Salt intake and reductions in arterial pressure and proteinuria is there a direct link?

Salt Intake and Reductions Pressure and Proteinuria

in Arterial

Is There A Direct Link? Ceorgc L. B&is,

errd Matthew R. Weir

The preponderance of Ihc medical literature supports the concept that modest or moderate dietary salt restriction enhances the blood pressure lowering responses to most antihypertensive medications and may permit either dose reduction or, in a few cases, complete drug withdrawal. Moreover, reduction in salt intake has a permissive action on the antiproteinuric responses of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and nondihydmpyridine calcium channel blockers. It does not, however, affect pmteinuria in those receiving dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. The importance of selecting out those individuals who can most benefit from dietary salt

modification (the “salt sensitive” groups of hypertensive patients) is important. Prospective randomized clinical studies are needed to assess the correlation between dietary salt intake and renal endpoints, such as time dialysis. This will be particularly important in different demographic groups that may have a greater predisposition to salt sensitivity, such as elderly or obese hypertensives, hypectensives of black or Hispanic descent, and those with non-insulindependent diabetes mellihrs. 0 1996 American Ltd. Am J Hypertens Journal of Hypertension, 1996;9:2OlS-206s

igh salt intake is kr.own to worsen preexisting hypertension.’ This is especially true for a subgroup of individuals who are “salt sensi&e.“’ Conversely, _ J. reduction in salt intake to less than 4 g/day reduces elevated arterial pressure end blunts increases in this surrogate endpoint.’ .’ The* observations make it likely that certain individuals have an impaired pressure-natriuresis response or a greater vdscular respor.-

sivencss to salt and, hence, arc potentially at a higher risk for developin; hypertension. A better understanding of the relationship between dietary salt intake and the vascular reactivity that correlates with blood pressure changes will help investigators understand the physiologic impact of salt. To this 2nd. studies have evaluated the contribution of vasoactive hormones as wel! as both the reninangiotensin-aldosterone and sympathetic nervous systems in the context of salt intake and arterial pressure changes.’ -’ Additionally, recent studies have evaluated the renal hemodynamic effects of sodium in different disease states.‘“-” These findings cons~stently demcnstrate that salt sensitive patients have reduced renal plasma flow and increased glomerular filtr;:tion fraction ds well as proteinuria in irspmse to increasing dietary salt. Moreover, mounting evidence supports a deleterious relationship between salt sen-

I3

KEY WORDS: Salt, dirt, antihypertensive drugs, salt sensitivity.

therapy,

0895-7061/%/%15.00

I’11 SO895-7ffi1(96KQ392-5

A,,,-IltcFM”t.K

l%!b

VC~I. q t&l

I?. PART

?

SALT

sitivity and abnormalities of carbohydrate and lipid metabolism.” ” Microalbuminuria is assoclatcd with an increased risk of both cardiovascular and renal mortality among diabetic patients. I’-‘* Sodium intake is known to affect proteinuria levels in animal models of diabetes mellitus.” Moreover, sodium intake also afftyts the antiprotcinuric response of certain antihypertensive agents, such as angiotensm converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.“~z” The mechanism of this effect is uncertain. This paper will review the results of studies that evaluate the impact of salt intake on both the antihypertensive and antiproteinuric properties of various antlhypertensivr drugs. This is important, especially in light of recent data demonstrating that salt sensitivity may be a marker for cardiovascular risk clustering, particularly in blacks and diabetics.” ‘” SALT

AND

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE

DRUGS

The eff& of various antihypertensive drugs varies with regard to the mechanism of blood prrssure reduction as well as their influence on pwteinwia.” r These mechanistic differences may have important long-term implications regarding an individuals’ risk for blood pressure related cardiovascular and renal diseases. The relationship between dietary salt intake and the antihypertensive effect of various drugs has been explored in numerous clinical trials.“” These studies have led to the long-standing belief that redo4 salt intake potentiates the hypotensive effect of most antihypertensive agents. However, the magnitude of blood pressure lowering varies across drug class and is more pronounced with certain agents at lower drug doses among “salt sensitive” individuals.” y The threshold of dietary salt intake below which the hypotensive effect of antihypertensive agents is accentuated and above which an antihypertensive effect is antagonized remains to be established. The initial mechanism of b!ood pressure reduction by thiazide diuretics was poshdated to relate solely to salt and water depletion. However, subsequent clinical studies demonstrated that dietary salt loading diminished their hypotensive response, whereas reduced dietary salt enhanced diuretic-induced slood pressure reductions.“-2” Moreover, thiazide diuretics m low doses (12.5 mg/day) reduce blood pressure through their vasodilator action an effect independent of natriuresis. Not every study, however, has demonstrated this impact on blood pressure reduction with salt restriction in the presenr~ of diuretic therapy.” -” Reasons for this discrepancy include the fact that cornLining salt restriction and diuretic therapy could enhance a person’s ap petite for salt thrrugh activation of the renin-angioten-

INTAKE

AND

REDUCTIONS

201s

sin system and thereby paradoxicaily increase a neuro_ humoral system known to increase arterial pre.,s;re and thirst. This proposal, however. ie not supported by the data of Bing et al who tol~owed 32 diuretic-treated patients for 2 years and noted no increase in 24-h urinary sodium excretion (a reflection of dieiary salt intake), and no tendency for blood pressure to increase.” However, sinw these patients were not profiled in terms of their blood pressure responses to dietary salt, interpretation of these data is difficult. Achievement of good blood pressure reductions in other studies employed more stringent dietary salt restriction, ~50 mEq /day; this is an unrealistically low level of intake for most ambulatory hypertensive patients’ Blood prcwure reduction employing a combination cf salt restriction and a &blocker has also demonstrated confhcting results. Ewrteman et al performed a double blind cross-over study to examine the interaction be. tween a low salt diet and a B-blocker on blood pressure reduction.” This group provided evidence that the combination of a low salt diet and P-blockade reduced blood pressure more than the drug with a high salt diet (-2M.5 mm Hg with low salt diet versus -21.3 mm Hg with high salt diet; P < .05). However, this observation was not confinned by Kimura and colleagues who failed to show a potentiation of blood pressure reduction with a low salt diet added to tire fl-blockade.2g Unfortunately, since different types of patients were examined in these two studies, no firm corxlusions may be reached. Short-term studies demonstrate that angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, like o-blockers, are cffwtive in reducing blood pressure among patients with high plasma renin levels.Y~~Y~“~‘i”However, there are no long-term studies that demonstrate a relationship behveen pretreahnent renin levels and antihypertensivc response of ACE inhibitors. Moreover, recent data suggests that pretreatment plasma renin levels do not predict the antihypertensive mpome to the ACE inhibitor trandolapnl m either black or white hypertensives.” Thus, these agents have effects on blood pressure that may have more to do with their effects on other factors than rcnin, such as bradykinin. Neverthe less, sodium reshiction potent&es theantihypertensive effects of ACE inhibitors.” Clinical trials, although limited in number, further support this :ontention. They demonstrate consistent additive a&hypertensive cffectr of reduced salt diet in combinatiorti wth ACE inhibitors.“,‘” Additionally, one study demonstrated that when salt was added hark to the diet the antihypertenswe effect of the ACE inhibitors were markedly blunted.” There is want published data assessing the antihypertensive activity of sympatholytic agents, nonspecific vasodilators, such as hydralazme, or minoxidil, a-blockers, or angiotensin II receptor antagonists in relation

to dietary salt intake. However, there is inform.ltion assessing the utility of dietary salt restriction with c.11cium channel blocker therapy. Paradoxically. some of this clinical data suggest that greater dietary salt intake potentiates the antihyper:ensive properties o! calcium channel blockers.“. N Nicholson rt al demonstrated that, with the same dose of verapamd, patients recciving a high dietary salt intake had rrlativcly greater rcductions in blood pressurr compared to those on a low tilt diet.” This could be explained, hoxvevcr, by thka fact that the baseline blood pressure was higher with greater dietary salt; thus, the absolute fall in blood prcssure reduction observed was larger than on the lower dietary salt intake. Momover, the absolute Icvcl of blood pressure reached was lower on a reduced salt intake. MacGregor et al hypothesized that greater dietary salt intake may boost intracrilular calcium concentration, thus enhancing the vasorelaxmg propertic? of calcium channel blockersM Some invesbgaton bavc dcmonstrated a reduced efficacy of calcium channel blockers in lowering blood prcssurc in salt restricted patients or even elevation of blood pressure in others.“‘” Ilowever, these clinical studies have not addressed the salt sensitivity status of the patients in making these obscrvations. In a separate study, patients who werr found to be more salt sensitive had a greater hypotensive rcsponse to calcium channel blocker therapy compared to salt resistant patients.” In the Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS), the antihypertensive properties of five different drug classes in black participants wcrc rvaluatedd.‘2,” They observed significant differences in antihypertensive efficacy between different classes of drugs depending on salt intake. The black participants, presumably salt sensitive as suggested by thr work of Luft and Weinberger,’ responded most effcutivrly to thrrapy with either a diuretic, calcium channel bhrkcr, or a P-blccker with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, as compared to therapy with an ACE inhibitor or an (Iblorker.“.‘r However, these studies did not address whether higher doses of these drugs might result in greater efficacy of blood pressure reductmn in the presence of different sodium intakes. Both black and white patients who ingested less salt experienced a potentiation of the antihypertensive effect of most drugs used in the study. These dat3 suggest that reduced dietary salt intake potentiates the antihypertensive effect of most antihypertensive drugs in patients with stage I hypertension. Thus, modest sait restriction facilit.+tes blood pressure reduction in most hypertensive populations, particularly those who are salt sensitive (eg, older, obese, and black populabons). Nevertheless, the !ink between the blood pressure lowering efficacy of salt restriction during antihypertensive therapy with any drug class has not been established. Lastly, calcium

channel b1ockts.s may poswsn more robust antlhypertenslve propertics m the tace ot high salt intake compxcd to other drugs. Clinical trials have also studied whether or not dietary ult restriction facilita:cs reduced antihypertensi.tie m&cation rtyuirements.Y’~n For the most part, climcal research has demonstrated improved withdrawal from z number of different antihypertensive !herapics with mcdebt dietary ralt restriction. However, this has been particula:ly apparent in p;.tirnts who arc ovenveiqht and presumably more salt sensitive.” Moreover, other studic?; have demonctratcd that mod& dlrtary salt restriction (urinary sodium excretmn < RI1 m&j/day) can be helpful m reducing the amount of antihypertensive mediration ingested by the patlcnt.“.*’ This observation 1s further supported by a recent studv that demonstrated that .I modest reduction in dietary -salt intake (utinary sodium excretion reduc~J from I66 to 106 mEq /day) resulted in a marked improvement in contmllrd blood pressurt> without returning to medication compared to patient.; not rrducmg their diet:r/ salt.” DIETARY RESPONSE

SALT AND ANTIPROTEINURIC TO ANTIHYPERTENSIVE DRUGS

The kidneys avidly conserve serum proteins. Ten to fifteen kilograms of serum proteins pass through the renal microcirculation daily, ye1 <151l mg appears in the urine.” The glomerular capillary endothelial barrier is relatively impcrvlous to most proteins because of Its size, negative electrical charge, and the rigidity of individual proteins. However, an increase in urinary protein excretion can occur if there is damage to the glomerular capillary hltering barrier, an increase in glomerular capillary pressure, or increased plasma concentration of proteins.‘2,F’ Further, decreased tubular reabsorption of filtered proteins or increased renal tubular secretion of proteins into the urine may also cause clinically detectable proteintiria.” Increased urinary protein excretion has been shown to be an independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidlty and mortality in patients with 8-3sential hypertensux3-% Moreover, proteinuria has prognostic implications for progressive loss of renal function, particularly among patients with diabetes mellitus.‘h.‘“.C7 It is clear in clinical trials that there are differing effects of antihypertensive drugs on urinary albumin excretion in hypertensive patients with and without kidney disease.” z’.w-N’A large intake of dietary salt raises urme protein excretion not only through its influence cn systemic blood pres.sure but also through effects on glomerular hemodynamics and possibly through structural changes of the glomerulus.“.‘“~2’~~z The ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists are the antihypertensive agents that most consistently reduce proteinuria regardless of their

A,,I-lll~‘,M”I:X

Iouo-\‘ot

Il. NO

1.

I’AK1

2

blood pressure Iowrrmg effect or the presence or abonce of kidney disease.” The antiprotrmuric affect of ACE inhibitors can be documrnted in patient?, with micro- or macroalbumir.uria, as well as in individuals with much greater urinary protein excretion. However, none of these climcal sbdies have consistently addressed the impact of dietary salt consumption on prcteinuria during ACE inhibitor therapy. An important paper by Hreg et al demonstrated that increasing dietary salt intake can virmallv abolish the antiproteinuric effect of ACE inhibitorsiu Tnis group showed that increasing dietary sodium consumption, from 50 mEq/day to 200 mEq /day, completely attenuated the antiproteinuric effect of liiinopril. This blunted antiproteinuric response to the higher salt diet occurred in the absence of any blood pressure differences. In this study of patients with macroproteinuria (mean value of 6.4 -r 2.4 g/day) and hyprrtension (mean arterial pressure 104 I 11 mm Hg), those who received the ACE inhibItor showed d 3% ? 38 reduction in blood pressure (89 ) 8 mm Hg to 87 z 8 mm Hg) when going from a high salt to a i.xv salt diet. However, there was a 52% ? 14% reduction in proteinuria during the transition from the high salt to low salt diet. Consequently, the effect of dietary salt on the antiproteinuric effect of ACE inhibitors cannot be ascribed solely to changes in systemic blood pressure. Accordingly, it is also well known that both the antihypertensive and antiproleinurir effects of ACE inhibitw, are enhanced by sodium drpletion.““x.“,“’ Thus, It can be postulated that the speciiic beneficial renal effects with ACE inhibitors might be greatest in the presence of a relatively low salt diet. Since the majority of patients consume approximatrly 160 mEq/day of sodium in their dirt,’ an effort to encourage dietary salt restriction should be made when one uses an ACE inhibitor, both to reduce proteinuria as well as to augment the blocd pressure lowering effect. This same group of Dutch investigators provides evidence that the addition of diuretic therapy facilitates the antiprotrinuric effects of ACE inhibitohs even in the presence of a high salt diet.*’ Moreover, this potrntiating effect was not related to further reductions in blood pressure. This study also supports previous findings that the addition of a diuretic to an ACE inhibitor provides substan!ial reductions in blood pressure that, over the long term, should confer renal protection. Unfortunately, there is on!y one study that documents this association. Moreover, the zlifferences in blood pressure between the high salt .Iiuretic and nondiuretic groups were statistically different. Thus, further studies are needed to solidify this association. With recent evidence that ACE inhibitors markedly slow progression of nephopathy in the patient with

SALT

INTAKE

AND

REDUCTIONS

203s

diabetes :nellitus, it becomes more important for clinicians to focus on the optimal clinical use of ACE mhibItors. Some of the heterogeneity in the literature regarding differing antiproteinuric responses of the ACE inhibitws may be directly related to differing dietary salt intake. It may also be possible that those patlents who derive optnnal benefit from ACE inhibitors may ingest the least amount of dietary salt. Nondihydropyridine caicium channel blockers (diltlurm and verapamll) mayalso have utility 111reducing urinary protein excretion in hypertensive patients with kidney discase.“~“’ M Since the original reports were Fublished over 7 years ago demonstrating that these agents reduce protrinurra to a similar extent as ACE Inhibitors, other investigators have confirmed thesr findings.“.“‘.‘” One clmical study has also demonstrated that the addition of an ACE Inhibitor to a nondihydropyridine calcium channel blocker provides even greater antiprotemuric effect than either drug given aione.“’ This occurred despite comparable reductiuns II systemic blood pressure with the individual mono’hrrapies. As with ACE inhibitors, salt intake aftects the antiproteinuric effects of nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. A prospective cross-over study of non-insulin-dependent diabetic subjects with nephropathy, given either nifedipine GlTS (gastrointestinal system) or diltiazem CD for blood pressure control and random&d to either a high (250 mEq /day) or low sodium (5G mEq/day) diet, showed divergent antiprotrinuric effects. ” Sodium intake did not affect proteinuria if a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, uch as nifedipine GITS was used. Conversely, the nondihydropyridine diltiazem reduced proteinuria in the presence of a low salt diet, but this response was significnatly blunted in the presence of a high salt diet. Moreover, this response was independent of the change in blood pressure reduction. Cunsrqurntly, it appears that the ablity df ACE inhibltors and nondihydmpyridinc calcium blockers to reduce proteinuria may, in part, rely on a permissive action of reduced dietary salt intake. Interestingly, drhydropyridine calcium channel blockers do not appear to reduce proteinwin independently of their ability to reduce systemic arterial pressure.“.“” This is primarily related to the inability of these agents to alter glomerular membrane permeability.“‘~“’ Potential mechanisms by which ACE inhibitors and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers moy interact with salt on glomcrular permeability are summanzrd in Table 1. ¢ evidence from micropuncture and clinical studies documents that low salt diets aloile do not significantly alter renal function or increase intra$omerular pressure or efferent arteriolar resistancr.~“~” Moreover, recent studies in normotensive individuals demonstrates that salt restriction

204s

BAKIUS

WEIR

AND

TABLE 1. ALTERATIONS IN THE FOLIOWING RENAL PARAMFTERS MAY ACCOUNT FOR A BLUNTED ANTIPRO~INURIC RESPONSE TO BLOOD PRESSURE LOWERING MEDICINE IN THE PRESENCE OF HIGH SALT INTAKE ??

intakes

worwn

insulin

io proteinuria probably

terations

rcbistance.‘”

in the presence

relate

in glomerular

membrane

salt

involving

al-

etary

clinical

studies

demonstrate

salt ran have a significant

pertensive

and

summary

however,

that other

they

profoundly

reduce

proteinuria.*z reduction

Since

proteinuric

patients,

disease.”

kidney

conws

of Diet

and

from Renal

demonstrated

2. if

greater

Disease

4.

Intrrsalt Coopcrahvc ternntional etudy of pnwure. Kcsults for ta+,um cxcretwn Br

5.

de Wardcner HE. rMac&reeor GA: The r&tion of a rirculatmg wdum transport inhibltor (the natriuwtic hormew?) to hvcutensicn. Mcddrinr (Baltimow) lYX3;62..llO -326 ”

6.

Guylon AC, Lang\ton JB. Nevar G: Theory for renal autoregulation by fwdL.wk at thr juxtaglomerular apparatus. Clrc Res 1Y64;14/15(suppl1):11871197.

7.

Luft FC, Rankin Ll, ‘3:och R. et al: Cardiovascular and humoral rcsponx i to extrer.ws of sodium Intake in normal biaik and white men. Circulation 1979;60:697706.

8

Folkow U, Ely DL: Cardiovascular and s;mpathetic effects of 240.fold salt intakr varutions-studs ;n rats wth complications to man. Acta Physiol !icand 1989; 136%9-96

9.

Volp M, Lembo C. Morganti A, et al: Contribution nf the renin-angiotcnsin system .:nd of the sympathetic nervous system to blood pmwre homeostasis dunng chronic restnction vxliurn intake. 3988;1:353-358.

cally

detine

who

are known

clinical

reduction

trtal.

this interaction,

reductions

bkcd

particularly

in systemic albumin

convrrtmg

enzyme

Nondihydropyridinc calcium (verapamil, diltiazem) Angiotensin II blocken

channel

Research Group: Intersalt. an I”clwtrolyte excretion and blood 24-hour urinary sodturn and poMed J 19&3;2Yi.319-3%.

t’

blood

11.

Bank N. lahorra MA, Aynedjia? HS, Wilkes BM: Se dium restriction corrects hyperfiltration of diabetes. Am J I’hyaiol 191u1;2.54:F66x-F676.

12.

Riaazn R, Blanchi 5, Bzldan D, c’t al: Micro-albuminu& in salt.sensitive patients. A markcl for renal and cardiovascular risk factors. Hwertension 1994;23:195199.

13.

Weir MR. Dc:ngel DK, 8&w MT, Coldbcrg AP: Saltinduced mcrcases in systolic blood pressure affect renal hemodynamics and proteiruria. Hypwtens~on 1995; 75:1339-1344.

14

Campese VM: Salt-scnbitivity tension 1992;19:403-41%

15

Epstein M, Sowers sion. lfyp:rtcnsion

16

Bakris GL: Microalbuminuria: Curr Opin Nephrol hypertens

17

Mogenser. CE, Schmitz A, Damsgaard EM: Microalbumincria: a predictor of protcinuria and early mortality in NIDDM. Diab Nutr Metah IYYO;3(suppl 1):77-t%

I8

Abbott

the

pressure to specifi-

disease.

pressure

and

are clearly

im-

wk,hout

blockers

F, Bigazzi R: Abnorsalt scnsltive patients 1991;1!?:805-821.

,.

in patients

kidney

inhibitors

review of the 1992;j:lS-425.

corrcrvalua-

TABLE Z ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS THAT REQUIRE A LOW SALT DIET FOR MAXIMAL ANTIPROTLXNURIC EFFECTS Angvziensin diuretia

M, Drueke 1: A comprchenvw hlwd prcuure relatiomhip.

salt

Camper VM, Parlse M, Karubian mal renai bemrdynamics in black with hypertension. ilypcrtension

in patients

and

excretion

H, Elliott P, Stamlrr J: Dietary Nature Med lY95,1:9v4-996.

10.

pressure

disease

are needed

to be salt sensitive

in urinary

This

of proteinuria,

aggressive trials

for !his

at baseline

who have or are at risk of developing Successful

clint:ally

of the Modifica-

of rent!

the amount

in

take on lwtic-

(MDRD)

of protcinuria

greater

More

pressure

particularly

that the effects of blood

the need for more

reduction.

blood

Part ot the evidence an analysis

the levrl

??

Muntzcl salt and

reduce

also

at risk of, or with

on the progression The

pressure,

function.

lated

tion.“.”

A

drugs,

reduction with

drugs. in Table

these observations

evident,

??

.3.

effects on

are listed

renal

in patients

??

Dyer AR, Stamlcr and bkxd prewre.

di-

antihypertensive

blood

ular importance observation

of

agents whose

mcnc aggressive

can benefit

that

to varicus

anti in thr kidney.

on the antihy-

effects

are salt dependent

Note,

study

impact

antiprotrinuric

of antihypertensive

proteinuria

tion

new

damq,e

2.

prmrablilty.

CONCLUSIONS Numerous

organ the body

St.lmler J Uirtary wit and bknnl pressure, I!) Lee KT, Otkr Y, Kdndrawa T (C&I: The Th;rd International Conierenre on Nutntwn in Cardiovascular Diseases. Ann NY Acad Sci 1993;676 IX-1%.

Thzrefere,

of different

to mechanwms

tar+

beds throughout

REFERENCES

filhalioo rate mcmbrnw permeability

not

changes

in drl;yir!g

I.

secretion of protein’

Tubular

Glomemlar . Clomc~lar

??

does

pnrt.lnt v.tscular

KC, Sanders

in hypertenston.

JR: Diabetes mcllitus 1992;1*403-418.

LR

and

Hyperhypwten-

prof;nostic umplications. 19Y6;532lY-223.

R&kris CL: Mlcroalbuminuria

SALT

in non-Insu!i~-d~,~ndent diabetes mellitus: Impl;cations for renal wnwal. Arch lntrm Med lYY4; I.?J.lih153 19.

Hwg JE, de Jo-:, i E, van dcr Hem GK. de Zwuw D: effect of EXtcacy and variability oi the aotlpmtemuric ACE inhibition by lisinopril. Kidney Int lYtlY;36:272280.

INTAKE

AND

REDL’CTIOtiS

205s

36

37.

Oshmu T. Matsxnra II. Mdtsumrrto K, Kidcl K Kale of cellular calc.um m wit smsluwty ot patirnts wth essential hypcrt*~nsmn. Ilypwtcnsion 1988; 11.i03.707.

20.

Bakrts GL, Smith AC: Effects of sodium mtakr on albunin excretion in patients wth diabrtir nephropathy treated wth long-actmg calcwm ilntagonists. Ann lnt Mcd 1996; 125:201-204.

.3xl

Slcholion Jl’. Recnirk I.U. Laraah III. Thr tm~act of dietary wdi,um intake un the hy&t&i\r rc~pbnse of vrrapamil 12 eswrtul hypcrtcnwn J Clin Hvputens lYti6;3:143E-1475.

21.

Yak! DD, Ma JZ, Louis TA, Kasiake BL: Effects of ant,hypertensive agents on the kidney. Arch Intern Med :9Y5;155-1073-!082

39.

Morgan T, Andwwrn A, Wilwn I), et al: I‘~xado\i~..d effect of soodIum rcstrtrtion on blood prcszure in pop;r on slor\~-channel calcium drugs. Lanrct lSffi7Y3.

22.

Bakris CL, Williams B: ACE inhibitor5 and calcium antagonists alone or combmrd I:, there a difference on progression of d&&c renal disease? J Hyprrtens lYY5; 13twppl 2):595-5101

40.

MrcCrqor CA, ;Mxk.mdu KD, Singer DKJ, et al: I’aradoxical ef!ert of sodium rcst&.!ion or. hlwd ~v~‘csurc in people on &w-rhxmel calcium drugs !.dncet 19H6793.

23.

Freis ED, Wanko A, Wdson IM, Rrri\h AE: Treatment of essential hypertemion with chlurothidzide (diurd). JAMA 1958;1663137-145.

41.

24.

Fallis N. Ford RV: Electrolyte cur&ion and hypotensive response. JAMA 1961:176:5X1-.%X4.

25.

Ram CVS, Garrett BN, Kaplan SM: Modrratr sodurn restriction and VXIOUS diuretics in the treatment of hfpertension. Arch Intern Med 1YR1;141:1015-1019.

26.

I’artjs J, Joossms JV, Van dcr Linder L, et al: Modcrate sodium restriction and diuretics m th? treatment of hypertension. Am Heart J 1973;85:22-34.

27.

Erwteman TM, Naeelkerke N, Luscn I, et al: &Blwkadc, diuretic, and’& restriction for ihe management of mild hvvertenslon: J randomized double blmd trial. Br Med J’1’964;289:40&%-9.

2%

Kimuln G. Deyunchr F, K+v c rt 11 .!ntih:.y-t,.n. sive drugs and sndium restrtctior;. 19XR;1:372-37Y.

29.

MacGrgor GA, Markandu ND, Sir.gcr DRJ, et dl. Modrra!e sodium restriction wth angiotensin convcrtmg enzyme inhibitor in essential hypertension: a double blind study. Br Med J 1987;294:531-5.34.

.30.

Langford HC, Blaufox MD, Oberman A, et al: Dietary tlrerapy slows the return of hypertension after stopping rIolonged medication. JAMA lYt?5;253:657-664.

31.

Van Brummelen P, Schalekamp M, de Craeff J: Intluenccof sodium intake on hydrochlorothwido-induced changs in blood pressure, serum electrolyte% Acta Med Stand 1978;204:151-157.

32.

Bmg RF, Thurston H, Sivalcs JD: Salt mtakc and dluretic treatment of hypertension. Lancrt 197Y;li:l21123.

33.

Weir MR. Saunders E: Racial simdarity in responr to the angiotensm converting enzyme inhibitor tr.tind&pril. Ethnicity Dis 1996;7:1R4.

.34

CA. Cappuccio FP, Markandu ND intake, high blood pressure, and calcium blockers. Am J Med 1987;82tsuppl 3B):lh-22.

35.

MacGregor GA, Markandur ND, Smith ST, et al. tcnsin convertme cnzvmr inhibition rweals portant role for &e r&i,: ;ystrm in the control mat and high blood pvssure in mdn. Clin Exp tens lYB3;5:1367-13&J.

Ma&qor

Sodium chxmrl Angm an imof norHyper-

42

Flack JM, Grimm RH, II.. Rcwarch Croup: Ethmc terns in 1heTreatl ?nt of Study Arch Intern Mcd

yum* C, rt al ior the TOHMS bkwd pre,+urc rqxmsc patMild Hypcrtcnwm .TOH.WS) (in ,xt?s).

13.

h’eaton ID. Grimm RH. Ir.. 1’rmc.w Kl. ct al for the Treatment of Mild Hv~crtcnsion Siudv Rrwarch Grwo: Treatment of Mild Hvwrtension S dv. Final rcsul;,. IAMA 1493;27@713-ji4.

44

Lutt FC. Grim CE, Higgins JT, Weinberger Mt 1: Difference. m respm.se to sodium admimstrntion in normoterwvc white md black subpts. J Ldh Clin Mulerl1977: 90555-562. (;nm Ct. LU~I IX‘, Mdlcr JZ: Kacial differences m blood pressure in Evans County, Ccorgid: r&hon\h:p to sodium and potassium iutdke and plarma remn xtivity. J Chronic Dis lYlX;33:87-94.

46.

Beard TC, Cwkc HM, Gray WR, Barge R: Randomizcid controlled tnal of d no-adde.&xilum di?t for mild hyprtensmn. Lancet IWZ;ii-455-458 Weinberger Mtl, Cohen 5J. Miller JZ, ct at: Dwta? s&urn restrIction BSadiunctivc tre.*tmrnt ot hypertcns,cm JAMA lYlW.t.25hl-2565. Stamlcr R, Stamler J, &mm K. et al. Nutritmnal therapy !or high blood presurc: hnal rcpwt of ‘1 four-year r,mdomizrd controlled trni- the Hyprtension Control Program JA.MA 1987:257:14x4-14Yl. law MR. Frost CD, Wald NJ: By how ml;ch does dietary wit rrductwn lowr blood prcssurc? I .Analysis of &crv~tional data among p$ul.rtwns. Br !&d J 1991;302:511-315. Cnllum HF. I’rlrca\ RJ, Jrffrry KW. \onphxmacologx therapy of hvpt‘rtcncion: the independent effects of weight rcduciion and wdwm rratriition in overnrlght hxderlinr hypertensive patients. Am Healt J 19d3: 105~128-133. Levrv AS, .tiadam MI’, I’wronc RO. Lahwatory ~z,c?(smmt’of renal diweaw, C’P~T.~CC urirwlysis and rt’ndl biopsy, 111Brmnr-r B ted): ‘The Kldnq WB Saunders. l’hiladelphia, 19Yl. pp 940-Y41.

206s

BAKRIS AND WEIR

52

Rrenncr BM, tlnstrtter TI i, Humcs HD. Molcuul,~r bd-1s of protemuria of giomerular origm. N Lngl J Mrd l”78;2%.82b-832.

53.

Rennke HG,Olson JL, Vmk,ea:h&m MA: Glomrrular filtratmn of macmmolwuks: normal mcch.mi-mr and the pathogencsis “f protranunu. Contrlh Nephrul 19X I: 24:3&42.

54.

55.

56.

Kannel WB. Stampfer MJ, Castel!i WI’, Vcrtcr J. The prognost~ Fignlficancr of proteinuria: the Framingham sludy Am Ifcarl J IYB4;1OX:l.~7-1352 Samuelson 0, Wilhelmsen L, Elnrfcldt ), et ‘11: I’redictors of cardiovascular morhrdlty I” treated hyprlensm” resmeltsfr”m the primary prcvenlivc trial I” 61. t&orB SW&~. J Hyperlens 19114;3.167- lib Bulp~tt CJ, Beeven DC, Butler A, 1.1al. The survival of lrerted hypcrtcnbwt~ paticrlts and thclr rauzes “I death repwt from the VHSS Iiyprrlensivc Care Cnmput!ng Prqect (DHCCI’). Hypertens lY%;4:93-99

65

Hakri, (;: Eftect, of Jiltisxm “r lislnoprll nn maww protrmur~a azwctatcd wth dlahetes mclhluh Ann Intern Med 1990, Il?:7117-71)s.

bb.

Wcldmann I’. Schnoder M, Bohlen L: Thcrapeuhc efhcxy “1 diffrrrnt antihypcrtcnwe drugs I” human diahetic nephropalhv: a” updated m&-analysis Nephrol Dial Trans 1995,ll~(suppl 9):39-45.

bi

Bakris GI., Smith AC: F.tfrrt “I two diffrwnt calaum a”t.~go”~\ts on glr~mwul.lr permenhil~ty .Ind pmte~nurea’ .Z two year r.andomi;red pnqwctn’e s:udy. J Am !%ocScphrtll (in pr’%).

bH.

Uemarw BK, Bakrld (;L: Eflccts “f ditferent .tnt.lgoni,.ts on pw!rinuria aswclated with m~~lhlus. Ann Intern Mcd IYY0;113:9X7-YRR.

69

.,I: Contrastmg short I larlm
J

57.

5n.

Mogrnsen CE Mwoalbuminuria pr‘,dirt> clmical: prw teinuria and early mortality i” malur~ty onset dlahvtr~ N Engl J Mcd IYHb;310.356-.X,0

.

c:

70

.

bmn: cffcvl on wnal hcmwiynamics .md mi~nrslhumi”“rra. J Intern ,Mcd lYY.?;231:247-2.52. 59.

c.~Ic~um daahetes

Bianchl S, B~g.wz~ H, Baldarl G. Campcw VY Microablummuria in patkant?. wth aw”t~al hv~:::r.nswn. ei!ect of wwral antihypvrtmsivr dr~ni;\. Am J .brcC lYY2;93,52: -528.

ho.

Bakris GL. Stem JH: Dialwic Monlh lYY3,39:573-611

nephropathy.

61.

Hemmelder MH, dr %wuw V, Buler H, w Jong I’t: Hydrochl~wothiaz:.fe potentintcs the mtipnemurlc ct. firacy “t ACE ir.hihition comparable 10 dwtary -It reslrictron (ahsti J Am Sot Nephrol 199i,h:420.

62.

Weir MR: rXffermg effects of anlihypcrtensiw ngrnts on urinar: albumin acrelion. Am J Nephrol (m press).

63.

Bakris GL Barnhill BW, Sadler H, Tr~~stnrmt ol ,trlwial hypcrtenwm in di.shetrc man: rmportdnce of thcrapcw hc wlcx?iox Kldncv Int lYY2;Jl t%YH-‘~l)b.

M.

Slatapcr S. Vacknalr N, Sadler R, Hakri\ Cl : Compx.~treatment\ on tw effect\ of diffwent antlhypcrtenwe

71.

Dwxkin LD, Benstem IA, .Toitwrt E. I+l”er HD: Salt rcstrirf~cm inhibits renal grnwh and +abilizcs u”)ury I” rat% wth t‘stabh~hcd renal disease. J Am Sot Nephrol lYYb;7.437-442

72.

Grcy A, Brdatvcdt G, I loldaway I: Modrrilte dwlary halt rest-ictwn d”e not alter insulin rcsistancc “r SC’rur” lipids m m~rmal mtn. 199b;Y.117-322.

7?.

Natiwal thgh BI”od I’ressure F.ducalion Program Workmg Group o” I lyperiensio” and Rrnal Disease: 19% Uplate of the working group reports on chronic renal fatlure and renovawular hyprrtcnsw,. Arch Intrr” Med 199b; 156:191X- lY46.

74.

Pettirrm JC. Adler S, Burkart Jh:. et al. Rhwd pressure control. protri”uri.l and the p:“grc’sion of renal dlscase Talc Modificatron of Vict m Renal Viscasr Study. AI”, untwn Med lYY5;1:3:754-762.

7i.

Modlficatic~n of IJietary f’rolein and Renal Viwase Grnup: Effects “f dwt and antihypertensivr therapy on creatinine clearance and wrm” creat~n~nr rcmce”tr.+tm” in the modifwalmn of die in renal disease study. J Am Sot Nephrol lWb;7%f-Sbb.

Dwasc-a-