The Information from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) publish transplant statistics for every transplant center. 7/2/12 – 6/30/13
Pentoxifylline in renal disease, a tour through the literature
Tomorrow is another exciting edition of #NephJC. We will be discussing pentoxifylline in diabetic nephropathy. There is a summary of the article at NephJC.com.
In support of that article and to aid the discussion, Christos Argyropoulos has stepped up to the blogger plate to provide some color on pentoxifylline.
Joel
+++++++
- It is a non-selective phosphodiesterase inhibitor. PDEs are enzymes that inactivate cyclic nucleotides and have been organized in 11 families (Table 1 [1]) based on sequence, structural and pharmacological considerations. Inhibition of PDE4 by PTX (Figure 1) [1] increases cAMP & stimulates PKA activity.
- Activation of PKA leads to phosphorylation of the cAMP response element binding protein (CREB) which in turn leads to suppression of the TNF-a[2,3] synthesis at the transcriptional level
- Inhibition of cAMP production by these phosphodiesterases has a broad range of immunomodulatory effects (Table 2[1])
- The drug also affects red cell deformability and favorably affects microcirculatory blood flow
- “Mainstream” indications: intermittent claudication, vascular dementia, sickling crises, acute alcoholic hepatitis
- Pharmacokinetics: bioavailability (10-30%), elimination (mostly renal as 50-80% of the drug is recovered in the urine), half life (24-48 mins)
![]() |
| Figure 1: Pentoxifylline (white) complexed with PDE4 (ribbons). Also shown are the Mg2+ and Zn2+ cofactors of PDE4 (spheres) |
![]() |
| Table 1 Human PDE isozymes |
- PTX alters RBC deformability and improves microcirculation
- Acts as adenosine antagonist (and thus counters vasoconstriction)
- Possible decline in intraglomerular pressure decreasing hyperfiltration and proteinuria
- Anti-cytokine effects on MCP1[4], TNF, GFs for fibroblasts (CTGF through smad 3/4)
- Antifibrogenic in rat models of CKD (remnant kidney, pyelo, crescentic GN Figure 2[5])
- In the streptozocin model of diabetic nephropathy prolonged use of PTX was found to reduce renal inflammation (urinary MCP1 and monocytic infiltration in biopsies) and also proteinuria (Figure 3 [6])
- PTX may even be useful in optimizing renal allograft function after transplantation since it has been experimentally shown to:
- Protects from the acute (and possibly chronic) toxicity of calcineurin inhibitors (reviewed in [7])
- Decrease cyclosporing-induced renal endothelin release and vasoconstriction [8]
- It reduces the urinary levels of TNF-alpha, IL-6 and IL-10 [3,9] which are involved in the inflammatory response of renal allograft rejection
![]() |
| Figure 2 Effect of PTX treatment on accumulation of a-SMA+ myofibroblasts and collagen III in a rat model of crescentic GN |
![]() |
| Figure 3 Effects of PTX on urinary cytokines and proteinuria in the streptozocin model of diabetic nephropathy |
![]() |
| Table 3 Animal studies of the antiproteinuric effects of PTX |
Diabetic Kidney Disease
- Compared with placebo, PTX reduced albuminuria, proteinuria and SBP/DBP. The effects on BP were seen in Type 1 but not Type 2 patients (Figure 4)
- Compared with routine care, PTX reduced albuminuria and proteinuria, but did not affect creatinine or BP. Adverse effects were not increased by PTX (Figure 5)
- In head to head comparisons of PTX v.s. ACEi (two studies) and clonidine/methyldopa (1 study):
- There was no significant difference in SCr, albuminuria, proteinuria, or blood pressure between pentoxifylline and the active comparator (captopril or clonidine/methyldopa) for patients with type 1 and type 2 DKD
- CrCl was significantly increased when pentoxifylline was compared to clonidine and methyldopa (MD 10.90 mL/min, 95% CI -1.40 to 20.40) but not captopril (MD 3.26 mL/min, 95% CI -1.05 to 7.59).
![]() |
| Figure 4 Meta-analysis of studies of PTX v.s. placebo |
![]() |
| Figure 5 Meta-analysis of studies of PTX v.s. routine care |
- slower eGFR decline (by 4.3 ml/min/1.73m2 95%CI: 3.1-5.5 p less than 0.001)
- decreased proteinuria
- decreased urinary concentration of TNF-alpha
Non-diabetic forms of CKD
![]() |
| Table 4 Clinical Studies of PTX in non-diabetic kidney disease |
![]() |
| Table 5 Effects of PTX v.s. placebo on eGFR slope[13] |
General CKD
![]() |
| Figure 7 Probability of renal survival in patients treated with PTX+ACEi/ARB v.s. ARB stratified on the basis of baseline proteinuria |
Renal Transplantation
- Control Group: 97% in the absence of rejection episode vs. 59% in patients with rejection, Log-Rank = 13.6 P less than 0.001).
- PTX Group:
- 89.3% without vs.
- 72% with rejection;
- Log-Rank =2.3 (NS)
- Between group comparisons stratified by ACR (positive or negative) and excluding pts who died or lost their graft in the first 3 months after transplantation:
- Pts with ACR: Log rank test : 6.66(P=0.01)
- Pts w/o ACR: Log rank test : 1.8 (NS)
![]() |
| Figure 8 Renal Outcomes in kidney transplant patients who received pentoxifylline v.s. placebo |
Summary
- Are the effects of PTX on proteinuria distinct from its effects on eGFR?
- What are the predictors of response at the individual patient level?
- How soon should PTX be started in order to achieve its maximal effect?
- Can PTX be used to reduce proteinuria and stabilize eGFR in patients who are not proteinuric at baseline?
- Will PTX have a beneficial effect in patients who are intolerant of ACEis or ARBs?
To answer these questions, a number of clinical projects will have to be designed. In particular, future studies should include a large number of patients with diabetic and non-diabetic kidney disease on maximal RASi therapy for a randomized assessment of PTX in a double blinded, placebo controlled fashion. Studies specific to immunologically mediated renal diseases e.g. SLE or crescentic GNs should be considered, given the existence of promising animal studies. For patients who are intolerant of RASi (e.g. development of hyperkalemia or reduction of eGFR), a large scale replication of the study by Perkins to assess the effects of PTX on eGFR slope before and after therapy should be contemplated. In all these studies, predictors of response should be sought among clinical, laboratory (e.g. proteinuria/albuminuria/baseline eGFR and its slope) and inflammatory biomarkers (e.g. cytokine levels in blood and urine) to obtain a better understanding of the effects of PTX in renal disease.
- Essayan DM (2001) Cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases. J Allergy Clin Immunol 108: 671–680. doi:10.1067/mai.2001.119555.
- Marques LJ, Zheng L, Poulakis N, Guzman J, Costabel U (1999) Pentoxifylline inhibits TNF-alpha production from human alveolar macrophages. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 159: 508–511. doi:10.1164/ajrccm.159.2.9804085.
- Duman DG, Ozdemir F, Birben E, Keskin O, Ekşioğlu-Demiralp E, et al. (2007) Effects of pentoxifylline on TNF-alpha production by peripheral blood mononuclear cells in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Dig Dis Sci 52: 2520–2524. doi:10.1007/s10620-006-9723-y.
- Chen Y-M, Lin S-L, Chiang W-C, Wu K-D, Tsai T-J (2006) Pentoxifylline ameliorates proteinuria through suppression of renal monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 in patients with proteinuric primary glomerular diseases. Kidney Int 69: 1410–1415. doi:10.1038/sj.ki.5000302.
- Ng Y-Y, Chen Y-M, Tsai T-J, Lan X-R, Yang W-C, et al. (2009) Pentoxifylline Inhibits Transforming Growth Factor-Beta Signaling and Renal Fibrosis in Experimental Crescentic Glomerulonephritis in Rats. Am J Nephrol 29: 43–53. doi:10.1159/000150600.
- Han KH, Han SY, Kim HS, Kang YS, Cha DR (2010) Prolonged administration enhances the renoprotective effect of pentoxifylline via anti-inflammatory activity in streptozotocin-induced diabetic nephropathy. Inflammation 33: 137–143. doi:10.1007/s10753-009-9167-6.
- Nasiri-Toosi Z, Dashti-Khavidaki S, Khalili H, Lessan-Pezeshki M (2013) A review of the potential protective effects of pentoxifylline against drug-induced nephrotoxicity. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 69: 1057–1073. doi:10.1007/s00228-012-1452-x.
- Carrier M, Perrault LP, Tronc F, Stewart DJ, Pelletier CL (1993) Pentoxifylline decreases cyclosporine-induced renal endothelin release and vasoconstriction. Ann Thorac Surg 55: 490–492.
- Demir E, Paydas S, Balal M, Kurt C, Sertdemir Y, et al. (2006) Effects of pentoxifylline on the cytokines that may play a role in rejection and resistive index in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 38: 2883–2886. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2006.08.160.
- Badri S, Dashti-Khavidaki S, Lessan-Pezeshki M, Abdollahi M (2011) A review of the potential benefits of pentoxifylline in diabetic and non-diabetic proteinuria. J Pharm Pharm Sci Publ Can Soc Pharm Sci Société Can Sci Pharm 14: 128–137.
- Shan D, Wu HM, Yuan QY, Li J, Zhou RL, et al. (2012) Pentoxifylline for diabetic kidney disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev Online 2: CD006800. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006800.pub2.
- Navarro-González JF, Mora-Fernández C, Muros de Fuentes M, Chahin J, Méndez ML, et al. (2014) Effect of Pentoxifylline on Renal Function and Urinary Albumin Excretion in Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease: The PREDIAN Trial. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN. doi:10.1681/ASN.2014010012.
- Perkins RM, Aboudara MC, Uy AL, Olson SW, Cushner HM, et al. (2009) Effect of Pentoxifylline on GFR Decline in CKD: A Pilot, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Am J Kidney Dis 53: 606–616. doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.11.026.
- Noel C, Hazzan M, Labalette M, Coppin MC, Jude B, et al. (1998) Improvement in the outcome of rejection with pentoxifylline in renal transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. Transplantation 65: 385–389.
- Shu KH, Wu MJ, Chen CH, Cheng CH, Lian JD, et al. (2007) Effect of pentoxifylline on graft function of renal transplant recipients complicated with chronic allograft nephropathy. Clin Nephrol 67: 157–163.
- Meldrum KK, Misseri R, Metcalfe P, Dinarello CA, Hile KL, et al. (2007) TNF-alpha neutralization ameliorates obstruction-induced renal fibrosis and dysfunction. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 292: R1456–R1464. doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00620.2005.
- Therrien FJ, Agharazii M, Lebel M, Larivière R (2012) Neutralization of tumor necrosis factor-alpha reduces renal fibrosis and hypertension in rats with renal failure. Am J Nephrol 36: 151–161. doi:10.1159/000340033.
- Omote K, Gohda T, Murakoshi M, Sasaki Y, Kazuno S, et al. (2014) Role of the TNF pathway in the progression of diabetic nephropathy in KK-A(y) mice. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 306: F1335–F1347. doi:10.1152/ajprenal.00509.2013.
Is this the best review on treating hypertension in pregnancy? Updated
Note: this is a living post that is growing as I brush up on preeclampsia
From Hypertension:
Update on the Use of Antihypertensive Drugs in Pregnancy
Another great article:
New aspects of pre-eclampsia: lessons for the nephrologist
Also with a free PDF. Thanks NDT.
+++++++++
Although these renal changes in general are believed to resolve completely after delivery, recent evidence suggests that pre-eclampsia may leave a permanent renal damage.
CKD is a risk factor for pre-eclampsia in advanced CKD 3-5, weak evidence
the risk for pre-eclampsia and other pregnancy complications is sub-stantially increased in women with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3–5
CKD 1-3 is not a risk factor unless the woman also has hypertension, higher quality evidence.
but these women were not at increased risk for pre-eclampsia. However, there was a significant biological interaction between eGFR and hypertension making eGFR 60–89 ml/min per 1.73 m2 a risk factor for pre-eclampsia if the women were also hypertensive.
Pre-eclampsia increases the risk for subsequent kidney biopsy and subsequent ESRD:
In the first study, women with pre-eclampsia in their first pregnancy had a considerably increased risk of developing kidney disease that needed investigation with a kidney biopsy [Adverse Perinatal Outcome and Later Kidney Biopsy in the Mother in JASN].
women who previously had pre-eclampsia had a four to five times increased risk of later end-stage renal disease, independent of primary renal disease [Preeclampsia and the Risk of End-Stage Renal Disease in NEJM]. Women with recurrent pre-eclamptic preg- nancies and women who gave birth to offspring with low birth weight had an even higher risk. The increased risk remained significant throughout the follow-up period of nearly 40 years.
In regards to the natural history of pre-eclampsia:
It should also be kept in mind that although the extensive glomerular changes during pre-eclampsia are believed to completely resolve after pregnancy [The Glomerular Injury of Preeclampsia in JASN], no studies have routinely performed a kidney biopsy months after the pre-eclamptic pregnancy. The fact that as many as 20–40% have microalbuminuria after a pre-eclamptic pregnancy may argue for a permanent glomerular damage in a great proportion of these women [Microalbuminuria after pregnancy complicated by pre-eclampsia in NDT, Blood pressure and renal function seven years after pregnancy complicated by hypertension].
Warning about these conclusions regarding pre-eclampsia causing CKD:
When interpreting the studies of pre-eclampsia and later kidney disease, it should be remembered that pre-eclampsia might unmask asymptomatic or undiagnosed CKD, a disease that might have been present also before pregnancy. A pre-pregnancy eGFR >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 measured at screening was in a population-based sample associated with future pre-eclampsia risk in hypertensive women [Kidney function and future risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes in NDT]
ACEi talk.
A pharmacist from Blue Cross, Kim Moon, sent me an e-mail and told me she was a fan of the PBFluids and my and twitter. That, of course, instantly made her my newest bestie. She then asked me to do a webinar addressing common issues that prevent primary care doctors from prescribing ACEi/ARB to patients with diabetes. I agreed, anything for a fan of the blog.
A couple of months ago and long before the lecture was written she needed a title, so I threw out, “ACE inhibitors, the good, the bad, and the ugly”
Then I saw this tweet:
‘The good, the bad and the ugly’ appears in the title of over 450 scientific papers. Just sayin’ http://t.co/UvNkyXNLRN
— Dr John Weiner (@AllergyNet) June 9, 2014
Imagine if the wards were really like the boards
1. You have a new patient with a drug you’ve never heard of before. Your next step is to:
- Look it up on your phone.
- Ask a colleague what the drug is.
- Take a careful look at the patients medical history and try to figure out the purpose of the drug from the context. Hopefully it won’t be relevant to the question you are asked.
2. The patient develops an infection and ID suggests adding clarithromycin. The patient is on a number of cardiac drugs and you are worried about QT prolongation. You should:
- Look up the possible interactions on your phone.
- Depend on your memory of potential drug-drug interactions. Because, though you hate to brag, you did pretty good in medical school and have a keen mind.
- Give the clarithromycin, but also order telemetry for the patient, because you are a careful doctor.
3. A patient presents for confusion and is found to have hyponatremia. She has the following labs:
- Urine Na 80
- Urine K 40
- Serum Na 105
- Urine output 600 mL over the last 18 hours
- Don’t worry that you are bad at math, this is probably SIADH so just prescribe tolvaptan.
- I can’t remember the equation, but this just smells like an experimental question. I’m sure I can take care of the patient without this calculation. Let’s look at the possible choices and I’ll take a logical guess.
- Fire up MedCalc, put in the values. Out comes the answer.
4. The biopsy comes back for a patient with proteinruia. The Pathologist calls it dense deposit disease. You have never seen a patient with this before but you did do presentation on MPGN type two 11 years ago in fellowship.
- Perfect, you’ve got this. This is nephrology, there’s no way the standard of care has changed in the last decade.
- Hit the computer and look it up on UpToDate and do a quick lit search focusing on the top nephrology journals. Consider eculizumab.
- Review KDIGO GN clinical practice guidelines. Scream out loud when you find that it is not covered. Fall back on answer 2.
New neph blog: UC Kidney Stone Program
Fred Coe and the crew from University of Chicago have started a kidney stone blog. This is the most prominent nephrology scientist to stick his toe in the blogging world. Dr. Coe was one of my teachers when I was at the University of Chicago (I blogged about him here and here). Dr. Coe has been instrumental in establishing the foundations of kidney stone science and continues to move field forward. He was a category in 2014’s NephMadness:
(5) Dr. Charlie Pak versus (4) Dr. Fred Coe
Charlie Pak and Fred Coe are the Bob Knight and Dean Smith of kidney stones. Not only did they dominate the field and do the pioneering work establishing the fundamental discoveries of the field, but they also trained the next generation of stone scientists that are currently leading the field.
To this day the centers where Pak and Coe worked are world leaders in the field. In a plot twist, that would most likely happen in a comic book origin story, they were classmates at the University of Chicago Medical School, class of ‘61, and then were residents together at U of C.
Dr. Coe remained at University of Chicago but Pak went elsewhere to established the Clinical Research Center and a new Division in Mineral Metabolism at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.
They even jointly won the Belding Scribner Award from the ASN in 2000.
Intellectually they have staked out differing areas of excellence, Dr. Coe has focused on the the importance of the earliest stones to be anchored to the kidney. The location for these tiny early stones is Randall’s Plaques. The theory is that these tiny crystals form in the interstitium adjacent to the thin limb of the loop of Henle, they grow and eventually erode into the renal papilla. There, they are in contact with supersaturated urine which can deposit calcium oxalate (or other other types of stones?). The plaques can be seen on cystoscopy and their presence predicts stone formers. Stone formation correlates with the degree of plaque coverage.
A blog post is not a book chapter, a review article, a scientific article, or even a newsletter but something else entirely. It is the exact right size to convey one point and no more. It has no room for ornament or circumlocution, for fuzziness or indirection or even for two different points. You cannot avoid that moment when the main point must ring out clearly.
And this paragraph is just so Coe:
Being a singular, real, and immediate focus of attention, a point is something to work with. We can debate it, dissect it, even dismiss it if evidence permits or its logic is flawed. If a point appears to be sound, people can accept it as true for the moment, as an element that can be put together with like elements to make a picture of reality for this one disease. It is a picture that is true for the moment, arising as it does from science, just as the moment caught up in the pointillist net of Georges Seurat’s exquisite Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte, being great art, will be true forever.
Welcome to the blogosphere Dr. Coe, we look forward to your posts. Your blog has earned a spot on my list of Notable Nephrology and Medical Blogs.
Lecture on modern strategies to keep up to date in the medical literature. #FOAMed at Work.
I love it when fellows turn the tables on their attendings and school them on how the kids do it today.
Kamran Boka is currently a critical care fellow at Henry Ford Hospital but when he was a wee resident he worked with me at St John Hospital. This is an excellent lecture, make sure you check it out. Boka is fully engaged in the 21st century medical infosphere:
- He runs a medical blog
- He tweets
- He has created a resident handbook on Apple App Store and Google Play
Check it out. He has important lessons for everyone.
Friday’s hyponatremia lecture for St John Hospital and Medical center
Urine specific gravity, not that great at estimating osmolality
I have a clinic patient with SIDAH and until the FDA regains some sanity and Otsuka provides a more rational price this will continue to be a frustrating battle. This patient had some pretty typical labs for a patient with SIADH, except for the specific gravity. I don’t remember seeing such a discrepancy between the Sp Grav and osmolality before.
I thought a Specific Gravity of 1.010 was essentially isosmotic. But check out this urine Spec Grav 1.012 osm 587. pic.twitter.com/abFhujkdbK
— Joel Topf (@kidney_boy) September 4, 2014
One of the sharpest nephrologists on twitter, Christos Argyropoulos, replied with this reference:
@kidney_boy I got over this myth 4 years ago http://t.co/CBk1EKNYqS
— ChristosArgyropoulos (@ChristosArgyrop) September 4, 2014
The conclusions from the abstract:
RESULTS: This study demonstrated that USG obtained by both reagent strip and refractometry had a correlation of approximately 0.75 with urine osmolality. The variables affecting the correlation included pH, ketones, bilirubin, urobilinogen, glucose, and protein for the reagent strip and ketones, bilirubin, and hemoglobin for the refractometry method. At a pH of 7 and with an USG of 1.010 predicted osmolality is approximately 300 mosm/kg/H(2)O for either method. For an increase in SG of 0.010, predicted osmolality increases by 182 mosm/kg/H(2) O for the reagent strip and 203 mosm/kg/H(2)O for refractometry. Pathological urines had significantly poorer correlation between USG and osmolality than “clean” urines.
Here is a table I made from the conclusions:
Sodium, in the spotlight for next week’s #NephJC
In August, the NEJM pushed out three articles examining the role of sodium in human disease. These are the subject of September 9’s #NephJC.
The first article is the Association of Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion with Blood Pressure. This question used the large epidemiologic study, Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) to answer the question.
PURE enrolled 157,543 adults age 35 to 70 from 18 low-, middle-, and high-income countries on 5 continents.
The mean sodium excretion was 4.9g and the mean potassium excretion was 2.1 grams.
![]() |
| It was difficult for me to understand the difference between the Observed excretion and Usual excretion but the authors seemed to reference the Usual excretion as the definitive curve. |





























