Reader TTS

ABSTRACT We examined the effects of candesartan and amlodipine on cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) using the data from the Candesartan

Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial. CKD was defined as proteinuria and/or decreased GFR (<60 ml per min per 1.73 m2) at enrollment. Among 2720 subjects with CKD,

there were 1376 and 1344 patients in the candesartan and the amlodipine group, respectively. During a 3.2-year follow-up, cardiovascular event rate did not differ in the two groups (7.2%

for candesartan and 7.6% for amlodipine). In the subgroup analysis based on the CKD stage, there were no significant differences in the incidence rates of cardiovascular events between the

two groups in stages 1+2 and 3 CKD. In stage 4 CKD, however, candesartan reduced the incidence of cardiovascular events (55% risk reduction), particularly of renal events (81% risk

reduction), compared with amlodipine. Furthermore, composite cardiovascular events were increased as the CKD stage progressed, and this effect was exaggerated in the presence of proteinuria.

Finally, the new onset of diabetes was less in the candesartan-based regimen in stage 3 CKD. In conclusion, candesartan protected hypertensive patients with CKD more potently against renal

events, particularly in moderately–to–severely impaired CKD. Furthermore, candesartan prevented a new onset of diabetes in CKD, which would be favorable for the long-term management of CKD.

SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF FIRST-LINE ANTIHYPERTENSIVE DRUG CLASSES ON THE MAINTENANCE OF ESTIMATED GLOMERULAR FILTRATION RATE (EGFR) IN REAL WORLD

PRIMARY CARE Article Open access 01 December 2023 CURRENT USE OF ANGIOTENSIN II RECEPTOR BLOCKERS AND ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITORS FOR HYPERTENSION IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC

KIDNEY DISEASE WITH PROTEINURIA: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY BASED ON REAL-WORLD DATA Article 19 September 2024 ASSOCIATION BETWEEN STOPPING RENIN-ANGIOTENSIN SYSTEM INHIBITORS IMMEDIATELY

BEFORE HEMODIALYSIS INITIATION AND SUBSEQUENT CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS Article Open access 04 March 2024 INTRODUCTION A growing body of evidence has been accumulated suggesting that proteinuria

and a decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) constitute critical risk factors not only for the loss of renal function but also for increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,

independent of the established risk factors.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Indeed, the event rates of cardiovascular disease during the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are higher than those

observed at the end stage of CKD, which suggests a substantial contribution of early-stage CKD to death in patients with CKD.8 In addition to the recognition of CKD as a serious risk factor

for cardiovascular events, CKD has been highlighted because of its enormous burden on medical expenditure. Although clinical practice guidelines on CKD have been published worldwide to

mitigate the progression of CKD and the subsequent development of cardiovascular events,9, 10 the number of patients requiring dialysis therapy is still growing, reaching approximately 260 

000 patients in our country.11 Hypertension contributes substantially to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which is also recognized as a precipitating and aggravating factor for CKD.

It is established that the renin–angiotensin system (RAS) plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of hypertension, CKD and cardiovascular events.12 Furthermore, several lines of clinical

trials have demonstrated that the inhibition of RAS by the angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) confers protective action on cardiovascular organs as the first-line treatment strategy in

diabetic13, 14 as well as non-diabetic15 hypertensive patients with CKD. In contrast, a therapeutic role of the calcium channel blocker (CCB) in the progression of CKD in hypertensive

patients remains a matter of controversy, with some studies showing benefit, 16, 17 whereas other trials show no benefit 13, 18 by the CCB. As the ethnical difference between Japanese and

Western populations as well as divergent lifestyle (for example, salt intake) and incidence rate of cerebrovascular events affect the outcome when the effects of antihypertensive therapy are

compared, appropriate evaluation is required to elucidate the efficacies of ARB and CCB for reducing the cardiovascular events in patients with CKD. In the large-scale Candesartan

Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) Trial, the ability of an ARB candesartan cilexetil and a CCB amlodipine besylate to reduce the cardiovascular events in high-risk

hypertensive patients was assessed.19, 20 This trial revealed that the two drugs equally suppressed the incidence of cardiovascular events during the 3.2-year follow-up period. In the

current subanalysis, we evaluated the effects of candesartan and amlodipine on the incidence of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with CKD. Furthermore, the effect of CKD on the

incidence of new-onset diabetes was assessed. METHODS STUDY DESIGN AND POPULATION The rationale and complete design of the CASE-J Trial have been reported earlier.19 Briefly, the CASE-J

Study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, two-arm parallel-group comparison in Japan with a response-dependent dose titration and blinded assessment of

the end point. This trial was a comparative study of the effects of candesartan cilexetil and amlodipine besylate in high-risk hypertensive patients as defined by the Hypertension Treatment

Guideline of the Japanese Society of Hypertension;21 (1) systolic BP⩾180 mm Hg or diastolic BP⩾110 mm Hg, (2) type II diabetes, (3) a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, (4)

left-ventricular hypertrophy, angina pectoris or a history of myocardial infarction, (5) proteinuria or a serum creatinine⩾1.3 mg dl−1 or (6) arteriosclerotic peripheral artery obstruction.

The exclusion criteria have been reported earlier.19 The Ethics Committee at Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine approved the CASE-J Trial protocol according to the principles of

the Helsinki Declaration. After obtaining informed consent, the patients were randomly assigned to the trial arms. The targets for the control of blood pressure (BP) were <130/85 mm Hg

for ages <60 years, 140/90 mm Hg for ages 60–69 years, 150/90 mm Hg for ages 70–79 years and 160/90 mm Hg for ages ⩾80 years. For the study agents, 4–8 mg per day candesartan was orally

administered to the patients in the candesartan group. When the patient's BP did not reach the target BP, the dose was increased to a maximal dose of 12 mg per day. For the amlodipine

group, 2.5–5 mg per day amlodipine was given orally. For the same reason as candesartan, the dose was also increased to 10 mg per day. The primary end point was a composite of the first

incidence of sudden death, stroke/transient cerebral ischemic attack, acute myocardial infarction/cardiac failure/angina, doubling of the serum creatinine level, a serum creatinine level

⩾4.0 mg per 100 ml, end-stage renal disease, or dissecting aortic aneurysm/arteriosclerotic occlusion of a peripheral artery, as indicated in our earlier publication.19 A new onset of

diabetes (fasting glucose⩾126 mg per 100 ml, randomly sampled blood glucose⩾200 mg per 100 ml or HbA1c⩾6.5%) was also evaluated as a prespecified end point. The event evaluation was

performed independently by the event evaluation committee using the PROBE method. The study period was for 3 years or longer. For the renal subanalysis, 4728 patients were enrolled and

randomly assigned to the candesartan or amlodipine group (2364 patients in each group). On the basis of CKD Guidelines of the Japanese Society of Nephrology,9 patients at enrollment with

positive urinary protein tests by dipstick analysis or an eGFR of <60 ml per min per 1.73 m2 by a predictive equation (eGFR=0.741 × 175 × Age−0.203 × Cr−1.154 ( × 0.741, if female); Cr,

serum creatinine) were defined as having CKD in this study. The two agents were then compared for the incidence rates of cardiovascular events in these patients. We also carried out

stratified analyses according to the CKD stage.9, 10 STATISTICAL ANALYSES Data are expressed as mean±s.d. or proportions. We compared continuous variables using the student's _t_-test.

Frequency analysis was carried out by χ2 test. Only the time to the first cardiovascular event was considered for the composite primary end point. Similarly, only the first event in each

category was counted for the other end points (sudden death, cerebrovascular events, cardiac events or renal events). The incidence proportions were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method,

and were compared using the log-rank test. The hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cardiovascular events were estimated using Cox regression analysis and compared by

Wald test. For comparing the HR for cardiovascular events in each CKD stage with that of the non-CKD stage, we used multiple Cox regression analysis adjusted for treatment group, sex, age,

body mass index, severe hypertension, type II diabetes, a history of cerebrovascular disease, cardiac disease and vascular disease. The analyses were carried out based on the

intention-to-treat principle. The statistical tests were two-sided, and the significance level was set at 5%. All statistical analyses were performed using statistical analysis system (SAS)

version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). This trial has been registered at the United States National Library of Medicine (www.clinicaltrials.gov; # NCT00125463). RESULTS PATIENT

CHARACTERISTICS Among the hypertensive patients in the CASE-J Trial, 1376 and 1344 patients in the candesartan and amlodipine groups were shown to have CKD. The mean ages of these patients

were 65.6 and 65.3 years, and the BP at enrollment was 163.3/91.8 and 163.4/91.6 mm Hg, respectively (Table 1). Although a larger percentage of men was noted in the amlodipine group, no

significant difference in BMI or underlying cardiovascular risk factors (Table 2) was observed between the two groups. Among the candesartan-treated and the amlodipine-treated groups, 57.1%

and 44.3% of the patients in the respective groups received other antihypertensive drugs, including diuretics (26.2% _vs_. 15.1%, _P_<0.001), β-blockers (24.1 _vs_. 18.1%, _P_<0.001),

α-blockers (27.1 _vs_. 17.2%, _P_<0.001) and αβ-blockers (8.1 _vs_. 5.7%, _P_=0.012). BP-LOWERING EFFECTS As shown in Figure 1, the mean BP was reduced from 163.3/91.8 mm Hg at baseline

to 136.3/77.0 mm Hg after a 3-year trial period in the candesartan-based regimen and from 163.4/91.6 to 135.1/76.6 mm Hg in the amlodipine-based regimen. After 3 years, systolic, but not

diastolic, BP in the candesartan group was significantly, albeit slightly, higher than that in the amlodipine group (systolic BP, 1.2 mm Hg, _P_=0.022; diastolic BP, 0.4 mm Hg, _P_=0.282).

CARDIOVASCULAR EVENT RATE Cardiovascular events—the primary end point—occurred in 99 (7.2%) patients in the candesartan group (that is, 22.6/1000 patient-years) and in 102 (7.6%) patients in

the amlodipine group (that is, 23.9/1000 patient-years); there were no differences between the two treatment groups (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.72–1.25; _P_=0.698, Figure 2). On evaluating each

event category, including sudden death, cerebrovascular events, cardiac events, renal events and vascular events, no differences were noted between the candesartan group and the amlodipine

group. STRATIFIED ANALYSES Next, the event rates were evaluated according to the CKD stage. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence rates of

cardiovascular events for patients with stage 1+2 (_P_=0.550) or stage 3 CKD (_P_=0.972, Figure 3). In contrast, in patients with stage 4 CKD in which renal function was severely

compromised, the candesartan treatment conferred significantly greater benefit than the amlodipine group in preventing cardiovascular events, exhibiting a 55% risk-reduction rate when

compared with the amlodipine group (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.20–0.995; _P_=0.043). Furthermore, when each event category was evaluated on the basis of CKD stage classification, no differences

were noted between the two groups for cerebrovascular or cardiac events (Table 3). In stage 1+2 or stage 3 CKD, the renal events did not favor any of the two treatment regimens. In stage 4,

the number of patients was less than those in other stages of CKD. Nevertheless, the candesartan-based regimen offered significantly lower renal events in stage 4 CKD, with 81% relative risk

reduction observed when compared with amlodipine-based regimens. The percentage of the patients with stage 4 CKD who received other antihypertensive agents was the same in the

candesartan-treated and amlodipine-treated groups (diuretics, 31.3 _vs_. 33.1%; β-blockers, 26.6 _vs_. 21.3%; α-blockers, 28.1 _vs_. 29.5%; αβ-blockers, 6.3 _vs_. 6.6%). Figure 4 illustrates

the Kaplan–Meier curves for renal events during the treatment with candesartan or amlodipine. Total incidence rates of renal events were moderately less in the candesartan-based regimen

than in the amlodipine-based regimen (_P_=0.243). In the stage 1+2 and stage 3 CKD, the incidence rates of renal events were small, and there were no differences between the two groups. In

contrast, the candesartan-based regimen preserved greater renal survival than the amlodipine-based regimen in patients with stage 4 CKD (_P_=0.003); the event rate was markedly suppressed

throughout the study period. We further evaluated the incidence of renal events in patients with or without proteinuria at entry in each stage of CKD. The patients with no proteinuria

manifested very small incidence of renal events, and no difference was noted between candesartan-based and amlodipine-based regimens (Figure 5, left). In patients with proteinuria, the

amlodipine-based regimen exhibited a marked elevation in renal events in stage 4 CKD, whereas the candesartan-based regimen showed only moderate increases in event rates in all stages of CKD

(Figure 5, right). EFFECT OF CKD AND PROTEINURIA ON CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS The effect of CKD and proteinuria on the development of cardiovascular accidents was assessed in all patients with

CKD and also assessed based on the CKD stage classification. The incidence of cardiovascular events in stage 1+2 and stage 3 CKD was higher than that in the non-CKD group (_P_<0.001,

Figure 6a). The stage 4 group manifested markedly higher rates for cardiovascular events throughout the study period (_P_<0.001). The relative HR in stage 1+2, stage 3 and stage 4 was

3.05 (95% CI: 1.99–4.67), 1.78 (95% CI: 1.32–2.39) and 5.32 (3.33–8.50), respectively, compared with the non-CKD group. When each cardiovascular event category was evaluated, cerebrovascular

and renal event rates were found elevated at early stages of CKD (that is, stage 1+2; _P_<0.001 and _P_=0.002 for cerebrovascular and renal events, respectively). In contrast, cardiac

accidents tended to increase at stage 3 (_P_=0.070, Figure 6b). Whether proteinuria altered the risk of cardiovascular events was assessed in all patients enrolled in the CASE-J Study. The

presence of proteinuria was associated with greater incidence of cardiovascular events with a HR of 2.78 (2.16–3.58, _P_<0.001; Figure 6c). When evaluated in each CKD stage, proteinuria

exaggerated the risk of cardiovascular events in the stage 3 CKD (_P_<0.001, Figure 6d) and tended to increase in the stage 4 CKD (_P_=0.093, Figure 6e). NEW ONSET OF DIABETES During the

3.2-year observation period, the incidence of new onset of diabetes in stage 1+2 (11.9/1000 person-years) or stage 3 (10.8/1000 person-years) did not differ from that in non-CKD (10.6/1000

person-years). In contrast, stage 4 CKD manifested twofold higher incidence of newly developed diabetes (26.4/1000 person-years, _P_=0.047). We further assessed the effects of candesartan

and amlodipine on the development of diabetes in patients with CKD. There was no difference in BMI between the candesartan group (26.0, 25.0 and 24.8 kg m−2 for stage 1+2, 3 and 4,

respectively) and amlodipine group (25.8, 25.0 and 24.6 kg m−2 for stage 1+2, 3 and 4, respectively). In stage 1+2 and stage 4 CKD, the incidence of new-onset diabetes was the same in

candesartan-based and amlodipine-based regimens (Figure 7). In stage 3, however, the development of diabetes was significantly lower in the candesartan-treated group than in the

amlodipine-treated group (_P_=0.0498) despite higher percentages of the use of diuretics (26.1 _vs_. 14.8%, _P_<0.001) and β-blockers (23.8 _vs_. 18.6%, _P_=0.002) in the candesartan

group. DISCUSSION Since the recognition of CKD as a critical determinant of cardiovascular events, a growing body of evidence has been accumulated that impaired renal function is an

important risk factor for the development of cardiovascular accidents.5, 7, 22 Among the therapeutic strategies, angiotensin blockade with the ACE inhibitor and the ARB constitutes an

important tool for preventing the development of CKD and alleviating the cardiovascular accidents.10, 23, 24, 25, 26 In contrast, controversy attends the clinical relevancy on the

effectiveness of CCB, with beneficial16, 17 or detrimental effects on CKD observed by CCB.13, 18 Furthermore, differences in ethnicity as well as lifestyle could affect the study outcome and

may precipitate in different results from those obtained in earlier studies. With the current sub-analysis focusing on the effect of CKD, the BP levels achieved with candesartan treatment

were 1.2 mm Hg higher than those with amlodipine. In this setting, we found no significant difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between the candesartan regimen and amlodipine

regimen in patients with CKD (Figure 2), a finding in accordance with our recent observations on the primary events for the CASE-J Study.20 When adjusted for the difference in systolic BP

with Cox regression analysis, similar results were obtained. We further scrutinized the incidence rates of cardiovascular events based on the CKD stage, and found no difference in the event

rate between the candesartan-based and the amlodipine-based regimen in stage 1+2 or stage 3 (Figure 3). In stage 4 CKD, where the GFR is moderately to highly reduced (that is, GFR<30 ml

per min per 1.73 m2), by contrast, the candesartan-based regimen conferred greater benefit than the amlodipine-based regimen for cardiovascular protection (HR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.20–0.995,

_P_=0.048). Recently, Go _et al._7 showed increased cardiovascular risks in patients with GFR less than 45 ml per min per 1.73 m2. As both ARB and CCB are used commonly in the treatment of

hypertension with CKD, the current analysis demonstrating more superb action of candesartan than amlodipine would implicate clinical relevancy of candesartan as a therapeutic tool for CKD.

This study further evaluated the effects of candesartan and amlodipine on each cardiovascular end point in CKD. For cerebrovascular and cardiac events, these agents exerted similar action in

any stage of CKD (Table 3). In contrast, candesartan more effectively alleviated the development of renal events than amlodipine in stage 4 CKD (Figure 4); at 36 months, the event rate in

candesartan-based regimen was 4.7%, whereas the amlodipine-based regimen precipitated in 23.0% incidence of renal events. These findings suggest that renal events contribute largely to the

development of cardiovascular events in stage 4 CKD. For stage 1+2 and stage 3, because the incidence of renal events in candesartan- and amlodipine-based regimens is small, it is

appropriately conjectured that the difference between these incidence rates does not attain statistical significance. It is to be noted that earlier recommendations indicate the judicious

use of renin/angiotensin blocking agents in CKD patients with serum creatinine level above 3 mg dl−1 because of acute deterioration in renal function.21 The subsequent study, however, has

shown that benazepril effectively prevents the progression of CKD with baseline serum creatinine levels between 3.0 and 5.0 mg dl−1.27 In the current analysis, we actually observe a more

favorable effect of candesartan on renal survival than that of amlodipine in stage 4 (Figure 4). A similar observation was documented in the IDNT Study, showing that irbesartan improved

renal survival, whereas amlodipine failed to prevent the progression of CKD.13 Collectively, it is reasonably concluded that ARBs, including candesartan, exert beneficial action on renal

function even in moderately to severely advanced CKD, and the ability of candesartan to prevent the progression of CKD is greater than that of amlodipine. A growing body of evidence has been

accumulated that decreased GFR _per se_ constitutes an important risk factor for development of cardiovascular accidents.6, 7, 8 Furthermore, even the presence of proteinuria is shown to

entail the risks of subsequent cardiovascular damage, including cardiac hypertrophy, cerebrovascular accidents and coronary artery disease.6, 22 In the current analysis, we found that all

stages of CKD manifested higher risks for developing the events than the non-CKD group; the relative risk in the stage 1+2 was elevated to 3.05 and a HR of 5.32 was observed in stage 4 CKD

(Figure 6a). Furthermore, these increased risks are observed in the respective (that is, cerebrovascular and renal) cardiovascular events (Figure 6b). Finally, the presence of proteinuria is

associated with higher risks of developing cardiovascular events. Much attention has been paid to the mechanisms for the CKD-mediated cardiovascular events. Several possible factors have

been proposed as the mechanisms for cardio-renal syndrome, including anemia, reactive oxygen species and asymmetric dimethylarginine.28, 29 Although the mechanism for the link between

proteinuria and cardiovascular events remains undetermined, our current observations clearly indicate that proteinuria is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular events, particularly in the

progression of CKD3, 6, 8 (Figures 6c and d). Evidence has accrued that CKD modifies the glucose metabolism. It is known that the progression of CKD impairs insulin degradation and

subsequently ameliorates the control of diabetes. Alternatively, De Vinuesa _et al._30 showed that insulin resistance developed in patients with stage 3–4 CKD. Kobayashi _et al._31 also

reported that insulin resistance was correlated linearly with the decline of renal function. This study has demonstrated that the new onset of diabetes is increased in stage 4 CKD, although

the incidence is unaltered in the stage 1+2 or stage 3 when compared with the non-CKD. This reason may be attributed to the use of antihypertensive agents. In our current study, in which the

patients were given either ARB or CCB, the incidence of newly developed diabetes did not apparently increase in stages 1+2 and 3. In this regard, CCB with long-acting property has been

reported to be neutral32 or slightly favorable to insulin sensitivity.33 On the other hand, ARB is established to offer beneficial action on insulin sensitivity.30, 34 It is to noted that

candesartan was more effective than amlodipine in preventing the development of diabetes in stage 3 CKD (Figure 7). The salutary action of ARB is teleologically reflected by several

encouraging large-scale clinical trials (for example, ALLHAT,35 VALUE36), showing the prevention of the development to diabetes by ARB. Our analysis, therefore, is consistent with the

premise that ARB constitutes a first-line drug in the treatment of hypertension with CKD and also offers favorable action to prevent the development of diabetes. In conclusion, both

candesartan- and amlodipine-based regimens were able to control the BP of hypertensive patients with CKD. No differences were observed between the two agent groups in the incidence of

cardiovascular events. In patients with severely impaired renal function, candesartan offered more favorable outcome than amlodipine in controlling the incidence of renal events. Finally,

the ability of candesartan to prevent the new-onset diabetes was greater in moderately impaired CKD, which might contribute to the protection of cardiovascular events in CKD. CONFLICT OF

INTEREST TS, TO, KN, TF and KF received honoraria for lectures from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. and Pfizer Japan. The remaining authors report declare no conflicts of interest. CHANGE HISTORY

* _ 03 DECEMBER 2009 An Erratum to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2009.181 _ REFERENCES * Manjunath G, Tighiouart H, Coresh J, Macleod B, Salem DN, Griffith JL,

Levey AS, Sarnak MJ . Level of kidney function as a risk factor for cardiovascular outcome in the elderly. _Kidney Int_ 2003; 63: 1121–1129. Article  Google Scholar  * Manjunath G,

Tighiouart H, Ibrahim H, MacLeod B, Salem DN, Griffith JL, Coresh J, Levey AS, Sarnak MJ . Level of kidney function as a risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcome in the

community. _J Am Coll Cardiol_ 2003; 41: 47–55. Article  Google Scholar  * Iseki K, Ikemiya Y, Iseki C, Takishita S . Proteinuria and the risk of developing end-stage renal disease. _Kidney

Int_ 2003; 63: 1468–1474. Article  Google Scholar  * Lysaght MJ . Maintenance dialysis population dynamics: current trends and long-term implications. _J Am Soc Nephrol_ 2002; 13 (Suppl 1):

S37–S40. PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ninomiya T, Kiyohara Y, Kubo M, Tanizaki Y, Doi Y, Okubo K, Wakugawa Y, Hata J, Oishi Y, Shikata K, Yonemoto K, Hirakata H, Iida M . Chronic kidney disease

and cardiovascular disease in a general Japanese population: the Hisayama Study. _Kidney Int_ 2005; 68: 228–236. Article  Google Scholar  * Irie F, Iso H, Sairenchi T, Fukasawa N, Yamagishi

K, Ikehara S, Kanashiki M, Saito Y, Ota H, Nose T . The relationships of proteinuria, serum creatinine, glomerular filtration rate with cardiovascular disease mortality in Japanese general

population. _Kidney Int_ 2006; 69: 1264–1271. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Go AS, Chertow GM, Fan D, McCulloch CE, Hsu CY . Chronic kidney disease and the risks of death, cardiovascular

events, and hospitalization. _N Engl J Med_ 2004; 351: 1296–1305. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Tonelli M, Wiebe N, Culleton B, House A, Rabbat C, Fok M, McAlister F, Garg AX . Chronic

kidney disease and mortality risk: a systematic review. _J Am Soc Nephrol_ 2006; 17: 2034–2047. Article  Google Scholar  * The Japanese Society of Nephrology. Clinical Practical Guidebook

for Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Kidney Disease. _Nippon Jinzo Gakkai Shi_ 2007; 49: 755–870. Google Scholar  * National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines on

Hypertension and Antihypertensive Agents in Chronic Kidney Disease. _Am J Kidney Dis_ 2004; 43: 1–290. Google Scholar  * Imai E, Horio M, Iseki K, Yamagata K, Watanabe T, Hara S, Ura N,

Kiyohara Y, Hirakata H, Moriyama T, Ando Y, Nitta K, Inaguma D, Narita I, Iso H, Wakai K, Yasuda Y, Tsukamoto Y, Ito S, Makino H, Hishida A, Matsuo S . Prevalence of chronic kidney disease

(CKD) in the Japanese general population predicted by the MDRD equation modified by a Japanese coefficient. _Clin Exp Nephrol_ 2007; 11: 156–163. Article  Google Scholar  * Dzau V . The

cardiovascular continuum and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade. _J Hypertens Suppl_ 2005; 23: S9–S17. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG, Clarke WR, Berl T,

Pohl M, Lewis JB, Ritz E, Atkins RC, Rohde R, Raz I . Collaborative Study Group: 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. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Brenner BM, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Keane WF, Mitch WE Parving HH, Remuzzi G, Snapinn SM, Zhang Z,

Shahinfar S . RENAAL Study Investigators, Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy. _N Engl J Med_ 2001; 345: 861–869.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Pfeffer MA, Swedberg K, Granger CB, Held P, McMurray JJ, Michelson EL, Olofsson B, Ostergre J, Yusuf S, Pocock S, CHARM Investigators and Committee. Effects

of candesartan on mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure: the CHARM-Overall programme. _Lancet_ 2003; 362: 759–766. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * de Leeuw PW,

Ruilope LM, Palmer CR, Brown MJ, Castaigne A, Mancia G, Rosenthal T, Wagener G . Clinical significance of renal function in hypertensive patients at high risk: results from the INSIGHT

trial. _Arch Intern Med_ 2004; 164: 2459–2464. Article  Google Scholar  * Hayashi K, Kumagai H, Saruta T . Effect of efonidipine and ACE inhibitors on proteinuria in human hypertension with

renal impairment. _Am J Hypertens_ 2003; 16: 116–122. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Agodoa LY, Appel L, Bakris GL, Beck G, Bourgoignie J, Briggs JP, Charleston J, Cheek D, Cleveland W,

Douglas JG, Douglas M, Dowie D, Faulkner M, Gabriel A, Gassman J, Greene T, Hall Y, Hebert L, Hiremath L, Jamerson K, Johnson CJ, Kopple J, Kusek J, Lash J, Lea J, Lewis JB, Lipkowitz M,

Massry S, Middleton J, Miller III ER, Norris K, O′Connor D, Ojo A, Phillips RA, Pogue V, Rahman M, Randall OS, Rostand S, Schulman G, Smith W, Thornley-Brown D, Tisher CC, Toto RD, Wright Jr

JT, Xu S, African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) Study Group. Effect of ramipril vs amlodipine on renal outcomes in hypertensive nephrosclerosis: a randomized

controlled trial. _JAMA_ 2001; 285: 2774–2776. Article  Google Scholar  * Fukui T, Rahman M, Hayashi K, Takeda K, Higaki J, Sato T, Fukushima M, Sakamoto J, Morita S, Ogihara T, Fukiyama K,

Fujishima M, Saruta T, CASE-J Study Group. Candesartan Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan (CASE-J) trial of cardiovascular events in high-risk hypertensive patients: rationale,

design, and methods. _Hypertens Res_ 2003; 26: 979–990. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Ogihara T, Nakao K, Fukui T, Fukiyama K, Ueshima K, Oba K, Sato T, Saruta T, Candesartan

Antihypertensive Survival Evaluation in Japan Trial Group. Effects of candesartan compared with amlodipine in hypertensive patients with high cardiovascular risks: candesartan

antihypertensive survival evaluation in Japan trial. _Hypertension_ 2008; 51: 393–398. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines Subcommittee for the

Management of Hypertension. Guidelines for the management of hypertension for general practitioners. _Hypertens Res_ 2001; 24: 613–634. Article  Google Scholar  * Sarnak MJ, Levey AS,

Schoolwerth AC, Coresh J, Culleton B, Hamm LL, McCullough PA, Kasiske BL, Kelepouris E, Klag MJ, Parfrey P, Pfeffer M, Raij L, Spinosa DJ, Wilson PW . American Heart Association Councils on

Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, High Blood Pressure Research, Clinical Cardiology, and Epidemiology and Prevention: Kidney Disease as a Risk Factor for Development of Cardiovascular

Disease: A Statement From the American Heart Association Councils on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, High Blood Pressure Research, Clinical Cardiology, and Epidemiology and Prevention.

_Circulation_ 2003; 108: 2154–2169. Article  Google Scholar  * Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo Jr JL, Jones DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright Jr JT, Roccella EJ

. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. _Hypertension_ 2003; 42: 1206–1252. Article  CAS  Google Scholar

  * The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). 2007 Guidelines for the

management of arterial hypertension. _Eur Heart J_ 2007; 28: 1462–1536. Google Scholar  * Japanese Society of Hypertension. Japanese Society of Hypertension guidelines for the management of

hypertension (JSH2004). _Hypertens Res_ 2006; 29 (Suppl): S1–S105. Article  Google Scholar  * National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease:

evaluation, classification, and stratification. _Am J Kidney Dis_ 2002; 39: S1–S266. Google Scholar  * Hou FF, Zhang X, Zhang GH, Xie D, Chen PY, Zhang WR, Jiang JP, Liang M, Wang GB, Liu

ZR, Geng RW . Efficacy and safety of benazepril for advanced chronic renal insufficiency. _N Engl J Med_ 2006; 354: 131–140. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Schiffrin EL, Lipman ML, Mann JF

. Chronic kidney disease: effects on the cardiovascular system. _Circulation_ 2007; 116: 85–97. Article  Google Scholar  * Zoccali C, Bode-Böger S, Mallamaci F, Benedetto F, Tripepi G,

Malatino L, Cataliotti A, Bellanuova I, Fermo I, Frölich J, Böger R . Plasma concentration of asymmetrical dimethylarginine and mortality in patients with end-stage renal disease: a

prospective study. _Lancet_ 2001; 358: 2113–2117. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * De Vinuesa SG, Goicoechea M, Kanter J, Puerta M, Cachofeiro V, Lahera V, Gomez-Campdera F, Luno J . Insulin

resistance, inflammatory biomarkers, and adipokines in patients with chronic kidney disease: effects of angiotensin II blockade. _J Am Soc Nephrol_ 2006; 17: S206–S212. Article  Google

Scholar  * Kobayashi S, Maesato K, Moriya H, Ohtake T, Ikeda T . Insulin resistance in patients with chronic kidney disease. _Am J Kidney Dis_ 2004; 45: 275–280. Article  Google Scholar  *

De Courten M, Ferrari P, Schneider M, Bohlen L, Shaw S, Riesen W, Heynen G, Weidmann P . Lack of effect of long-term amlodipine on insulin sensitivity and plasma insulin in obese patients

with essential hypertension. _Eur J Clin Pharmacol_ 1993; 44: 457–462. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Harano Y, Kageyama A, Hirose J, Asakura Y, Yokota T, Ikebuchi M, Suzuki M, Omae T .

Improvement of insulin sensitivity for glucose metabolism with the long-acting Ca-channel blocker amlodipine in essential hypertensive subjects. _Metabolism_ 1995; 44: 315–319. Article  CAS

  Google Scholar  * Koh KK, Quon MJ, Han SH, Chung WJ, Kim JA, Shin EK . Vascular and metabolic effects of candesartan: insights from therapeutic interventions. _J Hypertens_ 2006; 24

(Suppl): S31–S38. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor

or calcium channel blocker _vs_. diuretic. _JAMA_ 2002; 288: 2981–2997. Article  Google Scholar  * Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, Brunner HR, Ekman S, Hansson L, Hua T, Laragh J, McInnes

GT, Mitchell L, Plat F, Schork A, Smith B, Zanchetti A, VALUE Trial Group. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or

amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. _Lancet_ 2004; 363: 2022–2031. Article  CAS  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank all of the participants, physicians,

medical staff and other contributors to the CASE-J Trial.: The CASE-J Trial was funded by EBM Research Center, Kyoto University of Graduate School of Medicine, with an unrestricted grant

from Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. The Japanese Society of Hypertension supported the trial. AUTHOR INFORMATION AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS * Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School

of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Takao Saruta & Koichi Hayashi * Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan Toshio Ogihara * Department of Medicine and Clinical Science, Kyoto University

Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan Kazuwa Nakao * St Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo, Japan Tsuguya Fukui * Japan Seaman's Relief Association Moji Hospital, Fukuoka,

Japan Kohshiro Fukiyama Authors * Takao Saruta View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Koichi Hayashi View author publications You can also

search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Toshio Ogihara View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Kazuwa Nakao View author publications

You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Tsuguya Fukui View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Kohshiro Fukiyama View

author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONSORTIA FOR THE CASE-J STUDY GROUP CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Koichi Hayashi. RIGHTS AND

PERMISSIONS Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Saruta, T., Hayashi, K., Ogihara, T. _et al._ Effects of candesartan and amlodipine on cardiovascular events in

hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease: subanalysis of the CASE-J Study. _Hypertens Res_ 32, 505–512 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2009.44 Download citation * Received: 04

December 2008 * Revised: 05 March 2009 * Accepted: 12 March 2009 * Published: 24 April 2009 * Issue Date: June 2009 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/hr.2009.44 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you

share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the

Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative KEYWORDS * cardiovascular events * CKD * diabetes