. In this review, we discuss the diagnosis, epidemiology, and management of hypertension among dialysis patients. We also review areas of existing controversies and briefly discuss the issue of hypertension in pediatric dialysis patients. EPIDEMIOLOGYThe prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension among people on hemodialysis (HD) have used varying definitions to diagnose hypertension. The epidemiology differs based on how BP is measured: either before and after dialysis or using ambulatory BP recordings. Epidemiology with Routine BP MeasurementsThe prevalence of hypertension (defined as 1-week average predialysis systolic BP [SBP] measurements .150 mmHg or diastolic BP [DBP].85 mmHg or the use of antihypertensive medications) was 86% among 2535 clinically stable adult HD patients participating in a multicenter trial. 1 Among hypertensive patients, 12% did not receive antihypertensive drugs, 58% were treated but not controlled, and only 30% were controlled. The use of antihypertensive drugs has been reported to vary from 59% to 83%. [2][3][4][5] Furthermore, even among children on long-term HD, similar findings have been reported. 6 Several studies have confirmed greater antihypertensive drug use to be associated with poorer control. 7,8 It should be noted that antihypertensive drug use per se do not lead to worse BP control; in the absence of adequate volume control, increasing antihypertensive drug use may simply reflect difficult-to-control BP. Epidemiology Using Ambulatory BP MeasurementsThe prevalence of hypertension (defined by either a 44-hour interdialytic ambulatory BP of $135/85 mmHg or the prescription of any antihypertensive agent) was 86% among 369 chronic HD patients. 8 Although hypertension was being treated with antihypertensive drugs in 89% of patients, it was adequately controlled only in 38%. The independent determinants of poor control were the use of antihypertensive drugs and an expanded extracellular volume state. If patients were volume overloaded, nearly 80% became hypertensive when medications were Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

A nurse management intervention combining an in-person visit, periodic phone calls, and home blood pressure monitoring over 9 months was associated with a statistically significant reduction in systolic, but not diastolic, blood pressure compared to usual care in a high risk population. Home blood pressure monitoring alone was no more effective than usual care.

In nondiabetic patients with hypertensive CKD treated with ACEIs, the risk of hyperkalemia is small, particularly if baseline and follow-up GFR is higher than 40 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Including a diuretic in the regimen may markedly reduce risk of hyperkalemia.

Background and objectives The calcimimetic cinacalcet reduced the risk of death or cardiovascular (CV) events in older, but not younger, patients with moderate to severe secondary hyperparathyroidism (HPT) who were receiving hemodialysis. To determine whether the lower risk in younger patients might be due to lower baseline CV risk and more frequent use of cointerventions that reduce parathyroid hormone (kidney transplantation, parathyroidectomy, and commercial cinacalcet use), this study examined the effects of cinacalcet in older ($65 years, n=1005) and younger (,65 years, n=2878) patients.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Evaluation of Cinacalcet HCl Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events (EVOLVE) was a global, multicenter, randomized placebo-controlled trial in 3883 prevalent patients on hemodialysis, whose outcomes included death, major CV events, and development of severe unremitting HPT. The age subgroup analysis was prespecified.Results Older patients had higher baseline prevalence of diabetes mellitus and CV comorbidity. Annualized rates of kidney transplantation and parathyroidectomy were .3-fold higher in younger relative to older patients and were more frequent in patients randomized to placebo. In older patients, the adjusted relative hazard (95% confidence interval) for the primary composite (CV) end point (cinacalcet versus placebo) was 0.70 (0.60 to 0.81); in younger patients, the relative hazard was 0.97 (0.86 to 1.09). Corresponding adjusted relative hazards for mortality were 0.68 (0.51 to 0.81) and 0.99 (0.86 to 1.13). Reduction in the risk of severe unremitting HPT was similar in both groups. ConclusionsIn the EVOLVE trial, cinacalcet decreased the risk of death and of major CV events in older, but not younger, patients with moderate to severe HPT who were receiving hemodialysis. Effect modification by age may be partly explained by differences in underlying CV risk and differential application of cointerventions that reduce parathyroid hormone.

We recently showed an association between strict BP control and lower mortality risk during two decades of follow-up of prior participants in the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) trial. Here, we determined the risk of ESRD and mortality during extended follow-up of the African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) trial. We linked 1067 former AASK participants with CKD previously randomized to strict or usual BP control (mean arterial pressure ≤92 mmHg or 102-107 mmHg, respectively) to the US Renal Data System and Social Security Death Index; 397 patients had ESRD and 475 deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 14.4 years from 1995 to 2012. Compared with the usual BP arm, the strict BP arm had unadjusted and adjusted relative risks of ESRD of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.75 to 1.12) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.16; P=0.64), respectively, and unadjusted and adjusted relative risks of death of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10) and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.98; P=0.03), respectively. In meta-analyses of individual-level data from the MDRD and the AASK trials, unadjusted relative risk of ESRD was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.00) and unadjusted relative risk of death was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.99) for strict versus usual BP arms. Our findings suggest that, during long-term follow-up, strict BP control does not delay the onset of ESRD but may reduce the relative risk of death in CKD.