Current Hypertension Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 352–356

Clinical importance of microalbuminuria in diabetes and hypertension

  • George L. Bakris


Numerous studies document an almost linear association between the level of albuminuria and risk for a cardiovascular event. Recent data also demonstrate a strong association between the presence of microalbuminuria and elevations in C-reactive protein. Therefore, the increased membrane permeability that generates microalbuminuria might be secondary to an inflammatory process. Progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria indicates worsening of vascular disease and presence of kidney disease. Recent pharmacologic interventions have resulted in significant delay and even arrest of progression of microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria as well as kidney disease progression. Therefore, focus should be placed on use of antihypertensive agents that not only lower blood pressure but also lower or normalize albuminuria levels. All recent guideline statements support the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Further lowering of albuminuria may be achieved by adding verapamil, diltiazem, or an ARB to an ACE inhibitor.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Eknoyan G, Hostetter T, Bakris GL, et al.: Proteinuria and other markers of chronic kidney disease: a position statement of the national kidney foundation (NKF) and the national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases (NIDDK). Am J Kidney Dis 2003, 42:617–622. Findings of a consensus conference that has resulted in an official change in the recommended measurement of albuminuria and glomerular filtration rate reflected in guidelines statements published in 2003 and forward.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abosaif NY, Arije A, Atray NK, et al.: K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines on hypertension and antihypertensive agents in chronic kidney disease. Am J Kidney Dis 2004, 43:1–290.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garg JP, Bakris GL: Microalbuminuria: marker of vascular dysfunction, risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Vasc Med 2002, 7:35–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langham RG, Kelly DJ, Cox AJ, et al.: Proteinuria and the expression of the podocyte slit diaphragm protein, nephrin, in diabetic nephropathy: effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition. Diabetologia 2002, 45:1572–1576.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper ME, Mundel P, Boner G: Role of nephrin in renal disease including diabetic nephropathy. Semin Nephrol 2002, 22:393–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clausen P, Jensen JS, Jensen G, et al.: Elevated urinary albumin excretion is associated with impaired arterial dilatory capacity in clinically healthy subjects. Circulation 2001, 103:1869–1874.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stuveling EM, Bakker SJ, Hillege HL, et al.: C-reactive protein modifies the relationship between blood pressure and microalbuminuria. Hypertension 2004, 43:791–796. Important paper that demonstrates the relationship between the level of C-reactive protein and presence of microalbuminuria in a high-risk population.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stuveling EM, Hillege HL, Bakker SJ, et al.: C-reactive protein and microalbuminuria differ in their associations with various domains of vascular disease. Atherosclerosis 2004, 172:107–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fried LF, Orchard TJ, Kasiske BL: Effect of lipid reduction on the progression of renal disease: a meta-analysis. Kidney Int 2001, 59:260–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Takeda T, Hoshida S, Nishino M, et al.: Relationship between effects of statins, aspirin and angiotensin II modulators on high-sensitive C-reactive protein levels. Atherosclerosis 2003, 169:155–158. Important paper showing the relationship between statins, aspirin, and angiotensin II in inflammatory responses.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Di NM, Papa F: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use is associated with reduced plasma concentration of C-reactive protein in patients with first-ever ischemic stroke. Stroke 2003, 34:2922–2929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wachtell K, Ibsen H, Olsen MH, et al.: Albuminuria and cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients with left ventricular hypertrophy: the LIFE study. Ann Intern Med 2003, 139:901–906. Only trial, to date, to assess presence of microalbuminuria and left ventricular hypertrophy in parallel on cardiovascular risk in an outcome trial.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Turnbull F: Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 2003, 362:1527–1535. Largest meta-analysis done, to date, to assess effects of a given class of antihypertensive medications on cardiovascular outcomes in clinical trials.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Estacio RO, Jeffers BW, Gifford N, Schrier RW: Effect of blood pressure control on diabetic microvascular complications in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 2000, 23(Suppl 2):B54-B64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wright JT Jr, Bakris G, Greene T, et al.: Effect of blood pressure lowering and antihypertensive drug class on progression of hypertensive kidney disease: results from the AASK trial. JAMA 2002, 288:2421–2431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Diabetes Control and Complications Research Group: Effect of intensive therapy on the development and progression of diabetic nephropathy in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT). Kidney Int 1995, 47:1703–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schrier RW, Estacio RO, Esler A, Mehler P: Effects of aggressive blood pressure control in normotensive type 2 diabetic patients on albuminuria, retinopathy, and strokes. Kidney Int 2002, 61:1086–1097.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators: Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet 2000, 355:253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group: Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998, 317:703–713.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adler AI, Stratton IM, Neil HA, et al.: Association of systolic blood pressure with macrovascular and microvascular complications of type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 36): prospective observational study. BMJ 2000, 321:412–419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Adler AI, Stevens RJ, Manley SE, et al.: Development and progression of nephropathy in type 2 diabetes: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 64). Kidney Int 2003, 63:225–232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mann JF, Gerstein HC, Pogue J, et al.: Renal insufficiency as a predictor of cardiovascular outcomes and the impact of ramipril: the HOPE randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:629–636.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parving HH, Lehnert H, Brochner-Mortensen J, et al.: The effect of irbesartan on the development of diabetic nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001, 345:870–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maschio G, Alberti D, Janin G, et al.: Effect of the angiotensinconverting-enzyme inhibitor benazepril on the progression of chronic renal insufficiency. The Angiotensin-Converting-Enzyme Inhibition in Progressive Renal Insufficiency Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996, 334:939–945.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Summary of Revisions for the 2004 Clinical Practice Recommendations. Diabetes Care 2004, 27:S1–S146.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ruggenenti P, Perna A, Gherardi G, et al.: Chronic proteinuric nephropathies: outcomes and response to treatment in a prospective cohort of 352 patients with different patterns of renal injury. Am J Kidney Dis 2000, 35:1155–1165.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nakao N, Yoshimura A, Morita H, et al.: Combination treatment of angiotensin-II receptor blocker and angiotensinconverting-enzyme inhibitor in non-diabetic renal disease (COOPERATE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003, 361:117–124.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jacobsen P, Andersen S, Jensen BR, Parving HH: Additive effect of ACE inhibition and angiotensin II receptor blockade in type I diabetic patients with diabetic nephropathy. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003, 14:992–999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bakris GL, Weir MR: Salt intake and reductions in arterial pressure and proteinuria. Is there a direct link? Am J Hypertens 1996, 9:200S-206S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sica DA: What are the influences of salt, potassium, the sympathetic nervous system, and the renin-angiotensin system on the circadian variation in blood pressure? Blood Press Monit 1999, 4(Suppl 2):S9-S16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bakris GL, Weir MR, Secic M, et al.: Differential effects of calcium antagonist subclasses on markers of nephropathy progression. Kidney Int 2004, 65:1991–2002. Most current systematic review of all clinical outcome trials with calcium antagonists that evaluate outcomes in the context of change in proteinuria. There are clear differences between the subclasses of dihydropyridine and nondihydropyridine agents.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al.: A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003, 290:2805–2816.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, et al.: Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2001, 345:851–860.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Griffin KA, Hacioglu R, bu-Amarah I, et al.: Effects of calcium channel blockers on "dynamic" and "steady-state step" renal autoregulation. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2004, 286:F1136-F1143. Definitive study to demonstrate the mechanism for adverse effects of dihydropyridine calcium antagonists on the kidney.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bakris GL, Weir MR, Shanifar S, et al.: Effects of blood pressure level on progression of diabetic nephropathy: results from the RENAAL study. Arch Intern Med 2003, 163:1555–1565. Only clinical study to date to demonstrate that use of an angiotensin receptor blocker with a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist results in a preserve outcome, similar to the intention to treat analysis.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al.: Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003, 42:1206–1252. Long version of the JNC 7 with all the details and rationale for the recommendations.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • George L. Bakris
    • 1
  1. 1.Rush University Hypertension Center, Rush University Medical CenterChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations