Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Kidney Int ; 59(4): 1211-26, 2001 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-11260381

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Renal disease that progresses to end-stage renal disease (ESRD) imposes a great burden on the affected individual and on society, which mainly bears the cost of ESRD (currently more than $10 billion to treat about 333,000 patients annually in the U.S.). Thus, there is a great need to identify therapies that arrest the progression mechanisms common to all forms of renal disease. Progress is being made. Perhaps the most visible advance is the randomized controlled trials (RCT) demonstrating the renoprotective effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. There are also numerous other promising renoprotective therapies. Unfortunately, testing each therapy in RCT is not feasible. Thus the nephrologist has two choices: restrict renoprotective therapy to those shown to be effective in RCT, or expand the use of renoprotective therapies to include those that, although unproven, are plausibly effective and prudent to use. The goal of this work is to provide the documentation needed for the nephrologist to choose between these strategies. METHODS: This work first describes the mechanisms believed to be involved in the progression of renal disease. Based largely on this information, 18 separate interventions that slow the progression are described. Each intervention is assigned a level of recommendation (Level 1 is the highest and Level 3 the lowest) according to the strength of evidence supporting its renoprotective efficacy. RESULTS: The number of interventions at each level of recommendation are: Level 1, N = 4; Level 2, N = 4; Level 3, N = 10. Our own experience with the multiple-risk-factor intervention is that most patients can achieve the majority of the Level 1 and 2 interventions, and many of the Level 3 interventions. We recommend the expanded renoprotection strategy. CONCLUSION: This work advances the hypothesis that, until better information becomes available, a broad-based, multiple-risk-factor intervention intended to slow the progression of renal disease can be justified in those with progressive nephropathies. This work is intended primarily for clinical nephrologists and thus each recommended intervention is described in substantial practical detail.


Subject(s)
Kidney Diseases/drug therapy , Protective Agents/therapeutic use , Disease Progression , Humans , Kidney Diseases/diet therapy , Kidney Diseases/physiopathology
2.
J Am Soc Nephrol ; 7(10): 2130-4, 1996 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-8915972

ABSTRACT

Previous studies have shown that African Americans (blacks) tend to have higher nocturnal blood pressure than European Americans (whites). The study presented here was undertaken to determine whether treatment of hypertension influences nocturnal blood pressure differently in blacks than in whites. To answer this question, this study measured nocturnal blood pressure by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in treated hypertensive blacks and whites whose daytime blood pressures were comparable. Inclusion criteria for this study were: diagnosis of essential hypertension, absence of renal failure, and documentation of antihypertensive therapy, diabetic status, proteinuria status, and body weight. All of the black patients in our programs who underwent ABPM and met the above criteria were included in this study. White patients were included on the basis of having the same inclusion criteria as blacks and showing, by ABPM, daytime mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the same range as that of the blacks selected for this study. The results of nocturnal blood pressure were unknown to the investigators when the patients were selected for this study. In the blacks (N = 62) and whites (N = 72) selected for study, the mean daytime (0600 to 2200 h) MAP was 107 +/- 1 SE mm Hg for both the black and white cohorts. To assess nocturnal blood pressure, the period from 0100 to 0500 h was chosen because it likely encompassed an interval of sleep, which is associated with the nadir of nocturnal blood pressure. This interval was termed 0100 to 0500 h, "middle night." Mean middle night MAP was 97 +/- 12 mm Hg in blacks versus 90 +/- 14 mm Hg in whites (P < 0.006, unpaired t test). The greater middle night MAP in blacks compared with whites was a result of the higher diastolic pressure in blacks (80 +/- 11 mm Hg) versus whites (75 +/- 11 mm Hg) (P = 0.003). Mean middle night systolic blood pressure was numerically higher in blacks than whites (131 +/- 18 mm Hg versus 128 +/- 17 mm Hg), but this difference did not achieve statistical significance. The higher middle night blood pressure in blacks versus whites could not be explained by differences between the groups in daytime MAP, age, gender, body weight, serum creatinine level, proteinuria, diabetic status, or greater use of short-acting antihypertensive agents in blacks versus whites. It was concluded that when treated hypertensive blacks and whites are matched for the same daytime blood pressure, blacks tend to have significantly higher nocturnal blood pressure than whites. The magnitude of this difference suggests that it could contribute importantly to the greater target-organ damage that is seen in hypertensive blacks compared with hypertensive whites.


Subject(s)
Black People , Blood Pressure , Circadian Rhythm , Hypertension/ethnology , Hypertension/physiopathology , White People , Antihypertensive Agents/classification , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Sex Characteristics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...