Context Incidence of end-stage renal disease due to hypertension has increased
in recent decades, but the optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension
to prevent renal failure is unknown, especially among African Americans.
Objective To compare the effects of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor
(ramipril), a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker (amlodipine), and a β-blocker
(metoprolol) on hypertensive renal disease progression.
Design, Setting, and Participants Interim analysis of a randomized, double-blind, 3 × 2 factorial
trial conducted in 1094 African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive
renal disease (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] of 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m2) enrolled between February 1995 and September 1998. This report compares
the ramipril and amlodipine groups following discontinuation of the amlodipine
intervention in September 2000.
Interventions Participants were randomly assigned to receive amlodipine, 5 to 10 mg/d
(n = 217), ramipril, 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n = 436), or metoprolol, 50 to 200 mg/d
(n = 441), with other agents added to achieve 1 of 2 blood pressure goals.
Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was the rate of change in GFR; the main
secondary outcome was a composite index of the clinical end points of reduction
in GFR of more than 50% or 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2, end-stage renal
disease, or death.
Results Among participants with a urinary protein to creatinine ratio of >0.22
(corresponding approximately to proteinuria of more than 300 mg/d), the ramipril
group had a 36% (2.02 [SE, 0.74] mL/min per 1.73 m2/y) slower mean
decline in GFR over 3 years (P = .006) and a 48%
reduced risk of the clinical end points vs the amlodipine group (95% confidence
interval [CI], 20%-66%). In the entire cohort, there was no significant difference
in mean GFR decline from baseline to 3 years between treatment groups (P = .38). However, compared with the amlodipine group,
after adjustment for baseline covariates the ramipril group had a 38% reduced
risk of clinical end points (95% CI, 13%-56%), a 36% slower mean decline in
GFR after 3 months (P = .002), and less proteinuria
(P<.001).
Conclusion Ramipril, compared with amlodipine, retards renal disease progression
in patients with hypertensive renal disease and proteinuria and may offer
benefit to patients without proteinuria.
The mortality from hypertensive vascular disease has declined progressively
over the past 2 decades in the United States, a decline ascribed in part to
improved treatment of high blood pressure (BP). During the same period, the
incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) due to hypertension has increased
steadily, particularly among African Americans.1
In certain age groups, the risk of hypertensive ESRD for African Americans
is 20-fold greater than in whites.1,2
The optimal strategy for treatment of hypertension to prevent renal failure
has remained elusive. Recent data in participants with diabetic and proteinuric
nondiabetic kidney disease have suggested significant benefits with angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs).3-7
The impact of ACEIs on progression of renal disease in African Americans is
unknown since all published trials had too few African Americans randomized
to such agents.8,9 Although animal
studies have demonstrated prevention of glomerulosclerosis by calcium channel
blockers (CCBs),10-12
human studies have not consistently confirmed their renoprotective effects.5,12-16
The African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK)
was designed to evaluate the impact on progression of hypertensive kidney
disease of 2 different BP goals (low and usual), and treatment regimens initiated
with 1 of 3 antihypertensive drug classes, a β-blocker (BB, metoprolol),
a dihydropyridine (DHP) CCB (amlodipine), or an ACEI (ramipril).17
To date, AASK is the largest comparative drug intervention trial that has
focused on renal outcomes conducted in any population and the first clinical
end point trial with sufficient sample size to evaluate the effect of inhibition
of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in African Americans. Recruitment
into the full-scale trial began in February 1995, with planned follow-up through
September 2001.
The present report summarizes data obtained through September 2000,
when, at the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board (DSMB),
the amlodipine arm was terminated. The DSMB recommendation was based on safety
concerns that arose because interim analyses showed a slower decline in mean
glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and a reduced rate of clinical end points
(rapid decline in renal function, ESRD, or death) in the ramipril and metoprolol
groups relative to the amlodipine group in participants with proteinuric nondiabetic
kidney disease. Termination of the entire amlodipine arm, not just of participants
with high levels of proteinuria, was recommended, partly because protein excretion
increased significantly both in participants with proteinuria and without
proteinuria and because conditional power calculations indicated key conclusions
were unlikely to change with continuation of this arm. However, both the ramipril
vs metoprolol comparison and the comparison of the 2 BP groups will continue
until the scheduled end of the study. Since the study investigators must remain
blinded to the ramipril vs metoprolol and low vs usual BP comparisons, this
report compares only the amlodipine and ramipril arms, with all results averaged
between the 2 BP groups.
Participants were self-identified African Americans with hypertension
(n = 1094), aged 18 to 70 years, with GFR between 20 to 65 mL/min per 1.73
m2 and no other identified causes of renal insufficiency. Exclusion
criteria were as follows: (1) diastolic BP (DBP) less than 95 mm Hg, (2) known
history of diabetes mellitus (fasting glucose ≥140 mg/dL [≥7.8 mmol/L]
or random glucose >200 mg/dL [>11.1 mmol/L]), (3) urinary protein to creatinine
ratio (UP/Cr) greater than 2.5, (4) accelerated or malignant hypertension
within 6 months, (5) secondary hypertension, (6) evidence of non-BP–related
causes of renal disease, (7) serious systemic disease, (8) clinical congestive
heart failure, or (9) specific indication for or contraindication to a study
drug or study procedure. An antihypertensive washout period was believed to
be unethical. Thus, potential participants were only required to have at least
1 DBP reading higher than 95 mm Hg or their antihypertensive medication dose
tapered until they met the BP entry criteria. The protocol and procedures
were approved by the institutional review board at each center, and all participants
gave written informed consent. Participant enrollment began in February 1995
and ended in September 1998.
AASK uses a 3 × 2 factorial design.17
Participants were randomized to a usual mean arterial pressure (MAP) goal
of 102 to 107 mm Hg or to a low MAP goal of 92 mm Hg or lower and to treatment
with 1 of 3 antihypertensive study drugs: a sustained-release BB, metoprolol;
an ACEI, ramipril; or a DHP-CCB, amlodipine. Dosages were 50 to 200 mg/d,
2.5 to 10 mg/d, and 5 to 10 mg/d, respectively. If the BP goal was not achieved
while the participants were taking the study drug, additional unmasked drugs
were added in the following recommended order: furosemide, doxazosin mesylate,
clonidine hydrochloride, hydralazine hydrochloride, and minoxidil. The dosage
of each drug was increased to the maximum tolerated dose before the addition
of a subsequent agent.
A randomization scheme that resulted in a 2:2:1 (metoprolol-ramipril-amlodipine)
ratio was used because AASK pilot data revealed an early increase in GFR in
the DHP-CCB group compared with the ACEI and BB groups.18
This increased the projected statistical power for the DHP-CCB vs BB comparison,
allowing a smaller sample size for the amlodipine group. Study drug assignment
but not BP goal was double masked.
Measurement of BP and Renal Function
Three consecutive seated BPs were measured using a Hawksley random zero
sphygmomanometer after at least 5 minutes rest,17,19
with the mean of the last 2 readings recorded. All personnel measuring BPs
were centrally trained and certified annually. During the 6 months following
randomization, antihypertensive drugs were adjusted at monthly protocol and
interim visits to achieve the BP goal. Subsequent protocol visits occurred
at 2-month intervals. Glomerular filtration rate was assessed by 125iothalamate clearance at baseline twice, then at 3, 6, and every 6 months
thereafter.20 Serum and urinary levels of creatinine
and protein were measured by a central laboratory at 6-month intervals.
The primary analysis of renal function is based on the rate of change
in GFR (GFR slope). The GFR slope was determined separately during the first
3 months after randomization (acute phase) and during the remainder of follow-up
(chronic phase), because previous studies indicated that drug interventions
could result in acute changes in GFR that differ from long-term effects on
renal disease progression.5,21-25
The analytic plan called for determining both the mean chronic slope and the
mean total slope from baseline to end of follow-up, including both phases,
and for inferring a definitive beneficial effect on renal function of an intervention
that significantly reduced the magnitude of both the chronic and total mean
slopes. The mean total slope assesses the effect of interventions on renal
function during the study period, while the chronic slope is interpreted as
the parameter more likely to reflect long-term disease progression.
The protocol also designated a secondary clinical-outcome analysis,
based on the time from randomization to any of the following end points: (1)
a confirmed reduction in GFR by 50% or by 25 mL/min per 1.73 m2
from the mean of the 2 baseline GFRs; (2) ESRD, defined as need for renal
replacement therapy; or (3) death. The clinical end point analysis was identified
as the principal assessment of patient benefit. In contrast to the analysis
of GFR slope, which addresses the mean drug effect on renal function in all
participants, including those with little or no GFR decline, the clinical
end point analysis is based on events of clear clinical impact, either large
declines in renal function or death.
Urinary protein excretion, expressed as the urine protein–creatinine
ratio (UP/Cr), was also specified as a secondary outcome variable.
The protocol specified 3 primary comparisons (ramipril vs metoprolol,
amlodipine vs metoprolol, and low vs usual MAP goal). The ramipril vs amlodipine
comparison was designated as a secondary rather than a primary comparison
because the amlodipine and ramipril interventions were expected to produce
acute changes in opposite directions, complicating the comparison of these
2 groups.
The primary renal function analysis was based on a mixed-effects model
with random intercepts and random acute and chronic slopes. The mean acute,
chronic, and total slopes were estimated by restricted maximum likelihood
for each treatment group. Total mean slopes were estimated as time-weighted
averages of the acute and chronic slopes. The effects of the treatment interventions
were tested by comparing the mean slopes. The model included clinical center
and the following prespecified baseline factors as covariates: proteinuria
(expressed as the log transformed UP/Cr to account for positive skewness),
history of heart disease, mean arterial pressure, sex, and age.
A formal stopping rule was constructed based on the primary renal function
analysis with separate O'Brien-Fleming26 boundaries
for the chronic and total mean slopes for each of the 3 primary treatment
group comparisons. The stopping rule stipulated that a treatment arm should
be discontinued at one of the study's annual interim analyses if the stopping
boundaries indicating faster progression were crossed in the same direction
for both the chronic and total mean slopes.
During the trial, members of the steering committee became aware of
external clinical studies, published after the initiation of the AASK, that
suggested a slowing of the progression of renal disease by ACEIs in participants
with elevated proteinuria, as well as studies suggesting DHP-CCBs may increase
the level of proteinuria and not slow the progression of renal disease.4,6,7,14,15,25
Consequently, the steering committee (which was blinded to the AASK data)
requested that the coordinating center provide the DSMB with data on the ramipril
vs amlodipine comparison in relation to the level of proteinuria. Therefore,
subsequent reports to the DSMB included an extension of the primary renal
function model with interaction terms between log baseline UP/Cr and the ramipril
vs amlodipine comparison. This analysis identified significant interactions
with baseline proteinuria for the acute and total mean GFR slopes. After interactions
were detected, subgroup analyses were performed in participants with baseline
UP/Cr >0.22 and ≤0.22 (a value corresponding approximately to the threshold
of 300 mg/d for clinically significant proteinuria). The subgroup with baseline
UP/Cr >0.22 includes one third of the study participants, with the remaining
two thirds belonging to the subgroup with a baseline UP/Cr ≤0.22. The UP/Cr
cutpoint of 0.22 was post hoc but was selected because of clinical relevance
and was independent of the AASK data.
Since UP/Cr was inversely associated with GFR at baseline, the interaction
of the treatment groups with baseline GFR was also considered. For subgroup
analyses, a cutpoint of baseline GFR of 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2 was
used. This cutpoint matched the cutpoint of 0.22 for baseline UP/Cr by splitting
the one third of participants with lowest baseline GFR from the two thirds
with highest baseline GFR.
The DSMB's recommendation to terminate the amlodipine arm was based
primarily on results related to the interaction of the treatment interventions
with baseline proteinuria and not on the original stopping rule, which was
not triggered for any of the 3 primary comparisons. Because the decision to
examine the treatment interventions in relation to baseline proteinuria was
prompted by other studies of ACEI regimens,3-6,10,14,22,25-29
the DSMB recommended that comparison of the ramipril and amlodipine groups
rather than the amlodipine and metoprolol groups be included in this report.
Analyses of the clinical outcome events and new occurrences of clinically
significant proteinuria (defined by UP/Cr >0.22) were performed by Cox regression
with adjustment for the same covariates as the analysis of GFR slope. All
analyses are intent-to-treat, with participants analyzed according to their
randomized treatment assigment regardless of medications received or duration
of follow-up. P values and 95% confidence intervals
(CIs) are reported on a comparison-wise basis, without adjustment for multiple
analyses. This strategy is conservative for the primary renal function analysis,
since both the chronic and total slopes analyses needed to reach significance
for a definitive conclusion. This report is based on the trial database as
of September 22, 2000.
Table 1 displays selected
baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of all participants randomized
to ramipril and amlodipine and for the subgroups with baseline UP/Cr >0.22
( ˜ 300 mg/d). The mean baseline BP was 151/96 mm Hg for the 2 groups,
with 46% of the participants receiving a DHP-CCB at entry. The urine protein
excretion result was positively skewed, with a median of 112 mg/d. Proteinuria
was inversely associated with renal function, with median UP/Cr equal to 0.47,
0.07, and 0.04, respectively, for GFR less than 30, 30 to 60, and greater
than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2.
Treatment Characteristics
The median duration of GFR follow-up was 36 months in the amlodipine
group and 37 months in the ramipril group. Additional details on recruitment
and retention are provided in Figure 1.
Follow-up BP results were substantially lower than baseline values but did
not differ significantly between treatment groups (P>.10
for mean follow-up values of systolic BP, diastolic BP, and MAP after the
3-month visit) (Table 2). After
the 3-month visit, there was no significant difference in the number of antihypertensive
drugs prescribed or in the percentage of participants receiving the highest
doses of ramipril or amlodipine (57.4% and 56.7%, respectively). There were
also no significant differences between the ramipril and amlodipine groups
in the percentage of visits for which each of the individual add-on antihypertensive
classes were prescribed. At 32 months of follow-up, 80.1% of active participants
in the ramipril group and 83.3% in the amlodipine group were still taking
their study drug.
During the chronic phase, the mean (SE) decline in GFR was 2.07 (0.21)
and 3.22 (0.33) mL/min per 1.73 m2/y in the ramipril and amlodipine
groups, respectively. The mean decline was 1.15 mL/min per 1.73 m2/y
(95% CI, 0.41-1.90) or 36% slower in the ramipril group (P = .002). However, during the 3-month acute phase, GFR increased 4.19
mL/min per 1.73 m2/y (95% CI, 2.64-5.73) more in the amlodipine
than ramipril group (P<.001) (mean [SE] change
in GFR was − 0.16 [0.46] and 4.03 [0.64] mL/min per 1.73 m2
in the ramipril and amlodipine groups, respectively); consequently, the mean
total slope (including acute and chronic phases) did not differ significantly
(P = .38) between the treatment groups (difference
in total mean slopes = 0.34 mL/min per 1.73 m2/y, 95% CI, −
0.41 to 1.08). As described below, the different results for chronic and total
slopes are clarified by taking into account the level of baseline proteinuria.
Effect of Baseline Proteinuria
The acute rise in GFR produced by amlodipine was confined to the participants
with baseline UP/Cr ≤0.22 (approximate protein excretion of 300 mg/d or
lower). As a consequence, there were highly significant interactions of the
treatment regimen with baseline proteinuria for both the acute GFR slope (P = .001) and the total mean slope (P<.001). The mean (SE) total decline in GFR to 3 years (Figure 2A) was 1.22 (0.44) mL/min
per 1.73 m2/y faster in the ramipril group than in the amlodipine
group among participants with baseline UP/Cr ≤ 0.22 (˜ 300 mg/d)(P = .006) (mean [SE] total slopes were − 1.02 [0.25]
and 0.20 [0.39] mL/min per 1.73 m2/y in the ramipril and amlodipine
groups, respectively). However, among participants with baseline UP/Cr > 0.22,
the total decline to 3 years was 2.02 (0.74) mL/min per 1.73 m2/y,
or 36%, slower in the ramipril group (P = .006) (mean
[SE] total slopes were − 3.60 [0.34] and −5.62 [0.65] mL/min per
1.73 m2/y in the ramipril and amlodipine groups) (Figure 2B).
During the chronic phase, mean GFR declined at a substantially faster
rate in participants with higher baseline proteinuria (UP/Cr >0.22) than in
participants without proteinuria (UP/Cr ≤0.22; P<.001).
The rate of GFR decline during the chronic phase was 2.37 (0.80) mL/min per
1.73 m2/y less in the ramipril group than in the amlodipine group
in participants with baseline UP/Cr >0.22 (P = .003)
(mean [SE] declines of 3.55 [0.41] and 5.92 [0.69] mL/min per 1.73 m2/y in the ramipril and amlodipine groups, respectively). Among participants
with baseline UP/Cr ≤ 0.22, the difference in mean chronic GFR slope between
ramipril and amlodipine groups was slightly smaller (0.80 [0.43] mL/min per
1.73 m2/y; P = .07) (mean [SE] declines
of 1.22 [0.25] and 2.02 [0.38] in the ramipril and amlodipine groups, respectively).
However, the interaction of the drug regimens with baseline proteinuria was
not significant (P = .21).
Consistent with the inverse association between GFR and proteinuria
at baseline, significant interactions were also observed between baseline
GFR and the treatment interventions on the acute slopes (P = .006) and total mean slopes (P = .003).
The total mean GFR decline to 3 years was 0.97 (0.47) mL/min per 1.73 m2/y faster in the ramipril group than the amlodipine group for participants
with baseline GFR levels of at least 40 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (mean
[SE] declines of 1.53 [0.26] and 0.55 [0.42] mL/min per 1.73 m2/y
in the ramipril and amlodipine groups) (Figure
2C). However, it was 1.61 (0.62) mL/min per 1.73 m2/y
faster in the amlodipine group for subjects with baseline GFR less than 40
mL/min per 1.73 m2 (mean [SE] declines of 2.73 [0.32] and 4.33
[0.54] mL/min per 1.73 m2/y in the ramipril and amlodipine groups)
(Figure 2D).
Clinical End Point Analysis
The results of the analysis of clinical end points are presented in Table 3 and Figure 3. The top 2 rows of Table
3 provides the frequencies of GFR events and ESRD, irrespective
of the order of the events. The 143 composite events in the ramipril and amlodipine
groups included 73 GFR events, 40 additional participants who reached ESRD
without a prior GFR event, and 30 additional participants who died without
ESRD or a prior GFR event.
Without covariate adjustment, the risk reduction for the ramipril vs
amlodipine groups for the clinical composite outcome including all 3 end points
was 26% (95% CI, − 4% to 47%; P = .09). After
adjustment for the prespecified covariates as required by the study's analysis
plan, the risk reduction for the ramipril vs amlodipine groups in the clinical
composite outcome was 38% (95% CI, 13%-56%; P = .005);
for the combined hard end points of ESRD or death (excluding GFR events),
it was 41% (95% CI, 14%-60%; P = .007); and for the
2 renal end points, major declines in GFR or dialysis, censoring death, it
was 38% (95% CI, 10%-58%; P = .01). The risk reduction
in the clinical end points for the ramipril group was not significantly related
to baseline proteinuria (P = .25), but it was strongly
influenced by the subgroup with baseline proteinuria UP/Cr >0.22 (approximately
300 mg/d) since 90 (62.9%) of these 143 events occurred in this group. Among
participants with UP/Cr >0.22, the risk reduction was 48% (95% CI, 20%-66%; P = .003).
Proteinuria (geometric mean UP/Cr) increased by 58% from 0.0997 to 0.1575
in participants in the amlodipine group and declined by 20% from 0.1147 to
0.0915 in the ramipril group during the first 6 months of the study. This
difference between treatment groups was significant (P<.001)
and persisted throughout the follow-up period, with moderate increases in
proteinuria in both groups. The percentage increase in proteinuria was significantly
greater with amlodipine than ramipril in both baseline proteinuria strata
(Figure 4). However, the magnitude
of the difference between the ramipril and amlodipine groups in the median
change in UP/Cr was larger for the baseline UP/Cr >0.22 strata (difference
in median change = 0.35 mg of protein per mg of creatinine) than for the baseline
UP/Cr ≤0.22 strata (difference in median change = 0.02 mg protein per mg
of creatinine). Nonetheless, among those with baseline UP/Cr <0.22, the
rate at which participants first developed UP/Cr ≥0.22 (˜ 300 mg/d)
was 56% lower (95% CI, 37%-69%; P<.001) for the
ramipril group than for the amlodipine group.
This report suggests that initial antihypertensive therapy with ramipril,
an ACEI, offers greater benefit in slowing deterioration of renal function
than amlodipine, a DHP-CCB, in participants with mild-to-moderate chronic
renal insufficiency associated with hypertensive nephrosclerosis. This conclusion
is supported by 3 findings based on analyses of the entire cohort in this
trial. Participants randomized to the ramipril group experienced significant
reductions compared with those in the amlodipine group in (1) risk of the
important clinical end points, that is, marked decline of renal function,
ESRD, or death; (2) mean chronic decline in GFR from 3 months postrandomization;
and (3) proteinuria.
Because reports published during the course of the trial suggested that
ACEIs had a greater relative benefit in patients with proteinuria, analyses
were stratified by level of baseline urine protein excretion.3-6,10,14,22,25-28
Participants with protein excretion greater than 2.5 g/d were not included
in AASK, but one third of participants had baseline protein excretion with
UP/Cr >0.22 or approximately 300 mg/d, a value that defines clinically significant
proteinuria. Participants with protein excretion above this level showed the
greatest benefit of ramipril compared with those receiving amlodipine in all
outcome parameters, including the combined clinical end point, the mean GFR
slope from baseline and from 3 months, and urinary protein excretion. Consistent
with other reports, proteinuria was a strong predictor of GFR decline, and
the majority of participants who experienced a clinical end point had baseline
protein excretion of UP/Cr >0.22.7,14
The benefit of ramipril on the total change in GFR observed in participants
with higher baseline urine protein excretion did not extend to those participants
without proteinuria. Because treatment with a DHP-CCB–based antihypertensive
drug regimen produced an acute rise in GFR that was confined to participants
without proteinuria, the ramipril regimen did not significantly slow the total
mean GFR decline compared with the amlodipine regimen for either the subgroup
without proteinuria or the entire cohort. There is some evidence that increases
in GFR observed after initiation of a DHP-CCB may not confer benefit on long-term
renal outcome. In animal studies, DHP-CCBs produce an acute rise in GFR by
causing afferent arteriolar vasodilation and loss of renal autoregulation.30-32 As a consequence,
intraglomerular pressure typically rises, even when systemic arterial pressure
falls.30,32 In contrast, ACEIs
generally reduce intraglomerular pressure and do not interfere with autoregulation.30,32 These observations, taken together
with clinical studies showing increases in proteinuria with DHP-CCBs, raise
the possibility that pressure-mediated glomerular injury could contribute
to the greater increase in proteinuria and more rapid decline in GFR observed
in AASK participants receiving these agents.10,14,16,22,33,34
While the total change in GFR during the study period did not differ
significantly between treatment groups, other AASK results suggest the benefit
of ramipril over amlodipine may extend to individuals without proteinuria.
The analysis of total GFR slope is strongly influenced by acute changes in
participants with little overall disease progression, while both the clinical
end points and chronic slope outcomes better reflect long-term disease progression.
These outcomes demonstrate significant benefits of ACEI for the entire cohort.
The benefit of ACEI in the clinical end point analysis is particularly compelling
since it is based on events with direct patient impact.
The increase in proteinuria in the amlodipine group compared with the
ramipril group was significant for both baseline proteinuria strata. Furthermore,
in AASK participants with baseline UP/Cr <0.22, the time until the ratio
first reached the 0.22 cutpoint was significantly shorter for the amlodipine
than for the ramipril group. Thus, treatment of a patient without proteinuria
with a DHP-CCB may result in the development of proteinuria and potentially
a greater risk of long-term renal disease. Nonetheless, the relatively low
rates of renal disease progression in the participants without proteinuria
and data suggesting that ACEIs have a larger benefit in participants with
proteinuria than those without proteinuria make the evidence for a renoprotective
benefit of ACEIs in these participants without proteinuria less definitive.25
A limitation of the analyses of GFR slope in this report is that the
occurrence of ESRD, death, or patient dropout prevented observation of GFRs
over the entire study period for a substantial fraction of participants (Figure 1). This could have biased our results
depending on the relationship of the pattern of missing data with the GFR
slopes.35 However, the results of the GFR slope
analyses changed little under alternative models for the missing GFRs36 (data not shown), suggesting that the missed GFRs
did not affect our conclusions. A second limitation is that the investigation
of the ramipril vs amlodipine comparison in relation to baseline proteinuria
was not specified in the protocol prior to the study. However, the decision
to investigate the influence of proteinuria on the treatment effects was made
by study investigators who were blinded to AASK outcome data, reducing the
risk of a spurious post hoc finding. The cutpoint of 0.22 used for stratification
by baseline UP/Cr also was selected independently of the AASK data based on
clinical and statistical considerations. However, the sample size of this
study is not sufficient to determine a precise threshold where the advantage
of ACEIs becomes definitive.7
In aggregate, our results are consistent with prior observations in
participants with both diabetic and nondiabetic renal disease that ACEIs have
a renoprotective effect3,4,6,28
and that treatment with a DHP-CCB increases proteinuria and may not slow the
progression of established renal disease despite substantial reductions in
BP.10,14-16,22,25,28,33,34
Interim results of the AASK trial, taken together with previous trials, support
the use of an ACEI as initial therapy in a multidrug regimen over a DHP-CCB–based
regimen in African American and white participants with mild-to-moderate chronic
renal insufficiency and levels of proteinuria defined in this report.3-6,14,27
These results further provide documentation extending the renoprotective action
of an ACEI-based regimen to African Americans with this disorder, a population
previously thought to be less responsive to these agents. For participants
with hypertension without proteinuria and those at low risk for progressive
renal disease, the evidence is less conclusive. By design, only persons with
hypertension and mild-to-moderate renal disease were studied in the AASK,
and the effect of amlodipine and ramipril on renal function was the major
focus of the study. The study was not designed to evaluate the effect of these
agents on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular complications, the most frequent
complications of hypertension. The risk of these complications has been shown
to be lowered by DHP-CCBs in a number of clinical end point trials.37-40 However,
clinicians should be aware that use of DHP-CCBs both in this and other trials
not involving African Americans are associated with the development of proteinuria.7,10,14-16,22,28,33
Thus, measurement of urinary protein excretion is recommended to guide initial
therapy selection.
1.US Renal Data System. USRDS 1999 Annual Data Report. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of
Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases; 1999.
2.Klag MJ, Whelton PK, Randall BL.
et al. Blood pressure and end-stage renal disease in men.
N Engl J Med.1996;334:13-18.Google Scholar 3.Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Bain RP, Rohde RD.for the Collaborative Study Group. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic
nephropathy.
N Engl J Med.1993;329:1456-1462.Google Scholar 4.Maschio G, Alberti D, Janin G.
et al. Effect of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor benazepril on
the progression of chronic renal insufficiency.
N Engl J Med.1996;334:939-945.Google Scholar 5.Bakris GL, Copley JB, Vicknair N, Sadler R, Leurgans S. Calcium channel blockers versus other antihypertensive therapies on
progression of NIDDM associated nephropathy.
Kidney Int.1996;50:1641-1650.Google Scholar 6.The GISEN Group (Gruppo Italiano di Studi Epidemiologici in Nefrologia). Randomised placebo-controlled trial of effect of ramipril on decline
in glomerular filtration rate and risk of terminal renal failure in proteinuric,
non-diabetic nephropathy.
Lancet.1997;349:1857-1863.Google Scholar 7.Perna A, Remuzzi G. Abnormal permeability to proteins and glomerular lesions: a meta-analysis
of experimental and human studies.
Am J Kidney Dis.1996;27:34-41.Google Scholar 8.Rahman M, Douglas JG, Wright JT. Pathophysiology and treatment implications of hypertension in the African-American
population.
Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am.1997;26:125-144.Google Scholar 9.Weir MR, Dworkin LD. Antihypertensive drugs, dietary salt, and renal protection: how low
should you go and with which therapy?
Am J Kidney Dis.1998;32:1-22.Google Scholar 10.Koshy S, Bakris GL. Therapeutic approaches to achieve desired blood pressure goals: focus
on calcium channel blockers.
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther.2000;14:295-301.Google Scholar 11.Dworkin LD, Feiner HD, Parker M, Tolbert E. Effects of nifedipine and enalapril on glomerular structure and function
in uninephrectomized SHR.
Kidney Int.1991;39:1112-1117.Google Scholar 12.Dworkin LD, Benstein JA, Parker M, Tolbert E, Feiner HD. Calcium antagonists and converting enzyme inhibitors reduce renal injury
by different mechanisms.
Kidney Int.1993;43:808-814.Google Scholar 13.Bakris GL, Mangrum A, Copley JB, Vicknair N, Sadler R. Effect of calcium channel or beta-blockade on the progression of diabetic
nephropathy in African Americans.
Hypertension.1997;29:744-750.Google Scholar 14.Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Benini R, Remuzzi G. Effects of dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting
enzyme inhibition, and blood pressure control on chronic, nondiabetic nephropathies.
Gruppo Italiano di Studi Epidemiologici in Nefrologia (GISEN).
J Am Soc Nephrol.1998;9:2096-2101.Google Scholar 15.Tarif N, Bakris GL. Preservation of renal function: the spectrum of effects by calcium-channel
blockers.
Nephrol Dial Transplant.1997;12:2244-2250.Google Scholar 16.Guasch A, Parham M, Zayas CF, Campbell O, Nzerue C, Macon E. Contrasting effects of calcium channel blockade versus converting enzyme
inhibition on proteinuria in African Americans with non-insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus and nephropathy.
J Am Soc Nephrol.1997;8:793-798.Google Scholar 17.Wright Jr JT, Kusek JW, Toto RD.
et al. Design and baseline characteristics of participants in the African
American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) Pilot Study.
Control Clin Trials.1996;17(4 suppl):3S-16S.Google Scholar 18.Hall WD, Kusek JW, Kirk KA.
et al. Short-term effects of blood pressure control and antihypertensive drug
regimen on glomerular filtration rate: the African-American Study of Kidney
Disease and Hypertension Pilot Study.
Am J Kidney Dis.1997;29:720-728.Google Scholar 19.Perloff D, Grim C, Flack J.
et al. Human blood pressure determination by sphygmomanometry.
Circulation.1993;88(5 pt 1):2460-2470.Google Scholar 20.Coresh J, Toto RD, Kirk KA.
et al. Creatinine clearance as a measure of GFR in screenees for the African-American
Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension pilot study.
Am J Kidney Dis.1998;32:32-42.Google Scholar 21.De Cesaris R, Ranieri G, Filitti V, Andriani A, Bonfantino MV. Effects of atenolol and enalapril on kidney function in hypertensive
diabetic patients.
J Cardiovasc Pharmacol.1993;22:208-214.Google Scholar 22.ter Wee PM, De Micheli AG, Epstein M. Effects of calcium antagonists on renal hemodynamics and progression
of nondiabetic chronic renal disease.
Arch Intern Med.1994;154:1185-1202.Google Scholar 23.Bakris GL, Weir MR. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-associated elevations in serum
creatinine: is this a cause for concern?
Arch Intern Med.2000;160:685-693.Google Scholar 24. Short-term effects of protein intake, blood pressure, and antihypertensive
therapy on glomerular filtration rate in the Modification of Diet in Renal
Disease Study.
J Am Soc Nephrol.1996;7:2097-2109.Google Scholar 25.Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Gherardi G.
et al. Renoprotective properties of ACE-inhibition in non-diabetic nephropathies
with non-nephrotic proteinuria.
Lancet.1999;354:359-364.Google Scholar 26.O'Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials.
Biometrics.1979;35:549-556.Google Scholar 27.Keane WF, Eknoyan G. Proteinuria, albuminuria, risk, assessment, detection, elimination
(PARADE): a position paper of the National Kidney Foundation.
Am J Kidney Dis.1999;33:1004-1010.Google Scholar 28.Kloke HJ, Branten AJ, Huysmans FT, Wetzels JF. Antihypertensive treatment of patients with proteinuric renal diseases:
risks or benefits of calcium channel blockers?
Kidney Int.1998;53:1559-1573.Google Scholar 29.Jafar T, Schmid C, Landa M.
et al. The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors on the progression
of non-diabetic renal disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data
from 11 randomized controlled trials.
Ann Intern Med.In press.Google Scholar 30.Anderson S. Renal hemodynamic effects of calcium antagonists in rats with reduced
renal mass.
Hypertension.1991;17:288-295.Google Scholar 31.Griffin KA, Picken MM, Bakris GL, Bidani AK. Class differences in the effects of calcium channel blockers in the
rat remnant kidney model.
Kidney Int.1999;55:1849-1860.Google Scholar 32.Kvam FI, Ofstad J, Iversen BM. Effects of antihypertensive drugs on autoregulation of RBF and glomerular
capillary pressure in SHR.
Am J Physiol.1998;275(pt 2):F576-F584.Google Scholar 33.Mimran A, Insua A, Ribstein J, Bringer J, Monnier L. Comparative effect of captopril and nifedipine in normotensive patients
with incipient diabetic nephropathy.
Diabetes Care.1988;11:850-853.Google Scholar 34.Demarie BK, Bakris GL. Effects of different calcium antagonists on proteinuria associated
with diabetes mellitus.
Ann Intern Med.1990;113:987-988.Google Scholar 35.Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis With Missing Data. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1987.
36.Schluchter M, Greene T, Beck G. Analysis of change in the presence of informative censoring: Application
to to longitudinal clinical trial of progressive renal disease.
Stat Med.2001;20:989-1007.Google Scholar 37.Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L.
et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment
for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension.
Lancet.1997;350:757-764.Google Scholar 38.Wang JG, Liu G, Wang X.
et al. Long-term blood pressure control in older Chinese patients with isolated
systolic hypertension: a progress report on the Syst-China trial.
J Hum Hypertens.1996;10:735-742.Google Scholar 39.Hansson L, Linholm LH, Niskanen L.
et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional
therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril
Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomized trial.
Lancet.1999;353:611-616.Google Scholar 40.Neal B, MacMahon S, Chapman N. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering
drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Blood
Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration.
Lancet.2000;356:1955-1964.Google Scholar