Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis Patient Baseline Characteristics in the Sparsentan Phase 3 DUPLEX Study.

Introduction: The phase 3 DUPLEX trial is evaluating sparsentan, a novel, nonimmunosuppressive, single-molecule dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, in patients with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). Methods: DUPLEX (NCT03493685) is a global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled study evaluating the efficacy and safety of sparsentan 800 mg once daily versus irbesartan 300 mg once daily in patients aged 8 to 75 years (USA/UK) and 18 to 75 years (ex-USA/UK) weighing ≥20 kg with biopsy-proven FSGS or documented genetic mutation in a podocyte protein associated with FSGS, and urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UP/C) ≥1.5 g/g. Baseline characteristics blinded to treatment allocation are reported descriptively. Results: The primary analysis population includes 371 patients (336 adult, 35 pediatric [<18 years]) who were randomized and received study drug (median age, 42 years). Patients were White (73.0%), Asian (13.2%), Black/African American (6.7%), or Other race (7.0%); and from North America (38.8%), Europe (36.1%), South America (12.7%), or Asia Pacific (12.4%). Baseline median UP/C was 3.0 g/g; 42.6% in nephrotic-range (UP/C >3.5 g/g [adults]; >2.0 g/g [pediatrics]). Patients were evenly distributed across estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) categories corresponding to chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 1 to 3b. Thirty-three patients (9.4% of 352 evaluable samples) had pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants of genes essential to podocyte structural integrity and function, 27 (7.7%) had P/LP collagen gene (COL4A3/4/5) variants, and 14 (4.0%) had high-risk APOL1 genotypes. Conclusions: Patient enrollment in DUPLEX, the largest interventional study in FSGS to date, will enable important characterization of the treatment effect of sparsentan in a geographically broad and clinically diverse FSGS population.

Sparsentan: the first and only non-immunosuppressive therapy for the reduction of proteinuria in IgA nephropathy.

INTRODUCTION: IgA nephropathy is one of the most common forms of glomerular disease. Patients with persistent proteinuria are at increased risk of progression to kidney failure. There is a significant need for safe and effective therapies to lower proteinuria in these patients. Sparsentan is a non-immunosuppressive agent that acts as a dual angiotensin and endothelin receptor antagonist. It lowers proteinuria in experimental models of glomerular disease and in affected patients. AREAS COVERED: This review covers the immunological and non-immunological actions of sparsentan in glomerular disease. It reviews the clinical trials that evaluated the impact of the drug in pediatric and adult patients with IgA nephropathy. It places the use of sparsentan in an overall treatment paradigm for the full spectrum of patients with IgA nephropathy including nonspecific renoprotective agents such as inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis and SGLT2 transporter and immunosuppressive drugs. The review represents a search of the current literature about the effect of the drug on normal physiology and the pathogenesis of IgA nephropathy. EXPERT OPINION: The safety, tolerability, and therapeutic efficacy of sparsentan have been demonstrated in long-term studies of patients with primary glomerular diseases extending over 5 years. The evidence in support of a beneficial treatment effect of sparsentan is stronger in IgAN than in FSGS. It is anticipated that sparsentan will supplant the use of ACEI or ARB as the first-line therapy to reduce proteinuria prior to the implementation of immunosuppressive agents in patients with IgA nephropathy. It may be combined with other renoprotective drugs like SGLT2 inhibitors. Practice guidelines are needed to promote safe and effective use of this new drug by nephrologists caring for patients with IgAN in all clinical settings.

Sparsentan versus Irbesartan in Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: An unmet need exists for focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) treatment. In an 8-week, phase 2 trial, sparsentan, a dual endothelin-angiotensin receptor antagonist, reduced proteinuria in patients with FSGS. The efficacy and safety of longer-term treatment with sparsentan for FSGS are unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with FSGS (without known secondary causes) who were 8 to 75 years of age; patients were randomly assigned to receive sparsentan or irbesartan (active control) for 108 weeks. The surrogate efficacy end point assessed at the prespecified interim analysis at 36 weeks was the FSGS partial remission of proteinuria end point (defined as a urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio of ≤1.5 [with protein and creatinine both measured in grams] and a >40% reduction in the ratio from baseline). The primary efficacy end point was the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slope at the time of the final analysis. The change in eGFR from baseline to 4 weeks after the end of treatment (week 112) was a secondary end point. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients underwent randomization: 184 were assigned to receive sparsentan and 187 to receive irbesartan. At 36 weeks, the percentage of patients with partial remission of proteinuria was 42.0% in the sparsentan group and 26.0% in the irbesartan group (P = 0.009), a response that was sustained through 108 weeks. At the time of the final analysis at week 108, there were no significant between-group differences in the eGFR slope; the between-group difference in total slope (day 1 to week 108) was 0.3 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.7 to 2.4), and the between-group difference in the slope from week 6 to week 108 (i.e., chronic slope) was 0.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 per year (95% CI, -1.3 to 3.0). The mean change in eGFR from baseline to week 112 was -10.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 with sparsentan and -12.1 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 with irbesartan (difference, 1.8 ml per minute per 1.73 m2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 4.9). Sparsentan and irbesartan had similar safety profiles, and the frequency of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with FSGS, there were no significant between-group differences in eGFR slope at 108 weeks, despite a greater reduction in proteinuria with sparsentan than with irbesartan. (Funded by Travere Therapeutics; DUPLEX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03493685.).

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. METHODS: PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. FINDINGS: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6-110) was -2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus -3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1-week 110) was -2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus -3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI -0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (-42·8%, 95% CI -49·8 to -35·0, with sparsentan versus -4·4%, -15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. INTERPRETATION: Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function. FUNDING: Travere Therapeutics.

Implications of Complete Proteinuria Remission at any Time in Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis: Sparsentan DUET Trial.

Introduction: Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS) is a rare glomerular disease with high unmet clinical need. Interest in proteinuria as a surrogate end point for regulatory approval of novel treatments has increased. We assessed the relationship between achieving complete remission (CR) of proteinuria at least once during follow-up and long-term kidney outcomes. Methods: This post hoc analysis included all patients enrolled in the DUET trial of sparsentan in FSGS and the open-label extension (OLE). Evaluations occurred every 12 weeks, including blood pressure (BP), edema, proteinuria, and kidney function. CR was defined as a urine protein/creatinine ratio ≤0.3g/g in a first morning urine sample. Results: A total of 108 patients who received ≥1 sparsentan dose were included in this study. During a median follow-up of 47.0 months, 46 patients (43%) experienced ≥1 CR, 61% occurring within 12 months of starting sparsentan. There was an increased likelihood of CR with a higher sparsentan dose or baseline subnephrotic-range proteinuria. Achieving ≥1 CR was associated with significantly slower rate of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline versus non-CR patients (P < 0.05). Use of immunosuppressive agents was more frequent in patients who achieved a CR. However, the antiproteinuric effect of sparsentan was additive to that achieved with concomitant immunosuppressive treatment. No unanticipated adverse events occurred. Conclusion: We conclude that sparsentan can be safely administered for extended periods and exerts a sustained antiproteinuric effect. Achievement of CR at any time during follow-up, even if it is not sustained, may be an indicator of a favorable response to treatment and a predictor of improved kidney function outcomes.

IgA Nephropathy Patient Baseline Characteristics in the Sparsentan PROTECT Study.

Introduction: Sparsentan is a novel single-molecule dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist with hemodynamic and anti-inflammatory properties and is not an immunosuppressant. The ongoing phase 3 PROTECT trial examines sparsentan in adults with IgA nephropathy (IgAN). Methods: The PROTECT trial (NCT03762850) is a multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, active-controlled study. The efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus the active control irbesartan is being evaluated in adults with biopsy-proven IgAN and proteinuria ≥1.0 g/d despite maximized treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and/or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for at least 12 weeks. Blinded and aggregated baseline characteristics are reported descriptively and compared to contemporary phase 3 trials with patients with IgAN. Results: The primary analysis population includes 404 patients who were randomized and received study drug (median age, 46 years). Enrolled patients were from Europe (53%), Asia Pacific (27%), and North America (20%). Baseline median urinary protein excretion was 1.8 g/d. The range of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was broad with the largest proportion of patients (35%) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3B. Before transitioning to study medication, mean systolic/diastolic blood pressure was 129/82 mm Hg, with the majority of patients (63.4%) receiving the maximum labeled ACEi or ARB dose. Patients in Asian versus non-Asian regions included a higher percentage of females, had lower blood pressures, and included lower proportions of patients with a history of hypertension and baseline antihypertensive treatment. Conclusions: Patient enrollment in PROTECT, with differing racial backgrounds and across CKD stages, will allow for important characterization of the treatment effect of sparsentan in patients with IgAN with proteinuria at high risk of kidney failure.

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. METHODS: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to <60 mL/min per 1·73 m2 and ≥60 mL/min per 1·73 m2) and urine protein excretion at screening (≤1·75 g/day and >1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. FINDINGS: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. INTERPRETATION: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. FUNDING: Travere Therapeutics.

Dietary protein intake, kidney function, and survival in a nationally representative cohort.

BACKGROUND: High-protein diets (e.g., Paleo, Atkins, South Beach, ketogenic) have gained popularity as a means to promote weight loss and avoid excess carbohydrate consumption. Yet in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, evidence suggests low dietary protein intake (DPI) leads to attenuation of kidney function decline, although concerns remain for risk of protein-energy wasting. OBJECTIVES: To examine associations of DPI with mortality in a nationally representative cohort of US adults, stratified by kidney function. METHODS: We examined the association between daily DPI scaled to actual body weight (ABW), ascertained by 24-h dietary recall, with all-cause mortality among 27,604 continuous NHANES adult participants (1999-2010), stratified according to impaired versus normal kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rates <60 compared with ≥60 ml/min/1.72 m2, respectively), using multivariable Cox models. We also examined the relation between high biological value (HBV) protein consumption with mortality. RESULTS: In participants with impaired kidney function, a high DPI of ≥1.4 g/kg ABW/day was associated with higher mortality, while lower DPI levels were not associated with mortality (reference, 0.6 to <1.0 g/kg ABW/day): the adjusted HRs (aHRs) were 1.09 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.32), 1.03 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.29), and 1.37 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.85) for DPI <0.6, 1.0 to <1.4, and ≥1.4 g/kg ABW/day, respectively. Yet in participants with normal kidney function, a low DPI of <0.6 g/kg ABW/day was associated with higher mortality, whereas higher DPI levels were not associated with death: the aHRs were 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.34), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.81, 1.04), and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.16) for DPI <0.6, 1.0 to <1.4, and ≥1.4 g/kg ABW/day, respectively. The highest 2 tertiles of HBV consumption were associated with higher mortality in participants with impaired kidney function. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with impaired kidney function, a higher DPI and greater HBV consumption were associated with higher mortality, whereas a lower DPI was associated with higher mortality in those with normal kidney function. Further studies are needed to elucidate the specific pathways between higher DPI and mortality in CKD.

Study Design of the Phase 3 Sparsentan Versus Irbesartan (DUPLEX) Study in Patients With Focal Segmental Glomerulosclerosis.

INTRODUCTION: Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), a histologic lesion in the kidney caused by varied pathophysiological processes, leads to end-stage kidney disease in a large proportion of patients. Sparsentan is a first-in-class orally active compound combining endothelin type A (ETA) receptor blockade with angiotensin II type 1 (AT1) receptor antagonism in a single molecule. A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-Blind, Parallel, Active-Control Study of the Effects of Sparsentan, a Dual Endothelin Receptor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, on Renal Outcomes in Patients With Primary FSGS (DUPLEX) study evaluates the long-term antiproteinuric efficacy, nephroprotective potential, and safety profile of sparsentan compared with an AT1 receptor blocker alone in patients with FSGS. METHODS: DUPLEX is a multicenter, international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study of sparsentan in patients with FSGS. Approximately 300 patients aged 8 to 75 years, inclusive (United States), and 18 to 75 years, inclusive (outside United States) will be randomized 1:1 to daily treatment with sparsentan or irbesartan. After renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor washout, treatment will be administered for 108 weeks, with the final assessment at week 112, four weeks after withdrawal of study drug. RESULTS: The primary endpoint will be the slope of estimated glomerular filtration rate from week 6 to week 108. A novel surrogate efficacy endpoint, the proportion of patients achieving urinary protein-to-creatinine (UP/C) ratio of ≤1.5 g/g and >40% reduction from baseline in UP/C (FSGS partial remission endpoint: FPRE), will be evaluated at a planned interim analysis at week 36. Safety and tolerability of sparsentan will also be assessed. CONCLUSION: The phase 3 DUPLEX study will characterize the long-term antiproteinuric efficacy and nephroprotective potential of dual ETA and AT1 receptor blockade with sparsentan in patients with FSGS.

Intradialytic hypotension, blood pressure changes and mortality risk in incident hemodialysis patients.

Background: Intradialytic hypotension (IDH) occurs frequently in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients and may be associated with higher mortality. We hypothesize that nadir intradialytic systolic blood pressure (niSBP) is inversely related to death risk while iSBP change (Δ) and IDH frequency are incrementally associated with all-cause mortality. Methods: In a US-based cohort of 112 013 incident HD patients over a 5-year period (2007-11), using niSBP, ΔiSBP (pre-HD SBP minus niSBP) and IDH frequency (proportion of HD treatments with niSBP <90 mmHg) within the first 91 days of HD, we examined mortality-predictability at 1, 2 and 5 years using Cox models and restricted cubic splines adjusted for case-mix, comorbidities and laboratory covariates. Results: We observed that niSBP of <90 and ≥140 mmHg had a 5-year mortality hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval) of 1.57 (1.47-1.67) and 1.25 (1.18-1.33), respectively, compared with niSBP 110 to <120 mmHg. ΔiSBP of <15 and ≥50 compared with 21-30 mmHg had mortality HR of 1.31 (1.26-1.37) and 1.32 (1.24-1.39), respectively. Among patients with >40% IDH frequency, we observed a mortality HR of 1.49 (1.42-1.57) compared with 0% IDH frequency in fully adjusted models. These associations were robust at 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Conclusion: In conclusion, we observed a U-shaped association between niSBP and ΔiSBP and mortality and a direct linear relationship between IDH frequency and mortality. Our findings lend some prognostic insight of HD blood pressure and hemodynamics, and have the potential to guide blood pressure management strategies among the HD population.

There's no place like home: 35-year patient survival on home hemodialysis.

The vast majority of maintenance dialysis patients suffer from poor long-term survival rates and lower levels of health-related quality of life. However, home hemodialysis is a historically significant dialysis modality that has been associated with favorable outcomes as well as greater patient autonomy and control, yet only represents a small minority of the total dialysis performed in the United States. Some potential disadvantages of home hemodialysis include vascular access complications, infection-related hospitalizations, patient fatigue, and attrition. In addition, current barriers and challenges in expanding the utilization of this modality include limited patient and provider education and technical expertise. Here we report a 65-year old male with end-stage renal disease due to Alport's syndrome who has undergone 35 years of uninterrupted thrice-weekly home hemodialysis (ie, every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday evening, each session lasting 3 to 3» hours in length) using a conventional hemodialysis machine who has maintained a high functional status allowing him to work 6-8 hours per day. The patient has been able to liberalize his dietary and fluid intake while only requiring 3-4 liters of ultrafiltration per treatment, despite having absence of residual kidney function. Through this case of extraordinary longevity and outcomes after 35 years of dialysis and a review of the literature, we illustrate the history of home hemodialysis, its significant clinical and psychosocial advantages, as well as the barriers that hinder its widespread adaptation.

Special situations: Intradialytic hypertension/chronic hypertension and intradialytic hypotension.

Hypertension is a comorbidity that is present in the majority of end-stage renal disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis. This population is particularly unique because of the dynamic nature of blood pressure (BP) during dialysis. Modest BP decreases are expected in most hemodialysis patients, but intradialytic hypotension and intradialytic hypertension are two special situations that deviate from this as either an exaggerated or paradoxical response to the dialysis procedure. Both of these phenomena are particularly important because they are associated with increased mortality risk compared to patients with modest decreases in BP during dialysis. While the detailed pathophysiology is complex, intradialytic hypotension occurs more often in patients prescribed fast ultrafiltration rates, and reducing this rate is recommended in patients that regularly exhibit this pattern. Patients with intradialytic hypertension have a poorly explained increase in vascular resistance during dialysis, but the consistent associations with extracellular volume overload point toward more aggressive fluid management as the initial management choices for these patients. This up to date review provides the most recent evidence supporting these recommendations as well as the most up to date epidemiologic and mechanistic research studies that have added to this area of dialysis management.

Extracellular Volume Overload and Increased Vasoconstriction in Patients With Recurrent Intradialytic Hypertension.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Intradialytic hypertension (IH) occurs frequently in some hemodialysis patients and increases mortality risk. We simultaneously compared pre-dialysis, post-dialysis and changes in extracellular volume and hemodynamics in recurrent IH patients and controls. METHODS: We performed a case-control study among prevalent hemodialysis patients with recurrent IH and hypertensive hemodialysis controls. We used bioimpedance spectroscopy and impedance cardiography to compare pre-dialysis, post-dialysis, and intradialytic change in total body water (TBW) and extracellular water (ECW), as well as cardiac index (CI) and total peripheral resistance index (TPRI). RESULTS: The ECW/TBW was 0.453 (0.05) pre-dialysis and 0.427 (0.04) post-dialysis in controls vs. 0.478 (0.03) and 0.461 (0.03) in IH patients (p=0.01 post-dialysis). The ECW/TBW change was -0.027 (0.03) in controls and -0.013 (0.02) in IH patients (p=0.1). In controls, pre- and post-dialysis TPRI were 3254 (994) and 2469 (529) dynes/sec/cm2/m2 vs. 2983 (747) and 3408 (980) dynes/sec/cm2/m2 in IH patients (p=0.002 post-dialysis). There were between-group differences in TPRI change (0=0.0001), but not CI (p=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent intradialytic hypertension is associated with higher post-dialysis extracellular volume and TPRI. Intradialytic TPRI surges account for the vasoconstrictive state post-dialysis, but intradialytic fluid shifts may contribute to post-hemodialysis volume expansion.

Overcoming Barriers in Kidney Health-Forging a Platform for Innovation.

Innovation in kidney diseases is not commensurate with the effect of these diseases on human health and mortality or innovation in other key therapeutic areas. A primary cause of the dearth in innovation is that kidney diseases disproportionately affect a demographic that is largely disenfranchised, lacking sufficient advocacy, public attention, and funding. A secondary and likely consequent cause is that the existing infrastructure supporting nephrology research pales in comparison with those for other internal medicine specialties, especially cardiology and oncology. Citing such inequities, however, is not enough. Changing the status quo will require a coordinated effort to identify and redress the existing deficits. Specifically, these deficits relate to the need to further develop and improve the following: understanding of the disease mechanisms and pathophysiology, patient engagement and activism, clinical trial infrastructure, and investigational clinical trial designs as well as coordinated efforts among critical stakeholders. This paper identifies potential solutions to these barriers, some of which are already underway through the Kidney Health Initiative. The Kidney Health Initiative is unique and will serve as a current and future platform from which to overcome these barriers to innovation in nephrology.

Comparison of Ambulatory Blood Pressure Patterns in Patients With Intradialytic Hypertension and Hemodialysis Controls.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Intradialytic hypertension (IH) patients have higher mortality risk than other hemodialysis patients and have been shown to have higher ambulatory blood pressure (BP). We hypothesized that interdialytic BP patterns would differ in IH patients and hypertensive hemodialysis controls. METHODS: We consecutively screened hemodialysis patients at our university-affiliated units. Based on pre and post-HD BP measurements during the prior 2 week period, we identified IH patients and demographically matched hemodialysis controls. We measured ambulatory interdialytic BP, flow-mediated vasodilation, and intradialytic endothelin-1 (ET-1). Using linear mixed-models, we compared BP slopes during the following intervals: 1-24 hours post-dialysis, 25-44 hours post-dialysis, and 1-44 hours post-dialysis. RESULTS: There were 25 case subjects with IH and 24 controls. Systolic BP during hours 1-44, 1-24, and 25-44 were 143.1 (16.5), 138.0 (21.2), and 150.8 (22.3) mmHg in controls. For IH subjects, they were 155.4 (14.2), 152.7 (22.8), and 156.5 (20.8) mmHg (p=0.008, 0.02, 0.4). In controls, the slopes were +0.6, +0.6, and +0.4 mmHg/hr. In IH subjects, they were +0.1, -0.3, and +0.3 mmHg/hr. The IH 1-24 hour slope differed from the IH 25-44 hour slope (p=0.001) and the control 1-24 hour slope (p=0.002). The change in ET-1 from pre to post dialysis was 0.5 (1.5) pg/mL in controls and 1.0 (2.3) pg/mL in IH patients (p=0.4). In a univariate model, there was an association with screening BP and BP slope (p=0.002 for controls and p=0.1 for IH patients). CONCLUSIONS: Interdialytic BP patterns differ in IH patients and hemodialysis controls. The elevated post dialysis blood pressure persists for many hours in IH patients contributing to the overall increased BP burden.

Mechanisms and Treatment of Intradialytic Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypertension is a condition where there is an increase in blood pressure (BP) from pre- to post-hemodialysis; this condition has been recently identified as an independent mortality risk factor in hypertensive hemodialysis patients. The mechanisms and management of intradialytic hypertension have been explored in numerous research studies over the past few years. SUMMARY: Patients with intradialytic hypertension have been found to be more chronically volume overloaded compared to other hemodialysis patients, although no causal role has been established. Patients with intradialytic hypertension have intradialytic vascular resistance surges that likely explain the BP increase during dialysis. Acute intradialytic changes in endothelial cell function have been proposed as etiologies for the increase in vascular resistance, although it is unclear if endothelin-1 or some other vasoconstrictive peptide is responsible. There is an association between dialysate to serum sodium gradients and BP increase during dialysis in patients with intradialytic hypertension, although it is unclear if this is related to endothelial cell activity or acute osmolar changes. In addition to probing the dry weight of patients with intradialytic hypertension, other management strategies include lowering dialysate sodium and changing antihypertensives to include carvedilol or other poorly dialyzed antihypertensives. KEY MESSAGES: Hemodialysis patients with intradialytic hypertension have an increased mortality risk compared to patients with modest decreases in BP during dialysis. Intradialytic hypertension is associated with extracellular volume overload in addition to acute increases in vascular resistance during dialysis. Management strategies should include reevaluation of dry weight and modification of both the dialysate prescription and medication prescription.

Effect of low versus high dialysate sodium concentration on blood pressure and endothelial-derived vasoregulators during hemodialysis: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Intradialytic hypertension affects ∼15% of hemodialysis patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. While intradialytic hypertension is associated with increases in endothelin 1 relative to nitric oxide (NO), the cause of these imbalances is unknown. In vitro evidence suggests that altering plasma sodium levels could affect endothelial-derived vasoregulators and blood pressure (BP). Thus, we hypothesized that compared to high dialysate sodium, low dialysate sodium concentration would lower endothelin 1 levels, increase NO release, and reduce BP. STUDY DESIGN: 3-week, 2-arm, randomized, crossover study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 16 patients with intradialytic hypertension. INTERVENTION: Low (5 mEq/L below serum sodium) versus high (5 mEq/L above serum sodium) dialysate sodium concentration. OUTCOMES: Endothelin 1, nitrite (NO2(-)), and BP. MEASUREMENTS: Mixed linear regression was used to compare the effect of dialysate sodium (low vs high) and randomization arm (low-then-high vs high-then-low) on intradialytic changes in endothelin 1, NO2(-), and BP values. RESULTS: The average systolic BP throughout all hemodialysis treatments in a given week was lower with low dialysate sodium concentrations compared with treatments with high dialysate sodium concentrations (parameter estimate, -9.9 [95% CI, -13.3 to -6.4] mm Hg; P < 0.001). The average change in systolic BP during hemodialysis also was significantly lower with low vs high dialysate sodium concentrations (parameter estimate, -6.1 [95% CI, -9.0 to -3.2] mm Hg; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in intradialytic levels of endothelin 1 or NO2(-) with low vs high dialysate sodium concentrations. LIMITATIONS: Carryover effects limited the power to detect significant changes in endothelial-derived vasoregulators, and future studies will require parallel trial designs. CONCLUSIONS: Low dialysate sodium concentrations significantly decreased systolic BP and ameliorated intradialytic hypertension. Longer studies are needed to determine the long-term effects of low dialysate sodium concentrations on BP and clinical outcomes.

The landscape of clinical trials in nephrology: a systematic review of Clinicaltrials.gov.

BACKGROUND: Well-designed trials are of paramount importance in improving the delivery of care to patients with kidney disease. However, it remains unknown whether contemporary clinical trials within nephrology are of sufficient quality and quantity to meet this need. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING & POPULATION: Studies registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Interventional (ie, nonobservational) studies (both randomized and nonrandomized) registered between October 2007 and September 2010 were included for analysis. Studies were reviewed independently by physicians and classified by clinical specialty. PREDICTOR: Nephrology versus cardiology versus other trials. OUTCOMES: Select clinical trial characteristics. RESULTS: Of 40,970 trials overall, 1,054 (2.6%) were classified as nephrology. Most nephrology trials were for treatment (75.4%) or prevention (15.7%), with very few diagnostic, screening, or health services research studies. Most nephrology trials were randomized (72.3%). Study designs included 24.9% with a single study group, 64.0% that included parallel groups, and 9.4% that were crossover trials. Nephrology trials, compared with 2,264 cardiology trials (5.5% overall), were more likely to be smaller (64.5% vs 48.0% enrolling≤100 patients), phases 1-2 (29.0% vs 19.7%), and unblinded (66.2% vs 53.3%; P<0.05 for all). Nephrology trials also were more likely than cardiology trials to include a drug intervention (72.4% vs 41.9%) and less likely to report having a data monitoring committee (40.3% vs 48.5%; P<0.05 for all). Finally, there were few trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH; 3.3%, nephrology; 4.2%, cardiology). LIMITATIONS: Does not include all trials performed worldwide, and frequent categorization of funding source as university may underestimate NIH support. CONCLUSIONS: Critical differences remain between clinical trials in nephrology and other specialties. Improving care for patients with kidney disease will require a concerted effort to increase the scope, quality, and quantity of clinical trials within nephrology.