Search

Background/Aims: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus type 2 and kidney disease in these patients varies widely between European countries. Methods: In addition to store bio-samples the “Prospective cohort study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus for validation of biomarkers” collects information on history, physical status, laboratory measurements and medication in 4000 patients with diabetes mellitus type 2, being taken care of at the primary level of healthcare in 5 European countries (Austria, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland and Scotland). Next to comparing the rate of loss of eGFR between the countries, a further objective of the PROVALID study is to determine the 5-year cumulative incidence of renal and cardiovascular outcomes. Results: The mean age of the population recruited is 62.9±10 years, 54.6% are male and the mean BMI is 30.9±5.4 kg/m2. Metabolic control (median HBA1c 6.8 % (6.2; 7.5)) is achieved via administration of metformin in 67.4% of the patients and insulin in 30.3%. Median systolic and diastolic blood pressure at recruitment is 135 (125; 146) and 80 (72; 85) mmHg, 65.4% of subjects received RAAS blocking agents. Mean eGFR is 80.7±29.2 ml/min/1.73m2 and median baseline albumin/creatinine ratio 8.3 mg (IQR: 3.8 and 25.1). Conclusion: PROVALID will provide information on incidence and progression of renal and cardiovascular disease and therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in different European countries. Thus, in contrast to many other cohort studies we will be able to associate national clinical practise pattern with outcome in this highly vulnerable patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic variation across the human leukocyte antigen loci is known to influence renal-transplant outcome. However, the impact of genetic variation beyond the human leukocyte antigen loci is less clear. We tested the association of common genetic variation and clinical characteristics, from both the donor and recipient, with posttransplant eGFR at different time-points, out to 5 years posttransplantation. We conducted GWAS meta-analyses across 10 844 donors and recipients from five European ancestry cohorts. We also analyzed the impact of polygenic risk scores (PRS), calculated using genetic variants associated with nontransplant eGFR, on posttransplant eGFR. PRS calculated using the recipient genotype alone, as well as combined donor and recipient genotypes were significantly associated with eGFR at 1-year posttransplant. Thirty-two percent of the variability in eGFR at 1-year posttransplant was explained by our model containing clinical covariates (including weights for death/graft-failure), principal components and combined donor-recipient PRS, with 0.3% contributed by the PRS. No individual genetic variant was significantly associated with eGFR posttransplant in the GWAS. This is the first study to examine PRS, composed of variants that impact kidney function in the general population, in a posttransplant context. Despite PRS being a significant predictor of eGFR posttransplant, the effect size of common genetic factors is limited compared to clinical variables., (© 2019 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.)

Background: The number of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and diabetes mellitus-associated chronic kidney disease varies considerably between countries. Next to differences in genetic as well as life style risk factors, varying practices in medical care delivery might cause this diversity., Method: The PROVALID study recruited 4000 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus at the primary level of healthcare in five European countries (Austria, Hungary, The Netherlands, Poland and Scotland). Baseline data were used to describe patient characteristics and compare the adherence to ADA (American Diabetes Association) and KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) guidelines with respect to metabolic and blood pressure control, use of renin-angiotensin system-blocking agents, statins and acetylsalicylic acid between the countries., Results: About 34.8% of the population had evidence of diabetes mellitus-associated chronic kidney disease. The median HbA1c level of the cohort was 6.8% (ranging from 6.5 in Poland to 7.0% in Scotland). Mean blood pressure was 136/79 (±17/10) and significantly higher in subjects with elevated albuminuria. These individuals also were more often treated with renin-angiotensin system-blocking agents (74.1% vs 84.6%), whereas the use of statins was driven by cardiovascular comorbidity. Acetylsalicylic acid was used in only 28.9% subjects. Despite similar cardiovascular comorbidities and renal function, the use of renin-angiotensin system-blocking agents varied significantly between the countries from 66.7% to 87.4%. An even higher variability was observed for patients >40 years of age using statins (39.8%-82.7%) and administration of acetylsalicylic acid in patients older than 50 years (5.2%-43.8%)., Conclusion: Our study shows that medical practice in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with and without renal disease is different in European countries. Longitudinal follow-up will reveal if this diversity affects clinical endpoints.

Background: Sympathetic tone is one of the main determinants of blood pressure (BP) variability and treatment-resistant hypertension. The aim of our study was to assess changes in BP variability after renal denervation (RDN). In addition, on an exploratory basis, we investigated whether baseline BP variability predicted the BP changes after RDN., Methods: We analyzed 24-h BP recordings obtained at baseline and 6 months after RDN in 167 treatment-resistant hypertension patients (40% women; age, 56.7 years; mean 24-h BP, 152/90 mmHg) recruited at 11 expert centers. BP variability was assessed by weighted SD [SD over time weighted for the time interval between consecutive readings (SDiw)], average real variability (ARV), coefficient of variation, and variability independent of the mean (VIM)., Results: Mean office and 24-h BP fell by 15.4/6.6 and 5.5/3.7 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, systolic/diastolic SDiw and VIM for 24-h SBP/DBP decreased by 1.18/0.63 mmHg (P ≤ 0.01) and 0.86/0.42 mmHg (P ≤ 0.05), respectively, whereas no significant changes in ARV or coefficient of variation occurred. Furthermore, baseline SDiw (P = 0.0006), ARV (P = 0.01), and VIM (P = 0.04) predicted the decrease in 24-h DBP but not 24-h SBP after RDN., Conclusion: RDN was associated with a decrease in BP variability independent of the BP level, suggesting that responders may derive benefits from the reduction in BP variability as well. Furthermore, baseline DBP variability estimates significantly correlated with mean DBP decrease after RDN. If confirmed in younger patients with less arterial damage, in the absence of the confounding effect of drugs and drug adherence, baseline BP variability may prove a good predictor of BP response to RDN.

Based on the SYMPLICITY studies and CE (Conformité Européenne) certification, renal denervation is currently applied as a novel treatment of resistant hypertension in Europe. However, information on the proportion of patients with resistant hypertension qualifying for renal denervation after a thorough work-up and treatment adjustment remains scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation and the reasons for noneligibility at 11 expert centers participating in the European Network COordinating Research on renal Denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension (ENCOReD). The analysis included 731 patients. Age averaged 61.6 years, office blood pressure at screening was 177/96 mm Hg, and the number of blood pressure-lowering drugs taken was 4.1. Specialists referred 75.6% of patients. The proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation according to the SYMPLICITY HTN-2 criteria and each center's criteria was 42.5% (95% confidence interval, 38.0%-47.0%) and 39.7% (36.2%-43.2%), respectively. The main reasons of noneligibility were normalization of blood pressure after treatment adjustment (46.9%), unsuitable renal arterial anatomy (17.0%), and previously undetected secondary causes of hypertension (11.1%). In conclusion, after careful screening and treatment adjustment at hypertension expert centers, only ≈40% of patients referred for renal denervation, mostly by specialists, were eligible for the procedure. The most frequent cause of ineligibility (approximately half of cases) was blood pressure normalization after treatment adjustment by a hypertension specialist. Our findings highlight that hypertension centers with a record in clinical experience and research should remain the gatekeepers before renal denervation is considered.