Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
2007 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.111 HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP 
    advanced
CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION


Published ahead of print on May 2, 2007
J Am Soc Nephrol 18: 1959-1965, 2007
© 2007 American Society of Nephrology
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006101081
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ASN.2006101081v1
18/6/1959    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

Chronic Kidney Disease

Progression Risk, Urinary Protein Excretion, and Treatment Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Nondiabetic Kidney Disease

David M. Kent*, Tazeen H. Jafar{dagger}, Rodney A. Hayward{ddagger}, Hocine Tighiouart*, Marcia Landa*, Paul de Jong§, Dick de Zeeuw§, Giuseppe Remuzzi||, Anne-Lise Kamper, Andrew S. Levey* for the AIRPD Study Group

* Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts University-New England Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; {dagger} Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan; {ddagger} Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan; § Department of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands; || Institute di Recherche Farmacologiche "Mario Negri", Bergamo, Italy; and Department of Nephrology, University of Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark

Address correspondence to: Dr. David M. Kent, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts-New England Medical Center, 750 Washington Street, #63, Boston, MA 02111. Phone: 617-636-3234; Fax: 617-636-8023; dkent1{at}tufts-nemc.org

Received for publication October 2, 2006. Accepted for publication March 29, 2007.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Disclosures
 References
 
It is unclear whether patients with nondiabetic kidney disease benefit from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) therapy when they are at low risk for disease progression or when they have low urinary protein excretion. With the use of a combined database from 11 randomized, clinical trials (n = 1860), a Cox proportional hazards model, based on known predictors of risk and the composite outcome kidney failure or creatinine doubling, was developed and used to stratify patients into equal-sized quartiles of risk. Outcome risk and treatment effect were examined across various risk strata. Use of this risk model for targeting ACEI therapy was also compared with a strategy based on urinary protein excretion alone. Control patients in the highest quartile of predicted risk had an annualized outcome rate of 28.7%, whereas control patients in the lowest quartile of predicted risk had an annualized outcome rate of 0.4%. Despite the extreme variation in risk, there was no variation in the degree of benefit of ACEI therapy (P = 0.93 for the treatment x risk interaction). Significant interaction was detected between baseline urine protein and ACEI therapy (P = 0.003). When patients were stratified according to their baseline urinary protein excretion, among the subgroup of patients with proteinuria ≥500 mg/d, significant treatment effect was seen across all patients with a measurable outcome risk, including those at relatively low risk (1.7% annualized risk for progression). However, there was no benefit of ACEI therapy among patients with proteinuria <500 mg/d, even among higher risk patients (control outcome rate 19.7%). Patients with nondiabetic kidney disease vary considerably in their risk for disease progression, but the treatment effect of ACEI does not vary across risk strata. Patients with proteinuria <500 mg/d do not seem to benefit, even when at relatively high risk for progression.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Disclosures
 References
 
There is increasing awareness that patients who are enrolled in clinical trials can vary substantially in terms of their outcome risk (1–4) and that this variation may be more extreme in meta-analyses of individual patient data (5). When outcome risk varies substantially among trial enrollees, the overall treatment effects that are seen in the trial might obscure clinically important treatment-effect heterogeneity that is unlikely to be detected by conventional subgroup analysis but that is likely to be detected with risk-stratified analyses (2–4).

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major public health problem. Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III; 1999 to 2000) suggest that approximately 12% of the US population aged ≥20 yr may have CKD (6). Adverse outcomes of CKD include loss of kidney function, sometimes leading to kidney failure, and cardiovascular disease (7,8).

A pooled analysis of individual patient data from 11 randomized, controlled trials (9–19) revealed strong and consistent effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) in slowing the progression of nondiabetic kidney disease, although the treatment effect was modified by the degree of urinary protein excretion, with benefit increasing in patients with greater proteinuria (20–22). Our objective was to use a risk model to examine the variation in the risk for progression of kidney disease at baseline among patients who were included in this individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) and to test whether a risk-stratified analysis demonstrates previously undiscovered variation in the treatment effect of ACEI in preventing progression of kidney disease. Our hypothesis was that many patients who are enrolled in clinical trials are at very low risk for progression even in the absence of therapy and are therefore unlikely to benefit from treatment.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Disclosures
 References
 
For this analysis, we used the pooled individual patient data from nine published and two unpublished randomized trials that tested ACEI therapy in patients with nondiabetic nephropathy (n = 1860). Descriptions of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, of search strategies used to identify the studies, of the study and patient characteristics of the included randomized trials, and of the methods that were used to pool the studies were previously described (20,23). Briefly, the database was compiled over 4 yr starting in 1997 and included patients who were enrolled between March 1986 and April 1996. In each of these studies, patients were randomly assigned to antihypertensive regimens either with or without ACEI. The ACEI included captopril, enalapril, cilazapril, benazepril, and ramipril. Antihypertensive medications were used in both treatment groups to achieve a target BP <140/90 mmHg in all studies. All patients were followed at least once every 3 mo for the first year and at least once every 6 mo thereafter. The primary outcome for the pooled analysis was "kidney disease progression," defined as a combined end point of a two-fold increase (doubling) in serum creatinine concentration from baseline values or development of kidney failure, defined as the onset of long-term dialysis therapy. The database was not updated, so the results of this analysis could be compared with previously reported results (20–23).

Assessing Heterogeneity of Outcome Risk
To assess baseline risk heterogeneity, we used a simple algorithm that has been proposed for this purpose (1). Briefly, based in part on previous modeling (20–22), we developed a Cox proportional hazard model using the primary outcome (kidney disease progression) as the dependent variable and previously identified risk factors for this outcome (exclusive of ACEI therapy or treatment assignment), using patients in both the treatment and the control condition. This risk model was then used to categorize patients in the data set into equal-sized quartiles on the basis of predicted risk. In addition to computing the observed rates of the outcomes in each risk quartile, we computed the observed odds of having the event of interest (kidney disease progression) in the lowest and highest quartiles of predicted risk after 1 yr in patients who were randomly assigned to the control group. We then calculated the following heterogeneity metrics (1), based on outcomes in patients who were assigned to the control group: (1) Extreme quartile odds ratio (EQuOR): calculated as the ratio of the odds of the event in the upper quartile to the odds in the lower quartile; and (2) extreme quartile rate ratio (EQuRR): This is the rate ratio for the event of interest in the group of patients in the upper quartile of predicted risk as compared with the group of patients in the lower quartile of predicted risk estimated from a Cox model that considers only the patients of the two extreme quartiles (5).

Assessing Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect
In addition to examining the heterogeneity of the outcome risk, we tested for treatment-effect differences in high-risk versus low-risk patients by testing for an interaction between risk for progression and treatment effect, to test whether patients at high risk for progression are more or less likely to benefit than those at lower risk for progression. We did this in two ways: (1) Using the patient-specific hazard of progression (calculated by the Cox model) as a linear term, which we considered our primary analysis, and (2) using quartile of risk as an ordinal variable, as our secondary analysis.

Because a previous treatment x urinary protein excretion interaction had already been identified, indicating that ACEI therapy is more effective in patients with higher urinary protein excretion, we performed similar risk-stratified analyses on subgroups with urinary protein excretion ≥500 versus <500 mg/d. For each proteinuria strata, we used the same risk model that was used to stratify the overall sample, which included the degree of proteinuria as a predictor.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Conclusion
 Disclosures
 References
 
The baseline characteristics of our study sample are shown in Table 1. As previously reported, of the 1860 patients in the study sample, 311 (16.8%) experienced marked or severe kidney disease progression (doubling of baseline serum creatinine concentration or kidney failure): 124 (13.2%) in the ACEI group and 187 (20.5%) in the control group (P = 0.001). A total of 176 (9.5%) developed kidney failure: 70 (7.4%) in the ACEI group and 106 (11.6%) in the control group (P = 0.002).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Baseline patient characteristicsa

 
Risk Model
The risk model included the following baseline variables: Age (log-transformed), gender, serum creatinine, urinary protein excretion, and systolic BP (Table 2). Model discrimination was good with an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.83, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated good calibration (P = 0.33).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Risk model predicting the risk for kidney disease progressiona

 
Heterogeneity of Outcome Risk
Quartiles of predicted risk are shown in Figure 1, according to treatment assignment. Among patients who were assigned to the control group, the outcome rate in the lowest risk quartile was 0.4%, whereas the rate in the highest risk quartile was 28.7%. This yields an EQuOR of 105 (odds in highest risk quartile 0.40; odds in lowest quartile 0.004) and an extreme quartile risk ratio EQuRR of 71, indicating extreme heterogeneity of outcome. Patient characteristics in these quartiles of risk are shown in Table 3.


Figure 1
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1. Risk-stratified outcome rates (doubling of baseline plasma creatinine or kidney failure with need for dialysis). This graph depicts outcome rates in equal-sized quartiles of predicted risk on the basis of the multivariable model, from low-risk patients (quartile 1) to high-risk patients (quartile 4), in patients randomly assigned to control therapy ({square}) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) therapy ({blacksquare}).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Quartiles of risk

 
Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect
Despite the extreme variation of outcome risk in high- versus low-risk patients, the treatment effect across risk groups did not show variation across risk, either when risk was treated as a continuous variable (P = 0.93) or when risk quartile x treatment was examined (P = 0.80). This is consistent with Figure 1, which shows roughly similar treatment effects across all four quartiles. However, given the heterogeneity in outcome risk, there is considerable variation in the absolute benefits of therapy across risk strata; the number needed to treat (NNT) for 1 yr to prevent progression of disease in one patient in the low-risk group is 454, whereas this NNT is only 11 in the high-risk group. Consistent with our previous reports, significant interaction was detected between the presence or absence of urinary protein excretion ≥500 mg/d and treatment effect on the outcome risk (interaction P = 0.003), indicating greater benefit in those with greater proteinuria (21).

Stratification by the Presence of Proteinuria ≥500 mg/d
When patients were stratified by the presence or absence of urinary protein excretion ≥500 mg/d, outcomes remained heterogeneous even within each of these strata (Figure 2). Among patients with proteinuria above this level, the EQuRR was 19 and the EQuOR was 129. Because there were no poor outcomes among the lowest risk quartile among control patients with proteinuria <500 mg/d, the EQuOR and EQuRR were undefined.


Figure 2
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 2. Risk-stratified outcome rates (doubling of baseline serum creatinine or kidney failure) in patients with and without urinary protein excretion ≥500 mg/d. These graphs depict the outcome rates in equal-sized quartiles of predicted risk on the basis of the multivariable model, from low-risk patients (quartile 1) to high-risk patients (quartile 4), in patients who were randomly assigned to control therapy ({square}) and ACEI therapy ({blacksquare}). (Top) Patients with urinary protein excretion ≥500 mg/d. (Bottom) Patients with urinary protein excretion <500 mg/d.

 
Among the 61% of patients with proteinuria ≥500 mg/d, a substantial treatment effect was seen across all patients with a measurable outcome risk, including those at relatively low risk (1.7% annualized risk of progression). Conversely, among the 39% of patients with proteinuria <500 mg/d, no treatment benefit was found, even among patients with a relatively high risk for kidney disease progression (19.7% annualized risk of progression in the control group of the highest risk quartile). No risk x treatment heterogeneity was seen within the proteinuria strata (P = 0.29 for those with proteinuria ≥500 mg/d; P = 0. 08 for those with proteinuria <500 mg/d). Within the strata of patients with proteinuria ≥500 mg/d, the NNT ranged from 58 in the low-risk group to nine in the high-risk group (Tables 2 and 3).


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Conclusion
 Disclosures
 References
 
Our analysis demonstrates that the patients who were included in the IPDMA of 11 trials that tested ACEI therapy in patients with nondiabetic kidney disease varied considerably in their baseline risk for kidney disease progression. The risk for progression in that quartile of patients at highest risk was approximately 70-fold the risk in the lowest quartile, corresponding to a variation in average probability of kidney disease progression in 1 yr from 28.7 to only 0.4% when treated with antihypertensive agents other than ACEI. Our analysis demonstrates that the treatment effect of ACEI therapy is consistent across all risk categories. However, despite the consistency of effects on the odds ratio scale, the heterogeneity of progression risk suggests heterogeneity of treatment effect on the absolute scale, with progressively less benefit as risk decreases. Given the extremely low risk for progression in the lowest quartile of risk, near-identical outcomes to population-wide therapy could be achieved by treating just the highest risk three fourths of patients (Figure 1).

The model also revealed considerable heterogeneity of outcome risk in patients both with and without ≥500 mg/d proteinuria. Indeed, for patients with urine protein excretion <500 mg/d, because there were no outcomes in the lowest risk quartile, the extreme quartile rate ratio was undefined. For patients with urinary protein excretion ≥500 mg/d, the outcome rate for those at high risk was 19-fold higher than those at low risk.

To our knowledge, only one previous study examined the degree of heterogeneity of baseline risk in a IPDMA (5). That analysis included eight clinical trials (1792 patients, 2947 yr of follow-up) on the efficacy of high-dosage acyclovir in HIV infection and found a >100-fold difference in the risk for the outcome in the lowest compared with the highest risk quartiles. Our study results are consistent with their conclusions that meta-analysis may be a study design with extreme heterogeneity of the baseline risks compared with single studies. Indeed, using the same heterogeneity metrics, we found similarly high degrees of heterogeneity, because there were no outcomes in the lowest quartile.

However, despite the wide range in outcome risk, the treatment effect of ACEI was homogeneous on the relative risk scale across patients at different risk within each of the protein strata. Within the category of patients with proteinuria above this threshold, the beneficial effect of ACEI seems to be very strong and consistent across all categories of risk, even those at lowest risk. Patients with proteinuria below this threshold, however, do not seem to benefit. This is true even for patients who, on the basis of older age, higher serum creatinine, and higher systolic BP, are at considerable progression risk. Indeed, in the sample of patients who were included in these trials, targeting ACEI therapy to the 61% of patients with proteinuria ≥500 mg/d would lead to slightly better outcomes than population-wide therapy.

Our analysis confirms previous analyses of this database that demonstrated that the beneficial effect of ACEI is stronger in patients with greater proteinuria at the onset of therapy and that the greater degree of benefit is related to the antiproteinuric effects of ACEI (17,20–22,24). However, it was unclear from these previous analyses whether patients with lower urine protein excretion obtained benefit from ACE inhibition or the absence of an effect was an artifact of the low outcome rate in the subgroup with less proteinuria. Our analysis shows that even among the subgroup of patients who have urine protein excretion <500 mg/d and are at relatively high risk for disease progression, ACEI therapy does not have any advantage in preventing kidney disease progression compared with other antihypertensive regimens. This suggests that proteinuria is a specific marker of risk that is modified by ACEI therapy versus other antihypertensive agents, whereas the other baseline risk factors (including age, BP, and serum creatinine) identify risk that is not specifically modifiable with ACEI therapy versus other antihypertensive agents.

The ratio of protein to creatinine concentration in spot urine samples has been shown to correlate well with 24-h urine protein excretion (25). Based in part on previously reported results from our database, recent guidelines recommend measurement of spot urine total protein to creatinine ratio in all patients with CKD, and use of ACEI or angiotensin receptor blockers is recommended in patients who have nondiabetic kidney disease and spot urine total protein to creatinine ratio >200 mg/g to slow progression of CKD (26). More recently, the development and application of a kidney risk score in patients with CKD for predicting progression was proposed by some (27). Our findings suggest that once proteinuria is taken into account, further scoring does not offer incremental value in the decision to initiate ACEI therapy for nondiabetic CKD.

Several recent studies have called into question the efficacy of ACEI compared with other antihypertensive agents in slowing the progression of kidney disease (28,29), most notably the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), (30,31) which failed to demonstrate the superiority of the ACEI lisinopril over other antihypertensive agents in CKD (32). The heterogenous benefits of ACEI on kidney disease progression according to the level of proteinuria has been invoked as an explanation for the results of ALLHAT (30,31), whose design features favored inclusion of lower risk patients with CKD (presumably with a low prevalence of proteinuria). Indeed, the annualized risk for progression in ALLHAT was <0.5%, placing them in our lowest risk quartile. From Figure 2 of our analysis, it becomes apparent that the small degree of absolute benefit to such low-risk patients that is expected to accrue even when they have significant proteinuria (approximately 0.2% per year) can easily be obscured by statistical fluctuations among low-proteinuria patients—particularly when patients with low proteinuria predominated in the ALLHAT trial. Stratifying patients by both the risk for progression and degree of protein excretion as we have done here reveals differences in the treatment effect among patient groups on both the absolute and relative risk scale simultaneously, which can be helpful in understanding the heterogeneous results across trials.

Similarly, the overall results of the meta-analysis by Casas et al. (28), which did not suggest a specific benefit of ACEI, reflect primarily the results of ALLHAT, which overwhelmed the other studies. Indeed, the subgroup analysis that included just the trials that enrolled patients without diabetes and examined the outcome of kidney disease progression are in agreement with our results. Finally, a recent study by Suissa et al. (29) showed that the incidence of kidney failure in patients with diabetes was higher among patients who were on ACEI therapy. These results are of only indirect relevance to ours, because our database contained only patients without diabetes and theirs contained only patients with diabetes. Furthermore, we advise caution in interpreting the results of Suissa et al. given the nonrandomized nature of the study and the strength of the randomized evidence for benefit for inhibitors of the rennin-angiotensin system (33–35). Thus, the previously reported results of the AIPRD Study database—that the beneficial effects of ACEI in nondiabetic nephropathy seem to be greater than expected for the differences between randomized groups in the level of BP (22) and that these effects depend on the level of proteinuria—have not been directly challenged by the recently reported studies.

There are limitations to this study. Stratification of patients was based on a risk model that was developed on the same patient database. Overfitting of the risk model can potentially overestimate the degree of outcome risk heterogeneity. However, because we used only five especially salient clinical risk variables and did not mine the database for additional variables that might have more subtle influences, we do not believe that overfitting substantially influenced our results. An additional limitation of our study is the relative racial/ethnic homogeneity of the sample, which may limit the generalizability of the results to more diverse populations. Also, it should be noted that the included studies were not themselves designed to assess the protective effects of ACEI in patients with varying degrees of baseline proteinuria, and there is a risk for false-positive effects when multiple post hoc analyses are performed. However, testing for treatment modification by level of protein excretion was a primary aim for our IPDMA (20,21).

Last, this study does not address the potential benefit of ACEI therapy in preventing cardiovascular disease, an important therapeutic goal in CKD (35,36). The studies that were included in our IPDMA were not designed to assess the effectiveness of ACEI on cardiovascular events. Studies that have examined the effects of ACEI on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with kidney disease have not been wholly consistent in determining whether these agents have specific benefits compared with other antihypertensive agents (37–39), although the results of some studies suggest that this effect, too, may be specific to or more pronounced in patients with greater proteinuria (39,40).


   Conclusion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
Disclosures
 References
 
Our analysis did not provide strong support for the concept that a risk model based on age, gender, BP, serum creatinine, and proteinuria would be helpful for selecting patients who might be likely or unlikely to get additional benefit from ACEI therapy on progression of kidney disease, because, from a practical standpoint, targeting therapy can be accomplished by the measurement of urine protein excretion alone better than by the application of a full risk model. Despite a high degree of variation in the risk for disease progression, the treatment effect of ACEI in nondiabetic kidney disease seems to be independent of baseline risk. Among patients with urine protein excretion ≥500 mg/d, ACEI seem to be very effective, and some benefit is apparent even in patients who have otherwise favorable characteristics and are at relatively low risk for progression. However, for patients with lower urine protein excretion, ACEI do not seem to offer protection against kidney disease progression, even among patients with unfavorable risk characteristics and a relatively higher likelihood for progression.


   Disclosures
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Disclosures
References
 
None.


   Acknowledgments
 
Members of the AIPRD Study Group other than the authors include: Pietro Zucchelli (Via P Palagi, Italy), Gavin Becker (Melbourne, Australia), Kym Bannister (Adelaide, Australia), Paul Landais (Paris, France), Jean-Pierre Grunfeld (Paris, France), Piero Ruggenenti (Bergamo, Italy), Annelisa Perna (Bergamo, Italy), Benno U. Ihle (Melbourne, Australia), Andres Himmelmann (Goteborg, Sweden), Lennart Hannson (Goteborg, Sweden), Gabe G. Van Essen (Groningen, Netherlands), Alfred J. Apperloo (Groningen, Netherlands), Lamberto Oldrizzi (Verona, Italy), Carmelita Marcantoni (Verona, Italy), Joseph Lau (Boston, MA), Ioannis Giatras (Athens, Greece), Barry M. Brenner (Boston, MA), Nicolaos E. Madias (Boston, MA), Robert Toto (Dallas, TX), Shahnaz Shahinfar (West Point, NJ), Barbara Delano (Brooklyn, NY), Tauqeer Karim (Boston, MA), Paul C. Stark (Boston, MA), Christopher H. Schmid (Boston, MA), Svend Strandgaard (Copenhagen, Denmark), Giuseppe Maschio (Verona, Italy), and Ronald D. Perrone (Boston, MA).

D.M.K. had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.


   Footnotes
 
Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Disclosures
 References
 

  1. Ioannidis JP, Lau J: Heterogeneity of the baseline risk within patient populations of clinical trials. Am J Epidemiol 148 : 1117 –1126, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Hayward RA, Kent DM, Vijan S, Hofer TP: Reporting clinical trial results to inform providers, payers, and consumers. Health Aff (Millwood) 24 : 1571 –1581, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Hayward RA, Kent DM, Vijan S, Hofer TP: Multivariable risk prediction can greatly enhance the statistical power of clinical trial subgroup analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 6 : 18 , 2006[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Rothwell PM, Mehta Z, Howard SC, Gutnikov SA, Warlow CP: Treating individuals. 3: From subgroups to individuals—General principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy. Lancet 365 : 256 –265, 2005[Medline]
  5. Trikalinos TA, Ioannidis JP: Predictive modeling and heterogeneity of baseline risk in meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Clin Epidemiol 54 : 245 –252, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Coresh J, Byrd-Holt D, Astor BC, Briggs JP, Eggers PW, Lacher DA, Hostetter TH: Chronic kidney disease awareness, prevalence, and trends among US adults, 1999 to 2000. J Am Soc Nephrol 16 : 180 –188, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Drey N, Roderick P, Mullee M, Rogerson M: A population-based study of the incidence and outcomes of diagnosed chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis 42 : 677 –684, 2003[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Sarnak MJ, Levey AS, Schoolwerth AC, Coresh J, Culleton B, Hamm LL, McCullough PA, Kasiske BL, Kelepouris E, Klag MJ, Parfrey P, Pfeffer M, Raij L, Spinosa DJ, Wilson PW: American Heart Association Councils on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, High Blood Pressure Research, Clinical Cardiology, and Epidemiology and Prevention: Kidney disease as a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease—A statement from the American Heart Association Councils on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, High Blood Pressure Research, Clinical Cardiology, and Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation 108 : 2154 –2169, 2003[Free Full Text]
  9. Zucchelli P, Zuccala A, Borghi M, Fusaroli M, Sasdelli M, Stallone C, Sanna G, Gaggi R: Long-term comparison between captopril and nifedipine in the progression of renal insufficiency. Kidney Int 42 : 452 –458, 1992[Medline]
  10. Kamper AL, Strandgaard S, Leyssac PP: Effect of enalapril on the progression of chronic renal failure. A randomized controlled trial. Am J Hypertens 5 : 423 –430, 1992[Medline]
  11. Hannedouche T, Landais P, Goldfarb B, El Esper N, Fournier A, Godin M, Durand D, Chanard J, Mignon F, Suc JM, Grunfeld JP: Randomised controlled trial of enalapril and beta blockers in non-diabetic chronic renal failure. BMJ 309 : 833 –837, 1994[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Himmelmann A, Hansson L, Hansson BG, Hedstrand H, Skogstrom K, Ohrvik J, Furangen A: ACE inhibition preserves renal function better than beta-blockade in the treatment of essential hypertension. Blood Press 4 : 85 –90, 1995[Medline]
  13. Ihle BU, Whitworth JA, Shahinfar S, Cnaan A, Kincaid-Smith PS, Becker GJ: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in nondiabetic progressive renal insufficiency: A controlled double-blind trial. Am J Kidney Dis 27 : 489 –495, 1996[Medline]
  14. van Essen GG, Apperloo AJ, Rensma PL, Stegeman CA, Sluiter WJ, de Zeeuw D, de Jong PE: Are angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors superior to beta blockers in retarding progressive renal function decline? Kidney Int Suppl 63 : S58 –S62, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Bannister KM WA, Clarkson AR, Woodroffe AJ: Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme and calcium channel inhibition on progression of IgA nephropathy. Contrib Nephrol 111 : 184 –193, 1995[Medline]
  16. Maschio G, Alberti D, Janin G, Locatelli F, Mann JF, Motolese M, Ponticelli C, Ritz E, Zucchelli P: Effect of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor benazepril on the progression of chronic renal insufficiency. N Engl J Med 334 : 939 –945, 1996[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. The GISEN Group (Gruppo Italiano di Studi Epidemiologici in Nefrologia): Randomised placebo-controlled trial of effect of ramipril on decline in glomerular filtration rate and risk of terminal renal failure in proteinuric, non-diabetic nephropathy. Lancet 349 : 1857 –1863, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Gherardi G, Garini G, Zoccali C, Salvadori M, Scolari F, Schena FP, Remuzzi G: Renoprotective properties of ACE-inhibition in non-diabetic nephropathies with non-nephrotic proteinuria. Lancet 354 : 359 –364, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Gansevoort RT, Bakker SJ, de Jong PE: Early detection of progressive chronic kidney disease: Is it feasible? J Am Soc Nephrol 17 : 1218 –1220, 2006[Free Full Text]
  20. Jafar TH, Schmid CH, Landa M, Giatras I, Toto R, Remuzzi G, Maschio G, Brenner BM, Kamper A, Zucchelli P, Becker G, Himmelmann A, Bannister K, Landais P, Shahinfar S, de Jong PE, de Zeeuw D, Lau J, Levey AS; AIPRD Study Group: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and progression of nondiabetic renal disease. A meta-analysis of patient-level data. Ann Intern Med 135 : 73 –87, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Jafar TH, Stark PC, Schmid CH, Landa M, Maschio G, Marcantoni C, de Jong PE, de Zeeuw D, Shahinfar S, Ruggenenti P, Remuzzi G, Levey AS; AIPRD Study Group: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and progression of renal disease: Proteinuria as a modifiable risk factor for the progression of non-diabetic renal disease. Kidney Int 60 : 1131 –1140, 2001[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Jafar TH, Stark PC, Schmid CH, Landa M, Maschio G, de Jong PE, de Zeeuw D, Shahinfar S, Toto R, Levey AS; AIPRD Study Group. Progression of chronic kidney disease: The role of blood pressure control, proteinuria, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition—A patient-level meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 139 : 244 –252, 2003[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Schmid CH, Landa M, Jafar TH: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition in Progressive Renal Disease (AIPRD) Study Group. Constructing a database of individual clinical trials for longitudinal analysis. Control Clin Trials 4 : 324 –340, 2003
  24. Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Gherardi G, Benini R, Remuzzi G: Chronic proteinuric nephropathies: Outcomes and response to treatment in a prospective cohort of 352 patients with different patterns of renal injury. Am J Kidney Dis 35 : 1155 –1165, 2000[Medline]
  25. Rahman M, Pressel S, Davis B, Nwachuku C, Wright JT Jr, Whelton PK, Barzilay J, Batuman V, Eckfeldt JH, Farber M, Henriquez M, Kopyt N, Louis GT, Saklayen M, Stanford C, Walworth C, Ward H, Wiegmann T: Renal outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or a calcium channel blocker vs a diuretic: A report from the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Arch Intern Med 165 : 936 –946, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Rahman M, Pressel S, Davis B, Nwachuku C, Wright JT Jr, Whelton PK, Barzilay J, Batuman V, Eckfeldt JH, Farber MA, Franklin S, Henriquez M, Kopyt N, Louis GT, Saklayen M, Stanford C, Walworth C, Ward H, Wiegmann T: ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients stratified by baseline glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 144 : 172 –180, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Levey A, Uhlig K: Which antihypertensive agents in chronic kidney disease? Ann Intern Med 144 : 213 –215, 2006[Free Full Text]
  28. Ruggenenti P, Gaspari F, Perna A, Remuzzi G: Cross sectional longitudinal study of spot morning urine protein:creatinine ratio, 24 hour urine protein excretion rate, glomerular filtration rate, and end stage renal failure in chronic renal disease in patients without diabetes. BMJ 316 : 504 –509, 1998[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis 39 : S1 –S266, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Gansevoort RT, Bakker SJL, de Jong PE: Early detection of progressive chronic kidney disease: is it feasible? J Am Soc Nephrol 17 : 1218 –1820, 2006[Free Full Text]
  31. ACE Inhibitors in Diabetic Nephropathy Trialist Group: Should all patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and microalbuminuria receive angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors? A meta-analysis of individual patient data. Ann Intern Med 134 : 370 –379, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Parving HH, Lehnert H, Brochner-Mortensen J, Gomis R, Andersen S, Arner P; Irbesartan in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Microalbuminuria Study Group: The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 345 : 870 –878, 2001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Ruggenenti P, Fassi A, Ilieva AP, Bruno S, Iliev IP, Brusegan V, Rubis N, Gherardi G, Arnoldi F, Ganeva M, Ene-Iordache B, Gaspari F, Perna A, Bossi A, Trevisan R, Dodesini AR, Remuzzi G; Bergamo Nephrologic Diabetes Complications Trial (BENEDICT) Investigators: Preventing microalbuminuria in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 351 : 1941 –1951, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. de Jong PE, Curhan GC: Screening, monitoring, and treatment of albuminuria: Public health perspectives J Am Soc Nephrol 17 : 2120 –2126, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Remuzzi G, Ruggenenti P: Overview of randomised trials of ACE inhibitors Lancet 368 : 555 –556, 2006[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Braunwald E, Domanski MJ, Fowler SE, Geller NL, Gersh BJ, Hsia J, Pfeffer MA, Rice MM, Rosenberg YD, Rouleau JL; PEACE Trial Investigators: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 351 : 2058 –2068, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Asselbergs FW, Diercks GFH, Hillege HL, van Boven AJ, Janssen WMT, Voors AA, de Zeeuw D, de Jong PE, van Veldhuisen DJ, van Gilst WH; Prevention of Renal and Vascular Endstage Disease Intervention Trial (PREVEND IT) Investigators: Effects of fosinopril and pravastatin on cardiovascular events in subjects with microalbuminuria. Circulation 110 : 2809 –2816, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Ibsen H, Olsen MH, Wachtell K, Borch-Johnsen K, Lindholm LH, Mogensen CE, Dahlof B, Snapinn SM, Wan Y, Lyle PA: Does albuminuria predict cardiovascular outcomes on treatment with losartan versus atenolol in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and left ventricular hypertrophy? The LIFE study. Diabetes Care 29 : 595 –600, 2006[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Casas JP, Chua W, Loukogeorgaakis S, Vallance P, Smeeth L, Hingorani AD, MacAllister RJP: Effects of inhibitors of the rennin-angiotensin system and other antihypertensive drugs on renal outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 366 : 2026 –2033, 2005[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Suissa S, Hutchinson T, Brophy JM, Kezouh A: ACE-inhibitor use and the long-term risk of renal failure in diabetes. Kidney Int 69 : 913 –919, 2006[CrossRef][Medline]

Related Article

This Month's Highlights
J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2007 18: 1617-1618. [Full Text] [PDF]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular DiseaseHome page
A. M. Saran and T. D. DuBose Jr
Cardiovascular disease in chronic kidney disease
Therapeutic Advances in Cardiovascular Disease, December 1, 2008; 2(6): 425 - 434.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
C. M. Soares, J. S. S. Diniz, E. M. Lima, G. R. Oliveira, M. R. Canhestro, E. A. Colosimo, A. C. Simoes e Silva, and E. A. Oliveira
Predictive factors of progression to chronic kidney disease stage 5 in a predialysis interdisciplinary programme
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., October 13, 2008; (2008) gfn547v2.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
M. I. Yilmaz, M. Saglam, A. R. Qureshi, J. J. Carrero, K. Caglar, T. Eyileten, A. Sonmez, E. Cakir, Y. Oguz, A. Vural, et al.
Endothelial dysfunction in type-2 diabetics with early diabetic nephropathy is associated with low circulating adiponectin
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., May 1, 2008; 23(5): 1621 - 1627.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
D. M. Kent and R. A. Hayward
Limitations of Applying Summary Results of Clinical Trials to Individual Patients: The Need for Risk Stratification
JAMA, September 12, 2007; 298(10): 1209 - 1212.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ASN.2006101081v1
18/6/1959    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kent, D. M.
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article

HOME CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION AUTHOR INFO
EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP