Nephrology

To the Editor: I read with interest the thoughtful review of cardiorenal syndrome by Drs. Thind, Loehrke, and Wilt¹ and the accompanying editorial by Dr. Grodin.² These articles certainly add to our growing knowledge of the syndrome and the importance of treating volume overload in these complex patients.

Indeed, we and others have stressed the primary importance of renal dysfunction in patients with volume overload and acute decompensated heart failure.^3,4 We have learned that even small rises in serum creatinine predict poor outcomes in these patients. And even if the serum creatinine level comes back down during hospitalization, acute kidney injury (AKI) is still associated with risk.⁵

Nevertheless, clinicians remain frustrated with the practical management of patients with volume overload and worsening AKI. When faced with a rising serum creatinine level in a patient being treated for decompensated heart failure with signs or symptoms of volume overload, I suggest the following:

Perform careful bedside and chart review searching for evidence of AKI related to causes other than cardiorenal syndrome. Ask whether the rise in serum creatinine could be caused by new obstruction (eg, urinary retention, upper urinary tract obstruction), a nephrotoxin (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), a primary tubulointerstitial or glomerular process (eg, drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis, acute glomerulonephritis), acute tubular necrosis, or a new hemodynamic event threatening renal perfusion (eg, hypotension, a new arrhythmia). It is often best to arrive at a diagnosis of AKI due to cardiorenal dysfunction by exclusion, much like the working definitions of hepatorenal syndrome.⁶ This requires review of the urine sediment (looking for evidence of granular casts of acute tubular necrosis, or evidence of glomerulonephritis or interstitial nephritis), electronic medical record, vital signs, telemetry, and perhaps renal ultrasonography.

In the absence of frank evidence of “overdiuresis” such as worsening hypernatremia, with dropping blood pressure, clinical hypoperfusion, and contraction alkalosis, avoid the temptation to suspend diuretics. Alternatively, an increase in diuretic dose, or addition of a distal diuretic (ie, metolazone) may be needed to address persistent renal venous congestion as the cause of the AKI.³ In this situation, be sure to monitor electrolytes, volume status, and renal function closely while diuretic treatment is augmented. In many such cases, the serum creatinine may actually start to decrease after a more robust diuresis is generated. In these patients, it may also be prudent to temporarily suspend antagonists of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, although this remains controversial.

Management of such patients should be done collaboratively with cardiologists well versed in the treatment of cardiorenal syndrome. It may be possible that the worsening renal function in these patients represents important changes in cardiac rhythm or function (eg, low cardiac output state, new or worsening valvular disease, ongoing myocardial ischemia, cardiac tamponade, uncontrolled bradycardia or tachyarrythmia). Interventions aimed at reversing such perturbations could be the most important steps in improving cardiorenal function and reversing AKI.

To the Editor: I read with interest the thoughtful review of cardiorenal syndrome by Drs. Thind, Loehrke, and Wilt¹ and the accompanying editorial by Dr. Grodin.² These articles certainly add to our growing knowledge of the syndrome and the importance of treating volume overload in these complex patients.

Indeed, we and others have stressed the primary importance of renal dysfunction in patients with volume overload and acute decompensated heart failure.^3,4 We have learned that even small rises in serum creatinine predict poor outcomes in these patients. And even if the serum creatinine level comes back down during hospitalization, acute kidney injury (AKI) is still associated with risk.⁵

Nevertheless, clinicians remain frustrated with the practical management of patients with volume overload and worsening AKI. When faced with a rising serum creatinine level in a patient being treated for decompensated heart failure with signs or symptoms of volume overload, I suggest the following:

Perform careful bedside and chart review searching for evidence of AKI related to causes other than cardiorenal syndrome. Ask whether the rise in serum creatinine could be caused by new obstruction (eg, urinary retention, upper urinary tract obstruction), a nephrotoxin (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), a primary tubulointerstitial or glomerular process (eg, drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis, acute glomerulonephritis), acute tubular necrosis, or a new hemodynamic event threatening renal perfusion (eg, hypotension, a new arrhythmia). It is often best to arrive at a diagnosis of AKI due to cardiorenal dysfunction by exclusion, much like the working definitions of hepatorenal syndrome.⁶ This requires review of the urine sediment (looking for evidence of granular casts of acute tubular necrosis, or evidence of glomerulonephritis or interstitial nephritis), electronic medical record, vital signs, telemetry, and perhaps renal ultrasonography.

In the absence of frank evidence of “overdiuresis” such as worsening hypernatremia, with dropping blood pressure, clinical hypoperfusion, and contraction alkalosis, avoid the temptation to suspend diuretics. Alternatively, an increase in diuretic dose, or addition of a distal diuretic (ie, metolazone) may be needed to address persistent renal venous congestion as the cause of the AKI.³ In this situation, be sure to monitor electrolytes, volume status, and renal function closely while diuretic treatment is augmented. In many such cases, the serum creatinine may actually start to decrease after a more robust diuresis is generated. In these patients, it may also be prudent to temporarily suspend antagonists of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, although this remains controversial.

Management of such patients should be done collaboratively with cardiologists well versed in the treatment of cardiorenal syndrome. It may be possible that the worsening renal function in these patients represents important changes in cardiac rhythm or function (eg, low cardiac output state, new or worsening valvular disease, ongoing myocardial ischemia, cardiac tamponade, uncontrolled bradycardia or tachyarrythmia). Interventions aimed at reversing such perturbations could be the most important steps in improving cardiorenal function and reversing AKI.

To the Editor: I read with interest the thoughtful review of cardiorenal syndrome by Drs. Thind, Loehrke, and Wilt¹ and the accompanying editorial by Dr. Grodin.² These articles certainly add to our growing knowledge of the syndrome and the importance of treating volume overload in these complex patients.

Indeed, we and others have stressed the primary importance of renal dysfunction in patients with volume overload and acute decompensated heart failure.^3,4 We have learned that even small rises in serum creatinine predict poor outcomes in these patients. And even if the serum creatinine level comes back down during hospitalization, acute kidney injury (AKI) is still associated with risk.⁵

Nevertheless, clinicians remain frustrated with the practical management of patients with volume overload and worsening AKI. When faced with a rising serum creatinine level in a patient being treated for decompensated heart failure with signs or symptoms of volume overload, I suggest the following:

Perform careful bedside and chart review searching for evidence of AKI related to causes other than cardiorenal syndrome. Ask whether the rise in serum creatinine could be caused by new obstruction (eg, urinary retention, upper urinary tract obstruction), a nephrotoxin (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), a primary tubulointerstitial or glomerular process (eg, drug-induced acute interstitial nephritis, acute glomerulonephritis), acute tubular necrosis, or a new hemodynamic event threatening renal perfusion (eg, hypotension, a new arrhythmia). It is often best to arrive at a diagnosis of AKI due to cardiorenal dysfunction by exclusion, much like the working definitions of hepatorenal syndrome.⁶ This requires review of the urine sediment (looking for evidence of granular casts of acute tubular necrosis, or evidence of glomerulonephritis or interstitial nephritis), electronic medical record, vital signs, telemetry, and perhaps renal ultrasonography.

In the absence of frank evidence of “overdiuresis” such as worsening hypernatremia, with dropping blood pressure, clinical hypoperfusion, and contraction alkalosis, avoid the temptation to suspend diuretics. Alternatively, an increase in diuretic dose, or addition of a distal diuretic (ie, metolazone) may be needed to address persistent renal venous congestion as the cause of the AKI.³ In this situation, be sure to monitor electrolytes, volume status, and renal function closely while diuretic treatment is augmented. In many such cases, the serum creatinine may actually start to decrease after a more robust diuresis is generated. In these patients, it may also be prudent to temporarily suspend antagonists of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, although this remains controversial.

Management of such patients should be done collaboratively with cardiologists well versed in the treatment of cardiorenal syndrome. It may be possible that the worsening renal function in these patients represents important changes in cardiac rhythm or function (eg, low cardiac output state, new or worsening valvular disease, ongoing myocardial ischemia, cardiac tamponade, uncontrolled bradycardia or tachyarrythmia). Interventions aimed at reversing such perturbations could be the most important steps in improving cardiorenal function and reversing AKI.

In Reply: We thank Dr. Freda for his remarks and observations. Certainly, the clinical importance of this entity and the challenge it poses to clinicians cannot be overemphasized. We concur with the overall message and reply to his specific comments:

We completely agree that clinical data-gathering is of paramount importance. This includes careful history-taking, physical examination, electronic medical record review, laboratory data review, and imaging. As discussed in our article, renal electrolytes will reveal a prerenal state in acute cardiorenal syndrome, and other causes of prerenal acute kidney injury (AKI) should be ruled out. The role of point-of-care ultrasonography (eg, to measure the size and respirophasic variation of the inferior vena cava) as a vital diagnostic tool has been well described, and we endorse it.¹ Moreover, apart from snapshot values, trends are also very important. This is especially pertinent when the patient care is being transferred to a new service (eg, from hospitalist service to the critical care service). In this case, careful review of diuretic dosage, renal function trend, intake and output, and weight trend would help in the diagnosis.

Inadequate diuretic therapy is perhaps one of the most common errors made in the management of patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome. As mentioned in our article, diuretics should be correctly dosed based on the patient’s renal function. It is a common misconception that diuretics are nephrotoxic: in reality, there is no direct renal toxicity from the drug itself. Certainly, overdiuresis may lead to AKI, but this is not a valid concern in patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome, who are fluid-overloaded by definition.

Another challenging clinical scenario is when a patient is diagnosed with acute cardiorenal syndrome but renal function worsens with diuretic therapy. In our experience, this is a paradoxical situation and often stems from misinterpretation of clinical data. The most common example is diuretic underdosage leading to inadequate diuretic response. Renal function will continue to decline in these patients, as renal congestion has not yet been relieved. This reiterates the importance of paying close attention to urine output and intake-output data. When the diuretic regimen is strengthened and a robust diuretic response is achieved, renal function should improve as systemic congestion diminishes.

Acute cardiorenal syndrome stems from hemodynamic derangements, and a multidisciplinary approach may certainly lead to better outcomes. Although we described the general theme of hemodynamic disturbances, patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome may have certain unique and complex hemodynamic “phenotypes” that we did not discuss due to the limited scope of the paper. One such phenotype worth mentioning is decompensated right heart failure, as seen in patients with severe pulmonary hypertension. Acute cardiorenal syndrome due to renal congestion is often seen in these patients, but they also have certain other unique characteristics such as ventricular interdependence.² Giving intravenous fluids to these patients not only will worsen renal function but can also cause catastrophic reduction in cardiac output and blood pressure due to worsening interventricular septal bowing. Certain treatments (eg, pulmonary vasodilators) are unique to this patient population, and these patients should hence be managed by experienced clinicians.

In Reply: We thank Dr. Freda for his remarks and observations. Certainly, the clinical importance of this entity and the challenge it poses to clinicians cannot be overemphasized. We concur with the overall message and reply to his specific comments:

We completely agree that clinical data-gathering is of paramount importance. This includes careful history-taking, physical examination, electronic medical record review, laboratory data review, and imaging. As discussed in our article, renal electrolytes will reveal a prerenal state in acute cardiorenal syndrome, and other causes of prerenal acute kidney injury (AKI) should be ruled out. The role of point-of-care ultrasonography (eg, to measure the size and respirophasic variation of the inferior vena cava) as a vital diagnostic tool has been well described, and we endorse it.¹ Moreover, apart from snapshot values, trends are also very important. This is especially pertinent when the patient care is being transferred to a new service (eg, from hospitalist service to the critical care service). In this case, careful review of diuretic dosage, renal function trend, intake and output, and weight trend would help in the diagnosis.

Inadequate diuretic therapy is perhaps one of the most common errors made in the management of patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome. As mentioned in our article, diuretics should be correctly dosed based on the patient’s renal function. It is a common misconception that diuretics are nephrotoxic: in reality, there is no direct renal toxicity from the drug itself. Certainly, overdiuresis may lead to AKI, but this is not a valid concern in patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome, who are fluid-overloaded by definition.

Another challenging clinical scenario is when a patient is diagnosed with acute cardiorenal syndrome but renal function worsens with diuretic therapy. In our experience, this is a paradoxical situation and often stems from misinterpretation of clinical data. The most common example is diuretic underdosage leading to inadequate diuretic response. Renal function will continue to decline in these patients, as renal congestion has not yet been relieved. This reiterates the importance of paying close attention to urine output and intake-output data. When the diuretic regimen is strengthened and a robust diuretic response is achieved, renal function should improve as systemic congestion diminishes.

Acute cardiorenal syndrome stems from hemodynamic derangements, and a multidisciplinary approach may certainly lead to better outcomes. Although we described the general theme of hemodynamic disturbances, patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome may have certain unique and complex hemodynamic “phenotypes” that we did not discuss due to the limited scope of the paper. One such phenotype worth mentioning is decompensated right heart failure, as seen in patients with severe pulmonary hypertension. Acute cardiorenal syndrome due to renal congestion is often seen in these patients, but they also have certain other unique characteristics such as ventricular interdependence.² Giving intravenous fluids to these patients not only will worsen renal function but can also cause catastrophic reduction in cardiac output and blood pressure due to worsening interventricular septal bowing. Certain treatments (eg, pulmonary vasodilators) are unique to this patient population, and these patients should hence be managed by experienced clinicians.

In Reply: We thank Dr. Freda for his remarks and observations. Certainly, the clinical importance of this entity and the challenge it poses to clinicians cannot be overemphasized. We concur with the overall message and reply to his specific comments:

We completely agree that clinical data-gathering is of paramount importance. This includes careful history-taking, physical examination, electronic medical record review, laboratory data review, and imaging. As discussed in our article, renal electrolytes will reveal a prerenal state in acute cardiorenal syndrome, and other causes of prerenal acute kidney injury (AKI) should be ruled out. The role of point-of-care ultrasonography (eg, to measure the size and respirophasic variation of the inferior vena cava) as a vital diagnostic tool has been well described, and we endorse it.¹ Moreover, apart from snapshot values, trends are also very important. This is especially pertinent when the patient care is being transferred to a new service (eg, from hospitalist service to the critical care service). In this case, careful review of diuretic dosage, renal function trend, intake and output, and weight trend would help in the diagnosis.

Inadequate diuretic therapy is perhaps one of the most common errors made in the management of patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome. As mentioned in our article, diuretics should be correctly dosed based on the patient’s renal function. It is a common misconception that diuretics are nephrotoxic: in reality, there is no direct renal toxicity from the drug itself. Certainly, overdiuresis may lead to AKI, but this is not a valid concern in patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome, who are fluid-overloaded by definition.

Another challenging clinical scenario is when a patient is diagnosed with acute cardiorenal syndrome but renal function worsens with diuretic therapy. In our experience, this is a paradoxical situation and often stems from misinterpretation of clinical data. The most common example is diuretic underdosage leading to inadequate diuretic response. Renal function will continue to decline in these patients, as renal congestion has not yet been relieved. This reiterates the importance of paying close attention to urine output and intake-output data. When the diuretic regimen is strengthened and a robust diuretic response is achieved, renal function should improve as systemic congestion diminishes.

Acute cardiorenal syndrome stems from hemodynamic derangements, and a multidisciplinary approach may certainly lead to better outcomes. Although we described the general theme of hemodynamic disturbances, patients with acute cardiorenal syndrome may have certain unique and complex hemodynamic “phenotypes” that we did not discuss due to the limited scope of the paper. One such phenotype worth mentioning is decompensated right heart failure, as seen in patients with severe pulmonary hypertension. Acute cardiorenal syndrome due to renal congestion is often seen in these patients, but they also have certain other unique characteristics such as ventricular interdependence.² Giving intravenous fluids to these patients not only will worsen renal function but can also cause catastrophic reduction in cardiac output and blood pressure due to worsening interventricular septal bowing. Certain treatments (eg, pulmonary vasodilators) are unique to this patient population, and these patients should hence be managed by experienced clinicians.

NEW ORLEANS– Preventing acute kidney injury and its progression in hospitalized patients deserves to be a high priority – and now there is finally proof that it’s doable, Harold M. Szerlip, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The PrevAKI study, a recent randomized controlled clinical trial conducted by German investigators, has demonstrated that the use of renal biomarkers to identify patients at high risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) after major cardiac surgery and providing them with a range of internationally recommended supportive measures known as the KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) care bundle reduced the occurrence of moderate-to-severe AKI by 34% (Intensive Care Med. 2017 Nov;43[11]:1551-61).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The PrevAKI findings validate the concept of AKI ‘golden hours’ during which time potentially reversible early kidney injury detectable via renal biomarkers is occurring prior to the abrupt decline in kidney function measured by change in serum creatinine. “The problem with using change in creatinine to define AKI is the delay in diagnosis, which makes AKI more difficult to treat,” he explained.

The renal biomarkers utilized in PrevAKI were insulin-like growth factor binding protein-7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2), as incorporated in the commercially available urinary NephroCheck test, which was administered to study participants 4 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass. A test result of 0.3 or more identified a group at high risk for AKI for randomization to the KDIGO bundle or usual care. The KDIGO bundle consists of discontinuation of nephrotoxic agents when feasible, early optimization of fluid status, and maintenance of perfusion pressure.

Patients known to be at increased risk for in-hospital AKI include the elderly, those with diabetes, patients with heart failure or other conditions prone to volume contraction or overload, those undergoing major surgery, individuals with chronic kidney disease, and patients with sepsis.

Dr. Szerlip singled out as particularly nephrotoxic several drugs widely used in hospitalized patients, including the combination of vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam, which in a recent metaanalysis was found to have a number needed to harm of 11 in terms of AKI in comparison to vancomycin monotherapy or vancomycin in combination with cefepime or carbapenem (Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan;46[1]:12-20). He was also critical of the American Society of Anesthesiologists practice parameter recommending that in-hospital pain management plans for surgical patients include continuous regimens of NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors as a means of combating the ongoing opioid epidemic.

“These are highly toxic drugs to the kidney and we shouldn’t be using them,” Dr. Szerlip said.

He reported receiving research grants from LaJolla, Bayer, Akebia, and BioPorto, serving on a speakers’ bureau for Astute Medical, and acting as a consultant to Zs Pharma, Amarin, and LaJolla.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS– Preventing acute kidney injury and its progression in hospitalized patients deserves to be a high priority – and now there is finally proof that it’s doable, Harold M. Szerlip, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The PrevAKI study, a recent randomized controlled clinical trial conducted by German investigators, has demonstrated that the use of renal biomarkers to identify patients at high risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) after major cardiac surgery and providing them with a range of internationally recommended supportive measures known as the KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) care bundle reduced the occurrence of moderate-to-severe AKI by 34% (Intensive Care Med. 2017 Nov;43[11]:1551-61).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The PrevAKI findings validate the concept of AKI ‘golden hours’ during which time potentially reversible early kidney injury detectable via renal biomarkers is occurring prior to the abrupt decline in kidney function measured by change in serum creatinine. “The problem with using change in creatinine to define AKI is the delay in diagnosis, which makes AKI more difficult to treat,” he explained.

The renal biomarkers utilized in PrevAKI were insulin-like growth factor binding protein-7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2), as incorporated in the commercially available urinary NephroCheck test, which was administered to study participants 4 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass. A test result of 0.3 or more identified a group at high risk for AKI for randomization to the KDIGO bundle or usual care. The KDIGO bundle consists of discontinuation of nephrotoxic agents when feasible, early optimization of fluid status, and maintenance of perfusion pressure.

Patients known to be at increased risk for in-hospital AKI include the elderly, those with diabetes, patients with heart failure or other conditions prone to volume contraction or overload, those undergoing major surgery, individuals with chronic kidney disease, and patients with sepsis.

Dr. Szerlip singled out as particularly nephrotoxic several drugs widely used in hospitalized patients, including the combination of vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam, which in a recent metaanalysis was found to have a number needed to harm of 11 in terms of AKI in comparison to vancomycin monotherapy or vancomycin in combination with cefepime or carbapenem (Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan;46[1]:12-20). He was also critical of the American Society of Anesthesiologists practice parameter recommending that in-hospital pain management plans for surgical patients include continuous regimens of NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors as a means of combating the ongoing opioid epidemic.

“These are highly toxic drugs to the kidney and we shouldn’t be using them,” Dr. Szerlip said.

He reported receiving research grants from LaJolla, Bayer, Akebia, and BioPorto, serving on a speakers’ bureau for Astute Medical, and acting as a consultant to Zs Pharma, Amarin, and LaJolla.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS– Preventing acute kidney injury and its progression in hospitalized patients deserves to be a high priority – and now there is finally proof that it’s doable, Harold M. Szerlip, MD, declared at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

The PrevAKI study, a recent randomized controlled clinical trial conducted by German investigators, has demonstrated that the use of renal biomarkers to identify patients at high risk for acute kidney injury (AKI) after major cardiac surgery and providing them with a range of internationally recommended supportive measures known as the KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) care bundle reduced the occurrence of moderate-to-severe AKI by 34% (Intensive Care Med. 2017 Nov;43[11]:1551-61).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The PrevAKI findings validate the concept of AKI ‘golden hours’ during which time potentially reversible early kidney injury detectable via renal biomarkers is occurring prior to the abrupt decline in kidney function measured by change in serum creatinine. “The problem with using change in creatinine to define AKI is the delay in diagnosis, which makes AKI more difficult to treat,” he explained.

The renal biomarkers utilized in PrevAKI were insulin-like growth factor binding protein-7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-2 (TIMP-2), as incorporated in the commercially available urinary NephroCheck test, which was administered to study participants 4 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass. A test result of 0.3 or more identified a group at high risk for AKI for randomization to the KDIGO bundle or usual care. The KDIGO bundle consists of discontinuation of nephrotoxic agents when feasible, early optimization of fluid status, and maintenance of perfusion pressure.

Patients known to be at increased risk for in-hospital AKI include the elderly, those with diabetes, patients with heart failure or other conditions prone to volume contraction or overload, those undergoing major surgery, individuals with chronic kidney disease, and patients with sepsis.

Dr. Szerlip singled out as particularly nephrotoxic several drugs widely used in hospitalized patients, including the combination of vancomycin plus piperacillin-tazobactam, which in a recent metaanalysis was found to have a number needed to harm of 11 in terms of AKI in comparison to vancomycin monotherapy or vancomycin in combination with cefepime or carbapenem (Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan;46[1]:12-20). He was also critical of the American Society of Anesthesiologists practice parameter recommending that in-hospital pain management plans for surgical patients include continuous regimens of NSAIDs or COX-2 inhibitors as a means of combating the ongoing opioid epidemic.

“These are highly toxic drugs to the kidney and we shouldn’t be using them,” Dr. Szerlip said.

He reported receiving research grants from LaJolla, Bayer, Akebia, and BioPorto, serving on a speakers’ bureau for Astute Medical, and acting as a consultant to Zs Pharma, Amarin, and LaJolla.

[email protected]

Which nonopioid prescription medications are ripe for abuse? There’s new clarity on multiple sclerosis therapy. How infections boost Sjogren’s syndrome risk. And bum kidneys shouldn’t stop dabigatran reversal.

Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.


 

Which nonopioid prescription medications are ripe for abuse? There’s new clarity on multiple sclerosis therapy. How infections boost Sjogren’s syndrome risk. And bum kidneys shouldn’t stop dabigatran reversal.

Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.


 

Which nonopioid prescription medications are ripe for abuse? There’s new clarity on multiple sclerosis therapy. How infections boost Sjogren’s syndrome risk. And bum kidneys shouldn’t stop dabigatran reversal.

Listen to the MDedge Daily News podcast for all the details on today’s top news.


 

ORLANDO – Idarucizumab, the reversal agent for the anticoagulant dabigatran, appeared as effective in quickly reversing dabigatran’s effects in patients with severe renal dysfunction as in patients with normally working kidneys, in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the drug’s pivotal trial.

A standard dose of idarucizumab “works just as well in patients with bad kidney function as it does in patients with preserved kidney function,” John W. Eikelboom, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “The time to cessation of bleeding and the degree of normal hemostasis achieved was consistent” across the entire range of renal function examined, from severe renal dysfunction, with a creatinine clearance rate of less than 30 mL/min, to normal function, with an estimated rate of 80 mL/min or greater.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The ability of idarucizumab (Praxbind), conditionally approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and then fully approved in April 2018, to work in patients with impaired renal function has been an open question and concern because dabigatran (Pradaxa) is excreted renally, so it builds to unusually high levels in patients with poor kidney function. “Plasma dabigatran levels might be sky high, so a standard dose of idarucizumab might not work. That’s been a fear of clinicians,” explained Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

To examine whether idarucizumab’s activity varied by renal function he used data from the patients enrolled in the RE-VERSE AD (Reversal Effects of Idarucizumab on Active Dabigatran) study, the pivotal dataset that led to idarucizumab’s U.S. approval. The new, post hoc analysis divided patients into four subgroups based on their kidney function, and focused on the 489 patients for whom renal data were available out of the 503 patients in the study (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377[5]:431-41). The subgroups included 91 patients with severe dysfunction with a creatinine clearance rate of less than 30 mL/min; 127 with moderate dysfunction and a clearance rate of 30-49 mL/min; 163 with mild dysfunction and a clearance rate of 50-79 mL/min; and 108 with normal function and a creatinine clearance of at least 80 mL/min.

Patients in the subgroup with severe renal dysfunction had the worst clinical profile overall, and as predicted, had a markedly elevated average plasma level of dabigatran, 231 ng/mL, nearly five times higher than the 47-ng/mL average level in patients with normal renal function.

The ability of a single, standard dose of idarucizumab to reverse the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran were essentially identical across the four strata of renal activity, with 98% of patients in both the severely impaired subgroup and the normal subgroup having 100% reversal within 4 hours of treatment, Dr. Eikelboom reported. Every patient included in the analysis had more than 50% reversal.

The study followed patients to 12-24 hours after they received idarucizumab, and 55% of patients with severe renal dysfunction showed a plasma dabigatran level that crept back toward a clinically meaningful level and so might need a second idarucizumab dose. In contrast, this happened in 8% of patients with normal renal function.

In patients with severe renal dysfunction given idarucizumab, “be alert for a recurrent bleed,” which could require a second dose of idarucizumab, Dr. Eikelboom suggested.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eikelboom JW et al. ACC 18, Abstract 1231M-11.

ORLANDO – Idarucizumab, the reversal agent for the anticoagulant dabigatran, appeared as effective in quickly reversing dabigatran’s effects in patients with severe renal dysfunction as in patients with normally working kidneys, in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the drug’s pivotal trial.

A standard dose of idarucizumab “works just as well in patients with bad kidney function as it does in patients with preserved kidney function,” John W. Eikelboom, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “The time to cessation of bleeding and the degree of normal hemostasis achieved was consistent” across the entire range of renal function examined, from severe renal dysfunction, with a creatinine clearance rate of less than 30 mL/min, to normal function, with an estimated rate of 80 mL/min or greater.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The ability of idarucizumab (Praxbind), conditionally approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and then fully approved in April 2018, to work in patients with impaired renal function has been an open question and concern because dabigatran (Pradaxa) is excreted renally, so it builds to unusually high levels in patients with poor kidney function. “Plasma dabigatran levels might be sky high, so a standard dose of idarucizumab might not work. That’s been a fear of clinicians,” explained Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

To examine whether idarucizumab’s activity varied by renal function he used data from the patients enrolled in the RE-VERSE AD (Reversal Effects of Idarucizumab on Active Dabigatran) study, the pivotal dataset that led to idarucizumab’s U.S. approval. The new, post hoc analysis divided patients into four subgroups based on their kidney function, and focused on the 489 patients for whom renal data were available out of the 503 patients in the study (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377[5]:431-41). The subgroups included 91 patients with severe dysfunction with a creatinine clearance rate of less than 30 mL/min; 127 with moderate dysfunction and a clearance rate of 30-49 mL/min; 163 with mild dysfunction and a clearance rate of 50-79 mL/min; and 108 with normal function and a creatinine clearance of at least 80 mL/min.

Patients in the subgroup with severe renal dysfunction had the worst clinical profile overall, and as predicted, had a markedly elevated average plasma level of dabigatran, 231 ng/mL, nearly five times higher than the 47-ng/mL average level in patients with normal renal function.

The ability of a single, standard dose of idarucizumab to reverse the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran were essentially identical across the four strata of renal activity, with 98% of patients in both the severely impaired subgroup and the normal subgroup having 100% reversal within 4 hours of treatment, Dr. Eikelboom reported. Every patient included in the analysis had more than 50% reversal.

The study followed patients to 12-24 hours after they received idarucizumab, and 55% of patients with severe renal dysfunction showed a plasma dabigatran level that crept back toward a clinically meaningful level and so might need a second idarucizumab dose. In contrast, this happened in 8% of patients with normal renal function.

In patients with severe renal dysfunction given idarucizumab, “be alert for a recurrent bleed,” which could require a second dose of idarucizumab, Dr. Eikelboom suggested.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eikelboom JW et al. ACC 18, Abstract 1231M-11.

ORLANDO – Idarucizumab, the reversal agent for the anticoagulant dabigatran, appeared as effective in quickly reversing dabigatran’s effects in patients with severe renal dysfunction as in patients with normally working kidneys, in a post hoc analysis of data collected in the drug’s pivotal trial.

A standard dose of idarucizumab “works just as well in patients with bad kidney function as it does in patients with preserved kidney function,” John W. Eikelboom, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. “The time to cessation of bleeding and the degree of normal hemostasis achieved was consistent” across the entire range of renal function examined, from severe renal dysfunction, with a creatinine clearance rate of less than 30 mL/min, to normal function, with an estimated rate of 80 mL/min or greater.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The ability of idarucizumab (Praxbind), conditionally approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and then fully approved in April 2018, to work in patients with impaired renal function has been an open question and concern because dabigatran (Pradaxa) is excreted renally, so it builds to unusually high levels in patients with poor kidney function. “Plasma dabigatran levels might be sky high, so a standard dose of idarucizumab might not work. That’s been a fear of clinicians,” explained Dr. Eikelboom, a hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

To examine whether idarucizumab’s activity varied by renal function he used data from the patients enrolled in the RE-VERSE AD (Reversal Effects of Idarucizumab on Active Dabigatran) study, the pivotal dataset that led to idarucizumab’s U.S. approval. The new, post hoc analysis divided patients into four subgroups based on their kidney function, and focused on the 489 patients for whom renal data were available out of the 503 patients in the study (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377[5]:431-41). The subgroups included 91 patients with severe dysfunction with a creatinine clearance rate of less than 30 mL/min; 127 with moderate dysfunction and a clearance rate of 30-49 mL/min; 163 with mild dysfunction and a clearance rate of 50-79 mL/min; and 108 with normal function and a creatinine clearance of at least 80 mL/min.

Patients in the subgroup with severe renal dysfunction had the worst clinical profile overall, and as predicted, had a markedly elevated average plasma level of dabigatran, 231 ng/mL, nearly five times higher than the 47-ng/mL average level in patients with normal renal function.

The ability of a single, standard dose of idarucizumab to reverse the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran were essentially identical across the four strata of renal activity, with 98% of patients in both the severely impaired subgroup and the normal subgroup having 100% reversal within 4 hours of treatment, Dr. Eikelboom reported. Every patient included in the analysis had more than 50% reversal.

The study followed patients to 12-24 hours after they received idarucizumab, and 55% of patients with severe renal dysfunction showed a plasma dabigatran level that crept back toward a clinically meaningful level and so might need a second idarucizumab dose. In contrast, this happened in 8% of patients with normal renal function.

In patients with severe renal dysfunction given idarucizumab, “be alert for a recurrent bleed,” which could require a second dose of idarucizumab, Dr. Eikelboom suggested.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Eikelboom JW et al. ACC 18, Abstract 1231M-11.

Clinical question: Do either intravenous sodium bicarbonate or oral acetylcysteine prevent renal morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing angiography?

Background: Both intravenous sodium bicarbonate and acetylcysteine are commonly used therapies aimed at preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. However, data regarding their efficacy are controversial, and prior studies have largely included patients with normal renal function.

Dr. Lusa is assistant professor of medicine, division of hospital medicine, University of Virginia.
 

Clinical question: Do either intravenous sodium bicarbonate or oral acetylcysteine prevent renal morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing angiography?

Background: Both intravenous sodium bicarbonate and acetylcysteine are commonly used therapies aimed at preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. However, data regarding their efficacy are controversial, and prior studies have largely included patients with normal renal function.

Dr. Lusa is assistant professor of medicine, division of hospital medicine, University of Virginia.
 

Clinical question: Do either intravenous sodium bicarbonate or oral acetylcysteine prevent renal morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing angiography?

Background: Both intravenous sodium bicarbonate and acetylcysteine are commonly used therapies aimed at preventing contrast-induced nephropathy. However, data regarding their efficacy are controversial, and prior studies have largely included patients with normal renal function.

Dr. Lusa is assistant professor of medicine, division of hospital medicine, University of Virginia.
 

Q) One of the physicians in my practice won't use metoprolol in African-American patients. He says it causes kidney disease. Is it right, or is this an old wives' tale?

There are multiple concerns with the use of metoprolol specifically—this does not apply to all ß-blockers—in the African-American population. The main concerns are

• Lack of effective blood pressure control, compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCBs)
• No observable reduction in proteinuria
• The possibility of a significant increase in uric acid.

Most of the evidence-based guidelines for care of hypertensive nephrosclerosis in the African-American population were derived from the African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) trial. This large-scale, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded study from the National Institute of Health had multiple arms to compare an ACE inhibitor (ramipril) to a CCB (amlodipine) or a ß-blocker (metoprolol) in the nondiabetic African-American population.¹

In a subgroup analysis, more than 1,000 subjects with hypertensive nephrosclerosis were followed for four years, with serial glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measurements taken. Treatment with ACE inhibitors was shown to be superior to CCB and ß-blockers for hypertension and proteinuria control.¹

One important take-away from the AASK trial has been that strict blood pressure control is not enough to improve kidney outcomes. Proteinuria (albuminuria) must also be controlled.¹

Continue to: In a subsequent secondary analysis

In a subsequent secondary analysis of data from the AASK study, Juraschek et al showed that metoprolol significantly increased serum uric acid in African-American adults.² It is known that hyperuricemia (> 6 mg/dL) can cause a decline in kidney function.³

Furthermore, uric acid may be a strong prognostic factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. (This association, however, remains controversial. One recent study showed that, while hyperuricemia is associated with higher risk for kidney failure, the relationship was not parallel in CKD stage 3 or 4 [GFR ≤ 60 mL/min]).⁴ In fact, taking uric acid–lowering medications did not slow progression of kidney disease.

In other words, your colleague seems to believe that since A (metoprolol) leads to B (hyperuricemia) and B (hyperuricemia) leads to C (kidney disease), then A leads to C. While the theory is undoubtedly logical, we have no proof that metoprolol causes increased kidney disease in African-American patients.

What we do know, thanks to AASK, is that an African-American patient with ­kidney disease should be treated with a diuretic and/or an ACE inhibitor as initial therapy. Furthermore, we have a blood pressure goal: < 130/80 mm Hg. And we know that CCBs are most effective for African-American patients who do not have kidney disease.⁵—BWM

Barbara Weis Malone, DNP, FNP-C, FNKF
Assistant Professor
Adult/Gerontology NP Program, College of Nursing

Nurse Practitioner
School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Q) One of the physicians in my practice won't use metoprolol in African-American patients. He says it causes kidney disease. Is it right, or is this an old wives' tale?

There are multiple concerns with the use of metoprolol specifically—this does not apply to all ß-blockers—in the African-American population. The main concerns are

• Lack of effective blood pressure control, compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCBs)
• No observable reduction in proteinuria
• The possibility of a significant increase in uric acid.

Most of the evidence-based guidelines for care of hypertensive nephrosclerosis in the African-American population were derived from the African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) trial. This large-scale, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded study from the National Institute of Health had multiple arms to compare an ACE inhibitor (ramipril) to a CCB (amlodipine) or a ß-blocker (metoprolol) in the nondiabetic African-American population.¹

In a subgroup analysis, more than 1,000 subjects with hypertensive nephrosclerosis were followed for four years, with serial glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measurements taken. Treatment with ACE inhibitors was shown to be superior to CCB and ß-blockers for hypertension and proteinuria control.¹

One important take-away from the AASK trial has been that strict blood pressure control is not enough to improve kidney outcomes. Proteinuria (albuminuria) must also be controlled.¹

Continue to: In a subsequent secondary analysis

In a subsequent secondary analysis of data from the AASK study, Juraschek et al showed that metoprolol significantly increased serum uric acid in African-American adults.² It is known that hyperuricemia (> 6 mg/dL) can cause a decline in kidney function.³

Furthermore, uric acid may be a strong prognostic factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. (This association, however, remains controversial. One recent study showed that, while hyperuricemia is associated with higher risk for kidney failure, the relationship was not parallel in CKD stage 3 or 4 [GFR ≤ 60 mL/min]).⁴ In fact, taking uric acid–lowering medications did not slow progression of kidney disease.

In other words, your colleague seems to believe that since A (metoprolol) leads to B (hyperuricemia) and B (hyperuricemia) leads to C (kidney disease), then A leads to C. While the theory is undoubtedly logical, we have no proof that metoprolol causes increased kidney disease in African-American patients.

What we do know, thanks to AASK, is that an African-American patient with ­kidney disease should be treated with a diuretic and/or an ACE inhibitor as initial therapy. Furthermore, we have a blood pressure goal: < 130/80 mm Hg. And we know that CCBs are most effective for African-American patients who do not have kidney disease.⁵—BWM

Barbara Weis Malone, DNP, FNP-C, FNKF
Assistant Professor
Adult/Gerontology NP Program, College of Nursing

Nurse Practitioner
School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Q) One of the physicians in my practice won't use metoprolol in African-American patients. He says it causes kidney disease. Is it right, or is this an old wives' tale?

There are multiple concerns with the use of metoprolol specifically—this does not apply to all ß-blockers—in the African-American population. The main concerns are

• Lack of effective blood pressure control, compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCBs)
• No observable reduction in proteinuria
• The possibility of a significant increase in uric acid.

Most of the evidence-based guidelines for care of hypertensive nephrosclerosis in the African-American population were derived from the African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) trial. This large-scale, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded study from the National Institute of Health had multiple arms to compare an ACE inhibitor (ramipril) to a CCB (amlodipine) or a ß-blocker (metoprolol) in the nondiabetic African-American population.¹

In a subgroup analysis, more than 1,000 subjects with hypertensive nephrosclerosis were followed for four years, with serial glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measurements taken. Treatment with ACE inhibitors was shown to be superior to CCB and ß-blockers for hypertension and proteinuria control.¹

One important take-away from the AASK trial has been that strict blood pressure control is not enough to improve kidney outcomes. Proteinuria (albuminuria) must also be controlled.¹

Continue to: In a subsequent secondary analysis

In a subsequent secondary analysis of data from the AASK study, Juraschek et al showed that metoprolol significantly increased serum uric acid in African-American adults.² It is known that hyperuricemia (> 6 mg/dL) can cause a decline in kidney function.³

Furthermore, uric acid may be a strong prognostic factor for chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression. (This association, however, remains controversial. One recent study showed that, while hyperuricemia is associated with higher risk for kidney failure, the relationship was not parallel in CKD stage 3 or 4 [GFR ≤ 60 mL/min]).⁴ In fact, taking uric acid–lowering medications did not slow progression of kidney disease.

In other words, your colleague seems to believe that since A (metoprolol) leads to B (hyperuricemia) and B (hyperuricemia) leads to C (kidney disease), then A leads to C. While the theory is undoubtedly logical, we have no proof that metoprolol causes increased kidney disease in African-American patients.

What we do know, thanks to AASK, is that an African-American patient with ­kidney disease should be treated with a diuretic and/or an ACE inhibitor as initial therapy. Furthermore, we have a blood pressure goal: < 130/80 mm Hg. And we know that CCBs are most effective for African-American patients who do not have kidney disease.⁵—BWM

Barbara Weis Malone, DNP, FNP-C, FNKF
Assistant Professor
Adult/Gerontology NP Program, College of Nursing

Nurse Practitioner
School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Q) Many of my patients are athletes. I recall reading something about kidney disease in marathon runners. Am I remembering correctly?

Although data on acute kidney injury (AKI) in marathon runners are limited, two recent studies have added to our knowledge. In 2017, Mansour et al studied 22 marathon runners, collecting urine and blood samples 24 hours before, immediately after, and 24 hours after a race. The results showed that in 82% of the subjects, serum creatinine increased to a level correlated with stage 1 or 2 AKI (as defined by the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria).¹

Based on urine microscopy results, as well as serum creatinine and novel biomarker levels, the researchers concluded that the runners’ AKI was caused by acute tubular injury—likely induced by ischemia. However, the subjects did not show any evidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), despite years of running and intensive training. One theory: Habitual running might condition the kidneys to transient ischemic conditions—in other words, they build tolerance to repetitive injury over time.¹

Continue to: The other recent study

The other recent study examined use of NSAIDs by ultramarathon runners (ie, those who run more than 26.219 miles). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 52% of runners taking ibuprofen developed AKI, compared with 34% of those receiving placebo; the number needed to treat was 5.5. AKI was also more severe in NSAID users than in placebo users. The results were not statistically significant due to an underpowered study (N = 89). However, the authors also observed that slower runners were less likely to develop AKI, and those who lost the most weight during the race were more likely to develop AKI—suggesting that lower intensity running and adequate hydration may help prevent kidney injury.²

In summary: While marathon runners are prone to AKI, the injury seems to be transient and does not progress to CKD. Furthermore, use of NSAIDs during endurance running may contribute to AKI development, so patients should be advised to use caution with these analgesics. Finally, remind your endurance runners to stay hydrated, since it may help to limit kidney damage. As for the casual runner? The impact on the kidney remains unclear and needs further investigation. —DSW

Danielle S. Wentworth, MSN, FNP-BC
Division of Nephrology, University of Viriginia Health System, Charlottesville

Q) Many of my patients are athletes. I recall reading something about kidney disease in marathon runners. Am I remembering correctly?

Although data on acute kidney injury (AKI) in marathon runners are limited, two recent studies have added to our knowledge. In 2017, Mansour et al studied 22 marathon runners, collecting urine and blood samples 24 hours before, immediately after, and 24 hours after a race. The results showed that in 82% of the subjects, serum creatinine increased to a level correlated with stage 1 or 2 AKI (as defined by the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria).¹

Based on urine microscopy results, as well as serum creatinine and novel biomarker levels, the researchers concluded that the runners’ AKI was caused by acute tubular injury—likely induced by ischemia. However, the subjects did not show any evidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), despite years of running and intensive training. One theory: Habitual running might condition the kidneys to transient ischemic conditions—in other words, they build tolerance to repetitive injury over time.¹

Continue to: The other recent study

The other recent study examined use of NSAIDs by ultramarathon runners (ie, those who run more than 26.219 miles). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 52% of runners taking ibuprofen developed AKI, compared with 34% of those receiving placebo; the number needed to treat was 5.5. AKI was also more severe in NSAID users than in placebo users. The results were not statistically significant due to an underpowered study (N = 89). However, the authors also observed that slower runners were less likely to develop AKI, and those who lost the most weight during the race were more likely to develop AKI—suggesting that lower intensity running and adequate hydration may help prevent kidney injury.²

In summary: While marathon runners are prone to AKI, the injury seems to be transient and does not progress to CKD. Furthermore, use of NSAIDs during endurance running may contribute to AKI development, so patients should be advised to use caution with these analgesics. Finally, remind your endurance runners to stay hydrated, since it may help to limit kidney damage. As for the casual runner? The impact on the kidney remains unclear and needs further investigation. —DSW

Danielle S. Wentworth, MSN, FNP-BC
Division of Nephrology, University of Viriginia Health System, Charlottesville

Q) Many of my patients are athletes. I recall reading something about kidney disease in marathon runners. Am I remembering correctly?

Although data on acute kidney injury (AKI) in marathon runners are limited, two recent studies have added to our knowledge. In 2017, Mansour et al studied 22 marathon runners, collecting urine and blood samples 24 hours before, immediately after, and 24 hours after a race. The results showed that in 82% of the subjects, serum creatinine increased to a level correlated with stage 1 or 2 AKI (as defined by the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria).¹

Based on urine microscopy results, as well as serum creatinine and novel biomarker levels, the researchers concluded that the runners’ AKI was caused by acute tubular injury—likely induced by ischemia. However, the subjects did not show any evidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), despite years of running and intensive training. One theory: Habitual running might condition the kidneys to transient ischemic conditions—in other words, they build tolerance to repetitive injury over time.¹

Continue to: The other recent study

The other recent study examined use of NSAIDs by ultramarathon runners (ie, those who run more than 26.219 miles). In an intention-to-treat analysis, 52% of runners taking ibuprofen developed AKI, compared with 34% of those receiving placebo; the number needed to treat was 5.5. AKI was also more severe in NSAID users than in placebo users. The results were not statistically significant due to an underpowered study (N = 89). However, the authors also observed that slower runners were less likely to develop AKI, and those who lost the most weight during the race were more likely to develop AKI—suggesting that lower intensity running and adequate hydration may help prevent kidney injury.²

In summary: While marathon runners are prone to AKI, the injury seems to be transient and does not progress to CKD. Furthermore, use of NSAIDs during endurance running may contribute to AKI development, so patients should be advised to use caution with these analgesics. Finally, remind your endurance runners to stay hydrated, since it may help to limit kidney damage. As for the casual runner? The impact on the kidney remains unclear and needs further investigation. —DSW

Danielle S. Wentworth, MSN, FNP-BC
Division of Nephrology, University of Viriginia Health System, Charlottesville

LOS ANGELES – Results from recent trials suggest that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors decrease urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio in type 2 diabetes, independent of hemoglobin A¹c lowering.

“Despite optimal care around blood pressure control, glycemic control, and control of other risk factors, our patients still have a significant risk of both cardiovascular disease progression and renal disease progression,” David Cherney, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “In fact, when we have a narrow focus on glycemia, there is a lot of additional residual risk, and that A¹c lowering by itself does not negate that risk and in fact has very little effect on clinical outcomes. That brings us to the newer hyperglycemic therapies, including the SGLT2 inhibitors. While these agents do indeed block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidney, they also have an effect on other nonglycemic risk factors.”

“Inside the kidney, there are direct effects on reducing intraglomerular hypertension, leading to reductions in proteinuria,” he said. “These agents are interesting because of the way that they influence how the kidney handles sodium. As a consequence, they impact on glomerular hypertension.”

Under normal physiological conditions, humans who become volume depleted or hypotensive experience a reduction in sodium delivery to the kidney by the afferent arteriole, he explained. If less sodium is delivered to the afferent arteriole, less is filtered and delivered to the macula densa, which is the sodium-sensing area of the kidney.

“If less sodium is delivered to the macula densa, less sodium will be reabsorbed, which is an energy-requiring process that leads to the breakdown of ATP [adenosine triphosphate],” Dr. Cherney said. “If less ATP is broken down to adenosine, then less adenosine is produced. Adenosine is a vasoconstrictor in this area. So, under conditions of hypervolemia or hypotension, that’s great, because we want to maintain blood flow to the kidney; that’s a protective autoregulatory response that all of us have called tubular glomerular feedback. It’s through sodium delivery to the macula densa.”

He went on to note that hyperglycemic patients who are not taking an SGLT2 inhibitor experience an increase in sodium absorption proximally, which decreases sodium delivery to the macula densa. As a result, this causes afferent dilation, which leads to a rise in glomerular pressure, glomerular hypertension, hyperfiltration, and an increased risk of renal disease progression.

“This leads to all the effects that we see clinically, including the GFR [glomerular filtration rate] dip and the reduction in proteinuria that these agents cause either when used alone or with an ACE or ARB [angiotensin II receptor blocker],” Dr. Cherney said. “SGLT2s constrict the afferent arterial and reduce glomerular hypertension and proteinuria, whereas ACE inhibitors dilate the efferent arterial, which also reduces glomerular hypertension and proteinuria.”

An analysis of renal data from the multicenter EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes) found that the use of empagliflozin was associated with slower progression of kidney disease than was placebo when added to standard care. Empagliflozin was also associated with a significantly lower risk of clinically relevant renal events, including a 40%-50% reduction in microalbuminuria in patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 28;375:323-34).

In a recent study of EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients, Dr. Cherney and his associates examined the effects of empagliflozin on the urinary albumin to creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Aug;5[8]:610-21). They found that even in patients with normal albuminuria at baseline, by the end of the trial at about 3 years there was a modest but statistically significant 15% reduction in urinary albumin secretion. “That reduction was greater in patients with microalbuminuria at baseline,” Dr. Cherney said. “There was a more than 40% reduction in microalbuminuric patients, and almost a 50% in patients who had macroalbuminuria at baseline, suggesting that the effect is greater in patients with higher levels of albuminuria.”

Meanwhile, results from the CANVAS program, which integrated data from two trials of more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular disease risk, showed that those who received canagliflozin had a 14% reduced risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE), compared with those who received placebo. (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug;377:644-57). “There was a curious increased risk of amputation and fracture in the canagliflozin group, which has not been seen in other trials,” Dr. Cherney said. “That certainly merits further thought and investigation, to better understand how significant this risk is.”

Upcoming trials of renal endpoints to look out for, he said, include the CREDENCE study (results expected in 2019), DAPA-CKD, which is in the recruitment stage, and a new outcome study to evaluate the effect of empagliflozin for the treatment of people with chronic kidney disease. “This is an expanding area in the renal and cardiovascular world that we will hear a lot more about in the next 3-5 years,” he said.

Dr. Cherney reported consulting fees and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Results from recent trials suggest that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors decrease urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio in type 2 diabetes, independent of hemoglobin A¹c lowering.

“Despite optimal care around blood pressure control, glycemic control, and control of other risk factors, our patients still have a significant risk of both cardiovascular disease progression and renal disease progression,” David Cherney, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “In fact, when we have a narrow focus on glycemia, there is a lot of additional residual risk, and that A¹c lowering by itself does not negate that risk and in fact has very little effect on clinical outcomes. That brings us to the newer hyperglycemic therapies, including the SGLT2 inhibitors. While these agents do indeed block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidney, they also have an effect on other nonglycemic risk factors.”

“Inside the kidney, there are direct effects on reducing intraglomerular hypertension, leading to reductions in proteinuria,” he said. “These agents are interesting because of the way that they influence how the kidney handles sodium. As a consequence, they impact on glomerular hypertension.”

Under normal physiological conditions, humans who become volume depleted or hypotensive experience a reduction in sodium delivery to the kidney by the afferent arteriole, he explained. If less sodium is delivered to the afferent arteriole, less is filtered and delivered to the macula densa, which is the sodium-sensing area of the kidney.

“If less sodium is delivered to the macula densa, less sodium will be reabsorbed, which is an energy-requiring process that leads to the breakdown of ATP [adenosine triphosphate],” Dr. Cherney said. “If less ATP is broken down to adenosine, then less adenosine is produced. Adenosine is a vasoconstrictor in this area. So, under conditions of hypervolemia or hypotension, that’s great, because we want to maintain blood flow to the kidney; that’s a protective autoregulatory response that all of us have called tubular glomerular feedback. It’s through sodium delivery to the macula densa.”

He went on to note that hyperglycemic patients who are not taking an SGLT2 inhibitor experience an increase in sodium absorption proximally, which decreases sodium delivery to the macula densa. As a result, this causes afferent dilation, which leads to a rise in glomerular pressure, glomerular hypertension, hyperfiltration, and an increased risk of renal disease progression.

“This leads to all the effects that we see clinically, including the GFR [glomerular filtration rate] dip and the reduction in proteinuria that these agents cause either when used alone or with an ACE or ARB [angiotensin II receptor blocker],” Dr. Cherney said. “SGLT2s constrict the afferent arterial and reduce glomerular hypertension and proteinuria, whereas ACE inhibitors dilate the efferent arterial, which also reduces glomerular hypertension and proteinuria.”

An analysis of renal data from the multicenter EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes) found that the use of empagliflozin was associated with slower progression of kidney disease than was placebo when added to standard care. Empagliflozin was also associated with a significantly lower risk of clinically relevant renal events, including a 40%-50% reduction in microalbuminuria in patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 28;375:323-34).

In a recent study of EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients, Dr. Cherney and his associates examined the effects of empagliflozin on the urinary albumin to creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Aug;5[8]:610-21). They found that even in patients with normal albuminuria at baseline, by the end of the trial at about 3 years there was a modest but statistically significant 15% reduction in urinary albumin secretion. “That reduction was greater in patients with microalbuminuria at baseline,” Dr. Cherney said. “There was a more than 40% reduction in microalbuminuric patients, and almost a 50% in patients who had macroalbuminuria at baseline, suggesting that the effect is greater in patients with higher levels of albuminuria.”

Meanwhile, results from the CANVAS program, which integrated data from two trials of more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular disease risk, showed that those who received canagliflozin had a 14% reduced risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE), compared with those who received placebo. (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug;377:644-57). “There was a curious increased risk of amputation and fracture in the canagliflozin group, which has not been seen in other trials,” Dr. Cherney said. “That certainly merits further thought and investigation, to better understand how significant this risk is.”

Upcoming trials of renal endpoints to look out for, he said, include the CREDENCE study (results expected in 2019), DAPA-CKD, which is in the recruitment stage, and a new outcome study to evaluate the effect of empagliflozin for the treatment of people with chronic kidney disease. “This is an expanding area in the renal and cardiovascular world that we will hear a lot more about in the next 3-5 years,” he said.

Dr. Cherney reported consulting fees and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Results from recent trials suggest that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors decrease urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio in type 2 diabetes, independent of hemoglobin A¹c lowering.

“Despite optimal care around blood pressure control, glycemic control, and control of other risk factors, our patients still have a significant risk of both cardiovascular disease progression and renal disease progression,” David Cherney, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “In fact, when we have a narrow focus on glycemia, there is a lot of additional residual risk, and that A¹c lowering by itself does not negate that risk and in fact has very little effect on clinical outcomes. That brings us to the newer hyperglycemic therapies, including the SGLT2 inhibitors. While these agents do indeed block the reabsorption of glucose in the kidney, they also have an effect on other nonglycemic risk factors.”

“Inside the kidney, there are direct effects on reducing intraglomerular hypertension, leading to reductions in proteinuria,” he said. “These agents are interesting because of the way that they influence how the kidney handles sodium. As a consequence, they impact on glomerular hypertension.”

Under normal physiological conditions, humans who become volume depleted or hypotensive experience a reduction in sodium delivery to the kidney by the afferent arteriole, he explained. If less sodium is delivered to the afferent arteriole, less is filtered and delivered to the macula densa, which is the sodium-sensing area of the kidney.

“If less sodium is delivered to the macula densa, less sodium will be reabsorbed, which is an energy-requiring process that leads to the breakdown of ATP [adenosine triphosphate],” Dr. Cherney said. “If less ATP is broken down to adenosine, then less adenosine is produced. Adenosine is a vasoconstrictor in this area. So, under conditions of hypervolemia or hypotension, that’s great, because we want to maintain blood flow to the kidney; that’s a protective autoregulatory response that all of us have called tubular glomerular feedback. It’s through sodium delivery to the macula densa.”

He went on to note that hyperglycemic patients who are not taking an SGLT2 inhibitor experience an increase in sodium absorption proximally, which decreases sodium delivery to the macula densa. As a result, this causes afferent dilation, which leads to a rise in glomerular pressure, glomerular hypertension, hyperfiltration, and an increased risk of renal disease progression.

“This leads to all the effects that we see clinically, including the GFR [glomerular filtration rate] dip and the reduction in proteinuria that these agents cause either when used alone or with an ACE or ARB [angiotensin II receptor blocker],” Dr. Cherney said. “SGLT2s constrict the afferent arterial and reduce glomerular hypertension and proteinuria, whereas ACE inhibitors dilate the efferent arterial, which also reduces glomerular hypertension and proteinuria.”

An analysis of renal data from the multicenter EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial (Empagliflozin, Cardiovascular Outcomes, and Mortality in Type 2 Diabetes) found that the use of empagliflozin was associated with slower progression of kidney disease than was placebo when added to standard care. Empagliflozin was also associated with a significantly lower risk of clinically relevant renal events, including a 40%-50% reduction in microalbuminuria in patients with micro- or macroalbuminuria (N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 28;375:323-34).

In a recent study of EMPA-REG OUTCOME patients, Dr. Cherney and his associates examined the effects of empagliflozin on the urinary albumin to creatinine ratio in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017 Aug;5[8]:610-21). They found that even in patients with normal albuminuria at baseline, by the end of the trial at about 3 years there was a modest but statistically significant 15% reduction in urinary albumin secretion. “That reduction was greater in patients with microalbuminuria at baseline,” Dr. Cherney said. “There was a more than 40% reduction in microalbuminuric patients, and almost a 50% in patients who had macroalbuminuria at baseline, suggesting that the effect is greater in patients with higher levels of albuminuria.”

Meanwhile, results from the CANVAS program, which integrated data from two trials of more than 10,000 patients with type 2 diabetes and high cardiovascular disease risk, showed that those who received canagliflozin had a 14% reduced risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events (3P-MACE), compared with those who received placebo. (N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug;377:644-57). “There was a curious increased risk of amputation and fracture in the canagliflozin group, which has not been seen in other trials,” Dr. Cherney said. “That certainly merits further thought and investigation, to better understand how significant this risk is.”

Upcoming trials of renal endpoints to look out for, he said, include the CREDENCE study (results expected in 2019), DAPA-CKD, which is in the recruitment stage, and a new outcome study to evaluate the effect of empagliflozin for the treatment of people with chronic kidney disease. “This is an expanding area in the renal and cardiovascular world that we will hear a lot more about in the next 3-5 years,” he said.

Dr. Cherney reported consulting fees and/or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Sanofi.

[email protected]

In the symptomatic child with neurogenic bladder at risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), urine culture should be performed regardless of the results of urinalysis, recommended Catherine S. Forster, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and her associates.

In a general pediatric population, studies have found that certain uropathogens – such as Enterococcus species, Klebsiella species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa – are less likely to be associated with pyuria than Escherichia coli.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

In children needing CIC for neurogenic bladder, growth of Enterococcus species on urine culture was linked with lower odds of both microscopic pyuria (0.44) and leukocyte esterase (0.45).

“With these results, we suggest that the current markers of UTI evidenced on urinalysis and urine microscopy are insufficient for predicting bacteriuria in this population,” Dr. Forster and her colleagues said, leading to their recommendation to perform a culture in symptomatic children with neurogenic bladders irrespective of urinalysis results.

Dr. Forster received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Forster CS et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(5):e20173006.

In the symptomatic child with neurogenic bladder at risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), urine culture should be performed regardless of the results of urinalysis, recommended Catherine S. Forster, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and her associates.

In a general pediatric population, studies have found that certain uropathogens – such as Enterococcus species, Klebsiella species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa – are less likely to be associated with pyuria than Escherichia coli.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

In children needing CIC for neurogenic bladder, growth of Enterococcus species on urine culture was linked with lower odds of both microscopic pyuria (0.44) and leukocyte esterase (0.45).

“With these results, we suggest that the current markers of UTI evidenced on urinalysis and urine microscopy are insufficient for predicting bacteriuria in this population,” Dr. Forster and her colleagues said, leading to their recommendation to perform a culture in symptomatic children with neurogenic bladders irrespective of urinalysis results.

Dr. Forster received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Forster CS et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(5):e20173006.

In the symptomatic child with neurogenic bladder at risk for urinary tract infection (UTI), urine culture should be performed regardless of the results of urinalysis, recommended Catherine S. Forster, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, and her associates.

In a general pediatric population, studies have found that certain uropathogens – such as Enterococcus species, Klebsiella species, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa – are less likely to be associated with pyuria than Escherichia coli.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

In children needing CIC for neurogenic bladder, growth of Enterococcus species on urine culture was linked with lower odds of both microscopic pyuria (0.44) and leukocyte esterase (0.45).

“With these results, we suggest that the current markers of UTI evidenced on urinalysis and urine microscopy are insufficient for predicting bacteriuria in this population,” Dr. Forster and her colleagues said, leading to their recommendation to perform a culture in symptomatic children with neurogenic bladders irrespective of urinalysis results.

Dr. Forster received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators said they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Forster CS et al. Pediatrics. 2018;141(5):e20173006.