Supplementary Material for: Mononuclear Leukocyte Apoptosis and Inflammatory Markers in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

<b><i>Background/Aim:</i></b> Increased apoptosis along with enhanced inflammation has been reported in hemodialysis and pre-dialysis patients. However, there is limited information at which stage during the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) the balance between pro- and anti-apoptotic mechanisms is disturbed and inflammatory response is activated. The aim of this study was to investigate possible alterations in apoptotic and inflammatory markers during CKD (stages 1–4) progression and the probable interactions between them. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> In a cross-sectional study, 152 steady-state CKD outpatients (83 males, 55%) with mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 46 (29–76) ml/min/1.73 m² were studied. Apoptosis was assessed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells by estimating Bcl-2 expression, annexin V-propidium iodine staining and serum soluble Fas (sFas) and Fas-ligand. Serum levels of C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 and plasma levels of fibrinogen were measured as markers of inflammation. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Bcl-2 expression was found to decrease significantly in both lymphocytes and monocytes from CKD stage 1 to 4. In contrast, the activity of sFas increased significantly and so did the levels of TNF-α and fibrinogen. The majority of these alterations occurred as soon as patients entered stage 3 of CKD. A multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that CKD remained a significant predictor of the aggregate of the assessed markers. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Apoptosis appeared to increase across CKD stages 1–4, and this was associated with increased proinflammatory activity

Outcomes in subgroups of hypertensive patients treated with regimens based on valsartan and amlodipine: An analysis of findings from the VALUE trial

BACKGROUND: In the Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial the primary outcome (cardiac morbidity and mortality) did not differ between valsartan and amlodipine-based treatment groups, although systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure reductions were significantly more pronounced with amlodipine. Stroke incidence was non-significantly, and myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the amlodipine-based regimen, whereas cardiac failure was non-significantly lower on valsartan. OBJECTIVES: The study protocol specified additional analyses of the primary endpoint according to: sex; age; race; geographical region; smoking status; type 2 diabetes; total cholesterol; left ventricular hypertrophy; proteinuria; serum creatinine; a history of coronary heart disease; a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack; and a history of peripheral artery disease. Additional subgroups were isolated systolic hypertension and classes of antihypertensive agents used immediately before randomization. METHODS: The 15 245 hypertensive patients participating in VALUE were divided into subgroups according to baseline characteristics. Treatment by subgroup interaction analyses were carried out by a Cox proportional hazard model. Within each subgroup, treatment effects were assessed by hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: For cardiac mortality and morbidity, the only significant subgroup by treatment interaction was of sex (P = 0.016), with the hazard ratio indicating a relative excess of cardiac events with valsartan treatment in women but not in men, but SBP differences in favour of amlodipine were distinctly greater in women. No other subgroup showed a significant difference in the composite cardiac outcome between valsartan and amlodipine-based treatments. For secondary endpoints, a sex-related significant interaction was found for heart failure (P < 0.0001), with men but not women having a lower incidence of heart failure with valsartan. CONCLUSION: As in the whole VALUE cohort, in no subgroup of patients were there differences in the incidence of the composite cardiac endpoint with valsartan and amlodipine-based treatments, despite a greater blood pressure decrease in the amlodipine group. The only exception was sex, in which the amlodipine-based regimen was more effective than valsartan in women, but not in men, whereas the valsartan regimen was more effective in preventing cardiac failure in men than in women. © 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc

Lipoprotein (a) and stroke

Strokes are one of the most common causes of mortality and long term severe disability. There is evidence that lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) is a predictor of many forms of vascular disease, including premature coronary artery disease. Several studies have also evaluated the association between Lp(a) and ischaemic (thrombotic) stroke. Several cross sectional (and a few prospective) studies provide contradictory findings regarding Lp(a) as a predictor of ischaemic stroke. Several factors might contribute to the existing confusion—for example, small sample sizes, different ethnic groups, the influence of oestrogens in women participating in the studies, plasma storage before Lp(a) determination, statistical errors, and selection bias. This review focuses on the Lp(a) related mechanisms that might contribute to the pathogenesis of ischaemic stroke. The association between Lp(a) and other cardiovascular risk factors is discussed. Therapeutic interventions that can lower the circulating concentrations of Lp(a) and thus possibly reduce the risk of stroke are also considered. Key Words: atherothrombosis • fibrinogen • homocysteine • lipids • lipoprotein a • strok