4.7 Article

Analysis of metabolic parameters as predictors of risk in the RENAAL study

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 1402-1407

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.5.1402

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - Metabolic factors such as glycemic control, hyperlipidemia, and hyperkalemia are important considerations in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. In the RENAAL (Reduction of End Points in Type 2 Diabetes With the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan) study, losartan reduced renal outcomes in the patient population. This post hoc analysis of the RENAAL study reports the effects of losartan on selected metabolic parameters and assesses the relationship between baseline values of metabolic parameters and the primary composite end point or end-stage renal disease (ESRD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Glycemic control (HbA(1c)) and serum lipid, uric acid, and potassium levels were compared between the losartan and placebo groups over time, and baseline levels were correlated with the risk of reaching the primary composite end point (doubling of serum creatinine, ESRD, or death) or ESRD alone. RESULTS - Losartan did not adversely affect glycemic control or serum lipid levels. Losartan-treated patients had lower total (227.4 vs. 195.4 mg/dl) and LDL (142.2 vs. 111.7 mg/dl) cholesterol. Losartan was associated with a mean increase of up to 0.3 mEq/l in serum potassium levels; however, the rate of hyperkalemia-related discontinuation was similar between the placebo and losartan groups. Univariate analysis revealed that baseline total and LDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels were associated with increased risk of developing the primary composite end point. Similarly, total and LDL cholesterol were also associated with increased risk of developing ESRD. CONCLUSIONS - overall, losartan was well tolerated by patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy and was associated with a favorable effect on the metabolic profile of this population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据