Effects of fenofibrate on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) Study
Access status:
Open Access
Author/s
Davis, Timothy METing, Ru-Dee
Best, James D
Donoghoe, Mark
Drury, Paul L
Sullivan, David R
Jenkins, Alicia J
O'Connell, Rachel L
Whiting, Malcolm
Glasziou, Paul
Simes, R John
Kesaniemi, Y Antero
Gebski, Val
Scott, Russell
Keech, Anthony C
Abstract
Abstract Aims/hypothesis Fenofibrate caused an acute, sustained plasma creatinine increase in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) and Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) studies. We assessed fenofibrate’s renal effects in a ...
See moreAbstract Aims/hypothesis Fenofibrate caused an acute, sustained plasma creatinine increase in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) and Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) studies. We assessed fenofibrate’s renal effects in a FIELD washout sub-study. Methods Type 2 diabetic patients (n=9795) aged 50 to 75 years were randomly assigned to fenofibrate (n=4895) or placebo (n=4900) for 5 years, after 6 weeks fenofibrate run-in. Albuminuria (urinary albumin:creatinine ratio) measured at baseline, year 2 and close-out) and estimated GFR, measured 4 to 6 monthly according to the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study, were pre-specified endpoints. Plasma creatinine was re-measured 8 weeks after treatment cessation at close-out (washout sub-study, n=661). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results During fenofibrate run-in, plasma creatinine increased by 10.0 µmol/l (p<0.001), but quickly reversed on placebo assignment. It remained higher on fenofibrate than on placebo, but the chronic rise was slower (1.62 µmol/l vs 1.89 µmol/l annually, p=0.01), with less estimated GFR loss (1.19 vs 2.03 ml min−1 1.73 m−2 annually, p<0.001). After washout, estimated GFR had fallen less from baseline on fenofibrate (1.9 ml min−1 1.73 m−2, p=0.065) than on placebo (6.9 ml min−1 1.73 m−2, p<0.001), sparing 5.0 ml min−1 1.73 m−2 (95% CI 2.3-7.7, p<0.001). Greater preservation of estimated GFR with fenofibrate was observed during greater reduction over the active run-in period (pre-randomisation) of triacylglycerol (n=186 vs 170) and baseline hypertriacylglycerolaemia (n=89 vs 80) alone, or combined with low HDL-cholesterol (n=71 vs 60). Fenofibrate reduced urine albumin concentrations and hence albumin:creatinine ratio by 24% vs 12% (p<0.001; mean difference 14% [95% CI 9-18]; p<0.001), with 14% less progression and 18% more albuminuria regression (p<0.001) than in participants on placebo. End-stage renal event frequency was similar (n=21 vs 26, p=0.48). Conclusions/interpretation Fenofibrate reduced albuminuria and slowed estimated GFR loss over 5 years, despite initially and reversibly increasing plasma creatinine. Fenofibrate may delay albuminuria and GFR impairment in type 2 diabetes patients. Confirmatory studies are merited. Trial registration: ISRCTN64783481 Funding: The study was funded by grants from Laboratoires Fournier, Dijon, France (now part of Solvay and Abbott Pharmaceuticals) and the NHMRC of Australia.
See less
See moreAbstract Aims/hypothesis Fenofibrate caused an acute, sustained plasma creatinine increase in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) and Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) studies. We assessed fenofibrate’s renal effects in a FIELD washout sub-study. Methods Type 2 diabetic patients (n=9795) aged 50 to 75 years were randomly assigned to fenofibrate (n=4895) or placebo (n=4900) for 5 years, after 6 weeks fenofibrate run-in. Albuminuria (urinary albumin:creatinine ratio) measured at baseline, year 2 and close-out) and estimated GFR, measured 4 to 6 monthly according to the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study, were pre-specified endpoints. Plasma creatinine was re-measured 8 weeks after treatment cessation at close-out (washout sub-study, n=661). Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Results During fenofibrate run-in, plasma creatinine increased by 10.0 µmol/l (p<0.001), but quickly reversed on placebo assignment. It remained higher on fenofibrate than on placebo, but the chronic rise was slower (1.62 µmol/l vs 1.89 µmol/l annually, p=0.01), with less estimated GFR loss (1.19 vs 2.03 ml min−1 1.73 m−2 annually, p<0.001). After washout, estimated GFR had fallen less from baseline on fenofibrate (1.9 ml min−1 1.73 m−2, p=0.065) than on placebo (6.9 ml min−1 1.73 m−2, p<0.001), sparing 5.0 ml min−1 1.73 m−2 (95% CI 2.3-7.7, p<0.001). Greater preservation of estimated GFR with fenofibrate was observed during greater reduction over the active run-in period (pre-randomisation) of triacylglycerol (n=186 vs 170) and baseline hypertriacylglycerolaemia (n=89 vs 80) alone, or combined with low HDL-cholesterol (n=71 vs 60). Fenofibrate reduced urine albumin concentrations and hence albumin:creatinine ratio by 24% vs 12% (p<0.001; mean difference 14% [95% CI 9-18]; p<0.001), with 14% less progression and 18% more albuminuria regression (p<0.001) than in participants on placebo. End-stage renal event frequency was similar (n=21 vs 26, p=0.48). Conclusions/interpretation Fenofibrate reduced albuminuria and slowed estimated GFR loss over 5 years, despite initially and reversibly increasing plasma creatinine. Fenofibrate may delay albuminuria and GFR impairment in type 2 diabetes patients. Confirmatory studies are merited. Trial registration: ISRCTN64783481 Funding: The study was funded by grants from Laboratoires Fournier, Dijon, France (now part of Solvay and Abbott Pharmaceuticals) and the NHMRC of Australia.
See less
Date
2011-02-01Publisher
SpringerCitation
Davis T, Ting R, Best J, Donoghoe M, Drury P, Sullivan D, Jenkins A, O'Connell R, Whiting M, Glasziou P, Simes R, Kesäniemi Y, Gebski V, Scott R, Keech A, on behalf of the FIELD Study investigators. Effects of fenofibrate on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) Study. Diabetologia 2011; 54(2): 280–290.Share