The SPRINT trial suggests that markers of tubule cell function in the urine associate with risk of subsequent acute kidney injury while injury markers elevate after the injury.

Urine markers can quantify tubular function including reabsorption (α-1 microglobulin [α1m]) and ß-2-microglobulin [ß2m]) and protein synthesis (uromodulin). Individuals with tubular dysfunction may be less able to compensate to insults than those without, despite similar estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria. Among Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) participants with an eGFR under 60 ml/min/1.73m2, we measured urine markers of tubular function and injury (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin [NGAL], kidney injury molecule-1 [KIM-1], interleukin-18 [IL-18], monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, and chitinase-3-like protein [YKL-40]) at baseline. Cox models evaluated associations with subsequent acute kidney injury (AKI) risk, adjusting for clinical risk factors, baseline eGFR and albuminuria, and the tubular function and injury markers. In a random subset, we remeasured biomarkers after four years, and compared changes in biomarkers in those with and without intervening AKI. Among 2351 participants, 184 experienced AKI during 3.8 years mean follow-up. Lower uromodulin (hazard ratio per two-fold higher (0.68, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.83]) and higher α1m (1.20; [1.01, 1.44]) were associated with subsequent AKI, independent of eGFR and albuminuria. None of the five injury markers were associated with eventual AKI. In the random subset of 947 patients with repeated measurements, the 59 patients with intervening AKI versus without had longitudinal increases in urine NGAL, IL-19, and YKL-40 and only 1 marker of tubule function (α1m). Thus, joint evaluation of tubule function and injury provided novel insights to factors predisposing to AKI, and responses to kidney injury.

Influence of Baseline Diastolic Blood Pressure on Effects of Intensive Compared With Standard Blood Pressure Control.

BACKGROUND: In individuals with a low diastolic blood pressure (DBP), the potential benefits or risks of intensive systolic blood pressure (SBP) lowering are unclear. METHODS: SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) was a randomized controlled trial that compared the effects of intensive (target <120 mm Hg) and standard (target <140 mm Hg) SBP control in 9361 older adults with high blood pressure at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease events. All-cause death and incident chronic kidney disease were secondary outcomes. This post hoc analysis examined whether the effects of the SBP intervention differed by baseline DBP. RESULTS: Mean baseline SBP and DBP were 139.7±15.6 and 78.1±11.9 mm Hg, respectively. Regardless of the randomized treatment, baseline DBP had a U-shaped association with the hazard of the primary cardiovascular disease outcome. However, the effects of the intensive SBP intervention on the primary outcome were not influenced by baseline DBP level (P for interaction=0.83). The primary outcome hazard ratio for intensive versus standard treatment was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-1.07) in the lowest DBP quintile (mean baseline DBP, 61±5 mm Hg) and 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.90) in the upper 4 DBP quintiles (mean baseline DBP, 82±9 mm Hg), with an interaction P value of 0.78. Results were similar for all-cause death and kidney events. CONCLUSIONS: Low baseline DBP was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease events, but there was no evidence that the benefit of the intensive SBP lowering differed by baseline DBP. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Visit-to-Visit Office Blood Pressure Variability and Cardiovascular Outcomes in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

Studies of visit-to-visit office blood pressure (BP) variability (OBPV) as a predictor of cardiovascular events and death in high-risk patients treated to lower BP targets are lacking. We conducted a post hoc analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), a well-characterized cohort of participants randomized to intensive (<120 mm Hg) or standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP targets. We defined OBPV as the coefficient of variation of the systolic BP using measurements taken during the 3-,6-, 9-, and 12-month study visits. In our cohort of 7879 participants, older age, female sex, black race, current smoking, chronic kidney disease, and coronary disease were independent determinants of higher OBPV. Use of thiazide-type diuretics or dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers was associated with lower OBPV whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with higher OBPV. There was no difference in OBPV in participants randomized to standard or intensive treatment groups. We found that OBPV had no significant associations with the composite end point of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events (n=324 primary end points; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.69, highest versus lowest quintile) nor with heart failure or stroke. The highest quintile of OBPV (versus lowest) was associated with all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.92; confidence interval, 1.22-3.03) although the association of OBPV overall with all-cause mortality was marginal (P=0.07). Our results suggest that clinicians should continue to focus on office BP control rather than on OBPV unless definitive benefits of reducing OBPV are shown in prospective trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01206062.